Newspapers recently reported Jeeja Ghosh of the Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy being asked to get off a SpiceJet Calcutta-Goa flight. Shortly after boarding she was made to get off the plane by flight attendants who brought her to the terminal building. The pilot refused to fly the plane with her on board. His reason was that she appeared to be suffering from disability. On being told that she was a frequent flyer who travelled all over the world and in spite of the assurance of her capacities given by her organization, when it was contacted over telephone, the pilot was unmoved.

The irony of the situation, as explained by Mithu Alur in an article in this newspaper, is that Ghosh was travelling to Goa to attend an international conference on the inclusion of persons with disability. A resource person of the conference who herself suffers from disability was thus prevented from talking about disability and the way to overcome barriers that prevent inclusion.

How could such an event take place? It is reported that the pilot took the stand that she did not carry a ‘fit to fly’ certificate. He seems to have admitted on a television interview that Ghosh appeared to him as mentally unstable. A document does exist, issued in 2008 by the directorate general of civil aviation, on the carriage by air of persons with disability and/or persons with reduced mobility. The objective of the document is to protect such persons against any form of discrimination. This provision was not effective in the case of Ghosh and other cases that remain unreported. It is obvious that not only clear rules but also an effective implementation of these rules is needed. Indeed, a clear formulation is required in this country against discrimination on the ground of disability, even if it means amending the Constitution.

Though these measures are needed, they are not going to be enough. There is a need for a fundamental change in the manner in which we view disability in this country. In a lecture that I gave once at the Indian Institute of Cerebral Palsy, I raised the issue of ability and disability. They are, I argued, related terms. All of us suffer from one or another kind of disability. Sometimes it is not visible, sometimes it is. People who suffer from visible disability are not ‘disabled’ in a total sense. They have their own area of ability. It may not be visible. We need to understand, therefore, that all of us have a package of abilities and disabilities, and we need to take care of our disabilities so that our abilities are of proper use to us. I sometimes feel that people who appear perfectly able often suffer from the worst disabilities. Envy, hatred, and greed, for example, are far more disabling than any physical disability. We should, therefore, take a view of disability that puts it in the correct perspective.

As far as mental ability is concerned, let us think of Stephen Hawking. Let us visualize him sitting in his armchair, having little control over his bodily movements. He is a person with a disability, but it cannot be denied that he is an extremely able person. He is a person who symbolizes a bold attempt at solving the mysteries of the universe. We must not think of Hawking as a superman. We must think of him as a person who is blessed with an extraordinary ability, but who is also burdened with a terrible disability. Here is a person who does not allow his disability to prevent him from using his considerable ability. In thinking of him, we have to think of his universities, Oxford and Cambridge, and also of the Royal Society, which elected him not only as a member but as its youngest member. They had confidence in him, and they nurtured him. The lesson, therefore, is that we need to nurture people who suffer from visible disability. We need to consider that a remarkable ability may be hidden somewhere in such persons. All of us cannot pretend to be of the calibre of Hawking, but what needs to be recognized is that all of us have our share of abilities.

We need to go beyond this recognition and play a positive role. This brings me to a hard question. Why should we take care of the people who suffer from visible physical disability? It is the right of every citizen to live a normal life, and anything that prevents a citizen of a democratic society from living a normal life is not acceptable. It is the responsibility of the State, within the resources available to it, to offer this normal life. But there are other reasons. There is a tremendous social cost of disability. Along with the unhappiness of persons who have not been supported to overcome their problems, we need to consider the unhappiness of their families. The story does not end here. We deny ourselves a possible social benefit. This is related to the issue of empowerment. Any kind of empowerment that we can think of must begin with empowering the person who suffers from disability, and for that we need to understand that the disability of a person is only one aspect of the personality of such a person.

I dare not think what the SpiceJet pilot who ordered Ghosh out of his plane would have done with Hawking if he had not recognized him. Would he have considered him as mentally unstable as he did Ghosh? There is no reason to believe that he would not have done so. This shows how we need to be respectful towards persons such as Ghosh or Hawking and not let our prejudices make us behave in an irresponsible manner.

People suffering from any kind of disability have a responsibility towards themselves. They need not put up with any kind of discrimination. Organized effort, including legal action, is required for protecting their rights.

There is also an urgent need to sensitize their fellow citizens on the issue. Campaigns need to be carried out against discrimination based on disability. In this respect, the media have a positive role to play. Indeed, a case like that of Ghosh, which was brought to public attention, must show the way forward towards correcting disabling perceptions of disability.