Socio-Cultural Exploration of Disability
in Pratibha Ray’s Dehatita
Bharati Seth,
Ph.D. Research Scholar,
Department of English and Foreign Language,
Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur,
Chhatisgarh, India,
&
Dr. Shiv Kumar,
Assistant Professor,
Department of English and Foreign Language,
Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur,
Chhatisgarh, India.
Abstract:
Disability Studies is a significant area in literary
discourse of the 21st century. It is an
emerging field for change that goes beyond knowledge-building procedures to put
individuals with disabilities front and center in the creation of an inclusive
academic culture by questioning social norms and shattering obstacles. This
field emerged to make awareness about disabled people. It does not only refer
to the physical disability but also refers from the perspective of social,
intellectual, educational, economic, occupational etc. Societal attitudes
towards person with disabilities always remain as marginalized, inferior, and
ill treatments. This paper investigates the level of consciousness of different
types of people towards disability in Pratibha Ray’s novel Dehatita1and how the
character with disability suffers mentally and psychologically due to social
norms and attitudes. Its goal is to bring the problems of disability into the
screen and give them space in society. It also examines various linguistic
terms and approaches applied to people with disabilities.
Keywords: Disability, linguistic term, societal
portrayal, discrimination, patriarchy, inner strength
Introduction:
In the words of
Alice Hall, “Disability Studies does not treat disease or disability, hoping to
cure or avoid them; it studies the social meaning, symbols, and stigmas
attached to disability identity and asks how they relate to enforced systems of
exclusion and expression” (31). As such, it serves as an inclusive and
interdisciplinary space, capable of encompassing and engaging with multiple
disciplines to unravel the complexities of disability, its impact on
individuals and its societal implications. Disability
studies developed as an interdisciplinary area in the late twentieth century,
integrating diverse fields such as the
Humanities, Natural and Social Sciences, and Modern Technology, to create a network of theories.
The
disability study has evolved from an emergent discipline to an established
field of study. Rejecting
the view of disability as a mere individual deficit or medical condition, disability
studies regards it as a social construct that manifests differently depending
on contextual factors and societal norms and is, therefore, a spatiotemporal
phenomenon. This broader perspective recognizes that disability extends beyond
physical impairments and encompasses diverse forms of difference and ability.
By integrating insights from literature, philosophy, law, autobiographical
narratives and the field of Bioethics, disability studies explores the social
construction of disability, shedding light on the intertwined processes of
marginalization and disabling.
Disability, as a
word, takes its root in ‘able’, which is defined as “having the skill,
intelligence, opportunity, etc. needed to do something” by Oxford Learner’s
Dictionary. Since the Latin root
‘dis’ means
‘apart’, this sets up an immediate expectation that using the word disabled,
therefore, means to deprive of capability or effectiveness, or anyone who is
not capable of performing a specific activity. Simi Linton observes, “Dis is
the semantic reincarnation of the split between disabled and nondisabled people
in the society” (31). Therefore, the prefix fashions a linguistic barrier that
produces tangible consequences, presenting ‘disability’ as something contrary
to ability. As the definitions of disability have evolved over time, Dr Anita
Ghai accentuates the importance of engaging in interpretive discussions within
the realm of disability, stating that “The definitional riddles in disability
are extremely significant as they decide the fate of the person designated as
disabled” (Ghai, (Dis) Embodied 31).
In discussions
surrounding social contexts, a crucial aspect to consider is the comprehension
of social norms and the factors that determine the boundaries between ‘abled’
and ‘disabled’. The definition of ‘abled’ and ‘disabled’ is contingent upon the
codes of normalcy established by the prevailing power relations. These power
dynamics dictate the parameters that determine who falls within the category of
‘abled’ and who is considered ‘disabled’. Therefore, in order to grasp the
nuances of disability within different social contexts, an understanding of the
influence exerted by these norms becomes indispensable.
As Lennard J
Davis aptly points out, the “hegemony of normalcy” (10) constructs an ‘ideal’
standard which holds considerable importance in the perception of being
‘disabled’ whether it pertains to physical, mental or social aspects on a
substantial scale. He asserts that our current existence is governed by a
multitude of standards and expectations that impact all aspects of modern
society. Further, he says, “the “problem” is not the person with disabilities;
the problem is the way that normalcy is constructed to create the ‘‘problem’’
of the disabled person. [Therefore,]… the idea of a norm is less a condition of
human nature than it is a feature of a certain kind of society” (2). The
prevailing status, along with the societal value systems and cultural
components, collectively determine the notion of forming the ‘normal’. It becomes
evident, therefore, that being ‘abnormal’ does not constitute an individual’s
fault, as commonly believed, but rather showcases how a particular society
defines a ‘normal’ person. Furthermore, it is essential to recognize that
‘normal’ can vary across different cultures and societies, each presenting its
own interpretation of what is considered typical.
‘Disabled’
people rarely find identifying space in representation in Indian English
fiction. Even the appearances of disabled people are
often representative of the stigmatized status
they hold in society where they are portrayed as people to be feared, pity and
sometimes extraordinary revered. When talking about how disabilities are
portrayed in literature, physical beauty is equated with goodness of soul,
while disability is equated with the conflict between normality and deformity
is presented as the archetypical conflict between good and evil. The limited
space allotted to people with disabilities in literary depictions stems from
the perception that disability is still a curse. Nonetheless, there have been
several recent attempts in fiction to increase the visibility of the disabled
by including them in the main character, one of these works is “Dehatita” by
Pratibha Ray. This work represents characters of disability vividly where the
disabled have to suffer mentally and psychologically. At the same time the
person has no space in society as patriarchy plays a vital role to discriminate the line between abled and
disabled.
Pratibha
Ray is a renowned Odia writer, known for her portrayal of societal issues
related to disability, gender, inequality of class in literature. She was
awarded the Jnanpith Award in 2011 for her outstanding contribution to Indian
literature. Ray’s concern mainly deals with the challenges and norms of society primarily on female protagonist. Her
contributions in the field of literature make the footprint for the suppressed
people of the society in contemporary Indian writing.
Dehatita, written by Pratibha Ray is a significant novel in
modern literature which represents the disabled
character, named Swaha. She is a terminally
ill woman suffering from a disease called
amputation which gradually decease the body
parts for which unable to walk or move. This novel explores the philosophical,
emotional complexities of life, death and disease. She is struggling with her
impending death and futility of worldly attachment. Her pensive and reflective
journey examines metaphysical question and the transcendence of the soul over
the body.
Disability as Social Construction
This paper taps
into humanity’s inherent social instincts, making them function as social
catalysts. Dr Anita Ghai accentuates the importance of engaging in interpretive
discussions within the realm of disability, stating that “The definitional
riddles in disability are extremely significant as they decided the fate of the
person designated as disabled” (Ghai, (Dis) Embodied 31). Our society decides
who comes under the category of abled and disabled, where they keep disabled
people in marginal position and define the fate of the people. Societal
attitudes and cultural value systems play an important role to construct
periphery. The fundamental distinction lies in the fact that issues faced by
able-bodied individuals are considered normal and socially acceptable.
As in the novel Dehatita, Swaha is the protagonist who
suffers from paralysis and amputation in which disease the body part gradually
decease. Her father Shyam Babu, don’t want his daughter to live more time
ahead, thinks it’s a burden for both of them. Although Swaha is not stronger
physically but her willingness to do something for society and herself is very
strong. Although she is just paralyzed but society such as relatives,
neighborhoods make her weaker and take her into the marginalized position. The
normal people think she can’t do anything and no use of her in this universe
anymore so she should die very soon. Even her father doesn’t give any
opportunity to move her forward or do something such as to teach the student or
in a private or in orphan schools due to her disease.
When the novel
opens Omkar says, - Jane panguhei pare, kintu se akarmanya heba kahiki ?
A man may be crippled, but why he should be
disabled ? (Ray, 05)
Besides that,
there is another incident that when she comes out from her home to outside in
wheelchair to make her feel good and to meet with people. Here she gets the
sympathy from the people and she is center for compassion. On that toward she
makes herself promise to not come out from the home again as people looking
towards her with different lenses. Some people of society start to hate her due
to her disease. Swaha says, “Swaha is only a container of compassion or
sympathy”. (Ray, 61) This is more dangerous than anything in the world.
Power Structure and Discrimination
Power has always
been structured and distributed in terms of ‘margin’ and ‘centre’, ‘superior
and inferior’, ‘capable and incapable’, that in reality it is very
complicated. The Marginal, hence, may
indicate one's persona and identity. Similarly, marginalization can best be
understood in terms of “limitations of a subject's access to power” (Aschcroft
et.al. 121). Marginalization of a group or an individual may originate from
race, gender, caste, class and many more other factors like physical
impairment, oddity, inability etc. Hence, disability, as it is noticed, is one
of the most dominated issues in this well-established kind of categories.
The people who
come under the category of norm think they are superior and they discriminate
and rule over people with disability. Such narrative delves into Pratibha Ray’s
Dehatita where Swaha is expelled from the society and family who faces
compounded discrimination due to both their gender and disability. She is
denied to live in this earth as society and her father think she is the burden
for the family so it would better to die soon. Even everybody always prays for
her death. When Omkar asks to do something for Swaha, her father Swamala Babu
says, “there is nothing more to do. It is too late. There is no possibility of
implanting an artificial organ. Paralysis has spread beyond the borders of the
body to the intestines. Now there seems to be one possibility. What are the
possibilities? There is no harm in giving it a try if she can get rid of the
pain in her body. Shyamala Baby says “the only reliable possibility of her life
is death”. It does not come easily. (Ray, 63) In another line, the clear image
of discrimination is presented as her father says to Omkar, “Swaha will apply
to the government for permission to commit suicide. You will write the
application letter. I have decided that Swaha should give her body soon. The
body is the only reason for her sorrow”. (Ray, 77) These lines also narrate how
the power is used by the abled people. Here her father forces her to do
suicide, so she will not be the burden for anyone after her father and mother’s
death.
Swaha reflects
the pervasive stigma surrounding her. Ray carefully
delineates the ways in which society imposes disabilities through stigma,
exclusion, and paternalism. Society also does not accept and give
opportunity to the person with disability, portray as inferior, incapable, weak
who needs the help of another person. Such a mindset inevitably leads not only
to the devaluation of the personhood of individuals with impairments but also
to the negation of their rightful position as equal citizens. Hence, it is not
primarily individuals with impairments who are disabled, but rather the
environment in which we reside that creates disabling conditions.
Inner liberation and strength
Swaha’s
paralysis is not just a plot device but a means of exploring questions of
consciousness, suffering, and liberation. His journey from despair to spiritual
awakening underscores
the novel’s central thesis: true freedom lies not in bodily ability but in
transcending bodily identification. The narrative
emphasizes the importance of mental and emotional freedom, showcasing how the
protagonist transcends societal judgments to embrace her authentic self. This
inner liberation is portrayed not as a sudden revelation but as a gradual
process of introspection, resilience. This line vividly portrays the willing
power to live of Swaha, “The doctor wonders how the girl has survived
for years. He says the death should occur at such a time of heartbeat. She is
near to the death or death will not come. Death defeats in front of girl’s
strong will and spirit to live”. (Ray, 59)
Double Marginalization
One of the most
striking but often under-examined forms of marginalization in literature is the
intersectional oppression faced by women with disabilities. Women with
disabilities are doubly marginalized because they face two overlapping systems
of oppression: sexism (as women in a patriarchal society) and ableism (as
people with disabilities in an ableist world). While gender inequality affects
women broadly and ableism affects people with disabilities, women who embody
both identities frequently experience compounded discrimination. Their
experiences of marginalization are qualitatively different from those of
non-disabled women or disabled men. This combination creates a unique set of
challenges and exclusions in the world. Michelle Fine and Adrienne Asch
identify the double negative of female disability in their important
sociological work on women with disabilities, as defined by normalizing social
expectations: “exempted from the ‘male’ productive role and the ‘female’
nurturing one, having the glory of neither, disabled women are arguably doubly
oppressed” (13).
Philosophers
such as Iris Marion Young trace a conflation between femaleness, illness and
disability in western thought; women’s bodies, like disabled bodies, are
frequently understood as lacking, burdensome and fragile (27–45). Young
demonstrates how cultural narratives consistently interpret female embodiment
through metaphors of restriction and weakness, which mirrors the
representational strategies applied to disabled bodies. Both women and disabled
individuals are constructed in contrast to an idealized masculine subject who
is autonomous, rational, and capable of mastery over self and environment. This
conflation is reinforced by the medicalization of female physiology, where
natural processes such as menstruation, pregnancy, and menopause are
pathologized, rendering the female body as perpetually unstable or ill.
Similarly, disability is framed not as a variation of embodiment but as a
deficit that requires correction or control. Thus, women’s bodies, like
disabled bodies, become marked as burdensome and incomplete, located outside
the normative boundaries of productivity and strength. By highlighting this
overlapping construction, Young exposes how patriarchal and ableist epistemologies
collaborate in sustaining hierarchies of power, where both femininity and
disability are marginalized through shared tropes of incapacity and dependence.
In patriarchal
cultures, a woman’s role is often tied to marry while she is in a societal
world. But women with disabilities face rejection from society as they are
unjustly deemed unfit for. It is vividly depicted in the novel Dehatita that
Swaha’s father requests to Omkar for marrying her daughter and take the
responsibility till her last breath because human being need a partner to
survive. Shyamala Babu said “The meaning of marriage is to carry out the
responsibility in a special way. In that sense, you will marry Swaha and carry
her burden. Hold her hand and guide her till death. A human being seeks a life
partner to survive. Everything is opposite for Swaha. She needs a partner for
death. Can you ? (Ray, 89) These societal attitudes can be deeply damaging to a
woman’s self-esteem and autonomy. It portrays disabled women as inherently dependent
on family members or partner. This trope not only denies disabled women their
agency but also frames their existence as burdensome. Being a disabled woman,
Swaha is perceived as dependent, passive, or even burdensome. Physical beauty,
emotional availability and sexual desirability, these traits are implicitly
tied to abled bodily norms. A woman with visible disability is often portrayed
as failing to meet these ideals as Swaha is framed as an object of sexually
undesirable and pity. In the words of Shyamala Babu “What will you get by
marrying Swaha ? What else is there besides her soul?” (Ray, 92)
Showing Empathy, but not Sympathy
As Swaha says,
“Sympathy and unmerited mercy is worse than curses and unbearable”. She is the
centre for pity and sympathy which is very painful for her. Sympathy is often
seen as a form of ableism, which is the discrimination against people with
disabilities based on the belief that abled are capable of doing everything
whereas disabled are not. Sympathy can lead to overgeneralizations, assuming
that individuals with disabilities are less capable or require constant
support, which can limit their autonomy and agency.
Ray doesn’t
reduce the disabled character to their physical condition. Instead, she gives
them a rich inner life, desires, and a complex emotional landscape. Although
Swaha is physically disabled, she helps other people orally. Once she starts
teaching to children of her neighbours. Another example of her contribution is
that Aruna who is blind at the age of around six years due to some reason, who
begging money by singing song in the street. Swaha usually sits at her window
and look outside, one day she listens his voice which is very soothing to hear.
So that she calls near her window and asks all the things, saying that “I will
teach you singing song if you are interested, but not for begging money but
make you independent. The blind are not bound to beg”. (Ray, 108) She also
requests her father to spend her school fees for Aruna’s education.
Conclusion
Pratibha
Ray’s Dehatita offers a profound
exploration of disability, embodiment, and transcendence. Through her nuanced
portrayal of Swaha and her world, Ray challenges ableist assumptions, critiques
societal exclusion, and offers an alternative model of human flourishing that
embraces vulnerability, dependence, and spiritual wholeness. Rather than
depicting disability as either a curse or a moral lesson, Dehatita presents it as part of the human tapestry — complex,
painful, beautiful, and rich with meaning. In doing so, Ray makes a seminal
contribution to both Odia literature and the broader discourse on disability
representation.
Future
research could extend this analysis by examining how Ray’s portrayal compares
with other Indian literary representations of disability, and how indigenous
spiritual philosophies influence understandings of the body and self.
Note:
1. Beyond the body
Work Cited
Ghai, Anita. Rethinking Disability in India. Routledge India, 2019.
Addlakha, Renu, ed. Disability Studies in India: Global Discourses, Local Realities. Taylor & Francis, 2020.
Ashcroft, Bill, Gareth Griffiths, and Helen Tiffin. Key concepts in post-colonial studies. Psychology Press, 1998.
Davis, Lennard J. The Disability Studies Reader. Routledge, 2016.
Ghai, Anita. Rethinking Disability in India. Routledge India, 2019.
Ghai, Anita. (Dis)Embodied Form: Issues of Disabled Women. Shakti Books, 2003
Linton, Simi. Claiming Disability: Knowledgeand Identity. NYU Press, 1998.
Michelle Fine and Adrienne Asch. Women with Disabilities: Essays in Psychology, Culture, and Politics. Temple University Press, 1988.
Nayar, Pramod K. “Writing Disability and Rights in Naseema.” Human Rights in PostcolonialIndia. Routledge India, 2016.
Ray, Pratibha. Dehatita. Adya Prakashini, 1986.
Young, Iris Marion. On Female Bodily Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and Other Essays. Oxford University Press, 2005.