Image Courtesy: Outlook

The judgement came after Ms Madhumita Ramesh filed a writ petition in the Madras High Court against the Tiruchi Municipal Corporation (TMC). The petitioner had undergone intrauterine insemination after her divorce and gave birth to a baby girl on 23 April 2017. TMC issued the birth certificate for her daughter in August, where they named the sperm donor as the father. Objecting to this, Ms Ramesh asked TMC to reissue the birth certificate without the sperm donors’ name; TMC refused saying that the law requires that birth certificates carry the father’s name.

TMC argued that as per the Registration of Births and Deaths Act, 1969 and the Tamil Nadu Registration of Births and Deaths Rules, 2000, it is mandatory to record the both the parents’ name in the register. Referring to this clause in the judgement and criticising the old Act, Justice MS Ramesh said, even though the old rules don’t have the provision to erase the father’s name from the certificate, in the current case:

… the woman has gone through “Intrauterine Fertility Treatment”… The affidavit of Mr.Manish Madanpal Meena, dated 31.01.2018 evidences that he is no way related to the petitioner and that the petitioner was only an acquaintance who had helped her on humanitarian ground in the hospital, during the time of her delivery.

The judge further added that it should be enough for the mother to submit an affidavit that the child was born from her womb. The court also stated that since the child was conceived through artificial insemination, the sperm donor should not be named as the father of the child, or mentioned in any other way on the birth certificate.

“It’s a highly progressive move because it recognises the primary right of mothers to their children’s custody and natural guardianship,” said Sujata Madhok, a journalist who specialises on women’s issues.

The judgement has also been welcomed by women’s rights activists.

Writer and activist Githa Hariharan says, “It’s high time the law made this move to insist on a single mother’s rights and, indeed, the right of the child to the only functional parent she has.  Laws must reflect reality, and this reality includes mothers who never married; mothers who have been deserted; and mothers who are divorced or separated.”

In 1999, the writer (in the case Githa Hariharan and another Vs. Reserve Bank of India) challenged the validity of Section 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act of 1956 in the Supreme Court. In 1984, the writer applied to the Reserve Bank of India for 9% Relief Bond to be held in the name of her son Rishab, a minor at the time, along with an intimation that the she, being the mother, would act as the natural guardian for the purposes of investments. The application, however, was sent back by the RBI authority advising her to produce the application signed by the father.  A Supreme Court bench, chaired by Justice Umesh C Banerjee, criticised the existing law and passed a historic judgement saying that a mother’s right over the child cannot come “after” the father in the matter of guardianship; they are both to be considered equal.

ICF spoke to Shalini Dixit in Bangalore who faced something similar when admitting her child to a school.

“I had to fight legally to get my child’s custody, in addition to dealing with the social stigma that comes with being a single mother. What made this worse, for me, was that my child’s school required me to mention the father’s name in all the documents. When I refused, they asked me to give it in writing that I was the sole caretaker of the child. In the ID cards of the student’s, only the father’s name is mentioned. I objected to this and insisted that they write my name instead of the father’s. The problem is that it is assumed that a child’s legal caretaker and guardian is the father. This judgement will make things easier for single mothers.”

What is common in all these cases is the underlying presumption that a man is superior to a woman. Consequently, a father’s identity is considered central to the child’s identity.

Sreelakshmi is a member of the editorial collective of the Indian Writers’ Forum

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Women Respond to Madras HC Judgement: Father’s Name not Required in Birth Certificates appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The 65th National Awards ceremony held on 3 May 2018 at Vigyan Bhavan, New Delhi raised some eyebrows when 69 artists and filmmakers decided to walk out of the hall, boycotting the award function.  Smriti Irani, who was to present the award, was greeted with a largely empty hall, whose absence was made even more apparent by the nameplates of the award recipients that marked their seats. The award recipients boycotted the award after they found at the last-minute that President Ram Nath Kovind would only present the award to 11 recipients out of a total of 140. Those who did receive the awards from the President included Boney Kapoor, who received the award on behalf of his late wife, Sridevi), Akshay Khanna,on behalf of the late Vinod Khanna and Bengali actor Riddhi Sen.This is the first time in history that a serving President has not been available to present the award. The group who staged the walk-out had written a letter the day before, which was read out by Chaitanya Prasad, Additional Director General, Director of Film Festival. “It feels like a breach of trust, when an institution/ceremony that abides by extreme protocol fails to inform us of such a vital aspect of the ceremony with(sic) a prior notice. It seems unfortunate that 65 years of tradition are being overturned in a jiffy.” In response, the Rashtrapati Bhavan attempted to justify the change by issuing a statement that said, “The President attends the award functions and convocation maximum for one hour.” But it should not forgotten that one of the reasons why the national award is considered prestigious and important for the winners is because the award is given by the President of India and not by a random cabinet minister.

The Indian Cultural Forum spoke to multiple filmmakers about their decision to boycott of the 65th Nationl Award Ceremony. Here is what they had to say:

“65th National Film Award winners, including myself, have boycotted the function because this is an unprecedented situation. This has never happened before in the last 65 years where the President refuses to present the award.  This is part of a larger political agenda to bypass the President’s power so that the country is under the control of a certain political party.  Some of us have decided to take a stand. We refuse to receive the award from a BJP Minister, and boycott the award distribution ceremony.”  Aneez K Mappila , Director, The Slave Genesis

“They are breaking a tradition of 65 years. We are not commercial filmmakers. They could have told us in advanced, then we would not have come here. President should present us the award. That is our right. It is a tradition that the President give the award. Its one his duties. It takes years to make a film. And it takes a minute for the President to present the award.”  Meghnath, Filmmaker

“It is very important for us to protest. But we are not boycotting the award itself. In the letter we received, it was mentioned that the President of India will give away the award. If the President was not available, they should have mentioned it before hand that a Cabinet Minister will be presenting the awards on behalf of the President the awards will be given. There’s discrepancy in what the letter states and what actually happened. If they are saying that the President of India is giving away the award, then it should be him, not anyone else. We are very unhappy with this decision. We are not a union; we are a group of independent film makers who have been working in this field for years. Now we have decided to boycott the award function.”   Teenaa Kaur, Director, When the Sun Didn’t Rise.

Read the full draft of the letter here:

Sreelakshmi is a member of the editorial collective of the Indian Writers’ Forum.

Courtesy: Indian Cultural Forum

The post Filmmakers explain why they boycotted the National Film Awards Ceremony appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

Earlier this week, a professor from Kallady College in Kerala, Dr. Ranjith Kumar, claimed to have a new scientific explanation for how and why transgender people are born in this country.

Dr Ranjith Kumar, who holds a PhD in microbiology, was quoted as saying , “What will the children born to women who dress like men be like? Their children are going to be transgenders, napumsakam, or hijra, as some people might say.”

He went on to claim that jeans are “evil.” “The children born to men and women who rebel have this new disease called autism. Do you see that? [pointing to a video] The mother is wearing jeans and both her children suffer from autism.”

Interestingly, this lecture took place in Kerala, the first state in the country to provide job security to transgender people.

There are multiple reasons why his claims are controversial. As a microbiologist, people expect his claims to have a scientific basis. In fact, if he is speaking as a doctor, it is his responsibility to make claims that have some basis in science. However, the reasons he presented for his claims are not just unscientific but also stupid. They do not even follow any established norms of research.

His statements have offended many, including the transgender community, women, and also, parents, doctors, and caregivers of autistic children.

Transgender people are those whose gender identity or gender performance differs from the sex they were assigned at birth. By claiming that jeans are “evil” and responsible for the birth of transgender babies, Kumar is increasing and, worse, legitimising the transphobia that exists in our society.

Second, autism is a genetic disorder. Instead of increasing awareness about autism, his claim places the “blame” for the children’s condition squarely on the parents. Must these parents, who already struggle to find acceptance and understanding in our country, also feel guilty for committing the “sin” of wearing jeans, must they be condemned to the society’s judgement for their clothing choices?

Besides all this, it is yet another attempt at policing women and what they wear, burdening them with the “ignominy” of having transgender children if they “rebel.”

Dr Ranjith Kumar isn’t the only one to have made such regressive remarks. Recently, the Minister of State for Human Resource Development in Higher Education, Satyapal Singh, was quoted  as saying, “No boy will be ready to marry a girl who comes to the mandap (wedding stage) in jeans.” A couple of years ago, a famous Malayalam singer, Dr K J Yesudas, courted controversy when he said , “What should be covered should be covered. When women wear jeans, others are forced to look beyond that. They should wear modest attire that suits our culture.”

Unlike the Central Government, which has chosen to remain silent on this issue, the Kerala state government reacted to the incident and barred the professor from addressing any public gatherings.

Courtesy: Newsclick.in
 

The post Kerala Microbiology Professor Competes with BJP Leaders on Unscientific Statements appeared first on SabrangIndia.