The Bihar State Transgender Welfare Board recently approved a proposal to construct a temple in honour of Prime Minister Narendra Modi, describing it as a gesture of gratitude for his government’s work towards the welfare, dignity, and rights of transgender people. The proposal came during the board’s very first formal meeting.It is difficult to ignore the irony. A community that has no widely recognised temples dedicated to its own historical or spiritual figures is now preparing to build one for a sitting prime minister.The Bihar State Transgender Welfare Board was constituted by the social welfare department in August 2025 with the stated objective of protecting the civil rights of transgender persons and implementing policies for their social and economic empowerment. Yet, it took almost a year for the 28-member board to hold its maiden meeting. When it finally convened, board member Ranjan Singh introduced the temple proposal almost immediately.That decision has raised uncomfortable questions because the board had no shortage of pressing issues to discuss.Housing remains a major concern. Reservation in education and public employment is still unresolved. Access to transgender certificates has become significantly more difficult following the 2026 amendment to the Transgender Persons Act 2019. Separate public toilets remain largely absent. Even the state’s own commitment to transgender representation in the police force has barely materialised.The Bihar government had estimated that its police structure could accommodate 51 transgender personnel (40 constables and 11 sub-inspectors) Yet, recruitment data shows that only 11 transgender candidates have actually been appointed across the entire state police force. (This figure is an estimate derived from publicly available recruitment notifications and media reports, not an officially published aggregate.) The gap between official policy and lived reality extends beyond employment.According to the 2011 Census, Bihar had a transgender population of 40,827. However, the state’s 2022 caste survey recorded only 825 transgender persons, roughly 0.0006% of Bihar’s population of more than 13.7 crore. Members of the community rejected the figure, arguing that thousands remained uncounted because they were never registered or felt unsafe identifying themselves. Community organisations estimate that the actual transgender population in Bihar could be more. Against this backdrop, the decision to prioritise a temple appears disconnected from the challenges the community continues to face.That disconnect became even more visible during the recent protests over the National Eligibility Cum Entrance Test paper leak against the queer people’s participation. Ujjwal Singh, a queer activist participating in the demonstration, was mocked by a journalist from 99 Khabar. In a video that circulated online, the reporter asked, “Aap bhi cockroach hai kya? Kahan se aaye, ghar se ya naali se? (Are you also a cockroach? Where did you come from, home or the gutter?)“ He went on to question how “people like them” could contribute to the country’s progress. Another reporter dismissed the presence of Ujjwal and his friends altogether, assuming they knew nothing about the protest and implying they lacked the education to understand the issues.The exchange reflected a familiar pattern. Rather than engaging with why transgender and queer people were protesting, attention shifted towards questioning whether they deserved to be there at all.Impact of the 2026 Amendment ActThe recent amendment to the Transgender Persons Act moves away from the principle of gender self-identification. While the Supreme Court recognised self-identification as a constitutional right in NALSA v. Union of India (2014), and the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019 incorporated that principle, the 2026 amendment significantly weakens it. It narrows the legal definition of “transgender” by limiting recognition to intersex persons and selected socio-cultural communities, leaving many transgender people outside its protection.Its consequences are not merely administrative. They affect access to identity documents, healthcare and everyday life. Community members say that after the amendment came into force, access to hormone replacement therapy through government systems has become uncertain or unavailable in several cases because legal recognition now determines eligibility for services.These concerns are now before the Supreme Court.On August 3, 2026, a bench headed by Chief Justice Surya Kant heard a petition seeking interim protection for identity cards already issued under the Transgender Persons (Protection of Rights) Act, 2019.Senior Advocate Jayna Kothari, appearing for the petitioners, clarified that they were seeking only a limited interim arrangement so that transgender persons who had already been legally recognised under the 2019 law would not suddenly lose the rights attached to those identity cards while challenges to the amendment remain pending.During the hearing, Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, appearing for the Union government, remarked, “These are not ration cards that you will not get ration. I fail to understand the urgency.”The remark drew criticism because it reduces constitutional rights to questions of immediate survival. Identity documents are not valuable only because they enable access to welfare schemes. They are the legal recognition of a person’s existence. They determine whether someone can access healthcare, education, employment, housing, banking services and countless everyday interactions without being forced to explain or justify who they are. The urgency lies precisely there.For transgender persons, the loss of legal recognition is not an abstract constitutional debate. It affects whether they can continue their medical treatment, whether their identity documents remain valid and whether rights that were recognised under the 2019 law disappear overnight.This is what makes the Bihar board’s decision so striking. At a time when transgender persons are fighting to retain legal recognition, access healthcare, secure employment and protect rights already recognised by the Supreme Court, the state’s highest welfare body for the community chose to begin its work by approving a temple for the prime minister.Whether one supports the Modi government’s politics is beside the point. The question is one of priorities.When a community is asking for dignity, legal protection and implementation of existing rights, a temple cannot become a substitute for governance.Asifa Khan is an independent journalist based in Gujarat.