Inclusive politics remains a distant dream for persons with disabilities in India. This exclusion has affected almost every sphere of their lives, leaving many basic rights elusive. Mainstream society has yet to fully recognise persons with disabilities as rights-holders. Their experiences are also shaped by intersections with caste, gender, domicile, poverty, and other forms of social disadvantage, further distancing their rights from reality.
If society is not prepared to recognise persons with disabilities as rights-holders, where is the space for their politics? And if their politics does not become visible, how will their priorities enter the political agenda?
A right becomes meaningful when it can be exercised, with a clearly identified duty-bearer responsible for its realisation. Unfortunately, disability rights in India have historically been influenced by charity and welfare approaches rather than consistently realised as enforceable rights. The antidote to this anomaly can be found in the inclusive and rights-based political vision of Babasaheb Ambedkar.
Indian society often assumes that providing a ramp is sufficient to create an accessible environment. This is a serious conceptual fallacy.
Accessibility must be understood as physical access, process access, and product access. Even physical accessibility remains inadequate in many places. More importantly, physical access without process accessibility can become self-defeating.
A ramp in a higher educational institution has little meaning if teaching, learning and examination processes remain inaccessible. A student may physically enter a college but still be denied meaningful participation in education.
Product accessibility is equally important and must take into account the purchasing power of persons with disabilities. Otherwise, inaccessible or unaffordable products can undermine both physical and process accessibility. Accessibility, therefore, must be understood as an interconnected system.
Accessibility as a non-priority
Persons with disabilities in India have long been silent sufferers of a charity-oriented approach. The inadequate visibility of disability has contributed to the political marginalisation of the sector. For decades, disability has often been treated as a subject for welfare schemes, NGOs and occasional political visibility rather than as a central question of democratic rights.
International developments gradually brought accessibility into India’s legal discourse. The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995, marked an important legislative milestone, while the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, strengthened the legal framework following India’s ratification of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD).
Yet, more than three decades after accessibility emerged prominently in disability legislation, physical and institutional inaccessibility continues. Judicial interventions, legislation and policy initiatives have strengthened the legal framework, but implementation remains a major challenge.
One important reason is the absence of disability from mainstream political discourse. Disability rights have too often been treated as a sociological or welfare concern rather than as a political question.
Thwarted inclusion
Distinction, exclusion and rejection are fundamental elements of discrimination. Mainstream Indian politics has largely kept disability politics at the margins by treating disability issues as insignificant or secondary.
The exclusion of persons with disabilities from party politics is a core concern. Whenever this exclusion is questioned, political parties may point to individual politicians who happen to have disabilities as evidence of inclusion. But an exception cannot become an example of systemic representation.
The presence of an individual politician with a disability does not necessarily mean that the disability sector is politically represented, particularly when disability itself is not articulated as an integral political identity and policy concern.
This is where Article 29 of the UNCRPD assumes profound significance. It recognises the rights of persons with disabilities to participate effectively and fully in political and public life on an equal basis with others.
Political participation cannot therefore be reduced to merely providing an accessible polling station or enabling a person with a disability to cast a vote. It must extend to participation in political and public affairs, political organisations, decision-making processes and the broader democratic discourse.
Article 29 provides an important rights-based framework for moving persons with disabilities from passive recipients of welfare to active participants in democracy. Yet legal recognition alone cannot make political participation a reality. The disability movement must actively occupy political spaces and ensure that disability remains visible in political discourse.
Ambedkar’s inclusive politics
Political participation is not merely about occupying political office. It is also about being politically active, politically conscious and responsive to issues through sustained action.
Babasaheb Ambedkar demonstrated this through the political mobilisation of Dalits. He refused to confine Dalit concerns to charity or social work. He brought them into the centre of political discourse, challenged established political positions, negotiated with the colonial government and pursued political safeguards and representation.
His politics transformed the visibility of Dalit rights within Indian public life and contributed to constitutional safeguards, including reservations and other measures for social and political equality.
The disability movement can learn from this political strategy.
Making disability rights real
Ambedkar understood that what remains out of sight can also remain out of political mind. The disability sector must therefore move beyond accessible voting alone.
Political participation must include campaigning for rights, engaging political parties, influencing electoral narratives, entering political institutions and occupying political spaces.
Disability organisations must recognise advocacy as a legitimate political activity. Engaging with mainstream media, social media, political parties and electoral discourse is as important as ensuring accessible polling stations.
Article 29 of the UNCRPD and Ambedkar’s political legacy together provide a framework for understanding disability rights not merely as welfare, but as questions of citizenship, equality, representation and political participation.
Better late than never: let us clasp the hands of Babasaheb Ambedkar and walk the path of inclusive politics — to make the rights of persons with disabilities real.
deepaknathan@loyolacollege.edu