Disability Representation in Indian Films through the Perspective of Care By Sreejana

While diversity and inclusion are the basis of representation, the increasing representation of disability in film makes us wonder about the reality of it. As compared to older portrayals, modern cinema often presents itself as more “sensitive” toward disabled lives. However, not all representation becomes ethical simply because disabled people are visible on screen. Disability in cinema now is portrayed not as the lived experiences of real and authentic individuals but as a source of inspiration and empathy for the able bodied. In this text, we will be understanding this critique of representation of disability in film through Nel Noddings’ distinction between “caring about” and “caring for,” because it highlights the difference between genuine inclusion and the appearance of inclusion. Let us now understand what these two ideas actually look like in the status quo. 

Noddings argues that “caring about can remain at the level of sentiment” (Noddings, 1984). This idea of caring about being limited to the concept and feeling of a sentiment is integral to understanding how the modern portrayal of representation in films may appear to be compassionate, but in reality fail to question the assumptions that underlie discrimination and stigma surrounding disability. Thus, while these films may acknowledge the perils of the disabled community, they never seem to portray and represent them as individuals in their own right with their own agency. Thus, the concept of “Caring about” usually appears through symbolic sympathy and public expressions of concern. This kind of profession of empathy and compassion towards others may look like posting about films and the messages surrounding them, but still supporting non inclusive structures and institutions that suppress the voices that truly represent the struggles of the community. 

It is important to understand, the construct of “caring about” connects closely with the argument made by David T. Mitchell and Sharon L. Snyder in Narrative Prosthesis. They argue that “disability has been used throughout history as a crutch upon which literary narratives lean for their representational power” (Mitchell & Snyder, 2006, p. 206). This can be seen in various older Bollywood cinema often represented disability through melodrama. Blind women, paralysed mothers and physically disabled beggars were reduced to symbols of suffering and sacrifice. Furthermore, Priyam Sinha notes that disability narratives in Indian cinema have historically operated through tropes such as “karma/punishment,” “tragedy/life worse than death,” and “charitable projects/denied agency” (Sinha, 2024).This shows the moral valence attached to the act of simply existing for the disabled community, as their existence is consistently attached to the dramatics that generate empathy, and make the audience feel better about oneself and their moral superiority rather than the true, raw and real representation of the people. 

Taare Zameen Par is one such film, attempting to challenge some of these stereotypes by creating awareness about dyslexia and educational pressure. While, this movie did aid in generating more awareness among teachers and parents to “care for” children with said difficulties, it was still critiqued for its superficial attachment of Ishaan’s character to the growth of other characters as well as the storyline. Therefore, through Noddings’ framework, the film can be critically read as focusing more on the emotional transformation of teachers and parents than on Ishaan’s own subjectivity and experiences as someone who has his own individuality and way of looking at things. Moreover, Ishaan’s struggles are framed as lessons for adults to learn to empathise through the problems of the community, and shifting the lens from Ishaan to this emotional pedagogy as pushed as a narrative by Taare Zameen Par. 

This difference between symbolic empathy and genuine relational care can also be understood with the help of yet another very well known film namely - Margarita with a Straw. Noddings argues that genuine care refers to being attentive towards anothers experiences, actions, thoughts, affects etc, without stripping them of their autonomy to make decisions and to deny their competence in doing so with regards to their own life. In everyday life, attentiveness would mean listening to disabled people’s actual experiences instead of assuming what they need.Cinema often reproduces this situation by making the audience sympathise and empathise with the character, but denying them their right to choose what is best for themselves. 

Consider, disability and sexuality as two concepts that are considered to be polarities. As best articulated in her analysis of Margarita with a Straw, Priyam Sinha argues that Indian cinema has distinctly categorised “disability and sexuality as incongruent identities” (Sinha, 2020, p. 2). Thus, disabled women are often denied this sexual autonomy and space, since they don’t fit the traditional and predetermined mould of femininity that is prescribed by society.

Margarita with a Straw becomes important because it challenges these assumptions through the character of Laila, a woman with cerebral palsy who experiences life like anyone else would, painting her not as a disabled individual, but as a human first. Unlike other portrayals of disabled women as vulnerable and incapable, this film projects a newer story of a bolder, newer, messier individual whom “we” can relate to. Yet even within this progressive narrative, the tension between care and control remains visible. Sinha notes that Laila’s mother and her resistance to Laila’s decision making can be seen as “her reluctance and inhibitions in giving Laila privacy was explicitly indicated” (Sinha, 2020, p. 5),. This shows a common reality in many households where disabled family members are overprotected in ways that restrict autonomy. Through Noddings’ we are able to make this distinction of “caring for” and “caring about” and how these two play out in the world of cinema, its portrayals and narratives.

This discussion also provides us insight on the discomfort around the bodies of the disabled community. This discomfort arises from the dominant visual culture being heavily dependent on the desirable and the perfect as demanded by the public. Therefore, to come to terms of the imperfect reality, cinema often tries to make disability emotionally manageable through inspiration. It is seen time and again that disabled characters are celebrated when they overcome hurdles and inspire “others”. For instance, the film “Hichki” frames disability through resilience, but it becomes problematic because this reinforces the narrative that disabled individuals are only socially productive, when successful in life. While these films create visibility for those who are disadvantaged, they also produce the“supercrip” narratives, wherein individuals with disabilities are celebrated only when they overcome their challenges. 

It is important to consider the real life implications of these narratives and portrayals. This further perpetuates expectations that exist strongly in everyday life. The weight of social acceptance is dependent on the film expectations, of the disabled community being inspiring. Furthermore, social media intensifies this effect as it peddles this content globally and effects the perception of the disabled community as paradoxically heroic and vulnerable. However, these representations in film rarely lead to structural and policy based changes and amendments in society. Society emotionally empathises with those who are marginalized, while they themselves are the ones perpetuating this cycle materially. 

It is imperative we also note that this contradiction is explored by Michele Friedner through the idea of disability as “feel-good diversity” (Friedner, 2017, p. 347). Bollywood has thus, to appease its viewers and consumers, with passing time marketed itself as inclusive and socially aware. Priyam Sinha’s discussion of “New Bollywood” explains to us how these markets are designed to appease the users and not to facilitate inclusion and representation for the underrepresented (Sinha, 2024). Representation thus becomes a façade, and not a truth of equity, it is in reality shaped by commerce and the demands of those in power. 

Ultimately, cinema often presents disability in comfortable for the able bodied, marketing movies and films in ways that make the consumers look and feel socially aware and cogniscent no matter what the reality is. Through Noddings’ idea of “caring about” versus “caring for” we have understood exactly what is the distinction of commercial and reality that underlies this superficial inclusivity. True inclusion is not just about visibility and optics, but about the story of agency, autonomy, independence and individuality of every single lived experience that makes the collective narrative of a community being portrayed and represented essential. 

References

Friedner, M. (2017). Doing disability differently: The politics of inclusion in Bollywood and beyond. In R. Mehrotra (Ed.), Disability studies and India (pp. 347–362). Routledge.

Mitchell, D. T., & Snyder, S. L. (2000). Narrative prosthesis: Disability and the dependencies of discourse. University of Michigan Press.

Noddings, N. (1984). Caring: A feminine approach to ethics and moral education. University of California Press.

Sinha, P. (2020). Disability, sexuality, and the politics of representation in Margarita with a Straw. Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, 14(1), 1–16.

Sinha, P. (2024). Disability narratives in New Bollywood: Representation, empathy, and agency. Studies in South Asian Film & Media, 16(1), 45–61.