 "This Bill has failed to keep the interest of surrogate mothers central: Flavia Agnes")
The surrogacy industry in India is a thriving business. Now, the Union cabinet has approved the Surrogacy (Regulation) Bill, 2016, that proposes to ban commercial surrogacy. The Bill also bans foreigners, overseas Indians, single parents, live-in partners and homosexual couples from having children through surrogacy. Flavia Agnes, women's rights lawyer and co-founder of Majlis, a forum for women's rights discourse and legal initiatives, talks to Shakya Mitra about the impact of the Bill on the lives of women who opt for surrogacy as a means of livelihood and the future of surrogacy in India if the proposals are cleared.
What is your first reaction to the complete ban on commercial surrogacy as proposed under the Surrogacy Regulation Bill?
This move will drive surrogacy underground and make it riskier for the poor woman who opts for surrogacy as a viable livelihood option.
The entire discourse had centred around bringing in transparency and securing the rights of the unequal partner - the women who opt for surrogacy. The Bill seems to have placed them at even greater risk.
For many poor women, the opportunity to bear a child through surrogacy was seen as a chance towards making a better life for themselves and their families? Isn't the proposed ban, if viewed from that perspective, then a deprivation of livelihood?
The entire industry is geared towards the rich and the affluent. The surrogate mother was seen as an insignificant link in this chain. But, according to me, since she is the most vulnerable, her interest should have been placed at the centre. I feel that the Bill has failed to do this. She is now placed at a greater risk as the entire industry will go underground.
It has been seen that a country like Cambodia, which has ambiguous surrogacy laws, has been encouraging Indian clinics to move there. This, too, has its risks because medical facilities in Cambodia (such as neo-natal care) are inferior to those available in India? Would the proposed ban encourage India's multi-crore surrogacy industry to consider relocating to countries like Cambodia?
There is every likelihood that this may happen. Medical professionals will do anything to increase their profit margins and cut down their risk factors. After the ban, if they operate in India, the reproductive clinics will be subjected to periodic raids and scrutiny, and they may think it is best to avoid this kind of bad publicity.
Who is the biggest gainer or loser in this? Do you see this as a moral crackdown on surrogacy or one that could impact a large majority of poor people?
The biggest losers are the women who opt to become surrogate mothers. The losers are also those who viewed India as a safe place for affordable surrogacy.
According to the Bill, altruistic surrogacy will not be possible for single parents and homosexual couples. What is your view on this?
This is reflective of the government's moral posturing that only a heterosexual couple is entitled to the benefits of this modern technology.
Union External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that "surrogacy is not a thing of joy and partners who already have children try to get another one because they don't want to put their wives through pain." What do you make of this statement from the minister?
There are many who have opted for such surrogacy. To ban it now will be retrograde.
What is your first reaction to the complete ban on commercial surrogacy as proposed under the Surrogacy Regulation Bill?
This move will drive surrogacy underground and make it riskier for the poor woman who opts for surrogacy as a viable livelihood option.
More From This Section
For many poor women, the opportunity to bear a child through surrogacy was seen as a chance towards making a better life for themselves and their families? Isn't the proposed ban, if viewed from that perspective, then a deprivation of livelihood?
The entire industry is geared towards the rich and the affluent. The surrogate mother was seen as an insignificant link in this chain. But, according to me, since she is the most vulnerable, her interest should have been placed at the centre. I feel that the Bill has failed to do this. She is now placed at a greater risk as the entire industry will go underground.
It has been seen that a country like Cambodia, which has ambiguous surrogacy laws, has been encouraging Indian clinics to move there. This, too, has its risks because medical facilities in Cambodia (such as neo-natal care) are inferior to those available in India? Would the proposed ban encourage India's multi-crore surrogacy industry to consider relocating to countries like Cambodia?
There is every likelihood that this may happen. Medical professionals will do anything to increase their profit margins and cut down their risk factors. After the ban, if they operate in India, the reproductive clinics will be subjected to periodic raids and scrutiny, and they may think it is best to avoid this kind of bad publicity.
Who is the biggest gainer or loser in this? Do you see this as a moral crackdown on surrogacy or one that could impact a large majority of poor people?
The biggest losers are the women who opt to become surrogate mothers. The losers are also those who viewed India as a safe place for affordable surrogacy.
According to the Bill, altruistic surrogacy will not be possible for single parents and homosexual couples. What is your view on this?
This is reflective of the government's moral posturing that only a heterosexual couple is entitled to the benefits of this modern technology.
Union External Affairs Minister Sushma Swaraj said that "surrogacy is not a thing of joy and partners who already have children try to get another one because they don't want to put their wives through pain." What do you make of this statement from the minister?
There are many who have opted for such surrogacy. To ban it now will be retrograde.