I have been blessed with having been accepted as a member of a loosely knit group of individuals who call themselves the Disability Rights Alliance which contains quite an erudite and right-thinking group of people - from legally trained minds to people with decades of experience of work in `the sector', and here is what one of them had to say about this contentious RPWD Bill of 2014:
A reading of the Bill reveals that there is a complete lack of
understanding of the approach of the UNCRPD on the part of the drafters.
From abridged definitions (which are extremely crucial and clear under the
convention), to plain callousness in the arbitrary and unresearched 'list'
of disabilities, the RPWD Bill fails utterly in its lofty self stated
objective to implement the UNCRPD. Some of the most crucial provisions of
the UNCRPD which were celebrated in the disability movement – the adoption of the social model of definition of disability in Article 1, the concept
of reasonable accommodation under Article 2, the right to full legal
capacity under Article 12, the right to independent living under Article
19, the right to accessibility under Article 9, respect for home and the
family under Article 23, the right to inclusive education under Article 24,
and the right to participation in political and public life, have all been
either diluted or outright ignored by the drafting committee of this Bill.
And what I liked best about her summary of our various discussions on the topic was her
CONCLUSION
*IF* India's ratification of the CRPD was of informed consent (and with
'sound mind' by current law!),
*if* the RPWD Bill is to comply with the CRPD,
*if* historical injustice is to be ended with an emancipatory, equalising
legislation that aggressively promotes participation of disabled citizens
in realising their potential,
and *if* public's feedback is genuinely being sought in this and other
legislative and policy matters;
it cannot be this murky token excuse of public participation.
A section of the disability sector's legal members are of the opinion that
the preponderence of changes that are required to be made to the existing
draft (refer attached annexure) would be better served by a fresh law
instead of a much patched draft.
If so to avoid the current dismal state of affairs, needless delay and
waste of public's time and money clear, fair and transparent guidelines are
a must, and since currently lacking, are the need of the hour.
The DRA seeks a cross-sectoral representation of 4 DRA member
representatives to meet with the Standing Committee to enable India with
the disability law she so desperately needs.
What I really like about this is that it says, in a much more poitically acceptble way, the exact same thing I said in a possibly much more crude and abrasive fashion in my last post. Bottom line: FLUSH THIS BILL DOWN WITH THE WASTE-MATTER AND MAKE A FRESH START TOWARDS A UNCRPD-COMPATIBLE DRAFT OF ONE.
A reading of the Bill reveals that there is a complete lack of
understanding of the approach of the UNCRPD on the part of the drafters.
From abridged definitions (which are extremely crucial and clear under the
convention), to plain callousness in the arbitrary and unresearched 'list'
of disabilities, the RPWD Bill fails utterly in its lofty self stated
objective to implement the UNCRPD. Some of the most crucial provisions of
the UNCRPD which were celebrated in the disability movement – the adoption of the social model of definition of disability in Article 1, the concept
of reasonable accommodation under Article 2, the right to full legal
capacity under Article 12, the right to independent living under Article
19, the right to accessibility under Article 9, respect for home and the
family under Article 23, the right to inclusive education under Article 24,
and the right to participation in political and public life, have all been
either diluted or outright ignored by the drafting committee of this Bill.
And what I liked best about her summary of our various discussions on the topic was her
CONCLUSION
*IF* India's ratification of the CRPD was of informed consent (and with
'sound mind' by current law!),
*if* the RPWD Bill is to comply with the CRPD,
*if* historical injustice is to be ended with an emancipatory, equalising
legislation that aggressively promotes participation of disabled citizens
in realising their potential,
and *if* public's feedback is genuinely being sought in this and other
legislative and policy matters;
it cannot be this murky token excuse of public participation.
A section of the disability sector's legal members are of the opinion that
the preponderence of changes that are required to be made to the existing
draft (refer attached annexure) would be better served by a fresh law
instead of a much patched draft.
If so to avoid the current dismal state of affairs, needless delay and
waste of public's time and money clear, fair and transparent guidelines are
a must, and since currently lacking, are the need of the hour.
The DRA seeks a cross-sectoral representation of 4 DRA member
representatives to meet with the Standing Committee to enable India with
the disability law she so desperately needs.
What I really like about this is that it says, in a much more poitically acceptble way, the exact same thing I said in a possibly much more crude and abrasive fashion in my last post. Bottom line: FLUSH THIS BILL DOWN WITH THE WASTE-MATTER AND MAKE A FRESH START TOWARDS A UNCRPD-COMPATIBLE DRAFT OF ONE.
No comments:
Post a Comment