War, Oil, and the Unmaking of Autonomy: India in the Shadow of Imperial Power

 Imperial War, Energy Capital, and the Quiet Erosion of India’s Non-Aligned Imagination

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

The ongoing war involving Iran and the United States–Israel alliance must be understood not as an isolated geopolitical conflict but as an expression of late-stage imperialism, where military force, financial dominance, and ideological narratives converge to sustain global hierarchies of capital. This essay situates the conflict within the political economy of resource control, particularly oil, and interrogates the construction of “security threats” as instruments of intervention. It critically examines India’s departure from its non-aligned legacy under Jawaharlal Nehru, arguing that its present stance reflects a deeper incorporation into the logic of imperial power. Drawing on data relating to energy dependence, trade asymmetries, and military expenditure, the essay demonstrates how material vulnerabilities shape diplomatic silence. It further explores the strategic gains accruing to China and Russia, the crisis of multilateralism, and the ideological management of public discourse within India. From the vantage point of a common Indian observer, the essay reflects on the erosion of sovereignty, the complicity of elites, and the transformation of the global order into a coercive, unilateral system.

Keywords

Imperialism; political economy of war; oil capitalism; India foreign policy; non-alignment; West Asia; strategic autonomy; BRICS; ideological state apparatus; global inequality

I. Introduction: War as the Language of Capital

This war is not about Iran alone. It is about the disciplining of autonomy in a world where capital no longer tolerates deviation. The missiles that fall on Iranian soil carry with them a message far wider than their blast radius: that sovereignty, if it resists integration into the circuits of global capital, will be corrected—by force if necessary.

For an ordinary Indian, this war does not appear as strategy or doctrine. It appears in the everyday—in the price of fuel, in the silence of newsrooms, and in the uneasy recognition that the country’s voice in the world has grown hesitant, if not hollow.

This essay proceeds from a Marxian premise:
wars under capitalism are not aberrations—they are instruments of accumulation.

“When capital exhausts negotiation, it speaks through war; when war exhausts itself, it reorganizes capital.”

II. Imperialism and the Production of Threat

The justification for war against Iran has been framed through the language of nuclear threat. Yet, this narrative must be read not as fact but as ideological production.

Iran’s insistence on the civilian nature of its nuclear programme is less significant, in this framework, than the role assigned to it within global discourse:
to be constructed as a threat requiring neutralization.

This follows a familiar imperial logic:

Identify a sovereign deviation

Represent it as a global danger

Legitimize intervention

The June 2025 strikes and subsequent escalation in 2026 are thus not reactions but pre-scripted outcomes within a system that requires periodic demonstrations of power.

“Threat is not discovered in imperialism—it is manufactured to justify intervention.”

III. War Amid Negotiation: The End of Liberal Illusions

The attack on Iran during ongoing negotiations reveals the exhaustion of liberal internationalism. Diplomacy, once imagined as a rational alternative to war, now functions as its complement.

This is not contradiction—it is design.

Negotiation buys time; war enforces outcome. Together, they form a continuum of coercion.

The implications are profound:

International law becomes selective

Multilateral institutions become symbolic

Sovereignty becomes conditional

What remains is not order, but managed instability—a condition in which power operates without accountability.

IV. India’s Strategic Transformation: From Autonomy to Accommodation

India’s foreign policy, shaped by non-alignment, once sought to resist incorporation into global power blocs. Under Jawaharlal Nehru, this was both a moral and material strategy—preserving autonomy in a polarized world.

Today, that autonomy appears increasingly compromised.

India’s growing alignment with the United States and Israel reflects not merely strategic choice but structural incorporation into the circuits of global capital and security architecture.

This shift is rationalized as pragmatism. Yet, pragmatism in unequal systems often translates into accommodation of dominance.

“Alignment in an unequal world is rarely a choice—it is often the outcome of structured dependence.”

V. India–Iran: From Civilizational Continuity to Strategic Abandonment

The India–Iran relationship is among the oldest civilizational linkages, embedded in language, culture, and commerce. In the modern era, Iran has been both an energy partner and a diplomatic supporter.

Yet, in the present conflict, this history appears subordinated to contemporary alignments.

The question is not why India recalibrates its policy. The question is:
what does it lose in the process?

Diplomatic credibility, once eroded, cannot be easily restored.

VI. Energy Dependency: The Material Base of Foreign Policy

India’s foreign policy cannot be understood without examining its material base—particularly energy dependence.

Table 1: India’s Energy Import Dependence

Energy Source	Import Dependence (%)
Crude Oil	~85%
Natural Gas (LNG)	~50%
LPG	~60–65%

Table 2: Strategic Vulnerability – Strait of Hormuz

Indicator	Share (%)
India’s oil imports via Hormuz	~55–60%
Global oil transit via Hormuz	~20%

Energy dependency is not merely an economic fact; it is a geopolitical constraint. It shapes what can be said, what must remain unsaid, and what cannot be opposed.

“Foreign policy is often written not in diplomatic language, but in the arithmetic of dependence.”

VII. Trade Asymmetry and Economic Subordination

Table 3: India’s Trade Structure (Approx.)

Region	Imports (USD bn)	Exports (USD bn)
Middle East	160	40
United States	45	80
Russia	60	10

The imbalance is clear:
India’s engagement with energy-producing regions is heavily import-driven, reinforcing vulnerability.

This asymmetry limits policy options, making economic subordination translate into diplomatic caution.

VIII. War and Unequal Power: Military Expenditure

Table 4: Military Spending (USD bn, Approx.)

Country	Spending
United States	~900
Israel	~30
Iran	~25
India	~80

The disparity reveals a fundamental truth:
war is not fought between equals; it is imposed within hierarchies.

IX. China and Russia: Capitalizing on Crisis

In moments of instability, capital reorganizes itself.

China and Russia, positioned outside the immediate conflict, benefit by:

Expanding energy exports

Strengthening alternative trade networks

Increasing geopolitical leverage

This is not incidental—it reflects the redistributive logic of crisis under capitalism.

X. Ideology and Silence: The Indian Media Question

The relative silence within India’s media landscape is not accidental. It reflects what Marxist theory identifies as the functioning of ideological state apparatuses.

Narratives are managed, dissent is moderated, and public perception is shaped to align with state priorities.

The result is not absence of opinion, but production of consent.

“What is not said in public discourse often reveals more than what is said.”

XI. BRICS and the Limits of Counter-Hegemony

India’s role within BRICS raises critical questions. With Iran now part of the bloc, the expectation of collective resistance to unilateral power grows.

Yet, BRICS itself remains constrained:

By internal contradictions

By uneven power relations

By the absence of a coherent alternative vision

India’s cautious stance reflects these limitations.

XII. The Unilateral World: Capital Without Restraint

The present conflict signals a transition:

From multilateral negotiation to unilateral enforcement

From rule-based order to power-based order

From sovereign equality to hierarchical control

This is not the collapse of order—it is its reconstitution in more coercive form.

XIII. Conclusion: The Peripheral Witness

For the ordinary Indian, this war is both distant and immediate. It is distant in geography but immediate in consequence.

It reveals a deeper truth:

India, once a voice of autonomy, now stands at risk of becoming an intermediary within a system it once sought to resist.

The challenge is not merely strategic—it is ideological.

Can India reclaim its autonomy in a world increasingly defined by coercion?
Or will it adapt to a system where silence is rewarded and dissent is costly?

“The tragedy of the present is not that power dominates, but that resistance hesitates.”

References

1. Lenin, V I – Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism

2. Amin, Samir – Accumulation on a World Scale

3. Chomsky, Noam – Hegemony or Survival

4. SIPRI Military Expenditure Database

5. International Energy Agency Reports

 

The Intimacy of Resistance: Where Poetry Meets Material Life

 Where Does Poetry Come From?

A Marxian Reading of the “Amorous Sigh”

-Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

This essay reimagines poetry not as a private indulgence of the soul, but as a historically conditioned and socially embedded act. Beginning with the intimate “amorous sigh,” it traces how poetic experience unfolds across three registers—individual, collective, and systemic. Through a Marxist lens, poetry is revealed as both a product of material conditions and a subtle yet potent force of resistance. It is in the emotional intensities of isolation, their resonance within groups, and their eventual consolidation into collective consciousness that poetry acquires its transformative potential. Rooted in realism yet reaching toward change, poetry becomes not merely expression, but praxis.

Keywords

Marxism; Alienation; Poetic Consciousness; Collective Emotion; Realism; Praxis; Sensuous Life; Resistance; Aesthetics and Materialism

I. The Intimate Tremor: Poetry in Isolation

Poetry begins, as the poem suggests, in a tremor—almost imperceptible, deeply personal:

“From the amorous sighs
In this moist dark when making love
with form or Spirit.”

In isolation, this sigh feels absolute. It consumes the individual, suspends time, and produces an overwhelming sense of presence. The individual, in this moment, experiences what appears to be a pure, unmediated aliveness—a fleeting transcendence of the mundane.

But Marxist thought unsettles this purity.

Even in isolation, emotion is never entirely private. The trembling body carries the weight of its conditions—of labour performed, of exhaustion accumulated, of desires shaped by structures beyond itself. The sigh, then, is not merely an expression; it is a condensation of lived contradictions.

What does this mean for the individual?

It means that the intensity of poetic feeling often emerges because of alienation. The deeper the fragmentation of life—the more one is separated from meaningful labour, from community, from self—the more explosive these moments of wholeness become.

“In isolation, poetry is not escape—it is the body’s rebellion against its own fragmentation.”

The individual who whispers, “I am so damn alive,” is not simply celebrating life; they are momentarily overcoming the conditions that deny that life its fullness.

II. Resonance: When Emotion Finds the Other

The poem moves from the solitary body to perception:

“In the eye that says, ‘Wow-wee,’
In the overpowering felt splendor…”

Here, poetry begins to leave the confines of isolation. The “eye” is not just seeing—it is recognising. And recognition is inherently social.

When one person’s sigh becomes another’s understanding, poetry transforms. It is no longer a solitary tremor; it becomes resonance.

In a group, this resonance intensifies emotion. What was once fleeting becomes shared, affirmed, and multiplied. The “Wow-wee” becomes contagious—a collective gasp at the possibility of experiencing life beyond its utilitarian limits.

But this sharing is not neutral.

Under conditions of alienation, individuals are systematically separated—not only from their labour, but from each other. Genuine emotional resonance becomes rare, even suspect. And when it does occur, it carries an almost subversive charge.

“When a feeling is shared, it ceases to be fragile—it begins to gather force.”

In this sense, poetry acts as a bridge. It reconnects individuals not through abstract ideology, but through sensuous experience. It allows people to recognise in each other the same hunger for wholeness, the same dissatisfaction with a life reduced to function.

III. The Social Pulse: Poetry as Collective Consciousness

“Our life dance
is only for a few magic
seconds.”

At the level of society, this line acquires a different weight.

These “magic seconds” are not simply existential—they are political. They point to the scarcity of lived intensity in a world organised around productivity. They expose a system in which life is systematically diminished, parceled out, and disciplined.

When individuals and groups begin to recognise this collectively, poetry evolves into something more than expression—it becomes consciousness.

This is where Marx’s realism becomes crucial. Poetry, in this sense, is not an abstraction detached from material life. It is grounded in the real conditions of existence—in labour, in time, in inequality. Its power lies precisely in its ability to make these conditions felt.

“Poetry is realism at its most intimate—it reveals not just how we live, but how that living feels.”

And when feeling aligns with understanding, a shift occurs.

The individual’s cry—“I am so damn alive!”—begins to echo across others. It becomes not just a statement of presence, but a demand: a demand for a life where such aliveness is not exceptional, not confined to “magic seconds,” but woven into the fabric of everyday existence.

IV. From Feeling to Force: The Dialectics of Unity

The crucial question, then, is this: what happens when these poetic moments unite?

Marxist thought suggests that change does not arise merely from ideas, but from the alignment of material conditions with collective consciousness. Poetry alone does not overturn systems—but it plays a vital role in shaping that consciousness.

When isolated emotions converge into shared recognition, and shared recognition into collective awareness, poetry begins to function as a subtle form of praxis.

It does not issue manifestos.
It does not organise strikes.
But it prepares the ground on which such actions become imaginable.

“Before systems are overturned, they are first felt to be unbearable.”

Poetry contributes to this feeling. It sharpens dissatisfaction, intensifies longing, and reveals the gap between what is and what could be.

And when this gap is collectively experienced, it becomes politically volatile.

V. The Body as Site of Realism and Change

The poem’s insistence on the body—on sighs, on sensation, on presence—is not incidental. It is deeply aligned with a Marxist understanding of realism.

Realism, here, is not mere representation of external reality. It is the truthful depiction of lived experience—of how structures of power, labour, and capital are inscribed onto the body.

The body feels exhaustion before it articulates exploitation.
The body feels desire before it theorises alienation.

Poetry captures these pre-theoretical intensities. It gives them language without diluting their force.

“The body knows before the mind names; poetry speaks from that knowing.”

And it is precisely this grounding in sensuous life that gives poetry its transformative potential. It does not argue for change in abstract terms; it makes the necessity of change visceral.

VI. The Collective Cry: Reclaiming Aliveness

“From the heart saying,
Shouting,
‘I am so damn
Alive!’”

At its peak, this line is no longer individual. It becomes collective—a chorus rather than a whisper.

But this transformation is neither automatic nor guaranteed. It requires conditions in which individuals can recognise themselves in each other, where private feelings are not isolated but connected.

When this happens, the cry of aliveness shifts from affirmation to demand.

Not: I feel alive in this moment.
But: We demand a world where life can be fully lived.

“Aliveness, when shared, ceases to be a moment—it becomes a horizon.”

Conclusion: The Dialectics of the Sigh Revisited

So where does poetry come from?

It comes from the sigh—but not the sigh alone.
It comes from the conditions that produce the sigh,
the bodies that feel it,
the others who recognise it,
and the systems that seek to contain it.

In isolation, poetry is intensity.
In groups, it is resonance.
In society, it becomes consciousness.
And in unity, it approaches change.

Rooted in realism, it does not deny the world as it is.
But in revealing how that world is felt, it opens the possibility of what it might become.

“Poetry begins as a breath—but when shared, it becomes a force.”

 

Between Recognition and Regulation: The Transgender Question in Contemporary India

 Law, Society, and the Limits of Self-Determination

Ramphal Kataria

Abstract

The recognition of transgender persons in India has been widely celebrated following the Supreme Court’s judgment in National Legal Services Authority (NALSA) v. Union of India (2014), which affirmed gender identity as a matter of self-determination. However, subsequent legislative and administrative developments, particularly the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, have reintroduced regulatory mechanisms that subject identity to bureaucratic verification. This paper critically examines the shift from judicial recognition to administrative control and situates it within broader sociological structures of family, caste, and patriarchy. It argues that legal recognition without corresponding social transformation produces a paradox wherein transgender persons are visible in law but excluded in everyday life. By analyzing conceptual distinctions between sex and gender, mapping the spectrum of gender identities, and examining structural conditions of marginalization, the paper demonstrates that the crisis of transgender rights in India is fundamentally a crisis of social acceptance and institutional design.

Keywords

Transgender, gender identity, NALSA, bureaucracy, caste, patriarchy, social exclusion, India

I. Introduction: Recognition and Its Limits

The Supreme Court’s decision in NALSA v. Union of India (2014) is widely regarded as a constitutional milestone in the recognition of transgender rights in India. By affirming that gender identity is intrinsic to personal autonomy and dignity, the Court located it within the framework of fundamental rights, thereby challenging the dominance of biological determinism. The judgment explicitly recognized the right of individuals to self-identify their gender, independent of medical or anatomical criteria.

However, the institutional trajectory following this judgment complicates its emancipatory promise. The enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019, along with subsequent administrative practices, has introduced mechanisms of certification and verification that effectively reconfigure identity as a matter of bureaucratic approval. The shift is not merely procedural; it reflects a deeper tension between constitutional ideals and administrative rationality.

This paper examines this tension by situating transgender recognition within the broader context of social regulation. It argues that while the judiciary articulated a framework of autonomy, the state and society have responded by reasserting control through institutional and cultural mechanisms. The result is a condition in which recognition is formally granted but substantively constrained.

II. Conceptual Foundations: Sex, Gender, and Identity

Any meaningful engagement with transgender issues requires a clear distinction between sex, gender, and related concepts.

Sex refers to biological attributes such as chromosomes, hormonal profiles, and reproductive anatomy. It is typically categorized as male, female, or intersex. Gender, in contrast, is a socially constructed category encompassing roles, behaviours, and expectations associated with masculinity and femininity (Butler 1990). While sex is assigned at birth, gender is produced through socialization and varies across cultural contexts.

Gender identity denotes an individual’s internal sense of self, which may align with or diverge from the sex assigned at birth. Gender expression refers to the external articulation of this identity through appearance, behaviour, and social interaction. These dimensions are analytically distinct and do not necessarily correspond with one another.

A further distinction must be drawn between gender identity and sexual orientation. While the former concerns self-identification, the latter refers to patterns of attraction. Conflating the two obscures the specificity of transgender experiences and contributes to analytical confusion.

The binary model of gender—male and female—has historically structured social institutions, but it is neither universal nor exhaustive. Contemporary scholarship and lived realities indicate that gender exists along a spectrum, encompassing identities such as non-binary, genderqueer, genderfluid, and agender. In the Indian context, the existence of socio-cultural categories such as hijras and kinnars demonstrates that gender diversity is not a recent phenomenon but has long been embedded in social life (Reddy 2005).

III. From Judicial Recognition to Administrative Regulation

The most significant development in transgender rights in India since NALSA is the enactment of the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019. While the Act ostensibly aims to protect transgender persons from discrimination, its operational framework introduces a system of certification that stands in tension with the principle of self-identification.

Table 1: NALSA vs 2019 Act vs Administrative Practice

Dimension	NALSA (2014)	2019 Act	2026 Amendment Act
Identity	Self-declared	Certified	Verified and scrutinized
Authority	Individual	District Magistrate	Bureaucratic discretion
Medical Requirement	Rejected	Ambiguous	Implicitly reintroduced
Privacy	Protected	Weak safeguards	Frequently compromised
Affirmative Action	Recommended	Absent	Not implemented

The contrast is stark. While NALSA conceptualized identity as an inherent right, the 2019 Act operationalizes it as a claim to be processed. The requirement to obtain a certificate from a District Magistrate effectively places the power of recognition in the hands of the state, thereby undermining individual autonomy.

This shift reflects what may be termed the “bureaucratization of identity,” wherein personal attributes are rendered legible to the state through documentation and verification. Such processes are characteristic of modern governance, which relies on categorization and standardization to administer populations.

IV. The Logic of State Control

The persistence of regulatory mechanisms despite judicial clarity can be understood through the lens of administrative rationality and political sociology.

First, modern states depend on stable and clearly defined categories for purposes of governance. Census operations, welfare schemes, and legal documentation systems require fixed classifications. Fluid or self-determined identities disrupt this logic by introducing ambiguity into administrative processes.

Second, legislative frameworks often reflect prevailing social norms rather than constitutional ideals. The discomfort with gender nonconformity is translated into regulatory measures that seek to contain and manage it. In this sense, the law becomes an instrument of social discipline rather than emancipation.

Third, the reassertion of state authority over identity claims indicates an underlying distrust of individual self-determination. The insistence on certification suggests that identity must be verified to be considered legitimate. This stands in contrast to the constitutional vision articulated in NALSA, which locates identity within the domain of personal autonomy.

V. Family and the Social Regulation of Gender

While the state plays a significant role in regulating transgender identities, the primary site of social control is the family. The marginalization of transgender persons is deeply embedded in familial structures, which function as institutions of social reproduction.

Families are not merely sites of emotional support; they are mechanisms through which social norms are transmitted and enforced. In the Indian context, these norms are closely tied to structures of patriarchy, caste, and property.

Table 2: Structural Basis of Familial Rejection

Factor	Function
Patriarchy	Enforces binary gender roles linked to reproduction
Caste	Maintains endogamy through gender discipline
Honour	Regulates behaviour to preserve social standing
Economy	Assigns roles based on gendered expectations

Gender nonconformity disrupts these structures in multiple ways. It challenges the assumption of heterosexual reproduction, complicates inheritance patterns, and exposes families to social scrutiny. As a result, transgender children are often perceived not as individuals with rights but as sources of potential stigma.

The expectation that families should treat transgender children like “normal” children, while normatively appealing, fails to account for these structural constraints. Families operate within a broader social framework that incentivizes conformity and penalizes deviation. Their actions are shaped as much by external pressures as by internal dynamics.

VI. Differential Social Responses and the Question of Normativity

A comparative perspective reveals that not all forms of difference are treated equally. Disability, for instance, is often met with sympathy and accommodation, whereas transgender identity is associated with stigma and exclusion.

This divergence can be explained by examining the relationship between difference and social norms. Disability, while requiring accommodation, does not fundamentally challenge the gendered organization of society. Transgender identity, on the other hand, destabilizes the binary framework upon which many social institutions are based.

The distinction is therefore not merely between types of difference but between differences that can be assimilated and those that disrupt foundational norms. Transgender identity falls into the latter category, which explains the intensity of social resistance it encounters.

VII. Structural Production of Marginality

The socio-economic marginalization of transgender persons is often attributed to cultural practices or individual choices. Such explanations obscure the structural processes that produce exclusion.

The typical trajectory involves familial rejection, followed by discontinuity in education, limited access to formal employment, and eventual reliance on informal or precarious occupations. These include ritual performances, begging, and sex work.

This pattern is not incidental but systemic. Educational institutions often fail to provide safe environments, leading to high dropout rates. Labour markets discriminate against gender nonconforming individuals, restricting access to stable employment. The absence of social security mechanisms further exacerbates vulnerability.

To characterize these outcomes as cultural traits is to misrecognize their structural origins. They are better understood as adaptive responses to conditions of exclusion.

VIII. Health and Institutional Neglect

The intersection of social stigma and institutional neglect has significant implications for the health and well-being of transgender persons. Limited access to healthcare, particularly gender-affirming services, contributes to both physical and mental health challenges.

Mental health issues such as depression and anxiety are prevalent, often arising from experiences of discrimination and social isolation. At the same time, the lack of targeted public health interventions increases vulnerability to diseases such as HIV.

These outcomes are not simply the result of individual circumstances but reflect systemic failures in the provision of inclusive services.

IX. Privacy, Dignity, and the State

The requirement of certification for gender recognition raises critical concerns regarding privacy and dignity. The process often involves the disclosure of deeply personal information to administrative authorities, thereby subjecting individuals to scrutiny and potential humiliation.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) affirmed the right to privacy as a fundamental right. However, the implementation of transgender legislation appears to be at odds with this principle.

The transformation of identity into a documentable and verifiable attribute reflects a broader trend in governance, wherein personal characteristics are rendered legible to the state. This process, while administratively convenient, can undermine individual autonomy.

X. Global Norms and Indian Practice

International frameworks, such as the Standards of Care developed by the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH), emphasise principles of self-identification, informed consent, and depathologisation.

In contrast, the Indian model retains elements of gatekeeping through certification processes. While the legal framework prohibits discrimination, it does not fully align with global best practices in terms of autonomy and access to care.

This divergence highlights the gap between normative commitments and institutional implementation.

XI. Conclusion: Recognition Without Transformation

The trajectory of transgender rights in India reveals a fundamental contradiction. While legal recognition has expanded the scope of rights, it has not been accompanied by corresponding changes in social attitudes or institutional practices.

The result is a condition in which transgender persons are formally recognized but substantively marginalized. Their identities are acknowledged in law but contested in everyday life.

The challenge, therefore, is not merely to secure recognition but to transform the social and institutional structures that constrain it. Without such transformation, recognition risks becoming a symbolic gesture rather than a substantive guarantee of dignity and equality.

References

1. Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York: Routledge.

2. Foucault, Michel. 1978. The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction. New York: Pantheon.

3. Government of India. 2019. The Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act. New Delhi.

4. National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India. 2014. (5 SCC 438).

5. Puttaswamy, Justice K.S. v. Union of India. 2017. (10 SCC 1).

6. Reddy, Gayatri. 2005. With Respect to Sex: Negotiating Hijra Identity in South India. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

7. Revathi, A. 2016. The Truth about Me: A Hijra Life Story. New Delhi: Penguin.

8. World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH). 2012. Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender Nonconforming People.

9. National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). 2018. Study on Transgender Persons in India. New Delhi.