Disability In Bangladesh: Silence on the issue

Disability in Bangladesh is discussed but an ignored topic. People in wheelchairs are usually taken for granted, mostly pitied. The elderly do not get the help they should when they do become disabled; the young are ridiculed and scapegoated when they should be assisted and taken care of. The disabled are perceived as useless, and are despised and abused; their potential becomes an afterthought. Having been robbed of potential, the disabled become vulnerable and disenfranchised, ultimately becoming a liability and are thus subjected to even more abuse and violence.

We would like to focus on perceptions of disability. And from that arises a host of questions and reflections. What does disability mean in Bangladesh?

Perhaps a more suitable question to put forward in this case is, what does disability mean for non-disabled people who choose to quantify it or place it within a specific definition? How would one make sense of disability in an "ableist" world, especially when the "one" in question is non-disabled and makes choices for disabled folks?

Before we get into such a discussion, let's discuss how disability is generally defined in academic circles. One of the primary tenets of understanding disability is through the medical model, which describes disability through the body. In other words, a missing limb or injured leg is meant to be a symbol of inability. On the other hand, the social model describes disability through society's definition of disability, which is constructed largely through-and outside-the body and more on social norms of understanding ability and inability.

Unlike the medical model, the social model focuses on the barriers and roadblocks disabled peoples face if they are to pursue independent living. Independent living, having been a tenet of disabled peoples' rights for the longest time, involves the capacity to live on one's own without the need for sustained assistance or company.

Independent living is a social service thought to be guaranteed in the West through either government resources or strong communal/family ties. For disabled people in particular, independent living means not only the opportunity to live on one's own, but also experience freedom from (for example), abusive families, workplaces or academic/school environments.

Regardless of ability, people should be able to pursue independent living. However, the key to pursuing independent living is financial resources and it is here that we have a problem. However, it also produces isolation and works better in the West where "independence" and "isolation" can be arguments for each other unlike the East where societies survive largely because of community support.

How much of resources a person has to sustain themselves with depends on how much they can earn in the long run. Using studies on media, visual imagery and its correlation to long financial sustainability, one can make the assumption that disabled people, having suffered from societal stereotypes for the majority of their lives, are also not only subjected to demonisation but also considered to be inferior.

So how is disability understood in the wider narrative, and why should we care?

We should. Not just disabled people, but able people as well. Why? Because there is only such a thin line between ability and disability, which does not take long for people to cross or be crossed by. Nobody can tell when or where an able person can become disabled. Nobody can tell when a person is forced to become dependent on others and/or when a new cycle of abuse and violence can begin for those who have never experienced it.

It does not take too much to lose a limb or a leg, if that is the ultimate definition of disability. Consequently, it does not take much to lose an organ or two and become internally disabled.

The point is, nobody can really tell when a certain individual or group is made to face situations they cannot readily handle. The disabled are one end of a spectrum where the myth of the perfect body is made to distort and corrupt, creating an alternate reality. This "othered" reality is subjected to violence and mistreatment. Yet this "othered" reality is also a symbol of things that can go wrong, for which a backup must exist.

Narratives of disability have grown in the West but in our world, this is not much understood.  For many it is more of a financial/class perspective, but that cannot be the only one. What can happen though is the beginning of a larger debate on different understandings of disability; various modes of ability and inability and the proper allocation of resources to make it happen for people in all parts of the world.  The vulnerable in this world never really have people to speak on their behalf unless it is through a collective voice. Collective voices too can fail, which requires and demands a fail-safe. Disabled people and people having suffered different kinds of oppression need a fail-safe in the long run. This situation cannot be created unless there is an honest and frank discussion on disability and the disabled.

That is as yet missing.

Nadia Chowdhury is an MA in Disability Studies from Canada.  She writes on social vulnerability and  exclusion.