The Fundamental Right Of Accessibility Should Not Be Seen As Charity

When a ramp is built at the entrance of a building, it is often described as an act of kindness. When sign language interpretation is provided at a public event, it is praised as generosity. When a website is made screen-reader friendly, it is applauded as inclusion. Yet, the language we use reveals a deeper problem: we still see accessibility as charity. In reality, accessibility is not a favour bestowed upon a few rather it is the recognition of a fundamental right owed to all.

Viewing accessibility as an act of charity presumes that individuals with disabilities are living on the outskirts of society, relying on benevolence. On the other hand, treating it as a claim recognizes them as equal citizens, who are free to engage in all aspects of society, including the social, political, economic, and cultural ones. The transition from charity to rights is not just auditory; it is moral, legal, and constitutional. The matter of accessibility comes down to dignity. Dignity cannot be divided, and the society that requires a person to “ask for” access to education, transport, or work is the one that puts dignity under the condition of generosity. A ramp-less school denying a child entrance is not simply an unfortunate omission; she is undergoing the denial of her right to education. A visually impaired person who cannot get public information is not trying to get sympathy, he is claiming his right to equal participation in the public life. This is acknowledged by international law. The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, whose India is part of, recognizes and gives priority to accessibility as the main condition for enjoying all the human rights. It shifts the concept of disability from an individual deficit to a social issue created by barriers. The inaccessible infrastructure, communication systems, and negative societal attitudes prevent people from full participation more than any physical or mental impairment ever would. This idea is also reflected in Indian constitutional values. The right to equality under Article 14, the prohibition of discrimination under Article 15, and the right to live with dignity under Article 21 together require a situation where every person can take part at the same level. The PWD Act 2016 is not a mere extension of welfare policy but a change in approach that opens the door for the rights-based strategy. Hence, it makes accessibility mandatory in public place, transport, information, and digital area. These are not privileges. Rather, these are the obligations created by law.

However, though at times very slow, the social imagination has frequently been ahead of progressive laws. Accessibility is still seen as a gesture of mercy and not as a requirement of fairness. Such a mindset is dangerous because charity is never compulsory while rights are always defenseable. Moods and finances determine charity; rights are based on obligations and responsibility. A charity-based society can cut off support whenever it wants. A rights-based society will always have to justify the exclusion.

The charity narrative is in addition to power hierarchies. Persons with disabilities are depicted as who can only receive help and not as someone who has the law on their side. It is a power struggle between gratitude and justice, silence and voice. The true inclusion will never arrange people to be grateful for what is already theirs. It will always demand that institutions, architects, policymakers, educators, and technologists make diversity their top priority from the very start. Accessibility, thus, is not about simply providing certain arrangements later; it is about universal design. When any method of learning is used in classrooms, the whole class wins. Subtitles are a benefit not only for the deaf but also for language learners and commuters. When public transport has no steps, the old, pregnant women, and people with cuts can move easily. Accessibility leads to the whole of society being enriched; it does not lead to society being burdened.

Furthermore, a substantial democratic aspect comes with it. The aforementioned democratic rights are practically meaningless in the event that certain parts of the population are systematically shut out from the whole process. No democracy can ever declare itself as truly representative if both physical and virtual arenas are not open to all. Rights are not only theoretical but also part and parcel of the everyday life of the citizens. The argument that could easily convince anyone is, however, based on empathy that is rooted in equality instead of being based on pity. Such a change in one's status can happen to anyone and at any time, by means of an accident, a disease or just aging. So, in a way, making the world more accommodating is not a matter of “them” but rather of “us.” It is a question of creating a society that is already prepared for human frailty and diversity instead of being averted and isolating them. Language plays a vital role, as it molds the mind. The expression "we provided facilities for them" carries the connotation of kindness. The expression "we ensured their rights" carries the connotation of justice. The former fosters dependence, the latter encourages empowerment.

Accessibility is the foundation of equal treatment. It connects the legal rights and the actual freedom of people. It is the difference between being there and being able to be involved. It is the difference between life and respect. In the quote of Helen Keller, "Alone we can do so little, together we can do so much." However, togetherness cannot be where there are barriers. To take down those barriers is not just a matter of goodwill, it is a matter of rights. Recognising accessibility as a basic right means recognising every person's full humanity. It means declaring that the whole society is not there unless all of its members can come in, talk, be educated, work, and dream without barriers. Charity might reduce inequality, but only rights can eliminate it. Thus, accessibility is not a gift. Instead, it is the basis of an inclusive, legal, and humane society.

The Authors Are Rishabh Tiwari Who Is A History Hons Student Hansraj College (DU) & Shambhawi Tiwari Is A Law student At National University Of Study And Research In Law, Ranchi