When we talk about India, we do have a provision for abortions, sections 312-316 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the provisions of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, 1971 covers the abortion laws in India. The IPC sections 312-316 criminalise abortion; “the person undertaking the abortion as well as the doctor (or registered medical practitioner) facilitating the abortion are liable to be prosecuted.”

The government of India, though in 1971, enacted the MTP Act as an exception to the IPC. The act was enacted to exempt medical experts from the criminal obligation on the condition that they terminate the pregnancy as per sections 3 and 5 of the act. The prelude to the act expresses that it is, “An act to provide for the termination of certain pregnancies by registered medical practitioners and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto.” Therefore this whole system of legal abortion is doctor centric and prescribes abortion in specific circumstances.

The Proposed Amendment 2020

The MTP act was enacted in 1971 and hence the law needed changes, activists in India for the last decade have been pushing for legislative changes to the law.

The central cabinet’s sanction of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (Amendment) Bill 2020 was reported on January 29. According to Prachin Kumar, “The amendment was long due and has made some anticipated changes demanded by women’s groups and courts, including the Supreme Court.”

Vrinda Grover in her column for the Hindustan Times wrote in March, that it’s a welcome amendment. She further states that the bill among other things, “proposes to place an unmarried woman and her partner at par with a married woman and her husband, in securing abortion due to contraceptive failure.” This is an idea that carries forward the rationale of the domestic violence act. The law on domestic violence makes no distinction between the rights and protections available to a married woman or a woman who is in a live-in relationship.

The Press Information Bureau on 29th January 2020 published the amendment, it stated that “The salient features of this act is enhancing the upper gestation limit from 20 weeks to 24 weeks for special categories of women which will be defined in the amendment to the MTP rules and would include vulnerable women, including survivors of rape, victims of incest and other vulnerable women like differently-abled women and minors.”

The MTP (amendment) bill still requires or rather proposes that a doctor sign off on termination of pregnancies up to 20 weeks old, and two doctors do the same for pregnancies between 20-24 weeks old.

The bill also intends to expand access to “safe and legal abortion services on therapeutic, eugenic, humanitarian or social grounds”, in case of foetal “abnormalities”. The proposed amendment makes it mandatory for the government to set up a medical board in all the states  and union territories. The responsibility of the board will be for the diagnosis of substantial foetal “abnormalities” that need termination after 24 weeks.

These are some of the proposed changes in the law. Now although there are certain good points in the amendment, a lot of activists think that this amendment missed to address some of the important issues.

Criticism of the Amendment

Shampa Sengupta in an online session organised by the Centre for Health Law, Ethics and Technology at Jindal (CHLET), Global Law School, Sonipat, strongly objected to the language used by the PIB in its announcement of 29th January 2020 regarding the amendment. “It’s not from the department that looks into the disability affairs.. But that does not mean you can use a word as ‘differently-abled’, it is not legally accepted in our country”, said Sengupta about the announcement.

Dr. Aqsa Shaikh in the same series of sessions organised by the CHLET said that it’s very unfortunate that it took almost 50 years for the government to realize that the MTP Act needed some changes. According to her, these changes are still insufficient, stakeholders have not been consulted, and a very patriarchal approach has been adopted. Shaikh further stated that “Under the MTP, the pregnant person does not have a choice, the person must seek permission. If the permission is granted then the doctor will conduct the procedure, else, the doctor will not. So that approach has to change.”

Tejasvi Savekari of Saheli Sangh in the session pointed out that during this Covid-19 pandemic, and because of the resultant lockdown, a lot of abortion cases have been seen. In most of these cases, safe abortions could not be done because of a lack of access to safe abortions.

She raised a very valid question, “who will take responsibility for this? Instead of simplifying the system, the law is making it more complicated. Firstly one has to take permission from two registered doctors and then from the medical board. So much time will be lost in all this, so will a woman be able to get a safe abortion done? Does she not have a right over her own body? Is she not capable enough to make her own decisions?” She asserted the fact that there are absolutely no answers to these questions. She said that it’s unfortunate that the law had no consultation and it saw no protest at all.

Sex Workers and Their Plight

The life of a sex worker is not easy. There are various stereotypes associated with the profession and the sex workers have to deal with stereotypes when it comes to their abortion rights as well. Kiran Deshmukh of National Network of Sex Workers CHLET session revealed that sex workers are always treated unfairly and are discriminated most of the time.

Deshmukh said that when a sex worker is pregnant and when she goes to a civil hospital, the staff of the hospital does not treat her well because they know that she is a sex worker. The strong stereotype that a sex worker can’t have a child is visible in the actions of the hospital staff. According to Deshmukh, matters get worse when a pregnant person is also HIV positive. Then that person is discriminated against more than anyone else. She stated that “we consider this form of discrimination as violence and this violence will not end till we do not collectivize. Collectivizing is very important if we want to fight against this violence. The womb is mine, it is my right to decide to continue or to terminate the pregnancy. But the doctors do not listen to us, especially in civil hospitals.” She further added, “when we collectively say the same thing, they have to listen to us, and provide us services because the power of a finger is different from the power of a fist.”

The government has not taken into account the problems of the sex workers as is clear from Deshmuk’s statement and above discussed amendments.

No Consideration for Differently Abled

The proposed amendments have not given due consideration to the needs of the differently-abled persons. Rupasa Malik of CREA is of the view that proposed amendments to the MTP Bill 2020 are limited and that it, in no way, reflects the ‘transformative changes’ which are vital to the MTP Act which is extremely dated. Malik said, “there exists this idea that all women and girls with disabilities are asexual and, therefore, what is the need for even thinking about them in this context of abortion access?”

Shivangi Agrawal of Determined Art Movement, in another session organised by the CHLET on the topic ‘A Disability Rights Perspective on Abortion: A Nuanced Understanding’, said “When I first read the MTP Amendment, it said to me that disabled people are irrational for having lives, for existing in the world. I feel like the government has continuously ignored disabled activities and they do not value the decision-making capacity that disabled people have.” She further added, “I feel like this bill encompasses the idea that providing for disabled people is too much.”

Dipika Jain in her column in TheWire mentioned about the ‘abnormalities’. She wrote “disability rights advocates have argued that foetuses with potential disabilities should not be singled out for abortions. This reinforces the notion that persons with disabilities have less value than persons without disabilities, and that all fetuses with ‘abnormalities’ should be terminated. It should be the sole discretion of the pregnant person, in consultation with their doctor, to carry a pregnancy to full term or to abort, even if the foetus has a potential disability, cognitive impairment and/or other medical conditions.

Conclusion

Abortion is a matter of rights of a woman. Even the Supreme Court of India has recognized that in the landmark case of 2009, Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration. The court said, “There is no doubt that a woman’s right to make reproductive choices is also a dimension of ‘personal liberty’ as understood under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. It is important to recognise that reproductive choices can be exercised to procreate as well as abstain from procreating. The crucial consideration is that a woman’s right to privacy, dignity and bodily integrity should be respected.”

In 2017 in the case of Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, the SC identified privacy as a fundamental right under the Indian Constitution. The right to privacy within its scope includes the rights to bodily integrity, reproductive choice and decisional autonomy. Justice D.Y. Chandrachud cited the landmark 2009 case Suchita Srivastava v. Chandigarh Administration, in the Puttaswamy case.

It’s unfortunate that even after such decisions, the proposed amendments continue to maintain the original paternalistic doctor-centric framework of the MTP Act. The decision to terminate is still in the hands of the doctor and not the pregnant person. This needs to change.

The post Is the MTP (Amendment) Bill Really Progressive? appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The result is that today we have Al Jazeera English, Telesur and China Global Television Network (CGTN). AJE is funded by the Emir of Qatar, Telesur by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and several other Latin American governments and CGTN is owned by the Communist Chinese government. Even though these media outlets are state-run, they do not merely function as government mouthpieces. Their editorial policies vary according to essentially where they are located. But a common theme amongst three media outlets is that they aim to offer something different than the BBC and CNN, their reasons for the same vary though.

Telesur Editorial Policy

Telesur is based in Caracas and it was launched as a 24/7 in October 2005. It’s stated editorial policy is to offer a different vision of news from the BBC or the CNN. The reason for this is that Telesur believes that these big media outlets for the longest time did not present their side of the story, it was always one-sided and against them. Never did the likes of CNN bothered to cover the local news of Latin American countries. CNN and the likes always seemed to pass America’s foreign policy goals. Telesur policy has been to challenge/critique American imperialism. A simple youtube search result shows the numerous programmes done by Telesur on US imperialism. 

Telesur not only gives an in-depth perspective of the Latin American people but it also to some extent focuses on raising the issues from the Global South. For eg., they did a story on the Indian Army’s Brutality in Kashmir. Telesur took a pro-people stand and an anti-establishment view. 

Al Jazeera Editorial Policy

AJE was launched in November 2006, although there was already AJA (Arabic). The reason to launch an English version was to reach a global audience and present the views of the Arab/Muslim world. After the 9/11 attacks, the coverage of the Middle Eastern countries by the likes of the BBC and CNN had created a negative stereotype about the Arab world. The one-sided coverage of the Iraq war by BBC world and CNN only played a spoilsport in strengthening the stereotype against the Arab population. AJE’s editorial policy, therefore, has been to present both sides of the story. Their aim is to provide a different perspective on the news.

According to Josh Rushing (AJ’s US Defence and Military Correspondent), “I tell people that Al-Jazeera provides a different perspective to CNN but an equally important one. CNN films the launch of a missile, AJ films what happens when it lands”. AJ provide different perspectives in three ways, firstly by covering the same international news in an alternate way to the ‘Western perspective’ of the BBC World and CNN, secondly, they cover the parts of the world which no one covers, which tends not to get reported at all and thirdly by covering the developing countries (Global South) in an original way. So their editorial policy is pretty much like Telesur when it comes to presenting a different world view about the Arab world. 

China’s Global Television Network’s Editorial Policy

CGTN, the Chinese media outlet has a different editorial policy than Telesur and AJE. Since it’s controlled by the government, it mostly acts as an extended arm of the government. CGTN’s policy has been to show the better side of China to the world and debunk many stereotypes that the Western world has of China. China is always perceived with a negative perception in the Western world (America, EU countries etc) because of their being a Communist government and how there’s no press freedom at all. The recent reports of curbing dissent and protests and violation of Human Rights has also led many to have a very bad image of China. 

Chinese government’s aim, therefore, is to change this perception and they use CGTN as their foreign policy arm. CGTN, therefore, channels the interests of the government in a more direct way. CGTN is trying to accomplish certain goals through its editorial policy, firstly it does shows on emphasising on History, culture, Philosophy and civilization of China, secondly, through its programmes it tries to assert that China is emerging as a formidable economic power (eg., their coverage of the celebration of ten years of Beijing Olympics) and lastly it wants to address certain stereotypes about China. So it’s quite evident that the Chinese government wants to change its global image with the help of CGTN. China wants the world to like it and increase its soft power through CGTN. 

As discussed above, China wants the world to like it and it cannot happen unless positive aspects of China are shown to the world. China’s growing military power, its political system along with its growing human rights violations, and it’s economic strength all contribute to its negative image abroad. For this reason, the Chinese government felt the need to invest in global media. The other reason to go global was that the government was not happy with the way they have been covered by the Western media in the past. Hence China invested more in strengthening it’s foreign language channels and expanded its partnership with foreign television organizations. Leading up to the 2008 Beijing Olympics the Western media had increased its coverage of China in a more hostile way, highlighting the Chinese government’s Human Rights violation records. The Western media’s coverage of the pro-Tibetan riots was seen by the Chinese government to be as anti-Chinese.

A CBN  report highlighted the lack of democracy in China (no free journalism and suppression of dissent). It was believed that this would change after the games as post the Olympics China was seen to have graduated as ‘World Power’. But nothing changed and the negative coverage of China by the Western media continued. Hence China could not wait for the Western media to change its critical stance on China and therefore it was needed that China is proactive and “go global” and push for Chinese perspectives into the international arena if it wanted to contest the discursive power of the West. CCTV (now CGTN) China’s premier broadcaster global expansion has risen manifold after the decision to go global was taken. CCTV claims to have achieved global coverage with its. CCTV4. It’s a Mandarin-language channel whose target audience is overseas Chinese-speaking viewers. The channel reaches approx 10 million viewers outside China in 93 countries. There’s another channel which has helped its global reach, CCTV-9, a foreign-language channel (English, French & Spanish). It has some 40 million viewers overseas in 94 countries. 

Conclusion

The editorial policy of a news media outlet varies according to the region, the tensions in the surroundings as well the political environment of the region. Although it would seem that the editorial policies of the above-discussed media outlets are similar, it’d be wrong to make a quick judgement. A quick glance at their websites gives a clear picture of the kind of stories they do and what do they want to tell the world through those stories. 

The post GLOBAL NEWS NETWORKS AND THEIR EDITORIAL POLICIES appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Complete Story Behind the Ban

The decision to ban dog meat by the Nagaland government came days after incidents of the dogs being shot emerged in the state and after a photo of dogs tied in gunny bags went viral on social media. The image on social media caused a huge outcry as the Twitteratis claimed that the dogs were being taken to Nagaland for sale (illegally). Pritish Nandy, a journalist and a poet tweeted with attaching the above photo:

Local administrators of Nagaland had reportedly released a ‘shoot-at-sight’ order in May for dogs found roaming on the streets. The local animal rights activists said it was issued due to the fear that dogs might transmit the novel-coronavirus. As soon as Maneka Gandhi got to know about the order she wrote to the state Chief Minister, Rio, seeking his intervention to reverse the order. A couple of dog deaths were reported from villages in Nagaland in June, after which ThePrint reported a member of the Nagaland Animal Welfare Society (NAWS), an NGO saying that, “It is believed that dogs might spread the virus, also that few dogs have been loitering around the waste near quarantine centers, which can harm the locality/public in general, for which dogs were asked to be chained 24/7.”

The Hypocrisy of the Ban

The dog meat ban in Nagaland has raised a debate on the hypocritical nature of the ban. Prominent journalist Rohini Singh in response to Pritish Nandy’s tweet, tweeted “Am sorry but while I don’t eat dog meat but how is eating dog meat more immoral than eating fish or chicken or goat? Either you eat meat or you don’t. Why take our sense of morality and impose it on other people?”

While on the other hand the guardian reported  Animal rights advocacy group Humane Society International as saying, “This is a major turning point in ending the cruelty in India’s hidden dog meat trade.”

The people who oppose this ban are of the opinion that parameters must be equal for all, one can’t ban dog meat and allow the consumption of chicken or fish or any other non-veg food. Sarvej Talreja writes in his piece for Arre, “this ban is far more complex than a victory for animal rights advocates and dog lovers. It’s an indication of a particular kind of hypocrisy: a hypocrisy that holds only certain kinds of meat legitimate under the garb of “ethical” eating; a hypocrisy that seeks to impose a singular “palatable” version of eating habits on the rest of the country. Let’s call the ban for what it is – an erosion of the personal freedom of the Nagas and another highly publicised but wholly unnecessary action propagated by someone in a position of power over a minority.”

The decision to ban dog meat is itself controversial and calls for questioning. People in North East are upset by the way the decision was taken by the state government; there was absolutely no consultation with the Naga tribes, who are the consumers of dog meat.

According to Richard Kamai, “the ban sheds light on how it overlooked Article 371A of Nagaland which bestows Nagaland a special right to allow Naga tribes to practice and maintain their customary law and social practice.”

Daribha Lyndem writes in an essay titled “What You’re Really Asking When You Ask Me If I Eat Dog” about her Northeast roots, “In contrast to the eating habits of mainstream Indian society, no meal in the Northeast is complete without rice and meat. The Nagas, like many other Northeastern tribes, come from proud hunting cultures, while much of the heartland of India are pastoral agriculturalists. While many Naga communities have moved upward economically and don’t have to hunt to survive anymore, in rural and poor families, having a fresh game on your dinner table is still a matter of pride.” She also states that dog meat is eaten remotely in the Northeast but those who eat it do not consider the practice shameful.

This blatant and absolute use of power by the state government is an attempt to trap the Naga tribes and their culture to make them feel bad for what they are. Look around the mainstream societies, there is absolutely no space for indigenous food from the northeast. But people of these mainstream societies are now dictating the decisions related to northeasterners food choices. It’s nothing but an inadvertent attempt to make them feel bad for their food practices. This is a classic case of racism and cultural imperialism in the name of showing ‘love’ for animals. The sheer ignorance to not acknowledge and not accept the cultural differences is not new and has subjected thousands of northeasterners to racism.

The Hypocrisy Does Not End Here

An anthropologist Dolly Kikon in his opinion piece writes, that the rest of India has historically treated stray dogs as an urban menace, often embarking on elaborate campaigns to mass murder them. But, “thinking of dog meat as part of a food system, or linking it to larger issues of food culture or taste, does not cross the minds of many Indians, that is the reason why, although stray dogs are defined as pets and killed by state authorities every day, it is morally incomprehensible to label them as a food choice.”

Conclusion

The ban clearly reflects the hypocrisy of society. While eating chicken, mutton, lamb etc are considered normal, dog meat is considered immoral and unethical. People easily forget that “as much as “not eating dog meat” is a part of one’s culture, there are certain communities where dog meat is taken as a part of their food culture.”

Because of the prejudice and harmful stereotypes regarding northeasterners that they are uncivilized, the so-called ‘mainstream Indian society’ has not been able to accept them. By ignoring their culture, mainstream society tells them that not only the mainstream is better than them but also it shames them for being different.

The post DOG MEAT BAN IN NAGALAND SHOWS HYPOCRISY OF INDIAN SOCIETY appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Covid-19 pandemic has put a standstill to regular schools and colleges. The Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi on 24th March announced a nationwide lockdown to fight against coronavirus or COVID-19. Hence, schools and colleges all over India had to shut. Some state governments had already ordered schools and colleges to send the students back to their homes and close down the campus. 

Since the new academic session was to start in schools, they did not have a choice but to start online classes for students. Colleges too went ahead with the online teaching as they too had to complete the semester. Online classes may sound fun but it comes with its challenges. Some of these challenges and issues are raised by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) and United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). 

Concerns raised by UNICEF and UNESCO

E-learning has arguably helped educational institutes around India beat the Covid-19 lockdown to “push ahead with the academic calendar.” But experts including those at UNESCO and UNICEF have raised concerns w.r.t. these online classes.  

While a few experts are worried about the potential dangers of longer internet exposure for younger students, some of them are scared that this digital shift may alienate economically backward students who do not possess the technology required for online lessons. 

On 15 April, UNICEF said that “millions of children are at increased risk of harm as their lives move increasingly online during the lockdown in the Covid-19 pandemic”. 

As per UNICEF’s statement, “the internet exposure puts children at the risk of online sexual exploitation and grooming, as predators look to exploit the Covid-19 pandemic”. 

A greater internet exposure leads to online grooming which is a serious concern in this social media age. It involves mischievous and predatory adults who build fake online relationships with gullible children and trick or pressure them into different kinds of sexual behaviour.

UNICEF executive director Henrietta Fore says that “under the shadow of Covid-19, the lives of millions of children have temporarily shrunk to just their homes and their screens. We must help them navigate this new reality.”

UNESCO published a report on 21st April, which highlighted another major concern regarding the online classes. The report said, “Half of the total number of learners — some 826 million (82.6 crores) students — kept out of the classroom by the Covid-19 pandemic, do not have access to a household computer and 43 per cent (706 million or 70.6 crores) have no internet at home at all, at a time when digital distance learning mediums are used to ensure educational continuity in the vast majority of countries.” 

A Stark Reality

Now even though the above-mentioned concerns are very serious, educational institutions have no choice but to conduct classes online. But as already stated above not everyone can afford online education. There are various reasons for this, the prominent one being, lack of internet in households. According to a National Sample Survey report, “less than 15 percent of rural Indian households (and 42 percent urban ones) have access to the Internet.” This gives us an idea that the majority of students are not able to get the education they rightfully deserve. The fact that not many poor households can even afford a smartphone is also a major concern. 

The other issue is the technological issue. According to a report published in The Indian Express, the University of Hyderabad did an in-house survey of around 2,500 students on issues pertaining to online teaching. The results showed that 90 percent of the respondents have a mobile phone but only about 63 percent of them could access online classes infrequently or they could not attend at all. 40 percent of the surveyed students reported unreliable connectivity as being a major deterrent while 30 percent of them cited the cost of data as an issue. 10 percent, again a significant number of students, reported uncertain electricity supply as a concern.

Other Problems with Online Classes

As is quite evident from the figures above that many students in India cannot access online education because of a lack of internet. There is an illusion among those in urban areas that the internet has reached every nook and corner of our country but a report by NITI Aayog, called “Strategy For New India@75” highlighted that at least 55,000 villages in India don’t even have mobile network coverage. 

One area which has been ignored to an extent is stereotypes associated with using mobile phones in rural areas. According to a report in Newsclick, Gaurav Sikka, assistant professor of geography at Lalit Narayan Mithila University in Darbhanga, Bihar, said that “the online mode of teaching is widening the social and gender divide.” He further said, “I teach a majority of students who hail from conservative families where the parents have no idea that the students can take classes online. Thus, they are denying the girl students access to mobile phones.”

This gap between the haves and have nots has become a major hindrance in providing education to most of the students. Governments in the past came up with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 or RTE under which education was free for all the students under the age of 6 to 14. Some state governments did extremely well under the RTE but many of them did not focus much. 

Now under RTE, it’s the duty and responsibility of the states to provide the basic infrastructure to students so that no student suffers because of lack of facility. But still, government schools all over India are struggling to conduct classes, and the schools which have been able to conduct classes see a very low turnout. 

The elite schools in urban areas initially had trouble making the switch to online teaching but since then, they have been able to take regular online lessons. Although students are not facing connectivity issues as such, they certainly feel online teaching is no match for physical classes. The students feel that it’s difficult to interact with teachers and the teachers feel the same way too. Teachers say that they developed a methodology over the years to teach students in a physical classroom but they now have to adjust to online teaching. They say that they cannot figure out during a class if the students are attentive or not and also subjects like mathematics cannot be taught online because it requires a lot of practice and hence it is difficult to monitor each student during the online lesson. 

Conclusion and Suggestions

It’s pretty unclear what lies ahead and no one can predict anything at this stage, so the need of the hour is that the state governments take all the necessary steps to provide the basic facilities to students so that they can continue with their education. Internet penetration can’t happen overnight and students too can’t become tech-savvy in a day so it is suggested that classes be recorded and broadcasted through television channels to students in rural areas. Doordarshan the state broadcaster could be used for this purpose. At the same time, the state government must ensure that there are enough television sets in the area for the students. 

Along with this, the school administration must prepare themselves and better internet facilities so that in due course a better education could be delivered to students. These steps along with the students’ zeal to learn will definitely make India stand out from the rest of the world. 

The post E-LEARNING DURING COVID-19 PANDEMIC appeared first on WISER WORLD.