21/08/2026
I am astounded and disturbed by the news that one child was denied UDID card. I heard previously too but this time with evidence i have a case.
The gap between diagnosis, functional disability, support needs, and the way autism is actually understood in India.
One important distinction, though: autism severity and functional disability are not the same thing. A person may have strong intelligence, good academic skills, fluent speech, or apparently “high functioning” abilities while having substantial difficulties with executive functioning, sensory regulation, emotional regulation, adaptive functioning, social communication, self-care, safety, or independent living. Conversely, someone with more visible support needs may make significant progress with appropriate intervention.
That is why a purely observational or severity-based approach can be misleading.
Individuals with Autism are “functionally and cognitively delayed affecting their adaptability.” Autism does not inherently mean global cognitive delay. Some autistic people have intellectual disability, while others have average or above-average intelligence. The important issue is to assess adaptive and functional skills alongside cognition, rather than assuming either ability or disability from the diagnosis alone.
Progress should not be used as evidence that disability has disappeared.
A child can learn to communicate, attend school, become toilet independent, regulate behaviour and acquire academic skills precisely because appropriate accommodations and intervention were provided. That development should not then be interpreted as proof that the child no longer needs disability-related support.
And the converse is equally important: a child who looks academically capable may still have substantial disability-related support needs.
The UDID question therefore deserves careful consideration based on the applicable disability-certification criteria and functional assessment, rather than a simplistic assumption that “the child is intelligent, therefore the child is not disabled.”
There is also a painful paradox in autism: the better some children learn to compensate, the less visible their difficulties can become. Families may be told, “He is intelligent, he will manage,” while the child is struggling enormously with anxiety, sensory overload, social demands, transitions, executive functioning or emotional regulation.
And parents can become trapped between two extremes—being frightened into believing that autism must be “cured,” or being reassured that the child is “fine” because the child is intelligent.
Neither is adequate.
What families need is accurate functional assessment, realistic expectations, parent education, accommodations, communication support, life-skills training and an individualized developmental plan. Medication can sometimes have a legitimate role for specific co-occurring difficulties, but it cannot substitute for understanding the child's developmental profile and teaching the skills the child actually needs.
The larger systemic problem you are identifying is that autism is still frequently approached through fragmented professional silos. Diagnosis, therapy, education, behaviour, communication and family support are often treated as separate businesses rather than parts of one developmental plan.
And when parents are not properly educated, the commercial ecosystem can easily exploit their fear.
Early intervention should not mean early commercialization. It should mean early understanding.
Perhaps the most powerful message is:
Don't ask only, “How severe is the autism?” Ask, “What can this person do independently, where are the barriers, what accommodations are required, and what skills can we teach next?”
That Paradigm shift—from label and severity to functioning, participation and support needs—would make the conversation around autism and disability much more humane.
