----- Original Message ----- From: Nilesh Singit To: srinu vasulu ; Amba Salelkar ; J P Gadkari ; Dipendra Manocha ; Ketan Kothari ; rajive.raturi ; Jo ; Basavaraju ; Sayaji Hande ; Dheepakh Srinivas ; Reena Sen ; Anuroopa Giliyal ; hansadhwani saba prateeksha ; Radhika Alkazi ; Meenu Bhambhani ; Trinayani Ritika Sahni ; indumathi rao ; Sunil Abraham ; Manisha Gupte ; VIDYA SAGAR ; kanchanpamnani ; Narayanan NAD ; Murali Padmanabhan ; [email protected] ; Asif Iqbal ; [email protected] ; Sai Padma.Murthy ; Syamala G ; Saptarshi Mandal ; [email protected] ; Jeeja Ghosh ; Reshma Val ; Suranjana Ghosh Aikara ; Mitra Jyothi ; Shakeel Mohammed ; ian cardozo ; Punitha Suresh ; Dr. Sam Taraporevala ; [email protected] ; Shivani Gupta ; Nilesh Singit ; National Platform For The Rights of the Disabled (NPRD) ; Prasanna Kumar ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; anindita btamta ; sudha kaul ; Nazir ; Deepak Thanumalaya meenakshi nathan ; Anandhi Viswanathan ; Vibha Krishnamurthy ; Rajiv Rajan ; Anil Joshi ; [email protected] ; Ruma Banerjee ; Shanti Auluck ; To: Amar Jain ; [email protected] ; Sudha Ramamoorthy ; Ramakrishnan ; Maneesh Gupta ; Charudatta Jadhav ; V Bhargavi ; [email protected] ; Arman Ali ; sudha ; Meenakshi Balasubramaniam ; H PKotian ; Rishikesh K ; Vijayakumar Advocate ; Nirmita Narasimhan ; Kakarla Nageswaraiah ; Action for Autism ; Santosh Kumar Rungta ; Chidambaranathan ; Jayshree Raveendran ; Andhjan Kalyan Trust Dhoraji ; [email protected] ; Aarth Astha ; [email protected] ; poonamnatarajan ; shekhar borker ; Mrinalini Ravi ; Dlu South ; samarthyam ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; viakalathur sunder ; [email protected] ; [email protected] ; rijulkochhar ; amruthreddy kasarla ; Srinivas Karnati ; sudhakara reddy ; Javed Abidi ; J L Kaul ; Dhana Sekar ; Rajul Padmanabhan ; [email protected] Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2014 2:34 AM Subject: Not so disabled-friendly
Not so disabled-friendly The proposed Disabilities Bill is an exercise in haste and expediency by Ajey Sangai and Manav Kapur The past few weeks have seen intense criticism of the draft Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2014. It appears to be deliberately mendacious, paying lip-service to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) while ignoring its basic features. Certain aspects of the Bill as well as the opacity of the procedure through which they were formulated are deeply troubling to those concerned with the disability sector. India’s ratification of the UNCRPD in 2007 obliges it to bring Indian law in line with the same. The convention marks a paradigm shift in the way disability is conceptualised. It approaches disability through a ‘social’ rather than a ‘medical’ model, recognising that “disability… results from the interaction between impairments and… attitudinal and environmental barriers”. Therefore, a respect for differences and “full and effective participation” is guaranteed. This entails securing the legal capacity of disabled persons to make decisions for themselves, through supported decision-making when necessary. It also requires an examination of the de jure and de facto discrimination against persons with disabilities, which occur due to accessibility barriers and unsupportive environments. The draft Bill runs contrary to all this. The mere peppering of definitions or provisions with little by way of functional roles provides for greater incoherence rather than a sustained engagement with principles laid down in the UNCRPD. Indeed, the law does not even provide a functional definition of ‘discrimination’ while claiming to prevent it. By not explicitly recognising legal capacity as an express right (as earlier drafts had suggested), but instead laying a “duty on the government”, the Bill seems to perpetuate the medical model of disability, placing limits of presumed incompetence. Under the patronising rubric of “best interest”, the rights of persons with disabilities are critically impaired. Various experts have spoken of their deep unease in defining benchmarks like “40 percent of the impairment” in allowing, among other things, reservation in educational institutions and employment under this Bill. When a person with disability is so certified, s/he is also deemed to be a person with high support need, thus making even the basic concept of support contingent on medical certification. The approval of ‘plenary guardianship’ typifies the manner in which the Bill runs contrary to the UNCRPD regime. Instead of a ‘limited guardianship’ where a person with disability would be supported and his/her decision-making facilitated, the Bill allows substituted decision-making “when limited guardianship cannot be awarded”. In doing so without sufficient guidance to the courts, it takes away autonomy and agency. The other major worry is the lack of transparency in the way in which the 2014 draft was created, and its lack of accountability to most of the original stakeholders in the drafting process. The Bill has had a complicated history. In 2009, the Centre constituted a committee to help it formulate the UNCRPD-compliant law. It included members of government, academics and civil society, along with those who represented a cross-section of disabilities. A consultative process with other disabled persons and organisations culminated in the 2011 draft Bill. In 2012, the social justice ministry made some amendments. However, the 2014 version is at stark variance with both the earlier drafts. The Centre owes an explanation for these changes, as well as the fact that it did not follow a similar consultative process before incorporating them into the Bill. There has been talk of amending the Bill through the addition of a set of 20 non-negotiables. While this seems acceptable in theory, it’s doubtful if it is feasible to do so with such a flawed Bill. The Bible tells us that the letter killeth, whereas the spirit giveth life. The draft Bill, which claims to be in consonance with the UNCRPD, while at the same time flouting its most significant provisions, stellarly demonstrates this dichotomy. India has yet a chance to enact a law that gives its disabled citizens the right to live a full and rich life. Human lives should not be squandered at the anvil of haste and political expediency. Sangai and Kapur are Assistant Professors, Nalsar University of Law, Hyderabad [email protected]. (Published in Tehelka Magazine, Volume 11 Issue 9, Dated 1 March 2014) yours truly, Nilesh Singit ☎ +91 9920558867 Contact Me about.me Facebook Blogger Google Maps WordPress Twitter Contact me: nileshsingit nileshsingit Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send a message to [email protected] with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in 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..
