The Ability of Disability: A Study of
Gulzar’s Movie Koshish in the light of Disability Theory
Dr. Sumbul Nasim
Assistant Professor
Department of
English
Trivenidevi
Bhalotia College,
Raniganj, West
Bengal, India
Abstract: Cinema plays an important role in reflecting
the society and culture we come from. It has considerable power to start
meaningful conversation surrounding some burning or tabooed issue. Gulzar’s
movie Koshish (1972) does
exactly the same. It deals with the issue of what is meant by disability and
ability, and how we should not otherise handicapped people. The movie
chronicles the life journey of a deaf and dumb couple, Aarti and Haricharan
whose lives are beset with hurdles in an abliest society since the abliest
society considers them an ‘anomaly’, a ‘lack’ and incomplete human beings. In
the light of Disability theory, this paper discusses the various aspects of
disability and disabled identity. The movie, ultimately, as its title suggests,
is a commendable ‘koshish’, ‘effort’ to create an inclusive society for
handicapped people and to present them as ‘differently-abled’ instead of
‘dis’-abled. The movie also debunks the myth of abled people being superior and
better while disabled ones being inferior and worse, as the protagonists are
presented as far better humans than the abled people.
Keywords: Disability, ability, inclusive society,
differently-abled, othersiation, effort.
Disability theory surrounds conversation around some
medical condition of a human being which in our society is looked upon as
opposite of ‘ability’, ‘normal’ and a ‘complete’ human being. It discusses the
notions of what is generally understood by ‘ability’ and ‘disability.’
Disability theory subverts the ideology which upholds the view that able-bodies
are superior while disabled bodies are inferior since it is different from
able-bodies. It attempts to study the body politics involving the bodies of
able people and the bodies of those people who are different from them, and
therefore they are differently-abled, rather than ‘dis’-abled. Disability
theory deals with identity politics also as the identity of a disabled person
becomes a curse in our ableist society and such people face discrimination
because of their identity. Tobin Siebers in the Introduction to Disability
Theory says, “A focus on the disabled body encourages a more generous
theory of representation that reaches from gestures and emotions to language
and political representation. It also opens the possibility of classifying
identity as an embodied representational category, thereby inserting the body
into debates about identity politics” (2-3). One can also quote Nandini Ghosh
in this context to further elaborate this as she says in “Introduction:
Interrogating Disability in India”:
The broad array of theoretical approaches to disability forwarded
by activist scholars has engaged in critically unpacking structures of categorical
exclusion in the form of ableism, normalcy and construction of disabled people
as the other. These approaches include the strict social model, the minority group
model (where persons with disabilities are a distinct oppressed minority), disability
as culture (where particular groups especially the deaf constitute a discrete
culture and possess unique cultural heritage) and the idea that disability is diversity
such as gender, race, ethnicity. (2)
Disability theory seeks to engage people in a serious
conversation regarding a social issue. It seeks to break the glass wall barring
the people who are not able like the socially accepted able people. Like many
other notions, the notions of ‘able’ and ‘disable’ are also socially
constructed. Society dictates what are the socially acceptable ‘correct’ ways
of functioning and socially derided ways of functioning. People, who due to
some medical condition, fail to function like the able people are
discriminated, pitied, scorned, and even considered incomplete human beings.
Such people are considered a ‘lack.’ However, over the time, many disability
activists and artists have attempted to shatter such preconceived notions; they
have tried to enlighten the society that people with disability are as normal
humans as able people and it is just that they navigate the world in a
different way, and hence they are actually ‘differently’ abled.
Gulzar’s 1972 movie Koshish is a deeply moving
discourse on the disabled and able bodies. The movie was indeed much ahead of
its time as it presents Gulzar’s attempt to start a discussion on what is meant
by disability and ability and how the concept of ableism dominates the society.
This movie goes against the concept of ableism as the grand narrative. The
movie tells the tale of two deaf and dumb people and their struggle to create a
normal life for themselves in a society crowded by able-bodied people. In our
society, able-bodied people occupy the majoritarian position; they are at the
centre of the society. In contrast, people with disability (one should rather
use the term ‘differently-abled’ people but for theoretical reasons, throughout
the paper, terms ‘disable’ and ‘disability’ are used) are the minority of the
society; they are at the margins of the society. Shilpa Das in “Embodiment,
Identity, and Design for Disability” opines, “Globally, many societies are
somatocentric, deeply focusing on the human body, which has typically been a
site for struggle and contestation. In other words, for most of recorded
history, societies have posited the well-functioning body as the primary locus
of one’s humanhood, and as the epitome of health and physical vigour” (81).
Since the society is constructed as per the needs and whims of the able bodies,
people who are different from them face immense hurdles living their lives in
such a society. This movie clamours for social justice for people who are
different from the able-bodied people. Koshish appeals for the
acceptance and inclusivity of people who are differently abled and the movie
does so without being maudlin or melodramatic. Gulzar’s daughter Meghna
Gulzar’s words in his biography Because He Is are quite illuminating
regarding this movie:
His adeptness in exploring human relationships was
showcased in his film Koshish. It was inspired by the Japanese film The
Happiness of Us Alone that Papi [Gulzar] had seen in the first-ever
International Film Festival of India in Bombay in 1952. However Papi disagreed
with the basic premise of that film that handicapped people are better off
isolated in a society of their own. He found that thought too reactionary and
instead felt that handicapped people should, in fact, be assimilated as
normally as possible into mainstream society . . . His film was almost an
antithesis to the original film, within the same situation. (50)
Gulzar wishes disabled people to be treated like normal
human beings and not to be otherised, as Samira Sood in the article
“‘Koshish’—the nuanced 1972 film portrayed disability as just another aspect of
life” comments that the message of the movie is that “. . . someone’s
disability should be treated as just another aspect of their life, not ignored,
but not pitied, ridiculed or othered in any way. Their way of experiencing life
might be different, but their experience is in no way less.”Aarti and
Haricharan, played phenomenally by Jaya Bhaduri and Sanjeev Kumar respectively,
are the deaf and dumb protagonists of the movie. The movie essays how they
navigate through the crises of life because being disabled, life is little more
difficult to them than others. Since able-bodied people are the mainstream of
the society, its system, its notions are structured as per their convenience.
Such a society does not appear very congenial for disabled people who are on
the fringes of the society. But Gulzar is at his usual sensitive best as he
presents the story of two handicapped people, Aarti and Hari. They meet, fall
in love and marry each other. It is noteworthy that they find companionship in
each other, and not in able-bodied people.
The movie begins on a note of pungent criticism of the
preconceived notions of the superiority of ableism and an ableist society. The
opening scene shows some people engaged in gambling, smoking and abusing. One
of the characters there declares confidently that God has given tongue to
abuse. Soon we are introduced to the protagonists who suffer from speech and
hearing impairment. They cannot speak and are thus saved from misusing their
tongues. Here Gulzar establishes a contrast between the evil of the able-bodied
people and the goodness of the disabled people. This contrast is sustained
throughout the movie. According to Gulzar, disabled people are in a far better
position than able people as they are spared speaking and hearing evil. In this
context, one can quote Sawagata Chatterjee’s words in “Aesthetics of
Disability: The Growing Interest in Disability in Popular Hindi Cinema” where
she writes about Koshish, “The film for the first time presents
disability from a positive angle. It implies a disabled body can intermingle
successfully with the society. Unlike the traditional ideas, disability is not
a weakness but strength of having never been exposed to the corruption of the
society or to wrong hearing and wrong saying” (16).
Since Gulzar wants people with disability not to be
considered a pariah and sub-human, his characterisation of his protagonists is
fraught with positivity. Aarti is presented as a regular young girl who is
vivacious, jolly and not a girl who is moping around because of her physical
impairment. It is important to note that she insists to her mother to go for
the grocery shopping alone whereas her mother thinks Aarti will not be able to
buy anything due to her speech and hearing impairment. Aarti goes for grocery
shopping where she meets Haricharan. Both of them are at the shop and the
shopkeeper becomes exasperated as he has to deal with two deaf and dumb people
at the same time. This shows the typical way in which able-bodied people deal
with the disabled people. They instantly lose patience when faced to deal with
someone who functions in a little different way as Shilpa Das writes, “. . .
the disabled body is perceived as anomalous from and inferior to a culturally
valued ideal, opposite to the norm of able-bodied. Such somatocentrism communicates
a cultural ideal that considers the experiences of disabled people as abnormal,
alienating, and exclusionary, thereby devaluing their identity” (81).A very
important comment by Gulzar to foreground the apathy of the able people towards
such people is when Aarti’s mother says, “Yes, what else can these people
(disabled ones) do? Those who are able are busy with their own stuff. Who will
understand, who will listen to their silence?” (19:28-36) Shilpa Das rightly
avers, “. . . disability is not solely about the body. The locus of the
physical body is within a complex space that is intersected by a psychological
space and inhabited by society and culture at large. In fact, disability is
constructed by and within cultural contexts in terms of able-bodiedness, or
lack of it” (81). She further continues:
In this context, by considering people as “lack” or
“void,” ableist narratives ascribe a variety of cultural meanings and negative
values to the personhood of individuals with disabilities. The cultural
construction of such categories privilege and legitimize the lives of some
people (for example, those with so-called bodily autonomy) and invalidate
others (for example, people with physical or sensory impairments), and, over
time, insidiously make their way into our epistemologies. (81)
However, the movie chronicles the life story of two
handicapped people as how they lead a life much like a normal couple with each
other but in the midst of the ableist society. They carve a niche for
themselves in this very apathetic society dominated by ableism by triumphing
over numerous hurdles. Even their infant dies because of Aarti’s brother,
Kanu’s devilry but again they are blessed with an issue and live a happy life
with him. It is noteworthy that both the children of Aarti and Haricharan turn
out to be non-disabled. On the other hand, Haricharan’s boss and his wife who
are non-disabled beget a deaf and mute daughter! Thus, Gulzar makes the movie
so layered and throughout the movie he attempts to shatter the stereotyped
notions of the society and asserts the whimsicalities of life.
Coming back to Aarti, we see that she loves to whistle
(even though she cannot hear the whistling sound, the finger and mouth gesture
of whistling gives her joy) but the patriarchal society bars her from doing so
and deprives her even from her limited sources of enjoyment. She wants to
whistle when she is at the grocery shop after seeing Haricharan whistle but the
shopkeeper forbids her from doing so saying that girls do not whistle. Aarti’s
facial expression tells of her sadness of being a girl in a patriarchal society.
Soon after this, Aarti is eve-teased by two able men with fully functioning
bodies in the market whereas she is rescued by a disabled man, Haricharan. We
see that in the whole market, no one comes forward to save Aarti but Haricharan
becomes her saviour as the eve-teasers back off after seeing a man (even though
they do not know that he is a disabled man but in a patriarchal world, the very
presence of a man bears some weightage whereas for a woman, things are same if
she is able or disable!)The patriarchy which had, moments ago, dictated to Aarti
to be a non-whistling good girl lets loose of devils who misuse their
faculties.
One must take note of the fact that Aarti is empowered
through another disabled person, and not through any able-bodied person.
Haricharan shows immense care and sensitivity towards her and feels that she
should not remain uneducated due to her physical problem. Therefore, he enrolls
her at a school for people with special needs, the “Deaf and Dumb Institute.”
This institute is a ‘koshish’ (effort) of the authorities to help disabled ones
not lag behind and to be educated just as able people do. Gulzar seems to be
lauding such efforts of the government which aid handicapped people in
empowering them and treating them like non-disabled people. The teacher at the
institute remarks, “Such children should not be given much assistance. Never
pity them. Never make them feel that they lack something and that is why they
are being treated differently. Rather, the more they gel with able people, the
better. They should rather be given more freedom than able children”
(26:08-26:25). Her remarks are a call for change in the stereotyped culture
which considers such people inferior and a lack. She further adds very
encouraging words to Aarti’s mother who shows the typical concern as how Aarti
will commute alone between her home and the school, “Believe me Durgaji, they
don’t find it as difficult as we think. You let her try once . . .
“(26:30-26:39). Sandhya Limaye and Misa Kayama in the Introduction of the book Disability
as Diversity in India: Theory, Practice and Lived Experience comment a very
pertinent and true point in these words: “Able-bodied people think about
disability from their abled perspective. They may understand having severe
disabilities as unmanageable suffering, a life that is subject to constant
dependency and without value” (5).In fact, Aarti turns out to be more able
than people with so-called able bodies. She is presented doing household chores
and also running errands. She goes outside to run errands whereas her able-bodied
brother Kanu either whiles away his time or does illegal, immoral deeds. In
fact, in a metaphorical way, Kanu is the actual disabled man despite having a
well-functioning body because his values are warped—he is irresponsible,
fraudulent, frigid, a thief and a murderer of Aarti’s infant son. On the other
hand, Aarti is presented having no problem leading her life like a normal girl,
despite having some physical impairment which in the ableist society is
considered half-human, abnormal and an aberrance.
In a movie dealing with disability, Gulzar also presents
a love story—like any regular love story since it is Gulzar’s overt attempt not
to otherise people with some physical disability. Aarti and Haricharan are
attracted towards each other at their very first meeting. Their attraction,
desire and love grow gradually; they both burn in the flame of their nascent
love as their eloquent facial expressions express it in their second meeting.
Haricharan courts Aarti by waiting for her outside her school, and eventually
they tie the knot with each other, only to live a contented married life. Like
any non-disabled couple, they go to the sea beach, play pranks on others, and
even bicker after marriage. One never gets this feeling that one is watching
the love story of people who are handicapped. Swagata Chatterjee comments, “Koshish
is one of the earliest attempts of accepting the disabled within the
society and accepting them as a part of society, allowing them an independent
living” (15).
On the other hand, Hari is presented as an honest and
hardworking man. In his profession, he is more able than the so-called
able-bodied people and he achieves great heights of success because of his
these sterling features. In contrast to Kanu, he does an honest job to earn his
livelihood. The paper-agency gives Hari, a deaf and mute man, more papers to
deliver than his other colleagues. At the very beginning, this establishes his
ability to work which is better than those who do not have physical problems.
Throughout, he appears very successful in his various professions, and
ultimately overcomes a life of penury. On the other hand, Kanu’s character is a
big slap on the arrogance and false sense of grandeur of the able-bodied
people. His character turns the narrative of the superiority of ableism upside
down. Kanu has well functional body parts with no disability but he is full of
devilry. He uses his able-body for all the wrong and criminal things. Even his
mother curses him and wishes that he should have been deaf and mute instead of
Aarti, her daughter. Kanu is a disgrace to the grand narratives of the
able-bodiedness. He is a sore in his family and the society. He gambles, does
black marketing of the movie tickets and even steals from the disabled
protagonists. Not only this, he lacks even basic humanity as he lets Hari and
Aarti’s infant die in a night of thunder, lightning and torrential rain. He
abuses his able body so much that he ends up becoming a disabled man due to a
train accident which he deliberately chooses to escape the clutches of the
police. He loses one of his legs and becomes lame.
To emphasise that handicapped people are actually people
who are differently-abled and not less-abled, Gulzar presents an amazing
relationship angle in the movie—he presents an everlasting friendship between
the deaf and mute protagonists and a blind man named Narayan. All three lack
some faculty and yet they communicate and foster a beautiful relationship which
one can only marvel at. When Narayan is introduced, he is trying to cross a
busy road; nobody helps him but it is Aarti, a so-called disabled person who
helps him cross the road. Through this unique friendship of a triumvir of
handicapped people, one understands that such people have a heightened sense of
things. Narayan stuns Aarti and Hari when he confirms from them if the sun is
setting. He tells them that he cannot see the light with his eyes, but he can
smell it, and he smiles at this compensation of God! Swagata Chatterjee says, “Koshish
presents an interesting relationship. The deaf and dumb couple finds
alliance with a blind man. They live together happily without any verbal
communication and only mutual understanding. The couple cannot understand the
words of the blind man Narayan whereas Narayan being blind fail to see the sign
language of Arti and Haricharan. Their silence is their communication”
(16).Time and again, Gulzar foregrounds that people with handicap can also live
among us harmoniously because they are ‘differently’ abled; they should be assimilated
into our society as they can manage their lives in a way, which might be
different from the ways of able ones. Such people use their other faculty with
a heightened sense. The words of a song in the movie echo this, “Lips of the
poor mother are desolate, / Her eyes are full of talks” (1:17:54 – 1:18:06). To
assert his belief that disability is not a hindrance, Gulzar brings in a superb
reference of the great English poet, John Milton who wrote even while being
blind. Milton wrote his magnum opus, Paradise Lost which consists of
twelve books while being blind! A world where people with disability are
considered lesser human beings makes it hard to believe it but as Hari’s son,
Amit declares the paradox while discussing Milton’s creativity in blindness that
one sees more in blindness and that one’s sixth sense becomes sharp in such a
condition.
Someshwar Sati and G.J.V. Prasad in the Introduction to Disability
in Translation: The Indian Experience write, “In society at large,
disability has yet to be recognised as a discursive political entity, remaining
for the most part associated with a medical condition” (2). Therefore, Koshish
makes a heartfelt, sensitive and a sensible appeal to humanise the
connotations of the very terms ‘disable’ and ‘disability ‘in our existing society.
The Urdu word ‘Koshish’ means ‘Try’, ‘Attempt,’ ‘Effort.’ When the film ends, a
very personal comment from the director-writer comes in half Urdu and half
English: “AND KOSHISH CONTINUES” (1:55:45) which explains the whole purpose of
the movie—that the attempt to humanise disabled people in the society
continues; that their struggle to live an inclusive life in the society
continues. The title of the movie highlights that the disabled people must be
internalised, accepted as normal human beings and not otherised. The movie
asserts that the disability also has a kind ability with which handicapped
people live a regular life in the ableist space.
Note: The quotations from the movie are translated by the
author.
Works Cited
Chatterjee, Swagata. “Aesthetics of
Disability: The Growing Interest in Disability in Popular Hindi Cinema.” Postscriptum:
An Interdisciplinary Journal of Literary Studies, vol. 1, 2016, pp. 11-21. Google
Scholar, postscriptum.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Swagata-chatterjee.pdf.
Accessed 30 April 2026.
Das, Shilpa. “Embodiment, Identity, and
Design for Disability.”Disability as Diversity in India: Theory, Practice
and Lived Experience, edited by Sandhya Limaye, Christopher J. Johnstone,
and Misa Kayama, Routledge, 2024, pp. 81-96.
Ghosh, Nandini. “Introduction:Interrogating
Disability in India.” Interrogating Disability in India: Theory and Practice,
edited byby Nandini Ghosh, Springer, 2016, pp. 1-22.
Gulzar, Meghna. Because He Is.
HarperCollins, 2018.
Koshish.
Directed by Gulzar,1972. YouTube, 29 April 2026,
www.youtube.com/watch?v=3z4__3DKjqE.
Limaye, Sandhya,and Misa Kayama.
Introduction. Disability as Diversity in India: Theory, Practice and Lived
Experience, edited by Sandhya Limaye, Christopher J. Johnstone, and Misa
Kayama, Routledge, 2024, pp. 3-14.
Sati, Someshwar and G.J.V. Prasad.
Introduction. Disability in Translation: The Indian Experience, edited
by Someshwar Sati and G.J.V. Prasad, Routledge, 2020, pp. 1-24.
Siebers, Tobin. Introduction. Disability
Theory, by Tobin Siebers, University of Michigan Press, 2008, 1-33.
Sood, Samira.“‘Koshish’—the nuanced 1972 film
portrayed disability as just another aspect of life.”The Print, 10 Nov.
2019,theprint.in/feature/reel-take/koshish-the-nuanced-1972-film-portrayed-how-disability-is-just-another-aspect-of-life/318475/.
Accessed 29April 2026.