Whose right?

If there is one lesson that Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal has learnt from his predecessor,it is what Martin Luther King Jr termed the fierce urgency of now. Sibals approach to reform has been as energetic as Arjun Singhs was staid. The 100 days within which Sibal wants to pass the landmark Right to Education Act is evidence of his fierce urgency. But if speed is the only change that the new minister has brought with him,then that would be only half the lesson learnt. For,while speedy legislation on primary education is important,it is more important that the bill reads right.

One major shortcoming in the proposed legislation is its silence on the needs of disabled children. While the 2005 version of the bill was sensitive to these concerns,the new version has dropped many of the original provisions that dealt with disability. Specifically,the disabled are now not included in the definition of disadvantaged children,meaning that they cannot benefit from the 25 per cent quota for the disadvantaged in schools. Second,the definition of disability in the bill only covers the physically handicapped,excluding those with mental handicap. And third,the bill does not mandate disability-friendly facilities in schools such as ramps and special teachers. Of these three concerns,the first two are easy changes to make,without weighty financial consequences. But the third concern making schools across India disabled-friendly will perhaps involve some cost. Already,estimates suggest that the financial cost of the Right to Education Bill will be between Rs 54,000 crore and Rs 73,000 crore a year. Perhaps,departmental mandarins fear the additional costs of ramps and other facilities in every single school across India.

Such fears are misplaced. As disability activists point out,the money is already there: funds for the disabled have been allotted under a host of government schemes such as the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyaan and the 11th five year plan. Besides,there is the principle of inclusiveness. The bill provides for toilets for girls in every school,which obviously adds to the costs. Should we remove this facility? Of course not even the idea seems laughable. Similarly,special facilities for the disabled must never be held hostage to possible budgetary worries more so when such worries are imaginary. It is hoped that these provisions for the disabled once again find their way into the Right to Education Bill,before it is okayed by Parliament and the president into law.