Merit is often viewed as an individual achievement, an amalgamation of talent, effort, and determination. These qualities, however, do not develop in a vacuum; they are shaped, consciously and unconsciously, by several factors, including access to education, social support, and institutional support that contribute to people’s success. For persons with disabilities, the question is not simply whether they have the ability to succeed, but whether they are given a fair chance to do so at all. ‘Merit’, in this case, determines not just how far a person can go, but also where they start from.

Research undertaken by the Inclusion Axis Foundation (IAF) on inclusion in higher education for persons with disabilities, and on the challenges faced by women with disabilities in education and employment, highlights the gaps between equity, formal equality, and access to opportunities. The key findings of two papers published by IAF complicate the central assumption that the concept of meritocracy rests upon: that the starting point for each individual is the same.

Women with disabilities begin experiencing exclusion long before they have the opportunity to apply to university. Young women face several barriers, beginning with schools that are seldom willing to give them their rightful place in the classroom, inadequate and unsafe transport facilities, safety concerns, and, most importantly, stigma and gendered caregiving norms that disproportionately impact them. Our research also throws light on how a household’s economic and social priorities determine whose education is prioritised, with women with disabilities often remaining at the periphery of these priorities.

IAF’s white paper, titled Education and Employment: Closing the Gap for Women with Disabilities, examines how gender and disability, along with patriarchy and ableism, create barriers that affect women’s early education, limiting their choices in higher education and employment. It therefore becomes important to recognise that a student who has access to holistic education and employment opportunities, unmarred by gender-based barriers, does not share an equitable footing with someone who experiences multiple layers of marginalisation. Hence, merit should not be assessed through a one-dimensional definition.

The Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act, 2016, mandates a 5 per cent reservation for persons with benchmark disabilities in central and state government higher education institutions. However, data collected from these institutions have consistently shown that a legal mandate alone cannot guarantee implementation, and hence, inclusion.

Another of IAF’s white papers, titled Beyond Reservation: Disability Inclusion in Higher Education, cites data from the All India Survey on Higher Education (AISHE), an annual survey conducted by NITI Aayog and the Ministry of Education. It shows that enrolment of students with disabilities reached 92,831 in 2019–20 before falling to 79,035 in 2020–21. In 2020–21, female students with disabilities accounted for 29,701 enrolments, representing 0.15 per cent of the total female enrolment.

An analysis of AISHE 2020–21 state-wise enrolment and course out-turn data reveals that, on average, only 12 per cent of enrolled students with disabilities completed their courses across the states examined. This estimate is based on available data and should be interpreted with the underlying data’s limitations in mind.

However, these figures make one thing clear: gaining admission does not equal inclusion. Students may find their way into higher education institutions and still face challenges related to inaccessible environments and learning materials, as well as inadequate institutional support. On the other hand, a large number of students with disabilities continue to be excluded from the prospect of pursuing higher education altogether. A policy, therefore, can open the door. It cannot, on its own, ensure compliance.

Even if a person is able to complete their education, the barriers faced by women with disabilities do not end there. For them, the transition from education to employment remains marred by several challenges. Education does not always guarantee skill development. A lack of access to adequate internship and apprenticeship opportunities, limited career guidance, discrimination in hiring practices, and inadequate accommodations narrow their chances of building a career, even before they have the opportunity to do so.

IAF’s research on women with disabilities also highlights a significant data problem. Employment figures may indicate whether someone is counted as working, but they often reveal little about job security, wages, working conditions, career progression, or access to reasonable accommodations. Informal and unpaid work can further obscure the extent of economic exclusion.

As education systems fail to move beyond inclusion merely in name and provide students with accessible pathways to work, and employers refuse to provide accommodations that can help people with disabilities realise their full potential, the repercussions extend beyond individual loss. The country loses talent and economic contributions that could otherwise have increased across professions and institutions.

Our research underscores the importance and urgency of moving the understanding of inclusion beyond admissions and representation alone. We must call for institutional accountability in creating higher education institutions and workplaces that are accessible, provide reasonable accommodations, take cognisance of retention and completion rates, and aid the transition to decent employment.

A fair system does not have to lower the bar for achievement but consciously seeks to remove barriers to help people achieve their full potential. The question is not whether people with disabilities have merit; it is whether our institutions allow that merit to be recognised and nurtured to its full potential.