Language shapes perceptions, and in the context of disabilities, the words used by medical professionals, government officials, and society at large carry the power to either affirm dignity or perpetuate stigma.
Language shapes perceptions, and in the context of disabilities, the words used by medical professionals, government officials, and society at large carry the power to either affirm dignity or perpetuate stigma. Unfortunately, despite progressive legal frameworks such as India's Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act2016, many professionals and members of the community continue to use outdated, insensitive, or medically inaccurate terminologies when referring to Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). This not only reflects a lack of awareness but also has serious legal, psychological, and social implications, especially when these terms appear in crucial documents like Disability Certificates or are reinforced in everyday interactions.
The Legal Framework: RPWD Act 2016
The RPWD ACT 2016 is an important legislation aligned with the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) with expanded list of recognised disabilities from 7 to 21 categories or types. More importantly, it moved away from the charity and medical-based models of disability to a rights-based approach. The Act mandates the use of modern, respectful, and internationally accepted terminologies, such as:
“Person with Visual Impairment” instead of “blind” or “Invalid”
“Person with Intellectual Disability” instead of “mentally retarded” or “Mental”
“Person with Speech and Language Disability” instead of “dumb”
“Person with Autism Spectrum Disorder” instead of vague terms
However, despite these clear legal provisions, outdated and incorrect terminologies remain widespread in both public discourse and official documentation.
The use of inappropriate or outdated terminologies is still persistent and prevalent among many professionals and society at large, such as:
“Mentally retarded” or “mental” instead of “Person with Intellectual Disability”
“Handicapped,” “crippled,” or “lame” instead of “Person with Locomotor Disability”
“Deaf and dumb” instead of “Person with Hearing Impairment”
“Mad” or “insane” for Person with Mental Illness
“Suffering from…” instead of “Living with…” a disability
“Wheelchair-bound” instead of “Wheelchair user”
This continues to perpetuate stigma and discrimination, undermining the dignity and identity of Persons with Disabilities (PwDs). When such terms are used in official documents like Disability Certificates, they can lead to misclassification, rights violations, and denial of rightful benefits.
Consequences of Incorrect Terminology in Disability Certificates
Denial of Rights and Benefits: Misclassification may result in denial of support under specific schemes. For instance, a “Person with Autism” wrongly categorised under "Intellectual Disability" may be denied access to autism-specific services.
Legal and Bureaucratic Challenges: Incorrect documentation can lead to prolonged appeals and re-evaluations, delaying access to essential education, employment, and healthcare support.
Psychological Impact: Being labelled with derogatory or inaccurate terms can harm a person’s self-esteem and reinforce internalized stigma.
Violation of Human Rights: Using dehumanising language violates the dignity and legal rights of individuals under the RPWD Act and the Constitution of India.
What Causes the Continued Use of Outdated Terminologies?
Lack of training: Many medical officers issuing Disability Certificates often lack knowledge of the RPWD ACT’s updated provisions.
Outdated curriculum: Many institutions still teach terminology rooted in the outdated model of disability.
Administrative apathy: There is insufficient effort by authorities to update policies and sensitize personnel at all levels.
Lack of accountability: There is no structured mechanism to hold officials accountable for misusing language or misclassifying disabilities.
Responsibility beyond systems: Role of society
While legal reforms and institutional accountability are essential, society at large also has a critical role in shaping inclusive environments through respectful language and attitudes. What we can do is;
1. Use people-first language, say “person with disability” instead of “special person” or “handicapped”. This emphasises the person, not the condition.
2. Avoid pity and hero narratives and do not describe individuals with disabilities as “suffering” or “inspiring” simply for living their lives. Avoid terms like “brave”, “special”, or “burden”.
3. Educate yourself and others in schools, workplace sand community groups. Engage in disability awareness and inclusion workshops.
4. Challenge Everyday Ableism: Speak up when someone uses disrespectful language or makes offensive jokes about disabilities. Micro-level changes can build macro-level respect.
5. Promote Accessible Communication: Ensure events, public spaces, and digital content are inclusive of persons with disabilities by incorporating captions, ramps, sign language, etc.
6. Media Responsibility: Journalists, writers, and content creators must be conscious of language choices and avoid sensationalism or stereotyping when portraying disability.
Way Forward
1. Training and Sensitisation: Mandatory training for medical professionals, government officials, and educators on the RPWD Act and inclusive language.
2. Curriculum Reform: Modernise medical and paramedical syllabi to include rights-based frameworks and disability studies.
3. Public Awareness Campaigns: Nationwide campaigns using mass and digital media to build language sensitivity and promote a culture of inclusion.
4. Grievance Redressal Mechanism: Accessible, time-bound systems should be in place for persons to report and resolve issues stemming from incorrect terminology or misclassification.
5. Community Empowerment: Promote self-advocacy by empowering persons with disabilities and their families to demand the use of correct language and rightful recognition.
Using correct, legally mandated, and respectful terminology is not just political correctness; it is a legal, ethical and human obligation. The RPWD ACT 2016 provides a progressive foundation, but unless the implementers and society at large understand the power of language, the vision of inclusion and justice will remain incomplete. Inclusion begins with language. Let’s get that right and respect the norm, not the exception.
Ngaugongbe (PwD)
Special Educator