Thoughts On A Wheelchair

Outlook:

Generic premeditated thoughts have been the synagogue of Indian outlook and sociopolitical/social viewpoint. The riff is not a brainchild of modern progressive development; it dates back to the days of yore; an articulate example being Valmiki’s portrayal of the Dravidians of Sri Lanka as appalling monstrous creatures, anything but human. Ironically, the initial civilizational culture of the nation that brags about it’s secularist approach (which doesn’t exist), was rooted upon discriminatory and oppressive colonization- the Aryan interference in a Dravidian home, that pushed most of the dravidians to the southern bottleneck. India itself, even after the skin toning of most parts of the country (essentially the cornering of the dravidians by the aryans), has been the victim of aesthetic-discrimination, during the English dominated period of dependence. But, what did India really learn from the incidents? That every black guy is inferior, and nefariously too harmful to be sociable to; every fair skin is entitled to dominate them; every crippled is unwanted and every separately-able useless, and we do not tolerate impotency. This is the same perception that keeps people gaping wide-eyed, if they accidentally spot a fair-skinned foreigner on our otherwise gray-scale streets, as if they were an object of immense admiration; and this is the very same reason that makes people dismissive to the separately-able.

Discussing the Anomalies:

India is a miscellaneous mixed-bag of people from different financial strata, that begins with impoverished (and seemingly pesky) beggars on the streets; to the owners of the Antilia which is roughly speaking the second costliest building in the world, and yet to harmonize our existence we have inculcated the “Them” and “Us”, system. They deserve to be bedridden of the normal statutory life and sociability while we get the bragging rights to laugh and to cuss. A wheelchair sidelines your independence, and a pair of spectacles would often be a signature of your incapability; whereas in the big picture of the Indian megalopolis, “us”, the otherwise healthy breed, still clog on the seats in public commutes clearly demarcated as handicapped. The surprising inadvertent and shamelessly docile normal breed, hence overcasts the life of “them”.
People are judged on aesthetics, and what we find appalling is generally what we consider to be diabolic; immaterial of how the person is, his/her looks always precede his/her nature, judging by the regular retrospection. How you look indexes how you will be treated, and hence the malevolent indifferent look to the little kid who does not have enough to fill his aching tummy stands explained. But this sense of looking down upon others is not compulsorily predefined.

According to Dr. David C. Funder- the tendency to ascribe traits or demarcating a judged analysis based upon the appearance of the situation or the person is a measurable psychological variable of its own. It has also been found that the people relatively less settled themselves are the ones exercising more judgmentalism when it comes to dealing with others.

There are varied diverse explanations as to why people may hate or look down upon others with physical/mental/aesthetic disability. While it is noted, that people having physically disabled family members and/or acquaintances, express more tolerability; it is not completely true that intolerability to the same is the outcome of lack of education.
In some cases, some people prefer symmetry so much that they are not as welcoming to things which does not fall under the parametric extremes of normalcy; another group of people (the majority) are those that are simply a little too curious to mind their own business, these kinds of people are the ones that you will find gaping amused at a man in a wheelchair or a man who is a little too obese. An unspoken scenario is that of eunuchs in India; as the new Idea advertisement would put it, the eunuchs are not a socially accepted normal-race, irrespective of religion, and continue to be appalling. Taking a little detour- misogyny is the same idea of judgment-atrocity, served in a new platter.

Etiquette To Follow:

The prima facie while in a conversation with any handicapped, is the fact that his or her disability should always go unnoticed, or so should you make it appear. The greatest complications arise when you place an ailment (even sympathetically) ahead of the person's individuality. It is to be fathomed that impaired do not singularly deal with the physical aspects of their disability, rather a lot of metaphysical, and psychological pressure and anxiety governs their day to day life activities- like the feeling of being indebted to someone for their regular activities. The "golden rule" is to address a person focusing on his/her identity first. Therefore it is not "the impaired boy", but rather "the boy with the impairment" that de-stresses the tensile tone. Prof. Sigmund Freud said that discussing one's shortcomings in public is enough to infuriate a person, but being known by his shortcomings dilapidate the very basis his mirth. Any unusual behavior or signs of overt sympathies would be read as an acknowledgment of the disability and hence is very unwelcome. Be ready to help anyone if called for, but avoid sympathizing his/her condition, because even before you probably realize... life is all about learning not to wait for the storm to pass, but to dance in the rain anyway. Cheers!