Ramifications of the RCI Act 
by Dr. Madhumita Puri

The estimates are staggering.

The National Sample Survey Organizations puts the number of persons with disabilities in India at an astounding 8,939 million - though it is believed that the actual number is 3-4 times higher and perhaps not less than 25 million. There are an estimated 4,000 voluntary organizations who are providing services in both urban and rural areas. The estimates for the number of personnel working in these agencies are rather inadequate. According to the Report on Manpower Development, issued by the Ministry of Social Welfare in 1996, there are an estimated 22,000 special teachers for children with disabilities. The actual number of persons working for their physical, mental, social and economic rehabilitation is anybody's guess.

Such persons, working in organizations in the voluntary sector, had been developing and providing services since as early as the 1940s, much before the Ministry of Social Welfare had even been formed. Despite this long history, there is no doubt that the sector lacks uniformity in the training of personnel and type of services provided. This, over the past few years, has increasingly been felt by parents of persons with disabilities and by professionals in related fields.

Given such astounding figures, action in this regard could only be taken by the Government. The Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI) - a statutory body of the Ministry of Social Welfare - thus came to be established in 1986, followed by an Act to implement its objects in 1992. In essence, the Council and its Act, aims to regulate the quality of training of Rehabilitation Professionals and to maintain a Central Rehabilitation Registration Register of the professionals so trained. Despite such promising and well meant intentions neither the Council nor the Act met with much favor with the voluntary sector. One would wonder why? Could it be that the voluntary sector objected to it being bridled? And vented its anger on those who attempted to take such steps? Perhaps not, for a majority of these organizations (if not all) consider this move laudable. Yet, among other objections, some of the basic problems that have been voiced are in the areas of:

  • Arbitrariness in formulation and implementation

  • Delay in implementation of the clauses of the Act.

  • Inclusion of the clause of disciplinary action against those who failed to comply with the dictates of the Act.

  • Inadequate definition of the term Rehabilitation professional.

The difficulty that arose in accepting the Act in its present form was partly due to inherent fallacies in formulation and implementation. While it was appropriate that the Government was concerned about the quality of training of professionals and paraprofessionals, it was certainly not appropriate that these very people, involved in providing services long before the Council or its Act came into being, were not consulted in the crucial stages. This led to a major haziness in the formulation of clauses and rules. While it was acceptable that the training be regulated, there was no need to try to control service delivery. This deviation from need would certainly have been avoided if persons actively involved in the field had been consulted.

The RCI then went on to add fuel to fire, in a manner of speaking, by lying dormant for several years, save a few intermittent newspaper advertisements asking people to register, failing which the punitive action clause would be implemented. For one, to expect sudden acceptance of the awakening of a giant, is unrealistic and, secondly, to expect people to comply with an agency whose only credential was its affiliation to the Government was even more so, especially at the risk of being imprisoned or fined.

The other difficult that arose as the manner in which the term Rehabilitation professional has been defined. The most successful rehabilitation happens where full community participation occurs and where rehabilitation is integrated, holistic and home based. The RCI inadequately perceives rehabilitation work to be at par with the health or the legal professions, with the rehab worker 'practicing' rehabilitation in clinics and offices on 'patients'. In the original Act, the term Rehabilitation Professional includes clinical psychologists, audiologists and speech therapists, hearing aid and ear mould technicians, rehabilitation engineers and technicians, special educators, vocational counselors, employment and placement officers and multipurpose therapists and technicians.

An analysis of the list would reveal that no thought was given to the quality or the responsibility of the work to be done by the above categories. Defining the duties and powers of the rehabilitation professional is to merely ensure that all activities are carried on in the interest of persons with disabilities. It is necessary that these should be carried out with the knowledge of persons who hold a requisite educational qualification and/or with adequate experience in the field, that is in keeping with the gravity of the situation.

From the list it is also apparent that no thought was given to the fact that the educational qualifications ranged from a 3 month certificate course after the 10th std, to a 5 years (or more) post graduate degree qualification for the list is neither exhaustive nor reflective of a common educational level. It does not appear to follow any logic in its inclusions and exclusions. To compound this point further, in the proposed amendments of June, 1998 the Council, increased the ambit of the Act to include personnel such as ophthalmic technicians and community based workers.

Furthermore, if the primary aim of registering rehabilitation professionals is to regulate their standards of training, and thereby creating a Central register of all those who have so qualified, then the RCI Act should remain within its purview and should not seek to be so expansive that it becomes impossible to implement. Attempting to register, recognize or license the Rehabilitation Professional is just and feasible. Attempting to register all those who provide services for persons with disabilities reflects a basic lack of in-depth understanding of the enormity of the needs of persons with disabilities. Even in Western countries with much stronger economies it is accepted that the bulk of the services are received from family, friends, neighbors and experienced volunteers. Contact time with trained professionals is quite limited.

Implications

At the technical level, attempts to cover all levels of service providers in both urban and rural areas, across the length and breadth of this country is not practicable - when such clauses are included in the Act and cannot be implemented then it tends to violate the rights of persons with disabilities. It is also in contravention with specific clauses of the Persons with Disabilities Act :
  • The right of persons with disabilities to rehabilitation as defined under Section 2(w) of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal opportunities ......) Act, 1995.

  • The tenets of Sections 26 and 27 of the same Act, that lays down the provision for access to formal as well as non formal education in both urban and rural areas.

The Issue of Mainstreaming

At a time, when the entire world is moving towards advocating the philosophy of 'mainstreaming', 'inclusion' and 'integration'; the policy makers in India seem to be walking in the opposite direction. In principle, whatever is being legislated through the RCI Act - when viewed impersonally and objectively - is more in the direction of segregation.

Thus, according to the RCI Act, the new cadre of professionals being instituted - the Rehab Professional, is being empowered with an aura of being the only ones who have the capacity of dealing with this special breed of human beings - ie those with disabilities. We need to ask ourselves this question - is this what we would like the next millennium to herald? If an honest answer to this were elicited, it would definitely be a firm 'No'.

Ideologically, the RCI Act needs to be thoroughly reevaluated with this in mind. The answer probably lies in accepting the belief that the entire concept of educating persons with disabilities lies in the realm of Teacher Training per se and not in Special Teacher Training. All resources, if routed in this direction would result in a meaningful implementation of the other Act legislated by 'The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995'.

Ramifications of the Act

It is the contention here, that the RCI Act has ramifications that have long tenuous tentacles reaching far into the future.

At first, the RCI Act, disempowers anybody not registered with it for carrying out any work with/for the disabled. It forbids any individual from teaching, training, or providing recreation, leisure etc until and unless the registration proviso is fulfilled. No where in the world is such an ultimatum in existence. It is a condition that seeks to segregate the person with a disability. It means that no child with a disability can seek admission in a regular school as the teachers there would not be registered with the RCI - unless the RCI becomes grandiose enough to wish to register them all. Can you imagine a scenario, where in order to teach ABC to the child next door permission would from the Government? If it is considered to be ludicrous in this situation, then why should it not to thought to be so, when the child has a handicap?

Alternatives

There should be a stringent definition of the Rehabilitation Professional with an equally stringent eye on educational entry level and quantum of relevant disability course content. The Rehabilitation Professional would be responsible for the personnel who worked in the sector and could even be penalized in case of any violation of rules and regulations.

In order to remove this anomaly, it is suggested that the educational entry level be made common to all persons to qualify as a Rehabilitation Professional. This would thus include

  • All persons who have qualified in graduate or above level courses that incorporate a (predetermined) rehabilitation component should be eligible to a license.

  • All persons who have obtained a post-graduate education in a field directly related to disability rehabilitation should be eligible to a license.
The RCI should establish linkages with all professional Associations or Councils of persons with degrees in courses with a disability/rehabilitation component. All persons registered with such Associations/Councils should be granted automatic license as Rehabilitation Professionals according to the RCI Act.

A clause requires to be added to this section. This clause deals with persons working in the disability sector before the RCI Act was formulated. It is suggested that this clause should specify at least graduate-level educational qualifications along with a (predetermined) number of years of experience in the service sector for the registration/licensing of all persons already providing services/training facilities for persons with disabilities prior to June, 1993.

Conclusion

The very real need to develop professional standards in service delivery is met adequately when Central and State Governments, and other International funding agencies stipulate the necessity for professional qualifications before funding rehabilitation organizations, and when they regularly monitor the services they are funding. At a time, when centralization is skeptically viewed as stifling to growth, when governmental bureaucratization is seen to lead to stagnation and lower levels of productivity, it seems inappropriate to attempt to empower an agency to centralize power and authority on caring and inspired people working in the voluntary sector with clauses of punishments and fines.