.BMP)
Posted by Venu K.M
ഓരോ ദമ്പതിമാര്‍ക്കും കുട്ടികള്‍ അഞ്ച് വേണം എന്ന് മതാധ്യക്ഷന്മാര്‍ ഉല്‍ബോധിപ്പിക്കുന്നു എന്ന് സങ്കല്‍പ്പിക്കുക; സ്വന്തം കുട്ടികളെ പോറ്റി വളര്‍ത്താന്‍ ഉള്ള ഉത്തരവാദിത്വം മത നേതാക്കള്‍ ഏറ്റെടുക്കും എന്ന് വിചാരിച്ച് ഈ നിര്‍ദ്ദേശം ശിരസാ വഹിക്കുന്ന എത്ര കുടുംബങ്ങള്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ കാണും?
പൌരന്മാരുടെ reproductive choices ഇല്‍ ആവശ്യത്തിലധികം സ്റ്റേറ്റ് കൈകടത്താന്‍ ശ്രമിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ ഗൌരവമായി കണക്കിലെടുക്കേണ്ട വിഷയം ഇതാണ് ; ഒന്നോ രണ്ടോ കുട്ടികള്‍ എന്ന നയം അനുസരിക്കാത്തവരെ ശിക്ഷാ നടപടികള്‍ക്ക് വിധേയരാക്കാനുള്ള Kerala Womens Code Draft Bill 2011 നിര്‍ദ്ദേശങ്ങള്‍ ദുരുദ്ദേശപരം ആണെന്ന സംശയം മാത്രമാണ് അല്ലാത്ത പക്ഷം അത് ജനിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്.
ഒന്നുകൂടി തെളിച്ചു പറയാന്‍ നോക്കട്ടെ ...
.കേരളത്തില്‍ കുറഞ്ഞത് അര നൂറ്റാണ്ടു മുന്‍പ് എങ്കിലും ആരംഭിച്ച ജനന നിയന്ത്രണ പരിപാടികള്‍ ബലപ്രയോഗം ഒന്നും ഇല്ലാതെ എല്ലാ സമുദായങ്ങളിലും പെട്ട ജനങ്ങള്‍ സ്വീകരിച്ചില്ലെ? ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ മറ്റു ഏതൊരു സംസ്ഥാനത്തും കണ്ടിട്ടില്ലാത്ത വിധം ജനന നിരക്ക് കേരളത്തില്‍ കുറയാന്‍ അത് കാരണമായി. ഇപ്പോള്‍ സ്ത്രീകളുടെയും ശിശുക്കളുടെയും ക്ഷേമത്തിന് എന്ന അവകാശ വാദത്തോടെ അവതരിപ്പിക്കപ്പെട്ട ശുപാര്‍ശകള്‍ , കേരളത്തിലെ പൌരന്മാരുടെ reproductive choices ആദ്യമായി സ്റ്റേറ്റ് ബലപ്രയോഗത്തിന്റെ ഒരു പ്രശ്ന മേഖല ആക്കുന്നു, Reproductive choice നെ കേരള ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ ആദ്യമായി criminalize ചെയ്യുന്നു?
Kerala Womens Code Bill 2011 കരട് സമര്‍പ്പിക്കാന്‍ നിയുക്തമായ പതിനൊന്നംഗ കമ്മിറ്റിയുടെ adviser ആയി നിയമിതനായിരുന്ന ഒരു വ്യക്തി തന്നെ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ വിയോജിപ്പ് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തി!
പിന്നെയുള്ളതു , penal provisions നടപ്പാക്കുന്നതിന് നിയമ സഭയുടെ മുന്‍കൂട്ടിയുള്ള അനുമതി വേണമെന്ന വ്യവസ്ഥ നല്ലതല്ലേ എന്ന ചോദ്യം..
ഒരു വ്യക്തിക്ക് ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭരണ ഘടന ഉറപ്പു നല്‍കുന്ന മനസ്സാക്ഷി സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തെയും അഭിപ്രായ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തെയും ആദ്യം criminalize ചെയ്ത ശേഷം, നിയമ സഭയുടെ അംഗീകാരത്തോടെ ശിക്ഷ നടപ്പാക്കണം എന്ന് പറയുന്നത് ഏത് ന്യായത്തിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ്?
Kerala Women’s Code Bill 2011 recommended by the Commission on Rights and Welfare of Women and Children headed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer seems by default, poised to create more problems than it claims to remedy.
It looks to be much in the lines of many an authoritarian legislation quickly put in place without proper consultations even among experts in the respective areas, let alone the populations whose rights are compromised in one stroke of the pen. It probably suits the long term demographic objective of planners in globalized neoliberal regime, but not the interests of .people.
Reproductive choices everywhere, of the poor and marginalized , including the west are being increasingly challenged by one or other form of authoritarian interventions by the ruling oligarchies. If in the US the anti abortionist moralistic views are being imposed on the entire population by a christian right wing, in the third world similar things are being done with matching cynicism about the way people of different religious backgrounds decide on how best they could settle with choices in reproduction.
Sec 5)
"Violation of Family norm to be a legal disqualification-----One year aftr this CODE comes into force, any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children as prescribed under this chapter, shall be or in any other manner abets the violation, of the provision, under this chapter, shall be regarded as a 'legally disqualified person' for the purpose of this chapter. abetment, in this chapter shall have the same meaning as under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code"
Ch2
Sec7
Sub section b):
"Where a social or religious organisation or political institution engages in active publicity or resorts to any measures calculated to negative or discourage the plan, policy or principle of the population regulation, family planning or birth control outlined in this chapter generally, such entity shall be liable to censure by the Governor except where absence of any motive to discourage or defeat the policy of this chapter is proved."
Again,
Sec 8
sub section f):
"If the commission considers that there is general wilful indifference to the provision of this chapter or frequent violation thereof it may recommend to the state govt.to make provisions by way of Civil and Criminal liability in the shape of damages upto Rs.10,000/-or penal liability not exceeding three months simple imprisonment or fine rS10,000/-> . Provided that this provision shall be made only after resolution is passed in the Legislative assembly authorizing the imposition of such a penal liability.such a provision shall cease to be in force if a repeal thereof is rquired by a fresh resolution with a 2/3rd majority of the total membership of the house whether present or not."
What do these proposals mean?
Mr N R Madhava Menon quoted in the Hindu says “One year after this Code comes into force, any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children as prescribed under this Chapter, or in any other manner abets the violation of the provisions, under this Chapter, shall be regarded as a ‘legally disqualified person' for the purpose of this Chapter. Abetment, in this Chapter, shall have the same meaning as under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The commission, under Section 10 of its proposed Women's Code Bill, recommended: “Prohibition of inducements for generation of more children than provided in Section 4 of this Chapter — (1) No person or institution shall use religion, region, sect, caste, cult or other ulterior inducements for the bearing of more children than permitted by Section 4; (2) Such child born in contravention of Sub-Section (1) shall, all the same, be entitled to all the rights of the child and shall not be subjected to any penalty, discrimination or disadvantage. Notwithstanding this immunity, the parents may for the purposes of this Chapter be subject to the legal disqualification specified under this Chapter.”
ഓരോ ദമ്പതിമാര്‍ക്കും കുട്ടികള്‍ അഞ്ച് വേണം എന്ന് മതാധ്യക്ഷന്മാര്‍ ഉല്‍ബോധിപ്പിക്കുന്നു എന്ന് സങ്കല്‍പ്പിക്കുക; സ്വന്തം കുട്ടികളെ പോറ്റി വളര്‍ത്താന്‍ ഉള്ള ഉത്തരവാദിത്വം മത നേതാക്കള്‍ ഏറ്റെടുക്കും എന്ന് വിചാരിച്ച് ഈ നിര്‍ദ്ദേശം ശിരസാ വഹിക്കുന്ന എത്ര കുടുംബങ്ങള്‍ കേരളത്തില്‍ കാണും?
പൌരന്മാരുടെ reproductive choices ഇല്‍ ആവശ്യത്തിലധികം സ്റ്റേറ്റ് കൈകടത്താന്‍ ശ്രമിക്കുമ്പോള്‍ ഗൌരവമായി കണക്കിലെടുക്കേണ്ട വിഷയം ഇതാണ് ; ഒന്നോ രണ്ടോ കുട്ടികള്‍ എന്ന നയം അനുസരിക്കാത്തവരെ ശിക്ഷാ നടപടികള്‍ക്ക് വിധേയരാക്കാനുള്ള Kerala Womens Code Draft Bill 2011 നിര്‍ദ്ദേശങ്ങള്‍ ദുരുദ്ദേശപരം ആണെന്ന സംശയം മാത്രമാണ് അല്ലാത്ത പക്ഷം അത് ജനിപ്പിക്കുന്നത്.
ഒന്നുകൂടി തെളിച്ചു പറയാന്‍ നോക്കട്ടെ ...
.കേരളത്തില്‍ കുറഞ്ഞത് അര നൂറ്റാണ്ടു മുന്‍പ് എങ്കിലും ആരംഭിച്ച ജനന നിയന്ത്രണ പരിപാടികള്‍ ബലപ്രയോഗം ഒന്നും ഇല്ലാതെ എല്ലാ സമുദായങ്ങളിലും പെട്ട ജനങ്ങള്‍ സ്വീകരിച്ചില്ലെ? ഇന്ത്യയില്‍ മറ്റു ഏതൊരു സംസ്ഥാനത്തും കണ്ടിട്ടില്ലാത്ത വിധം ജനന നിരക്ക് കേരളത്തില്‍ കുറയാന്‍ അത് കാരണമായി. ഇപ്പോള്‍ സ്ത്രീകളുടെയും ശിശുക്കളുടെയും ക്ഷേമത്തിന് എന്ന അവകാശ വാദത്തോടെ അവതരിപ്പിക്കപ്പെട്ട ശുപാര്‍ശകള്‍ , കേരളത്തിലെ പൌരന്മാരുടെ reproductive choices ആദ്യമായി സ്റ്റേറ്റ് ബലപ്രയോഗത്തിന്റെ ഒരു പ്രശ്ന മേഖല ആക്കുന്നു, Reproductive choice നെ കേരള ചരിത്രത്തില്‍ ആദ്യമായി criminalize ചെയ്യുന്നു?
Kerala Womens Code Bill 2011 കരട് സമര്‍പ്പിക്കാന്‍ നിയുക്തമായ പതിനൊന്നംഗ കമ്മിറ്റിയുടെ adviser ആയി നിയമിതനായിരുന്ന ഒരു വ്യക്തി തന്നെ അദ്ദേഹത്തിന്റെ വിയോജിപ്പ് രേഖപ്പെടുത്തി!
പിന്നെയുള്ളതു , penal provisions നടപ്പാക്കുന്നതിന് നിയമ സഭയുടെ മുന്‍കൂട്ടിയുള്ള അനുമതി വേണമെന്ന വ്യവസ്ഥ നല്ലതല്ലേ എന്ന ചോദ്യം..
ഒരു വ്യക്തിക്ക് ഇന്ത്യന്‍ ഭരണ ഘടന ഉറപ്പു നല്‍കുന്ന മനസ്സാക്ഷി സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തെയും അഭിപ്രായ സ്വാതന്ത്ര്യത്തെയും ആദ്യം criminalize ചെയ്ത ശേഷം, നിയമ സഭയുടെ അംഗീകാരത്തോടെ ശിക്ഷ നടപ്പാക്കണം എന്ന് പറയുന്നത് ഏത് ന്യായത്തിന്റെ അടിസ്ഥാനത്തിലാണ്?
Kerala Women’s Code Bill 2011 recommended by the Commission on Rights and Welfare of Women and Children headed by Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer seems by default, poised to create more problems than it claims to remedy.
It looks to be much in the lines of many an authoritarian legislation quickly put in place without proper consultations even among experts in the respective areas, let alone the populations whose rights are compromised in one stroke of the pen. It probably suits the long term demographic objective of planners in globalized neoliberal regime, but not the interests of .people.
Reproductive choices everywhere, of the poor and marginalized , including the west are being increasingly challenged by one or other form of authoritarian interventions by the ruling oligarchies. If in the US the anti abortionist moralistic views are being imposed on the entire population by a christian right wing, in the third world similar things are being done with matching cynicism about the way people of different religious backgrounds decide on how best they could settle with choices in reproduction.
Sec 5)
"Violation of Family norm to be a legal disqualification-----One year aftr this CODE comes into force, any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children as prescribed under this chapter, shall be or in any other manner abets the violation, of the provision, under this chapter, shall be regarded as a 'legally disqualified person' for the purpose of this chapter. abetment, in this chapter shall have the same meaning as under section 107 of the Indian Penal Code"
Ch2
Sec7
Sub section b):
"Where a social or religious organisation or political institution engages in active publicity or resorts to any measures calculated to negative or discourage the plan, policy or principle of the population regulation, family planning or birth control outlined in this chapter generally, such entity shall be liable to censure by the Governor except where absence of any motive to discourage or defeat the policy of this chapter is proved."
Again,
Sec 8
sub section f):
"If the commission considers that there is general wilful indifference to the provision of this chapter or frequent violation thereof it may recommend to the state govt.to make provisions by way of Civil and Criminal liability in the shape of damages upto Rs.10,000/-or penal liability not exceeding three months simple imprisonment or fine rS10,000/-> . Provided that this provision shall be made only after resolution is passed in the Legislative assembly authorizing the imposition of such a penal liability.such a provision shall cease to be in force if a repeal thereof is rquired by a fresh resolution with a 2/3rd majority of the total membership of the house whether present or not."
What do these proposals mean?
Mr N R Madhava Menon quoted in the Hindu says “One year after this Code comes into force, any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children as prescribed under this Chapter, or in any other manner abets the violation of the provisions, under this Chapter, shall be regarded as a ‘legally disqualified person' for the purpose of this Chapter. Abetment, in this Chapter, shall have the same meaning as under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The commission, under Section 10 of its proposed Women's Code Bill, recommended: “Prohibition of inducements for generation of more children than provided in Section 4 of this Chapter — (1) No person or institution shall use religion, region, sect, caste, cult or other ulterior inducements for the bearing of more children than permitted by Section 4; (2) Such child born in contravention of Sub-Section (1) shall, all the same, be entitled to all the rights of the child and shall not be subjected to any penalty, discrimination or disadvantage. Notwithstanding this immunity, the parents may for the purposes of this Chapter be subject to the legal disqualification specified under this Chapter.”
Again, see how the very construction of these provisions look bad, both grammatically and commonsense wise!
In Chapter 1, Sec 5), it runs like this..
"..any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children .....shall be regarded as a 'legally disqualified person' "
how can you consider an act or commission,movement ,campaign,or project... as a "person"?
Again, Sec 7 Subsection b) reads ....
"..such entity shall be liable to censure by the Governor except where absence of any motive to discourage or defeat the policy of this chapter is proved."
How can you expect one to prove the absence of motive and escape the punishment, when he or she actually wants to challenge the very idea of penalizing communities'/peoples' CHOICE IN REPRODUCTION?
How could he/she say,for example "oh, I had no motive..I was just joking!"
The bill seems not actually concerned nether with parents & women nor with children! At least my focus seems to be in the draconian penal provisions which you take so lightly as just 2/29 of the whole draft.
"Mr N.R. Madhava Menon, Chief Adviser to the V.R. Krishna Iyer-headed Commission on the Rights and Welfare of Women and Children, has opposed the penal provision for violating the two-child norm in the commission's proposed Women's Code Bill....
“Invoking the penal provision is not appropriate,” Mr. Menon, a former member of the Law Commission of India and the founder of the National Law School of Ind...ia University, Bangalore, told The Hindu. “I do not agree with it.”
Mr. Menon, considered one of the top legal educators in India, said he had not seen the final draft of the report of the commission which was presented to Chief Minister Oommen Chandy by Mr. Krishna Iyer late last week. He had not been able to work with the commission over the past two months as he was busy otherwise"[The Hindu reports]
Smells something fishy?.
Why are the planners so uneasy abot peoples' reproductive choices? In spite of all those panic reports about sermons by religious leaders to produce more children, the educated people seem to have their own say.
Why do you want things done in such a coercive manner, on a largely unsuspecting population who have generally accepted for the past several decades rather than opposing it, a population control policy based on choice? Can you even imagine this kind of draconian proposal getting any support, say 50 years back, when the rate of population growth was believed even more disturbing compared with the significant reduction Kerala achieved since then?
"..any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children .....shall be regarded as a 'legally disqualified person' "
how can you consider an act or commission,movement ,campaign,or project... as a "person"?
Again, Sec 7 Subsection b) reads ....
"..such entity shall be liable to censure by the Governor except where absence of any motive to discourage or defeat the policy of this chapter is proved."
How can you expect one to prove the absence of motive and escape the punishment, when he or she actually wants to challenge the very idea of penalizing communities'/peoples' CHOICE IN REPRODUCTION?
How could he/she say,for example "oh, I had no motive..I was just joking!"
The bill seems not actually concerned nether with parents & women nor with children! At least my focus seems to be in the draconian penal provisions which you take so lightly as just 2/29 of the whole draft.
"Mr N.R. Madhava Menon, Chief Adviser to the V.R. Krishna Iyer-headed Commission on the Rights and Welfare of Women and Children, has opposed the penal provision for violating the two-child norm in the commission's proposed Women's Code Bill....
“Invoking the penal provision is not appropriate,” Mr. Menon, a former member of the Law Commission of India and the founder of the National Law School of Ind...ia University, Bangalore, told The Hindu. “I do not agree with it.”
Mr. Menon, considered one of the top legal educators in India, said he had not seen the final draft of the report of the commission which was presented to Chief Minister Oommen Chandy by Mr. Krishna Iyer late last week. He had not been able to work with the commission over the past two months as he was busy otherwise"[The Hindu reports]
Why are the planners so uneasy abot peoples' reproductive choices? In spite of all those panic reports about sermons by religious leaders to produce more children, the educated people seem to have their own say.
Why do you want things done in such a coercive manner, on a largely unsuspecting population who have generally accepted for the past several decades rather than opposing it, a population control policy based on choice? Can you even imagine this kind of draconian proposal getting any support, say 50 years back, when the rate of population growth was believed even more disturbing compared with the significant reduction Kerala achieved since then?
The proposed Bill says, “One year after this Code comes into force, any act or omission, movement, campaign or project which induces or tends to induce the violation of the family norm of two children as prescribed under this Chapter, or in... any other manner abets the violation of the provisions, under this Chapter, shall be regarded as a ‘legally disqualified person' for the purpose of this Chapter. Abetment, in this Chapter, shall have the same meaning as under Section 107 of the Indian Penal Code.”
The commission, under Section 10 of its proposed Women's Code Bill, recommended: “Prohibition of inducements for generation of more children than provided in Section 4 of this Chapter — (1) No person or institution shall use religion, region, sect, caste, cult or other ulterior inducements for the bearing of more children than permitted by Section 4; (2) Such child born in contravention of Sub-Section (1) shall, all the same, be entitled to all the rights of the child and shall not be subjected to any penalty, discrimination or disadvantage. Notwithstanding this immunity, the parents may for the purposes of this Chapter be subject to the legal disqualification specified under this Chapter.”
The commission, under Section 10 of its proposed Women's Code Bill, recommended: “Prohibition of inducements for generation of more children than provided in Section 4 of this Chapter — (1) No person or institution shall use religion, region, sect, caste, cult or other ulterior inducements for the bearing of more children than permitted by Section 4; (2) Such child born in contravention of Sub-Section (1) shall, all the same, be entitled to all the rights of the child and shall not be subjected to any penalty, discrimination or disadvantage. Notwithstanding this immunity, the parents may for the purposes of this Chapter be subject to the legal disqualification specified under this Chapter.”
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment