Does Indian mythology really have a problem with disability?

This The Wire (India) article analyses the Hindu mythological epics like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana to prove that the Hindu mythology in general and Hindu society in particular doesn’t treat persons with disabilities with respect. The examples used in the article are those of Dhrithrashtra (who was blind) and Ashthavakra who had, as the name indicates, 8 types of physical deformities. The problem is not with the central theme of the article, the problem is that the article singles out Hindu mythology while totally ignoring other cultures. For some it might not be a problem because introspection is always needed: if our culture and heritage treats persons with disabilities condescendingly or in a biased manner, of course we need to revisit our cultural values and norms and take corrective measures. But the purpose of these articles is now well known so we can easily assume that the intention was not as it seems.

The author first talks about the maltreatment meted out to Dhrithrashtra for his visual impairment in the Mahabharata. As the story is well known, among the two brothers Pandu and Dhrithrashtra, Dhrithrashtra was the elder brother and hence, the rightful recipient of the title of the King. Although a capable administrator, he was denied his right because of visual impairment and his younger brother Pandu was crowned.

I’m not going to defend Bhishma’s decision because he was not very well known for taking right decisions throughout the Mahabharata. But I think it is slightly unfair to say that the story gives a villainous tinge to Dhrithrashtra just because he’s visually impaired. Even if he was treated unfairly, he definitely had his character flaws. He was too blindsided by his blindness. He constantly played victim. He couldn’t guide his sons. After Pandu’s death, the Pandavas (Pandu’s 5 sons) were content with just 5 villages but the Kauravas — Dhrithrashtra and his 100 sons including the infamous Duryodhana — were so full of spite that they didn’t even want to spare 5 villages for the Pandavas. The problem was not with Dhrithrashra’s blindness, the problem was the extreme spitefulness the entire Kaurav family suffered from. There was a collective depression in the family due to Dhrithrashtra’s natural disability and Gandhari’s embraced disability.

The extreme destruction wrought upon the Kuru clan was not due to the unfair treatment that Dhrithrashtra got because of his blindness, it was because his value system was not at its right place.

About Vidur, the author doesn’t know that Vidur was Dhrithrashtra’s and Pandu’s half-brother so he had his own reasons for speaking up against Dhrithrashtra’s coronation. These 3 were Rishi Vyasa’s sons but that’s a different, but related story.

There is another thing. We cannot judge the characters of the Mahabharata and the Ramayana by today’s standards. Those days it was fine to kidnap princesses for the sake of marrying them which is totally outrageous and criminal by today’s values. Bhishma himself practically kidnapped a fisherwoman for his father and then three more princesses for the three crown princes (fisherwoman’s sons). So to expect them to treat persons with disabilities with contemporary standards is a bit bizarre.

The Ashthavakra example is used wrongly, like considering the glass half empty. Although he was initially derided, he was then respectfully accepted once he proved his intellectual prowess. It shows that when it came to knowledge and wisdom the society was more accepting than it is today when we are obsessed with looks and physical abilities.

It didn’t matter to people that he had physical deformities because of his knowledge and wisdom. This is very natural and this also happens these days. Who is accepted just for being himself or herself (no, don’t give the example of Rahul Gandhi)? In every field you have to prove your worth.

Ashthavakra did the same. He proved his worth and he was appreciated and decorated. The first reaction to his disabilities was per the prevalent perceptions about disability. At that time it would have seemed strange if they hadn’t noticed and reacted to his disabilities. Enter any place and people will first notice your disability and later on take note of, if you make an effort, your strengths and abilities. Yes, ideally, they shouldn’t have, but who says these epics tried to create an ideal world? Most of the characters in these epics have follies that almost everybody has.

In fact, the Indian mythology and the Indian culture, despite whimsical occurrences here and there, have a long tradition of accepting people with disabilities. Many known saints were disabled, including Surdas who was blind. There is a major South Indian god — I cannot recall the name right now — who appeared without limbs.

Contrast this with Western culture. In many societies, the disabled were simply discarded. In ancient Sparta they were even killed and babies that were not healthy were not nurtured, so dire was the intolerance towards physical disabilities. The Romans used to do the same. In many societies the disabled were simply hurled into an abyss and left there to die. No such thing ever happened in India, at least as a norm (grotesque aberrations can be found everywhere).

Having disabled villainous characters is all pervasive. Most of the witches in the Western mythology are blind and crooked. Short people are shown as demonic. The quintessential villain Captain Hook has a leg and hand missing. There are numerous hunchbacked villains. In recent times there was an outcry that an albino person was shown as a villain in The Vinci Code. Mama Kaido of the Heer-Ranjha fame (the story has nothing to do with Hindu mythology) had a club foot. So this trend is everywhere. At least in Indian mythology the disabled are not outright heinous and villainous — they all have their stories and they all have reasons for being who they are.

This link is a very comprehensive and well-researched rebuttal to the Wire article. It has listed various gods, divinities, respected daityas and saints who have disabilities and deformities and still were not depicted as villains. Many of these characters, gods and divinities are mentioned in the Mahabharatha and the Ramayana. This further shows that the writer of the article, Martand Jha, is just being a typical JNU student.