Suchergebnisse

As its main focus the article is concerned with explaining the proposed
Indian Assisted Reproductive Technologies (ART) Bill 2010 (2008), and in
particular discusses some of its limitations using a relational conception of
consent and autonomy. It is argued that two major limitations arise from,
firstly, the way the Bill attempts to introduce 'universal' notions of
informed consent into a cultural context of socially determined decisionmaking,
resulting in the failure to safeguard the welfare of Indian
surrogates. A second limitation is that the proposed law entitles only some
poor women (surrogates) in India to realise access to quality medical
healthcare services compared to others (poor, infertile women). Given the
significant class and gender based inequalities which frame reproductive
healthcare service delivery in the country, legally guaranteed access to
health services for surrogates becomes a privilege where the rights of some
individuals and couples to reproduce and exercise procreative agency is
valued and not others. The article argues that the Bill must give due
consideration to the complex, relational and highly stratified contexts in
which women undertake childbearing in India to understand why legally
comprehensive consent procedures can co-exist with violations of
personhood in practice. Without such consideration the article suggests that
injustice toward infertile women can become part of the same legal process
wherein overcoming infertility is recognised as a right.

This article engages with anthropological approaches to the study of global human rights discourses around reproductive and maternal health in India. Whether couched in the language of human rights or of other social justice frameworks, different forms of claims‐making in India exist in tandem and correspond to particular traditions of activism and struggle. Universal reproductive rights language remains a discourse aimed at the state in India, where the primary purpose is to demand greater accountability in the domain of policy and governance. Outside of these spheres, other languages are strategically chosen by activists for their greater resonance in addressing individual cases of women claiming reproductive violence within the context of the family as well as localized histories of feminist struggle and social justice. In focusing on the work of legal activists and the discourses which inform their interventions, this article seeks to understand how the language of reproductive rights is used in the context of India, not as a `Western import' which is adapted to local contexts, but rather as one of multiple frameworks of claims‐making drawn upon by legal activists emerging from distinct histories of struggle for gender equality and social justice.

ABSTRACTRights‐based approaches have become prevalent in development rhetoric and programmes in countries such as India, yet little is known about their impact on development practice on the ground. There is limited understanding of how rights work is carried out in India, a country that has a long history of indigenous rights discourse and a strong tradition of civil society activism on rights issues. In this article, we examine the multiple ways in which members of civil society organizations (CSOs) working on rights issues in the state of Rajasthan understand and operationalize rights in their development programmes. As a result of diverse 'translations' of rights, local development actors are required to bridge the gaps between the rhetoric of policy and the reality of access to healthcare on the ground. This article illustrates that drawing on community‐near traditions of activism and mobilization, such 'translation work' is most effective when it responds to local exigencies and needs in ways that the universal language of human rights and state development discourse leave unmet and unacknowledged. In the process, civil society actors use rights‐based development frameworks instrumentally as well as normatively to deepen community awareness and participation on the one hand, and to fix the state in its role as duty bearer of health rights, on the other hand. In their engagement with rights, CSO members work to reinforce but also challenge neoliberal modes of health governance.

This article examines the changing dynamics of development in India, focusing on partnerships between civil society organisations (CSOs)1and the state in the area of rural health. Drawing on ethnographic perspectives of CSO work, we examine the shifting meaning of these partnerships for the institutions involved and how they function given their differing institutional cultures and values. We argue that the adoption by the state of a global language of rights and its efforts to integrate civil society language, practices and representatives in the policy and implementation of health programmes point to collaborationist models which support the creation of an 'activist' state, as they simultaneously strengthen as well as weaken the role of CSOs as mediators in development.