HIV-homosexuality ‘link’: HC asks where’s the proof

From The Indian Express:

HIV-homosexuality ‘link’: HC asks where’s the proof

Express news service

Posted: Oct 01, 2008 at 0057 hrs IST

New Delhi, September 30 The Delhi High Court on Tuesday told the Centre to submit specific proof to substantiate its claim that the practice of homosexuality spreads the HIV virus.“Please show material, research paper or any document even from other country to show that decriminalisation (of gay sex) would lead to spread of HIV,” a Division Bench of Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar told the Centre.

“If your argument is correct, then spread of HIV should have stopped in the country as the law has been in place for the past many years. But it is not the case as many people are still dying from the virus,” the court said.

The High Court bench also pointed to the contradictions between the affidavit filed by the Home Ministry — on which the Centre is currently basing its arguments — and the Health Ministry, which notes that Section 377 encourages marginalisation of the gay community.

“It is a strange situation. Your first affidavit (Home Ministry’s) is silent. There is not a single word on what you are saying, while other affidavit (Health Ministry’s) is pointing out that the penal provision leads to marginalisation of HIV patients,” the court asked.“How would the court decide the matter. Has there been any empirical study done by the Government to substantiate its stand?” the court said.

The judges also called for a special law to provide proper care and treatment to HIV patients, like other countries.

Putting forward the Centre’s view, Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra said gay sex was a threat to the society and cannot be decriminalised. “Right to health of a few persons cannot supersede the right to health of society. There has to be a balance between them and it is for this purpose that Section 377 is there,” the ASG submitted.

Curbing homosexuality not a solution for HIV: HC

From The Indian Express:

Agencies

Posted: Sep 30, 2008 at 1809 hrs IST

New Delhi, September 30: The Delhi High Court said that problem of HIV cannot be solved by curbing gay sex and pulled up the Centre for seeking the retention of penal provisions against homosexuality on this ground.”Please show material, research paper or any document even from other country to show that decriminalisation (of gay sex) would lead to spread of HIV,” a bench comprising Chief Justice A P Shah and Justice S Muralidhar observed when the Government contended that homosexuality spreads the disease.

“If your argument is correct then spread of HIV should have stopped in the country as the law has been there for many years. But it is not the case as many people are dying of the dreaded disease, the court said.

The court objected to the contention of Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra that the Home Ministry’s affidavit, on which the government is relying, does not say any thing on this aspect.

“It’s a strange situation. Your first affidavit (Home Ministry’s) is silent. There is not a single word on what you are saying while other affidavit (Health Ministry’s) is pointing out that the penal provision leads to marginalisation of HIV patients,” the court said.”How would the court decide the matter. Has there been any empirical study done by the government to substantiate its stand,” the court said.

It said that a special law should be made to provide proper care and treatment to HIV patients like other countries.

“Unlike other countries we have not brought any special laws for people suffering from the disease on the pretext that penal provision under Indian Penal Code is sufficient,” it said.

Putting forward the Centre’s view, the Additional Solicitor General said that gay sex is a threat to society and it could not be decriminalised.

“Right to health of few persons cannot supersede Right to health of society. There has to be balance between them and it is for this purpose that Section 377 is there,” Malhotra said.

The court was hearing a PIL filed by gay rights activists seeking courts direction to amend Section 377 of Indian Penal Code by decriminalising gay sex among consenting adults in private.

The IPC at present holds an homosexual act as an offence and the Section provides a punishment of up to life imprisonment for indulging in such acts.

Earlier, gay rights activists had contended that the government, by decriminalising [sic] homosexual acts, is infringing upon their fundamental right to equality by decriminalising [sic] homosexual acts on the ground of morality.

“The Constitution gives fundamental right to equality and it prohibits discrimination on the basis of sex. But the rights of 25 lakh homosexuals in the country are being violated,” they had contended on Thursday

The IPC at present holds homosexual act as an offence and the Section provides a punishment of up to life imprisonment for indulging in such acts.

“Moral argument cannot triumph over the constitutional rights in a democratic society where fundamental rights prohibit any discrimination on the ground of sex,” the activists had said adding that gays in the country don’t have full “moral” citizenship and they are being treated as second class citizens….

A Love Created by a Lesser God: India’s Laws Punish Homosexuals as Criminals

The Women’s International Perspective

September 30, 2008

by Parul Sharma
- Sweden -
As it is, love can either be a blessing or a poison, depending on various aspects. But when love is felt for someone of the same sex, in some cultures, that love becomes a living hell - or simply a love created by a lesser God. Yes, a lesser God - not as strong and creative as the God we are used to. This lesser God created love but forgot to do the ample marketing needed to share the selling points of this particular love, such as poetry, music and literature. 

Love knows no boundaries, but maybe our minds do. Otherwise why would I have asked my friend, Are you sure this is love and not just a greater friendship?

• Though homosexuality is accepted in many societies, Indian culture and law treats them as criminals. Photograph byMushi. •

A few weeks ago someone close to me fell in love. This girl, my friend, fell in love with another woman. She refuses to be called a homosexual - after having relationships with men she fell in love with another woman for the first time in her life. She says she is not bisexual, just in love. But it is a complicated love, a complicated way of loving, and I am not referring to whether this love of hers is reciprocal or not. No, it is complicated because even I got stuck.I am a human rights lawyer who believes that people should stand up for their rights, will, dreams and wishes in all situations. Now when a person close to me became a “victim” of this lesser love, I could not initially find words to advise her. But it got me thinking again about the trauma people around the world suffer from. In some cultures, women and men are forced into heterosexual marriages to cure what their friends and families call “psychological issues,” but which is actually a matter of a love created by a lesser God. My confusion? This dilemma took place in Sweden - a liberal, modern and educated country. It makes me wonder, if this confusion is so great amongst people living on “this side of the world,” what is the situation in countries where such love is actually a crime?

Social stigma and legality in India are forcing millions of people to suppress their natural emotions, wishes and dreams; socially constructed systems and perceptions that deem what is “normal and natural” are being imposed on society. Consider this: Indian law allows sentences from 10 years to life imprisonment for people caught indulging in the kinds of sexual relations that it identifies as being “against the order of nature” - the result of a 150 year old law. William Shakespeare’s famous quote - “They do not love that do not show their love” - is another miscalculation of this love created by a lesser God, because how is one to show and express the joys of love if the love one feels is not considered a natural emotion?

Homosexuals have been detained in clinics in countries like India and subjected to treatment against their will. The NAZ Foundation India Trust, an NGO, filed a petition with the National Human Rights Commission of India (NHRC) regarding a case in which a man was forcefully subjected to shock therapy. The NHRC declined to take the case, as gay and lesbian rights were not under its purview. The Naz Foundation has challenged the constitutionality of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code in the Delhi High Court. The section describes homosexual intercourse as “unnatural sex.” The government dithered for two years before it filed its response and only did so after immense pressure from civil society groups and several judicial strictures. While its stalling is understandable as a tactic to eliminate another problematic litigation in the half-a-million or so cases clogging the Indian judiciary, the substance of its reply brings to light the country’s cultural straitjacket.

The government reply states: 

“In fact, the purpose of this Section 377 ipc is to provide a healthy environment in the society by criminalising unnatural sexual activities against the order of nature… If this provision is taken out of the statute book, a public display of such affection would, at the most, attract charges of indecent exposure which carry a lesser jail sentence than the existing imprisonment for life or imprisonment of 10 years and fine. While the government cannot police morality, in a civil society, criminal law has to express and reflect public morality and concerns about harm to the society at large. If this is not observed, whatever little respect of law is left would disappear, as law would have lost its legitimacy.”

 

The government maintains that if “unnatural sex” is not prohibited, the normal social order would break down. To the government, issues relating to sexual minorities are not Indian, but something which only happens in the West.

To me, the right to life and livelihood is the most inherent right a person is born with. Whenever society forces a human being to comply with something that is actually killing a natural desire - the desire to share, love and be in love - the right to life and livelihood is immediately violated. In terms of civil laws, the entire scope of benefits, which flow out of the institution of marriage, are heterosexually ordered. There is no space whatsoever in an Indian family to express a non-heterosexual alternative. In traditional India, where marriage is life’s most important event and no family is complete without children and grandchildren, homosexuality is rarely acknowledged, let alone accepted.

Marriage under all personal laws and the Special Marriage Act in India are defined as an arrangement between two members of the opposite sex. This has caused particular violence to lesbian women in India who have forcefully articulated their desire to have their relationship validated by marriage. There have been ten documented cases of lesbian marriages since 1988, all of which were challenged.

The police, under the Criminal Procedure Code, have the power to arrest on suspicion that a crime is going to be committed. It is this unsighted power which is used to harass and violate the homosexual population who frequent public parks. There are documented cases of police abuse, including illegal detention, extortion, abuse and intimidation of the homosexual population. It discourages reporting of male rape, and thus encourages such rape, often by police. In sum, it disrupts the social existence of all “same sex persons,” erodes their dignity and self-respect, and reduces them to a sub-human level of existence. The silence and shame around the issue of homosexuality is so great and the fear of being isolated and discriminated so prevalent that a lot of those who are caught by the police prefer to pay a fine rather than fight for their human rights. Almost none of the cases go to court with the person being let go after he has paid off the police officer. Human rights abuses are thereby legitimized by law.

A law this unrealistic creates a stigmatized identity of the “homosexual as criminal.” Instead of breaking down discriminating social structures, the media encourages this antiquated value system by legitimizing the legal notion of “unnatural offense” and propagating such notions of homosexuals as “psychopaths, retarded and dangerous.” I have always wished that in Bollywood’s efforts to ape Hollywood, the film industry would figure out that it has the power to convey and correct misconstrued notions on difficult issues like homosexuality. But the film industry is just as disconnected from reality as the politicians of this nation. Hindi cinema through its launch of the homophobic film Girlfriend in 2004 - a violent modern depiction of lesbian love - has shown that even otherwise liberal Bollywood is not ready to discuss homosexuality. And with an education system where sex education is still taboo, it is unrealistic to even talk about introducing the concept of homosexuality as something normal.

Given all the stigma, the discrimination, the hatred, the government’s ignorance, the unrealistic laws and an old fashioned education system, how do we make this love created by a lesser God less complicated to people - people like myself, who constantly claim that it’s just love, a deep affection for another human being, and that’s all. Still, when this love appears on my doorstep, even I get confused. Where love should be effortless, it instead becomes a curse, all because of the boundaries of the mind. I wish that every person in love could follow Shakespeare’s words and even if the love is not mutual, one could rejoice in the sweet memories that love brings - like when I pass a particular kebab-place here in Stockholm, my whole heart rejoices. Well, that’s another story for another day.

In the name of love,
Parul Sharma

About the Author
Parul Sharma is a human rights lawyer and activist based in Stockholm, Sweden. Parul has written several articles on the rights of children and women and victims of crime. Parul is the author of the book Right to Life; the pluralism of human existence, released by India Research Press in April 2007. For the last few years, Parul has been working on issues related to corporate social responsibility with Swedish companies investing in emerging markets.

Visit her website A Seachange to learn about her initiative to inspire change “based on voluntarism and the power of each individual to make a difference.”

 

Home bias + Gay pride

Indian Express editorial

Home bias

Oct 02, 2008

In reports emerging of the reactions of the judges of the Delhi High
Court who are hearing the government’s arguments against the
legalisation of homosexuality, the outrage and confusion that they
clearly feel at the illiberal and contradictory stand that the
additional solicitor-general has taken on behalf of the Government
come through quite clearly. The court’s incredulity is something that
is, needless to say, shared by all of liberal India, as the government
has in succession said that homosexuality “disturbs the public peace”,
impacts health adversely for homosexuals, impacts health adversely for
non-homosexuals, that it would “open the floodgates for delinquent
behaviour”, that it is a “social vice” and a “reflection of a perverse
mind”. This cavalcade of antediluvian attitudes and half-formed
misinformation is supposed to serve as justification for keeping an
unknown but large number of otherwise law-abiding citizens of India in
a state of permanent criminality.

Let us be clear on this: as the court implied, in asking for empirical
evidence, there is absolutely no data that can back up the
government’s claims. Indeed, in Brazil, for example, increased public
and administrative acceptance of homosexuality in an otherwise macho
culture was one prong of a multi-pronged effort to contain the spread
of AIDS. Some years later, the number of HIV/AIDS patients was barely
half the figure that had been predicted by the World Bank. Compare
that to famously homophobic Jamaica, where efforts to stem the HIV
epidemic have stumbled on the fact that no homosexuals come forward to
be treated, according to its own health ministry. India’s health
minister, Anbumani Ramadoss, has repeatedly said that it is his
ministry’s position that criminalisation of homosexuality impedes
anti-HIV work. He is to be lauded for this. What is even more
laudable, and impressive, is that he has chosen to publicly take on
the home minister on the subject, not only as a doctor and health
practitioner but as a liberal, demanding that Patil be “more
progressive” and “a lot more sensitive”, while pointing out that
acceptance of alternate sexualities has grown “the world over”.

Fortunately, this is a question of rights — fundamental rights in the
Constitution clearly prohibit sex-based discrimination — and the
domain of the courts. But whatever the decision, it is also a question
of basic dignity, and the government has already failed miserably in
ensuring that one of India’s minorities is provided the minimum
respect that any liberal…

Indian Express feature

Gay Pride: laws and outlaws

Sharika C

Posted: Oct 02, 2008 at 2333 hrs IST

UNITED KINGDOM: Considered one of the most liberal societies in the world when it comes to laws regarding homosexuality, the UK has certainly come a long way from the Buggery Act, 1533, of Henry VIII, whereby the act was an offence punishable by hanging. Homosexuality among consenting adults was decriminalised in 1967, with conditions. Numerous amendments later, the age of consent was brought down to 16 in 2000. The Civil Partnership Act of 2005 further created a parallel legal structure to marriage, which endowed on homosexual couples all the rights and responsibilities of marriage, including the right to adopt children. 

UNITED STATES: The laws are different at the state and federal level. Civil unions are permitted in Vermont, New Jersey, New Hampshire and Connecticut while same sex marriages are recognised in New York, New Mexico and Rhode Island. The Supreme Court ruling in the 2003 Lawrence vs Texas case was a landmark judgment in the context of gay rights, with the majority holding that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected under the Fourteenth Amendment.

DENMARK: Homosexuality legalised since 1933, with the equal age of consent set at 15 years in 1979. In 1989, it became the first country to legalise same-sex unions, also giving couples the right to adoption. Besides, Denmark prohibits any law or behaviour that discriminates against people on the basis of their sexual orientation. 

FRANCE: Considered tolerant in matters of private morality, incidents of homosexuals being burnt to death last occurred in France in 1750. Homosexuality is not a crime; the Civil Solidarity Pact enacted in 1999 affords legal protection and the rights of marriage to same-sex couples as also unmarried opposite-sex couples. Also prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

SOUTH AFRICA: One of the first countries in the world to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation, it also became in 2006 the first African nation and the fifth in the world to legalise same-sex marriages. Its equal age of consent is set at 16 years.

 

INDONESIA: Considered one of the most tolerant among Muslim nations, a homosexual relationship between consenting adults and behind closed doors is not a crime. Same-sex marriages or civil unions are, nevertheless, not recognised by law.

 

CHINA: Homosexuality was de-criminalised in 1997, with the age of consent fixed at 18 years. But same-sex marriages are still forbidden.

 

SAUDI ARABIA: Does not recognise the right to privacy nor does it prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation. Homosexuality remains a crime of serious nature, and an indecent act under the Sunni Islamic notion of morality. Acts of homosexuality or cross-dressing can invite heavy punishment, extensive imprisonment along with severe lashing.

 

MALAYSIA: Homosexuality is a criminal offence, punishable under law, with imprisonment up to 20 years, fine and whippings. Heterosexual sodomy and cross-dressing are also treated as crimes. Politician Anwar Ibrahim, also the country’s former deputy prime minister, has been arrested twice and imprisoned for up to nine years on charges of having sexual relations with his male aides.

Ramadoss to take up with PM Home Ministry’s stand on gay right

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Ramadoss_to_take_up_gay_rights_issue_with_PM/articleshow/3545889.cms

Times of India - Ramadoss to take up with PM Home Ministry’s stand on gay rights, 30 Sep 2008

NEW DELHI: Apparently upset by his ministry being ticked off by Home Ministry over legalising homosexuality, Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss on Tuesday asked the MHA to be “more responsible” and said he would take up the matter with Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. “These are not my views. They are the views of the department,” Ramadoss told reporters here while talking about his ministry’s contention that homosexuality should be legalised. His comments came a day the Home Ministry, which is opposing the Health Ministry’s suggestion for legalising homosexuality, told the Delhi High Court that the Health Ministry’s views on the issue should be ignored. Reflecting his unhappiness over the Home Ministry’s contention, Ramadoss asked it to be “more responsible”. “I will take up the matter with the Prime Minister,” he said. The court, during the last hearing, had pulled up the government for speaking in two voices on the issue as the Union Home Ministry suggested not to decriminalise gay sex on moral grounds while the Health Ministry proposed to abolish the penal provision which carries a punishment of upto life imprisonment for such acts. The Health Minister had sought legalisation of homosexuality arguing that it can help in better treatment of people suffering from HIV/AIDS. The High Court pulled up the government today also for speaking in two voices.

Govt tells HC to ignore Ramadoss’ views on allowing gay sex

http://in.news.yahoo.com/20/20080929/1416/tnl-govt-tells-hc-to-ignore-ramadoss-vie.html

Mon, Sep 29 05:53 PM
New Delhi, Sep 29 (PTI) The government, under flak for taking a contradictory stand on the homosexuality law, today told the Delhi High Court not to consider Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss’ views on allowing gay sex among consenting adults. “It doesn’t matter what the minister says.
It is also not important what the affidavit says. It is for the court to decide the issue,” Additional Solicitor General P P Malhotra said before a bench headed by Chief Justice A P Shah.
The Centre’s response came after the court on the last hearing had pulled it up for speaking in two voices on the homosexuality law. In a contradictory stand taken by Health and Home ministry, the former had suggested decriminalisation of gay sex while the latter said that the penal provision against such acts cannot be scrapped.

Don’t repeal Section 377: Homosexuals

Don’t repeal Section 377: Homosexuals - Times of India
1 Aug 2008, 1500 hrs IST, Vasundhara Sanger,TIMESOFINDIA.COM

MUMBAI: While the homosexuals in India have welcomed Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss’ statement seeking the removal of provisions in Section 377of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that classifies sex between two men as a criminal offence, they do not want the repeal of the section to protect the boy child from abuse.

Delhi based NGO Naz Foundation challenged arrests made under Section 377 and the Delhi High Court is hearing a petition by the Foundation.

Says, Nitin Karani, Board of Trustee of Mumbai based Humsafar Trust “Section 377 is applicable even to the heterosexuals, as it prohibits anal sex (even) between husband and wife. We are demanding that consensual sex in private between individuals not be considered illegal. But Section 377 is needed so that children are not abused. Hence, it should be read down but not abolished.”

The health ministry had supported the gay community’s call to remove the law but the home ministry was not in favour of it. “It’s nice to know people at the top level are speaking for us,” said Geeta Kumana of Mumbai based lesbian group Aanchal Trust. She was reacting to Ramadoss’ statement made on Friday at the 17th International Conference on Aids in Mexico City.

The gay and lesbian community is relieved that with immense pressure built over a period of time the government was waking up to the rights of the homosexuals in the country. However, they say the society as a whole is still to accept gays and lesbians in their fold. “When one speaks individually to parents and friends there is a conditional change and acceptance. But, when one starts agitating for rights in front of police, politician etc I find there is a huge homophobia; there is no acceptance,” rues Geeta.

A day after India’s 61st Independence Day on 16 August this year, a Queer Azaadi (Independence) March will be organised by the queer community (homosexuals, lesbians, transgender, bisexual and all those marginalised by society that labels them as ’strange’) in Mumbai to state that while the rest of India had achieved independence from the British on 15 August1947, queer Indians were still bound by a British Raj law (Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, introduced in 1860) and Victorian puritanism.

The March aims to highlight issues that affect queer communities in India - Like Act that outlaws same-sex intercourse, forced marriage of homosexuals, harassment of queer community by using sec 377 against them etc. The closeted queer community, especially in small towns, hopes to gain visibility for their cause through this rally. Leading gays and lesbian rights group Humsafar Trust and Aanchal Trust are in the forefront of the three hours March that will start from August Kranti Maidan and end at Girgaum Chowpatty in south Mumbai.

In June this year, gays in Delhi, for the first time, marched through the heart of the city proclaiming their sexuality. The homosexual community gradually seems to be coming out in the open in India

Gay activists in India want British apology

From The Independent

By Jerome Taylor
Saturday, 16 August 2008

First it was slavery, then it was looting the world’s architectural treasures for our museums. Now it is homophobia.

 

Activists in India are about to demand another apology from Britain. Sixty-six years after Mahatma Gandhi called on the British to leave India from a park in Mumbai, thousands of gay activists will gather in the same park today to call on the British Government to apologise for introducing anti-sodomy laws that still make homosexuality illegal in India today.

Their call will be issued during the first gay pride march in Mumbai for three years and is part of a wider campaign to abolish Section 377 of the Indian penal code which outlaws “unnatural sexual offences” and theoretically punishes anal or oral sex with up to 10 years in prison. In practice no one has been prosecuted under the law in the past two decades but it has been used by officials to counter the work of HIV activists in some Indian states.

Gay rights campaigners also argue that because Section 377 enshrines homophobia in India’s legal systems it also legitimises the continued repression of gay men and women in wider Indian society.

A draft copy of the statement seen by The Independent accuses Britain of exporting homophobia during the 19th century when colonial administrators began enforcing Victorian laws and morals on their Indian subjects. It reads: “We call on the British Government to apologise for the immense suffering that has resulted from their imposition of Section 377. And we call on the Indian government to abandon this abhorrent alien legacy of the Raj that should have left our shores when the British did.”

Gay rights activists argue that Hindu, Buddhist and early Muslim cultures on the subcontinent had a long history of tolerance towards same-sex relationships.

Mumbai Pride / Queer Azadi march related links

Videos:

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2008/aug/170808-gay-parade-video.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUujJVU5TCo

 

Photographs:

News:

http://www.mid-day.com/news/2008/aug/170808-gay-march.htm

http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20080061824&ch=8/16/2008%2011:40:00%20PM

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/Mumbai/This_minoritys_struggle_for_freedom_is_still_on/articleshow/3372326.cms

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=ac0ca8ce-1fae-4c9f-a0ae-fe3aed4cfa4a

http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/A-MARCH-FOR-FREEDOM/349663/

http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1183870

http://www.bollyspice.com/view.php/1583-mumbai-8217-s-gay-pride-with-celina-jaitley.html

http://www.mumbaimirror.com/net/mmpaper.aspx?page=article&sectid=2&contentid=2008081720080817024703512d81ee63e

http://www.dailyindia.com/show/267986.php

‘68 pages’ portraying life, love & hope

‘68 pages’ portraying life, love & hope (Times of India)

27 Jul 2008, 0319 hrs IST, Snehlata Shrivastav,TNN

NAGPUR: ” Dard se umeed janam leti hein, aur umeed se pyar, bas yahi sach hein, ek bar phir dard se umeed janam legi “. “Hope blooms from pain and this time too, pain will give birth to a new hope” was the message that the ninety minute film ‘68 pages” wanted to convey to the society at large and the HIV positive people in particular.

Yes, the film has managed to convey the message of ‘never lose hope’ to its targeted audience and also to the common man. But life is much beyond the film, which the film probably could not convey. The film appeared too simplistic for ground realities yet could aptly convey the real life stories of five HIV positive people, played by Kiran and Mohit, a gay couple, Payal and Shetty, a commercial sex worker and her customer, Nishit, a drug abuser and his girl friend, and Nathu, a sanitary worker. The heroine of the film, Mansi, a counsellor’, who writes the stories of her clients in a diary in 68 pages and around whom the stories of HIV positive people are intricately woven, has successfully narrated the story.

Since it is also the story of people who the ’society’ does not recognise as normal, who cannot belong to them, but are very much a part of the society in reality, the film is different from other HIV/AIDS commercial films. It conveys the basic message that HIIV positive people too have right to love - ‘Pyar to sab ko mangtai hein’.

The story begins with ‘Umaro’ a bar dancer who’s earnings support a family of three and goes down to depict lives of all other HIV positive characters simultaneously through a well knit series of events in their lives.

Umrao is playing ’self’ in the bar, as in reality she feels like a woman but at her home she is Umesh, the lone bread earner ‘man’ of the family and for society is a ‘ kinnar ‘ or a transsexual.

The film depicts the stark realities of life as she lives it in the film. Umrao gets infected with the HIV virus while having sex with a trucker after losing her job as a bar dancer. She is forced to continue earning her living selling her body for her family. The film ends with all the five HIV positive people seeing the counsellor together before she leaves for further studies in US depicting that life does not stop for anyone while the others too continue to live their lives with hope.