Advocating a bold attitude

Malay Desai

At a time when self-promotion is second nature to many and earning print space often requires desperate efforts, we are surprised to meet 42-year-old Nilesh Singit. The kurta-clad disability rights activist, appearing more like a JJ School of Arts student, flatly refuses to be interviewed, citing ‘typical’ treatment meted out to the disabled in ‘such’ articles. We agree, many stories of differently-abled people are either too sympathetic or overtly glorifying, but assert that we won’t veer in either direction.

“Things are blown out of proportion, a small achievement is written as ‘overcoming all odds..’ he tells us later, having agreed after a mediator’s word. So here are some facts about Singit’s life, with the least usage of superlatives: Nilesh belongs to a large joint family hailing from Karnataka but has grown up in Mumbai. The cerebral palsy (a group of movement disorders caused by damage to the brain before, during or just after birth) he was born with was nearly invisible for his siblings and cousins whom he shared a close-knit childhood with. At his school (special one for persons with disability – PWD, an idea he’s against) and later, his inclusion factor wore off a bit. “Over the years as a PWD and as a rights advocate, I have realised that things come in packages of advantages and disadvantages. I have come to accept it, why rue it? Those who ‘acquire’ disability have difficulty accepting it,” he feels, likening himself to a person ‘who failed the medical test by a whisker and could not pursue his/her dream of being an air force pilot.’ Surely a perspective we haven’t heard before.

It’s this attitude (and the eloquence in conveying it) that we quite relish, despite his career having enough to gush about. Once before getting on to a flight, Singit was asked for his medical certificate, which he didn’t have. A doctor was called, who then proceeded to ask him questions, to which Singit interrupted and stopped short of lambasting him and the crew, before making his way into the flight. Turned out that the doc was asking questions related to Down’s Syndrome. “Where’s your certificate?” Singit asked them back.

His flamboyance may have to be tucked in at various moments though, as he’s working in one of the most challenging sectors of the government – advocacy. As a research officer at the Centre for Disability Studies, Nalsar University (Hyderabad), he writes papers, conducts audits and litigates for the betterment of PWDs in India, and not all people he meets are smooth to deal with. “I’ve been caught up quite a number of times in what is termed as ‘friendly fire’. I always carry a white hanky,” he claims, tongue firmly in cheek.

That said, those who know Singit well don’t really risk not taking him seriously as the man has arrived at this position after much experience in the field. An MA in Literature, he pursued disability studies and went on to play several key roles in the field – trainer, advocate of rights and researcher being some. “There is a dearth of writings on disability; as an access audit consultant I found that even though there are tonnes of data on universal design, there is not much on adaptation and customisation for an individual’s needs,” he informs. Of course, being a PWD himself was a great influence in advocating for the UNCRPD (UN Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities), an international instrument that provides PWD with the same human rights as everyone else, which is sanctioned by India. “Disability studies are the way to get the PWD in command of his/her environment and life,” he admits.

His strong opinions and voices for and against all things perfect and imperfect come out unfiltered through his writings on the web. His blog, ‘Disability News Worldwide’ is replete with informative, transformative, even evocative posts. Another blog carries his rant against the Lokpal and an old ‘open letter’ to Shah Rukh Khan, while his social network profiles bear pointers to the range of work he’s accomplished and waiting to do. But it is only after hearing his plans do we judge him as a passionate writer: “I regret not having written as much as I ought to have. I think I have in me a book or two I’d like to begin writing sooner than later.”

“I would rather write than be written about,” he says of his above mentioned reluctance, explaining that the very act of overcoming the stereotype sometimes reinforces the stereotype. We don’t know if this article would make the cut with him, but we sure have returned more insightful after having met him.

(An initiative of Trinayani, a nonprofit NGO founded by Ritika Sahni, the THIS ABILITY articles celebrates the intriguing lives of persons with disabilities. Trinayani works towards Disability Awareness and Support, communicating through workshops/seminars, print, radio, films and other electronic media.  Visit www.trinayani.org or write to us at trinayani.contact@gmail.com)

The Articles in the Series “This-Ability” are copyrighted material of Trinayani.  This Blog is carrying the series on the request of Ritika Sahni, Founder Trinayani.  Any queries or request to publish these articles please contact Ritika Sahni. The owner of this Blog is not responsible for any copyright infringement

Nilesh Singit

A law that enables

The National Advisory Council’s suggestions for strengthening the draft law on the Rights of Persons With Disabilities (PWD) is a potentially far-reaching intervention. The step is in sync with the recent notification of a separate Department for Disabilities in the Union Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, which was announced in the President’s 2012 address to Parliament. Ever since India ratified the United Nations Convention on the rights of PWDs in 2007, the formulation of a comprehensive law became imperative and these two developments suggest things are finally moving ahead. Currently, there are four separate pieces of legislation pertaining to India’s disabled population.

The earliest, the 1987 Mental Health Act, predates the discourse on affirmative action for the disabled in India and, to that extent, the status of mental illness as a disability remains ambiguous. Then, there is a separate law that deals with the creation of qualified and trained personnel for the provision of rehabilitation and education services for this segment of the population. The third, the PWD Act of 1995, is underpinned by an emphasis on anti-discrimination and guarantees of equal opportunities. Although the latter was envisaged as a comprehensive law, it did not address fully the conditions of persons with other equally severe disabling conditions. Hence the 1999 Act for people with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and multiple disabilities.

It is hardly surprising that these four laws in themselves have not mitigated the sense of apathy and bureaucratic red tape that hamper the creation of an enabling environment. The mechanisms and procedures involved are riddled with duplication and inconsistencies, as evidenced by the evolving case law over questions of jurisdiction and interpretation of different laws. More than a billion people around the world experience one or another form of disability, according to the World Health Organisation and World Bank 2011 report. On other estimates, about 10 per cent of the population in developing countries is disabled. By any reckoning, India’s numbers would be much larger than what governments are prepared to acknowledge, given the detrimental influences of poverty, illiteracy and poor health on disability. It follows that stepping up investments in health and education is one of the important ways of preventing disabilities and mitigating their impact over the long term.

Requiring service providers to furnish a declaration of conformity with the relevant laws is the other means to ensure accountability and effective enforcement. An umbrella legislation will go a long way in altering the present state of affairs.

The Hindu

"Why two different Bills on mental Health?"

Disability rights groups are up in arms against the divergent views being taken by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment on the rights of persons with disabilities.

As per the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, ratified by India, all human beings are presumed to have legal capacities. However, while the new Persons with Disabilities Act, 2011 under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment propagates the concept of “full legal capacity” of persons with disabilities as per the Convention, the draft of the Mental Health Care Act, 2010 being piloted by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare goes against the tenets of the UNCRPD.

“As someone explained to me the other day, the old Mental Health Act could forcibly cage people in a mental asylum for up to 90 days; whereas the new draft envisages caging people for up to 30 days. And, the signature of two psychiatrists is enough to make that happen,” says Javed Abidi, Director, National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People.

Wondering why there was a need to have two different laws as mental health was covered in the draft Persons with Disabilities Act, Mr. Abidi told The Hindu that the two views were diagrammatically opposite. “So, which view will ultimately prevail? What is Government of India’s position on legal capacity and the rights of people living with mental illness? The time has come to settle this extremely complex and yet critical matter,” he said, adding that he had brought this to the attention of the Union Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Mukul Wasnik.

“Logically, this should have been settled long ago. That is why we have been saying that the Social Justice and Empowerment Ministry has failed to discuss, debate and settle substantive issues. The non-governmental organisations in whom trust was placed were just too happy in each other’s company, listening to each other’s voices and patting each other’s back. Neither did they listen to people with disabilities, nor did they engage with the bureaucracy,” Mr Abidi said.

Pointing out that there was a huge gap between the positions of the two Ministries, Mr. Abidi said the draft of the Mental Health Care Act had been sent to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, but have received no comments have been received so far. “While Ministry of Health and Family Welfare is going ahead with another consultation next week, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment should attend the meeting and sort out the issues,” Mr. Abidi has suggested to Mr. Wasnik.

The Persons with Disabilities Act grants all legal rights to the differently abled persons to decide even on their treatment, the proposed law drafted by the Health and Family Welfare Ministry categorises persons with mental illness as those who do not need any support or need minimal support and those who do need support.

The Hindu

Let Us ACT Together!

Article on Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act working draft

From its very conception, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act has been fraught with controversies; quite a surprising situation given that most factions fighting for disability rights in the nation supposedly desire to present a united front. India, having signed and ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UN CRPD) in October 2007 with astounding alacrity, took almost three years to decide to draft a new piece of legislation, instead of bringing about over 100 amendments to the existing The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995, to align laws in the country with international obligations.

The recent past has seen a flurry of activity in the written media about the working draft of the Act that was released on the 20th of November, 2010. As is the situation in case of every decision dealing with a great number of people with divergent ideas, this draft too has come under fire on several grounds and has received bouquets as well. The only crucial factor, however, is that the draft, termed as a working draft seeks not to be a decision, but a deliberative instrument meant to change as substantive suggestions come in.

One of the principal opponents of the law, Mr. Javed Abidi, Convenor of the Disability Rights Group, is of the opinion that the current draft legislation is, in entirety, against the letter and spirit of the UN CRPD. His opinion is based on the belief that the voices of persons with disabilities went unheard in the drafting process and that the Committee set up to draft the law is inept and displays a lack of “brain trust”. He has made it clear that in his belief, the Committee has lost any faith that he had in it and that it, along with the legal consultant, ought to be dismissed. Taking a strongly opposing stance, Mr. Prasanna Pincha, Special Rapporteur at the National Human Rights Commision, in his open letter detailing his opinion of the draft on first reading, states that “the working draft, in a certain sense, is way more radical/progressive than even the UNCRPD.” He goes on to congratulate the Committee and the legal consultant for executing the task of drafting such landmark legislation “with remarkable sensitivity and alacrity”.

Mr. Abidi insists that expert knowledge and the requirements of persons with disabilities have been disregarded time and again by the legal consultant, Dr. Amita Dhanda, and the Committee. On the other hand, the legal consultant informs that sub-groups had their deliberations with the legal consultant after consulting with larger civil society. These opinions were proactively obtained by committee members, for example on women with disabilities, even whilst in consultation with the legal consultant. The duty to seek opinion of civil society was on Committee members’ not the consultant; it was a duty which the members fulfilled in both letter and spirit. Another source who was intrinsically involved in the drafting process and worked on accessibility points out that the civil society has been involved throughout. The one meeting in September where the civil society was invited, “they derailed the entire process”. Also, the chair was always open to suggestions via e-mail. Mr. Mahesh Chandrasekhar, Advocacy Coordinator at CBR Forum opines that the manner in which the draft law has been published without any explicit statement soliciting civil society participation facilitates the creation of a situation where “the few people who have been in someways [sic] connected to the members of the committee are somehow trying to be engaged in this process”

It is, however, interesting to note that the very idea behind having a working draft is to listen to the suggestions of experts and concerned parties and make changes if required. The first explanatory note stating that “this working draft has been put together so that the Committee, the Disability sector, the larger civil society and the duty bearers can through a process of dialogue and deliberation arrive at a draft which can be accepted by all” seems like an explicit enough solicitation of expert opinion and civil society participation. It seems unwise to squander such an opportunity, basing one’s arguments, against the fruit of eight months’ worth of effort of numerous individuals, on grounds such as the fact that the Committee met for short hours with long gaps of forty days in between and that it was “lazy”. While much of the criticism leveled against those involved in drafting the law may be justified, one wonders whether it makes a substantive difference in ensuring there exists robust disability rights legislation within the nation. Given the parallels being drawn between the drafting process of the UN CRPD and that of the draft law under discussion, it would perhaps be pertinent to highlight the united efforts of the disability sector in the case of the former to present constructive criticism. The remarkable contribution of disability rights groups in the framing of the UN CRPD came from a conscientious attempt to criticize effectively and provide feasible alternatives. It certainly would be preferable if those criticizing the current working draft had substantive changes in mind and alternatives to offer, as was the case during the drafting of the UN CRPD. While much has been said about representatives who weren’t allowed a say in the drafting of the law, the fact that deliberations on the working draft are on and this is the ideal time to send in any substantive or structural changes that one would want to see in the draft seems to be ignored.

A question that has gained prominence of late is the suggestion of a Disability Code with dedicated legislation for special situations and for authorities such as the Disability Rights Authority. The suggestion was made for several reasons, such as the requirement of dedicated legislation that details the functioning of important bodies like the DRA and the constraint in space if an all encompassing law was to be drafted. Critics claim that this is against the wishes of the disability sector and is legally not viable while Dr. Dhanda states that it is a mere suggestion that arose out of practical discomfort and that it would effectively deal with issues of reconciling inherent differences and also allow for greater detailing to define the accountability of the DRA or rules governing it, etc. Mr. Pincha also wholly endorsed the concept, affirming that “common law to address commonalities, and specific laws, to address specificities depending on need and necessity” is what is required. A meeting held by CBR Forum in Bangalore on the 20th of December simply concluded that the idea required further discussion on public forums. All that this goes to show is that various shades of opinion exist within the disability sector and constructive suggestions and open discussions alone can hope to solve the deadlock one seems to notice forming. What effort has, thus far, been expended at criticizing issues that can neither be mended nor bear any consequence to the progress of the law, could perhaps now be used constructively to build on the foundation that the working draft sets.

It has been said quite succinctly that “There is no odor so bad as that which arises from goodness tainted.” One cannot help feeling that those advocating unity amongst and justice for the 70 million people with disabilities in India are the very same stalwarts who leave the sector fragmented. It is, perhaps, time for sincere attempts at reconciliation and for real and substantive criticism, if this landmark piece of legislation detailing the rights of the aforementioned 70 million people is to finally materialise.

Anindita Mukherjee

http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2011/01-04-rights-of-person-disability-act-draft-part1.html

http://news.oneindia.in/feature/2011/01-04-rights-of-person-disability-act-draft-part2.html

Initial comments and observations on the new draft law

Of late, I have finished taking a quick and cursory look at the new draft law (the working draft as it has been aptly described) which has been updated following conclusion of the last two-day meeting of the new law committee constituted for the purpose of developing a new legislation to replace the existing PWD Act.

I have been receiving any number of telephone calls from friends and activists in the disability sector requesting for my personal and initial views/comments/observations. In view of this, I hereby take this opportunity to share my initial comments/observations/views with three riders: namely, that these views are mine and that they do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization/institution that I may be associated with; That I reserve the right to express further comments/views ETC.; and, that, these views/comments are based, as stated above, on a very quick and cursory reading of the latest working draft and that I need to read the same with greater circumspection, and in greater details.

My immediate and intimate feeling on completing the first quick and cursory reading of the said working draft is that it is not a document speaking for persons with disabilities, it is persons with disabilities speaking for themselves. I wish to whole-heartedly compliment all concerned including my highly esteemed friend Dr. Amita Dhanda under whose active and able guidance her spirited team at Nalsar have put together a brilliant masterpiece of a draft following receipt of inputs from the new law committee. I must also congratulate the Committee chairperson Sudha Kaul and all the members of the committee for the hard work they put in and also for the generosity and cool-headedness demonstrated by them even in the face of all kinds of discombobulations. To my mind, the keenness of the committee and also of the legal consultant in valuing interactive dialogue with the sector is above board.

The depth and intensity of the vision of the working draftcan be better appreciated and felt as one runs through its pages with unqualified openness and unquestionable objectivity.

All this, however, is not at all to suggest that I do not have differences or disagreements at all. Yes, in places, the working draft appears to be overly radical, almost oblivious of ground realities, especially, in respect of  legal capacity to act in relation to persons belonging to certain specific categories of disabilities. Yes, it seems to have become a little too bulky and voluminous, and even unwieldy. Yes, the language and the format perhaps needs fine-tuning in order to ensure that it becomes legally and legalistically more sound.

I would also like to express my satisfaction over the fact that some of my suggestions put forth by me verbally to the person concerned only on the basis of taking a look at  some portions of the first draft brought out on the 20th of the last month have been taken care of in the current draft. These include insertion of a reference to UNCRPD in the Preamble, use of the expression “lifting/eliminating the barriers”,  in place of the expression “lowering the barriers” ETC.

Having said the foregoing, I would like to make the following initial observations/comments in an attempt to facilitate further critical and constructive reflections

• Legal capacity:  I favour the adoption of the minimalist model of legal capacity which, among other things, must recognize all persons with disabilities as persons before the law on an equal basis with others and also recognize legal capacity of persons with disabilities together with provision for support for whosoever needs that support. Such support should only be for the period, and, to the extent needed by the person concerned. Provisions for safeguards against any possible abuse of support and other relevant matters must be duly incorporated. To my mind, complete and explicit elimination of substitutive support in respect of legal capacity to act in relation to persons belonging to certain specific categories of disabilities  may not be fair and proper. Certain specific condition of certain persons may warrant substitutive support. Experience tells us that some persons in some situations or condition may not even be able to nseek support all by themselves. They b need support even to seek support. Provision only for non-substitutive support for all situations and conditions is replete with danger. Imagine a situation assuming that there is absolutely no provision for substitutive support — What happens if a supporting person/network commits a serious lapse resulting in irreparable and substantial loss to the concerned person with disability, and then takes the plea that the decision was his (concerned disabled person’s), and that the supporting person/network was only supporting that concerned disabled person in taking the decision but the ultimate decision was his. Thus, the supporting person/network may get away with impunity.  To my way of thinking, legal capacity has two components, namely, that one is recognized as a person before the law, and that one is presumed to have the ability and the maturity to comprehend the nature and possible consequences of a given action. In a situation of this ilk, one just can’t have the cake and eat it too. Besides, despite absence of criminal intent, how does a person with very profound intellectual/developmental/psychosocial disability accused of an offence  take recourse to the plea of Mens Rea when the full legal capacity to act of such a person is recognized necessarily though unjustly and erroneously implying that he had the ability and maturity to comprehend the nature and possible consequences of the action she/he might be accused of? I feel that each one of us, regardless of ability or disability may need substitutive support as well. Assuming, (not admitting), that I am in a state of coma and the surgeon concerned has to perform on me a critical surgical operation which may prove fatal. Someone close to me has to decide for me. Is this not substitution? If not, what else is? For such and other like reasons, I feel that while there should be explicit provision for making all-out efforts to promote non-substitutive support, substitutive support need not and should not be altogether done away with.
  The UNCRPD also talks about support wherever such support is needed; and support can be both substitutive and non-substitutive; Otherwise, what prevented the framers of the UNCRPD to impose an explicit and  blanket ban on substitutive support? While it is all right to be surcharged with idealism, it would be prudent if the working draft reflects a more judicious combination of idealism and pragmatism.
• Disability Rights Authority (DRA):  The DRA is a very well-conceived concept albeit it needs modifications so as to be in harmony with the contents/views expressed in 1 above. The reason is not far to seek and hence, is not elaborated. After going through the powers, functions and the structure of the proposed DRA with meticulous care, I strongly feel that the proposed DRA must be set up under a separate/exlusive/dedicated statute which may be called “The Disability Rights Authority Act —“. This suggestion is being put forth given the comprehensive nature of DRA’s mandate, its powers and functions, and also its elaborate structure. Please allow me to disabuse the minds of those who feel that the DRA is intended only as a recommendatory bodywith no teeth. My reading of the proposed DRA concept leaves me convinced that it wil have ample powers ample participation of experiential and subject experts, and a number of bodies functioning under its direct supervision, control and guidance.
• Chief Commissioner and state and district Commissions: Please exercise caution and guard against the interchangeable use of the expressions “Commission” and “Commissioner” in relation to the states and districts. Even the corrected/updated draft in one or two places uses these expressions interchangeably. The proposal for a Chief Commissioner at the national level, and Commission at the state and district levels is innovative, imaginative, and it would be interesting to see how it works.
• Education: The chapter on education has been very comprehensively drafted and rightly so. While it justly and emphatically provides for inclusive education at all levels, it also mentions/recognizes the so-called special schools. However the mention/recognition of the so-called special schools has happened only in whispers and not with the kind of emphasis it merits. Therefore, there is a definite and distinct need for explicit provision, among other things, for concurrently creating and promoting more disability specific schools and strengthening the existing ones on modern and scientific lines. Such explicit provision is  necessary despite an already incorporated provision in the working draft in respect of providing education in environments that maximize academic and social development.
  Anyways, we already have exclusive schools in relation to some other non-disability areas which is fair enough as long as one gets quality education; and, assuming for a moment, that we don’t have such exclusive schools for others, nothing should stop us from incorporating what is needed. I feel that since persons with disabilities are recognized as a part of human diversity and humanity, there is little justification for encouraging the use of the expression”special schools”. Instead, we should use the expression “disability specific school”.
• Employment:  I immediately find little scope for commenting on provisions relating to employment as reflected in the working draft. However, I emphatically feel that the justification which merit reservation in promotion for SC and ST communities also applies at least, in equal measure, if not more to persons with disabilities. Hence, it is important to underscore the need for bringing about necessary amendment in the Indian Constitution as was done in the case of SC and ST communities. In some place which I am immediately unable to locate, the working draft while providing for safeguards  states that no person shall be discriminated “merely” on ground of disability implying thereby that disability could be one of the grounds, though not the sole ground of discrimination.  Therefore, Please delete the word “merely” if it still exists in the updated draft. In order to address the concerns of persons who happen to be totally blind, a portion of the reserved quota of jobs should be earmarked for them out of the reserved quota for the blind and the low vision.
• Accessing justice:  Relevant provisions are very well conceived. Just incorporate a strong provision for fast-tracking of all cases at all levels involving persons with disabilities.
• Definitions: Just one thought: This is in relation to the generic definition of persons with disabilities which is almost the same as given in Article 1 of the UNCRPD with the lone exception that the expression “long_term” has not been retained. Will this be prejudicial to the interests of the genuinely disabled?

This definition, and also the defition of “reasonable accommodation” and a number of other provisions leave me convinced that the working draft, in a certain sense, is

way more radical/progressive than even the UNCRPD.

My views in respect of the need for having a more progressive and forward looking common law compared to the current PWD Act and also the need for having additional and specific legislations to address highly specific issues of the more marginalized groups within the larger group of persons with disabilities are so well-known that they perhaps do not merit at least immediate reiteration. Common law to addres commonalities, and specific laws, to address specificities depending on need and necessity is my view. I do not favour the idea of clubbing/merging the existing laws into one Act. To my humble way of thinking, it is so utterly wrong to allege, as some seems to have alleged that the new law committee has violated its mandate. In fact, the new law committee was neither mandated to suggest repral of any laws nor to club and merge all disability specific legislations into only one legislation.

Be that as it may, it would also be in the fitness of things to suggest some amendments in the Indian Constitution to strengther the rights regime for persons with disabilities. Suggestions for such amendments must include amending of Articles 15 and 16 so that disability gets included as one of the prohibited grounds of discrimination. I am aware that suggesting constitutional amendments, strictly speaking, is not within the ambit of the new law committee’s mandate; yet, one perhaps can take this reasonable freedom.

Some more random thoughts: I am not too sure whether insertion of a definition of “barrier” will necessarily work to our advantage. Sometimes, leaving some grey areas is perhaps more advantageous. Some other times, however, it is necessary to define and demystify some expressions. For example, in my view, if any model other than the minimalist model of legal capacity is insisted, then, in my considered view, legal capacity will necessarily have to be defined and demystified.

The working draft is unique in more ways than one. I am particularly impressed by the insertion of principles of implementation and interpretation. The author has made an ingenious attempt to retain the positive jurisprudence which has been built over the years.

To allay the fears expressed by some of our friends, let me state in no uncertain terms that the current workin draft does also adequately address the concerns and aspirations of those persons with disabilities who live in the rural and remote areas. The fact of the matter is that the working draft is so all-encompassingly inclusive.

To be fair to the author of the working draft, we must not fail to appreciate the highly challenging nature and also the enormity and stupendity of the task considering that intricate diversities and diverse intricacies do exist within the larger group of persons with disabilities. It was no mean task; and, yet executed with remarkable sensitivity and alacrity.

I am afraid the Govt. may not accept this kind of a draft in toto; it nevertheless, will continue to have an immensely educative value.

I feel that we need to critique this brilliantly conceived working draft with the objectivity and openness that it merits keeping in mind our  best interests as persons with disabilities, and  putting aside our egos to the extent possible. Such critique should invariably be constructive and in good taste. If some people still choose not to eschew condemnatory language, all I wish to say is this: Just come up with an alternative and matching draft so that one is able to compare and contrast and come to a certain view in respect of the matter.

Well done, amita, well done Nalsar team, well done Sudhaji and the new law committee!

Best regards, 

Prasanna Kumar Pincha



Memorandum on Disability Code

The Background

In the explanatory note to the Working Draft we had communicated to the Committee that in our opinion in order to do full justice to the Disability Rights Authority in terms of putting down its power and responsibilities in full detail it would be appropriate if the Authority was established under a dedicated statute of its own, instead of being made to tag along with the Rights statute. We had pointed out that we felt cramped for space in working out the norms by which representation to the Authority should be worked out and accountability of members obtained. It was due to this substantive constraint along with the lack of time that prevented us from working out the linkages between the DRA and other Authorities in the disability field such as the National Trust and the Rehabilitation Council of India.

Dedicated Legislations

Since we reached the opinion that the newly established DRA should have its own legislation we also concluded that the National Trust and the RCI should have their own legislations which should spell out the specific tasks each of those authorities should carry out to implement the rights recognized in the New Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act. The National Trust should be the authority which addresses the issue of multiple discrimination and be mandated to proactively formulate policies and programs by which to ensure the equality and non discrimination of persons with disabilities who are so disadvantaged and the RCI could work on HRD. The composition and powers and functions of the three bodies should be so created that it ensures convergence of operation.

Transitory Measures

The proposed new law recognizes the paradigm of legal capacity with support. It also recognizes the right to life, liberty and integrity of all persons with disabilities. The recognition of these rights requires a re-examination of the Mental Health Act. Even if it is accepted that community living and no force are what is required for all; it is necessary to ask what should be done with the existing institutions and the inmates housed in them. The process of dismantling cannot be done without creating alternative services and there is a need to make a transit legislation which addresses this interim situation. The reason for making the transit legislation comes from the main law but to allow coherent operation and efficient implementation of these transitory measures it is better that they are contained in a separate legislation.

Demands for Comprehensive Legislation and Protection of Interests of Most Marginalized

The Committee and consequently the legal consultant has been faced with two demands: one, seeking a comprehensive all inclusive legislation; and the other asking that the interests of the most marginalized persons with disabilities should not be compromised and side-lined. The reason for seeking a comprehensive legislation as we understand is to ensure convergence in the operation of various authorities in the field and to make for more effective implementation. Whilst the group asserting the interest of the marginalized accepts the need for convergence, it fears that if such convergence is obtained in one comprehensive legislation, which absorbs all authorities then the voices of the more organized groups could drown their concerns.

Convergence in Disability Code

It is in the wake of these equally valid concerns that it was suggested that a Disability Code may be formulated which could be a legally accepted and efficient way of bringing convergence along with accommodating difference. The difference between a Code and multiple legislations in a field is that the Code has a common philosophy; common grammar and a concerted effort to ensure that each part fits into a cohesive whole. Thus for example there are number of legislations on children which occupy the field today but they do not make a Children Code because the cohesiveness of philosophy, grammar and the convergence between authorities is absent.

The difference between a Code with multiple legislations and a single comprehensive legislation is that a Code with multiple legislations allows each area to obtain the detailed and dedicated attention it requires. The Companies Act; the Income Tax Act are examples of legislations which are comprehensive but whose very comprehensiveness becomes a barrier to their efficient implementation. A Code with multiple legislations makes it easier to undertake capacity building and awareness raising of the law and it ensures that the interests of the marginalized groups are not submerged in the bulk of a large legislation.

Centre For Disability Studies Nalsar

Disability and Census of 2011

Counting the “invisible” children of Mother India.

While the current focus of political debate is on ‘caste and census,’ there is another important aspect that deserves attention. This concerns disability.  For decades after our independence, there was no effort to actually count how many of us have any disability. There were estimates-informed or otherwise- but no factual figures. All our  government’s plans and budgets, rules and regulations, proclamations and posturing were built upon shaky foundations. A new Ministry was created, staffed and has been operating for several decades on that basis. It seemed to suit every one, except the millions who were thus rendered ‘invisible’. This lasted for 54 years. But, despite their  ‘invisibility,’ the disabled and the NGOs dealing with disability made progress on the ground.

Let me illustrate with an example. There was no government or non-government organisation looking after the needs of children with cerebral palsy, till a young mother of a child with cerebral palsy set up the very first Spastics Society of India, Mumbai (now known as ADAPT-Able Disabled All People Together)) in 1972. The handful of children included her own daughter. Dr. Mithu Alur, our Chairperson, had thus created a unique institution, offering all facilities under one roof, including diagnosis, physiotherapy, physical aids, schooling, parental counselling, etc. Over time, these services also came to include research, teachers training, admission of older children in “normal” schools and colleges, job-oriented training and placements and so on. This model is now replicated in 18 States. Almost all the organisers have themselves been trained at Mumbai. These NGOs operate independently, while forming a Regional Alliance, constantly coordinating, cooperating and learning from one another.

During preparations for the Census of 2001, several NGOs (including us) approached the Census Commission with the request that they should also count the disabled in our country. Obvious arguments were put forward. Approaches were also made through the concerned departments of the Government. Unfortunately, nothing worked; we were simply told that the disabled could not be included. The NGOs were persistent; the matter was taken to the political level. Eventually, it was decided that the Census would include, for the very first time, a counting of the disabled. However, this historic decision was taken at a very late stage, in the face of consistent opposition by the Census Establishment. Perhaps, their subsequent actions were reluctant and grudging. Perhaps, there was not enough time for the necessary preparations. It is also possible that, despite their best efforts, framing of appropriate questions, their translation into the required languages, training of the enumerators etc. left much to be desired. For all these reasons, the results of the Census 2001 were deeply disappointing for the disability movement.

For example, the Census of 2001 concluded that there were only 2.13 % or 21 million Indians with any kind of disability. This was a fraction of the estimates by most experts. This has since been amply proved by a World Bank report of 2007. This report was “prepared at the request of the Government of India”. In fact, it acknowledges “the guidance of officials of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, guidance provided by an inter-ministerial Technical Advisory Group set up for the work by MSJE and consisting of representatives from the Ministries of Health, Labour, Human Resource Development and Rural development, as well as an NGO representative.” Similarly, it acknowledges the help of officials in several States including Rajasthan, Karnataka, Orissa, Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. In short, the World Bank Team had the full backing and support of the Government of India and many State governments. The report is entitled ‘People with Disabilities in India: From Commitments to Outcomes’. It concludes: “While estimates vary, there is growing evidence that people with disabilities comprise between 4 and 8 per cent of the India population (around 40-90 million individuals)”

Obviously, there is a vast difference between 2.13 per cent or 21 million ‘counted’ by the Census of India, and 4-8 per cent or 40-90 million estimated by the World Bank team. Several NGOs, including ADAPT, have been interacting with the Census Commission, individually or in groups. The Commissioner, Dr. C. Chandramauli, has been positive and open-minded. In a recent letter to him, based on our own experience, and consultations with our regional partners and other experts, we have made a number of recommendations. These take into account the Commission’s constraints of space and format, the work already done, and recommendations made by others in the disability movement, like a Delhi-based group which had also held wide consultations. For example, along with the Delhi group, we have endorsed the inclusion of four types of disability in seeing, hearing, speech and movement, repeated from the 2001 census. We have also endorsed the recommended inclusion of Multiple Disability and Mental Retardation. But, since the latter expression is no longer used, we propose “Remembering and Concentration” instead. Thus, there is already an agreement on the types of disability.

Equally important is the framing of questions under each type. Questions must be activity related; these must also be relevant to our circumstances; only then can these elicit accurate responses. For example, the question suggested by us on speech is: “Do you have difficulty in speaking in your usual language?” The latter language is included because, in the course of a research study with UNICEF involving 31,000 children, we had found that children who had migrated out of their home states had a linguistic problem, which may be reflected as a speech problem. We have also submitted Hindi translations of these easy-to- understand questions to demonstrate that similar translations in other languages could be equally easy and understandable. Contrary to speculations, there is thus a growing meeting of minds between the Census Commission, on the one hand, and several sections of the disability movement, on the other. Thus, we can hope that the Census of 2011 will finally be able to give us a correct count of the disabled in our country, making them truly visible.

By Kamal Bakshi
(A former ambassador, and Vice-Chairperson of ADAPT, Mumbai.)

© Copyright 2000 – 2009 The Hindu

Disability law: Hunger strike called off

After the Centre partially conceded their demands, a group of disabled people on Wednesday called off their hunger strike held to protest against their poor representation on a committee which is drafting a new law to protect their rights.  Javed Abidi, convenor of the Disabled Rights Group, said the strike had been called off after the Centre’s positive response.

A S Narayanan, secretary of the National Association of the Deaf, told The Indian Express through a translator that Gopal Reddy, personal secretary to Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Mukul Wasnik, had confirmed that six more people would be added to the committee, of whom three were disabled. This would bring the total number of disabled people on the committee to six.  Following pressure from various disabled groups, the Social Justice And Empowerment Ministry had formed a committee in April to draft a new legislation, reflecting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to replace the Disability Act, 1995. The first meeting of the committee will be held on Thursday.

Disability activists are looking for three main changes to the Act.

VINAY SITAPATI
Indian Express

Disabled people plan hunger strike in Delhi for rights law

A group of disabled people will begin an indefinite hunger strike from Wednesday outside the Shastri Bhawan, which houses many central government ministries, to protest their poor representation on a committee drafting a new law protecting their rights.

Following pressure from various disabled groups, the social justice and empowerment ministry in April ormed a committee to draft new legislation, reflecting the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, to replace the Disability Act, 1995.

The first meeting of the committee will be held June 10.

“The government has overlooked the basic tenet of the convention and the bedrock of the disability rights movement – ‘Nothing about us, Without us’. The 27-member committee appointed by the government has only three people with disabilities,” said Javed Abidi, convener of Disabled Rights Group.

A group of disabled people also met Social Justice and Empowerment Minister Mukul Wasnik May 26, demanding an increase in the number of disabled people in the committee, he said.

“We will sit on indefinite hunger strike till our demands are accepted,” Abidi added.

What Women Want: The ability debates

DEEPA ALEXANDER

The triumphs and disasters of the differently-abled in India are two ends of the spectrum. Among the 70 million disabled in our country are those who have conquered peaks, won gold at the Paralympics, and raced in Himalayan and desert car rallies. But, millions more struggle to meet daily challenges in a society that tends to portray the disabled  as either heroes or victims with little or no access to their rightful resources. The proposed amendments to the Copyright Act (1957) are seen as restrictive and discriminatory, as the copyright exception, which aims at allowing persons with disability easy access to copyrighted material, applies only to certain types of disability. We spoke to activists who address these issues, not as charity or welfare but as matters of development and dignity.

Change in attitude

National Trust’s programmes work on building capacity, changing patronising attitudes, building trust in the abilities of people with developmental disability and creating an equal playing field. Unfortunately, deeply entrenched attitudes  continue to exclude people with disabilities. Even if an opportunity is given, it is given only once; if a person with  disability fails, incapacity is assumed. But, in the recent case of a young woman with intellectual disability who had been raped in a women’s home, the Supreme Court upheld her right to ‘choose’ to keep her baby, and she has proved to be a competent mother. However, the disapproval of the intelligentsia in the media is an indicator of the social prejudices people with disabilities have to live with.

Implement their rights

Ability Foundation’s thrust is on creating an equitable society. Through our magazine Success & Ability, we spread this message at a time when service to the disabled was seen only at the physical, and not at the emotional level. Persons with disabilities need access to inclusive education, employment and public places. Being ‘accounted’ in the Census 2011 will open up a plethora of possibilities. Accurate data will enable Government intervention at various levels, leading to proactive action. We need ramps for wheelchair users, audio announcements in bus / train stations for the visually-impaired, and video announcements for the hearing-impaired. Floor numbers in Braille for lifts, sign language interpreters in every hospital, police station and court of law, slip-proof flooring in malls, and large-print books in public libraries for those with low vision are the other needs. The implementation of the rights of persons with disabilities as per the United Nations convention and the Persons with Disabilities Act (PWD), in letter and spirit, is also essential.

A development issue

My daughter Tamana was born with cerebral palsy. It pushed me to found an organisation in 1984 to fulfil the dreams of children with special needs and those of their parents. Therapy and counselling for children and their families is essential for optimum adult rehabilitation. Since Independence, the disabled have been categorised along with sections such as women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. While these have had powerful political lobbies, there has been no spokesperson for the disabled. The dichotomies between the Ministries of Education and Social Justice further worsen the exclusion. Most policy-makers look at disability as a welfare, not a development issue. Disability should be jointly addressed by the Ministries of Health, Women and Child Development, HRD, Social Justice and Empowerment. The definition of disability in the PWD Act does not include autism, which leaves out nearly two million autistic persons in India. Admitting disabled children in normal schools is not enough — you need to have professionally trained staff, who are sensitised. I also hope for a different curriculum for special children, even as they are being integrated in the mainstream. Better pay scales will also bring in more jobs in the disability sector.

Public-private partnership

NGO-run establishments provide free schooling for disabled children. The Government has provided legislative intent  through the Inclusive Education Act, which makes it mandatory to include all kinds of impaired children. However,  Government schools that cater to the poor are generally marked by grossly inadequate infrastructure and teaching  aids, so imagine the predicament of the disabled. I would like a public-private partnership for day-care and residential  institutions which provide educational and recreational service on a long-term basis. This needs to be supported by   research institutions which focus on technology, communication and teaching aids. We need to benefit from global  expertise, and customise them to local needs. As Childline’s primary mandate is child protection, I feel that the  Government must compulsorily provide for a child protection policy in any institution that deals with disabled children, as, such children are more vulnerable to abuse.

The copyright angle

The Centre for Internet and Society is associated with the copyright amendment movement for persons with  disabilities, and is one of the founding organisations for the Indian Right to Read campaign. At present, the proposed copyright amendment is detrimental to the disability sector’s needs. The exception extends only to ‘specially designed’ formats such as Braille and sign language, and does not benefit the millions who have cerebral palsy, dyslexia and low vision, and the visually-impaired persons who do not know Braille. Such persons require audio, reading material with large fonts and electronic texts, which are not ‘specially designed’ formats. For conversion to non-specialised formats, the amendment proposes a licensing system, which will permit only organisations working for the benefit of the disabled to undertake conversion and distribution. This will prevent educational institutions, SHGs, other NGOs and print-disabled individuals from undertaking conversion. The licensing system will also require approaching the Copyright Board for each work, which will be extremely time-consuming. The waiting period for obtaining permissions and subsequent conversion will result in students losing academic years, a violation of their right to education. The  proposed amendment violates the Constitutional guarantee of equality under Article 14 since it discriminates between  those visually-impaired persons who know Braille and those print-disabled persons who do not. It is important for the  nation as a whole to take the concern of persons with disabilities as a mainstream concern.

The Hindu

Rejig of discrimination laws should enshrine equality for all

DOMINIQUE ALLEN
May 3, 2010

The government needs to back its words on human rights with action.

THE Rudd government recently said it would review the four federal anti-discrimination laws with a view to merging  them into a single act.  The review could be the most significant aspect of the government’s new  human rights  framework – but only if the outcome is a law that will effectively tackle inequality. Australian law has prohibited discrimination for more than 30 years. These laws have eradicated the most overt forms of discrimination. Women can’t be prevented from applying for jobs based on gender. People can’t be removed from a pub because of their race. We cannot afford to be complacent; by no means do we live in an equal society.  Women’s participation in the workforce is 58.7 per cent, compared with 72.1 per cent for men, most women work part-time and many industries remain highly segregated. Race discrimination persists. We only have to think of the recent attacks on Indian students in Melbourne or the fact that indigenous people experience a standard of living well below that of the non-indigenous population. A recent ANU study found that a job applicant with a non-Anglo-Saxon sounding name will find it much more difficult to  get a job interview than an applicant with one. People with a disability face many obstacles in accessing buildings,  services and public transport.

The reason for this discrimination is dealt with case by case. There is no institution, like the ACCC or the Ombudsman, that can make sure that people are given a ”fair go” at work or school, or in the services they receive. It is up to victims to do something about discrimination.  If I am discriminated against by a potential employer because I am female and likely to have children soon, my only option, apart from trying to sort the matter out with the employer, is to lodge a complaint with the Australian Human Rights Commission. The commission will arrange a conciliation conference for the parties and we’ll try to resolve the issue. The chances are we will. We’ll spend a few hours discussing what happened and I’ll walk away with a small financial settlement in return for not going to court and keeping the matter confidential. That will resolve the issue for me, but what if there are other women in the workplace who have had a similar experience? What about other employers who are considering doing the same thing? Will my complaint deter them?

The answer is that the system can do little to help people in a similar situation to mine, or to discourage potential discriminators. If the Rudd government simply decides to combine the race, sex, disability and age discrimination acts under one umbrella act, nothing will change; Australia will continue to tackle discrimination in a piecemeal fashion. There is another option. The government could commit to actively tackling inequality and introduce the legal tools to achieve it. This is not a novel idea. Other countries have been doing it for decades. In the US, at least since the Kennedy administration, government contractors have been required to take action to ensure their workforces are  representative, or they risk being ineligible for government contracts. In Northern Ireland, specific employers have been required to achieve fair participation of the Catholic and Protestant communities in the workforce since 1989. South Africa introduced similar requirements to remedy decades of apartheid. In Britain, equality is promoted beyond employment. Public authorities have to consider the need to promote equality of opportunity based on race, gender and disability when carrying out their functions. This meant that when the Department of Health became aware that diabetes was prevalent among Britain’s Afro-Caribbean community, it made sure that its national framework for  tackling diabetes took the needs of that community into consideration. The Rudd government could also follow Victoria’s lead. Just last month, the Victorian government introduced laws that will enable the Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission to launch investigations into persistent or entrenched discrimination, rather than relying solely on victims to do something about it. Following an investigation, the commission will work with the organisation to resolve the issue.

The organisation may only need to change its behaviour or it may agree to something more comprehensive, such as developing an action plan to eliminate discrimination. Australian governments were once leaders in promoting equality and protecting human rights on the international stage. Let’s not forget that South Australian women were the first women worldwide to be extended the franchise as well as being allowed to stand for election. The Rudd  government recently reasserted Australia’s commitment to protecting human rights by becoming one of the first countries to sign the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It’s time for this government to bring that commitment to equality home by introducing laws that actively promote equality and give substance to the catch cry, a ”fair go” for all.

Dr Dominique Allen is a research fellow at the Institute of Legal Studies, Australian Catholic University.

Dyslexics get disability quota in colleges

Starting this year, dyslexic students will be eligible for professional college seats, reserved under the disability quota.  With this, Karnataka will be one among the first two States — the other being Maharashtra which will also implement this inclusive system starting this year — to recognise dyslexia as a disability.

In its order on Monday, the Government has decided that from here on, dyslexic students will come under the category of those suffering  from “mental disability” and will be eligible to apply for the three per cent seats earmarked for people with disability in professional colleges across the State.  The order states that this new quota will be enforced from the forthcoming admission season slated to commence in June. It will be applicable to seats in engineering, medical and dental colleges allotted by the Karnataka Examinations Authority through the Common Entrance Test.

Triumphant

The Government Order, in its preamble, states that this provision has been included following a letter by K.S. Gopalan, president, Malleswaram Dyslexic Association.  A senior official from the Karnataka Examination Authority said the same facilities and statutory provisions extended to persons those suffering from mental disability will be applicable to dyslexics.

Rules

To be eligible for this quota, dyslexic students must get a medical certificate stating the nature of their learning disability from NIMHANS, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, or produce a certificate by a clinical psychologist (with an M. Phil degree) attested by a government doctor not below the rank of district surgeon.

Further, the rules state that these certificates will again be ratified by the Medical Board.

The Hindu

Manmohan promises disabled-friendly laws

FIGHTING FOR THEIR RIGHTS: Physically challenged persons, under the banner of the National Platform for the Rights of the Disabled and led by CPI(M) leader Brinda Karat, march on Parliament Street in New Delhi on Tuesday to press their demands. Photo: V. Sudhersan

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh on Tuesday said the government was in favour of amending the laws, if need be, to make them more disabled-friendly. He gave this assurance to a delegation of the differently-abled persons who met him in Parliament. The delegation was led by CPI (M) MP Brinda Karat.  “The Prime Minister was extremely sympathetic towards the demands of the disabled persons and said their demands were genuine,” Ms. Karat said. Dr. Singh assured the delegation of changing the laws to make them disabled-friendly, if necessary. The Prime Minister interacted with the members of the delegations and enquired about their problems. Talking to The Hindu, Ms. Karat said this was the first time that a delegation of differently-abled persons had visited Parliament House. “It was pointed out to the Parliament staff that there was only one gate (Gate no 9) in Parliament House for the physically disabled people and this was far away from the main entrance,” Ms. Karat said. The delegation also met the Union Minister for Social Justice and Empowerment Mukul Wasnik who told them that the government was finalising a new law for the disabled that would replace the existing law.

Earlier, a large number of people with different forms of disabilities marched to Parliament House to demand a better deal. Marching under the banner, ‘National Platform for the Rights of Disabled Persons,’ the people highlighted the plight of the economically and socially disadvantaged among the disabled, the poor, and the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes. “The basic issue is that of the approach of the government and we must request you to consider our demands not as an act of charity but as fulfilment of entitlements and rights as equal citizens of India. India is a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the persons with Disabilities which enjoins the government to ensure minimum rights and livelihood to disabled citizens,” the marchers said in a memorandum submitted to the Prime Minister. The demands include a comprehensive social security system for all persons with disabilities and their families including the Antyodaya cards, free health care for disabled persons, amendments to the Right to Education Act to make provision for disabled teachers and professional and identification of jobs for the disabled immediately with annual special recruitment drives each year.

Besides setting up a separate Ministry for disability affairs, the memorandum also sought issuance of a universally valid identity card and replacing the current Persons with Disabilities Act (1995) in consonance with the provisions of the U.N. Convention and harmonising other laws, the disabled persons also wanted proper enumeration of the persons with disabilities. The organisations that participated in the march included the Paschimbanga Rajya Pratibandhi Samaiilani, the Differently Abled Persons Welfare Federation of Thiruvananthapuram, the Karnataka Rajya Angavikalara Mattu Palakara Okkota, the Jharkhand Vikalanga Morcha, the Tamil Nadu Association for the Rights of all types of Disabled and Caregivers and the Vibhinna Prathiba Vanthula Jakkula Vedika of Andhra Pradesh.

The Hindu

Defining learning disabilities

By Miriam Geronimus

Diane Metcalf-Leggette ’13 is suing the University for refusing to grant her 100 percent extended time on exams, as The Daily Princetonian reported last week. Because she has dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Metcalf-Leggette argues that the University is in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. But this isn’t just a legal matter. Whichever way the judge rules, it may be time to reexamine how learning disabilities are addressed at Princeton.The Office of Disability Services uses a model that courts have supported at times, though it has also been disputed by leading neuropsychologists. To qualify for accommodations under this model, a student’s performance on a standardized psychometric test must be 1.5–2 standard deviations below that of the “average person” in the same age group nationally. Is this the right standard to use? By this measurement, a dyslexic student whose reading rate is as low as the 17th percentile is defined as “average.” This bar seems too low.

Neuropsychologists define a learning disability as a significant discrepancy in test scores. For example, a dyslexic person may have an IQ in the 99th percentile but a reading rate in the 21st percentile. Is this reading rate rightly viewed as “average”? Neuropsychologists note that the discrepancy faced by such a capable but dyslexic student creates a problem different from that faced by people with universally low scores. As neuropsychologist Roger Lauer describes it, it is like having a Ferrari engine but a Volkswagen transmission. Because the speeds at which a person does different mental tasks are out of synch, it is hard for neural pathways to work together. Allotting these students extra time on exams is logical, since it takes them substantially longer to read and process questions. As Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor ’76 observed in a 1997 decision in Bartlett v. New York State Board of Law Examiners, for academically oriented people, “the inability to identify and process words with ease would be crippling.” In that case, Sotomayor, who was a judge in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York at the time, found for the dyslexic plaintiff, who had proven herself an excellent lawyer as an associate but was unable to pass the bar exam without accommodations she had been denied. In choosing the “average standard” — unlike many other selective schools, which use a more inclusive model — Princeton appears to be placing too much emphasis on possible spillover effects on other students (which are likely to be minimal), while undervaluing the costs to learning-disabled students. Documents that Metcalf-Leggette found during discovery suggest that ODS is worried that learning-disabled students will gain unfair advantages through accommodations. But studies show that such students underperform on tests, especially when timed.

Some may worry that students pretend to have learning disabilities to gain an unfair advantage. Research should quell this concern too. According to a June 2009 report from the National Institute for Literacy — a federal agency affiliated with the U.S. departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Labor — the degree to which non-disabled examinees benefit from extended time on tests is negligible. Additionally, when learning-disabled students were given extra time on the SAT, their scores improved but remained lower than those of their non-disabled peers. The NIL report, which surveyed all peer-reviewed articles on learning disabilities, concluded that “extra time is not going to improve performance if an individual does not know the [course] content.” It is only fair that students with learning disabilities be allowed to demonstrate the full extent of their intelligence and knowledge of course material on exams. Time extensions are the only accommodation that has been studied extensively and shown to work, according to the NIL report. The University does give 50 percent time extensions to students whose scores fall below the average standard, including Metcalf-Leggette. But research suggests that time extensions should be individually gauged and that 100 percent time extensions should be the starting point. These are commonplace in higher education, including at other selective schools such as Harvard, Yale, Brown, Penn and the University of Michigan.

Advising learning-disabled students that the solution is to drop classes with grades heavily dependent on timed exams — as ODS has advised Metcalf-Leggette — is antithetical to Princeton’s own educational goals. If a learning-disabled student avoids such courses even though he or she could master the material, then Princeton’s rules stand in the way of that student’s education. This educational approach is inefficient, wasteful and disrespectful to hardworking, high-functioning students who have gained admission to Princeton despite the obstacles posed by learning disabilities. Princeton has distinguished itself in other areas by not being content to follow the minimal standard required by law or convention. By using a scientifically supported and more inclusive definition of learning disabilities, the University would enable more students to get the most out of their education. Through small modifications to existing accommodations, the University can extend the principles of diversity, equity, efficiency and excellence in education to students who have been admitted to Princeton, but whose success here is impeded by learning disabilities.

Miriam Geronimus is a sophomore from Ann Arbor, Mich. She can be reached at mgeronim@princeton.edu.

Correction: Due to an editing error, an earlier version of this column stated that Diane Metcalf-Leggette ’13 was diagnosed with four learning disabilities. Though her original complaint read that she had four learning disabilities, she was most recently diagnosed with only dyslexia and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Published: Tuesday, April 6th, 2010

M.S.J.E. considering a new law over amendments, Wasnik tells D.R.G.

p>D.N.I.S. News Network, India: In what can be termed as a big step forward for the Indian disability sector, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (M.S.J.E.) is finally considering the option of going in for a brand new law based on U.N.C.R.P.D. as opposed to their earlier stand on going in for amendments to the archaic Disability Act of 1995. This was disclosed by Minister M.S.J.E., Mukul Wasnik in a meeting with a delegation of Disabled Rights Group (D.R.G.) led by Convenor Javed Abidi on February 9.  Although it was clear that Wasnik was still mulling the option, he said that he was “open to the idea” of going in for a new law. He had maintained a similar position in August when the D.R.G. delegation met him. However, this is the first time Wasnik has publicly spoken about a new law. He also talked about the possibility of going in for a new law in a meeting with the Parliamentary Committee on Social Justice on February 8.

Wasnik refuted the rumour that M.S.J.E. is going to place the Amendments Bill in the coming Budget Session. He hinted that the Ministry may consider going in for more consultations on the issue of a new law.  Abidi once again reiterated the unanimous demand of the disability sector for a new law that was observed in the National Consultation held by National Centre for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (N.C.P.E.D.P.) and the North Zone Consultation thereafter.  The D.R.G. delegation consisted of Arun Rao, Executive Director, The Deaf Way Foundation; A. S. Narayanan, Secretary, N.A.D.; Dr. Achal Bhagat, Director, Sarthak; G. Syamala, Executive Director, A.A.D.I.; J. P. Gadkari, President, Parivaar; Radhika Alkazi, Managing Trustee, A.A.S.T.H.A.; Dr. Shanti Auluck, Director, Muskaan; and Vandana Bedi, Consultant, Disability and Development.

It may be mentioned that N.C.P.E.D.P. and D.R.G. are going ahead with their Zonal Consultations, as well as the drafting of the new law by the D.R.G. Core Group as planned.

DNIS, 15th Feb 2010

Nothing About Us Without Us The European Parliament drives forward Disability Rights

29 January 2010

On 27 January 2009, the renewed Disability Intergroup of the European Parliament and the European Disability Forum toasted the New Year in Brussels at a very well-attended event. The new President of the Intergroup – for the first time a person with a disability himself, – and the disability movement presented the Disability Pact to a hundred of activists and 20 MEPs from various political groups and nationalities.

“The historic day for persons with disabilities”

The Disability Intergroup (DI) is an informal grouping of Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) from all nationalities and most political groups who are interested in promoting the disability policy in their work in the European and national contexts. The DI is one of the oldest Intergroups: it was established in 1980. It is currently composed of about 100 MEPs. Last December 2009, the Intergroup elected Ádám Kósa MEP (HU, EPP) as President of the DI. At the cocktail, Pál Schmitt, Vice-President of the European Parliament welcomed his Hungarian colleague and expressed his support to the disability movement. Yannis Vardakastanis, President of EDF stated:”Today is an historic day for the 65 million persons with disabilities. Today, for the first time in the history of the Intergroup, the motto “Nothing about us without us” calling for a full participation of disabled people in all policies is becoming a reality.” Ádám Kósa conceded: ”I have a dream that persons with disabilities will finally decide for themselves. The full ratification of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as well as the adoption of the Disability Pact by the EU Member States are the necessary steps to achieve this dream that I share with 65 million persons with disabilities in Europe”. The active involvement of persons with disabilities in the ongoing elaboration of the disability policy for the next decade is essential. If the principle of full participation is put into practice, the Disability Pact proposed by EDF will contribute to the development of truly inclusive societies, in which all voices are heard and persons with disabilities can help shape a better world for all.

Why is the Disability Pact necessary?

The Disability Pact for 2011 to 2021 is a coordinated and sustainable disability policy at European and national level with clear and long-term direction and cooperation between Member States and the European Union. At the moment, there is no long-term EU agenda on disability that involves a clear joint commitment from the Institutions and its Member States. The 27 member states are developing 27 different national disability action plans. Coordination between the European and national actions and clear and measurable objectives linked to the EU strategy for growth and jobs is the road to a barrier-free Europe.   More information: www.disabilitypact.eu

The European Disability Forum (EDF) is the European umbrella organisation representing the interests of 65 million citizens with disabilities in Europe. EDF membership includes national umbrella organisations of disabled people from all EU/EEA countries, as well as European NGOs representing the different types of disabilities, organisations and individuals committed to disability issues. The mission of the European Disability Forum is to ensure disabled people full access to fundamental and human rights through their active involvement in policy development and implementation in Europe.

Shri Mukul Wasnik addresses 10th Editors Conference on Social Sector Issues

TEXT OF THE SPEECH [Excerpts]

The Union Minister of Social Justice & Empowerment Shri Mukul Wasnik addressed the 10th Editors’ Conference on Social Sector Issues (ECCSI) here today. On this Occasion, the Minister of State Shri. D. Napolean and Secretary (SJ&E) Shri K. M. Acharya were also present.

Disability

• In pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution, several initiatives have been taken by the Government for the empowerment of persons with disabilities from time to time. This has resulted in a fundamental change from a welfare model to a rights based approach to all the issues concerning the lives of persons with disabilities. Promotion of greater accessibility and barrier free environment for them is a prime objective of the Ministry and it is the first among the Central Ministries to have re-designed its website making it accessible to persons with disabilities. Other Ministries and their associated organizations are also expected to rapidly follow suit. To encourage the development of “accessible” websites, the Ministry has instituted a new category in its Scheme of National Awards for the Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities under which three awards – one each for government, public and private sector websites will be given every year for the best “accessibility” features.
• The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act in 1995, paved the way for realization of the rights of persons with disabilities. It is now nearly 15 years old and needs several amendments so as to harmonize it with UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to which India is a signatory and which came into force in May 2008. A series of consultation meetings were held during 2007-08 and 2008-09 in various parts of the country with stakeholders, to elicit suggestions for amending the Act. We have placed a comprehensive amendment proposal on the Ministry’s website and are consulting State Governments, Central Ministries and stakeholders on this draft, which is expected to be finalized in the next few months.
• The Ministry has a scheme of giving assistive aids and appliances to persons with disability. These are provided free to beneficiaries with a monthly income of Rs 6500/- and at 50% of the cost to those with a monthly income between Rs 6500/- and Rs 10,000/-. The scheme is implemented through NGOs, recommended by the State Governments, as well as the seven National Institutes working under the Ministry. About 2 lakh persons with disabilities are covered under the scheme annually.
• There are seven National Institutes under the Ministry working in the field of disability, viz. three working for loco motor disabilities, one each in area of visual, mental and hearing disabilities, and one in the field of multiple disabilities. These institutes are engaged in human resource development in the field of disability, provide rehabilitation services to persons with disabilities and also carry out research and development. About 5 lakh persons are provided rehabilitation services annually by these National Institutes.
• Under the Deendayal Disabled Rehabilitation Scheme (DDRS), Ministry gives financial assistance to NGOs, for running various rehabilitation activities like Special Schools and Vocational Training Centres. About 2 lakh beneficiaries are covered under this scheme annually. Financial norms under the scheme have been revised from the current financial year.
• A new Scheme of Incentives to Employers in the Private Sector for Providing Employment to Persons with Disabilities was launched in 2008-09 under which payment of employer’s contribution to the Employees Provident Fund and the Employees State Insurance Corporation for the first three years, is made by the Government of India, in respect of persons with disability appointed by such employers on or after 01.4.2008.

PIB Press Release

Disabled Palestinian boy forced to travel 3 hours to get to school

By Dana Weiler-Polak

Muamman Abu Kwaik, a quadriplegic 5-year-old boy with cerebral palsy, leaves his home in the East Jerusalem town of Shoafat at 6 A.M. every day and travels for three hours before he reaches the rehabilitative kindergarten he attends on the western side of the city, a mere 35 minutes away.  The Jerusalem municipality was required by court order to find Abu Kwaik a spot in a rehabilitative kindergarten and provide transportation – but in an effort to save money at the expense of Abu Kwaik’s health, it has yet to make it any easier for him to get to school.  It is unthinkable that Muamman’s fundamental rights – to health, rehabilitation and education – are being violated because of the municipality’s technical and economic considerations,” said Sharon Primor, a legal adviser for disability rights group Bizchut.  The advocacy group, which went to the courts in 2007 to get Abu Kwaik a spot in the school, says it was told by the municipal official responsible for transportation issues that the travel arrangements could not be changed.

However, the municipality later said in a statement that it would favorably consider giving Abu Kwaik his own ride to school, which would significantly shorten his trip.   “This is a situation in which there is an alternative,” said Primor. “The unreasonable length of time is not a function of the distance but rather derives from considerations of cost. The route of the transport is convoluted and it makes many stops.”  Bizchut and Muamman Abu Kwaik’s mother, who has traveled on the van to see for herself what the trip was like, say Muamman is one of nine children picked up and dropped off every day. The municipality says there are only two others, both of whom it says are dropped off near Abu Kwaik’s school.  If Muamman’s three-hour ride to school remains unchanged, it could exacerbate his condition and impair his recovery from orthopedic surgery he recently underwent, according to Dr. Dalia Bohana.  “The results of a long trip in an unsuitable position could lead to the failure of the operation and the rehabilitation in the immediate and long term. Beyond that, a trip like that causes discomfort and even suffering to this child,” she wrote in an expert opinion.  Bohana said Abu Kwaik should not travel for more than 50 minutes at a time. A direct trip takes about 35 minutes – including 15 minutes at a roadblock in the city, according to an estimate by an independent transportation company.

Muamman’s father, Nasser Abu Kwaik, said the trip makes it difficult for his son to learn anything once he reaches his destination.  “He has a very hard time with the traveling,” he said. “He gets there after three hours on the road, very tired. He isn’t managing to learn.”  And once school ends, Muamman “comes home in pain and dizzy,” his father said. “He has to make this trip every day, in the heat, in the cold, in the rain and when it’s windy. I don’t understand why they are doing this to him.”  The municipality said it has suggested that Abu Kwaik be dropped off first, though that would cut the trip by only 15 minutes, according to the transportation company. The municipality attributed the length of the trip to the roadblock.

Haaretz, Israel