Bengaluru became a powerful site for the convergence of art and activism on Saturday, November 23, through Filmistin’s ‘No Pride in Genocide’. The event, organised by a coalition of civil society organisations called Bengaluru for Justice and Peace, brought people face-to-face with the lived realities of queer Palestinians, combining cinematic storytelling with critical discourse. With a focus on Israel’s pinkwashing—a tactic by which LGBTQIA+ rights are used to mask the systemic oppression of Palestinians—the event marked the Indian debut of a global series that has travelled across six countries.
The evening began with three short films, each offering a unique perspective on queer Palestinian lives.
The films—Sultana’s Reign by Hadi Moussally, Bleeding by Moaad Ghadir, and Pinkwashing Exposed: Seattle Fights Back! by Dean Spade—provided intimate glimpses into the lives of queer Palestinians, unveiling stories of exile, systemic violence, and resistance. Together, they underscored the ways in which pinkwashing not only erases these struggles but also perpetuates colonial narratives that fragment and marginalise Palestinian voices.
The screening was followed by a deeply resonant discussion featuring Palestinian activist Haneen Maikey, alongside Indian voices such as Arvind Narrain, a Bengaluru-based lawyer and writer; Namita Avitri, curator of Bangalore Queer Film Festival; and Twisha Mehta from Collective Bangalore. The conversation, moderated by playwright and director Nisha Abdulla, moved beyond the films to address global patterns of oppression, the resonances between Palestine and India, and the urgent need for intersectional solidarity.
Pinkwashing as colonial violence
Pinkwashing emerged as the central theme of the evening, with Haneen Maikey delivering a searing critique of the Israeli state’s use of LGBTQIA+ rights as a propaganda tool. Maikey described pinkwashing as “not just propaganda, but colonial violence.” She detailed how the tactic fragments queer Palestinian communities by spreading racist myths about Palestinian society and erasing the voices of indigenous queer movements. This erasure, she explained, makes it harder for queer Palestinians to fight not only state oppression but also the stigmas and biases within their own communities.
“Sultana’s Reign felt like a warm echo of the early days of our movement,” Maikey remarked, reflecting on her decades of activism. “It reminded me of the joy, complexity, and a political language we used to articulate our struggle before finding our collective voice.” Her personal anecdotes about building a unified queer Palestinian movement highlighted the challenges of transcending the borders imposed by colonial powers, while emphasising the need for a deeply intersectional approach to activism.
The Israel-India parallels
The discussion also drew significant parallels between Israel’s colonial policies and India’s right-wing authoritarianism. Panellists pointed out that both states employ similar tactics to divide and oppress marginalised communities. In India, queerphobia and Islamophobia are often weaponised to divide movements and communities, mirroring the divisions Israel enforces through its categorisation of Palestinians based on geography and legal status. These tactics, as panellists noted, are designed to undermine solidarity and prevent the formation of unified movements for justice.
Twisha Mehta, an activist with Collective Bangalore, drew particular attention to the rise of “bulldozer politics” in India and how it mirrors the Israeli state’s demolition of Palestinian homes. In both contexts, militarised violence is used to target marginalised communities, stripping people of their homes and dignity under the guise of maintaining security or order. Mehta highlighted the dangerous logic of these practices, rooted in state violence and racialised oppression, and pointed out how they disproportionately affect Muslims, Dalits, and other vulnerable groups in both India and Palestine.
Boycotts, technology, and the struggle for solidarity
The panellists also discussed the role of boycotts in challenging oppression. Namita Avitri emphasised the power of divestment and grassroots pressure as a tool for change, pointing to global successes such as Norway and Finland’s divestments from Israeli businesses and the closure of several international franchises under public pressure. “Our small actions matter,” she said, urging the audience to think critically about their roles as consumers, creators, and activists. Avitri also shared her experiences curating queer cultural spaces in India and the challenges of maintaining these spaces free from corporate complicity and oppressive state influences.
Another critical aspect of the discussion was the role of technology in perpetuating oppression. Panellists noted the extensive use of surveillance tools, such as Pegasus spyware and AI-driven monitoring systems, in both Palestine and India. These tools are used to suppress dissent, track activists, and maintain state control. In the context of Palestine, these technologies are used to surveil and intimidate both the Palestinian population and international solidarity movements. Twisha Mehta made a direct connection between the use of such surveillance tools and the increasingly repressive political climate in India, where activists are similarly targeted by the state. The discussion stressed how these technologies work in tandem with militarised violence to silence resistance and sustain colonial power structures.
Twisha also highlighted the ongoing challenges faced by activists in Karnataka under Congress rule. Organisers in the state, especially those involved in Palestinian solidarity, have faced harassment, surveillance, and detentions when attempting to hold events or protests. Twisha recalled several instances where police demanded lists of attendees at solidarity events, forcing organisers to cancel or shift the events online. “The tactics employed by the Congress government in the state paint them in the exact same way as the fascist government,” she said, underscoring the need for continued vigilance and pressure on all political entities, regardless of their ideological leanings.
Solidarity in struggles for liberation
Arvind Narrain framed the conversation within a broader historical and legal context, urging the audience to understand queer liberation as intrinsically tied to broader struggles against colonialism and authoritarianism. Narrain argued that resistance to oppression must go beyond the queer community to include all marginalised groups. He pointed to the global history of anti-apartheid activism, drawing parallels to the ongoing fight for Palestinian liberation. He emphasised that art, like the films showcased, plays an essential role in challenging dominant narratives and creating spaces for resistance, helping to bridge the gaps between different movements and struggles.
Narrain also spoke on the importance of having a broader imagination and inclusive understanding of ‘victimhood’. Referencing Hannah Arendt’s The Origins of Totalitarianism, he highlighted Arendt’s argument that instead of “crimes against the Jewish people,” the statute should say “crimes against humanity” committed on the bodies of Jews.
“Her point is that it is a crime of such a high order that we can only call it a crime against humanity, not crimes against Jews. The problem with that is twofold. One, you’re making the case that Jewish people are forever victims, they can never be perpetrators. And Arendt saw this in the 1960s. The second point is that when you say ‘crimes against the Jewish people,’ you’re using the whole cast of what is only the Jewish people. We know it wasn’t just Jews—this was also the extermination of homosexual people, disabled people, the Roma community, as well as Slavic and Islamic peoples. So, all these communities were being eliminated, and to use only the Jewish people as the reference is problematic.”
He further added, “The counter to that is to think in terms of crimes against humanity, not just crimes against the Jewish people. In justice, you have to think in terms of an international tribunal, not a tribunal for Jews. Because again, you’re downgrading the suffering of the Jewish people.”
As the discussion drew to a close, the panellists explored what solidarity looks like in practice. Maikey argued that solidarity must go beyond surface-level gestures to actively engage with the lived realities of oppressed communities. “For Indian activists, this means recognising the interconnectedness of struggles against casteism, communalism, and capitalism with the fight for Palestinian liberation,” Narrain said.
“Queer liberation necessitates Palestinian liberation,” Maikey said in her closing remarks. “And that liberation is incomplete without solidarity that bridges borders and movements.”