The biopic Srikanth underlines the need to neither treat those with disabilities as ‘becharas’ nor to forget them in policy-making and execution.
—
“Dreams are not something you see when you sleep, they are the things that do not let you sleep”— Dr A.P.J. Abdul Kalam
DIRECTOR Tushar Hiranandani’s biopic Srikanth follows the story of a visually impaired industrialist Srikanth Bolla who manages to showcase the stark difference between sight and vision in today’s world.
The story is set in Hyderabad, where, upon his birth, Srikanth’s parents are asked by the villagers to bury him alive given that he was born without sight. But he manages to lift himself up from that hole in the ground, literally, as he becomes an inspiration for thousands.
As a child, despite his sheer intelligence, Sri often gets bullied in his school. With running away not being an option, Sri quickly learns that when faced with a problem, fighting back is the only solution.
Determined not to let his disability forge his future, Srikanth ensures that he gets the education he needs just like any other child would. With the assistance of his mentor, Devika, Sri manages to get admission to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and, in a turn of events, returns to India to construct what we now know as the Bolland Industries.
Determined not to let his disability forge his future, Srikanth ensures that he gets the education he needs just like any other child would.
The biopic is an attempt at delineating the struggles that follow when you are a differently-abled person in India. Bolla has to file a case against the university he wishes to study at because despite getting a score of 96 percent, they do not allow visually impaired persons to opt to study science.
There exists a general lacuna in job opportunities for such people, which leads to Sri coming up with the packaging industry initiative to create job opportunities for people like him.
Infrastructural gaps are not uncommon when it comes to persons with disabilities, and the film successfully with its life lessons and wisecracks highlights these issues.
What makes the storyline unique is the momentary loss of judgment Srikanth has. He takes his mentor (Devika, a teacher from his school) and friend (Ravi, an investor in Bolland Industries) for granted and allows his principles to be compromised momentarily.
Also read: SC issues notice on disability details of advocates for data-driven policies
He begins using his handicap to get through obstacles. Such a transition in events allows the audience to connect with the character of Srikanth at a deeper level, by stating that all individuals are bound to become biased from time to time.
Rajkummar Rao is the film’s driving force, keeping the audience engaged even when the plot becomes predictable. The film’s tone requires slight exaggeration without becoming comical, and Rajkummar skillfully maintains this balance.
He embodies the essence of a visually impaired person, snapping his fingers to navigate and using expressive eyebrow movements to convey emotions. His half-shut eyes reveal the soul of his character, Srikanth, indicating his deep connection to the role.
The message of the film is crystal clear— the term ‘bechara’ (helpless) is too often used for persons with disabilities when all they wish for is to be treated like equals.
If given the right opportunities and chances, they can accomplish feats that are considered impossible. It is pertinent to pave pathways that allow for egalitarianism. All-in-all Srikanth is the kind of movie that has effects that linger even after the camera stops rolling.
Limitations of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016
The biopic engenders an inevitable line of questioning regarding the implementation of present legislation for differently-abled in India. The Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act first came out in 1995 and was amended in 2016.
The Act is in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that India ratified in 2007. The Act classifies disabled persons into two categories: ‘Person with benchmark disability’ and “Person with disability.”
Section 2(r) defines a “Person with benchmark disability” as someone with at least 40 percent of a specified disability, whether or not it is measurable, as certified by the certifying authority.
Section 2(s) defines a “Person with disability” as an individual with a long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairment that, in interaction with barriers, hinders their full and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
The new legislation brought hope for disabled citizens by emphasising the need for employment and promotions, reservations and providing clearer definitions for terms such as discrimination.
It expanded recognised disabilities from seven to 21, including conditions such as mental illness, autism spectrum disorder, cerebral palsy, muscular dystrophy, chronic neurological conditions, speech and language disability, thalassemia, haemophilia, sickle cell disease, multiple disabilities such as deaf–blindness, acid attack victims, and Parkinson’s disease.
Additionally, the government has the authority to designate new specific disability groups.
However, the Act is riddled with inefficiencies. For starters, reasonable accommodation under the Act has been defined as necessary and appropriate modification, without imposing a disproportionate or undue burden in a particular case, to ensure persons with disabilities the exercise of rights equally.
What appears adequate at first glance is in truth a paltry and vague outline of what such an accommodation should look like.
Assistive technologies are tools and devices designed to aid individuals with disabilities in performing tasks that might otherwise be difficult or impossible. Examples include screen readers for the visually impaired, hearing aids, wheelchairs, and speech recognition software.
Such technologies have not been integrated into the Act, robbing differently-abled people of the chance to be self-sufficient.
The biopic is an attempt at delineating the struggles that follow when you are a differently-abled person in India.
The Indian Council for Medical Research (ICMDR) has recognised 21 priority assistive medical devices that can be used by such persons. However, such technologies are expensive and require insurance coverage and funding options from the government. Adaptive technology needs to be treated as a requirement instead of an afterthought.
Secondly, there is the issue of benchmark disabilities. Recently, in Mohamed Ibrahim versus Managing Director, the Supreme Court expressed concern over the concept of benchmark disabilities.
Benefits arising from affirmative action are limited to a specific category of persons with disabilities. The defined threshold of 40 percent or more disability brings in substantial barriers to the implementation of the objective of the Act.
A more inclusive Act that allows people who do not fit into the watertight categories of the Act to also avail its benefits, is needed.
Mohamed Ibrahim was about a colour-blind engineer who had been denied a job at the Tamil Nadu Generation and Distribution Corporation. Colour-blindness is not considered a disability under the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act. That was the defence the respondent had taken for depriving the appellant of the job opportunity.
The case underlined the hindrance created by the set twin conditions and how they need to be set aside to ensure relief.
Additionally, putting a specific learning disability in a percentage is impossible, lack of quantification is due to the variable instruments being used to test the same such as the NIMHANS learning disability battery, Dyslexia Screening Test, Grade Level Assessment Device for learning disability, SLD assessment scale and the recently introduced Dyslexia Assessment for Languages of India.
Instead, a regular intervention model should be employed for children in educational institutions. A comprehensive system is required instead of the NIMHANS learning disability battery that covers only English language and mathematics and does not assess any problems in Hindi or other regional languages.
Limitations of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act Guidelines, 2016 and 2021
Notified under Section 44 of the Rights for Persons with Disabilities Act, certain guidelines explicitly cover universal accessibility standards and address the varying needs of all users such as elderly persons, those with reduced mobility and persons with disability.
They were created to serve as a ready reference for relevant stakeholders like planners, designers, builders and development agencies.
The first set of guidelines— the Harmonised Guidelines and Space Standards for Barrier-Free Built Environment for Persons with Disabilities and Elderly Persons— were published in March 2016.
These were reviewed during the Covid pandemic by the National Institute of Urban Affairs (NIUA) and experts from the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee.
Also read: A critical analysis of the Supreme Court’s report on accessibility
The updated document was then released in 2021 and titled Harmonised Guidelines and Universal Accessibility in India. This massive 428-page document encompasses planning and tendering of building projects, specification of ramps, lifts, toilets and all sorts of accessibility features. Existing buildings must be made accessible within five years.
Access audits were carried out in 1,671 buildings in 48 different cities. Of these, while work in 1,314 buildings has been sanctioned, 623 buildings have been retrofitted as well. However, activists and persons with disabilities believe that no state government has implemented the harmonised guidelines in their building by-laws.
The message of the film is crystal clear— the term ‘bechara’ (helpless) is too often used for persons with disabilities when all they wish for is to be treated like equals.
There is a lack of awareness amongst those responsible for carrying out these changes— the engineers in public works departments. Sensitivity and scrutiny have taken a backseat and there is no monitoring of the budgetary allocations made in these states.
The way forward
The lack of punitive action and the penalty in the Act only for contravening provisions and not guidelines are taken as an excuse to continue avoiding the provision of inclusive infrastructure in institutions.
A monitoring committee needs to be set up to ensure due diligence and conduct necessary workshops for engineers in this regard. The guidelines have been taken up as soft law so far because no consequences exist for deviating from them.
An inclusive perspective must be taken to avoid erasure of persons without the benchmark disability and appropriate funding methods must be constructed to provide adaptive technologies to those in need.
An inclusive perspective must be taken to avoid erasure of persons without the benchmark disability and appropriate funding methods must be constructed to provide adaptive technologies to those in need.
The movie Srikanth stressed on the message to not treat a person with a disability as special or garbage— but simply engage with them as an equal. That is the lesson here, and that is what the government needs to act upon.
