By Apoorva Mandhani
It was in December last year that Prime Minister Narendra Modi advocated for the use of the term divyang instead of viklang for the disabled, qualifying the limb with divinity, instead of disease. After the idea was propagated during one of PM Modis Mann Ki Baat episodes, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment (MSJE) had written a letter to various stakeholders and activists, inviting their comments on the proposal to give the term a legal basis.
However, the term was soon after used officially in the rail budget, allegedly in ignorance of the protests put up against it by the community. While the protestors do not delve into the intention behind the coining of the term, they appeal to the authorities to look beyond the semantics of the term divyang while aiming for their upliftment.
Right vs. charity
The terminology has especially been opposed by those who have been campaigning for equal opportunities for the disabled through a rights-based approach, as opposed to charity. The usage of the term divyang has been considered to do just that- nudge the disabled into the clasp of sympathy. In the same vein, several groups have also argued that in a bid to spin the rhetoric, the Centre might have unintentionally trodden against the spirit of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
It is pertinent to note that the Convention uses the term Persons with Disabilities (PWD), embracing and recognizing persons with disabilities as rights-holders and active members of society, and abandoning the approach of viewing them as recipients of charity, medical treatment, special services and social protection. At this juncture, it, therefore, becomes necessary to pause and reflect over the course that the usage of the term divyang might take, because if these assertions are to go by, then this would be a step in the wrong direction.
A patronizing moniker?
The concerns raised over usage of the term are not just limited to those of semantics. The coining of the term is reminiscent of Gandhis use of the word harijan. In that case, it has been asserted that the preferred term for a people who had been shunned to sub-human existence for millennia should be Dalit or Depressed Classes as opposed to the patronizing moniker of Gods people. Besides, it has also been averred that renaming the Dalits as harijans was an attempt at evading the real issue, which was the mindset of the upper castes. So, instead of focusing on the necessity of an overhaul of this mindset, the identity of the Dalits was tinkered, in order to make it more comfortable for the upper castes.
The concerns received the Supreme Courts backing in March this year after the Court acknowledged that words such as harijan are used by the people belonging to the so-called upper castes as words of insult, abuse, and derision. Rights activists have now drawn parallels between the usage of the term harijan and divyang, stressing on the premise that any sort of human impairment is only human diversity. However, people may be disabled when they face societal restrictions that deprive them of equal participation in the spheres of life. It is these restrictions, which include poor infrastructural, educational and occupational accessibility, that essentially make them disabled. It has, therefore, been contended that associating a feel-good divinity with the disabled would, in fact, result in a distraction from the necessity to address and uproot such restrictions.
Nothing about us without us
At this juncture, it is imperative to view the term from a policy perspective. It has been opined that divyang, in fact, celebrates the achievements of the disabled who battle all adversities to accomplish what is considered unimaginable by most. Indeed, awareness and appreciation of such achievements go a long way in combating social stereotypes.
Activists have, however, demanded a shift in the focus to the removal of such adversities, instead of mere glorification of those who make it past the hurdles. This is especially in view of the fact that they are being named without proper consultation with the community whose mantra has been nothing about us without us. This view has been supported by a representation endorsed by 71 organizations, which opined that invoking divinity will not lessen the stigma and discrimination that persons with disabilities have been historically subjected to and continue to encounter in their daily lives. It is, therefore, crucial to address such concerns raised by the community before naming it something that it considers so innately demeaning.
Featured image source: Pixabay