What Media Reviews of Sitaare Zameen Par Reveal About Disability Representation
Reframing Disability reflects on how the Indian media reviewed this magnum opus
Greetings from Bengaluru!
I’m happy to be back with the next edition of Reframing Disability – I hope you’ll enjoy reading it as much as I loved writing it.
When Sitaare Zameen Par released last month, it sparked a wave of reviews across Indian media—from major outlets like Times of India and NDTV to countless blogs and entertainment platforms. As much as I enjoyed watching the movie, I was wary of writing another review among the hundreds released for the film. But since Reframing Disability is all about media’s depiction of disability, I read, heard, and watched almost 20 reviews to examine how the media understands disability portrayal in films. Reframing Disability took a closer look at how reviewers framed the film’s central characters—adults with intellectual disabilities and autism—and the messages the film conveyed about inclusion.
Later, Aditi Sowmyanarayan from the team has jotted down her thoughts about the film. Hit reply to let us know what you think!
[Logo ID: On a bright purple background, two white hand illustrations form an open rectangular frame. Inside the frame, the words ‘Reframing Disability’ are written in white text, symbolising a fresh perspective on disability.]
What was done well
The Times of India’s review stands out for recognising that the film's core message is one of inclusivity for the right reasons. It applauds the film for showing that people with intellectual disabilities are “employable, independent, full of life, and deeply empathetic”. Even more importantly, it notes that disability is portrayed as one facet of the characters’ personalities, not reduced to struggles alone. This framing avoids flattening disabled characters into mere objects of pity or victims of their disability.
What could have been better
Despite the film’s progressive themes, several media reviews falter when it comes to language. Most of the characters have intellectual disabilities, and one has autism. While autism and intellectual disability can co-occur, they are not the same. In Indian law, especially after the 2016 Rights of Persons with Disabilities (RPWD) Act, these are listed as separate categories.
Lumping them all under intellectual disabilities may be inaccurate and obscures these distinctions. If audiences walk away thinking that “intellectually disabled,” and “autism” are interchangeable, it would feed into broader public confusion about what these terms mean—and the support and accommodations people actually need.
Even more concerning is the continued use of euphemistic or pitying terms like “specially abled” “differently abled” or “less fortunate,” which appeared in some reviews. These terms are outdated, ableist, and harmful. Calling someone “less fortunate” simply because they are intellectually disabled or autistic assumes a deficit where there may be none. It frames disability as a tragic state, instead of a human diversity. Similarly, the use of “high-functioning” vs “low-functioning” for autistic people should be replaced with low-support needs and high-support needs.
The moral science debate
Some reviewers criticised the film’s messaging as overly didactic, pointing to the character of Kartar Singh as someone who “expounds” too much. I agree that this critique holds weight in terms of storytelling craft. Audiences don’t enjoy being spoon-fed moral lessons, and it isn’t fair to assume their incompetence in understanding the diversity of disabilities.
But it also reveals a tension: how do we make sure the message of inclusion is understood without making it too complex or infantilising the audience?
So, the messaging may be necessary.
With the way disability has often been portrayed in cinema and popular culture, many viewers, especially in India, may not fully grasp, for example, why disability may not be a misery and a burden. So while the execution could have been subtler, the intent behind it is understandable—and I’d say even useful for educators and trainers in the disability space. Some of the examples Kartar Singh gives could serve as learning tools and I won’t be surprised to find trainers and consultants using it during their workshops.
Was it inspiration porn?
A final point that came up in some reviews was whether Sitaare Zameen Par fell into the trap of “inspiration porn”—a term used to describe portrayals that objectify disabled people for the benefit or emotional upliftment of non-disabled audiences. (Listen to Stella Young or read this issue to understand inspiration porn better).
In this film, Aamir Khan’s character, Gulshan, learns from and grows with the disabled characters he works with.
Did they inspire him because they were disabled?
Crucially, Gulshan coach’s learnings and growth are not framed as extraordinary because they come from a bunch of intellectually disabled and autistic folks.
It’s simply a human-to-human exchange. The fact that these characters are intellectually disabled is a part of who they are, but not the reason they inspire.
Additionally, the film’s gaze is not: look how amazing they are despite their disability. In that sense, and in my opinion, the film avoids the exploitative tropes often seen in inspiration porn.
One could argue that Gulshan could have had the same growth arc through interactions with any other group. The film shows that empathy and learning come from relationships, not just from observing or helping “the less fortunate.”
A step forward, but language matters
Sitaare Zameen Par is not perfect, but an important film in mainstream Indian cinema for how it centres intellectually disabled and autistic adults. But the way the media has reviewed the film reveals we still have way to go. Accurate terminology, respectful language, and a deeper understanding of disability are essential if we are to truly reframe how stories about disability are told, and received.
As media storytellers and critics, we can, and must do better. Representation is not just about who is on screen—but also about how we talk about them when the credits roll.
Aditi Sowmyanarayan, an award-winning author and non-speaking autistic wrote in a review for you’ll. Let us know what you think!
How Sitaare Zameen Par gets it right!
Often, the representation of disability in mainstream entertainment media is unidimensional, done with an intent to promote a narrative of pity, or provide slapstick comic relief. There are yet other instances where a person with a disability is depicted as someone who inspires, just by being there and leading a “productive life”. Guess what? None of these representations are accurate, for we, disabled people have multiple layers to our personality, and majority of us lead remarkably average lives, exactly like a majority of our non-disabled peers, with our fair share of ups and downs, successes and failures, joys and sorrows, and everything in between. And this is the representation that the movie ‘Sitaare Zameen Par’ gets right.
A remake of the Spanish movie, ‘Champions’, ‘Sitaare Zameen Par’ is the story of Gulshan Arora, a prickly basketball coach who bumps into a police car not once, but thrice, in an intoxicated state and as a punishment, is sent to coach young adults with autism and Down Syndrome for three months. A premise that promises lots of tear-jerker moments with a side of pity, you might say. Yet the movie is anything but that.
They say that humour is the most powerful medium to get hard messages across, and this movie is a testament to that. Through the course of the movie, Gulshan bonds with his basketball team, learns to question his own biases and grows as a person. Every single member of the team leads a productive life, be that as a parking lot assistant, professionally caring for animals, or working in a cafe. At no point in the film are the characters depicted as being ‘god’s own children’ devoid of vices. Instead, each of those characters is shown as human, with shades of grey.
Remember Golu? She struggles to tie her shoelaces, but insists on going out for a smoke. That’s her, sassy and unapologetic.
Or Hargovind, who is burdened by the injustice of losing a medal because the coach decides to get some players to fake an autism diagnosis?
Or even Guddu, who gauges the condescension behind being called ‘intelligent’? The characters are real and multidimensional, like real disabled people.
I was recently having a conversation with my therapist about why I perceive the ending of the movie as the only problematic part. Because I found that it depicts people with disabilities as not being competitive, but so kind-hearted that we rejoice in the victory of others, instead of being upset with our own failure.
My therapist had another perspective. She said that the team rejoiced about the fact that they actually got the opportunity to come this far, which, in reality, many people with disabilities are denied. A fair point, but one that makes me think about how skewed the odds are against disabled people. So much depends on where you're born, who you're born to, and whether the world around you is willing to include you.
I happen to lead an average life, where all aspects of my being – both negative and positive are acknowledged for what they are – because I happen to come from a family that is supportive of me, has the economic resources to support my dreams, and I live in a city where I can access all that I need in order to achieve my dreams. And these are the very same things that many people with disabilities do not have access to. We have progressive laws in our country that recognise disabled people as citizens with equal rights who can enjoy every privilege that any other citizen enjoys. Yet, when it comes to implementing these laws, we are nowhere close to achieving this objective. And this is where media representation can play a vital role of helping people question their own biases to move the needle ever so slightly towards a society that is truly equal for all.
Support Reframing Disability
If you like what Reframing Disability is doing for the community and if you can, please make a one-time payment of any amount or set up a custom or recurring monthly subscription through this link. If you use PayPal, pay to pritisalian@gmail.com. Hit reply if you want to pay through UPI, do a bank transfer or need an invoice. Find a list of other ways to support this newsletter.
Thanks for reading today’s issue. As always, share your thoughts by hitting reply or engaging with me on LinkedIn and Instagram. Reframing Disability has an Instagram account - follow and engage!
Until soon.
Warmly,
Priti