I sat through roughly two and a half hours of crisis while watching the recent Bollywood movie Aankh Micholi. Recently, Goa State Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities ordered two district administrations to stop the movie from screening. The office of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities also issued notice to the makers of the movie and Central Bureau of Film Certification seeking a response from them, as the movie violated Sections 3 (non-discrimination) and 92 (punishment for offences of atrocities) of the Rights of Person with Disabilities Act, 2016 (RPwD Act).In brief, the story is based on a family of six. Barring two members, all of them live with some form of disability. The story is premised on the theme of the marriage of the lead character (Mrunal Thakur), who is living with a visual disability, rendering her unable to see at night. The underlying premise is that the disability is a disease that has to be hidden from outsiders (including the one you will be marrying).Undoing the understanding of disabilityThe disability movement across generations has struggled to eradicate the engrained idea of the medical model of disability, wherein your disability is identified in the medical condition. The American civil rights movement percolated into the disability rights movement. Thus, the social model of disability was followed, wherein societal barriers are identified as the source of disability and not the individual. This understanding was implemented through legislative mandate under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, which used the phrase “person with disability” rather than a disabled person – placing individuals at the forefront. It also defines a person with disability in a more social sense: “a person with long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment which, in interaction with barriers, hinders his full and effective participation in society equally with others”.The makers of this movie and others in the Indian cinema world have systematically misconstrued this fundamental differentiation. In the movie, characters often view the inherent disability as a person’s characteristic and a painful extra. Disability is termed a beemari (disease).No legal excuseThe apparent argument from the makers of the movie is the freedom of expression and creative liberty. This overarching freedom is also limited by reasonable limitation under Article 19(2), specifically decency and morality. The makers have rendered the creation an ideal piece of ableism devoid of decency. The Supreme Court has proactively decided not to confine the contours of decency to just acts of a sexual nature but has widened the horizons to include acts that would invite a collective shock, disgust or revolt. For instance, in Dr. Ramesh Yeshwant Prabhoo vs Shri Prabhakar Kashinath Kunte, while explaining indecency, the Supreme Court said, “…Indecency is not confined to sexual indecency; indeed it is difficult to find any limit short of saying that it includes anything which an ordinary decent man or woman would find to be shocking, disgusting and revolting…”.The makers in the work employ the ableist framework in every corner of the screenplay, garbed as humour. This fundamentally invites disgust from a large sect of society whose lives are depicted as devoid of any dignity. The Supreme Court in Vikash Kumar vs UPSC, while explaining the dignity of persons with disabilities, said that it is “intrinsic to individual dignity. is recognising the worth of every person as an equal member of the society, respect for the dignity of others and fostering conditions in which every individual can evolve according to his capabilities”.Also read: ‘Sam Bahadur’: Yet Another Biopic That Is in Awe of Its ProtagonistSection 5B of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 deals with the ‘Principles of guidance in certifying films’. Subsection (1) of section 5B allows the film certification authorities to not certify a film for public exhibition if it is against “decency and morality”. This can serve as an instrument to direct makers to comply with basic tenets of dignity wherein creativity subordinates every other aspect.The RPwD Act was implemented to ensure equality and dignity for persons with disabilities. Resultantly, section 3 of the RPwD Act talks about equality and non-discrimination. It is operationalised in different sectors through various sections of the RPwD Act, wherein government and private bodies are obligated to ensure this mandate. Thus, the Cinematograph Act must be aligned with these principles.Creating stereotype through cinemaThe phenomenon is not new and is documented in a seminal piece by Joyojeet Pal. He underlines four trends in Indian films: first, disability as punitive; second, disability as dependence; third, disability as disequilibrium and fourth, disability as maladjustment. For the first trend, an all-time classic Sholay (1975) fits the mould; the antagonist thinks chopping off a character’s arms is worse than death. Disability as a divine punishment has also been a central theme for makers, which is visible in movies like Dhanwaan (1981).The second aspect, and probably the most prominent one, is of disability as dependence. The sympathetic attitude towards persons with disabilities is often transformed into the object of pity and a metaphor depicting helplessness. This is catalysed by cinematic depiction. Pal, in his paper, underscores a series of films that have regularly employed this trend, mainly as a subject of violence because of this dependence, like in Hum Aapko Aapse Pyaar Hai (2006) or an all-time classic like Mother India (1957), wherein the disability is looked at with ridicule as it is presumed to default dependence.The third and fourth aspects are closely related to finding disability as something extra that burdens an individual’s ability to live a “normal” life in a society. This is evidenced in the screenplays where the protagonist’s sole objective is to either correct her/his disability or that of someone else. This is vividly visible in Shatrughan Sinha’s movie Aa Gale Lag Jaa (1974), where he endeavours to cure a polio-struck boy by employing the most extreme form of mental violence. Thus, as Pal mentions in his paper, there is a dearth of cinema wherein the protagonist stays disabled throughout the film. Recent creations like Margarita with a Straw (2014) or Guzaarish (2010) serve as an exception on this front.Also read: Animal: Sandeep Reddy Vanga’s Crude and Beastly Assault on Sense and SensibilityThe social maladjustment aspect of disability further attributes the trait of evilness. This is not unique to Indian films, as the recent addition to James Bond’s franchise showed Rame Malek as having a disability to underline his evil characters further. However, the most common usage of this aspect in in comedy, which is exactly what makers of Aankh Micholi intended to do. A few examples include Hum Hai Kamaal ke (1993) or Tom Dick and Harry (2006).However, the makers of Aankh Micholi indulge in establishing the undertone that persons with disabilities are not necessarily equal, especially when they have to fit into the institution of marriage. The underlying messaging of the film – that to fit in the most fundamental unit of our society, people with disabilities must hide their disability – cannot be overlooked.Respect the new realityHindi cinema has seen a transition to accommodate disability more meaningfully and is sticking to a new understanding of the concept. This understanding is depicted in films like Black (2005) and My Name is Khan (2010). The makers don’t necessarily have to overwrite disability in their screenplay for any of the four trends mentioned above.If Bollywood wants to make a comedy using disability as the central theme, they might wish to experiment with an extreme option: casting a person with a disability. In the movies Peanut Butter Falcon (2019) or Give me Liberty (2019), an actor with Down Syndrome and locomotor disability shows that comedic timing is not the exclusive domain of able-bodied individuals but rather a skill to be acquired with effort. It might not have to look far for inspiration either. Gulzar’s 1972 classic Koshish had its poster and introduction credits in sign language, as the lead actors were living with some form of disability. The character depicted that they can live independently if society doesn’t interfere. This conceptual understanding was far ahead in both cinematic and political discourse. The decline of Indian cinema from Koshish to Aankh Micholi on the issue of disability depiction shows the intellectual bankruptcy of today’s makers. Making disability a joke is neither comedy nor art.Shashank Pandey is a lawyer and policy researcher working on the cases of disability issues. He is also a person with Low Vision disability.
