Surrogacy Bill: is a draft of the stone ages?

Kamlesh Pande, Special Correspondent, newscircle.in

NEW DELHI. Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, MP and Spokesperson AICC addressed the media today and said that the new Surrogacy Bill which appears to have been approved by the Cabinet seems to be resembling a draft of the stone ages. It appears that the most anti-liberal approach not at all contemporaneous with the social milieu in which we live, not contemporaneous with the year 2016,                          non-progressive, non-scientific, non contemporaneous. All kinds of value judgments have been injected into it in a very paternalistic manner. Let me give you some examples.

This Bill, therefore, excludes surrogacy by live-in couples, it excludes surrogacy by couples who have any adopted child, it excludes surrogacy by a couple which has a single child and of course, it excludes surrogacy for live-in-partners or homosexuals. It excludes surrogacy by all NRIs, OCIS and PIOs. In fact, there is a very interesting reason given in the Bill for excluding all Foreigners, NRIs and OCIs. They say “Because divorces are very common in foreign countries”, as if India is a stranger to divorces. Now, I want to ask you a question – why will you have surrogacy at all if it is restricted only to married couples. I would imagine that only a very-very–very a small fraction of married couples would want to have a surrogate child. Surrogacy is desired either by unmarried singles, divorcees, widows, live-in-couples, foreigners and childless couples etc. etc. All the categories are banned. Then why have surrogacy? This is, therefore, an extremely anti-liberal kind of a law.

Another very interesting point here is that the UPA also had two versions of the Bill – in 2008 and finally in 2010. First of all, we had a far wider canvass in our main Final 2010 Bill. That was the Assistive Reproductive Technologies Bill. This is very important distinction because we should not talk only of Surrogacy. Surrogacy is making a womb of woman available for a surrogate child and Assistive Reproductive Technologies includes sperm donation, IVF and all other kinds of options. This is, therefore, a much narrower Bill than the 2010 version of the UPA.  Our version allowed a far wider category of those intending to practice surrogacy including Foreigners, NRIs, OCIs and including married-couples with one child including single people. Of course, in our version also, which was 8 years ago, Homosexuals were excluded. But the times have changed and even that perhaps requires a rethink but the point is that we had a much more nuanced, regulated, focused approach.

There is a blanket banning approach in today’s version. You must have a Regulator, you must check individual cases, check the background of the person who wants to go for surrogacy but not a blanket ban of all categories. The approach of this Bill is a category based blanket bans not an individualized approach of checking individual cases. Our Bill was a case of individualized approach of checking individual cases.

I will give you an example - this one bans all Foreigners, all NRIS, all OCIs, PIOs. Our version said that a Foreigner/NRI etc. can have a surrogate motherhood in India provided a Guardian is appointed to look after the mother not only for nine months but till the child is delivered to the parents who have commissioned the surrogacy. This is a nuanced sophisticated manner in which this scheme has to run and let me tell you, astonishingly the punishment in this version is 10 Years if you go out to produce a surrogate child, you are liable to punishment with 10 Years’ imprisonment. I think this shows that this Government has gone back to the Stone-Ages. They have delegated the drafting of the Surrogacy Bill probably to the surrogate RSS.                 It appears to be surrogate delegation to surrogate agencies whether you call them RSS or VHP. This is totally out of tune with contemporary times and we hope and trust that a wider consultative process will follow. This certainly                        I doubt very much, will meet any form of Parliamentary approval. It is paternalistic anti-liberal and as I said anti-progressive and must be reconsidered. And I find from the Press Reports that even those who headed the GoM and other Ministers of this Cabinet, Ms. Sushha Swaraj on one side, the Finance Minister on other side, have different views. There is no unanimity. There is diversion of views reported in the Press. So, I think this is a retrograde attempt.
……………..............
Is redefining the identity of india as intolerant India?
..........................

Dr. Singhvi said that unfortunately from living in the world’s largest democracy and one of the proudest democracies in the world, all of us feel terrible that apart from the many other casualties in Modi Ji’s BJP-NDA regime, there are casualties of unity, casualties of communal harmony, casualty of agriculture, casualty of employment but one of the biggest fatalities and casualties - the freedom of thought, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. Unfortunately, from having this most cherished fundamental right in our Constitutional system, Mr. Modi, in two years, has succeeded in redefining the identity of India as ‘Intolerant India’. He has made it into an ‘Intolerant India’ shaming India from being a proud democracy. Would you like to live in a country where if you were to say that Pakistan is not hell, you can be charged with sedition, Must you wear Nationalism on your sleeve to such an extent and it is not that one swallow makes a summer. It is not that it is one stray comment – why is it that since 2014 in particular, we are having almost weekly filing of sedition cases, why does no less than the Defence Minister of the country say “Going to Pakistan is the same as going to Hell”. Why does the BJP President, no less, says “If by any chance the BJP loses, fire crackers will be burst in celebration in Pakistan”. These are not ordinary people. These are the top echelons of Indian politics and society. Why does the Chief Minister Mr. M. L. Khatter says”Muslims can live in this country but they will have to give up eating beef”?

Why it that you are having attacks on ancient Churches in Mangalore, a rape of 70 Years old Nun in West Bengal. This whole campaign in the country in the name of holy and sacred cow, by those who actually defame the cow, who defile its sacredness and call themselves “Gaurakshaks”. You know the number of incidents from Una to Uttar Pradesh, how many killings, how many deaths, why is it that in Dadri, a person belonging to a particular community, is dragged out of his house and killed on suspicion. Why is it that Muslim women at Mandsaur Railway Station are attacked in this manner – all on suspicion – most of the suspicions found to be baseless on investigation.                    I put it to you, the CMs of BJP States, the President of the BJP, the Defence Minister, the BJP General Secretary Mr. Kailash Vijayvarghiya says “Shahrukh lives in India, but his soul is in Pakistan”, Yogi Adityanath – very difficult to quote – The point is that would we all or any of us like to live in India like this? The whole essence of democracy is famous Voltaire’s phrase “I disagree with you entirely, but will defend to death your right to disagree”. I certainly should agree with these comments – I may not agree with Ramya’s comment – Nobody says that you are to agree with her but the question is does she have the right to have that view? The question is as simple as that. This                      intolerance wave is redefining India in the worst possible manner and diminishing India something which it appears is beyond the comprehension of those who rule us.
…………………...........
Is this one of the greatest mithya prachar?
............................

On the question that in Karnataka it is your party in power where sedition charges have been filed, Dr. Singhvi said this is one of the greatest ‘Mithya Prachar’, misconception which is going on whether it is Amnesty or the more recent incident – two or three points you must know – a number of times from this podium and elsewhere it has been said by the Congress Party that we condemn such application or misapplication or abuse of sedition leaving nobody in doubt that the Congress Party does not stand for it.  Somebody registers an FIR and you blame the State Government – it has nothing to do with the State Government. There are these lumpen elements, this last Karnataka incident happened 250 Kms. of South of Bangalore. In a small village, a group of persons go and stand on the head of the Police and say Register an FIR, the Police registers the FIR, the State has no role. When the State comes to find about it, they deny it, they condemn it. In the Amnesty case, the CM himself has gone on record to say that he did not know about this, this is registered at the shouting of the ABVP group and we do not think it chargeable case. No charge sheet is filed, no prosecution has started, but the State Government is dragged in to it. The real reason is that the climate of intolerance created by groups going across the length and breadth of the country, whether it is a BJP ruled State or a Congress ruled State and intimidating persons, threatening persons, shouting at persons, pressurizing the persons that unless you wear your Nationalism on sleeve, you are Anti-National. If I do not stand up and say ‘Bharat Mata Ki Jai’, I am an Anti-National. That is the real issue. It is an issue that these lumpen elements speak emboldened, they feel they can do it with impunity, they feel that they will have no retribution ultimately because the climate created by Modi Ji and his Party in less than two years, is of strategic silence  encouragement and supportive silence.

On being asked to comment on a Press Release issued by the BJP against the Indian Express, Dr. Singhvi said I have just heard of it and seen it. I think there is a difference between giving a clarification and giving a factual rebuttal and giving a detailed statement in a threatening and intimidating manner. The second is not permissible when you are dealing with the Press and especially when you are the ruling party, the ruling dispensation. You have the statement, you can read it, it is clearly intended to overawe, intimidate and threaten. It is clearly intended to suggest the potential use or the misuse of state power against those who dare. A factual clarification still stands on a different footing than the kind of tone, tenor and content of the statement which has been issued.