Showing posts with label rights of Persons with disabilities. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rights of Persons with disabilities. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

DESW works against Ex-Servicemen; disabled during service are worst hit.

Defence Personnel  or Ex-Servicemen are at a great disadvantage in respect of pay, pension and medical benefits compared with civilian government employees. It is none other than their own department called Department of Ex-servicemen welfare who is working against their interest. 

FRONTLINE Article

Over the past five years, ex-servicemen have been agitating against the injustice meted out to them by the Central government. They have lost faith in the Department of Ex-Servicemen Welfare (DESW), created specifically to take care of their welfare. Ex-servicemen have won 90 per cent of the cases filed in the Armed Forces Tribunals and the Supreme Court against the government, but the government has appealed in all the cases through the DESW.

The veterans have approached the Prime Minister and the Defence Minister to seek redress in numerous cases where they felt injustice had been done to them but to no avail. The Supreme Court’s judgments in their favour have either not been implemented or not been implemented in letter and spirit in cases pertaining to disability pensions, payment of arrears with retrospective effect from January 1, 2006, rank pay, and hospital charges on authorised Ex-servicemen Contributory Health Scheme (ECHS) rates for medical treatment abroad.

The government files en masse appeals against retired defence personnel whenever any case relating to pension benefits is decided in their favour by any court of law or the Armed Forces Tribunal. Facing the brunt of the government’s apathy is the category of disabled and war-disabled soldiers. Most of the special leave petitions and appeals filed by the Ministry of Defence in the Supreme Court are against the grant of disability or war injury benefits to disabled and war-disabled soldiers. As a result, the veterans are forced into expensive litigation.

Over 3,000 cases decided in favour of defence personnel by the Armed Forces Tribunal have not been implemented; the Defence Ministry has contested all these judgments in the Supreme Court. Imagine the plight of a widow of a sepoy living in a far-flung rural area. How is she going to find the resources to fight her case in the Supreme Court? The tribunals were created for delivering speedy justice to defence personnel at minimum cost. But the Ministry’s decision to appeal against the tribunal’s judgments has not only delayed justice but also made it near impossible for the defence personnel to fight their cases. The Armed Forces Tribunals do not have contempt powers to get their judgments implemented whereas Central Administrative Tribunals (CATs) are vested with such powers.

This is the biggest cause of heartburning in the military community today. Military personnel with non-service-related disabilities discharged with less than 10 years of service remaining are not entitled to any form of pension, whereas the employment of civilian employees who “acquires a disability during his service” is protected under Section 47 of the Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995.

As per the Sixth Central Pay Commission recommendations, all government servants are allowed three assured career progressions. Civilians who retire at the age of 60 are allowed promotions at 10, 20 and 30 years of service, and soldiers at eight, 16 and 24 years. However, since jawans are forced to retire early, largely between 15 and 19 years of service, to keep up the young profile of the forces, they miss out on at least one assured career progression, unlike their civil counterparts, who serve their full term until superannuation. It has been proposed to the government that the third career progression should be given to jawans automatically; they should be promoted to the rank of naib subedar at the time of retirement. Surprisingly, this demand has not been accepted.

Widow’s pension

Widow’s pension is one area of concern to the defence community that has received little attention from the government. A sepoy’s widow pension has remained a meagre Rs.3,500 a month while other sections of government employees have received periodic increases in such pension. The minimum family pension in respect of defence widows must be enhanced from Rs.3,500 to Rs.10,000 a month.

It is common knowledge that soldiers retire ahead of their time. What is not known, however, is that their life expectancy is shorter than that of civilians. The Institute of Applied Research in Manpower Analysis (IARM), which studied the lifespan of civilian employees at the behest of the Fifth Pay Commission, arrived at 77 years as the average life expectancy of a civilian government servant. The Railways conducted a similar exercise for their personnel and assessed that they achieved an average lifespan of 78 years. No such study was conducted for defence personnel since it was generally believed that soldiers lived longer than civilians. However, Major General (retired) Surjit Singh, AVSM (Athi Vishisht Seva Medal), VSM (Vishisht Seva Medal), who headed the Army Cell of the Fifth Pay Commission, carried out a detailed study in 2005 along with other experts. The study revealed that the average lifespan of defence officers was 72.5 years; that of junior commissioned officers (JCOs) 67 years; and that of other ranks was between 59.6 and 64 years.

These findings were forwarded to the Chief of the Army Staff General J.J. Singh on July 7, 2005, by Lieutenant General (retd) M.M. Lakhera, PVSM (Param Vishisht Seva Medal), AVSM, VSM, who was Lieutenant Governor of Puducherry. The findings were reported by all national newspapers and a question was asked in Parliament on the subject. Pranab Mukherjee, who was the Defence Minister then, maintained that the issue would be examined in detail. Nothing was heard about it after that.

Stress and strain of early retirement is one of the major reasons for the lower life expectancy among the defence personnel. Their legitimate demand for an assured second career until the age of 60 through an Act of Parliament has not yet been accepted.

While the pensions of all ranks were enhanced with effect from September 24, 2012, to redress the anomaly of the Sixth Pay Commission, the request to enhance the pension of JCOs proportionately was not granted. Majors with 13 years and more of service who retired before 2004 have been denied the benefit of the rank of lieutenant colonel (that is, the benefit of pay band-4 in the revised scale of the Sixth Pay Commission).

The government’s policy to grant lieutenant colonel rank on completion of 13 years of service was made applicable with effect from 2004. It would have been only just to grant all those who retired before 2004 in the rank of major with 13 years of commissioned service (this number being finite) the benefit of pension on the scale of lieutenant colonel. The strong plea in this regard has not been accepted.

Also, the non-functional upgrade (NFU) granted to civilian employees has been denied to defence personnel, thereby putting them at a disadvantage.

One Rank One Pension

One of the major demands of veterans is same pension for same rank and same length of service, that is, same rank + same length of service = same pension, irrespective of the date of retirement. They want a legislative guarantee to this. Although all major political parties have agreed to this in principle and frequently incorporate it in their election manifestos, this 40-year-old demand has not been implemented. The bureaucratic excuses in the form of administrative, legal and financial hurdles in implementing the demand were heard in detail in 2011 by the Rajya Sabha Petition Committee set up to look into all aspects of the demand and rejected them in the strongest terms. Prime Minister Indira Gandhi had agreed to this provision in principle, but her untimely death scuttled the proposal. Successive Standing Committees on Defence and the Rajya Sabha Petition Committee have recommended this but to no avail.

Before 2006, the difference in the pensions of major general and lieutenant general was only Rs.1,400. Subsequently, it became Rs.700. With the extension of higher administrative grade (HAG) and HAG+ to the rank oflieutenant general and above, the difference in pension is more than Rs.8,000 even after the increase with effect from September 24, 2012. The government has overlooked the Sixth Pay Commission recommendations, which suggested that all government employees with a basic pay of Rs.20,000 and above be clubbed under the same pay band. Major generals retire with a basic pay of Rs.22,400 and above while lieutenant generals retire with a basic pay of Rs.23,500 and above. Non-inclusion of major generals in HAG has caused an anomaly.

On losing the case, the Defence Ministry filed a review petition in the Supreme Court, denying enhanced arrears to army pensioners as ordered by the Delhi High Court with retrospective effect from January 1, 2006, instead of September 24, 2012.

Civilian employees are provided health care under the Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS) while ex-servicemen are covered under the ECHS. The provision of budget for the CGHS is calculated (for 2013-14) at the rate Rs.10,700 for every beneficiary while for the ECHS, it has been budgeted at Rs.3,150 a beneficiary. As a result, super-speciality hospitals do not offer themselves for ECHS empanelment. Over 80 per cent of the health care units have withdrawn from empanelment in view of delayed payment of bills and inadequate rates for various medical procedures. This has resulted in unsatisfactory or poor medical care for ex-servicemen. Sophisticated procedures have not been included in the ECHS. The veterans’ request for inclusion of the latest medical procedures on the ECHS benefits list has not been accepted yet. Ex-servicemen had requested that the budget be enhanced and not be less than the CGHS rates.

Here is an example to illustrate the poor nature of health care benefits provided by the government to ex-servicemen. Non-availability of funds with the ECHS and, as a consequence, non-payment of hospital dues made an empanelled hospital in Gurgaon in the National Capital Region to stop accepting patients for cashless medical treatment. Ex-Subedar Prakash Chandra Tomar from Meerut was brought to the hospital in a serious condition on December 8, 2013, which as per the ECHS scheme is permitted. The family was asked by the hospital authorities to deposit the money for the treatment or transfer the patient to some other hospital. Since the condition of the patient was serious, the family raised a loan and deposited Rs.11 lakh for 20 days of hospitalisation and treatment.

When the family was in no position to arrange further funds, Tomar’s son, Raj Kumar Tomar, approached the Indian Ex-Servicemen’s Movement (IESM) and the case was taken up with the Managing Director of the ECHS, who promised to get cashless treatment. But he did not succeed. The family deposited another Rs.2 lakh in the hospital. On January 1, Subedar Prakash died. The hospital did not accede to the request of the ECHS to release the body and insisted that the family clear the hospital bills.

In November 2008, the government had announced that in future there would be a separate pay commission for the defence forces. The defence fraternity feels betrayed as the government has not constituted a separate pay commission, and, as in the case of the previous commissions, there is no representation for defence forces in the newly constituted Seventh Pay Commission. Some 39 anomalies in defence pensions are yet to be resolved and with no defence representation in the new pay commission, more anomalies are likely to appear thereby increasing the magnitude of injustice already done to defence pensioners.

Denial of voting rights

It is surprising that serving defence personnel are denied the right to get themselves registered as voters at the place of posting. In spite of a clear judgment by the Supreme Court in 1971, this basic right has not been extended to soldiers. The option of postal ballot and proxy voting available to serving soldiers has not proved effective. There is no restriction imposed in the Representation of the People Act, 1950, to deny this right to defence personnel. There is an urgent need to restore this right immediately to allow serving soldiers to vote at their place of posting in the coming Lok Sabha elections.

The prevailing security environment calls for strong measures to upgrade the country’s defence preparedness in terms of manpower, equipment and weapon systems. Equally important are measures to keep the soldier’s morale high.

Source: Frontline

Tuesday, February 18, 2014

Can bad law be good: Faizan Mustafa


17 Feb 2014

The vision is to have a society where all categories  of  disabled  persons  are valued and respected as equal citizens and partners in the development and progress of  society and they are no longer looked upon either as burdens or  liabilities  or  targets  for  pity  and charity

FAIZAN  MUSTAFA

Why is NALSAR University of Law, the country’s best law school, opposing the Disability Bill introduced a few days back in the Rajya Sabha?  Can the latest amendments rectify the defects in the Bill? What can be done to help  persons with disability at this stage?  These are some of the questions which call for objective and critical analysis.

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)  makes the progressive and bold assertion that the disabled have the right to recognition as persons. They have full legal capacity on an equal basis with fellow human beings. Thus the Convention makes a fundamental shift from the  “incompetence model” of the disability law to the “universal capacity model”. The Convention challenges the irrational connection between impairment and incompetence.

The UNCRPD also guaranteed the right of participation and effective consultation to persons with disabilities. The Government of India implemented this obligation in letter and spirit when it launched the most extensive pre-legislative process, by first establishing a government-civil society committee to prepare a working draft with inputs from all relevant stakeholders, translating the draft into 14 languages and obtaining public opinion on it by travelling across the country.  This widely consulted Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill was submitted to the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Government of India, in June 2011. The ministry worked on this draft and came out with its version in 2012. Both the 2011 and 2012 Bills were placed on the ministry’s official website. In the face of this elaborate process of consultation, when cabinet approval was obtained on the current Bill in December 2013, it was presumed that the cabinet had approved the same drafts on which civil society and persons with disability were consulted. This belief was belied. The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2014 has little or no relationship with the Bill of 2011. People and institutions like NALSAR, which had been closely involved with the 2011 consultative process, feel betrayed  and hugely disappointed. A  government, which had started the legal reform process by creating due space for the right to participation of persons with disabilities, just lost its way.

The outrage of the leakage was soon substituted by the pragmatism of  experienced realities. A number of disability rights groups tried to retrieve the situation by stringing together a group of amendments which they contended would salvage the Bill and enable the enactment of a long delayed legislation. Since the amendments were circulated to members of Parliament on 8 February 2014, it is important to consider whether the inadequacies found in the 2014 Bill are fully addressed by the proposed amendments. A large number of persons with disabilities are unable to obtain their just due not so much because of their impairments but because of the prejudicial attitudes of people. It is these prejudicial attitudes which form barriers to their participation. Disability is social not physical. The medical model is an outdated concept. It is for this reason that raising of awareness was included as one of the critical obligations of state parties in the UNCRPD.  To arouse awareness,  the Bill of 2014 needed to unequivocally state that no person with disability shall be discriminated against on the basis of disability. The Bill does not, unlike the UNCRPD, spell out what constitutes such  a discrimination and furthermore, allows the discrimination of persons with disabilities if required for a legitimate purpose, provided that proportionate means are employed. Thus a piece of legislation, intended to afford protection against discrimination, itself permits discrimination and this permission has not been withdrawn or amended by the amendment.

In the manner of discrimination, the Bill allows the deprivation of liberty of persons with disabilities provided  there are additional reasons for doing so. What is prohibited is discrimination “only on the ground of disability.” A person with disability, who is a vagrant or destitute or considered to be dangerous, could be deprived of liberty because the requirement of equality operates only if liberty is deprived on the basis of disability. The multiplicity of standards again come to the fore when the Bill allows abortions on women with severe disability… without their consent. The wide scope of the power can be seen from the fact that the Bill does not define a woman with severe disability. This is in spite of the Supreme Court’s  decision on accepting the right of a mentally challenged woman to sustain  her pregnancy. While the apex court had acknowledged the importance of exercise of choice by the persons with disabilities in matters concerning their life, the Bill proposes to turn the clock back.

The Bill makes the inviolable and non-derogable rights, such as liberty and equality, negotiable; at another remove,  it fails to adopt principles which are required to obtain the full inclusion of all persons with disabilities. The Bill makes the matter of lifting the legal disqualifications which subsist in existing laws against persons with intellectual, psycho-social and development disabilities a matter of enforcement by the appropriate government. If the government fulfils its enforcement duties then persons with disabilities can enjoy the legal capacity on an equal basis with others. If it fails, then persons with disabilities can continue to be denied the right to enter into contracts, manage  their own properties, marry according to their choice or the right to sue a negligent service provider.

These negotiable formulations are all the more problematic in the light of the fact that the enforcement authorities established by the Bill have been primarily accorded mere “persuasive powers.” The rights guaranteed under the Bill are formulated in disputable terms. Courts are generally inaccessible to persons with disabilities and the authorities who are closer to them can provide little relief in most situations. If the commonly used aphorism in relation to rights is employed in this situation, then it can be said there are no rights as there are no remedies.  Such inadequacies of form and substance, which are only illustrative in nature, led NALSAR University of Law, to disassociate itself from the 2014 Bill. However, when the university examined the case of those who were supporting the Bill, we realised that the collapse of the Bill would hit those with disabilities that are not included in the 1995 Act.    Such persons can obtain the benefit of disability certificate, or pension, or travel concessions only if they are considered persons with disabilities. Since the 2014 Bill included them, they were willing to ignore  the glaring inadequacies of the Bill, consoling themselves with the thought that there is no such thing as “perfect law”.

A realistic acknowledgement of legal imperfection is acceptable; however, to accept a bad law considering it to be good, if not perfect, is undesirable. The new Bill will apply to all  forms of disabilities ~  “old and new”. The  “new disabilities”, so-called, in order to obtain inclusion are inadvertently submitting to a discriminatory regime. The only way out is to include by legislative amendment or promulgation of Ordinance all the disabilities which were going to be included in the 2014 Bill and extend to them all the benefits which are presently extended to disabilities included in the 1995 Act. Such an amendment would create a level playing field between all disabilities and enable all groups to uncompromisingly demand their just due.

We want to have a society which is truly inclusive and egalitarian, where every individual including persons with disabilities have equal opportunities. The vision is to have a society where all categories of disabled persons are valued and respected as equal citizens and partners in the development and progress of  society and they are no longer looked upon either as burdens or liabilities or targets for pity and charity.

The writer is Vice-Chancellor of the NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad

Source: The Statesman

Wednesday, January 8, 2014

A Comedian with Disability committed to disability awareness: Maysoon Zayid

Dear Friends,

I am greatly impressed by the eloquence of this Palestinian woman from New Jersey Ms. Maysoon Zayid - a writer, actor, comedian and co-founder of New York Arab-American Comedy Festival.

She shatters the myths and stereotypes associated with persons with disabilities in no time and you can not but return much more sensitized and knowledgeable about yourself, about your own beliefs about persons with disabilities and their abilities.

I am sure you would love to see this embeded video herein below:



Friday, September 6, 2013

Accessibility to be standalone goal post 2015 for DPI



Aarti Dhar, September 6, 2013

Disabled People’s International wants disability to be a standalone goal in the post-2015 Development Agenda.

As the global development fraternity and political leaders gear up to discuss the post-2015 Development Goals during the UN General Assembly Meetings in New York this month, the disability sector has expressed serious concern over the non–inclusion of disability as a focused goal in the report of the High Level Panel (HLP) on the post-2015 development agenda.

“In the year 2000, when the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) were formulated, it was assumed that they would automatically apply to persons with disabilities. There was also some effort by the United Nations and a few international organisations to create awareness in this regard among various stakeholders. However, two years before its deadline for completion, none of the goals have been met for persons with disabilities. This is a mistake that the world cannot afford to make again. Therefore, the discussions and deliberations on Post -2015 Development Goals will have a significant bearing on the lives of one billion people with disabilities,” says Javed Abidi, chairperson, Disabled People’s International (DPI) who will participate in the High Level Meeting on Disability & Development in New York.

The HLP report states, “We should ensure that no person– regardless of ethnicity, gender, geography, disability, race or other status– is denied universal human rights and basic economic opportunities.” Further, the report has stated quite emphatically that, “Targets should only be considered ‘achieved’ if they are met for all relevant income and social groups.” However, DPI is of the opinion that this would not be enough to achieve the goals for persons with disabilities in the post-2015 development agenda.

Calling for inclusion of a stand-alone goal on disability in the post-2015 development agenda, similar on the lines of gender which has been addressed in the HLP report, the DPI has proposed specific targets/indicators for persons with disabilities under each goal.

Affirmative action

The DPI wants that the poverty line be adjusted to include disability costs and ensure that all general poverty alleviation and social protection policies and schemes have accessibility, accommodation and affirmative action for persons with disabilities.

Similarly, all policies and programmes, infrastructure and systems related to empowerment and rights of women should have a special component for women with disabilities so that such women with special needs are not discriminated against, the DPI has said.

More than one billion people in the world live with some form of disability, of who nearly 200 million experience considerable difficulties in functioning. In the years ahead, disability will be an even greater concern because its prevalence is on the rise. This is due to ageing populations and the higher risk of disability in older people as well as the global increase in chronic health conditions such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer and mental health disorders.

About 80 per cent of people with disabilities live in developing countries, 82 per cent live below the poverty line and 20 per cent of this group are the poorest of the poor.

Mortality for children with disabilities may be as high as 80 per cent in countries where the under-five mortality as a whole has decreased below 20 per cent, according to the United Kingdom's Department for International Development, adding that in some cases it seems as if disabled children are being "weeded out".

According to data available with Child Line, Lucknow, of the 27 new born abandoned children between 2007-08, 21 were female and ‘handicapped’ either mentally or physically. Amongst boys, 10 of the 19 found abandoned, were ‘handicapped’.

Education wanting

UNESCO studies have suggested that only one-two per cent of children with disabilities in developing countries receive any education. In developing countries, 80-90 per cent of people with disabilities of working age are unemployed.

It is estimated that only two per cent of people with disabilities in developing countries have access to rehabilitation and appropriate basic services. Women and girls with disabilities are particularly vulnerable to abuse. A survey in 2004, in Orissa, India, found that virtually all of the women and girls with disabilities were beaten at home, 25 per cent of women with intellectual disabilities had been raped and six per cent of women with disabilities had been forcibly sterilized.

Keywords: Champions with Disability, Disabled People, global development, post-2015 Development Agenda

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/pushing-for-accessibility/article5099950.ece

Friday, August 31, 2012

Death toll 228 at Asha Kiran since 2005, unabated

Dear Colleagues,

Those of you who work with person with multiple disabilities have seen them living ordinary life if given proper medication for epilepsy and care. However, there is utter chaos at Asha Kiran centre where no one want to take the blame for the deaths which are happening in the Govt. run institution. The centre says it is the severe mental retardation and epileptic fits that is leading to deaths while the court appointed committee and any person involved or with experience in caring for a person with multiple disabilities would say that it is unhygienic conditions, lack of medical facilities and mismanagement at the Asha Kiran which is resulting in avoidable deaths. Human life doesn't seem to have a value here.

I wanted to share a personal experience of one and half year back. One day on my way to work, I suddenly saw, a person with mental disability roaming on the ring road and then sitting under a flyover. I really got worried about his life and always thought some day some vehicle might strike him down and I thought of admitting him to the state run centres where he will be cared. Sooner, I realised the pathetic condition of the Centres that we are discussing here, I decided not to even think that way. I consulted several of my friends who expressed that this person may live a better, safe and longer life under a flyover than a State run Centre and that I should stop thinking of making efforts to have him shifted to a "safer" place like Asha Kiran.

Today after more than one and half year, when I continue to see him every day at the same place while on way to work, I feel how mistaken I was. He is at least happy & safe here and leading his life though with help from passer byes. I am sure if I had decided otherwise, I wouldn't see him alive!

Here is the news from Hindustan Times of 31st Aug 2012 giving you the update:

At Asha Kiran, 228 inmates have died since 2005


The Delhi government has admitted that 228 deaths have taken place at Asha Kiran, the Capital’s lone home for mentally challenged children and adults, since 2005. In an affidavit filed recently before the Delhi High Court hearing a PIL complaining of lack of medical care and shockingly  unhygienic conditions at the home in Rohini, the Delhi government said 59 inmates died in 2005-06, 28 in 2006-07, 34 in 2007-08, 37 in 2008-09, 46 in 2009-10, 11 in 2010-11 and 13 in 2011-July 2012.

During a hearing on August 8, the court had slammed the government for the inhuman manner in which the inmates were kept at the home and termed it the "worst kind of human rights violation". The court was perusing a report submitted by a court-appointed committee which inspected the premises of the welfare home.

Expressing shock at the revelation of 228 deaths, human rights activist and a member of the court-appointed committee Colin Gonsalves said: "This figure is high but the government feels it is low. They thought that by stating it on an affidavit it would save them before the court. The National Commission for Protection of Child Rights has repeatedly said deaths were taking place at the home due to negligence."

A bench of acting chief justice AK Sikri and justice RS Endlaw is to take a stand on the issue on Friday. The government denied the deaths were due to negligence and mismanagement. "Biological factors play a major role in high mortality rates among the mentally-challenged persons. A large number of inmates at Asha Kiran fall in the categories of severe and profound mental retardation with multiple disabilities and suffering from epileptic fits. Studies show that such types of individual keep very shortened life expectancy," the government said.

DP Bharal, deputy director with the department of social welfare, said in an affidavit: "From 59 deaths in 2005-2006, the same has come down to 13 in 2011-12. None of the deaths occurred due to negligence. The inmates who died were extreme cases of mental retardation or having chronic medical ailments."

Monday, March 19, 2012

Media has a larger role in breaking disability stereotypes

Dear Colleagues,

Here is an article on a workshop conducted by DLU (North East), Shishu Saroti, Guwahati
 on the role of Media vis-a-vis the Disability Sector"  published in The Sentinel. Several such initiatives are needed for most sectors since it is the wrong portrayal of persons with disabilities that reinforces the  age old prejudices and biases. 

Not because it is done intentionally but there is lack of awareness among the masses, the society, the media, the judiciary, the government babus, the medical and para-medical fraternity and above all the  family members of persons with disabilities and worst - persons with disabilities themselves!. Such eye-opening sessions are needed for every one and should be conducted more often in schools & colleges too!  


Media should adopt a rights-based approach rather than a charity approach while reporting about persons with disabilities. — Arman Ali

By our Staff Reporter

GUWAHATI, March 17: “People with disabilities are often perceived as different by normal people. They are also discriminated against. This is unfortunate and should not happen. Disabled people too have hopes and aspirations like normal people. They should not be made to feel as if they are different and should be given equal opportunity to move forward in life, like the rest,” said Shishu Sarothi executive director Arman Ali while addressing an orientation programme held in Guwahati today on the topic ‘Role of Media vis-a-vis the Disability Sector’. The programme was organized for mediapersons by the Disability Law Unit- Northeast, Shishu Sarothi.

Ali further said, “The families of disabled persons should accept them with their weaknesses and strengths. A proper environment should be created at home so that they can feel encouraged to pursue their dreams.” He added, “Unfortunately, the government is also not doing enough for the disabled people. It should make provisions for such persons.”
He called upon the media to adopt a rights-based approach rather than a charity approach while reporting about persons with disabilities.

Speaking at the programme, senior journalist Prabal Das said, “In India, even though social and humanitarian issues get written about in newspapers and magazines, the disability issue has not been highlighted much. Media should portray disability in such a way so as to help increase awareness throughout society about the realities faced by disabled persons, reduce stereotypes, prejudices and harmful practices. Shishu Sarothi, which is building hope among the disabled people, should guide the media on how to portray the disability issue.”
Das lamented the fact that the Indian media usually highlights the disability issue during the Para Olympics.

Disability Law Unit-Northeast assistant project coordinator Amvalika Senapati said that as per the 2001 census, there were 5,30,300 disabled persons in Assam. As per the WHO report, 2011, there are 31,16,927 persons with disabilities in Assam.

She said, “Disability, whether mental or physical, does not disable a person. Discrimination, social stigma and poverty does. The media exerts a powerful influence on the way people with disabilities are perceived. It is important that persons with disabilities that they are portray realistically and that their disabilities are explained accurately.”

Examples of denial of right to education in respect of children with disability in the various districts of Assam, inaccessible public places and empathy of various authorities in implementing the laws and schemes in respect of persons with disabilities was highlighted by her. She highlighted how there were no provisions for disabled persons in railways stations and the ISBT.

During the programme, many points were highlighted. The media, it was said, should raise awareness about the challenges faced by persons with disabilities, bring discussion of disability into the public arena to challenge the idea of it as a taboo subject, promote policies, products and services that support full participation and development of disabled persons, avoid labels like ‘disability’ or ‘mental’ which have negative stereotypes or myths associated with them, allow persons with disabilities to speak for themselves, encourage and to expose common myths about disability.

Source: The Sentinel