Bollywood has never been known for subtlety. It thrives on grand gestures, over-the-top emotions and a penchant for making even the simplest of stories into a full-blown spectacle. But when it comes to representing inclusion and disabilities, the industry has been stuck between progressive storytelling and outdated clichés.
For years, characters with disabilities were either tragic figures meant to evoke sympathy or inspirational icons designed to make everyone else feel good about their “normal” lives. But things are changing—slowly. More filmmakers are realizing that disabilities aren’t just a plot twist or a gimmick; they are real, lived experiences that deserve authenticity, respect, and, above all, proper representation.
So, let’s talk about Bollywood’s track record when it comes to special needs. We’ll break down the wins, the flops, and everything in between. And yes, we’ll call out the industry’s problematic storytelling while also giving credit where it’s due.
From Tragedy to Tokenism: Bollywood’s Disability Problem
Historically, Bollywood has had a very limited vocabulary when it comes to disabilities. The narratives have mostly fallen into three predictable categories:
- The Tragic Hero – This character exists solely to suffer. Their life is framed as miserable, and their disability is their biggest burden. Cue melancholic music and a whole lot of unnecessary crying.
- The Inspiration Craze – This one is a favorite. A person with a disability overcomes all odds, teaches the world a lesson about perseverance, and ends up making everyone around them feel “grateful for their own lives.” The focus isn’t on their journey but on how they inspire able-bodied people.
- The Magical Cure – Because Bollywood loves a happy ending, many films have conveniently “cured” disabilities by the end, completely erasing the reality of people who live with them every day.
Now, let’s talk about some films that tried to break these stereotypes—and some that reinforced them.
1. Barfi! (2012) – Silent but Not So Subtle
Barfi! is one of those films that Bollywood loves to flex as “progressive,” but let’s break it down—does it really do justice to disability representation, or is it just another case of romanticizing struggle?
Ranbir Kapoor plays Barfi, a deaf and mute man with the kind of charisma that could sell you a broken radio. He’s mischievous, full of life, and somehow always escaping trouble—because, in Bollywood, disabilities apparently come with a free-spirited, whimsical personality. While his portrayal is entertaining, it sometimes feels like his disability is being used as a quirky trait rather than an actual lived experience.
Then there’s Jhilmil, played by Priyanka Chopra, a woman with autism. And here’s where things get dicey. Priyanka’s performance was critically acclaimed, but her character? Borderline infantilized. Instead of portraying autism with complexity, the film paints Jhilmil as a childlike, innocent, and socially clueless woman who’s entirely dependent on Barfi. It’s like Bollywood went, “Hmm, let’s make her adorable so the audience feels for her!” rather than giving her autonomy.
Another problem? The movie treats Barfi and Jhilmil’s love story like it’s “more pure” than Shruti’s (Ileana D’Cruz) love for Barfi because, you know, disabled people can’t possibly have regular relationships, right? This whole “their love is childlike and innocent” trope is tired. Disabled people can have deep, complex, and even messy relationships—why does Bollywood keep watering them down?
And let’s not forget how the movie conveniently ignores the harsh realities of being deaf, mute, or autistic in India. The world is not as forgiving as Barfi’s cinematography makes it seem. The struggle? Downplayed. The discrimination? Barely touched upon.
So, is Barfi! a bad film? No. Is it a perfect example of disability representation? Also no. It’s visually stunning, the acting is strong, and it tries—but it’s still wrapped in the Bollywood tendency to make disabilities look aesthetic rather than authentic.
https://twitter.com/CinemaniaIndia/status/1605377764676313088?lang=ar
2. Taare Zameen Par (2007) – The School System Gets Schooled
Taare Zameen Par is Bollywood’s way of saying, “Hey, maybe calling your kid lazy for failing math isn’t the move.” And honestly? It needed to be said.
Meet Ishaan Awasthi, an imaginative, artistic, and painfully misunderstood child with dyslexia. But, of course, his teachers and parents don’t get it—they just think he’s “not trying hard enough.” The kid gets yelled at, punished, and ultimately shipped off to boarding school because, apparently, tough love is the only kind of love Indian parents understand.
Enter Nikumbh Sir (Aamir Khan), the teacher we all wish we had. He’s fun, creative, and—plot twist—actually recognizes that Ishaan isn’t “stupid,” he’s dyslexic. And suddenly, the movie turns into an emotional rescue mission. Nikumbh doesn’t just teach Ishaan how to read and write—he teaches an entire generation of Indian parents that may be screaming “bas aur mehnat kar!” isn’t the cure for a learning disability.
But here’s the thing—while the film does a phenomenal job highlighting dyslexia, it also leans into the classic “gifted disabled child” trope. Ishaan isn’t just dyslexic; he’s also a brilliant artist. Because, of course, in Bollywood, if you’re disabled, you better have a mind-blowing talent to compensate. Why couldn’t Ishaan just be an average kid with dyslexia? Why did he need to be extraordinary to be accepted?
Still, Taare Zameen Par was a wake-up call. It forced Indian families to recognize learning disabilities instead of brushing them off as laziness. Schools started talking about dyslexia. Parents started thinking twice before assuming their kid was just “slow.” And for that, this film deserves all the love.
It’s emotional, it’s impactful, and most importantly—it made a real-world difference. Now, if only Bollywood could stop making every disabled character a hidden genius, we’d be making even bigger progress.
3. Margarita with a Straw (2014) – Cerebral Palsy, But Make It Real
Now this is the kind of representation Bollywood should be aiming for. Margarita with a Straw doesn’t sugarcoat, doesn’t infantilize, and doesn’t turn disability into a sob story for abled audiences to “appreciate their own lives more.” Instead, it gives us Laila (Kalki Koechlin), a woman with cerebral palsy who is navigating college, relationships, and—wait for it—her sexuality. Groundbreaking.
Laila isn’t here to be your bechari disabled girl stereotype. She writes music, flirts, gets rejected, falls in love, and—gasp—has desires. Bollywood usually avoids putting disabled characters in romantic or sexual storylines because, for some reason, people act like disabled individuals don’t have hormones. But Margarita with a Straw dives right into it. Laila explores both heterosexual and homosexual relationships, questioning her own sexuality along the way. The film dares to show that people with disabilities aren’t just passive observers of love—they’re full participants.
Another win? Laila’s cerebral palsy isn’t her entire personality. Yes, she faces struggles—physical limitations, societal ignorance, her mother’s overprotectiveness—but she isn’t reduced to just those struggles. She gets drunk, makes mistakes, and breaks hearts. She’s real.
Now, let’s talk about the one problem—Kalki Koechlin, a fully able-bodied actress, plays Laila. And while her performance is phenomenal, it begs the question: why is Bollywood so hesitant to cast disabled actors in disabled roles? If representation is the goal, why not take it all the way?
Still, Margarita with a Straw is one of the rare Indian films that treats disability with nuance. No pity, no “look how inspiring she is” nonsense—just a real, flawed, multi-dimensional woman living her life. Bollywood, more of this, please.
4. My Name is Khan (2010) – Autism Meets Islamophobia
When Bollywood and disability representation collide, you usually get one of two things—either an overly dramatic sob story or a feel-good “inspiration” tale. But My Name is Khan? It dares to be something bigger. It doesn’t just focus on autism; it throws in Islamophobia, post-9/11 prejudice, and the whole “good Muslim vs. bad Muslim” narrative. That’s a lot for one film to carry, but does it pull it off? Mostly, yes.
Shah Rukh Khan plays Rizwan Khan, a man with Asperger’s Syndrome. He’s socially awkward, struggles with sarcasm, avoids eye contact, and has a deep obsession with repairing mechanical things. But despite his difficulties with emotional expression, he’s got one thing locked in—his sense of justice. Rizwan falls in love with Mandira (Kajol), a single mother, and life seems perfect… until a hate crime shatters their world. The death of Mandira’s son (because of his Muslim last name) sends Rizwan on a mission to tell the U.S. President: “My name is Khan, and I am not a terrorist.”
Now, let’s get into the good, the bad, and the Bollywood of it all.
- The Good: The movie acknowledges that people on the autism spectrum are often misunderstood, dismissed, and underestimated. SRK delivers a powerful performance, keeping Rizwan’s condition at the forefront without making him a caricature. Plus, Rizwan isn’t just reduced to his disability—he’s got goals, relationships, and a damn mission.
- The Bad: Bollywood loves exaggeration, and this film doesn’t escape that. While SRK nails a lot of the Asperger’s traits, some moments feel too scripted, too stereotyped—like the idea that every autistic person has a savant-like skill (in this case, Rizwan’s ability to fix anything mechanical). That’s not how autism works. Also, his journey across America? Unrealistic. But hey, it’s Bollywood.
- The Bollywood: The romance, the emotional dhamaaka, the overly dramatic moments—it’s all there. But somehow, My Name is Khan manages to keep its heart intact, delivering a story that resonates beyond just disability representation. It’s a critique of racism, a love story, and a portrayal of Asperger’s Syndrome all in one.
Does it get everything right? No. But it sparks a conversation, and sometimes, that’s the first step toward real change.
5. Guzaarish (2010) – The Tragedy of Tragedy Porn
Bollywood loves a good sob story, and Guzaarish said, “Why stop at one tragedy when we can pile on ten?” This film serves up a cocktail of disability, euthanasia, lost love, and suffering—all drenched in Sanjay Leela Bhansali’s signature aesthetic misery. But here’s the real question: Does it actually do justice to disability representation, or does it just romanticize suffering for dramatic effect?
Ethan Mascarenhas (Hrithik Roshan) is a former magician turned quadriplegic after a tragic accident. He’s paralyzed from the neck down, but the real kicker? He wants to end his life through euthanasia. That’s the film’s entire plot—Ethan fighting a legal battle for the right to die. Now, the right to die with dignity is a real issue, and disability rights activists have long debated it. But the way Guzaarish handles it? Questionable.
Let’s talk about the problems.
First, the film leans hard into the whole “life as a disabled person is unbearable” trope. Ethan isn’t given much room to exist beyond his suffering. His life is painted as tragic, his relationships are tragic, even his laughter feels like it’s meant to make us cry. And the worst part? His only option for agency is to end his own life. The movie barely explores how people with disabilities can live fulfilling, joyful, independent lives. Instead, it’s all about how miserable Ethan is, making euthanasia seem like the only logical step.
Then, there’s the Florence Nightingale Syndrome at play. Sofia (Aishwarya Rai), Ethan’s nurse, is completely devoted to him—because, of course, every disabled man in Bollywood needs a gorgeous woman taking care of him. And yes, their chemistry is intense, but at times, Sofia feels less like a person and more like a symbol of Ethan’s sacrifice-worthy suffering.
Now, let’s give credit where it’s due. Hrithik Roshan kills the role. His portrayal of a quadriplegic man is sensitive, nuanced, and emotionally powerful. And the film does touch on the real struggles of dependence, depression, and bodily autonomy. But does it really advocate for disability rights? Not quite. It’s more interested in making audiences weep than making them think.
Guzaarish isn’t a bad film—it’s beautifully shot, well-acted, and emotionally gripping. But when it comes to disability representation, it falls into the classic Bollywood trap: Tragedy sells, and disabled characters are often just a tool to break the audience’s heart.
6. Sadma (1983) – Retrograde Amnesia, or Just Bollywood Logic?
If you thought Bollywood’s take on disabilities was wild, wait till you hear about Sadma. This movie takes retrograde amnesia, throws it into a blender with misplaced romance, and serves up a piping-hot bowl of problematic storytelling. And yet—despite all its what-the-hell moments—it’s still considered a classic.
Here’s the setup: Nehalata (Sridevi) is a young woman who suffers a head injury in a car accident. The trauma causes retrograde amnesia, leaving her with the mental state of a six-year-old. So, naturally, the next step in her life is… getting sold to a brothel? Yep, Bollywood logic at its finest.
Enter Somu (Kamal Haasan), a kind-hearted schoolteacher who rescues her and takes care of her. And here’s where things get real dicey. Somu develops deep feelings for Nehalata—even though she mentally functions like a child. The film triesto frame this as a pure, innocent connection, but let’s be honest: the undertones are weird, and the power imbalance is glaring. Imagine if the genders were reversed—would anyone still call this a love story?
Now, onto the disability representation.
Sadma does a decent job of portraying the confusion and vulnerability that come with retrograde amnesia. Sridevi’s performance is stunning—she captures childlike innocence without turning it into a parody. But the movie never really explores what’s next for people with this condition. Instead, it milks her state for emotional manipulation.
The ending? Soul-crushing. (Spoiler alert!) Nehalata gets treated, regains her memories, and forgets everything about Somu. So when he desperately tries to remind her, she looks at him like he’s a total stranger and drives off. And that’s it. Roll credits. No follow-up on her recovery, no closure for Somu—just pure, undiluted heartbreak.
Look, Sadma is emotionally effective, but is it progressive? Not quite. It uses disability as a tragic plot device rather than something to explore with nuance. And honestly? The romantic angle is creepy. But because Sridevi and Kamal Haasan deliver performances of a lifetime, people are willing to overlook everything else.
So, is Sadma a good movie? Yes. But should we also talk about how bizarre its premise is? Absolutely.
7. Hichki (2018) – Taming Tics and Bollywood Fixations
Bollywood loves a good “teacher changes the lives of struggling students” story. Hichki takes that classic underdog trope and throws in Tourette syndrome to make it, well, different. But does it really do justice to Tourette’s, or does it just use it as an inspirational gimmick? Let’s talk.
Naina Mathur (Rani Mukerji) has Tourette syndrome, a neurological disorder that causes involuntary tics—sudden sounds, movements, or words. And like every teacher in every Bollywood film, she lands a job at a terrible school with impossible students. Predictably, they mock her, test her patience, and push her to the edge. But, because this is Bollywood, she turns it all around with the power of determination and kindness. Classic.
Now, let’s break this down.
On the plus side, Hichki puts Tourette syndrome front and center—something Indian audiences rarely see on screen. Rani Mukerji’s performance is solid, and the film actually makes an effort to show the struggles of living with Tourette’s. It doesn’t just treat it as a punchline (which, let’s be honest, Bollywood could have easily done).
But here’s the problem—the film still treats Tourette’s as something that needs to be overcome. There’s this underlying message of “Look, she’s so inspiring despite her condition!” rather than “She’s a great teacher, period.” This whole overcoming disability narrative gets tiring because, newsflash: disabilities aren’t obstacles to beat, they’re just part of who someone is.
Another issue? The focus drifts away from Naina’s condition and onto the “troubled kids” she’s trying to fix. By the second half, Hichki feels more like a typical teacher-student redemption story than a movie about a woman with Tourette’s. The syndrome becomes background noise—literally.
Final verdict? Hichki is well-intentioned, but still trapped in Bollywood’s tendency to make disabilities inspirational plot devices. It’s a feel-good movie, sure, but did it really move the needle on representation? Not as much as it could have.
8. Dosti (1964) – Friendship, But Make It Tragic
Bollywood in the ‘60s had one golden rule: if you’re disabled, life must suck. And Dosti? It takes that rule and runs with it. This movie isn’t just about disability—it’s about double disability, because why stop at one tragic backstory when you can have two?
Meet Ramu and Mohan, two boys who’ve been royally screwed over by life. Ramu is visually impaired, while Mohan has a crippled leg. Together, they form the ultimate bechara duo, busking on the streets, singing songs about how cruel the world is, and facing rejection at every turn. And let’s be real—the film does not hold back on making us feel bad for them. If there were an Olympic event for suffering, these boys would take home gold.
Now, let’s talk about representation.
For a 1964 film, Dosti was groundbreaking in the sense that it focused on disabled characters instead of making them sidekicks or comic relief. It showed their struggles, their resilience, and—most importantly—the blatant discrimination they faced. Society in the film isn’t just indifferent to Ramu and Mohan; it’s actively cruel. The movie makes sure you know that disabled people aren’t just ignored—they’re pushed aside. And, unfortunately, that still rings true today.
But here’s the problem—Dosti also leans way too hard into the “life is unbearable if you’re disabled” narrative. The film refuses to give Ramu and Mohan even one moment of normalcy or joy without yanking it away immediately. And don’t even think about romance—because according to Bollywood’s old-school logic, disabled people are only meant for suffering, not love.
That being said, Dosti was hugely influential. It was one of the rare films at the time that acknowledged disability in India, and it forced audiences to confront the brutal reality of exclusion. But did it do justice to disability as more than just suffering? Not really. It’s a tragedy marathon, and by the end, you’re just emotionally exhausted.
Final thoughts? Iconic, important, but drenched in misery. Bollywood has come a long way since, but Dosti remains a reminder of how disability was once viewed—as a life sentence, not just a part of life.
9. Paa (2009) – When Bollywood Meets Progeria
If you thought Bollywood would ever do a movie about a rare genetic disorder without throwing in family drama, political careers, and a secret baby, you clearly don’t know this industry. Paa took progeria—a condition that rapidly ages children—and turned it into a full-blown Amitabh Bachchan showcase. But does it actually do justice to the condition, or is it just a star vehicle with some medical jargon sprinkled in?
Let’s set the stage. Auro (Amitabh Bachchan) is a 12-year-old boy living with progeria, which makes him look five times his actual age. His mother, Vidya (Vidya Balan), is a strong, independent woman who raised him alone. Why? Because Auro’s father, Amol (Abhishek Bachchan—yes, Amitabh’s real-life son playing his on-screen father, don’t question it), is a politician who never knew he had a kid. And just like that, we have our Bollywood recipe:
✔ Rare disorder
✔ Secret parentage
✔ Emotional family reunions
✔ A lot of melodrama
Now, let’s talk about representation.
First, Amitabh Bachchan’s performance? Unreal. The man disappears into the role, and the prosthetic work is impressive. He captures Auro’s childlike innocence without making it caricaturish—which is a huge win, considering how Bollywood loves to exaggerate medical conditions.
But here’s the issue—Paa doesn’t really educate audiences on progeria. Sure, the film mentions the condition, but it’s more focused on Auro the person than Auro the patient. And while that’s refreshing (because, yes, disabled people are more than their conditions), it also means that the actual challenges of progeria—like health complications, mobility issues, and limited life expectancy—get pushed way into the background. The movie touches on them but doesn’t explore them.
Instead, Paa is more about father-son bonding than living with a disability. Auro is less of a realistic character and more of a symbol—his condition exists mainly to push Amol into being a better person. And that’s where Bollywood often misses the mark with representation—disability should be a part of the story, not just a tool to move the plot forward.
So, is Paa a good movie? Absolutely. Is it a good movie about progeria? Ehhh… it could’ve been better. But at least it wasn’t a sob story, and that alone is a step in the right direction.
10. Iqbal (2005) – Breaking Barriers, One Cricket Ball at a Time
Bollywood and cricket go together like chai and biscuits. But when you throw in a disabled protagonist? Now that’s a story worth telling. Iqbal is one of the few Bollywood films that actually gets disability representation right. No melodrama, no tragedy porn—just a boy, his dream, and a whole lot of determination.
Meet Iqbal (Shreyas Talpade), a deaf and mute teenager who lives for cricket. His dream? To play for the Indian national team. His reality? A father who thinks cricket is a waste of time, a system designed to exclude him, and a whole village that doubts his abilities. But does Iqbal let that stop him? Hell no. With the help of his sister (who acts as his interpreter) and a washed-up drunk coach (Naseeruddin Shah, in peak grumpy mentor mode), he fights his way up the cricket ranks.
Why does this movie work?
Because it doesn’t treat Iqbal’s disability as his biggest obstacle. His real struggles come from society’s attitudes, not his condition. The film makes it crystal clear—Iqbal’s talent is not the issue; it’s the world’s refusal to see beyond his disability. And that is where Bollywood usually fails. Too often, disabled characters are shown as inspirational heroes for simply existing, but Iqbal treats its protagonist like any other ambitious athlete—determined, skilled, and ready to fight for his place.
Another win? The relationship between Iqbal and his sister. Instead of making her his caretaker, the film portrays her as his biggest ally. She isn’t there to pity him—she’s there to push him forward. That’s the kind of support real disabled people need: not sympathy, but equal partnerships.
And let’s not forget that final moment—when Iqbal finally proves himself, breaking barriers in a sport (and an industry) that rarely makes room for people like him. That is what real representation looks like. It’s not about overcoming disability—it’s about showing that it was never the problem to begin with.
Final verdict? Iqbal is one of Bollywood’s best disability-centered films. No over-the-top sentimentality, no forced tragic ending—just a powerful story that says, talent speaks louder than words, even when you can’t.
Bollywood’s Big Blind Spots: What Needs to Change
While Bollywood has started to tell more stories about disabilities, it still has a long way to go. Here’s what the industry needs to fix:
- Authentic Casting: It’s 2025, and Bollywood still refuses to cast actors with disabilities. Representation isn’t just about the story; it’s about who gets to tell it.
- No More Magical Cures: Stop using miraculous recoveries as an easy way out. Disabilities don’t need to be “fixed” for a happy ending.
- Realistic Portrayals: Show disabilities in their full complexity, not just as a source of inspiration or suffering.
- More Disabled Voices in Filmmaking: Writers and directors with disabilities should be part of these stories, ensuring authenticity.
Bollywood has the power to shape mindsets, challenge biases, and push for inclusivity. The question is—will it step up, or will it keep playing the same old script?
For more such fun and intriguing articles, visit HerCampus at MUJ.
And for a tour in my corner at HCMUJ, visit Niamat Dhillon at HCMUJ!