On August 20, a high-powered central inter-departmental committee rejected proposals to include nine medical conditions on the list of disabilities specified under the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPwD) Act.
Including them would grant legal recognition to the affected as ‘persons with disabilities’, making them eligible to government welfare schemes, reservation in education and employment, greater inclusivity without discrimination, and financial support for assistive devices.
The nine rejected medical conditions are palmoplantar keratoderma (disorder in which the palm and sole skins thicken due to genetics, internal malignancy or infections), single-sided deafness, epilepsy, Factor-XIII deficiency (a rare disorder due to deficiency in Factor XIII protein that stabilises blood clots), ichthyosis (a skin disorder featuring mild to severe dry, thickened and scaly skin due to genetic factors, or acquired later in life due to medical reasons), asthma, laryngectomy (surgical removal of the voice box due to cancer or severe damage), vital organ failure, and ostomy (surgically-made opening, called stoma, in the intestines during colostomy, ileostomy, or gastrostomy to allow excretion of waste).
The committee, in its meeting led by the department of empowerment of persons with disabilities (DEPwD), justified the rejection citing reasons from some conditions not posing a lifelong debilitating problem to applying the DEPwD disabilityassessment guidelines of March 2024.
However, the rejection will keep the afflicted from the benefits they could accrue if they were they recognised under the RPwD Act, which already includes 21 types of disabilities, including some physical, mental and neurological conditions, and some blood disorders.
Although there is no survey to ascertain the number of people afflicted by the nine rejected conditions, it is estimated that they affect millions in India.
Conditions can vary from mild to severe, but the committee seems to have overlooked that many in the severe category would live ‘disabled lives’ like those already recognised under the Act.
If inclusivity is a serious goal, ease of rectification of the condition and the degree to which normal functions are compromised need to be considered, instead of criteria-based eligibility. Persons with disabilities are not without useful skills or talents. A closer look is needed at those seeking such benefits, instead of labelling one category as ‘disabled’ while leaving out another equally deserving one.