March 21, 2017
Debabrata Bandyopadhyay speaks on The Human Immunodeficiency Virus and Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (Prevention and Control) Bill, 2014
FULL TRANSCRIPT
Sir, it is nice to see a Bill drafted by a Minister of the previous Government is being owned and presented by the next Government for the approval of the House. It only indicates that the Indian democracy has achieved that level of maturity to carry forward any good and pro-people measure notwithstanding the fact that when it was initially brought to the House, the present Government was in the Opposition.
The UN General Assembly has already passed a resolution to adopt such a measure for the benefit of the people of the world; India is a signatory to the declaration. Therefore, it is only proper and correct that the Government should bring this Bill. It is not merely the fulfillment of an international commitment but is also meant to urgently deal with the problems of 2.3 million Indians suffering from the dangerous disease. India has the third highest number of people affected by this deadly disease, and also accounts for four out of every 10 people afflicted in the Asia-Pacific region.
The biggest problem is that more than 50 per cent of the afflicted people are not aware of their ailment. What is more alarming is that treatment coverage is only 36 per cent. People who do not have access to the therapy account for as high as 64 per cent of the afflicted. The provision against discrimination in the Bill is highly commendable. In this context ot is pertinent to point out that the West Bengal Government in 2015 announced a scheme called Muktir Aalo for rehabilitation of sex workers, which included an offer of rice at Rs 2 per kg and provisions for skill and vocational training.
There are certain unsavoury points which I would like to mention. The Bill says that the Government will provide treatment “as far as possible”, a clause that health activists have been protesting very strongly against. Clause 14 (1) of the Bill includes this provision of “as far as possible” regarding the obligation of the State to provide treatment facilities. Thus, instead of providing the seeking of treatment for HIV as the right of a patient, Clause 14 (1) gives the Government an escape route to avoid any responsibility to treat the patient. This clause makes the Bill toothless. This also goes against the 24-year-old commitment of the Government of India.
There is a sociological aspect of the disease too. In the popular mind, this disease is borne out of immoral activities. This social stigma creates further problems for the afflicted. In fact, in earlier years, people afflicted by STD would not even own up to their problem to physicians. Their problem was the fear of being socially ostracised.
Despite some limitations, this Bill provides a step forward in the right direction. After it is passed and becomes operational, perhaps some more deficiencies may come to light, when a thorough revision may be necessary on the basis of the hard evidence. For the present, this is a welcome step. I reiterate my support. Thank you, Sir.
