The role of language in disability rights
This article is authored by Meghna Sharma, assistant professor and Sandhyashree Karanth, student, LLB (Hons.), School of Law, RV University.
In his story titled Naya Samvidhaan, Sadat Hasan Manto conveyed the inherent limitations of legal changes in bringing societal transformations. Despite the enactment of right-based laws regarding persons with disabilities in India, it remains an unfortunate reality that ableism is still deeply entrenched in our society. Deep-seated prejudices, discrimination, and, stigma, associated with disability have impeded this process of social transformation because of which equal respect remains elusive. Language is a very important tool in this process. The use of appropriate language can either facilitate the process or continue the ableist narrative, effectively impeding the process of fostering inclusion and respect.
Recently, the Supreme Court (SC) of India released a Handbook concerning Persons with Disabilities, providing guidance on the various stereotypes regarding disability and the need and manner of employing respectful language. The Handbook aims to address an important social pattern in India of employing derogatory language for persons with disabilities. A few months ago, three former cricketers posted a video mocking physical exhaustion. Despite the ‘alleged’ intent of humour, the video trivialised persons with locomotor disabilities in its implications. In the past, certain platforms have faced backlash, when a video of people mocking persons with disabilities was shared over it.
The Election Commission of India had to come out with guidelines to “nudge political parties towards respectful discourse for persons with disabilities”. Such a political climate is reflective of the troubling social tendency that trivialises the mocking of persons with disabilities.
Pertinent to note here is that the State continues to use Divyangjan literally meaning ‘persons with divine bodies’ as an official term to refer to persons with disabilities. Disability rights organisations and activists have expressed serious anguish regarding the usage of this term because of its patronising tone. An official mark of identity has continued to be in use despite the concerns expressed by the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), referring to the same as derogatory.
The pervasiveness of the use of such language in our public discourse reveals a recurring social pattern of dismissive attitudes towards persons with disabilities. These incidents point towards a larger and more persistent problem--a climate of apathy towards the use of derogatory language against persons with disabilities. From casual mockery to the use of derogatory language involving persons with disabilities, the trivialisation of disability in Indian society remains widespread.
The recurring use of insulting language reflects systemic prejudice and dismissive attitudes toward persons with disabilities, calling for more robust legal enforcement and societal change.
While the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2016 penalises offensive speech, it only includes speech made with an offensive intent. This focus on intent means that insults made negligently or recklessly are not penalised under this provision. Consequently, the burden of proof lies heavily on the prosecution to demonstrate this higher standard of intent. Ignorance, masked as humour, often enables individuals to evade accountability, making it challenging for the penalisation to act as an effective deterrent.
The SC’s Handbook on Persons with Disabilities emphasises the importance of using sensitive and respectful language when referring to persons with disabilities, urging judges and professionals to avoid derogatory or condescending terms like differently-abled. It promotes a people-first approach (e.g., “persons with a disability”) but acknowledges that some may prefer identity-first language. This shift may seem subtle but has a profound impact, as words shape how we perceive and treat those with disabilities.
Language shapes societal perceptions, and by choosing respectful and inclusive terms, we pave the way for a more equitable society. The release of the SC’s Handbook is a crucial step in this direction, underscoring the need for collective responsibility in fostering an inclusive future for all individuals, regardless of their abilities. As we move away from stigmatising language, we can create a world where everyone belongs, and language becomes a bridge to understanding, acceptance, and respect.
This article is authored by Meghna Sharma, assistant professor and Sandhyashree Karanth, student, LLB (Hons.), School of Law, RV University.