Centre for Internet and Society

For a Truly Inclusive Consultative Process

salelkar — 2014-07-02T04:44:14Z

At Inclusive Planet we attempt to engage as many people with disabilities as possible with the consultative process which precedes the enactment of legislation and policy, and we are very happy with the NDA Government’s positive steps in putting out all proposed amendments to the public at large for feedback.

Some of the areas on which public comment has been sought is the proposed repeal and reenactment of the Juvenile Justice Act, the amendments of three labour laws viz. the Factories Act, the Minimum Wages Act, and the Prevention of Child Labour Act, and the Railways Ministry has asked for comments towards the formulation of the Rail Budget. All of these are extremely key legislations and in fact there is a lot to contribute in terms of suggesting enabling provisions towards accessibility and recognizing potential discrimination against persons with disabilities.

Unfortunately, the disabilities sector is faced with two major problems when it comes to this process. One is that the material which is uploaded onto the respective government websites is inaccessible for screen readers. Many of these are large documents which are essentially scanned copies of the printed notifications – for example, the Factories Act press release is now available in an easier format than the original version which had been uploaded. The websites themselves are not easy to navigate and are not screen reader friendly. Efforts are on by the newly launched India Access Hub to convert these documents into an accessible format for contributors and discussions on their forum, however, the process seems tedious and there is no reason why the Government bodies cannot ensure that the best possible document, screen reader compatibility wise, is not made available to the public. This would ensure that precious time is not consumed in the process of making the document accessible.

Which is closely linked to the second issue – the comments and suggestions which have been called for are required within a short period of time – between 15 days (Juvenile Justice Act) to 30 days (all three labour legislations) and while the advertisement for the Railway Budget appears to have been put out on the weekend of the 21^st of June, since the budget itself is slated to be tabled on the 8^th of July by recent media reports, feedback is realistically required within this week itself. The process becomes exclusionary on account of these narrow deadlines – the presumption being made is that specialized agencies with able-bodied representatives can revert speedily with their feedback. The disability sector is quite keen on responding to all proposed legislation, as the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities demand compliance in terms of non discrimination and access across all sectors. It is also difficult to respond with such momentum considering that many stakeholders are not online, and for some, processing and expressing viewpoints may take longer than the average person, not to mention the importance of making this information available in a simplified format. Ideally, any person with impairment should be able to express their views and be considered as a stakeholder; however, with the barriers in place which prevent effective access and accommodation to the expression of views, 15% of the population may effectively be disabled to that extent.

This is by no means a new complaint – the lack of accessibility of government documentation has been rampant and raised before previous Governments as well – however, the hope is that with the NDA Government’s manifesto focus on using information technology to alleviate the concerns of persons with disabilities, that the mandate for all Government Websites to be compliant with the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0 will be implemented with immediate effect, and in the meantime that Government Officials be instructed to upload fully accessible documents to their websites. It would also not be out of place to institute a common information portal for all documents open for public consultation to make such access easier for all.

There should never be any bar on access to information: particularly that which affords an opportunity to the public to be heard and considered. It is sincerely hoped that the new Government takes a much needed positive step in this direction.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/for-a-truly-inclusive-consultative-process

The Road to Financial Inclusion

salelkar — 2014-06-03T06:46:18Z

It is increasingly frustrating to hear about wonderful steps being taken for financial inclusion within the private sector which completely ignores the question of inclusion of persons with disabilities.

Those of us working in the disabilities sector and those who live with the reality of disability know how difficult it is for persons with disabilities to even open bank accounts independently, and for those who are allowed to open bank accounts on their own, access to added services like ATM cards, chequebooks, internet banking — facilities which many of us take for granted — becomes a matter of discretion of bank managerial staff. The CIS Report on Banking Accessibility is a seminal document on the problems being faced on accessibility to banking, and it was hoped that the Reserve Bank of India would take cognizance of the numerous issued raised within it.

On May 21, 2014, the Reserve Bank of India issued a notification mandating all scheduled banks to take necessary steps to provide all existing ATMs / future ATMs with ramps for the same to be accessible for persons with disabilities, and provided further that the height of the ATMs should not create an impediment in their use by wheelchair users. The onus is on banks to provide this, and in cases where such changes are not practicable, this requirement may be dispensed with, for reasons recorded and displayed in branches or ATMs concerned. The requirements for ramps at entrances is also extended to bank branches (wherever feasible). The notification also notes the failure of Banks to ensure that at least 1/3rd of all their ATMs are "talking" ATMs with Braille keypads as per the 2009 Circular and now mandates that all ATMs installed from July 1, 2014 shall be talking ATMs with Braille Keypads.

The 2014 Notification goes one step forward and makes special provisions for providing magnifying glasses for persons with low vision in order to assist them in the carrying out of banking transactions. Banks should maintain a list of facilities for persons with disabilities and make this information available for customers prominently. On the May 27, a similar Notification, extending similar provisions to Regional Rural Banks, was published.

What does this mean for accessibility and banking? Definitely, the circulars come as a big boost to accessibility, particularly with regard to ATM facilities. ATM Machines which are designed to accommodate persons with disabilities do make a huge difference, though many, many persons have reported not even being given access to these facilities on account of their disabilities which has not been addressed in these circulars.

Additionally, it does not appear that non compliance is actionable, as Banks are merely advised to report the progress made in this regard periodically to their respective Customer Service Committee of the Board and ensure compliance. As pointed out above, reasons for non compliance are merely to be recorded and displayed. The procedures to approach the Ombudsman do not include accessible measures, and this continues to allow bank staff to act with impunity in denying banking facilities for persons with disabilities.

Despite actively intervening in the eventual Report of the Technical Committee on Banking of the RBI, disability rights activists have found that the banking industry has not been receptive to the needs of persons with disabilities. From this background, the RBI Notifications are a welcome start, though slightly premature — what is of utmost urgency on the part of the RBI is a categorical statement that no person with disability who comes to the bank to open a bank account will be denied access to the same. Additional tools which can be extremely beneficial to persons with disabilities, including mobile and internet banking, must be made accessible and available to persons with disabilities. It is also important for basic training on disability and communication be made part of syllabus for training of banking officials, and that regular interactions and training is encouraged for bank officials. It would be useful for all bank branches, and all departments of the RBI, to have an accessibility officer, a bank official given the additional responsibility of ensuring accessibility of the bank branch or the Department as the case may be, who is given specialized training in matters relating to accessibility. This would go a long way in ensuring that financial inclusion leaves no one behind.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/the-road-to-financial-inclusion

Polling Pains

salelkar — 2014-05-06T08:12:03Z

While there has been a lot of outrage and furore over the dropping of names of eligible and previously registered persons from voter's lists across the Country, what hasn't received a lot of coverage is the large scale apathy towards the needs of voters with disabilities across the Country.

While Delhi noticed some improvement over the terrible conditions during the State Assembly Elections earlier this year, other States continued to plead ignorance to even Supreme Court approved guidelines on accessibility in elections. In Chennai, the State Election Commission held a meeting with persons with disabilities, facilitated by the Office of the State Commissioner for Disabilities, a month prior to the elections. A number of grievances were raised, ranging from non implementation of the Guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in 2007 (which were issued thanks to the laudable efforts of the Disability Rights Group), to the lack of efforts to include persons with disabilities housed in institutions, to provision of sign language interpreters and large print materials for persons with low vision. The Election Commission undertook to, at the very least, implement the mandate of the Court, but election day brought out a different story altogether – polling booths were not provided with ramps, and where there were ramps they were too steep to navigate. Polling booth officials and police officials were largely reported to be apologetic and friendly, but the inconvenience, danger, and humiliation associated with having one's wheelchair lifted (or worse, being lifted yourself) in order to exercise a constitutional right could not be excused by smiles and shrugs.

There are complaints by voters who are blind of not being given a braille list of candidates and not being allowed to feel the braille stickers on the side of the EVMs. For persons with disabilities, the Conduct of Election Rules allow for them to cast their votes with the assistance of another person – a person who may not be of their choice, but who still gets to enter the booth with them and thus creates an exception from the right to “secret ballot”. While some voters who could use braille found centres in Bombay to be accessible on their own, the question still remains as to what happens to those voters who are blind or have visual impairment who cannot use braille. In such cases, wouldn't a universally designed “talking” EVM with a headphone help solve most problems?

It is additionally problematic when, instead of highlighting issues of inaccessibility, the media finds it more convenient to glorify persons being physically lifted, or seen crawling to election booths. Such images perhaps serve to encourage people to vote (“if they do, so should you”) but in another sense they make it difficult to demand dignified access to the polling booth and reflect negatively on persons with disabilities who opted to turn away from the electoral process that refused to accommodate them. The inexplicability, for example, of polling booths in Mumbai to be located on the first floor of a building without a lift, clearly shows that for the election authorities in India, disability, or even age, isn't even a factor to be considered in assessing the situation for potential voters. This being the situation in metropolitan cities – feedback from rural voters is something yet to be gathered.

The stark reality of even 7 year old Supreme Court mandated guidelines on accessibility not being followed through gives little hope for when elections will be truly accessible for India's disabled, and at the same time, makes one wonder whether alternatives, particularly in ICT, can be explored by the Election Commission towards a more inclusive 2019 General Elections. An examination of the political manifestos of the major political parties in India does reveal a lack of serious consideration of the needs of persons with disabilities. Imagine how many people with disabilities eventually get to vote after excluding those who cannot access the booth on account of physical or communicational barriers, or even the process of recognition as a voter—thanks to perceived legal barriers on persons of 'unsound mind' in the Representation of People Act, 1950, and the procedural ambiguity (necessity of address proof, etc.) of reaching out to institutionalized persons. For this small fraction of the population, there may be little incentive for political parties to come up with a comprehensive political strategy. Steps by the Election Commission to empower every person with a disability as a voter, therefore, is an important step in accessibility and inclusion being a part of all political manifestos.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/polling-pains

The Right of Persons with Disabilities Bill 2013 and the Lack of Access to Accessibility Rights

salelkar — 2014-02-03T02:21:45Z

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill, 2013 (The RPD Bill) went through three avatars since its commissioning in 2009 under the Sudha Kaul Committee. This blog post brings you a summary of the three stages since it was initially commissioned.

The first was the one the Committee proposed in 2011, after consultations with persons with disabilities and Disabled People's Organizations across the country; the second was notified by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment in 2012, which was in parts opposed to by several stakeholders; and the third, the RPD BIll of 2013, has actually brought the entire disability lobby, as it were, together, in being entirely appalled at the turn of events. The Bill, which is being furiously evaluated in the short time available between its being made available to the public and its impending introduction (and possible passing in the House), is full of flaws. Not only does it not adhere to the standards of the UNCRPD, but it also violates the spirit of the Indian Constitution, as well as contradicting existing case law, and most importantly it betrays the consensus and recommendations of persons with disabilities who were initially part of these recommendations.

Doubtlessly, while access to government establishments and entities like courts, collectorates, municipal offices, is important for persons with disabilities, there are other establishments which are equally important for persons with disabilities, for purposes of recreation, access to culture, and private services. I've made the point elsewhere that the law proposed is less of an empowering statute and more on the lines of the charity model – and in line with that, the indication is that persons with disabilities will only ever have to come in contact with the government and other entities, so they can enforce rights, take grants, petition government servants, etc. But if the statute itself is rights based, why so much focus on access to forums for rights enforcement, and not on others beyond this?

While they did have their flaws, the 2011 and 2012 versions of the Bill, which had rather comprehensive provisions with regard to ensuring accessibility. To start with, the right of persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others to the physical environment, transportation, information and communications, including appropriate technologies and systems, and other facilities and services open or provided to the public, both in urban and in rural areas, was recognized. The RPD Bill recognizes the obligation of the government to provide accessibility measures, but by now wording it in terms of a right, it does not do complete justice. The 2011 and 2012 drafts were replete with separate sections on the right to transport, personal mobility, communications, services, the built environment, etc. On the other hand, the RPD Bill clumsily lops all of these into a few sections, with repeated emphasis on infrastructure and services run by "establishments", which is, in effect, the government. There is no mention of website accessibility, though a cursory mention is made to the appropriate government ensuring that all contents available in audio, print and electronic media are in accessible format; and that persons with disabilities have access to electronic media by providing audio description, sign language interpretation and close captioning. Again, the ambiguity as to whether this extends to websites which are not run by the government, is not clear.

There is another aspect to accessibility which is lost under the Act by its failure to recognize it as a right. A senior person in the sector, who is blind, told me of an instance where he was barred from entering a bar with some friends. "You won't be able to tell what the bill is or how many drinks you've had", said the manager. He was therefore, being discriminated against entering a place, solely on the grounds of his disability. Persons who have been cured of leprosy are denied access to transport and other public facilities on the basis of outdated statutes. Persons who use crutches and calllipers are denied entry to religious places. The understanding of the Bill on accessibility is extremely limited, and limited to the built environment of government establishments, and this does nothing to extend the rights of persons with disabilities. Groups which are forwarding non negotiables for amendments to the Bill do not consider, at present, the right to accessibility to be a non negotiable. I do wonder, however, whether any of the other rights make sense when express and implied bars to access exist and are effectively encouraged, under this proposed law.

For more details visit http://editors.cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-bill-2013-and-lack-of-access-to-accessibility-rights