Re: [AI] Dear Editor, I Disagree: Disability inclusion must move beyond tokenism

[Vedprakash Sharma]

Many issues have been raised here.

Though there is always room for improvements and acomodation for the 
disabled, when it comes to disability initiatives, yet 
compartmentalizing the disabled under the heads of pro-Government and 
anti-government is not taken in good taste.


Yes, I agree that market forces control many things in open markets. but 
it is more of a political question and not hence is related to 
disability issues.


In a society, the disabled should be treated like all other ordinary 
people and their specific needs should be taken care of as per legal 
provisions. the same has been and is done by different establishments 
irrespective of party politics.


Hence, let us keep these political issues for some other forums and in 
this list we should only raise non-political issues relating to 
technology, disability issues etc.


On 21-03-2024 12:43 pm, avinash shahi wrote:
While we celebrate limited entry points given to a segment of the 
disabled population, like accessibility in cinema halls, it will do us 
good to remember that such accommodations are only available to the 
non-controversial, mainstream, ‘good’ disabled citizens of this 
democracy, whereas the same is indubitably denied, not only to those 
who are less privileged in the socio-economic structures, but also to 
those who are political dissenters.While we celebrate limited entry 
points given to a segment of the disabled population, like 
accessibility in cinema halls, it will do us good to remember that 
such accommodations are only available to the non-controversial, 
mainstream, ‘good’ disabled citizens of this democracy, whereas the 
same is indubitably denied, not only to those who are less privileged 
in the socio-economic structures, but also to those who are political 
dissenters.


There have been some significant developments in recent times on 
disability rights in India and the world. The Supreme Court of India 
has initiated a consultation to prevent the usage of stereotypes 
against persons with disabilities. The question of reasonable 
accommodation and accessibility is more profoundly asked and 
acknowledged in most spaces. Elon Musk’s venture Neuralink is seen and 
hailed as a silver bullet for accessibility. /The Indian Express/, in 
its editorial, ‘Everyone in 
,’ 
(February 10) praised the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting 
guidelines to make cinema halls accessible for persons with hearing 
and visual impairment.


These are significant developments for sure. However, the uncritical 
celebration of these developments obscures certain realities that 
affect us as citizens and as persons with disabilities. These 
developments are primarily based on two impulses, namely, barrier 
removal and social recognition of persons with disability through 
several initiatives of inclusion in the free-market economy and 
national mainstream.


However, these initiatives of inclusion by the market forces and 
nation-states, what disability studies scholars David Mitchell and 
Sharon Snyder call “inclusionism”, do not necessarily challenge the 
able-bodied parameters. They do not question the exclusions and 
debilitations produced by neo-liberalism either. Instead, the 
expectation is that through these market and state initiatives, 
disabled people will achieve “normalcy” as far as possible. Within 
this framework, persons with disabilities are given a small space to 
augment their value as “normalised” humans in the capitalist paradigm 
as consumers of assistive technologies such as Neuralink. By getting 
access to cinema halls and similar structures, persons with 
disabilities can feel “reasonably” accommodated. As consumers, they 
can mimic and achieve normalcy through market commodities, 
technologies, and accessible market spaces.


ADVERTISEMENT

Such discourse on accommodation and accessibility is supported, 
celebrated, and valorised by NGOs and disability movements with 
apolitical middle-class articulation of disability rights, in which 
the voices of several persons with disabilities, who do not have the 
privilege to be “visible” in this market economy, are excluded.


Dear Editor, I Disagree

Therefore, one must appraise which group can shape and articulate 
disability empowerment discourse and how that group shapes that 
discourse. The inclusion of a few disabled — the “able-disabled” as 
Mitchell and Snyder like to call them — as consumers of goods, 
services, and technology suffers from democratic and demographic 
deficits. Moreover, such inclusions often get misappropriated by the 
nationalist narrative of inclusion and accommodation.


Festive offer 
 



But while we celebrate limited entry points given to a segment of the 
disabled population, like accessibility in cinema 

[AI] Dear Editor, I Disagree: Disability inclusion must move beyond tokenism

[avinash shahi]

[image: While we celebrate limited entry points given to a segment of the
disabled population, like accessibility in cinema halls, it will do us good
to remember that such accommodations are only available to the
non-controversial, mainstream, ‘good’ disabled citizens of this democracy,
whereas the same is indubitably denied, not only to those who are less
privileged in the socio-economic structures, but also to those who are
political dissenters.]
While we celebrate limited entry points given to a segment of the disabled
population, like accessibility in cinema halls, it will do us good to
remember that such accommodations are only available to the
non-controversial, mainstream, ‘good’ disabled citizens of this democracy,
whereas the same is indubitably denied, not only to those who are less
privileged in the socio-economic structures, but also to those who are
political dissenters.

There have been some significant developments in recent times on disability
rights in India and the world. The Supreme Court of India has initiated a
consultation to prevent the usage of stereotypes against persons with
disabilities. The question of reasonable accommodation and accessibility is
more profoundly asked and acknowledged in most spaces. Elon Musk’s venture
Neuralink is seen and hailed as a silver bullet for accessibility. *The
Indian Express*, in its editorial, ‘Everyone in
,’
(February 10) praised the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting
guidelines to make cinema halls accessible for persons with hearing and
visual impairment.

These are significant developments for sure. However, the uncritical
celebration of these developments obscures certain realities that affect us
as citizens and as persons with disabilities. These developments are
primarily based on two impulses, namely, barrier removal and social
recognition of persons with disability through several initiatives of
inclusion in the free-market economy and national mainstream.

However, these initiatives of inclusion by the market forces and
nation-states, what disability studies scholars David Mitchell and Sharon
Snyder call “inclusionism”, do not necessarily challenge the able-bodied
parameters. They do not question the exclusions and debilitations produced
by neo-liberalism either. Instead, the expectation is that through these
market and state initiatives, disabled people will achieve “normalcy” as
far as possible. Within this framework, persons with disabilities are given
a small space to augment their value as “normalised” humans in the
capitalist paradigm as consumers of assistive technologies such as
Neuralink. By getting access to cinema halls and similar structures,
persons with disabilities can feel “reasonably” accommodated. As consumers,
they can mimic and achieve normalcy through market commodities,
technologies, and accessible market spaces.
ADVERTISEMENT

Such discourse on accommodation and accessibility is supported, celebrated,
and valorised by NGOs and disability movements with apolitical middle-class
articulation of disability rights, in which the voices of several persons
with disabilities, who do not have the privilege to be “visible” in this
market economy, are excluded.

[image: Dear Editor, I Disagree]

Therefore, one must appraise which group can shape and articulate
disability empowerment discourse and how that group shapes that discourse.
The inclusion of a few disabled — the “able-disabled” as Mitchell and
Snyder like to call them — as consumers of goods, services, and technology
suffers from democratic and demographic deficits. Moreover, such inclusions
often get misappropriated by the nationalist narrative of inclusion and
accommodation.
[image: Festive offer]


But while we celebrate limited entry points given to a segment of the
disabled population, like accessibility in cinema halls, it will do us good
to remember that such accommodations are only available to the
non-controversial, mainstream, “good” disabled citizens of this democracy,
whereas the same is indubitably denied, not only to those who are less
privileged in the socio-economic structures, but also to those who are
political dissenters or critical voices of our society.

It is important to remember that the state instrumentalities which are now
advocating and celebrating politically benign empowerments like
accessibility to entertainment centres of the free economy, were, not very
long ago, callously deliberating whether a person with Parkinson’s disease
(a scheduled disability under RPwD Act, 2016) should be provided with a
straw or not as a political prisoner, even as Father Stan Swamy died
without any relief from the state. We also need to remember that G N
Saibaba, a 90 per cent wheelchair-bound former professor at the University
of