Counter ableism to make society far more inclusive

The Supreme Court laying down the nine-point guidelines on the portrayal of disability in films and visual media was a watershed moment for persons with disabilities (PwDs). The judgment was delivered by the Court earlier this year, in an appeal challenging the portrayal of disability in the movie, Aankh Micholi.

The guidelines focus on the usage of inclusive language, accurate representation of disability, training and sensitisation workshops for creators, and consultation with subject matter experts, among others, and serve to diversify the discussions surrounding disability from an inclusive and holistic perspective. Besides the guidelines, the Court has also expressed its opinion on the appellant’s recommendations on including subject experts in the Central Board of Film Certification, aiming to prevent undignified depictions.

The Court came down heavily on the harsh and oppressive portrayal of PwDs in popular culture, which has reinforced societal stigma. It emphasised the principles of dignity, autonomy and non-discrimination, affirmed by the United Nations Convention on Rights of People with Disabilities (UNCRPD) as human rights. India is a signatory, and these principles have also been upheld by the Court time and again. The Court juxtaposed the current legislative framework on PwD rights against the regulations governing film certification in India. Despite disability laws being enacted much later than film certification laws and guidelines, it has been disappointing to observe that the narratives surrounding disability and individuals with disabilities have seen little evolution over time.

The judgment has far-reaching implications for how society perceives disability. The Court not only reviewed the laws but also made a significant distinction between disabling and disability. This indicated that attitudinal barriers often tend to disable the person more than the actual disability itself. The Court called out the persistence of such disparaging narratives in the media. It stated that disabling vocabulary mocks disability and widens the marginalisation of PwDs, and underscored that while freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it does not extend to perpetuating prejudices that could harm or further marginalise vulnerable communities.

The judgment also brings to the forefront the role of terminologies in propagating discrimination against PwDs in the country and the consequent ableism in society. Ableism is the reaction to the perception of disability wherein the PwDs are categorised as inferior to able-bodied people. Ableist attitudes and behaviour recognise disability as a deviation from normalcy rather than an inherent variation in the human condition. Due to the underlying context which views PwDs as different, they are subjected to discrimination and prejudice. Hence, ableism not only covers the discrimination faced by PwDs, but it also describes how certain attributes are more valued by society as compared to others.

These ableist constructs refuse to acknowledge the struggles of PwDs, thus creating obstacles for them to participate in the community and exercise control over their circumstances. Denying them the right to exercise such autonomy thwarts their progress and empowerment. At the heart of this discourse also lies the dominant lens of the medical model, which has traditionally perpetuated ableism in society by constructing labels for disability in the form of deficits or abnormalities. The Court acknowledged such outdated approaches to disability, which are still being relied upon by society. Failure to challenge such narratives leads to the othering of PwDs in a world that shirks its responsibility to dissolve barriers. It becomes convenient for such a society to disrespect an individual with a disability and their right to live as part of the mainstream.

The verdict shifts the discourse to the evolving nature of disability, having a multitude of perspectives as a concept. Disability emanates from the interaction of all the factors that may influence the lifestyle of PwDs. The Court underlines the need to develop progressive terminologies that augment their integration into the mainstream.

In the past, the tokenist depiction of disability in films often relegated PwDs to mere plot devices or sources of inspiration for other characters. This tends to prevent the normalisation of the concept in mainstream society. Films and media are significant mediums of storytelling with the potential to influence attitudes and understanding of society towards different issues. Showcasing disability in movies is a critical aspect of representation that encompasses spheres of an individual’s abilities, challenges, and daily life. Portrayals of disability should undertake to present PwDs as complex individuals with aspirations and vulnerabilities, similar to other members of society.

This groundbreaking ruling has the potential to catalyse significant change. The comprehensive guidelines it introduces offer filmmakers a robust framework to rely on to ensure adequate, diverse, and authentic representation of PwDs in the media and not merely as figures of inspiration. This shift holds the potential to foster an inclusive and diverse depiction of disability that reflects the actual lived experiences of PwDs.

Arushi Singh is an advocate.The views expressed are personal