Deafness shaped Beethoven’s music

Progressive deafness influenced Beethoven’s compositions, prompting him to choose lower-frequency notes as his worsened, scientists said.

Beethoven first mentioned his hearing loss in 1801 at the age of 30, he had problems hearing the high notes. By 1812, people had to shout to make themselves understood and in 1818, he started to communicate through notebooks. In his last few years before his death in 1827, his deafness was apparently total.      Writing in the latest issue of the British Medical Journal, scientists in the Netherlands dissected Beethoven’s string quartets.

The experts looked at the first violin part in the first movement of each quartet, counting the number of notes above G6, which corresponds to 1,568 Hertz.      Use of higher notes decreased as the deafness progressed, they found. To compensate, he used more middleand low-frequency notes, which he could hear better when music was performed. But in the late quartets – written by the time he was totally deaf – the higher notes returned.

“When he came to rely completely on his inner ear, he was no longer compelled to produce music he could actually hear when performed, and slowly returned to his inner musical world and early composing experiences,” says the paper.

Mumbai Mirror

Polling booths to be disabled-, pregnant-friendly

 Priyanka Sharma

Don’t fret over how your physically-challenged or pregnant relative will be able to cast his/her ballot in the upcoming civic polls. The state election commission has issued a set of facilities to be made available at polling booths to ensure that the pregnant, the physically-challenged and senior citizens will not have to queue up for long. Women with a child, besides those pregnant, will be given preference over others at the booth.

“There have been instances when the pregnant, the physically-challenged and senior citizens were put off by the idea of incessantly waiting in line. This time, we are paying attention to every minute detail,” said Chand Goyal, additional chief secretary of the election commission.

No polling booth will be allowed to be set up above the ground floor in a building with no lift. An elevated ramp for the physically-challenged is also mandatory. “Also, for the first time, we have electronic voting machines with Braille script on the ballot unit with which the visually-challenged can decipher the candidates’ name,” added Goyal. Every polling booth will also sport a shed, facilities for drinking water and a washroom.

DNA Published Date: Dec 13, 2011

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



50K TO MARRY in sickness and; in health

Money Won’t Guarantee Love, Say Couples

The state government may have the best of intentions by providing a monetary incentive of Rdisabled grooms 50,000 to anyone marrying a physically challenged person, but how far will it go in changing mindsets and breaking prejudices? Will such a scheme help integrate the disabled into mainstream society? Chandrakant Kalvint and his wife Swati, who have been married for 31 years, are sceptical, as such a move—they say—is not a long-term solution.   “Besides, the amount offered is too little, and will not address a lifetime’s need, especially if the spouse is suffering from a chronic problem. The money will run out,” says 68-year-old Chandrakant, who has made the best of the cards life dealt him. When he was only a year old, he was crippled by polio, and crutches became a way of life. While he got a job in Mantralaya, the impact of his disability was the felt the most when he began his search for a suitable wife. After many rejections, he found Swati, now 60 years, and today the couple has married off three daughters and are planning their son’s nuptials. “Fourteen years ago, I sustained an injury on my left leg after an accident. To make matters worse, two years ago my right hand stopped functioning because of hypertension, but my wife has stood by me,” says Chandrakant, who now runs a Thane-based NGO, Apang Maitri, for the physically challenged.

“We have been married for so long. We face each problem as it comes. I am proud to be his wife,” says Swati. A sum of Rs 50,000 would neither cover a quarter of the Kalvint’s medical expenses, nor would it be an incentive for Swati to remain in the marriage.    There’s no denying that in mainstream Indian society at least, there is a stigma associated with being differentlyabled. The Kalvints are an exception that tests the norm; unions between the physically challenged and the general population are rare. And it’s always harder on women who are differently abled. “There are plenty of opportunities for men who are physically challenged. But what are we doing for disabled women?” asks Dr Ravi Subbaiah, president of the Handicap Welfare Association. In his opinion, cracks in the marriage usually arise when the wife is physically challenged, but not the husband. “The sexual relationship the couple shares has to be taken into account. On one side there will may be frustration and on the other, there is guild,” headds.

“Money cannot buy or guarantee love and commitment,” say Kirti and Naresh Patange. Around 18 months ago, Naresh, a software engineer, suffered a near-fatal accident. He was attacked by a gang of robbers one night and was beaten with heavy iron rods. So brutal was the attack, that his skull cracked. “There was a lot of clotting in his brain, and recovery took months. He has lost his ability to speak,” says his wife, 33-year-old Kirti. The mental and financial toll strained family ties. “There were family problems because of the money we had to spend on the expensive treatment. It was only after we moved to Pune, away from my in-laws that Naresh’s stress levels dropped, and he began showing signs of improvement.”

Today, the couple has a baby girl and moved past a nightmarish year. “Though doctors say his nerves are damaged, and he will never recover his speech, I cannot help but hope it will return some day,” says Kirti. “Where there is love, money is useless. Instead, the government should provide employment opportunities to the differently-abled.”

Pratibha Masand Times of India, 9th October 2010

Wed a disabled person, get 50,000 from state govt

It’s a bitter pill to swallow, but in India, the physically challenged have not been integrated into mainstream society. And marriage is the one institution where the stigma of being differently-abled is starkly highlighted. Now, the state government has decided to rectify this and is planning to launch a scheme where anyone marrying a disabled person will be awarded Rs 50,000. Social justice minister Shivajirao Moghe said the idea was to encourage marriages between the “disabled and the able-bodied’’.  Any person who marries a person with 40% or above disability—one who is certified as disabled—will be eligible. The government is of the opinion that the reward scheme will promote greater integration of physically challenged people into mainstream society, and will be implemented across Maharashtra. According to the 2001 census, there were 15.69 lakh persons with disabilities (PWDs) in the state. No data was available on unmarried PWDs.

While the plan has been welcomed in some quarters, many NGOs and activists have expressed their doubts over whether a monetary incentive is the way to go. Naysayers include Raju Waghmare, who is employed as a programme officer for handicap rights with the Human Right Law Network. “The scheme will encourage an able-bodied person to marry a financially independent disabled person for monetary gain,’’ he said. ‘We must go out to find partners’ Mrs. Varsha Hooja, trustee, ADAPT, an action group that promotes the cause of the disabled and others working and living together, felt that first priority should be given to creating awareness, promoting a disabled-friendly environment, and sensitizing society towards the abilities of the physically challenged. “Marriage will follow,’’ she said. On the other hand, the Handicap Welfare Association—a non-profit organization for the disabled by the disabled-—has welcomed the move. “If implemented in letter and spirit, the scheme could be a step towards the empowerment of the differently abled,’’ said Ravi Subbaiah, president of the association. To increase the reach of the welfare scheme, he cited the need to set up a disabled-friendly public infrastructure. “The disabled need to go out and interact with people in order to find a partner,’’ he said. Unfortunately, most cities in India do not have this infrastructure.

Maharashtra is not the first Indian state to award reward schemes. Goa and Karnataka governments have already taken steps by providing tax rebates and perks to corporates employing PWDs, a move that Waghmare believes is more effective towards integrating the physically challenged in society. Goa also has a similar marriage reward scheme. To prevent misuse of funds, social welfare officers will be in charge of implementation. The social justice and special assistance departments have a prepared a detailed proposal, which has been forwarded to the planning department for fund allocation.

Pratibha Masand Times of India, 9th October 2010

Centre Invites Proposals from States for Giving Central Assistance to the tune of Rs. 100 Crore to Provide Barrier free Environment in Govt Buildings and to Make Government Websites Accessible to Persons With Disabilities

The Centre has invited proposals from States to give central assistance to provide barrier free environment in important State Government buildings in the State Secretariat, Collectorates, Main Hospitals, Universities and other important Government offices to ensure that these are accessible to the Persons with Disabilities (PwDs).  Central assistance will also be given to make Government Websites at the State and District levels accessible to PwDs as per guidelines for Indian Government Websites issued by the Department of Administrative Reforms & Public Grievances.Proposals from States have been invited by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment under the “Scheme for Implementation of PwD Act, 1995 (SIPDA)” after effecting a major increase in the annual allocation under this Scheme from Rs. 15-20 crore in the past to Rs. 100 crore this year.

The Ministry has made a notional allocation to the States based upon their population of PwDs as per Census, 2001 and has requested them to sent proposals on that basis. For example, a notional allocation of Rs. 16.50 crore has been made for Uttar Pradesh, 8.90 crore for West Bengal, 7.90 crore for Tamil Nadu, 7.60 crore for Maharashtra, 6.70 crore for Madhya Pradesh and 6.60 crore for Andhra Pradesh. Similar notional allocations have also been communicated to other States based on their population of PwDs.

It may be recalled that the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD), 2008, to which India is a signatory, calls for making buildings, work places, facilities including information, communication and other services etc accessible to PwDs on an equal basis. The Union Minister of Social Justice & Empowerment, Shri Mukul Wasnik, had written to the Chief Ministers of all States earlier this year urging them to make the important buildings and websites of the State Government accessible to People with disabilities in a time bound manner.

Central assistance on significant scale is provided to states under “Scheme for Implementation of PwD Act, 1995 (SIPDA) to encourage them to move in that direction.

VBA

Killing of Unborn Children with Downs – Genocide

It is the opinion of this Society that the government is guilty of genocide, a crime against humanity which is a violation of the United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. New Zealand is a signatory to the Convention that was passed by the General Assembly on 9 December 1948.

Relevant section of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide

Article II: In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

  • Killing members of the group;
  • Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
  • Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
  • Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
  • Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Our complaint is that in February 2010 the government of New Zealand instituted the “Antenatal Screening for Down Syndrome and other conditions – Quality Improvements” programme. This programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU] without public consultation. Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act state that the outcomes of the programme will be a reduction in the number of births of people with Down syndrome, with around 90% of unborn children diagnosed with the condition being aborted.  The programme is funded by the state and targets all pregnant women in New Zealand in their first trimester on the basis of providing information to women to make decisions about their pregnancies, including abortion.  People with disabilities are the only group of people in New Zealand targeted for selective abortion. Down syndrome, and other conditions that are targeted, are genetic conditions that have no cure. The basis of first trimester screening is to enable woman to have an abortion within the 20 week timeframe if an abnormality is detected. Other reasons for prenatal diagnosis, such as parent education, hospital selection and delivery management, do not require testing during the first trimester and can be safely left until the later stages of pregnancy.  The preventing of birth of a group of people falls within the definition of genocide under international law.

This Programme was introduced by the Ministry of Health following advice from the Ministry’s National Screening Unit [NSU]. Documentation obtained under the Official Information Act from the Ministry of Health included the document Summary of Key Informant Interviews Antenatal Down Syndrome Screening Final Report which states that, “The programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system. The scan highlighted literature that supported the premise that the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome.”

This is eugenics which proclaims that only the perfect have a right to be born. The screening programme is a search and destroy mission and is a further major step on the slippery slope. The government seeks to conceal the true purpose of the programme by calling it a “quality improvement” rather than national screening programme. The government states that it is providing a service to families by giving them a choice whether to terminate the life of the child with Down syndrome or to allow the child to be born. We should be aware that this is part of a strategy of social conditioning. Right to Life contends that the government has decided that children with Down syndrome are not valued or wanted in our community. Its intention then is to encourage families to abort children with Down syndrome. The insidious option to terminate the life of the child will ultimately become a duty to kill the child before birth. With the acceptance of eugenics ultimately it may be expected that with the rationing of diminishing health resources the health care for the disabled will be restricted.

It is the opinion of this Society that the screening programme is in violation of Article II [d] of the Convention, Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group. People with Down syndrome fall within the definition of “disabled persons” and are recognized under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons as a group which forms part of a nation. Under that Declaration disabled persons “have the same civil and political rights as other human beings” and must be protected, against all exploitation, all regulations and all treatment of a discriminatory, abusive or degrading nature.” These rights are further reinforced under Article 10 of the Convention on the Rights of Disabled, which states “State Parties reaffirm that every human being has the inherent right to life and shall take all necessary measures to ensure its effective enjoyment by persons with disabilities on an equal basis with others.”

We request that the government cease this screening programme. In the event that the screening programme is not terminated Right to Life New Zealand will lay a formal complaint with the United Nations [The Office of the Special Adviser on the Prevention of Genocide] against the government of New Zealand for genocide by imposing measures to prevent births of children with Down syndrome. The World Health Organisation [WHO], states that the classification for Down syndrome is a “mild to moderate disability.” Most children with Down syndrome participate in public and private educational programs. Educators and researchers are still discovering the full educational potential of people with Down syndrome. Today people with Down syndrome live at home with their families and are active participants in the educational, social and recreational activities of their community. People with Down syndrome are valued members of their families and their communities, contributing to society in a variety of ways. Women who have an unborn child diagnosed with Down syndrome or any other disability need and deserve the support and compassion of the community to accept their child as a valued and loved member of the family and community.

The government should promote a culture of life by ensuring that families who have unborn children with Down syndrome receive compassion and are given all the encouragement and support needed to bring their child to birth. After the birth of their child they should be provided with the services necessary to assist them in providing for the special needs of their child.

Scoop Politics Independent News

A New Financial Access Frontier: Persons With Disabilities

Can a person with a disability living in a developing country become the valued client of a financial institution?  According to Harvard Law professor Michael Stein, 650 million people around the world, nearly 10 percent of humanity, have a disability, and over 80 percent of these people live in developing countries. Yet, in research studies, fewer than 1 percent of the clients of microfinance institutions, dedicated to serving the world’s financially excluded people, were found to be persons with disabilities. One of the last great human rights struggles is only now starting to penetrate the world of low-income finance.

But how best to make progress in disability inclusion?

In June, the Center for Financial Inclusion at ACCION, in conjunction with the Disability and Development team of the World Bank, brought disability activists together with leaders from microfinance in a roundtable entitled, “A New Financial Access Frontier: People with Disabilities” to begin a dialogue. Disability activists and microfinance professionals are two tightly knit communities with their own vocabularies and their own ways of seeing the world so it is not surprising that at times heated debate preceded agreement on clear objectives.

In 2006, the passage of the U.N. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities gave the disabilities community a major boost. This Convention requires all ratifying governments to “promote, protect and ensure” the rights of persons with disabilities. 2010 also marks the twentieth anniversary of the Americans with Disability Act, and implementers of that landmark legislation testified to the remarkable changes it has brought about. Unyielding commitment to the human and economic rights of persons with disabilities is the lifeblood of many people in the disability community. The activists carry this message to financial service providers: Financial service providers wake up and act! It’s a matter of human rights, and it’s the law (in 85 countries).

The microfinance professionals, for their part, were happy to acknowledge the justice of the cause, and admitted to being somewhat abashed at their own ignorance. But, they approach the topic with a certain “Show Me” wariness. Their dedication to reducing financial exclusion notwithstanding, they want to be convinced of a business case for inclusion of persons with disabilities that is realistic and sustainable. Moreover, the U.N. Convention, though perhaps an interesting sign of the times, is certainly not a mandate they feel direct pressure to fulfill.

Once the two sides got past their introductory positioning, they began a fruitful search for strategies that might work. Listening, it struck me that the biggest barriers are less practical than about attitudes. Yes, physical accessibility matters, but in the context of developing countries, accessible design in a bank branch means little if the road to the bank is unpaved and pot-holed. Technologies like mobile phone banking and voice-enabled ATMs could overcome physical barriers at a stroke. They generated much hopeful enthusiasm, even though they have yet to be used widely to reach low income or disabled clients.

But negative attitudes are the real tough nut to crack, for both prospective clients with disabilities and for microfinance providers. Many person with disabilities have experienced so much societal exclusion and marginalization during their lifetimes that they often lack the confidence to approach financial institutions or to even conceive of themselves as microentrepreneurs. Disabled persons organizations (DPOs) and other disability rights organizations work on overcoming such barriers, both societal and self imposed, and help prepare their clients to connect with mainstream institutions, among them financial.

On the provider side, staff are often the perpetrators of exclusion, simply because they have absorbed the culturally prevailing images of people with disabilities as not competent or unable to handle financial responsibilities. In some cases, laws still create roadblocks, for example, if blind people are prevented from signing contracts they cannot see. Cultural attitudes may be starting to shift, thanks to the Convention.

Both sides agreed that persons with disabilities do not need special financial products to succeed, even though they may need flexible accommodation to help them access mainstream products.

A number of microfinance specialists reminisced about specific clients with disabilities. They reported that these were solid clients: resourceful people who knew how to overcome challenges and who were happy to receive a chance from a bank. When they talked about these clients, they sounded a lot like the early advocates of microfinance two decades ago, countering the objections of mainstream banks to serving the poor. In those days, the microfinance activists insisted that the poor and excluded were capable of being responsible clients. One hundred and fifty million microfinance clients later, the bet on the poor has proved sound. Round-table participants are preparing now to make similar bets on people with disabilities.

Elisabeth Rhyne, Managing Director, Center for Financial Inclusion

The Huffington Post

Can and Able : Disability Sports

Wheelchair Race

REMA NAGARAJAN TIMES INSIGHT GROUP

The 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi will be an inclusive event, with para sports held along with able-bodied events. But a global debate still rages on whether the lines between abled and disabled should be erased

South African Natalie Du Toit, whose left leg is amputated below the knee, qualified in 2008 for the Beijing Olympics. She became the first athlete with a disability to qualify for the final of an event in the largest ablebodied sporting meet, the Olympics.   Natalie has won over 15 gold medals at various international events for disabled sportspersons and, in the Beijing Olympics, finished in 16th place in the 10,000 metre swim, just over 1.22 minutes behind the winner.   While a few disabled athletes do qualify to compete against the able-bodied in certain sports, the movement globally is not so much for the disabled to compete against the able-bodied as for a merging of para games with able-bodied events.

Recently, Dr Robert Steadward, one of the founders of the International Paralympic Committee (IPC), created a stir when he called for the Paralympic Games to be combined with the Winter Olympics.  Such a merger would mean not only that para games are held along with ablebodied sports, but also that medals won in para games would count in the final tally of a country. Only then, believe the proponents of this move, will disability sports be taken as seriously and disabled sportspeople get as much recognition and funding as able-bodied sportspeople. The Commonwealth Games created history in 2002 by becoming the first fully inclusive international multi-sport games. This meant sporting events for people with disabilities would be held along with able-bodied sports events and have a common medal tally.

But not all persons associated with disability sports are enthusiastic about integrating disability sports with sports for the able-bodied. The debate on whether integration is desirable rages on internationally.  Dr Steadward suggested that the two games could remain separate in terms of athletes and events, but could share resources like housing and transportation. He felt such a move would reflect a new level of acceptance of people with disabilities and bring more visibility to the Paralympics, which generally garner far less media coverage than the Olympics. Dr Steadward and the present-day IPC are in agreement that the Paralympic Games being the second largest sporting event in the world with nearly 4,000 participants makes it logistically impossible for any one city to host them simultaneously with the summer Olympics. That’s why Dr Steadward suggests clubbing them with the winter Games.

However, the IPC does not agree with Dr Steadward’s case for integration. Steffi Klein, who handles media and communications for IPC, explains that the committee believes that “the Paralympic Games and the Paralympics Movement with its mission, vision and values can and should stand on its own, staging a great sport event for elite athletes with a disability”.   Combining medal tallies would not make sense in this case, she added. While admitting there’s much less public interest in the Paralympics than in the Olympics, Klein pointed out that awareness, acceptance of and public interest in the Paralympics Games had grown significantly over the last decade.

The International Olympic Committee too cites “institutional, technical and organisational difficulties” for not merging the two events. “The leaders of sports for those with a disability themselves do not want this integration. They have received the names Olympic and Paralympic — this proves that the IOC considers them as athletes in their own right,” says Emmanuelle Moreau, Head of Media Relations IOC. Moreau adds that IOC does not keep medal tallies and that the practice of media outlets providing medal tallies was independent of the IOC.

It’s been a long journey for the Paralympics from being separate events to ones held in the same city and the same venue as the main Games, though not fully merged. While the two were always held in the same year, since Paralympics 1988 and Winter Paralympics 1992 they have also  taken place at the same venue. And in June 2001, the IOC and IPC signed an agreement securing this practice for the future, which meant that from the 2012 bid process onwards, the host city chosen to host the Olympic Games would be obliged to also host the Paralympics.   Even for the CWG, becoming fully integrated was a huge progress from 1994 when athletes were first included just in exhibition events. And now, integrated games have become the accepted and established policy for the CWG.

The number of disability sport demonstration events at major sporting events is increasing as integration makes inroads on a sport-by-sport basis. While full integration of the Olympics and Paralympics might seem a long way off, more communication and integration between disabled and able-bodied sporting organisations across the world is leading to a steady breaking down of barriers. For instance, in countries like the UK the same bodies now handle able-bodied and disabled sportspersons for their disciplines. This is a big step from the earlier practice of keeping   the two separate.

Runner

SPORT ISN’T DISABLED. ATHLETES ARE ATHLETES FIRST

Richard M Hansen, Canada’s globe-girding wheelchair athlete and Paralympian is one of ccthe strongest advocates for integration. He tells TOI-Crest why segregration has to end

Why do you advocate merging disabled sports with able bodied sports?

Sometimes it is the right thing to do, to create sport opportunities for people with disabilities in segregated games. But it creates a perception that people with disabilities are less than equal. It’s contrary to the universal values of accessibility and inclusiveness. By creating sporting events where all athletes can compete together, we help break down barriers of segregation. I see sport as a mirror of how society views itself, its social values and behaviours. At the heart of an athlete is the desire is to be included and feel part of a sporting environment. We need better opportunities to better serve the athletes. The question we need to ask is — are we encouraging existing attitudes instead of breaking down barriers?

Why do international sports organisations like the IOC and others continue to insist on segregating games?

The IPC and other organisers should be commended for providing a vehicle for athletes with disabilities to express themselves and strive for their hopes and dreams. As an athlete who has benefited from these games, I feel so fortunate that these organisations have been there and that they provided me with the opportunity to be a gold medalist. I think segregation comes from a perspective of convenience and the desire to help people with disabilities participate in all aspects  of life. A separate set of games accomplishes that objective.

What is the biggest hurdle to merging disability sports with able-bodied sports? How can they be overcome?

I think the biggest hurdle is communication between the organisers of the sports for people with disabilities and the mainstream games organisers. Dialogue would lead to a more similar vision and a common bond. Basically, a collaboration as opposed to a segregation or competition.

What is your opinion about the Commonwealth Games where the integration has happened? Are there other major sporting events where successful merging has already happened?

The Commonwealth Games are a wonderful model of integration, the beginning of a merging journey that has taken many decades. It went from a culture of indifference in 1994 to formal acceptance in 2002. I’ve heard from a number of athletes who characterise the Commonwealth Games as the greatest experience in their athletic life. Being able to participate with full medal status and feel fully included is a huge breakthrough. The Commonwealth Games are a democratic organisation and the member nations voted to provide full medal status for all athletes.  It was a grassroots movement that came from all over the world. The Canada Summer and Winter Games are fully inclusive along with various European and World Championships. I think the more opportunities available to the athletes, the better.

Is it logistically possible to merge disability sports with able-bodied sports? Can a regular sporting event successfully handle the various categories that exist in disabled sports?

I think this has been answered in the past. A question for organisers is — can they afford to logistically stage two separate games? Is that the most ideal model? Ask the athletes and answers will emerge. There is no right or wrong model, just a reflection on where we are on our journey.

What do you see as the future of disabled sports? How do you plan to work towards making it happen?

Sports aren’t disabled. The athletes who participate in them are extremely bright, driven, and have exceptional talent and spirit along with a disability. Like a powerful force of water towards the ocean, it makes many pathways until it reaches its goal. Athletes are athletes first and just want true acceptance, to be honoured and appreciated like their peers.

In The Running

  • 1924 The International Silent Games held in Paris for the hearing impaired were the first recorded games for any group of people with disabilities. The Deaflympics are held every four years like the Olympic Games 1948 Dr Ludwig Guttmann founded the Stoke Mandeville Games in England. It was a sports competition for British World War II veterans with spinal cord injuries. From then on, the Stoke Mandeville Games became an annual event
  • 1952 Competitors from the Netherlands joined the competition. It gave birth to the idea of Parallel Olympics (or Paralympics) 1955 The International Olympic Committee (IOC) recognised the International Committee of Sports for the Deaf (ICSD) and the Deaflympics
  • 1960 The International Stoke Mandeville Games were held for the first time in the same country and city as the Summer Olympics (in Rome). For the first time, they were open to all athletes with disabilities from all over the world, not just veterans. This is described as the First Paralympic Games. The International Paralympic Committee (IPC), the governing body of the global Paralympic movement, started organising both Summer and Winter Paralympics every four years like the Olympic Games
  • 1968 The idea of sports for athletes with intellectual disabilities was conceived by the Special Olympics Movement

Closure call for institutions for disabled

Fri, Jul 16, 2010

Madam, – The report by Carl O’Brien (Front page, July 12th) suggested that the main conclusion of an unpublished report by the working group established by the Health Service Executive (HSE) was calling for the closure of all institutions for people with intellectual disabilities within the next seven years because they are in breach of residents’ basic rights.  While I agree with general tenor of this article I think it is necessary to look behind the rhetoric – moving people from one setting to another is not what’s required – what is required is a complete configuration of how disability services are planned and provided.

It is wonderful your paper is in a position to give its readership the heads-up on the Review of the Congregated Settings when a Dáil question addressed to Minister of State John Moloney on June 16th was unable ascertain whether the Minister for Health had completed the review; or indeed to garner details of the report due to industrial action in the HSE. Maybe the Ministers might now wish to comment on the report as its details are now in the public domain?  The closure of institutions for people with disabilities is an assumed panacea for the complex issues facing people with disabilities in congregated settings. Just replacing such establishments with supported or independent placements in the community will not in or of  itself address the complex needs of this group in our society.  While I can accept the interpretation of the report’s contention that suggests that thousands of people in congregated settings are separated from the community and stripped of dignity, privacy and independence – people with disabilities living geographically within our society are also socially excluded and continue to be so, in a context where our Government is reluctant to ratify the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

While the report suggests that the continued operation of these institutions is in breach of Ireland’s obligations under various United Nations conventions and that the continued operation of such establishments contradicts official Government policies, it is important to note what the official Government position now is.   In response to a parliamentary question, Minister of State John Moloney stated that no decision has been taken on the signing by Ireland of the Optional Protocol of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.  The new model of supported or assisted living in the community advocated by the report needs to reflect a way of meeting the complex health needs of people with disabilities. Additional funding will need to be made available to mainstream health and social services, as the complexity of healthcare needs of those with intellectual disabilities with will place much greater resource demands on already stretched mainstream health system,

We should learn from the UK where resettlement of people from congregated settings has been very much completed. Research shows people with intellectual disability have much greater health needs than the general population. Among other issues, people with intellectual disability experience a greater prevalence of gastrointestinal disorders, pneumonia, sensory impairments, epilepsy, dental disease and osteoporosis. The suggestion that revenue from the sale of existing institutions would help fund the move towards community-based care is clearly not a serious contention in the current property climate . The process of closing down institutions will not simply be a case of replacing one set of buildings for another and will undoubtedly need to see the development of well-researched and well-planned services which are responsive and needs-driven and not philosophy laden.

I’m not sure I would agree with a HSE official being charged with driving and implementing a seven-year programme to close down inappropriate settings, as the shocking reality is that the majority of services provided for people with disabilities have never been provided by the State. Approximately 80 per cent of all such services are provided in the private and voluntary sector – the State has historically reneged on its responsibility to this group of people. Are we to believe we can trust that State or an organ of the State to make amends and devise a much better system of service provision? Where the Government is going to find a “congregated settings fund” is a curious proposition, although a curbing of departmental entertainment, travel and subsistence budgets might be a good place to start looking for some spare cash to begin the process.

– Yours, etc,

PAUL HORAN,
Lecturer in Intellectual
Disability.
Nursing School of Nursing
Midwifery,
Trinity College,
Dublin 2.

© 2010 The Irish Times

How families and coteries are ruining disabled sports in India

The disability sports sector in India seems to be in gross disarray with the administration of the sector in the stranglehold of a coterie of people who seem to have no interest in either the disabled or in sports. National disabled sporting federations seem to be run like mom-and-pop outfits with hardly any national character.Yet, not only does the sports ministry seem blind to such obvious  mismanagement, it  seems to be actively funding and perpetuating these outfits shelling out public money in crores every year to these organisations in the name of promoting sports for the disabled.

The rot seems to start right from the apex body of disability sports, the Paralympic Committee of India (PCI). The PCI is headed by the president Ratan Singh whose son Amar Singh is the vice-president.  Amar Singh’s son, Raghavendra Singh is an escort or so-called professional masseuse for disabled sports teams. He is too young with no professional qualification to be a sports masseur. Yet, he gets selected, despite qualified persons in sports medicine with  professional training in sports massage being  available, says a disabled sportsperson on conditions of anonymity. Sportspersons are scared of speaking out against the office bearers who have a vice-like grip over their sporting  careers, a threat they seem to use to good  effect in keeping them from protesting.

When contacted, Ratan Singh admitted to the problem of office bearers signing up as escorts and managers.  “Office bearers accompany teams as they can sort out any problem easily. I can do little about this. But as you can see, my son and I are not signed up for any team. My grandson is there for being a qualified masseuse. I did not make the selection,” said Singh.

Every single office bearer of PCI has listed himself as manager or escort with various teams accompanying them to countries   like the US, Germany, Malaysia, Taiwan, Australia, Spain and so on. KR Shankar Iyer, the treasurer of PCI, is listed as an escort for the athletics and volleyball teams and manager for the wheelchair fencing team. CV Raghunath,
administrator of PCI, is listed as an escort for athletics, volleyball and the powerlifting teams. M Mahadev, the secretary of the PCI, is listed to accompany the athletics and volleyball teams.

The office bearers of national federations for each sport do what is done in PCI, which is to list themselves as escorts and managers or appoint themselves as the coach and take their wives along as escorts. Quite understandably, these so-called coaches, managers and escorts are of little help to the disabled sportspeople when they go abroad as they are allegedly too busy on jaunts and sightseeing with their wives and  friends who accompany them as team escorts.  Each so-called national federation is single-city based, filled with people from the same city and no national representation. For instance, powerlifting is run from Nagpur, swimming from Gwalior and athletics from Bangalore. The PCI, the overarching national body for all disability sports is controlled by a bunch of people in Bangalore.

The selection of sportspersons from all over the country for different sports is decided by small coteries of people of one city and allegations of irregularities in selection are common. It is the sportspersons who suffer the consequences of such mismanagement. Last month, the athletics team that was supposed to be in Germany for an international meet could not go as those responsible did not apply for the visa in time.

Most teams don’t even have basic sports equipment such as the swimming team not have approved swimming costumes or the table tennis team does not have wheelchairs.

Despite these malpractices being pretty obvious in the team lists for each sport submitted by PCI to the ministry as Long Term Development Plan 2010, the sports ministry seems oblivious to it and the allocation to these federations has been rising steadily every year going from about Rs 10 lakh in 2005 to over Rs 5 crore in 2010.

(Source: Long  Term Development Plan 2010 submitted by PCI to sports  ministry)

List of office bearers of various sports

ATHLETICS

  • Raghavendra Singh, escort: Grandson of PCI president, Ratan Singh and son of Amar Singh, PCI vice-president
  • M Mahadev, team manager: Secretary of PCI
  • David Premnath, coach: General secretary of Wheelchair Basketball Federation of India
  • CV Raghunath, escort: Administrator of PCI
  • Diana Joyline D’Souza, escort: Was personal secretary to PCI president
  • KR Shankar, escort: Treasurer of PCI

SWIMMING

  • VK Dabas, coach: Secretary of Paralympic Swimming Federation of India, also runs Paralympic Committee of Madhya Pradesh
  • Saroj Dabas, escort: Wife of VK Dabas
  • Suresh Kalra, escort: President of PSFI
  • Lalit Gupta, escort: Vice-president of PSFI

VOLLEYBALL

  • H Chandrashekar, cpach: Secretary of Volleyball Federation
  • M Mahadev, escort: Secretary of PCI
  • Chandrashekar, escort: Joint secretary of PCI

WHEELCHAIR FENCING

KR Shankar Iyer, manager: Treasurer of PCI

POWERLIFTING

  • Vijay B Munishwar, coach: President of Paralympic Powerlifting Federation and also runs Maharashtra State Paralympic Association
  • Deepali Munishwar, escort: Wife of Munishwar
  • CV Raghunath, escort: Administrator of PCI

TABLE TENNIS

  • R Murali, coach: Secretary of Paralympic TT Federation
  • Gopal Babu, escort: Member of executive committee, PTTFI
  • Shashikala Babu, escort: Wife of Gopal Babu
  • Satyanarayana, manager: President of PTTFI

EU development cooperation; does disability count?

Europe has declared 2010 to be the year against poverty and social exclusion. It is a good occasion to look at the European policy towards a group that knows only too well what poverty and social exclusion mean: people in developing countries living with a disability. Does European development aid reach people like Lila Maya in Nepal, who became blind as a baby and was isolated and mistreated until a local NGO helped her set up her business? Or Ricardo in Mozambique, who never went to school because of his paralyzed legs?

A vicious cycle
Poverty, exclusion and disability are interrelated. Poverty causes disability, because it means that people do not have access to health facilities, information and adequate food that could prevent a simple disease to develop into a disability. With proper treatment, Lila Maya might have not become blind. Disability in its turn causes poverty, because practical problems and social stigma exclude people with a disability from education and work to earn their own living. Ricardo makes a little money by repairing the clothes of his neighbours, but what would his life have looked like, if he had had access to school and a wheel chair?  According to the United Nations 650 million people live with a disability and 80% of those live in developing countries[1]. The European Union is a major player in development cooperation; it provides over half of all official development assistance worldwide[2]. An inclusive development policy of the EU can therefore really make a difference for people with a disability.
Beyond good intentions
In 2009 the EU ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It is a legally binding convention which stresses the importance of international cooperation and states that countries should ensure that: ‘that international cooperation, including international development programmes, is inclusive of and accessible to persons with disabilities’[3]. This means that, besides and above the good intentions which the EU expresses by announcing a Year against poverty and social exclusion, it has is a legal obligation to ensure that development cooperation reaches people with a disability. The Convention is an important landmark signalling a change in attitude.  In stead of talking about the handicapped who need to be cared for, people with a disability are now recognized as persons who have the right to participate in all aspects of society. Only countries that have ratified the Convention are bound to it. The EU already took this important step, but a number of European countries such as Norway, the Netherlands, Poland and Italy are still missing on the list.
Towards an inclusive European development policy
Europe has shown its commitment to the rights of the Lila Maya’s and Ricardo’s in the world. But to make sure they can
really benefit from European aid, more steps need to be taken.
  • Ratify: More countries should ratify the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This will show their real commitment and helps to make sure that we will come from good intentions to realization of rights. The EU should urge those member states that have not done so yet, to ratify the Convention as soon as possible. Together, the European countries can encourage other countries to ratify and of course to implement the  Convention.
  • Plan: The start of implementation is developing a good plan. A quick scan of relevant EU policy documents on disability and development does not give much hope. The Commission Work Programme 2010 refers to disability only once, in an annex and not in relation to development. The General development framework, makes no mention of disability at all. The Guidance Note on Disability and Development, published in 2004 by the European Commission[4] provides a number of useful principles, but apparently these are not put into practice. A good sign is that the Directorate General Development is considering to add disability to the list of ‘cross cutting’ issues. Recognizing disability as a cross cutting theme will help to ensure that attention will be paid to disability in all development activities: ‘mainstreaming’ disability. Already, the EU requires applicants of development grants to explain how the grant will benefit people with a disability. Besides mainstreaming disability in development activities, the EU will need to facilitate disability-specific services and support for disabled persons to empower themselves and to get access to mainstream services.
  • Learn: Developing such a plan is not easy. Implementing it will be even more challenging. Mainstreaming disability is a new concept and there are no studies yet that prove which strategies are successful. A lot can be learned from the experiences regarding gender and development. It is also important to do research regarding disability and development. Lessons should be drawn from good and bad experiences, to improve future  policies.
  • Measure. To know if efforts are effectively reaching people with a disability, it is important to collect data before, during and after interventions. How many people with a disability are living in the project area? Which disabilities do they have and how does this affect their ability to benefit from development efforts? Targets will need to be set on how many people with a disability will be reached by a certain effort. In most cases, the required data will be unavailable. People with a disability are not counted and therefore cannot be accounted for. Starting to collect these data will make them visible. This will require ‘disaggregation’ of data: asking projects to report on how many of the people they are people with a disability, just as they are often required to do regarding women and youth.
  • Involve. Last but certainly not least,  people with a disability should be involved in all the above. ‘Nothing about us without us’ is the adagio of the disability movement.
[1] UN 2006, Some facts about persons with disabilities, http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/facts.shtml

Published by: Dutch Coalition on Disability and Development (DCDD) -Saskia Bakker

Children need own Bill of Rights

I am a 69-year-old man. During my lifetime I have seen several groups of citizens seek and obtain increased rights. I remember the rights quest like this: civil rights, prisoner rights, voting rights, women’s rights and disability rights. While many citizens were increasing their rights, children have been steadily losing their rights. Consider this: More and more children are being born into single-parent homes. This is bad. Children need the support and guidance of both parents.

More and more children are requiring government assistance for the basic necessities of life. This is bad. Our government cannot provide an adequate living for an ever-increasing number of needy children. Children’s parents must be the primary providers for their children. More and more children have divorced parents. This is bad. The mean spirit that very often develops between divorced parents is not good for children. Children need their own Bill of Rights. This document should give details for a minimum standard of care for a child. Parents who do not provide this minimum standard of care for their children should be treated as lawbreakers. Many of our children have become second-class citizens and this is a crying shame.

David Shaner Wetumpka

Montgomeryadvertiser.com

Advocates laud parking bill

NEAL P. GOSWAMI
Thursday June 24, 2010

BENNINGTON — Illegally parking in spots reserved for people with disabilities will soon cost offenders a lot more.  Lawmakers joined law enforcement officials and advocates Thursday in hailing passage of Act 82, recently signed into law, which doubles the fine for illegally parking in a disabled spot from $100 to $200. The law and the increase takes effect on July 1.  The Vermont Center for Independent Living, a statewide disability rights organization, advocated for the legislation. Bennington County Sen. Dick Sears, a Democrat, sponsored the bill and helped shepherd it through the  House and Senate. VCIL Vice President Sam Liss credited Sears as the driving force behind the bill’s passage.

‘Constituent-driven’

The “constituent-driven” legislation was “lost with all of the discussion about texting and cell phones” during the legislative session, but an important bill for lawmakers, Sears said.  “I hope that this law will help the situation and I’m really appreciative that both our local, county and state police departments are behind this bill,” Sears said.  Liss said the bill will increase awareness because of the increased fine.  “Most of us never have to think about going shopping, going to a park or going out for entertainment other than the thoughts about having to circle the parking lot hoping for a closer space. But for many of our friends parking is an issue of greater importance,” Liss said. “Act 82 appears to be  about money… but it is about much more. This act is about awareness, about inclusion, about making sure that all  Vermonters can get to where they want and need to go. This fine is like all others, a consequence for ignoring the law.”  The legislation had received widespread support in Bennington County and throughout Vermont from law enforcement.

Vermont State Police Lt. Reginald Trayah, commander of the Shaftsbury barracks, was assigned by the state police to look into the bill. “As soon as it came across my desk, immediately I had a great deal of support for this. This will give us the opportunity to provide more access to individuals who need it, not only in Bennington County but the entire state.”  Meanwhile, Bennington County Sheriff Chad Schmidt said enforcement of parking violations will increase.  “In the past, we haven’t been as vigilant in enforcing these types of offenses,” he said. “I am pledging to you today that the sheriff’s
department will be more vigilant in our efforts and we will enforce these types of offenses.”

Bennington Police Chief Richard Gauthier said his department would enhance enforcement, too. “We will renew our efforts,” he said.  Vermont law requires that parking lots on the premises of public buildings must include at least the same number of parking spaces required by the Americans with Disabilities Act. The new state law clarifies that the parking spaces must be marked clearly by visible signs.  Sears said the sign requirements will help clarify which spots are intended for people with disabilities. Sears said he nearly violated the law recently because there was no indication the spot was intended to be for someone with a disability.  “With Senate plates … and after sponsoring this bill, the last thing you want to do is get a ticket for parking in a handicapped spot,” Sears said.

Contact Neal P. Goswami at ngoswami@benningtonbanner.com

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

Rejected disabled CAT-taker moves court against IIMs : Contends institutes leave disabled category seats vacant

Mayura Janwalkar.

Do the IIMs adequately fill up the disability quota for students?

No, thinks Rahul Girreddy, who took CAT this year and has filed a petition against the IIMs in the Bombay high court.  The commerce graduate contends in his petition that the IIMs are not complying with the provisions of the Persons with Disabilities (PD) Act, 1995.  “Though there are 90 to 100 seats reserved for DAs (differently-abled candidates), only approximately 55 candidates are short-listed collectively by the IIMs for the second phase of the selection process,” the petition states. Under the PD Act, 3% of seats in educational institutions have to be reserved for DA candidates. But the number of seats provided by the IIMs against the quota does not amount to 3%, the petition states.

It states that IIM-A stipulates that SC/ST/DA candidates should score at least 17% in each of the three sections of CAT. Accordingly, 396 DA candidates should have been eligible for interviews this year. But the IIMs put the cut-off for the three categories at 80 percentile — much above what the 17% per subject would yield — and called only 31 candidates for interviews. Girreddy contends that even if all the IIMs were to set their cut-off at say 60 percentile — like  IIM-Indore — only 55 DA candidates would have been selected, leaving many seats vacant, which would then be filled up with candidates from the general category. Girreddy, who secured 46.20 percentile, was certain of getting an interview call.

But the high cut-off dashed his hopes. Terming the conditions laid down by the IIMs “illogical”, Girreddy states in his petition: “Though the IIMs do make a provision for 3% of their seats to be reserved for DAs, the modus operandi adopted by the IIMs defeats the provisions of the PD Act, frustrates the objective set out for the state in the constitution, and causes a colossal waste of public money.”  Girreddy’s father GS Reddy says the case will be mentioned before a division bench of the court on Monday, and a date of hearing sought. If the court gives a judgment favourable to Girreddy, it will affect the percentile scores of all candidates.

DNA Bombay

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.