Needless to mention that it would be futile attempt to engage in democratic deliberation with A cult following which is reluctant to shed its prejudices.
Sent from my iPhone > On 20-Jul-2021, at 10:19 AM, BHAWANI SHANKAR VERMA <[email protected]> > wrote: > > right, and that should be allowed for more than 80% dsability or multiple or > seveer desability. > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Avichal Bhatnagar" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:35 PM > Subject: Re: [AI] The appalling ableism on display in S. 15 of the UP > Population Control Bill is Matched only by the even more appalling ableism on > display in this group by those who should know better > > >> As far as I understand, all the above points come from someone having >> a privileged position; the everyday realities faced by millions of >> disabled are quite different and don't get reflected at all. >> The only sensible point which I could decipher was that the exception >> should be made only for those disabled who have a very high level of >> disability which prevents them from living an independent life. >> While I agree that we should of course strive towards demolishing >> ablism in every form and at every step, yet we simply cannot live in a >> utopian world and ignore the pragmatic circumstances. >> >> >> >> >>> On 7/19/21, [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: >>> I do not regularly post in this group. However, after reading the >>> discussion >>> on S. 15 of the UP Population Control Bill, I felt compelled to speak. If >>> we >>> cannot collectively raise our voices against such blatant display of >>> ableism >>> and pure and simple discrimination, then we might as well shut this group >>> down and go home. These words sound harsh, I know, but nothing less would >>> suffice to respond to the insensitivity displayed by those supporting the >>> provisions at issue. Here are my thoughts. >>> >>> >>> >>> First, please understand what this provision [S. 15] seeks to do. It seeks >>> to inscribe into law a provision that would say that the rule that you can >>> only have two children, created by this law, will not apply in the event >>> that you have a disabled child. In such cases, you are entitled to have >>> three children. In other words, the Bill says that a disabled child simply >>> does not count as a child. It says that, as parents, you are entitled to a >>> do over if a child with a disability is born to you. >>> >>> >>> >>> Second, if the above does not constitute a frontal assault to the dignity >>> of >>> disabled bodies, I wonder what does. If the above provision does not negate >>> the personhood of the disabled, I wonder what does. If the above provision >>> does not inscribe into law the most horrific stereotypes about having a >>> disability that we all seek to confront everyday in direct and indirect >>> ways, I wonder what does. >>> >>> >>> >>> Third, to say that the bill would have been criticized even if it did not >>> have such a provision and hence we should just put up with our statutorily >>> sanctioned humiliation and negation, I am sorry to say, reflects a way of >>> thinking that is dismissive at best and appallingly discriminatory at >>> worst. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Fourth, the claim that the criticism of the provision is only academic and >>> is divorced from prevailing ground realities is an equally problematic >>> view. >>> It is true that many still view having a disabled child as a curse. That >>> they feel that a disabled offspring will not be able to contribute >>> productively. That she would be an undue burden. And that there is a need >>> to >>> have an able-bodied child to compensate for this deficit. However, the >>> existence of this thought process is a reason for us to fight tooth and >>> nail >>> against any attempts to codify these beliefs into law. We must do >>> everything >>> we can to interrogate, contest and dismantle this type of thinking. Not put >>> our weight behind those who seek to legitimize it by inscribing it into >>> law. >>> In other words, the ground realities that one member speaks of are the very >>> reason why we should fight back against this provision. >>> >>> >>> >>> Fifth, as another member points out, the selfsame arguments that are being >>> deployed to support this provision have been used in the past to support >>> attempts to kill the girl child. Many facts of life that confront us in >>> everyday life are horrendous and unfortunate. That is no reason to defend a >>> law that seeks to sanction these unfortunate realities. >>> >>> >>> >>> Sixth, as disabled people who strive everyday to realize our full potential >>> and to break down the barriers standing in our way, it is profoundly sad >>> that some of us are willing to unhesitatingly subscribe to the stereotypes >>> that this provision embodies. Do we really think that a disabled life >>> matters less? That a disabled person cannot contribute productively? That >>> they cannot do as well as, if not surpass, their able-bodied siblings? To >>> the extent that this is so, isn't the society we inhabit also to blame for >>> the disabled not realizing their full potential? >>> >>> >>> >>> Lastly, granted, some children may actually be born with disabilities that >>> are so severe and limiting that they may not be able to lead lives of >>> productivity or a life without significant pain. Even if we accept for a >>> moment that a deviation from the two child norm would be okay in such >>> cases, >>> that is not what this bill does. The provision does not deal with >>> disabilities meeting such a high bar. It applies to those with all 21 >>> disabilities covered by the 2016 Act, irrespective of their impact on the >>> disabled child. >>> >>> >>> >>> I will conclude with the painful observation that the ableism displayed by >>> the disabled sometimes surpasses that exhibited by the able-bodied. With >>> friends like these, who needs enemies? >>> >>> >>> >>> Rahul >>> >>> -- >>> Disclaimer: >>> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the >>> person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; >>> >>> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails >>> sent through this mailing list.. >>> >>> >>> Search for old postings at: >>> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >>> "AccessIndia" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >>> email to [email protected]. >>> To view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/000501d77c15%24d135a430%2473a0ec90%24%40gmail.com. >>> >> >> >> -- >> Avichal Bhatnagar >> Assistant Professor at >> Department of English, Sri Guru Nanak Dev Khalsa College >> University of Delhi >> >> Doctoral research scholar at >> School of Humanities, >> Delhi Technological University (formerly Delhi College of Engineering) >> >> -- >> Disclaimer: >> 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the >> person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; >> >> 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails >> sent through this mailing list.. >> >> >> Search for old postings at: >> http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ >> --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >> Groups "AccessIndia" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/CADsKw8rS17TQJF293-MhRM5KA38DzxeX8WkpgkMwPt9Hwjo7ww%40mail.gmail.com. >> > > -- > Disclaimer: > 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the > person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; > > 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails > sent through this mailing list.. > > > Search for old postings at: > http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ > --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "AccessIndia" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/000301d77d22%24ae0c9820%242201a8c0%40DESKTOPEJC5P80. -- Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list.. Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "AccessIndia" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/accessindia.org.in/d/msgid/accessindia/558E7893-AABD-4A00-905C-5DAEB75F8B58%40gmail.com.
