COUNTRY INDIA
Report 1 Collective action for safe spaces by sex workers and sexual minorities
in India
Main messages
Sexual minorities and sex workers face discrimination and stigma from the household to the national level
Larger society makes a statement that these people deserve this treatment as they have deviated from the acceptable moral norms of society. For us (sex workers and sexual minorities), this is stigma.
Livelihood opportunities are severely restricted for these groups:
While the constitution guarantees the right to work, to all citizens of the country no matter what their sex, I was denied a job in several offices – I was rejected repeatedly...I am a transgender.
Stigma is passed onto the next generation, a situation that perpetuates poverty and marginalisation: ‘An eight year-old child of a sex worker had to drop out from school because the girl was continuously abused verbally by teachers as ‘prostitute’” (Abhishek).
The judicial, legal, educational and health systems do not respond to sexual minorities’ and sex workers’ demands; frequently violating their most basic rights.
Cases of abuse and violence from police, health workers and teachers were frequently reported. Moreover, transgenders are denied the right to marry and form a family:
The government should ensure the right to property, to adopt kids, to marry, reservation (affirmative action) job opportunities etc. These rights must be provided for us by the state. Just the way there is reservation for women, there should be reservation for transgenders too.
Collective action and informal peer-support groups are seen as crucial for advancing sex workers’ and sexual minorities’ rights
This has now become a space for the mutual support and interaction between transgenders from Dalit and dominant caste backgrounds – something that is taboo in the general community. It is today known as a CBO of, for and by the transgender community. Many come to us seeking refuge as families reject effeminate boys. We counsel them and ask if they are willing to make efforts towards being reintegrated with their families.
Methodological approach
Participatory video and in-depth case stories The report is based on participatory research done with sexual minorities and sex workers in Tamil Nadu. It started with a compilation of case stories collected in the context of documentation of good practices of community-based organisations of female sex workers, transgender
communities and men who have sex with men and their coping mechanisms to deal with crisis, denial of rights and stigma. The rest of the process followed the same steps as the CityMakers research piece.
Disclaimer: the names of all community members quoted in this document have been changed to protect their identity.
Organisation
Praxis is a not-for-profit, autonomous, development organisation, committed to the democratisation of development processes. It is devoted to advocating for community-led development initiatives and governance practices that centralise the perspectives of marginalised groups. In order to do this, Praxis endeavours to identify opportunities and forums in which vulnerable and excluded groups are able to voice their concerns and aspirations in a meaningful way. www.praxisindia.org
Transgender researchers near Chennai, India share their proposals for change through a participatory video process.
PRAXIS
B
C
Work with us Summaries of the 18 Participate PRG research projects
Report 2 CityMakers in India seeking to reclaim cities they build
Main messages
CityMakers in India are denied the right to identity, the right to state systems that protect them and services that truly respond to their needs, and the right to be treated equally. While they recognised unemployment, addictions (drugs and alcohol), poverty, rising costs, homelessness, and no assets (i.e. savings) as their major concerns, these issues are consequences of major structural challenges linked to CityMakers not being treated as citizens, being discriminated against and stigmatised by society:
We are denied our Pehchaan (identity)! Only if we have a house can we have an address. When we don’t have a house, how can we present proof of residence?
Despite being poor, CityMakers struggle to get equal access to entitlements and services:
We even used the number on electricity or telephone posts that are close to where we are to serve as address markers and get the needed government issued identity cards…
(Neelawathi)
CityMakers face stereotyping (i.e. criminalisation) and marginalisation, a situation increasingly
resulting in ghettoisation due to ‘urban development’ initiatives
‘There is clearly a wall between us and them’, says Ram Lal from Delhi. ‘People who live in jhuggis are treated as insects (keede makode)… those who live in big
buildings are considered human beings. Aren’t those who live in slums also human beings?’
(Sheela).
Relocation, displacement and eviction have become daily threats as urban development advances:
Because we are dispensable, we can be evicted. So, slums that come in the way of the metro route can be demolished and the ‘evictable’ population can be pushed to the outskirts of the city.
A post-2015 development agenda must be inclusive and consider marginalised groups, such as CityMakers The post-2015 development agenda needs to focus primarily on structural and attitudinal changes. The urban poor in India have been treated as voiceless, ‘second class citizens’ in the cities that they have built.
Often, the issues of CityMakers are reduced to
compartments of health, education, shelter and such other rights. ‘We do not want any special provisions….we just want recognition… we want to be treated as citizens...with identity.’ (Mangal)
Methodological approach
Participatory video and in-depth case stories The voices and case studies collected for this research pertain to CityMakers in Chennai and Delhi.
(a) Community participants undertook a workshop and received guidance for scripting a participatory video and producing several films
(b) A process of collecting and collating case stories of CityMakers facing different problems and their views on the issues was undertaken
(c) Discussions were facilitated with community participants, using participatory research tools
(d) A draft report was presented to community participants for validation and addition of their concluding remarks. www.praxisindia.org People living in informal settlements in India are relocated to inappropriate housing far from their communities. PRAXIS 2013B
C