That letter is indeed hard to forget Capt. Johann. Are you in agreement with the National Trust Amendment<http://www.disabilitystudiesnalsar.org/ntamendment.pdf>which extends its mandate to any disabled person requiring high support?
I'm a firm believer though, that Parivaar itself needs to extend itself to including concerns and rights of families of *any* PwD. Or alternately PARIVAAR, AIFMI, need to come together to form an umbrella lobbying organisation of families of PwD. What do you say members of AIFMI & Parivaar?! On 2 July 2012 14:01, captainjohann <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > > Hi all, > As some here may not know the views of Mr.JP Gadkari of the National > trust act and Paarivar as recently as 2009 when the same topic was > discussed, it is beeter to read his views again. His views on "Disabled > due to Mental illness" is well known.So will Mr.Gadkari answer how many > disabled due to Mental illnesss are covered under the National trust act ? > How many disabled due to mental illness are part of the "gharando " scheme? > How many disabled due mental illness are part of the Arunima scheme? His > letter to the Chairman of the national trust in 2009 is below. > > Deal All, > > It is good that the controversial question whether Mental Illness should > be included as a disability under the National Trust Act or not has come to > the fore. > > This controversy has been brewing since 2003, soon after the National > Trust Act became operative and the provision of legal guardianship became > applicable for adults with mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy and > multiple disabilities which are covered under the Act. > > While it was only a murmur in the beginning, it has now assumed a > vociferous form and there is a noisy campaign through all available means, > particularly through I.T. All kinds of arguments are being put forward to > justify the demand that mental illness should be brought under the purview > of the National Trust Act. > > Why this strident campaign and flurry of e-mails from all and sundry now > and the time chosen for it? There is a particular reason for this. You are > all aware that the process of reviewing all the disability related > legislations and amending them suitably in order to bring them in line with > the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons > with Disabilities [UNCRPD] is on. Drafts for amending the Persons with > Disabilities Act, 1995 and the National Trust Act for the welfare of > persons with autism, cerebral palsy, mental retardation and multiple > disabilities are already in circulation. A huge debate at present is going > on at the national level on these drafts. > > For the last five years or so mental illness lobby have been actively > pursuading a demand that mental illness should be covered by the National > Trust Act though there is a separate legislation called the Mental Health > [MH] Act of 1987 in existence. The main argument of this lobby is that > there is no simplified legal guardianship provision in the MH Act and > therefore, they would like to have the benefit of this provision under the > National Trust Act. > > The very basis of this argument is completely knocked off if the proposed > amendment to the National Trust Act on abolition of the guardianship > provision replacing it with the Supported Decision Making [SDM] structure > is approved. But this is a hypothetical assumption. Even if the provision > of legal guardianship remains in the National Trust Act there is no > justification at all for the mental illness lobby to demand the inclusion > of mental illness which is unfortunately included in the list of > disabilities in the PD Act 1995. > > One has to take a serious note of the fact that mental illness with its > very nomenclature is an illness - a disease and it cannot be termed as a > disability. This illness can be cured with medication and probably a > prolonged treatment. What these persons need is rehabilitation measures > once they are cured. These provisions are there in the MH Act and also in > the PD Act 1995. There is absolutely no justification of their demand for > inclusion under the NT Act. > > It will not be out of place here to look at the historical background and > the hard struggle which had to be waged by the parents of persons with > intellectual and developmental disabilities to prove that mental > retardation or intellectual and developmental disabilities cannot be > equated with mental illness. The parent movement which was then at its > infant stage won a significant battle when the Indian Lunacy Act of 1912 > was repealed, the mentally retarded were taken out of its purview and the > MH Act was enacted for the purpose of giving relief to the persons with > mental illness. > > The parents movement which had started taking firm roots in India by the > time the PD Act was enacted in 1995 carried forward this struggle when it > was noticed that there were no adequate provisions in the PD Act to fulfil > the specific needs of persons with intellectual and developmental > disabilities by demanding a seperate legislation for persons with these > disabilities. The parents movement under the leadership of Parivaar > succeeded in this battle too with the National Trust Act being enacted in > 1999. > > When the National Trust Act was being drafted this historical background > was kept in mind and the provision of legal guardianship was included in > it. It was also kept in mind that the enactment of NT Act was specifically > for the persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities and not > for persons with mental illness or disease. It is therefore, totally > unjustifiable on the part of mental illness lobby to call it (non-inclusion > of mental illness in the NT Act) as a *"mistake".* Therefore, there is no > question of *"correcting" *this*"mistake"* as being demanded by some of > the protogonist of the mental health lobby. In our view it was a mistake to > include mental illness in the list of disabilities under the P.D. Act > > It is surprising and painful to note that all and sundry without even > having the rudimentary knowledge of the nature of intellectual and > developmental disabilities are equating even the persons with cerebral > palsy and autism with mental illness. Let these elements concentrate on > the problem of mental illness only. > > Since the debate has been going on, some interesting aspects have also > come up. For instance, the NT CEO Mr. Atul Prasad has raised some important > questions even indirectly suggesting to make provision of Legal > Guardianship for MI under the MH Act itself. > > Mr. Atul Prasad has also raised another important question "whether we > should compartmentalise disabilities or should we have a comprehensive Act > with special chapters to deal with specific requirements (needs), if any, > of different disabilities?" > > To the first question or the suggestion made by Mr. Prasad we fully agree > that necessary provision for legal guardianship should be made for the > mentally ill in the MH Act itself. > > We have no objection at all to have one comprehensive Act with special > chapter to deal with specific requirements and needs of different > disabilities and keeping intact the beneficial provisions in the existing > Acts and also adding more appropriate provisions in the light of those > provided in the UNCRPD. > > J P Gadkari > President, PARIVAAR > > > > > "Greatness lies not in never falling but in rising everytime we fall" > *Captain Johann samuhanand,** BANGALORE INDIA* > *91 80 42023252 * > *www.captainjohann.blogspot.com* > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* THE DISPATCH <[email protected]> > *To:* [email protected]; [email protected]; > Access India <[email protected]>; > [email protected]; Posterous Dispatch < > [email protected]>; Posterous MH News < > [email protected]>; Posterous WMIF < > [email protected]>; GG Dispatch On Disability < > [email protected]> > *Sent:* Sunday, 1 July 2012 11:00 PM > *Subject:* [MhaReformIndia:650] Why one comprehensive disability law is > undesirable > > *June 28, 2012* > *J P GADKARI* > *With reference to the editorial, ‘A law that enables,’ published in The > Hindu on June 18, 2012, J.P. Gadkari, director of PARIVAAR, * > *a national confederation of **parents organisations of persons with > intellectual and developmental disabilities, says:* > > The idea of an “umbrella” disability legislation suggested at the > conclusion of the editorial is not a new one. A group of some disability > activists started pleading for ‘One Comprehensive Disability Law’ as soon > as the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment set up a committee > consisting of representatives of mainstream disability organisations in the > country on April 30, 2010. They started agitating for changing the terms > of reference of the committee which was assigned the task of drafting a new > disability law (in consonance with the UNCRPD ratified by the Government of > India on October 1, 2007) to replace the existing PwD Act 1995. > > The Drafting Committee which consisted of representatives of all sections > of disability took this issue for consideration at the very outset of its > deliberation although it could have stuck to the terms of reference of the > Committee and proceeded with its agenda. Going out of the way, it devoted > lot of its precious time with a full-fledged discussion on the issue of > ‘One Comprehensive disability legislation vs Multiple laws’ as they exist > today. > > After a thorough discussion, the Committee with an over-whelming majority > came to the conclusion in favour of multiple laws, as they exist today, > albeit with necessary amendments to bring them in line with the UNCRPD. > Their conclusion was based on the need to provide specific services, > particularly for persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities > [PwIDDs] and psycho-social disabilities. > > The committee members belonging to this sector also explained that though > the PwD Act 1995 had included Mental Retardation and Mental illness, it was > necessary to have a separate legislation to meet their specific needs > particularly dealing with rehabilitation and habilitation and life-long > care. They also pointed out that despite the inclusion of these two > disabilities in the PwD Act, they still remained most marginalised among > the persons with various disabilities. Therefore, they expressed the > apprehension that they will again become marginalised if they become part > of One Comprehensive disability law. > > Later this majority view of the Committee was upheld by the Ministry of > Social Justice and Empowerment and the Committee went ahead with its > mandate and completed its job by the end of June 2011 and submitted the > draft for the new Rights of Persons with Disabilities bill to the Ministry. > > During its deliberations and countrywide consultations, the Committee also > took the view that all other disability laws should also be amended > simultaneously with close coordination between the Ministries of SJ&E, > Ministry of Health and HRD in order to avoid inconsistencies and > duplication. > > Early this year the National Advisory Council undertook the exercise of > extensively review the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Bill and has > broadly concurred with the stand taken by the Committee. > > We, therefore feel that there is broad unanimity and consensus in the > entire disability sector on this issue and an umbrella law idea is not > acceptable to it. > > http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article3577736.ece > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (Reform) India" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/MhaReformIndia?hl=en > ------------- > Affiliated Groups : MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA > [email protected] > Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights > etc > [email protected] > India-specific news and views related to mental health > [email protected] > Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues > [email protected] > Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social > learning amongst peers > > > __._,_.___ > Reply to > sender<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMhaReformIndia%3A650%5D%20Why%20one%20comprehensive%20disability%20law%20is%20undesirable>| > Reply > to > group<[email protected]?subject=Re%3A%20%5BMhaReformIndia%3A650%5D%20Why%20one%20comprehensive%20disability%20law%20is%20undesirable>| > Reply > via web > post<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/tn_disabilityright_forum/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJwcDYzcDVlBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzczODkxNzQ3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDk1OTg0MgRtc2dJZAMzMzUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDcnBseQRzdGltZQMxMzQxMjE3OTAw?act=reply&messageNum=335>| > Start > a new > topic<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/tn_disabilityright_forum/post;_ylc=X3oDMTJmZGR0MzNlBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzczODkxNzQ3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDk1OTg0MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNudHBjBHN0aW1lAzEzNDEyMTc5MDA-> > Messages in this > topic<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/tn_disabilityright_forum/message/333;_ylc=X3oDMTMza2o5MHE0BF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzczODkxNzQ3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDk1OTg0MgRtc2dJZAMzMzUEc2VjA2Z0cgRzbGsDdnRwYwRzdGltZQMxMzQxMjE3OTAwBHRwY0lkAzMzMw-->( > 2) > Recent Activity: > > > Visit Your > Group<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/group/tn_disabilityright_forum;_ylc=X3oDMTJmYW9xcG5rBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzczODkxNzQ3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDk1OTg0MgRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzEzNDEyMTc5MDA-> > [image: Yahoo! > Groups]<http://in.groups.yahoo.com/;_ylc=X3oDMTJlMHV0aGZuBF9TAzk3NDkwNDgxBGdycElkAzczODkxNzQ3BGdycHNwSWQDMTcyMDk1OTg0MgRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTM0MTIxNzkwMA--> > Switch to: > Text-Only<[email protected]?subject=Change+Delivery+Format:+Traditional>, > Daily > Digest<[email protected]?subject=Email+Delivery:+Digest>• > Unsubscribe<[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>• > Terms > of Use <http://in.docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> > . > > __,_._,___ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (News 'N Views) India" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/MhaNewsViewsIndia?hl=en ------------- Affiliated Groups : MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA [email protected] Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights etc [email protected] India-specific news and views related to mental health [email protected] Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues [email protected] Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social learning amongst peers
