Words have unique connotations, either evolved through rules of grammar or extraneous factors like history, region, culture, religion and contextual usage. Language has a substantial impact on an individual’s psychology and worldview, which ultimately, assimilates into contemporary society and its vocabulary. These words can also nurture implicit biases and stereotypes, causing attitudinal barriers and fostering an environment that encourages discrimination against certain sets of populations, particularly those who are already vulnerable to social exclusion. It is with this idea that the Supreme Court (SC) opened up public consultation for making a first-of-its-kind Handbook on Combating Stereotypes Concerning Persons with Disabilities (PWDs) to transcend beyond the shackles of archaic and derogatory terminologies and stereotypes that can lead to biases in legal discourse and affect the fairness of the judicial outcomes.
The SC in the Handbook on Combating Gender Stereotypes and Sensitisation Module for the Judiciary on the LGBTIQA+ community has already reflected on why words/phrases/sentences matter and how they affect the contours of social justice and equity in society and the legal field. However, in a nation of diverse languages and slang where the heart of justice lies in lower and special courts (such as Chief and State Commissioners for PwDs), the usage of the English language is not common. The SC’s previous handbooks have solely focussed on the English language. The United Nations, in its Disability-Inclusive Communications Guidelines, has translated the terms into all of its six official languages.
Based on this, one can argue for simply translating all the derogatory and disability-inclusive terms into regional languages for everyone’s perusal. However, the nature of certain regional terms and stereotypes might have unique connotations based on the culture or psychology of the population. Hence, literal translation into regional languages might not capture the essence of slurs. For instance, slurs like “bhainga” or “kana” (visual disability), “mand buddhi” or “dimaag ka santulan sahi nahi hai” (intellectual/psycho-social disability), “apang” (locomotor disability) and “kubda” (physical disability) have unique connotations in Hindi, which are both derogatory and abusive. Similarly, certain seemingly positive terms like the word “divyang”, which means “person having a divine body part”, make a person superhuman-like. However, as the UN asserts, “a person’s disability is a part of life and of human diversity, not something to be dramatised or sensationalised.”
Unfortunately, no one in India has yet come up with a glossary that covers disability-inclusive terms and stereotypes against PwDs in any language. Therefore, the SC has the golden opportunity to set an example by widening its ambit to also cover certain stereotypical words/sentences in major regional languages and encourage the lower judiciary to foster what Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution seek to achieve with positive equality, social inclusion, human dignity and mutual respect.
Such an exercise would take an enormous amount of time, and it is not feasible for the SC to carry it out single handedly. A plausible approach could be to first outline the principles on which disability-inclusive terms are chosen. There are primarily two approaches, ie, identity-first and person-first. While the former asserts that being disabled is as natural as any other identity, the latter is a more nuanced approach where emphasis is laid on the person and not their disability. Thus, a reference to the person or their designation is placed before the reference to their disability.
For instance, “person/sportsperson/doctor/employee with disability/[Name of Disability]” and “person who uses/using wheelchair/mobility device” should be used in place of archaic terms such as autistic, mental retardation, lunatic, crippled, etc.
Now, the same principles can be applied to other languages as well, thus maintaining parity in the approaches to disability-inclusive terms across languages. For instance, a person with a disability can be referred to as “[Name of Disability] बाधित/अक्षमता व्यक्ति” or “[Name of Disability]-सम्बन्धी अक्षमता” in Hindi.
After delineating the principles, the SC has the opportunity to address concerns in its latest handbook and incorporate select words/phrases from regional languages as an initial step. This way, it can serve as a catalyst for high and lower courts to develop their own vocabularies/glossaries to combat stereotypes against persons with disabilities.
This approach not only aligns with the nation’s linguistic and cultural diversity but also symbolises the Supreme Court’s dedication to becoming a true bastion of inclusion and justice representing the entire nation.
The writer is volunteer, Mission Accessibility
