Modi means well by suggesting the term divyang for the disabled but can you beat bias with better words? http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/sunday-times/deep-focus/For-disabled-divyang-equals-charity/articleshow/50421459.cms? When Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently suggested that people with disabilities be called "divyang", he may have had the best intentions. The word invests bodies with holiness (sacred body), rather than the harsh "vikalang" (deformed body).
But many in the disability community agree that "divyang" is an epic fail. Much like Gandhi's use of the word "harijan", it is imposed by a seemingly benevolent outsider, it is condescending to those it describes. The word "Dalit" on the other hand, chosen by them, builds an assertive politics and community. "We don't want charity, we are equal citizens," says Malini Chib, an activist and writer now working at TCS, London, whose experience of living with cerebral palsy inspired last year's film 'Margarita, with a Straw'. A person with a disability is not just trying to fight stigma, but also the sentimentality of others. They are not trying to be inspiring or heroic, they want their due from an ableist world. While the right term in Hindi needs to be found, "divyang is an oversimplifying and patronising word," says Neelam Jolly, founder of Vishwas, a school for children with disabilities. Modi was, in fact, giving voice to an old fallacy - that the disabled were somehow touched with divinity. Think of the Greek epics, where disability is a mark of transgression, and also endowed with compensating powers, like the blind seer Tiresias. Whether Dhritarashtra or Sakuni, disability has negative connotations in the Mahabharata. Research in Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu in the early 2000s showed that it was commonly considered a "divine curse" across rural and urban India. Through the centuries, there have been great changes in the way disability is perceived - from anxious curiosity to exclusion to pity to remedy - but only recently has it moved to how disabilities are internally experienced. "Nothing about us without us" is a memorable slogan of the disability rights movement. "Whether divyang or anything else is not the point. It is that people who are disabled should choose the words they want," says Amba Salelkar, activist and lawyer. There are other problems with divyang - "it erases the entire gamut of disabilities that aren't visible, like mental illnesses", she points out. Why words matter People with little experience of exclusion often say, "Oh, I can't keep up with this politically correct terminology", as though they're passing fashions rather than a movement towards equality and recognition. The women's movement, anti-caste movement, racial minorities and other groups have always fought biased words with better words. They know that language subtly shapes thought. Sometimes, it is the weight of historical associations rather than the inherent offensiveness of the word that make it intolerable. "My grandfather was colored, my father was Negro, I am black," wrote the American academic Henry Louis Gates Jr, describing a century of transition. Though it is still used, studies prove that the word "black" still evokes negative perceptions compared to "African-American". Sometimes, the insult is blatant - as when the word "gay" or "lame" or "retard/tard" are used as pejoratives. Other times, the prejudice is implicit; like the word "handicapped", which renders someone a passive victim, a recipient of the world's help. In some cases, hurtful words can be reclaimed by those they once insulted, turned over and worn with pride, like "queer". In some US disability circles, some use the word "crip" - as in crip theory and activism - but it is decidedly not used by others. Enabling change Disability was once seen as an individual "illness". Now, it is seen as a social and political problem, says Mithu Alur, founder-chairperson of the Spastics Society of India, now called ADAPT. The focus is on how the world treats persons with disability, whether it disparages them as a problem that needs "solving", or validates and accommodates them. Removing hurdles - in attitudes, in buildings and cities, in school, work and state policy - would enable everyone. Assistive technology gives a blind person the same opportunities as a sighted person, accessible pavements remove mobility constraints. "We are not touched by god, we are oppressed by society and its lack of infrastructure," says Chib. "Of course the word divyang doesn't understand this paradigm shift, but nor do most people now scoffing at the word," says Salelkar. "These are the same people who would do ultrasound scans to abort babies with Down syndrome," she says. Seeking to eliminate the chances of a disabled child is also an attempt to "normalise", to erase "variety and vulnerability from the world", as the writer Andrew Solomon puts it. At some point in life, we are all likely to be disabled in certain aspects - from seeing road signs, from climbing stairs, from feeding or dressing ourselves with ease. As disability scholar Tobin Siebers writes, "The cycle of life runs in actuality from disability to temporary ability back to disability, and that only if you are among the most fortunate." A world that makes room for our needs is in everybody's interest. -- Avinash Shahi Doctoral student at Centre for Law and Governance JNU Celebrating Louis Braill birthday, Jan. 4th. Register at the dedicated AccessIndia list for discussing accessibility of mobile phones / Tabs on: http://mail.accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/mobile.accessindia_accessindia.org.in Search for old postings at: http://www.mail-archive.com/accessindia@accessindia.org.in/ To unsubscribe send a message to accessindia-requ...@accessindia.org.in with the subject unsubscribe. To change your subscription to digest mode or make any other changes, please visit the list home page at http://accessindia.org.in/mailman/listinfo/accessindia_accessindia.org.in Disclaimer: 1. Contents of the mails, factual, or otherwise, reflect the thinking of the person sending the mail and AI in no way relates itself to its veracity; 2. AI cannot be held liable for any commission/omission based on the mails sent through this mailing list..
