Kalki,
I think what the government is really saying is that they will treat every trans person (as per the definition of trans that they have provided, subject to it being accepted by the SC) as an OBC with the exception of those who are SC/ST amongst them. Now here is my take on this: 1) There is merit in allowing SC/ST trans person (IF THEY CAN prove their SC/ST status, given the problem of disowning by family that you have quoted above), because the benefits that accrue are more than what would accrue if they were treated as OBC. 2) That even if they cannot prove they are SC/ST, they would none-the-less still be covered by reservations as OBC. 3) Therefore there needs to be a clear reiteration that in the case of those trans who are not SC/ST, their status as OBC will follow from their "Trans" status and not from their Birth Caste. If this is not reiterated clearly (Its something that is not very clear in the government petition that they are actually asking for this), then we clearly would fail in advancing the benefits of NALSA to thousands of trans persons, and would create a essentially create a disempowered class within the disempowered class of "Trans" (namely those upper castes who would not be covered by reservation benefits) 4) And finally we *HAVE TO OPPOSE* the request that the established procedure (namely NCBC) be adopted for this inclusion. This is because (a) It would give the power to an ineffective, uncaring, and lethargic executive to extend or not extend the reservation benefits. (b) The established procedure is in any event Caste Based and therefore would invariably exclude certain Trans Persons from the ambit of benefits that can possibly be provided. (c) It would negate the judicial decree that extended benefits to a disadvantaged class of people based on the affirmative extension of their fundamental rights, thus in effect perpetuating the same violations of fundamental rights that the decree had set right. (d) Even if it be adopted by NCBC, the continuance of benefits would be held hostage to the vagaries of the executive mood, which as we know, can often be fickle when it comes to the question of rights of persons that are not socially normative. and finally (e) All benefits would be out of the purview of any time bound implementation. 5) When I said OPPOSE above, I meant that in the alternative, we must insist that the state be compelled by judicial fiat to treat all trans (with the exception of those who fall under SC/ST category and can prove it) at par with OBC, irrespective of and/or without getting referred to NCBC. Hope that clarifies. With best regards as always, yours sincerely, Aditya Bondyopadhyay On 12 September 2014 12:25, Kalki auroka...@gmail.com [lgbt-india] < lgbt-in...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > > > Yes, I am in favour of the modifications. > > When we speak about OBC issue, I don't think the classifications based on > each individual's caste is going to work. Where to get the community > certificate when most transgender people have lost their parental > acceptance, left their homes and won't be able to procure their > certificates? > > Kalki Subramaniam > > On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 9:46 PM, Aditya Bondyopadhyay adit.b...@gmail.com > [lgbt-india] <lgbt-in...@yahoogroups.com> wrote: > >> >> >> Dear All, >> READ HIGHLIGHTED PORTION WITH LOTS OF ATTENTION: >> >> I attach the petition filed by the GoI in the SC for >> Clarification/Modification of the Nalsa-v-UOI decision. >> >> I have done a quick read (Its not long) and frankly, I am surprised, >> because it is actually a fabulous petition and I think we should support >> it. It says nothing that militates against what we hold dear or understand >> as things should be. >> >> The only point where I think we need to intervene is to ask the court to >> mention that the directions of the court be taken as direction on GoI and >> NCBC to act outright rather than "Follow Established Procedures" for >> inclusion as OBC of transpersons, as the GoI seems to be asking for, >> because it would mean another 25 years of government processes and >> sanctions (and our own agitations on the streets) before they get around >> to >> actually doing it. >> >> I agree that SC/SC Transpersons should benefit from the SC/ST quota and >> not >> from the OBC quota as is being asked by the GoI, since the sheer benefit >> of >> SC/ST quota is more than the OBC quota. (I.e.. I am cool with that). >> >> And although personally I would have liked to go with the ambiguity >> created >> by conflating LGB with T as was done in the judgment, I feel it is only >> fair that that ambiguity be cleared and that the ratio of the judgment be >> applied to their intended beneficiaries, namely Transpersons...(I.e. I am >> cool with this too...even if you decide I am an enemy of the queer state). >> >> Finally, I actually loved the definition that they give to trans (VERY >> INCLUSIVE) and covers both M2F and F2M + the fact that they are totally >> not >> basing anything on medicalisation (No surgery required, and stated so in >> so >> many words)... >> >> Hey I don't like the BJP/RSS and their affiliates...but on this I think >> the >> government hit it on the ball and really really got it right... >> >> I have said my two bits...other opinions are welcome and eagerly awaited.. >> >> Love to all. >> Aditya Bondyopadhyay >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> >> > > > -- > regards, > > Kalki Subramaniam > Founder > Sahodari Foundation > Website: http://www.sahodari.org > Blog : http://kalki.tblog.com > Email : auroka...@gmail.com > ____________________________ > Together, we can make a difference. > > > -- -- ADITYA BONDYOPADHYAY Development Sector Consultant Advocate (Regd. No. F-218/192 of 1997, Bar Council of W.Bengal, India) Website: http://adityabondyopadhyay.webs.com/ ================================ Notice to all recipients: Communication not intended for you but reaching you inadvertently needs to be treated as confidential and destroyed or deleted immediately. Use of such communication in a manner prejudicial to the interest of Aditya Bondyopadhyay and/or his principals, and/or his clients, and/or his agents respectively, may attract legal proceedings which may be of a civil or criminal nature. Aditya Bondyopadhyay and/or his principals, and/or his clients, and/or his agents respectively cannot be held liable or accountable for any and every communication reaching out through this email account that is an unaltered forward of another communication received by this email account, or a referred source available on the internet and accessible to the public.
