Towards Inclusivity: Assessing the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016

Abstract: This article examines the challenges and progress in India's disability rights, focusing on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 compared to the earlier 1995 Act. It also explores the two models of disability, analyses India's stance on disability rights and policies, and discusses the challenges faced by persons with disabilities. The need for an inclusive approach, effective implementation of social security programs, and increased opportunities for education and employment are emphasised for empowering the disabled community in India.

Introduction to Disability

The human experience includes disability. Everyone is likely to encounter it at some time in their lives, either permanently or momentarily (WHO, 2020). The environment significantly impacts a person's disabilities, experiences, and severity. Obscure surroundings generate obstacles that prevent people with disabilities from fully participating in society on an equal footing with others. Addressing these limitations and assisting people with disabilities in their daily lives is needed to improve their social engagement (WHO, 2020).

Disability is a dynamic term, according to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). People with disabilities are individuals who have protracted bodily, psychological, cognitive, or sensory impairments that, when combined with additional impediments, prevent them from fully participating in society on an equal footing with others.

The Two Models of Disability

The Medical Model and the Social Model are two different conceptions of how society considers impairments, according to advocates in the disability rights movement. These concepts give a context for how persons with disabilities are seen. While the Medical Model is a powerful tool for determining sickness and impaired function, it has been widely rejected by the disability community. The Social Model, on the other hand, has been preferred as it advocates the premise that adjusting social and physical contexts to accommodate people with a variety of functional abilities increase people's quality of life and opportunities, both with and without disabilities.

The Medical Model of Disability focuses on the individual's impairments and health conditions as the primary cause of disability. It perceives disability as a personal medical problem that needs to be diagnosed and treated by medical professionals. The emphasis is on medical interventions and rehabilitative measures to reduce the impact of impairments on the individual's life.

In contrast, the Social Model of Disability views disability as a social construct resulting from the interaction between the individual's impairments and the barriers present in society. This model highlights that disability is not solely an inherent characteristic of the person but is influenced by the social environment's lack of accessibility and inclusion.

In the social model, the focus is on removing barriers and creating an inclusive society that accommodates the diverse needs of individuals with disabilities. It emphasises the importance of changing attitudes, policies, and physical environments to enable disabled individuals to fully participate in all aspects of life.

Both models have influenced disability studies and policy-making, with the social model being instrumental in promoting disability rights and advocating for greater inclusion and accessibility.

India's Stance on Disability Rights and Policies

In 2007, India signed and adopted the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). The convention mandated member countries to amend their national laws, identify barriers, and adhere to the UNCRPD's requirements. In response, India began amending its existing legislation, such as the Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 (PWD Act 1995), to comply with the UNCRPD. Consequently, the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 (RPWD Act 2016) replaced the PWD Act of 1995, catering to the society's socio-cultural, regional demands, and resource availability.

The PWD Act of 1995, enacted to enforce the "Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asian and Pacific Region," categorised seven impairments. It adopted a social welfare approach, emphasising disability prevention, education, and employment, while providing a 3% reservation in government jobs and educational institutions and promoting non-discrimination.

The RPWD Act of 2016 expanded the list to include twenty-one conditions, ranging from cerebral palsy to multiple disabilities. It ensured equal rights, respect, and dignity for persons with disabilities, promoting their abilities through appropriate frameworks. The Act also covered various aspects, such as housing, protections for women and children with disabilities, safeguarding against abuse, and healthcare measures.

The legislation emphasised equal access to inclusive education, vocational training, and facilities for people with disabilities. It encouraged plans and initiatives to protect and promote their well-being, including cultural, recreational, and sports activities. Moreover, it mandated reserved seats in higher education institutions and government establishments for individuals with qualifying impairments, and private employers providing reserved positions would receive recognition. Awareness and sensitization initiatives were also promoted.

However, despite these advancements, there remain challenges in ensuring equitable implementation across different regions and socio-economic spheres of the population.

Present Challenges Faced by Persons with Disabilities

Currently, millions of individuals are living with one or more impairments. According to the 2011 population census, India's population with disabilities is roughly 26.8 million, accounting for more than 2% of the overall population. However, disability rights activists and researchers working on the subject claim that the census figures only represent a small portion of the population. According to World Bank estimates, India's overall number of disabled people is estimated to be between 40 and 80 million. Whatever the differences between official data and estimates from international organisations, it is evident that people with disabilities comprise a large portion of the Indian population.

Despite accounting for such a large percentage of the population, people with disabilities face several challenges. Many people mistake their 'disability' for their 'inability,' and they have preconceived beliefs about their talents. The fundamental issue is that a substantial portion of the population views people with disabilities as a liability, which leads to discrimination and harassment towards them and their exclusion from society.

It is stated that, on paper, the 2016 Act appears to be a good one. However, in terms of the reservation contention of the Act, many positions in the government sector still need to be fulfilled. In higher education institutions, the situation is similar. Authorities' frequent response in both circumstances is that they were unable to identify a "qualified applicant." It is imperative to understand that the new law will only work if there is a genuine "desire" to hire people with impairments. Additionally, in terms of defining various impairments and issuing certification for the same, the act could be more extensive in terms of medical and societal rationale.

A study conducted by the Disability Rights India Foundation (DRIF), in collaboration with the National Center for Promotion of Employment for Disabled People (NCPEDP) and the National Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (NCRPD), assessed the Act's implementation across states and union territories. The study evaluated 24 states and union territories based on 19 questions related to rules, administrative structures, fund allocation, and reservations for persons with disabilities, crucial for effective implementation.

Key findings from the study include various states lacking timely implementation of the Act, low notification of State Rules and establishment of State Advisory Boards and District Committees, a lack of Commissioners for Persons with Disabilities, insufficient progress in appointing Advisory Committees, inadequate State Fund constitution, and limited translations of the Act. Additionally, the study identified gaps in notifying Special Courts and appointing Special Public Prosecutors, designated authorities for support, and Equal Opportunity policies from establishments. The study ranked states' progress, with Madhya Pradesh and Odisha scoring the highest and 10 states scoring extremely low. Overall, the study indicates a mixed progress across states, emphasising the need for improvement to uphold disability rights effectively in India.

Terminologies Matter

The Indian government may have offended an already upset section of society by using the term 'divyang' for the first time in an official railway budget document. Disability proponents claimed that simply changing the word would not improve the way people with disabilities are treated in India. They also said that proclaiming individuals with disabilities as deities will not alleviate the stigma and prejudice that people with disabilities have faced in the past and continue to face now.

Disability is not a heavenly gift, according to advocacy groups. Furthermore, adopting condescending terminology like 'divyang' does not guarantee de-stigmatisation or an end to discrimination on the basis of disability, nor does it address exclusion and marginalisation. On the contrary, it simply elicits pity and emphasises the need for generosity. According to the article, people with disabilities want to be treated equally, and the government cannot absolve itself of its duties simply by coining a new phrase.
According to Lalit Kumar, a Polio Survivor and founder of WeCapable, disabled individuals are frequently perceived as tools to appease gods based on their belief in past life sins. This perspective is backward and devalues their humanity. Instead of promoting understanding and accessibility, the government's endorsement of the term "divyang" reinforces outdated beliefs. Kumar emphasises the importance of language, stating that using insensitive terms like "divyang" hinders progress towards inclusivity. To foster an inclusive society, it is crucial to consult with experts and disabled individuals to adopt respectful and inclusive language.

Way Forward

The government has done an admirable job of focusing its emphasis on disabled person's education and employment. Several programs and perks are effective in providing disabled people with equal chances. However, more than a simple implementation that is unequal for all and unknown is needed. The government should launch additional social security plans for disabled people, educational prospects and promotion of their rights should be added, and more job possibilities for them ought to be looked into.

To execute the functioning of all social security systems, the government or society must work together to eliminate socio-legal hurdles that have hampered the activities of the state, non-governmental organisations, and other social workers. Its scope includes rehabilitation and state-to-citizen openness and the technique to be used in the execution of rehabilitation programs.

References
1. World Health Organization. (2020, 27 January). Disability. WHO. https://www.who.int/health-topics/disability#tab=tab_1
2. Rohwerder, B. (2015, 3 December). Definition of disability. GSDRC, Institute of Development Studies. https://gsdrc.org/topic-guides/disability-inclusion/background/definition-of-disability/
3. Office of Developmental Primary Care. (2013). Medical and Social Models of Disability | Office of Developmental Primary Care. https://odpc.ucsf.edu/clinical/patient-centered-care/medical-and-social-models-of-disability
4. Oliver, M. (1983). Social Work with Disabled People. Macmillan International Higher Education.
5. Shakespeare, T. (2006). Disability Rights and Wrongs. Routledge.
6. Math, S. B., Gowda, G. S., Basavaraju, V., Manjunatha, N., Kumar, C. N., Philip, S., & Gowda, M. (2019). The Rights of Persons with Disability Act, 2016: Challenges and opportunities. Indian journal of psychiatry, 61(Suppl 4), S809–S815. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_105_19
7. Narayan, C. L., & John, T. (2017). The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016: Does it address the needs of persons with mental illness and their families. Indian journal of psychiatry, 59(1), 17–20. https://doi.org/10.4103/psychiatry.IndianJPsychiatry_75_17
8. Jha, M. (2017). India Has a Long Road Ahead to Combat Challenges Faced by Persons With Disabilities. The Wire. https://thewire.in/health/persons-with-disabilities-challenges-india
9. Diversity And Equal Opportunity Centre. (2018, December 3). Diversity and Equal Opportunity centre. https://deoc.in/view-point/an-assessment-of-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-rpwd-act-2016/
10. Pisharoty, S. B. (2016). Use of “Divyang” is Regressive and Patronising, Say Persons With Disabilities. The Wire. https://thewire.in/rights/use-of-divyang-is-regressive-and-patronising-say-persons-with-disabilities
11. Kumar, L. (2021). Meaning of Divyang or Divyangjan and the Problems with these Word. WeCapable. https://wecapable.com/divyang-jan-meaning-connotation-problem/