If you want to understand how to become better allies to people with disabilities, then join us at Embracing All Abilities: Including People with Disabilities at Work.
The outrage has put a spotlight on the blatantly discriminatory aspects of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, people's conceptions of who is a 'good' mother, and the prejudices against surrogacy.
Actor Nayanthara and her husband Vignesh Shiva shared the news of becoming parents to twin babies on social media last weekend to a wide-scale outrage in Tamil Nadu.
The controversy that has erupted demands answers from the couple whether they have followed the new surrogacy laws which came into effect in January this year.
In December 2021, the Parliament of India passed the Surrogacy (Regulation) Act and The Assisted Reproductive Technology (Regulation) Act, which came into effect on 25th January, 2022.
According to these two Acts,
are allowed to avail surrogacy. They have to obtain a recommendation certificate from a District Medical Board and a surrogate mother who is related to the couple by blood and is not charging the intended parents.
Given that these laws would not apply to surrogacy procedures undertaken before 25th January, 2022 and typically a period of gestation takes between 9 and 10 months, the people’s conviction that the couple have broken these laws is just conjecture.
Reportedly, the Tamil Nadu Health Minister has said that the Directorate of Medical Services will look into the controversy. So until they come out with their findings, we cannot know for sure what happened.
But this wide scale outrage has brought under the spotlight the blatantly discriminatory aspects of the Surrogacy Regulation Act, people’s conceptions of who is a ‘good’ mother, and the prejudices against surrogacy.
This can be explored through a number of key points.
The bill was touted to be pro women as commercial surrogacy is seen by the central government as exploitative.
According to the government, the absence of legislation to regulate surrogacy, rates of “rampant commercial surrogacy and unethical practices” have been high in India. So banning commercial surrogacy would ensure legal practice of only altruistic surrogacy, wherein only the medical expenses of the surrogate mother is covered.
But what happens to women from lower income brackets who make a living out of lending their wombs in exchange for a sum of money?
What happens to the thousands of women whose livelihoods have been snatched away?
Entire towns in various parts of the country have grown into surrogacy hubs, like Anand in Gujarat. Bodily autonomy, agency, and the right to livelihood of these women is compromised. Which makes the law anything but pro-women.
As with abortion, as with recreational drugs, as with any number of other things, banning surrogacy will not put an end to the practice. Here it would only mean that the women who engage in commercial surrogacy would no longer be able to access the legal redressal system when they find themselves exploited by their clients. From payment and reimbursement to health questions, the Act aiming to ‘curb exploitation’ actually puts these working women at further risk of exploitation.
If indeed the actor and her husband in question have broken the law, so would thousands of others, and probes wouldn’t be launched in each and every one of those cases.
The outrage should have been directed at the failure of the government in legalizing commercial surrogacy if they want to curb exploitation. But unfortunately, as Sowmya Rajendran, award winning author, film critic, and columnist at The News Minute puts it in her excellent Facebook post, “it would seem that we reserve our anger at the exploitation of a woman’s body only if the beneficiary is another woman.”
We watch exploitative porn, we ogle women and touch them inappropriately on the streets, we refuse to criminalise marital rape, but we draw the line at a woman safely making her livelihood through commercial surrogacy.
The entire controversy brings another element under the spotlight. The requirement of marriage.
Unmarried couples would not fall under the purview of this law and thereby would not be able to avail surrogacy even if they want to raise a child.
Queer people are not even allowed to marry. Non-binary people are not even recognised by law. Single men, too, cannot have a child through surrogacy under this law.
Indian society’s obsession with marriage and motherhood translates into these laws that keep out anyone who doesn’t comply to every cis heteronormative casteist requirement it throws at the individual.
Is it because she might have bypassed the laws put in place, of which we have no proof yet? Or is it because she does not fit India’s popular and traditional idea of what makes a ‘good mother’? As a society, we have romanticised motherhood to mean a number of things which are more often than not infinitely more exploitative and discriminatory than romantic. The pain of childbirth is one of them.
When Priyanka Chopra and Nick Jones announced the birth of their baby through surrogacy, she was subjected to a tirade of insensitive and defamatory remarks for having chosen this particular method of welcoming her baby into this world. A successful woman utilising her privileges, resources, and agency to make a decision for herself that does not align with society’s expectations from women, never sits well with the public.
In her Facebook post that I mentioned earlier, Sowmya Rajendran asks some pertinent questions, for us to sit and think about for everyone outraging on social media.
Images source: Instagram
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views. Individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times. If you have a complementary or differing point of view, sign up and start sharing your views too!
A postgraduate student of Political Science at Presidency University, Kolkata. Describes herself as an intersectional feminist and an avid reader when she's not busy telling people about her cats. Adores walking around and exploring read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
Some time ago, Imtiaz Ali and Hansal Mehta respectively spoke of biopics of Madhubala and Meena Kumari. But do these biopics do justice to these women?
I recently came across a Reddit thread that discussed the fact that filmmaker Imtiaz Ali had announced making a biopic of Madhubala, and I wanted to explore this a little.
Of late, biopics based on the lives of beautiful but fatefully tragic women such as Lady Diana and Marilyn Monroe have created waves. Closer at home, we hear about the possibilities of biopics being made on the lives of Meena Kumari and Madhubala as well. These were hugely famous, stunningly beautiful women who were the heartthrobs of millions; who died tragically young.
I am glad that the Orange Flower Awards seek self-nomination. High achieving women often suffer from self-doubt, and this is a good way to remind us that we are good enough.
A few days ago, I saw an Instagram post announcing the Orange Flower Awards which recognise the power of women’s voices. I read about it with curiosity, but didn’t give it a second thought.
I received an e mail from Women’s Web seeking self-nominations for the Orange Flower Awards, and I ignored it. Yes, I write occasionally, but I didn’t think my work was good enough for me to nominate myself in any of the categories.
A past winner especially tagged me and asked me to look at nominating myself, and I told her that I was not ready yet. “That is up to you”, she said, “but I think you should nominate yourself.”
Please enter your email address