Hi all I am compelled to post here and add a voice to support rahul and ketans positions and line of thought. Have we reflected that our disability community has a hierarchy within itself. Where many folks are okay with their disability and would not tolerate ableism or discrimination towards persons living with their own disabilities but have very different and ableist positions towards "severe" and "multiple disabilities". Inequality towards other disabilities is tolerated and promoted on grounds of incapability, practicality, privilege, and it being very difficult overall to support them. Many a times eugenics is promoted and accepted instead of questioning lack of social security and high levels of social stigma and stereotypes. The UP bill is a classic example of the stigma and assumption of incapability surrounding all persons with disabilities. It is based on the assumption that having a disabled child is as good as not having a child at all. Why I wonder? The assumption that disabled persons are a burden to families, that disabled persons will never be providers of care, that disabled persons will not contribute to the economy. Such a stance in the law will roll back all the rights that many of our seniors and our generation have fought for through the years. This is based on very archaic thinking of disability and sets up ground for further humiliation, ridicule and isolation of disabled persons and their families.
As far as privilege is concerned, it is not that only privileged disabled persons can make something of their lives. I could cite examples of privileged disabled persons doing nothing in life and disabled persons coming from economical and other marginalisations doing really well in life for themselves and even for their families. And what is this assumption anyway that children will take care of parents if they are non disabled? Why then is a disabled child not counted? To add to this, this is a huge reproductive justice and rights issue here as well. But may be we will start that discussion another time. The law makers use the ableism in society and within our communities to advance their own stigmatised agendas . They are able to push forth discriminatory provisions and bills because we also somewhere let them do it. We have to oppose this, we must at least be conscious of this and raise our voices where ever we can. Warmest regards, Nidhi Goyal Founder and Executive Director: Rising Flame A National Award winning organisation Global civil society advisor: UN Women President: Association for Women's Rights in Development Core group member on PWD: NHRC, India Diversity and Inclusion task force: FICCI -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Ketan Kothari Sent: 20 July 2021 15:54 To: [email protected] 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 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 showcasing privilege. > > Makes a great deal of sense. > > Rahul > > > Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef> > ________________________________ > From: [email protected] <[email protected]> > on behalf of Avichal Bhatnagar <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 8:35:38 PM > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > 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/PS2P216MB1155D606725F58A5DA6C02B5A6E19%40PS2P216MB1155.KORP216.PROD.OUTLOOK.COM. > -- Ketan Kothari Phone: [r] 02228283281, Cell: +919987550614 +917021054612 Facebook: facebook.com/muktaketan Twitter: @muktaketan Skype ID: Ketan3333 -- 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/CAC4kLWWThK_Qxe1panb85m-s8QN_u1dANBwTDQ_5deHbk2p7Hg%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/000001d77ebf%241387f710%243a97e530%24%40gmail.com.
