Search

This viewpoint advocates for significant reforms in the disability certification guidelines for mental illnesses in India. Currently, two years duration of illness is required before certification, which delays essential support. The proposed model emphasizes assessing the functional impact of conditions, aligns with global standards, and suggests regular reassessments to improve accessibility and inclusivity in mental health services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This viewpoint advocates for significant reforms in the disability certification guidelines for mental illnesses in India. Currently, two years duration of illness is required before certification, which delays essential support. The proposed model emphasizes assessing the functional impact of conditions, aligns with global standards, and suggests regular reassessments to improve accessibility and inclusivity in mental health services.

On 28 December 2016, the Government of India passed a national disability act which for the first time recognised genetic blood disorders—thalassemia, sickle cell disease, and haemophilia—as disabilities, entitling affected individuals to affirmative action. While it was welcomed by patient communities, this policy decision also sowed seeds of collective anxieties regarding the assessment of the required degree of disability in affected individuals. Thirteen months later, a set of national guidelines were published that dictated the procedures for determining whether a patient meets this ‘benchmark disability’ standard, thus materialising the collective anxieties of blood disorder patient communities. Utilising ‘patchwork ethnography’ as a methodology, in this article I focus on haemoglobinopathy (thalassemia and sickle cell disease) patient communities in India to investigate the ‘certificate anxieties’ that stem from the difficulties of certifying disability percentage for those with genetic blood disorders. These anxieties arise from the tensions between a (bio)constitutional reordering of disability categories and the contestations of these categories, which are rooted in articulations of citizenship rights. I argue that such contested constitutionalisms give rise to productive tensions in State–(disabled) citizen relations that have the potential to realign institutions with citizens’ accounts of social justice.

Copyright of Maguaré is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Departamento de Antropologia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)