Definitions wihtin the Indian context

The following is a brief discussion on the introduction of the Indian thinking on disability as it is reflected in official documents. The first official document to mention disability was the landmark document on education or the NPE 1968 which was formulated as a result of the Kothari Commission (1964-66):

The use of the word handicapped is now seen more generously, especially in light of the WHO definitions, however, we must also remember that the Indian documents have been using then and since various terms inconsistently. This was followed by the next NPE that is of 1986, which in addition to the first paragraph also added two small sub-sections which are rather instructive from the following perspectives:

• the first sub-section on mainstreaming for children with motor/ mild handicaps has an interesting implication that special schools are to be preferred for other handicaps
• secondly, in response to the word 'voluntary' in the second sub-clause, it is realised that there is an attempt in this document to not only recognise the work done by the voluntary/ NGO sector in this field but also perhaps the Government cannot do without their help especially in utilising their network. It is clear that various such organisations for good or for bad, for charity or for some other reason, went into working for the disabled much before government even thought about it.
  

So the second point is the new finding where given the nature of the field and the history of intervention that NGOs have made, the official government recognition of that work is made explicitly.

Women's education
There is a rather huge contradiction that pervades much of our policies needs to be pointed out. It was really great to know that as early as 1948-49, stalwarts like Radhakrishanan and Maulana Azad had prepared this great document called The University Education Commission Report:

The first statement shows what great and beautiful minds are at work and what a grand vision they had as early as 1948, but the strategy of "special courses" and "redirection of interest" shows how the door though now opened for women's education is only for entering one particular (and rather small) room only. Himangshu Rai preferred a more generous interpretation where this attempt on the part of the Commission can be seen as one way of at least starting the beginning of women's education in a country where this has been always lacking. Neha and Deepika thought that this was too generous a reading, echoing my thoughts exactly -- when emancipation, a 19th movement has been around for decades, these learned men were quite likely to be aware of it and the need for it, yet they chose to restrict women's education only to certain fields. Rakesh also pointed how Gender is a construct at least since 'Second Sex' and the statements above limiting the role of women as care giver can be seen in this light.

I also fault these stalwarts on count of not thinking of PwDs, especially when they had separate sections on education of economically disadvantaged groups, backward classes, and minorities. However, we can say that the NPEs more than compensated for this lacuna.

Programme of Action 1992 and Other Progammes
In fact, the POA (which is independent of the Review Committee report of the NPE 1986) is a greatly detailed document about the education of PwDs. I also pointed out how POA is an intermediate stage between documents like NPEs and Acts (like PwD), still they are not valid in the court of law. It took a long time to turn these policies and POAs to an Act like the PwD and then recently the RTE. In between, we had three important programmes, viz., IEDC, SSA and IECYD. Among these, in the two IEs (Integrated Education), I showed how the expansion of 'I' changed from 'integrated' to 'inclusion' -- a major step no doubt, but how much of it is going to turn itself into an Act?