The Jekyll and Hyde bill

Republic Day, 2014 VS SUNDER is a professor of mathematics who works out of a wheelchair at the Institute of Mathematical Sciences.He reports and blogs about disability and diversity at http:// differentstrokes-vss .blogspot.in What follows is a neutral portrayal of the facts regarding the chasm that has opened within the so-called `disability sector' so the reader can make an independent opinion. In December 2006, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted the UNCRPD (or the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities), which sought (a) to promote, protect and ensure the full and equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms by all persons with disabilities; it gave an inclusive definition of `persons with disabilities; (b) an unconditional Right to Equality and Non Discrimination to all persons with disabilities, on par with others; (c) recognition of legal capacity for all persons with disabilities, and recognition that persons with disabilities enjoy legal capacity on an equal basis with others in all aspects of life; (d) to categorically state that non-consensual institutionalization of persons with disabilities is violative of Article 14; etc.,etc., (with the general attitude being extremely inclusive and sensitive). In October 2007, India became a signatory to this convention. Already, India had enacted a Persons with Disabilities Act in 1995 which reads great on paper, but has been toothless to implement till today because of ambiguous language and convenient escape clauses. In an attempt to make the UNCRPD dream a reality, an effort was initiated in 2009 to draft a Right to Disabilities Bill at which time several people and organisations were involved in the drafting, who stressed that certain matters should be absolutely non-negotiable; and when there was some resistance to including this `non-negotiable list', at least three people resigned from the drafting committee. This attempt to create and push a suitable RPD Bill continued for some years and made periodic signs in 2012 (when an actual draft was made, which already had some critical responses), and in 2013 (when some noises were made but no draft was sighted) - of coming into being but suddenly in December 2013, there were campaigns in the social media to have the RPD Bill tabled and passed before the elections and possible emergence of a new government. There was an unseemly haste to have this Bill passed before a draft was even made available for inspection. And now we hear that UPA stating that it is committed to tabling and passing the RPD Bill in the budget session, and this `Bill' has not been made available for public scrutiny. When one finally got to see this Bill after much ferreting around, one finds that there are so many divergences in word and spirit between this RPD Bill of 2014 and the UNCRPD, that several organisations of the Disability sector have been asking that `this Bill be immediately scrapped' while some die-hards in Delhi are still trying to push the bill through for unfathomable reasons. Here are some of those divergences that have caused all the anger, bitterness and sense of betrayal among the formal brand of disability activists: In contrast with the UNCRPD, the RPD Bill (a) defines a PWD as one with long term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which hinder (sic) his full and effective participation in society equally with others, and turns the focus from removal of barriers to the impairment of the person, and even lists a schedule of categories of a newly created class of people with high support needs (and naturally takes care to omit the careful definition given by UNCRPD of the term discrimination on the basis of disability); (b) states that the right against discrimination exists unless it can be shown that the impugned act or omission is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim; (c) wishes to appoint Limited guardians for persons who are declared to be mentally ill and incapable of taking care of themselves and making legally binding decisions for themselves, stating that the limited guardian shall take all legally binding decisions on his or her behalf, in consultation with that person; for instance, under a system of guardianship, persons with disabilities who are of marriageable age will be unable to exercise the right to marry and to found a family on the basis of free and full consent of the intending spouses.

Both sides want something quickly: one side wants this `Bill' to be passed, and the other wants this to NOT be passed in its current regressive form!