Why People With Disabilities Need Greater Political Representation

On April 16, the Tamil Nadu government advanced two bills in its legislative assembly, amending the Tamil Nadu Urban Local Bodies Act of 1998 and the Tamil Nadu Panchayats Act of 1994. 

These legislative measures seek to empower the state government to nominate persons with disabilities to both rural and urban local governance structures. 

According to a statement by chief minister M.K. Stalin, this initiative is projected to result in the representation of 650 persons with disabilities in urban local bodies and 13,338 in rural bodies at the local government level – a substantial departure from existing levels of representation within the state.

The political representation of persons with disabilities constitutes a largely unacknowledged dimension within broader democratic and political rights discourse. This under-representation, while not absolute, is rendered virtually invisible at the state and Union levels due to a systemic dearth of relevant data. 

Nomination forms and accompanying affidavits submitted by candidates for parliamentary and state assembly elections lack any provision for disclosing disability status. The Election Commission of India (ECI) has similarly not established mechanisms for collecting this data through alternative processes. 

Consequently, official data on the number of lawmakers with disabilities elected to the Parliament or legislative assemblies has remained unavailable since 1952.

Notwithstanding this data scarcity, several lawmakers with disabilities have distinguished themselves through their contributions to the legislative process. Sadhna Gupta, independent India’s first MP with visual impairment; Yamuna Prasad Shastri, a parliamentarian whose involvement in the Goa liberation movement resulted in the loss of his vision; Jaipal Reddy, a five-time Lok Sabha MP and former cabinet minister who contended with polio; and Hari Dev Joshi, the former chief minister of Rajasthan, with a locomotor disability, serve as notable examples. 

However, their participation should be regarded as exceptions, rather than indicative of a broader trend, reflecting individual accomplishments without systemic support.

A constitutional oversight

The historical roots of this exclusion may be traced to the proceedings of the Constituent Assembly, which exhibited limited participation from persons with disabilities. Consequently, the deliberations surrounding "backwardness" largely omitted consideration of the specific challenges confronting persons with disabilities. 

While the Supreme Court has subsequently interpreted Articles 15 and 16, encompassing the equality code, to include disability within its purview of non-discrimination and affirmative action, thereby enabling reservations in education and employment, political affirmative action for persons with disabilities was not subjected to substantive legislative deliberation.

Conversely, the civil and political rights framework has incorporated exclusionary provisions, notably Articles 102 and 191, which disqualify individuals deemed to be of "unsound mind" from political participation. 

In a cursory debate on the characteristics of "unsound mind," Naziruddin Ahmad offered an incisive observation regarding the dynamic character of the concept, positing that it is contingent upon individual and societal context. This perspective foreshadowed the later development of the social model of disability. 

However, the Constituent Assembly members opted for a legal definition of "unsoundness of mind," contingent upon a court declaration. One of the members of the assembly, Rohini Kumar Chaudhari, in advocating for the absolute exclusion of individuals with "unsound mind", raised valid concerns regarding the ascertainment of such a condition by the judiciary. He noted the limited proportion of individuals residing in asylums and mental hospitals who had been formally declared by courts to be of "unsound mind."

The Constituent Assembly did not undertake an exhaustive discussion and, relying on earlier iterations of legislation such as the Government of India Act, 1935, accepted "unsoundness of mind" as a valid basis for exclusion. This resulted in a paucity of normative discourse on disability within the political rights and participation framework.

Fostering inclusivity in the legislative process

Enhanced representation of persons with disabilities has the potential to engender greater inclusivity in legislative processes and reshape prevailing attitudes within respective legislative bodies. The current modalities of operation within the Parliament and state legislative assemblies often inadvertently perpetuate exclusion, both procedurally and substantively. 

For example, sign language interpretation is not provided during live streaming of proceedings, and live captioning relies on third-party platforms like YouTube that are prone to errors. In an interview, a Western Australian Member of the Legislative Council who is deaf, recounted how inadequate accommodation in the legislative chamber resulted in her exclusion from critical debates on finance, health and environment. 

Her advocacy for appropriate accommodations ultimately led to the incorporation of accessibility features and tools in the legislative chamber, which benefited other lawmakers who may have been experiencing age-related sensory decline.

It is a customary practice to accord priority to the voices of marginalised groups when legislative actions are likely to affect their interests, either directly or indirectly. For instance, during parliamentary deliberations on the women's reservation bill, female representatives across party lines were granted precedence. 

The participation of marginalized representatives fosters more informed debates on various subjects, including budgets, healthcare, insurance and transportation. The absence of persons with disabilities from these discussions results in exclusionary and misinformed decision-making.

The under-representation of persons with disabilities perpetuates harmful stereotypes. Lawmakers, often unwittingly, employ ableist language, characterising the community as "suffering" from disability or as "helpless beings" deserving of protection rather than opportunities. 

The visible presence of persons with disabilities in legislative chambers would normalise disability as an identity and affirm those with disabilities as rights-holding citizens and leaders capable of articulating the needs and aspirations of their constituents.

A path towards representation

A bottom-up approach to augmenting participation of persons with disabilities constitutes a viable strategy. Fostering leadership at the local level will not only enhance the visibility of disability within communities but also cultivate a pipeline of leaders who can engage with political parties and progress through the political hierarchy. 

Acceptance of community leadership at the grassroots level will facilitate the integration of persons with disabilities within political parties as leaders, leading to broader representation at the state and Union levels. 

Concurrently, the ECI should be encouraged to incorporate a disability status column in nomination forms and publish disaggregated data related to disability post-election to mainstream this identity in democratic elections.

Shashank Pandey is the founder of the Politics and Disability forum and a former legislative assistant to a Member of Parliament. 

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.