By Ananya Bhardwaj

Abstract

This paper examines the complex intersectionality of SOGIE (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression) and Dalit identities in modern India, challenging the prevailing tendency to address discrimination through single-axis frameworks. Through analysis of personal narratives and legal precedents, including the landmark Navtej Singh Johar judgement and the NALSA verdict, the paper argues that the current administrative and legal systems fundamentally fail to recognize and protect individuals who embody multiple marginalised identities. By exploring the concept of “Other Dalits” and “twice untouchables,” this study demonstrates how the intersection of caste and SOGIE creates unique vulnerabilities that remain largely invisible within the existing social justice frameworks. The paper reveals how even progressive legal reforms can inadvertently perpetuate the erasure of intersectional identities, while intragroup discrimination further compounds the challenges faced by individuals who navigate multiple marginalised identities. This analysis contributes to broader discussions about identity, discrimination, and social justice in India, arguing for a fundamental reimagining of how society conceptualises and addresses intersecting forms of oppression.

Introduction 

The challenge of fitting complex human identities into neat administrative boxes has long plagued Indian society. When Kimberle Crenshaw introduced the concept of intersectionality in 1989, she provided a crucial framework for understanding how different forms of marginalisation intersect and compound. Nowhere is this intersection more evident, yet paradoxically more invisible, than in the lives of individuals who embody both SOGIE (Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, and Expression) and Dalit identities in contemporary India.

Theoretical Framework: Challenging the Single-Axis Approach

The prevailing frameworks for understanding and addressing discrimination in India generally operate on a single-axis basis—where laws, social policies, and advocacy efforts tend to focus on one category of marginalisation at a time. In this context, caste-based discrimination has typically been addressed in isolation, distinct from gender or sexuality issues, and vice versa. Scholars like Baudh argue that this single-axis approach fails to address the unique struggles faced by individuals who exist at the intersection of these identities, coining the term “Other Dalits” to refer to those who encounter discrimination both as Dalits and as members of the LGBTQ+ community. This terminology not only acknowledges the existence of these intersectional identities but also emphasises the need for a nuanced approach that can encompass these complex, multifaceted experiences.

The story of Kiran, a disabled transman from an SC/ST background, illuminates the profound complexity of these intersecting identities. His experience, documented in Baudh’s groundbreaking work, reveals how bureaucratic systems collapse when confronted with identities that refuse to be singularly categorised. After transitioning, Kiran found himself caught in an administrative maze: his gender identity categorised him as BC (Backward Class), while his caste identity remained SC/ST. Add to this his disability status, and the system simply short-circuited, unable to process the reality of his existence.

Legal Paradoxes: Rights in Theory vs. Rights in Practice

While India’s legal system has made strides in certain areas, it remains notably deficient in protecting those who navigate multiple marginalised identities. The decriminalisation of homosexuality in 2018 was a monumental moment in the country’s legal history (Navtej Singh Johar v. Union of India, 2018). However, this victory does not equate to comprehensive protection; rather, it serves as a reminder of the gaps in India’s legal framework when it comes to intersectional identities. Existing caste-based protections, like those under the SC/ST Prevention of Atrocities Act, address only caste-related harassment. Similarly, while Section 377’s repeal addresses the criminalization of same-sex relationships, it does not provide legal safeguards against discrimination for LGBTQ+ individuals in employment, healthcare, or public spaces. These legal gaps render individuals with SOGIE-Dalit identities especially vulnerable, as they may encounter prejudice that stems not only from caste-based exclusion but also from their non-conforming sexual orientation or gender identity.For example, a transgender Dalit individual facing harassment or discrimination might find limited recourse in caste-based laws, which do not consider sexual orientation or gender identity as relevant factors. This “selective protection” means that while certain dimensions of an individual’s identity may be protected, others are left vulnerable to exploitation. This is exemplified in cases where transgender individuals who are also Dalit face abuse that is both casteist and transphobic. The current laws would address only one dimension of this abuse, leaving individuals at the intersection with limited legal protection and recourse.

Twice Untouchables”: The Unique Challenges of Intersectional Identity

This legal oversight becomes particularly poignant when examining the concept of “twice untouchables,” a term that gained prominence through Nutan’s powerful commentary in The Indian Express. The term refers to individuals who face discrimination both as Dalits and as transgender persons, highlighting how different forms of marginalisation don’t simply add up – they multiply, creating unique forms of vulnerability that existing legal frameworks fail to address.

The NALSA judgement, while revolutionary in recognizing the rights of transgender persons, inadvertently created new complications for those with multiple marginalised identities. When the Supreme Court drew an analogy comparing the treatment of transgender individuals to untouchability, it failed to consider the existence of individuals who already experienced actual untouchability due to their caste identity. This oversight exemplifies how even progressive legal decisions can inadvertently perpetuate the invisibility of intersectional identities.

Perhaps most troubling is the phenomenon of intragroup discrimination – the way marginalisation operates within already marginalised communities. LGBTQ+ spaces are not immune to caste prejudice, just as Dalit communities may perpetuate heteronormative oppression. This creates a peculiar form of double isolation, where individuals find themselves alienated from the very communities that should provide support and solidarity.

The administrative obsession with singular categorization reflects a deeper societal inability to recognize and respond to intersectional identities. When government documents provide an “other” category, it often serves as a catch-all that masks rather than acknowledges the complexity of human identity. The confidentiality of such data, while necessary for protection, can paradoxically reinforce the invisibility of these intersecting identities.

The experiences of “Other Dalits” challenge us to move beyond simplistic binary thinking about identity and discrimination. Their stories reveal how the intersection of caste and SOGIE creates unique vulnerabilities that cannot be addressed through single-axis approaches to social justice. As Baudh argues, the solution lies not in creating more boxes for people to fit into, but in fundamentally reimagining how we conceptualise and address discrimination.

Toward a More Inclusive Social and Legal Framework

The path forward requires more than legal reform or administrative changes. It demands a fundamental shift in how society understands and responds to intersectional identities. The narratives of individuals like Kiran demonstrate that real change must begin with recognition – recognition that human identity is too complex to be reduced to single categories, and that true justice requires addressing discrimination in all its intersecting forms.

The struggle of SOGIE-Dalit individuals in India reveals a crucial truth: the fight for social justice cannot succeed if it remains trapped within binary thinking. Whether in law, policy, or social movements, we must move beyond the tendency to address different forms of discrimination in isolation. Only by recognizing and responding to the complex reality of intersectional identities can we hope to create a truly inclusive society.

As India continues to grapple with questions of identity, rights, and justice, the experiences of “Other Dalits” offer important lessons about the limitations of our current approaches to addressing discrimination. Their stories remind us that true progress requires moving beyond the comfort of simple categorizations to embrace the full complexity of human identity and experience. In doing so, we might finally begin to address the invisible struggles that exist at the intersection of India’s many axes of marginalisation.

Author’s bio: Ananya Bhardwaj, a student at Jindal Global Law School in her third year of BBA. LLB (Hons)

Picture Credits: 1,200 × 800