See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/331931105

Deaf Education in India

Chapter · February 2019

DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780190880514.003.0014

CITATIONS READS

3 5,570

2 authors:

Kalyani Mandke Prerna Chandekar

Mandke Hearing Services Columbia Asia Hospital, Pune, India
11 PUBLICATIONS   58 CITATIONS    1 PUBLICATION   3 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Kalyani Mandke on 23 February 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

DEAF EDUCATION BEYOND THE WESTERN WORLD

Context, Challenges, and Prospects

Edited by

Harry Knoors,

Maria Brons,

Marc Marschark

OXFORD University Press

February 2019
Deaf Education in India

Kalyani Mandke and Prerna Chandekar

India is a country with 1.34 billion inhabitants. It is characterized by tremendous diversity,

with eight major religions, over 500 ethnic groups with different values and beliefs, and
twenty-one officially recognized languages (780 dialects are spoken and eighty-six scripts are
used; People’s Linguistic Survey of India, 2015). When trying to support the deaf population,
all these variables create certain hurdles. One of the hurdles is that the educators of deaf and
hard-of-hearing (DHH) students in the country have always demonstrated two schools of
thought, one group with a strong oralist approach and the other promoting the use of sign
language in education. The bottom line of any educational approach should be the
empowerment of DHH students to be good citizens of the country. These two groups have
never created a mutual roadmap for the education of DHH students and have failed to discuss
with DHH children and adults their dreams and aspirations. Despite considerable efforts on
the part of DHH children and their families, and the support services offered by the
professionals that surround the DHH children, many of these children have great difficulties
producing and perceiving spoken language. Despite these hurdles, DHH individuals have
been making efforts to succeed, although some are finding it very difficult to reach their
destination. The challenges are multi -layered. DHH children were considered uneducable
because of their significantly delayed language development. They lived on charity, or joint
families took care of the DHH children, adolescents, and adults. For a long time, education of
the deaf was based on the charity model in the country. Education for the deaf in India has
been in existence from ancient times; there have been records where the deaf were a part of
Vedic ceremonies, but no known method of instruction for the deaf was described (Altekar,
1965). The first school for the deaf was started at Mazagaon, in the then Bombay Presidency,
in 1884 by a Roman Catholic mission. The Calcutta Deaf and Dumb School was established
in 1893, and the third school for the deaf was founded in 1896 in Palayamkottah in southern
India (Disability Status India, 2003). There were twenty-four schools for the deaf founded
and operational during the pre-independence time (before 1947). Most of these pre-
independence schools were private institutions; only a few of them were funded by the local
government. According to Banerjee (1928), the main method of communication that was
encouraged in these schools was an oral form of communication in regional languages. Sign
language was greatly discouraged in the pre-independence era for two reasons. First,
educationalists believed that it would hinder the development of speech and reading abilities,
since signs were thought of as being an easier substitute (Banerjee, 1928). Second, the signs
being used were intelligible only in the schools of origin. It is unclear how many DHH
children were receiving formal education before independence in India, although
Bhattacharya’s 1939 study showed that out of a deaf population of 230,895 reported in the
1931 census, only 882 were enrolled in the schools for the deaf. By 1966, there were 115
schools for students with a visual impairment, 70 schools for students with a hearing loss, 25
schools for students with an orthopedic disability, and 27 schools for students with an
intellectual disability (Aggarwal, 1994).

In 1948, the Constitution of India was framed, and the rights of persons with disabilities were
mentioned for the first time. Thereafter, several government departments in India undertook
the responsibility of offering programs for the education, training, and employment of people
with disabilities. Since then, services for the education of the deaf have been improved, but
still these services did not reach all.

Incidence and Prevalence of Hearing Loss

According to the Disability Census 2011, there are 26 million individuals with disabilities in
the country. The total number of DHH people is around 5 million. Hearing loss is the second
most common disability in the country, representing 18.9% of the disabled population. The
number of disabled persons is highest in the age group of 10 to 19 years. These are 4.6
million individuals with various types of disabilities, 20% of them DHH. There are 2 million
children with disabilities in the age group 0 to 6 years; 20% of them are DHH (Disabled
Persons in India: A Statistical Profile 2016, Chapter I, www.censusindia.gov.in). The
prevalence of a congenital hearing loss is 5.6 per 1,000 live births (Nagpoornima et al., 2007;
Vaid, Shanbhag, Nikam, & Biswas, 2009). Congenital hearing loss affects not only speech
and language development but also the affected person, the family, and society. Children
with hearing loss have a higher rate of not being enrolled in school, of lagging behind in
academics, and of dropping out of school within a few years. DHH people have a higher
unemployment rate, which affects their financial and social stability (World Bank, 2007). If
the sensory deficits in babies remain undetected or untreated, they will lead to a significant
handicap, ultimately affecting the person’s quality of life (Yoshinaga-Itano, Sedey, Coulter,
& Mehl, 1998).

Screening, Identification, and Early Intervention

Educators and speech and hearing professionals are aware of the benefits of early
identification and intervention, but in India hearing loss is not detected until rather late.
According to a report by the Rehabilitation Council of India (2000), the average age of
identification of children with severe to profound hearing loss is 5 years. Sirur (2012) did a
retrospective study of 510 DHH children born from 1989 to 2008 and found that the age of
suspicion of hearing loss decreased by 12 months, the age of identification by almost 28
months, and the age of educational intervention by 40 months. Mohammad Ansari (2014)
performed a retrospective survey of nearly 200 families of DHH children to obtain
information regarding early identification and intervention. The families reported the age of
suspicion of hearing loss as 16.5 months, the age of diagnosis as 24.3 months, fitting of
amplification around 31.7 months, and initiation of early intervention by 33.4 months. The
age of identification of hearing loss and age of intervention have in recent times been
reduced, but India still has a long way to go.

Universal new born hearing screening programs exist but are not implemented in a
consolidated manner. One of the major reasons is that 70% of India’s population lives in rural
areas (Census, 2011). There are still significant numbers of deliveries handled in sheltered
residences in those regions, and these babies do not receive any medical attention.

The Ministry of Health and Family Welfare launched a safe motherhood program in April
2005 with the objective of reducing maternal and neonatal mortality among poor women. The
program is implemented in all the states and union territories of India with a focus on the
low-performing states. Low-performing states were classified based on hospital delivery rate.
States having a hospital delivery rate of 25% or less were termed as low-performing states,
and those with a hospital delivery rate of over 25% were classified as high-performing states.
Nearly ten of the twenty-nine states and seven union territories in India have been working
toward the betterment of pregnant women by improving maternal and neonatal healthcare
(www.ilo.org/Janani Suraksha Yojana).

Over the past decade, there has been a remarkable increase in the use of organized health
services in the low-performing states, but these states are still not linked to programs for early
identification and intervention of disabilities. Hence, disability statistics are unavailable.

In 2007, the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare launched the National Program for
Prevention and Control of Deafness. The pilot phase was launched in ten states and one union
territory with the objective of reducing the high incidence of deafness in the country, in view
of the preventable nature of many cases. This program focuses on middle ear and inner ear
impairments. The program has expanded to 192 districts in twenty states and union
territories, and phased expansion to a further 200 districts is planned
(http://nhp.gov.in/national-program-for-prevention-and-control). Policymakers are eager to
develop early identification and intervention programs for DHH children across India.
Effective implementation of these programs may take quite a few years, however: it will be a
massive task to reach the 70% of the population that lives in rural India (India comprises 640
districts and 640,930 villages; www.censusindia.gov.in).

Professionals are aware that parents play an important role as resource persons. Various
organizations serving families with deaf children started their work in the 1960s and have
shown that parent partnership for early communication makes all the difference to the lives of
DHH children. These organizations believe that parents are the first educators in the child’s
life and they are partners of the teachers at school. Professionals show parents ways to turn
everyday situations and activities at home into a language lesson.

The Balvidyalaya School in Chennai in southern India has served as an excellent example to
many other organizations. The institute has developed a methodology called DHVANI (an
acronym for “Development of Hearing Voice and Natural Integration”; interestingly, Dhvani
also means “sound” in some of the Indian languages). DHVANI is an intensive language
program that uses best practices in early childhood education to help infants and young
children acquire age-appropriate skills in language and speech. DHVANI teaching-learning
materials are sequential and stimulate a holistic development of the child’s personality from
an early age on. These materials are available in English and two other regional languages in
India (www.balvidyalayaschool.org).
Currently, there are many nongovernmental organizations across India working to provide
early identification and early intervention. They strongly believe that parents should be the
partners of professionals in these intervention programs. Activities are located mostly in
urban areas. One other innovative way of developing parent networks in early intervention is
observed in a group called “V-connect” in Mumbai. The V-connect Foundation is a virtual
support group for parents of DHH children. Information is shared through social media. The
foundation was founded in 2007 by two parents of deaf children who are also practicing
professionals in the field of deaf education. Its purpose is to empower and to provide support
and guidance to parents of DHH children (www.voconnectfoundation.org).

Many nongovernmental organization run parent empowerment programs, but these programs
face challenges such as multilingualism, low literacy rate, unreached geographical areas, lack
of technological skills, and inadequately trained staff to empower the families. Despite these
challenges, India is making progress.

Two national institutions, the Ali Yavar Jung National Institute of Speech and Hearing
Disabilities (Divyangjan) (AYJNISHD(D)) and the All India Institute of Speech and Hearing
(AIISH), provide services for early identification and intervention. Screening neonates or
infants for hearing loss and providing them with appropriate interventions on a large scale in
India are their main objectives.

AYJNISHD(D), established in 1983, is an autonomous organization under the Ministry of

Empowerment of Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan). The institute aims to provide early
intervention to achieve integration and inclusive education by optimizing the use of residual
hearing. The institute runs a program that trains parents and children with hearing loss under
the age of 3 years. Around 151 toddlers were enrolled for the program in 2015–2016. For the
longer term, individualized instruction programs are designed for every child
(www.ayjnihh.nic.in).

AIISH was established in 1966 as an autonomous institute fully funded by the Ministry of
Health and Family Welfare. The Department of Prevention of Communication Disorders
conducts infant screening for hearing loss on a regular basis in the different hospitals attached
to it. In 2016–2017, out of a total of 29,360 newborn babies screened, 5,880 were found to be
at risk for communication disorders. Families from distant parts of India could access this
early intervention because free accommodation was provided starting in the 1970s by the
institute. Another arrangement for paid stay ($1/room) began in 2003
(www.aiishmysore.com).

Access to Technology Advances

Before starting any intervention program, a first step toward educating the deaf would be to
provide them with appropriate technology. The Indian government has launched programs to
provide the latest technology to DHH children at an early age so that they can be brought into
the mainstream without any further delay. Advanced digital hearing aids and cochlear
implants have been the preferred approaches for deaf children by professionals. Parents and
members of the extended family would take the responsibility of teaching a deaf child. This
sharing of responsibilities is well accepted in Indian families.

Supplying these technologies to deaf individuals is sometimes funded by the state or by the
central government, but most families buy their own hearing aids. The cost of buying,
maintaining, and replacing hearing aids every 4 to 5 years represents a financial burden. Like
many other services, therefore, only the middle and upper classes can afford early and
appropriate amplification. This is one of the main hurdles in practicing an oral approach to
deaf education. However, the Indian government is committed to supply economically
challenged families with aids and appliances at minimal costs. These requirements, which are
essential for the social, economic, and vocational rehabilitation of disabled persons, have
come into sharp focus, particularly after the enactment of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal
Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act of 1995. Because many DHH
adults and children live in rural areas below the poverty line, these individuals are deprived
of modern technologies.

One successful government program has been Assistance to Disabled Persons for Fitting of
Aids and Appliances, which provides DHH individuals with suitable, durable, modern
hearing aids and appliances. This program, sponsored by the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment, is implemented through various non-profit organizations. It has been in
existence for over 20 years and is updated every once in a while. Individuals who earn less
than $230 a month receive 100% financial assistance to purchase government-approved
hearing aids. Those who earn $231 to $300 a month receive 50% financial support. Travel
costs to the hearing aid provider center are paid ($4 per visit, with no maximum number of
visits) because a visit to a center means losing a day’s wages. In the early years of the
program, beneficiaries received monaural pocket model/analog devices, but now they receive
entry-level digital hearing aids for both ears
(www.ayjnihh.nic.In, www.disabilityaffairs.gov.in).

There are many more people who need amplification devices but do not qualify for free
hearing aids for various reasons (e.g., not having a disability certificate, being unable to
document family income, or being unable to provide proof of residence in a particular
region). Various philanthropic agencies work tirelessly to reach out to deaf people to help
them acquire and maintain amplification, but this remains a huge task.

The Starkey Hearing Foundation in the United States is one the leading foundations working
in this field for the last 33 years. In 2008, the Starkey Hearing Foundation India division was
established. So far, this foundation has reached out to more than 100,000 beneficiaries in over
fifty cities in the country. The foundation is aiming to reach out to over 50,000 DHH
individuals across India level in the next 3 years. The group has developed a successful,
sustainable community-based model. Volunteers regularly visit various schools across the
country for follow-up. The foundation offers an aftercare program where troubleshooting,
repair, and maintenance of hearing aids is done on a regular basis. The foundation provides
the first year’s supply of batteries for free at the time of the hearing aid fitting, but after that,
the families need to obtain the batteries themselves. Many special schools provide free
batteries. The Starkey Foundation has also made progress in empowering families and
significant others to develop a language development program for DHH children (S. J. Pillai,
personal communication, May 1, 2017).

Educators, audiologists, and speech-language pathologists know that hearing aids are not the
answer for all types of hearing loss. The next stage in technology advancement is the use of
cochlear implants, which made their entry into India in the 1980s. So far, 20,000 DHH
children and adults have received cochlear implants (V. Pisharody, personal communication,
May 4, 2017). The number of children with implants and their age of implantation are
unknown because of lack of documentation. For a long time, cochlear implantation was a
self-funded program in the country, but in the past 5 years, seven state-level government
funding programs have been introduced. In 2005, the central government started to fund
cochlear implant programs for deaf children living below the poverty line. Currently, 2,520
DHH children are registered under this program; 929 of them have received implants
(www.ayjnihh.nic.in).
Challenges remain in the expansion of implant-related services. Implantation is essentially an
urban-centric service. The major limitation in implementing implantation successfully has
been the inadequate number of centers for post-implant intervention.

Challenges to Accessing Technology

Millions of deaf people lack access to technological devices. Many families are simply
unaware that such services exist. Poverty and illiteracy are a few of the reasons. Inadequate
information about medical treatment options and lack of financial resources may be the major
hurdles to reaching out these families. (Disability and poverty are closely related: while
disability causes poverty, it is also possible that poverty causes disability; Narsing Rao, 1990.
See the section “Poverty Associated with Disability” later in this chapter.) It is a significant
challenge to reach out to every DHH child in the interior areas of India to enable participation
in early identification and intervention programs.

The ratio of the number of beneficiaries and the approved funding for the supply of
instrumentation is always out of proportion. There is a huge backlog of hearing aid fittings,
and even if children receive appropriate hearing aid fittings, they still need a steady battery
supply. The lack of post-fitting guidance and counseling for the families makes hearing aids
less useful in developing age-appropriate listening skills. Families expect miracles after the
fitting of hearing aids, like environmental orientation to sound and development of expressive
language. If the desired result from amplification is not seen in 2 to 3 months, families may
discontinue the use of amplification. DHH children with good residual hearing, when
deprived of amplification, end up with significant sensory deprivation (Yoshinaga-Itano et
al., 1998).

Authorities need to resolve the issue of care and maintenance of technological hearing
devices with appropriate financial support and staffing if a successful aural-oral program is to
be provided.

Families may delay the decision to obtain a hearing aid for a long time, sometimes until the
child is 10 years old or more. Families then feel disheartened to learn that the benefit with
amplification at that age is mostly limited to awareness of sound and does not extend to the
comprehension of sound and speech. There are families who sincerely would like to try an
aural-oral approach, but they do not receive systematic guidance for training (Aggarwal,
1994). This is because of the lack of resource persons at village levels and the lack of
resource materials in their primary or local languages. In areas where special schools do not
exist (representing a large part of India), deaf children are placed in regular schools but do
not receive any oral-aural benefit in the schools. Two to three years later, as children lag in
their linguistic and academic skills, the families decide to have the child drop out of school.
Thus, the illiteracy rate of DHH children is rising.

There has been a strong belief among parents, educators, and policymakers that once DHH
children receive hearing aids, they can be enrolled in regular schools. The benefits were
considered twofold: deaf children would receive an age-appropriate regular academic
program through audition and there would be no need for special schools. Unfortunately, this
is not the reality, and a regular school placement of every DHH child is not the solution.

Inclusive Education

Education for the deaf has been a part of the Indian educational system since ancient times.
There was an acceptance of persons with disabilities into the community, and they were not
denied their rights. But, at that time, there were no documented ways and methods to include
children with disabilities completely into the education system. Inclusive education is a
system where equal opportunities and rights are given to children with disabilities to learn in
the regular educational settings.

In 1974, the Ministry of Welfare initiated the Integrated Education of Disabled Children
(IEDC) program to promote the integration and retention of students with disabilities into
regular schools. The IEDC program provided 100% funding for setting up resource centers,
training, and counseling for parents and for conducting surveys to assess children with
special needs. The program also provided books, uniforms, and allowance for transport,
among other benefits.

The National Policy on Education (NPE; Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1986)
and the Program of Action (1992) emphasize the need to integrate children with special needs
in regular schools. The objective, as stated in the NPE (1986), is “to integrate the physically
and mentally handicapped with general community as equal partners, to prepare them for
normal growth and to enable them to face life with courage and confidence” (World Bank,
2007, p. 58).
The IEDC program could not substantially increase the enrolment number of children with
disabilities, as it was a school-based program (Kumar & Kumar, 2007). The limited success
of the IEDC program led to a change in strategy from a school-based approach to a
composite area approach. In 1987, the Ministry of Human Resource Development in
association with UNICEF and the National Council of Educational Research and Training
launched the Project for Integrated Education for the Disabled. In this approach, a group of
schools was selected in an area and had to share resources, equipment, and instructional
materials. This project also introduced a three-level teacher program that included a 5-day
orientation course focusing on sensitizing all teachers toward disabilities such as visual
impairment, hearing loss, physical impairment, and intellectual disability. The second-level
course was a 6-week intensive training course for 10% of the teachers. These teachers were
informed about detection, identification, and intervention strategies related to these four
disabilities. A 1-year multi-category training program, offered to eight to ten regular-school
teachers, was designed to empower them as resource persons for children with these
disabilities. The implementation of this program led to an increase in the enrollment of
children with sensory disabilities and a decrease in the number of dropouts as it was less
time-consuming and more cost-effective than the IECD scheme (Kumar & Kumar, 2007).

Inclusive education took a leap forward after the World Conference on Special Needs
Education in Salamanca in 1994 (UNESCO, 1994). The resulting Salamanca Statement was
adopted by several international organizations and countries, including India. There was a
global change in educational policies calling for inclusive education. The Salamanca
Statement emphasized that schools should accommodate all children regardless of their
physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic, or other conditions. Article 21 of the
Salamanca Statement states, Educational policies should take full account of individual
differences and situations. The importance of sign language as the medium of communication
among the deaf, for example, should be recognized and provision made to ensure that all deaf
persons have access to education in their national sign language. Owing to the particular
communication needs of deaf and deaf/blind persons, their education may be more suitably
provided in special schools or special classes and units in mainstream schools.

The landmark legislation in the history of special education in India was the Persons with
Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, enacted in
1995. Chapter V (Section 26), which deals with education, mentions that the appropriate
governments and the local authorities shall “ensure that every child with a disability has
access to free education in an appropriate environment till he attains the age of eighteen
years; local authorities will promote complete integration; setting up of special schools and
equip them with vocational training facilities.”

The Ministry of Human Resource Development presented a comprehensive plan in the House
of Parliament in 2005, emphasizing that all regular schools in the country would be made
disabled-friendly by 2020. Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) is India’s flagship program for the
timely achievement of Universalization of Elementary Education as mandated by the eighty-
sixth amendment to India’s constitution, which makes free and compulsory education to
children ages 6 to 14 years a fundamental right. SSA, which started in 2010, is being
implemented in partnership with state governments to cover the entire country and to address
the needs of 192 million children in 1.1 million habitations. SSA seeks to provide quality
elementary education, including life skills. SSA has a special focus on the education of girls
and children with special needs (www.ssa.nic.in). The SSA program has created a lot of
awareness about the needs of DHH learners among regular-school administrators.

The 2006 United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD)
covers educational rights for persons with disabilities in Article 24. The government of India,
being a signatory to this convention, has adopted the principles of this article and
incorporated them in the newly enacted Rights for Persons with Disability Act of 2016. The
third chapter in this Act covers the educational needs for inclusion for persons with
disabilities under three sections. It emphasizes reasonable accommodations (modifications or
adjustments made in the teaching-learning process of children with special needs) and the use
of appropriate means and modes of communication. Sections 17-C and 17-F of this chapter
acknowledge the use of sign language to teach DHH students. This is the first time sign
language was in some form legally acknowledged (Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 2016).

Challenges Faced in Implementing Inclusive Education

Since 1986, India has witnessed many developments in including children with disabilities
into mainstream schooling. Many of these reforms are still present. However, these policy
changes have come with their challenges.
Failure of Various Government Programs In 1983, Rane evaluated the IEDC program in
Maharashtra (one of the twenty-nine states of India). He reported that the lack of trained
teachers, equipment, educational materials, and orientation among regular school staff about
the problems of children with disabilities and their educational needs were major factors in
the failure of the program. A lack of coordination among the various departments to
implement the scheme was another major factor in the failure of the IEDC plan (Rane, 1983;
see also Azad, 1996; Pandey & Advani, 1997). Mani (1988) reported that by 1979–1980,
only 1,881 children from eighty-one schools across India had benefited from this program.

Due to its shortcomings, the IEDC program was revised in 1992 and “100% assistance”
became available to both government and nongovernment schools involved in the inclusion
of students with disabilities. Families of children with disabilities were given financial
support for books, stationery, school uniforms, transportation, and special equipment.

According to the most recent estimates, the IEDC is being implemented in twenty-six states
and union territories and is serving more than 53,000 students enrolled in 14,905 schools
(Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, 2000). Kerala (a state in southern India) has shown
remarkable success: the IEDC program is implemented in 4,487 schools in this state with
12,961 children being served (Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, 2000).

Inadequate Resources and Training

Limited resources such as instruments, access to technology, appropriate educational tools,

books, and other materials have been the ground-level reality for many years. It is
unfortunate that policymakers have not given serious thought to developing appropriate
curricula and educational materials for DHH children studying in regular and in special
schools. Children with limited language and reading skills are expected to study regular
textbooks in regular as well as in special schools.

There have been sporadic attempts to change this scenario. Suhrud Mandal, a
nongovernmental organization, has developed structured textbooks for first- to sixth-grade
DHH students in a local language to meet the needs of DHH children. Thirty-one books have
been published so far, and nine more books will be published in 2018–2019, so that DHH
students up to the seventh grade will have educational materials to meet their needs. The
published books have been distributed free of charge to one hundred sixty schools in the state
of Maharashtra over the past 2 years. Nearly 8,000 DHH students have received the benefits
of these books. The project has not expanded into the entire state of Maharashtra, where
nearly 20,000 DHH learners are studying in special schools because of lack of resources (see
also https://youtu.be/ar_zfnA18-M).

School buildings are designed poorly when it comes to the needs of deaf students, for
example with respect to acoustics. There are many issues related to accessibility to schools.
The central and state government should allocate adequate funding and devote greater
staffing to make inclusive education a success.

Another major challenge is that most of the teachers in the schools that adopt inclusion lack
formal training in handling the educational needs of children with disabilities, especially the
needs of DHH children. The universities, although they do cover some aspects of special
needs education in their teacher training programs, fail to train teachers adequately to work in
integrated settings. For example, there is a limited provision of information about practical
teaching strategies to teachers (Myreddi & Narayan, 2000). Also, placement of pre-service
teachers in special or regular schools is rarely given consideration (Jangira, Singh, & Yadav,
1995).

The current reforms by the National Council for Teacher Education, the major body
responsible for teacher education in the country, includes implementation of a course on
“Education of Children with Special Needs” as part of the Bachelor of Education program.
This is expected to bring about more understanding about the needs of children with
disabilities. However, it will take years until we see a positive change toward better inclusion
as a result of the change in this university program (www.ncte-india.org).

Poverty Associated with Disability

India is a fast-developing country with 1.34 billion inhabitants; it has the second largest
population in the world. In 2012, the Indian government stated that 22% of its population is
below the official poverty limit. This means about 276 million people live below the poverty
line, internationally set at $1.25 per day by the World Bank, based on purchasing power
parity basis (Poverty in India, 2012).
Most of the children with disabilities belong to families having incomes below the poverty
level. According to Rao (1990), in a country like India, poverty causes disability, and the
combination of poverty and disability results in a condition of “simultaneous deprivation.”
This is a major concern, resulting in lesser enrollment rates in schools. The Ministry of Rural
Development has funded and implemented various programs for poverty alleviation, and
there is an obligation to use 3% of these funds specifically for persons with disabilities
(Sharma, 2001). However, motivating poor families to send their child to school, with all the
associated costs, is proving to be a big challenge.

Attitudes and Public Education

Disability in India is considered to be the result of a person’s misdeeds in a previous life, a

belief that is observed in almost all of the religions in India. Therefore, many educational and
vocational institutions do not support the idea of inclusion of persons with disabilities
(Narsing Rao, 1990). Alur (2001) found in a study that disability in India is not seen as
something “normal” or “natural” but rather as an “evil eye.” It causes guilt, stigma, feelings
of loss, and low self-esteem, all exhibited by many families of children with disabilities. The
child becomes a social obstacle leading to shame and embarrassment. These feelings tend to
be paramount in such families. These attitudes can be attributed to poor knowledge about the
nature of the disability and the legislation passed by the government. People, including
parents and school personnel, are unaware of the full intent of the People with Disabilities
Act of 1995. There is some evidence that educators who are knowledgeable about
government policies and laws concerning inclusive education tend to have positive attitudes
toward implementing such programs. There is also evidence that when parents are
knowledgeable and supportive of inclusive education, they tend to have a positive effect on
school personnel (Sharma, 2001). Thus, unless parents of children with disabilities and
school personnel are made aware of the various provisions of the Persons with Disabilities
Act, the central and state governments’ commitment to providing inclusive education will be
in vain. Although some attempts are being made to disseminate information about the Act to
parents, government officials, and nongovernmental organizations (Sharma, 2001),
knowledge about the Act remains limited (Chatterjee, 2003).

Despite various efforts of the government to make inclusive education a reality, DHH
children have failed to make a head start in the regular education system. There exists a gap
in academic achievements. It appears that educators have failed to study the needs of
culturally and linguistically diverse DHH students. One of the strong advocates of these deaf
students, Dhun Adenwalla (1999), documented that the teachers’ strong preference for
oralism in deaf education has been the main method of communication, as this was
convenient and had a stronger appeal to parents. She further indicated that spoken language
was not the preferred method of communication by the Deaf community; member of this
community resorted to using signs among themselves. This pulse of sign language was never
perceived by the educators and the policymakers in the country until very recently.

Sign Language

The government has yet to legally recognize Indian Sign Language (ISL) as a formal
language, but the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 clearly addressed the
promotion of sign language. For quite some time, there was a strong common understanding
among educators and professionals that there was no language called ISL; rather, it was
considered a need-based collection of gestures. Not long ago, professionals supporting a
strong oral approach in deaf education believed that Indians would need to develop as many
sign languages as there were spoken languages in the country. According to these
professionals, sign language means transcribing the oral language into the signing system.
Vasishta (1975) has aptly stated in his article that sign language is used by over 1 million
deaf adults and by about 500,000 DHH children in India. Less than 5% of these DHH
children attend special schools for the deaf.

Despite the unquestioned existence of ISL varieties, little is known about their structure and
use. In 1928, Banerjee compared signs used in three schools in Bengal and concluded that the
signs used in each school were different. He stated that signing was already used among deaf
people in the eighteenth century, but its use was strongly discouraged as it was seen as a
hurdle to learning to read (Zeshan, Vasishta, & Sethna, 2005). Sign language has been
actively suppressed by educators of the deaf out of ignorance and unawareness about the
linguistic status of ISL and lack of knowledge of the language and its use.

An important study was done by Vasishta in 1975. He sent a questionnaire to 117 schools in
India and heads of these schools were asked to respond. Almost all the respondents stated
that there was no ISL and the signs used were merely gestures. Educators and professionals
involved in deaf education did not take any notice of this research. In the 1990s, Deshmukh
did another survey about ISL, and once again many respondents stated that it did not exist (as
quoted in Zeshan et al., 2005). Breakthrough work was done by Vasishta in close cooperation
with Woodward and Wilson (Vasishta, Woodward, & Wilson, 1978; Woodward, 1993), who
visited India and collected signs from four cities (Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay, and Bangalore).
They observed that ISL is indeed a language and is indigenous to the Indian subcontinent.
They found that it is not related to American Sign Language or to any of the European Sign
Languages. Furthermore, ISL a single entity throughout India. A uniform pattern of cognates
(words or signs in two languages that share a similar meaning and form) in ISL is observed
across India; these sign varieties have systematic variation in and between regions. The rate
of sign cognates within large cities is over 90%. There are around 95% sign cognates for
Bangalore and Delhi, while Calcutta has virtually only sign cognates (99%). Bombay seems
to have more internal variation than the other cities, since it has the lowest rate of cognates
(91%). These sign variants would not create problems for language standardization or
planning.

Woodward (1993), comparing India with neighboring countries Pakistan and Nepal, studied
cognates across sign language varieties in Karachi, Delhi, Bombay, Calcutta, and Bangalore,
finding that sign language varieties in India, Pakistan, and Nepal are distinct but closely
related language varieties that belong to the same sign language family. The sign language
variety used in Kathmandu is most closely related to the sign variety used in Delhi (71%),
followed by Karachi and Bombay (both 68%). The geographical extent of this subfamily of
sign languages that includes the sign language varieties of India, Pakistan, and Nepal is not
known (Woodward, 1993).

Jepson (1991) compared the use of ISL varieties in urban and rural areas (as stated before,
70% of the Indian population lives in rural India). In urban India, a unified and relatively
standardized sign language is used by members of the educated, middle-class Deaf
community. The rural deaf have no exposure to this urban form. (There are minimal
educational facilities for rural deaf individuals. Although there have been attempts to bring
improved educational opportunities and healthcare to the villages, such programs are
unfolding at a slow pace. Nonprofit organizations have been making attempts to establish
special schools for the deaf, but the reach of such schools has been minimal.) In such
situations, deaf individuals tend to use home-sign systems. Home-sign differs from both
spontaneous gestures and sign languages. The spontaneous gestures that hearing people
produce when they speak adhere to a structure that is determined by the speech that they
accompany (McNeill, 1987). Home-sign, in contrast, is structured independently of speech.
Home-sign exhibits many structural similarities to signed languages. However, the structure
of home-sign has evolved over only a single generation (i.e., the life of a single deaf
individual), and typically it is used in a very limited sociolinguistic community (the deaf
individual and family members). Home-signs are restricted to signs used with family
members, close friends, and coworkers. Many deaf individuals and their significant others
have been using home-signs for years together, especially if they grow up in hearing families
without receiving timely and formal input of ISL.

There is a pressing need for an ISL dictionary. Several regional dictionaries have been
produced since 1977, related to the Delhi ISL variety (Vasishta et al., 1980), the Mumbai
variety (Ghate et al., 1990; Roy et al., 1990; Vacha et al., 1980; Vasishta et al., 1986), the
Kolkata variety (Vasishta et al., 1987a), and the Bangalore variety (Vasishta et al., 1985). A
dictionary representing 1,830 words signed from forty-three cities and fourteen states across
India was created by Mani et al. (2001). But, all these dictionaries contain a mere list of
words with the representation of signs and glosses of spoken language without definitions
(Johnson & Johnson, 2008).

There have been attempts to develop and to promote ISL in different ways. The Ramakrishna
Mission Vivekananda University Department of Sign Language and Hearing Impairment
FDMSE and Sign Language unit embarked upon a unique project known as the Indian Sign
Language Development Project. In 2001, the project documented nearly 2,500 signs from
forty-two cities in twelve Indian states to provide a common sign language code all over
India. In 2009, this dictionary was made available on the
website www.indiansignlanguage.org. The dictionary is continuously updated with new
expressions and sentences. Another effective effort has been made by National Institute of
Speech and Hearing, which offers a free 6-week online course on ISL. The intention is to
familiarize teachers and parents with ISL (www.nish.ac.in).

The National Association for the Deaf and the Indian Sign Language Research and
Training Center

The Indian Sign Language Research and Training Center (ISLRTC) is an autonomous body
established by the Indian government in 2016 (www.disabilityaffairs.gov.in). ISLTRC was
set up due to the perseverance of the National Association for the Deaf (NAD). This
association and its Deaf members have tirelessly worked for their rights and the recognition
of sign language in India. After India achieved independence in 1947, a formal model of
planning to develop the agricultural and industrial sectors of the country was adapted.
Accordingly, the Planning Commission was established in 1950. In the Planning
Commission, blind people and people with motor disabilities were represented from the start,
but there was no representation from the Deaf community. With persistent efforts and
protests from the Disabled Rights Group and the NAD, the Planning Commission accepted
the request to include the Deaf community. A representative of the Deaf community joined
the Planning Commission in 2005.

The NAD had put forth five demands: the establishment of ISLTRC, the development of a
formal pool of ISL interpreters, provision of subtitles in all electronic media, the
establishment of colleges for the deaf in various regions in India, and the extension of special
education to the twelfth grade across India. The members of NAD kept on pressing these
demands from 2007 to 2009. The Planning Commission expressed its inability to fulfill all
five demands, so members were asked to submit only one demand. The NAD
overwhelmingly decided to give priority to the establishment of ISLRTC. The main objective
of the center is to develop staffing for using, teaching, and conducting research in ISL
(www.nadindia.org).

The finance ministry allocated the budget for ISLRTC. Initially, the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment delegated this work to the Indira Gandhi National Open University
in New Delhi, but later it was proposed to delegate this work under the flagship of Ali Yavar
Jung National Institute for Hearing Disabilities in Mumbai. The NAD and its members kept
on pressing for an autonomous status of ISLRTC, and in 2015 the Ministry gave in and
ISLRTC became autonomous (www.nadindia.org). Currently, ISLRTC is finalizing a large
ISL dictionary. This will be released in print form and video form and will contain terms in
both English and Hindi. So far, it has covered 6,032 words. The dictionary contains 1,904
everyday words, 1,010 legal terms, 1,205 academic terms, 977 medical terms, and 936
technical terms (www.isltrc.com).

Bilingual Deaf Education

How can we best promote literacy skills in DHH children? There is no significant
information available resulting from measuring the literacy skills of the deaf in India, but
informal observations indicate that DHH children may have to wait several years to reach a
satisfactory level of literacy; sometimes that level is not attained. A bilingual approach to
deaf education may result in improved achievement. The bilingualism approach has been in
practice in a few special schools. One of them, the St. Louis Institute for the Deaf and the
Blind in southern India, made steady progress in educating DHH children, and in 1993, the
school was made the first college for the deaf in India and the second one in Asia
(stlouisdeafblindadyar.org). The college offers two undergraduate courses, in commerce and
in computer science. The medium of instruction for these courses is English and Tamil (one
of the regional languages in southern India). The college, which was started with 13 students
in 1993, has grown to the present number of 120 students.

Currently, there are six institutes in the country offering undergraduate programs to DHH
students. For a vast country like India, six undergraduate courses will not change the lives of
most DHH individuals, but these institutes set a good example for future initiatives to
establish college-based educational opportunities for DHH students.

Only a few regular and special schools have adopted a bilingual approach to the education of
DHH students. There is a need to develop guidelines for bilingual deaf education. Changing
the mindset of families and educators will be another obstacle to be overcome. Everybody
associated with deaf education needs to understand that academic success will largely depend
upon the reading and writing skills in DHH students’ second language, which may be any
local or regional language. It is disappointing that in a country like India, with
multilingualism as the foundation of its cultural diversity, a bilingual approach in deaf
education is so underdeveloped, but a long tradition of oral education and a strong emphasis
on medical approaches to deafness have not been helpful in this respect.

Teacher Training

Continuous efforts have been made by the Indian government in educational rehabilitation,
starting from the International Year for Disabled Persons in 1981. The government decided to
set up the Rehabilitation Council of India (RCI). RCI was established in 1992 as a statutory
body under the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and is responsible for teacher
training policies, standardization of training courses, recognition of training courses, and
accreditation of institutions for the training of teachers. It also maintains a registry of
professionals. RCI requires every teacher to be registered by the Council and states that every
child with a disability has the right to be taught by a qualified teacher. RCI has developed
various guidelines for teacher development training programs as well as curricula to meet the
needs of various disability areas. RCI has recognized professional courses in the area of
deafness leading to diplomas, degrees, and postgraduate degrees in special education. There
is also one dedicated diploma program in early childhood special education and a diploma in
ISL interpreting.

The primary purpose of RCI is to accelerate and diversify human resource development in
such a way that rehabilitation and education reach every DHH child or adult. The need is not
only to have sizable numbers of professionals who can meet the requirements in professional
settings but a force that can adapt itself to the emerging situation of inclusion. The need is
also to ensure a high caliber of teaching forces and their ready availability to meet the
demand (Panda, 1997).

Future Prospects

Various legislation initiatives and educational policies have promoted inclusive education for
DHH students in India for nearly 40 years, but deaf education has always been disengaged to
some extent from the regular education system. Various factors have had an impact on the
poor academic performance of DHH students. Research into this performance and the factors
involved is urgently needed in India since low academic performance has resulted in poor
employability, low wages, and a suboptimal quality of life. The time has come to think
differently about rehabilitation and education of DHH children and adults. Early
identification and early intervention is one of the keys to success. There is a need to
implement universal new born hearing screening programs in the country. However, there
will be inevitable hiccups to implement these programs in a vast country like India.

Until that time, there may be parallel education programs for DHH students. Those who
make a head start should have the opportunity to study in inclusive education programs, but
those who are late entrants in education should be placed in special schools, where they will
spend the first few foundational years. These latter placements will give comfort to late-
identified DHH children, who will be able to develop a sense of identity and belonging.
These children and adolescents will have opportunities to participate in sports and other
activities, which will support their empowerment. With the progress they make, these DHH
students may eventually be included in regular school programs. To accomplish this, there is
an urgent need to have two-way communication between regular and special schools.

The Persons with Disabilities Act of 1995 (Chapter V, Section 26-C) states that special
schools must be set up by the government and the private sector for those who need special
education in such a way that children with disabilities living in any part of the country have
access to them. Section 27 addresses topics such as vocational training, functional literacy
programs, and open schools. But, in the past 20 years, no systematic program has evolved.
One of the major limitations has been the poor dialogue between two ministries. The Persons
with Disabilities Act of 1995 and the Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act of 2016 are
implemented by the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, whereas inclusive
education is the responsibility of the Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Consequently, special schools and regular schools (subject to different laws and different
ministries) are not really engaged in dialogues. The educational placement of DHH children
has been parents’ decision, and most of the time it has been based on geographical location
and easy accessibility to the school and not on the needs and competencies of the children.

While discussing educational placement, we need to discuss the method of communication.

All the options must be available so parents can select appropriately. Bilingual education
should be the preferred approach for DHH children, and a systematic program of bilingual
education should be developed, which may be implemented across India.

The UNCRPD has acknowledged the place of sign language in educational rehabilitation
programs for DHH children, resulting in significant pressure by the Deaf community. The
NAD has worked hard to achieve official recognition of ISL and has already been successful
in gaining an autonomous status for the ISLRTC. There is, therefore, room for optimism that
a bilingual approach will eventually be the preferred approach for educating DHH children.
The Deaf community in India will reach their goal and the Indian government’s policies to
accomplish compliance with the UNCRPD will bring a true change in the lives of DHH
people by 2030.

References :
Adenwalla, D. D. (1999). Education of the deaf in India. In W. H. Brelje (Ed.), Global
perspectives on the education of the deaf in selected countries (pp. 181–189). Hillsboro, OR:
Butte Publications.

Aggarwal, R. (1994). India. In K. Mazurck & M. A. Winzer (Eds.), Comparative studies in

special education (pp. 179–203). Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Ali Yavar Jung National Institute of Speech and Hearing Disabilities. Retrieved on
September 24, 2017, from www.ayjnihh.nic.in

Altekar, A. S. (1965). Education in ancient India (6th ed.). Varanasi:Nand Kishore.

Alur, M. (2001). Inclusion in the Indian context. Humanscape, 8(6), 1–8.

Ansari, Mohammad Shamim. (2014) Assessing parental role as resource persons in achieving
goals of early detection and intervention for children with hearing impairment. Disability,
CBR and Inclusive Development (DCID), 25(4), 85–98.

Azad, Y. A. (1996). Integration of disabled in common schools: A survey study of IEDC in

the country. New Delhi: National Council of Educational Research and Training.

Balvidyalaya School. Retrieved on August 10, 2017, from www.balvidyalayaschool.org

Banerjee, H. C. (1928). The sign language of deaf-mutes. Indian Journal of Psychology, 3,

69–87.

Bhattacharya, K. (1939). A statistical survey of the education of the infirm in India. Journal
of the Department of Letters, University of Calcutta, 1–56.

Census of India. (2011). Report on disability. www.censusindia.gov.in

Chatterjee, G. (2003). The global movement for inclusive education. Retrieved

from http://www.indiatogether.org/2003/apr/edu-inclusive.htm

Disability Status India. (2003). Rehabilitation Council of India. Publication 2003, 75–196.
Hearing impairment. Retrieved May 19, 2017,
from http://www.rehabcouncil.nic.in/writereaddata/hi.pdf
Disabled Persons in India: A Statistical Profile. (2016). Retrieved August 13, 2017,
from http://www.mospi.gov.in

Ghate, P., Sunder, S., Maricar, A., & Bhatnager, S. 1990. An introduction to the signing
system for Indian Languages, part II—Additional signs. Bombay: Ali Yavar Jung National
Institute for the Hearing Handicapped.

Government of India. (1995). Persons with Disabilities Act. New Delhi: Government of
India, Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment.

Indian Sign Language Dictionary. Retrieved February 25, 2017,

from www.indiansignlangauage.org

Janani Suraksha Yojana. Retrieved August 4, 2017, from www.ilo.org

Jangira, N. K., Singh, A., & Yadav, S. K. (1995). Teacher policy, training needs and
perceived status of teachers. Indian Educational Review, 30(1), 113–122.

Jepson, J. (1991). Urban and rural sign language in India. Language and Society, 20, 37–57.

Johnson, J. E., & Johnson J. R. (2008). Assessment of regional language varieties in Indian
Sign Language. SIL International, SIL Electronic Survey Report.

Kumar, S., & Kumar, K. (2007). Inclusive education in India. Electronic Journal for Inclusive
Education, 2(2).

Mani, M. N. G. (2001). Inclusive education in the Indian context. Coimbatore: International

Human Resource Development for the Disabled.

Mani, M., Gopalakrishnan, V., & Amaresh, G. (2001). Indian Sign Language dictionary.
Coimbatore, India: Sri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalaya Printing Press.

Mani, R. (1988). Physically handicapped in India. Delhi: Ashish Publishing House.

McNeill, D. (1987). Psycholinguistics: A new approach. New York: Harper & Row.

Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1986). National policy of education. New Delhi:
Government of India. Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2005). Action plan for the
inclusive education of children and youth with disabilities. Available
from http://www.education.nic.in

Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. (2000). India 2000: A reference annual. New
Delhi: Publication Division.

Ministry of Law and Justice. (2016). The rights of persons with Disabilities Act. Government
of India. Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. Department of Empowerment of
Persons with Disabilities (Divyangjan). Retrieved May 1, 2017,
from www.disabilityaffairs.gov.in

Myreddi, V., & Narayan, J. (2000). Preparation of special education teachers: Present status
and future trends. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 10(1), 1–8.

Nagapoornima, P., Ramesh, A., Srilakshmi, P., Rao, S., Patricia, P.L., Gore, M., Dominic,
M., & Swarnarekha, B. (2007). Universal hearing screening. Bangalore: St. John’s Medical
College Hospital.

Narsing Rao, M. (1990). Integrating the disabled—A reality? Indian Journal of Social Work,
51(1), 149–157.

National Association for the Deaf (NAD). Retrieved March 10, 2017,
from www.nadindia.org

National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE). Retrieved September 24, 2017,
from www.ncte-india.org

National Institute of Speech and Hearing. Retrieved September 15, 2017,

from www.nish.ac.in

National Policy on Education. (1986). Ministry of Human Resource Development. Retrieved

from http://www.education.nic.in/policy/npe86-mod92.pdf

National Program for Prevention and Control of Deafness. Retrieved August 4, 2017,
fromhttp://nhp.gov.in/national-prog-for-preandcontrol.Pdf
Oral School for Deaf Children. Retrieved on August 13, 2017, from www.theoralschool.in

Panda, K. C. (1997). Education for exceptional children. New Delhi: Mittal Publications.

Pandey, R. S., & Advani, L. (1997). Perspectives in disability and rehabilitation. New Delhi:
Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd.

People’s Linguistic Survey of India. (2015). Retrieved May 20, 2017,

from http://www.peopleslinguisticsurvey.org/ or www.bhashareseawww.bhasharesearch.org/
peoples-linguistic-survey-of-indiarch.org/peoples-linguistic-survey-of-india

Poverty in India. (2012). Retrieved May 21, 2017,

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India

Ramakrishna Mission Vivekananda University, Department of Sign Language and Hearing

Impairment FDMSE and Sign Language unit. Retrieved February 19, 2017,
from www.indiansignlangauage.org

Rane, A. (1983). An evaluation of the scheme of integrated education for handicapped

children based on a study of the working of scheme in Maharashtra. Bombay: Unit for Child
and Youth Research, Tata Institute of Social Sciences.

Rehabilitation Council of India. (2000). Status of disability in India, p. 445.

Roy, R., Rathna, N., Ghate, P., Sethna, M., & Tembe, A. (1990). An introduction to the
signing system for Indian languages. ISS/ ISL UNICEF—NIHH Project, 1987–1990.
Bombay: Ali Yavar Jung National Institute for the Hearing Handicapped.

Sharma, B. L. (2001). United Nations expert group meeting on disability-sensitive policy and
programme monitoring and evaluation: Country paper—India. New York: UNHQ.

Sharma, U. (2001). The attitudes and concerns of school principals and teachers regarding the
integration of students with disabilities into regular schools in India. Unpublished PhD thesis,
University of Melbourne.

Sirur, G. (2012). Age-related trends in suspicion, identification and educational intervention

of children with hearing impairment in special schools and their relationship with receptive
language skills. Unpublished doctoral thesis, Maharashtra University of Health sciences,
Nashik, India.

St. Louis Institute for the Deaf and the Blind. Retrieved on August 15, 2017,
from www.stlouisdeafblindadyar.orgblindadyar.org UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca
statement and framework for action on special needs education. Madrid: UNESCO/Ministry
of Education and Science. V-connect Foundation. Retrieved on August 13, 2017,
from www.vconnectfoundation.org

Vacha, B., Ghate, R., Banerji, M., Nanavat, B., & Gakhale, M. (1980). Talking hands: Sign
language book. West Germany: Christoffel Blinden Mission.

Vaid, N., Shanbhag, J., Nikam, R., & Biswas, A. (2009). Neonatal hearing screening—the
Indian experience. Cochlear Implants International, 10(1), 111–114.

Vasishta, M. (1975). Pilot project for a comprehensive study of sign languages of India.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet College.

Vasishta, M., Woodward, J., & DeSantis, S. (1980). An introduction to Indian Sign
Language: Focus on Delhi (3rd ed.). New Delhi: All India Federation for the Deaf.

Vasishta, M., Woodward, J., & DeSantis, S. (1985). An introduction to the Bangalore variety
of Indian Sign Language. GRI Monograph Series 4. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Vasishta, M., Woodward, J., & DeSantis, S. (1986). An introduction to the Bombay variety
of Indian Sign Language. GRI Monograph Series 5. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Vasishta, M., Woodward, J., & DeSantis, S. (1987). An introduction to the Calcutta variety of
Indian Sign Language. GRI Monograph Series 6. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University.

Vasishta, M. M., Woodward, J., & Wilson, K. (1978). Sign language in India: Regional
variation within the Deaf population. Indian Journal of Applied Linguistics, IV(2), 1–13.

Woodward, J. C. (1993). The relationship of sign language varieties in India, Pakistan, and
Nepal. Sign Language Studies, 22(78), 15–22.
 World Bank. (2007). People with disabilities in India: From commitments to outcomes. New
Delhi: Human Development Unit, South Asia Region.

Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., Coulter, D. K., & Mehl, A. L. (1998). Language of early-
and later-identified children with hearing loss. Pediatrics, 102(5), 1161–1171.

Zeshan, U., Vasishta, M. M., & Sethna, M. (2005). Implementation of Indian Sign Language
in educational settings. Asia Pacific Disability Rehabilitation Journal, 16(2), 16–40. 15"

View publication stats