an online magazine from eyeway.org
an online magazine from eyeway.org
issue 5 
july-august 2005
click here to browse other issues
sections in this issue: by george | focus | feature | interview | perspectives | profile | headlines
Draft disability policy generates dismay
Dr. Madhumita Puri, Executive Director, Society for Child Development, comments on the Draft National Policy for Persons with Disabilities
When I first read the Draft National Policy for Persons with Disabilities (N.P.P.D.), I wondered: What should be the contents of a National Policy, what should it purport to do? And how directive [oriented] should it be?
The Internet threw up few (if any) pointers in this direction and so there was no option other than reviewing some of the other National Polices -- National Policy for the Empowerment of Women; National Policy on Health (2002), National Policy on Education and the New Population Policy. The unifying factors in each of these were their reasonable clarity of purpose; focus on achievements along a time-frame; a specified budget allocation or clear directions to the way to get there; and, defined responsibilities of various administrative units (including Central Ministries and State governments). They were futuristic in vision, going beyond the tried and tested paths and, above all, gave the impression of having been worked upon with care and thought.
The present Draft, sadly, does not notch many points in any of the above areas. And even sadder is the fact that it appears to have been written in a hurry. When a document of the nature of a National Policy is circulated it raises hopes, apart from indicating faith in participatory democracy. By the same token, it carries the burden of responsibility. A document designed to arouse a national debate must show that it has been written with consideration, that it necessarily should use as a framework the latest five-year plan, that is, the 10 th , in this case.
What is it that generated this sense of dismay? For a start, the document begins with an analysis of the current scenario, which does little to add to what is freely circulating. There is no attempt to provide any in-depth data that would throw light on issues beyond the head-count, or would have helped in setting the framework of Minimum Acceptable Goals. Such an analysis would also have helped point to the shortfalls and hence provide a clear set of goals to pursue. The National Health Policy (2002) for example, does just that.
The ambit of responsibility or the perception of who the stakeholders are needs upgradation. Thus, though the role of the social organisation in the development sector has been clearly spelt, there is scant attention paid to the public sector, the private sector and civil society, and their share in the onus of the work. The term 'N.G.O.', despite appearing to be an all-encompassing nomenclature, does, in common-day parlance, refer to the registered voluntary agency working towards bridging gaps in development. As it is understood, it does not include all other organisations in the larger perspective.
The other term that may have been loosely used (at least as it is hoped) is the Panchayati Raj: Is the smallest and the most local unit of self government the Panchayati Raj alone? Or are there other bodies that prevail in the development sector like Mahila Mandals in rural and semi-rural areas or the Resident welfare associations in towns and cities?
The document does not communicate a sense of progress or movement. The actions and remedies suggested are the same that have been spelt out before. There has been little or no attempt to link the existing schemes of the government, operational with other sections of boys and girls, men and women to make this a progressive and dynamic roadmap to be followed by the State governments while formulating their plan of action.
Whatever is now stated in the N.P.P.D. has already been said in the 10th five-year plan document -- in the area of Elementary Education -- ranging from restructuring of teacher education (setting up of D.I.E.T.s), measuring school facilities in terms of access, scholarships, etc. The 10th plan points to the road for budgetary allocation through the Educational Guarantee scheme, the Alternate and Innovative Education scheme -- which provides for strategies to include those who are out-of-school. In a similar vein is the section devoted to the mandate of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan where, alas, the strategies spelt are not new, and under considerable debate at the moment.
The policies on Rehabilitation and employment are similarly rooted in tried and failed strategies. For example, it would have helped if the draft N.P.P.D. document had considered a suggestion in the 10th Plan, which asks for a review of the Apprenticeship Act to decrease the surplus of educational seats. A linkage here would help look beyond the facilities provided by the D.R.C.s and D.D.R.C.s, and propel the education training and employment of persons with disabilities into the mainstreaming movement.
Reading through the draft also gave this impression of being lopsided, of somehow not being expansive -- there was a distinct leaning towards those with the physical and sensory disabilities. The clauses may have been by intent inclusive of mental disabilities but this is not quite explicit. Perhaps a listing of objectives at the beginning of the Policy document would have help set some of these issues in perspective.
And last though not the least is the philosophical leaning of the Draft policy on decentralisation. No doubt, decentralised planning is a good thing, but it requires a careful orchestration of policies and programmes where the Central government and its institutions play a major role both for coordination and for capacity-building. For this to happen the buck cannot stop by merely stating that the onus of creating a strategy rests with the State.
In conclusion, an adaptation of a paragraph found in the concluding section of the National Health Policy clearly explains the above. "The crafting of a National Policy is a rare occasion in public affairs when it would be legitimate, indeed valuable, to allow dreams to mingle with an acute understanding of ground realities. Based purely on the facts defining the current status of the disability sector a certain policy formulation could be arrived at; but, the need is to be buoyed by dreams and to venture slightly beyond to define a vision for the future."
What should be our hopes? "For any significant improvement in the quality of. services, and the consequential improved status of the citizenry in question, should depend not only on increased financial and material inputs, but also on a more empathetic and committed attitude in the service providers, whether in the private or public sectors. In some measure, this optimistic policy document should be based on the understanding that the citizenry is increasingly demanding more by way of quality in services, and the delivery mechanism, particularly in the public sector. In this backdrop, it needs to be recognised that any policy in the social sector is critically dependent on the service providers treating their responsibility not as a commercial activity, but as a service, albeit a paid one. In the area concerning the lives of the disabled, an improved standard of governance is a prerequisite for the success of any policy."