My friend, since I find your write up to be quite well structured and put with civility, therefore I am putting below a few observations: 1. Privilege is when one doesn't know the daily challenges being faced by someone, and they just indulge in academic jargon. Such a point of view, no matter how good academically, is totally devoid of the real picture, hence it fails to solve any problem. Being a person with hundred percent visual impairment, I can vouch from my personal experience that ablism has not been demolished in anyway, it has just been made clandestine. As a disabled, I would be the first one to advocate for a world free of the same, but the daily experience which not just me but countless others have paint a completely different picture. I might sound too pessimistic here, but what I have experienced is that the world looks towards the disabled either for inspiration, or because they are bound by certain norms or laws. Forget the binary of the disabled vs the nondisabled, I can show you chasm within the disability sector itself. >From my experience as a student in various universities of Delhi, I have observed that their is no united clarion call for ending the so called ablism, but each category of disability is trying to out do the other. I agree that the bar of disability for this provision needs to be kept high, but if we say that such a provision shouldn't be there at all will be highly unfair. It is because unlike the other margenalised sections such as women, SC's and ST's, we disabled are politically nonexistent. Who would ensure that the disabled child, if born within the ambit of the two child policy will not be constantly harassed? Take a survey of any blind school, and you will find that the attitude of a large number of parents towards their blind offspring is extremely cold; won't it aggravate the problem? Those who believe that laws, and only laws are enough to solve any and every problem should introspect that why do those issues still remain in the society, for which we have stringent laws for the passed few decades? While I strongly believe that we must strive to break the stereotypical barriers at every step, but we must also not surround ourselves with a cocoon of utopia. Hope my position is clear to one and all.
On 7/21/21, Tony Kurian <[email protected]> wrote: > Hello, > > I am not someone who posts here regularly but I think I would be > abdicating my responsibility as a person with disability if I do not > state my views on the UP population bill. > > At the outset, let me be clear that Sec 15 of the bill is ableist and > is discriminatory towards persons with disability. As Rahul observed, > the bill is giving legal credence to an ableist mindset that signals > to society that it is totally cool not to count your child with > disability as a productive member. As the discussion here has brought > out important points, let me restrict myself to a few observations. > To state that ableism exists on ground hence the ableist provisions of > the bill need no opposition is extremely problematic. That some of our > members have opted for a political submission rather than asking the > right questions and expose the ableism contained in the bill > demonstrates internalised ableism. The job of disability rights > activists (hoping that everyone participating here identifies as one) > is to oppose ableism on all fronts. The task at hand for us is to show > how the bill encourages an ableist mindset and humiliates the dignity > of persons with disability. > > Secondly, to call any opposition to the bill as “privilege” is a > deliberate attempt to obfuscate the ableism in the bill. As a person > with disability, if I am talking to a poor person from rural UP about > the ableism in the bill, I am not being privileged. Put differently, > privilege is context specific. > > Thirdly, the so-called pragmatic circumstances are continuously > evolving and are amenable to change. We are here because a few > individuals before us decided to change the ground reality and > pragmatic circumstances by striving to opposing ableism. What would > have happened if they had decided not to fight, because ableism is a > ground reality, right? > > It is a matter of happiness that organizations like NPRD have come > forward with a clear position on this and hope more organizations join > them in this. We should rightfully demand the government to remove Sec > 15 and instead focus on increasing life opportunity for persons with > disability. Rather than denigrating the dignity of persons with > disability, government should focus on measures which will encourage > parents to view their children with disability in a much more positive > light. Put simply, I would like my parents to see me as a person with > dignity and I would like every person with disability to feel the > same. > regards, > Tony > > On 21/07/2021, 'Mahendragalani' via AccessIndia > <[email protected]> wrote: >> Hello my young friend, wrong word, it is not preaching from Austria, but >> observation. I have also observed in the past, when you don’t find any >> sensible argument, you start, in my case like preaching from Austria. >> Last >> time around, you are making fun of someone, who made spelling mistakes. >> Me >> you can Tryon criticize about being in Austria, however what will you >> say, >> to Rahul and Ketan who are very much in India? >> >> Mahendra Galani, With warm regards. Sent from my iPhone >> >>> On 21.07.2021, at 09:53, Avichal Bhatnagar <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> We do not need preaching from people sitting in Austria, thank you. >>> >>>> On 7/20/21, 'Mahendra Galani' via AccessIndia >>>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hi All >>>> i am surprise, that we have a member here, who in order to support >>>> his political view, is justifying this inhuman approach. >>>> >>>> as Rahul said, we dont need enemy >>>> , if we have such friend. >>>> At 03:53 PM 7/20/2021 +0530, you wrote: >>>>> Dear Friends, >>>>> >>>>> I too don't post often but what Rahul has written has compelled me to >>>>> do so. I agree 100% with Rahul and believe that under no >>>>> circumstances should this be allowed. In fact, if I understand the >>>>> case law correctly, this can be challenged under Art. 21 of >>>>> constitution as disabled children are negated. >>>>> >>>>> In fact, I am against ableism of all kinds: even when we are forced >>>>> to behave in a particular manner though that may be inconvenient due >>>>> to our disabilities as that is the norm in so-called able world, I am >>>>> strongly against this. I don't like the use of "normal" word to >>>>> describe people who are not disabled. We need not bring privilege or >>>>> anything. If millions have problems bringing up disabled children, >>>>> there are ample examples to show that disabled who are educated have >>>>> done far better than their able-bodied siblings in lives and have >>>>> helped their parents/siblings. In any case, population control cannot >>>>> and should not be controlled by a law. Education and other measures >>>>> could be brought in to do it. >>>>> >>>>> Ketan >>>>> >>>>> On 19/07/2021, Rahul Bajaj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> One of us is arguing that it is wrong to treat the disabled as being >>>>>> inferior and nonexistent and as good as dead. The other is saying >>>>>> that >>>>>> this >>>>>> is totally okay. Why? Because in the real world, the disabled should >>>>>> learn >>>>>> to put up with their denigration and humiliation. And yet I am the >>>>>> one >> >> -- >> 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/CABC6842-FB77-4751-9187-87C879583D53%40chello.at. >> > > -- > 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/CAB0hRFWPqybsBwQrevZ4T6jxnRA9j2xuGLwCgB4Ao7kyJob9tA%40mail.gmail.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/CADsKw8p5mPaXWV1ATGm0_LYyP0AL4tGVs9FN3GE_ObNAuTCMMw%40mail.gmail.com.
