The rational choice we believe many make is rooted in one key question: “How convenient is this issue for me?” This stereotype-driven approach allows people to think, “I am not disabled; therefore, I won’t have these difficulties,” which creates a false sense of comfort. It is the easy way out—a mental shortcut that allows individuals to ignore the realities of ableism, reassuring themselves that these issues belong to someone else. From high-ranking officials, like a Chief Minister, down to local community leaders, this mindset sustains an illusion that dealing with disability inclusion is irrelevant to their own lives. But this notion is objectively false and contributes to a cycle of harmful inaction.

In reality, disability is not a niche issue. It is a fundamental human rights issue. Everyone, directly or indirectly, interacts with individuals facing disabilities. When leaders or decision-makers choose avoidance or indifference, they are essentially opting for convenience over justice. This mindset arguably violates the basic human rights of disabled individuals by limiting their access to opportunities, spaces, and roles within society.

By “human rights,” we mean the systemic exclusion of disabled individuals from workplaces, educational settings, and economic opportunities. In fact, a brief literature review conducted by the Goodwill Movement reveals that the economic inclusion of disabled people brings measurable benefits—higher productivity, enhanced community engagement, and strengthened social support networks. Yet, these truths remain buried under convenient excuses.

“Isn’t It Difficult?”

Another perspective that enables ableism is the idea that interacting with or including disabled individuals is inherently challenging. When we correspond with potential donors—via email, calls, or meetings—we often notice a subtle reluctance to engage fully. It feels as though many donors wish to “get through” these conversations so they can focus on something more familiar or comfortable. They seem eager to shift to another topic, to avoid exploring the profound value and necessity of true inclusion.

This brings us to a fundamental question: Are we merely servants to other’s convenience? It does feel like it many times.

Disabled individuals deserve respect and engagement, not to be merely dismissed as an “inconvenient” task. The expectation that organisations like ours must cater entirely to the preferences of potential donors instead of being met halfway shows a lack of genuine commitment towards societal change. That being said, we will commit to those donor preferences who are on the same page as us, and we have done so in the past

Goodwill has been striving since 2021 to advocate for the rights and support of persons with disabilities in Gilgit Baltistan and among its global diaspora. This work aims to create lasting, collective benefits by ensuring inclusive development and resources for individuals with disabilities. Yet, why do we still encounter resistance, limited resource mobilisation, and fragmented support from within the community and diaspora? Game theory could explain this

Could this be akin to a ‘Prisoner’s Dilemma’ situation, where individual stakeholders, despite having mutual interests in the cause, prioritize short-term gains or avoid risks over collaboration? Just as in the classic dilemma, if all involved parties cooperated, the collective outcome could significantly uplift lives and strengthen the community’s social fabric. So, what factors keep stakeholders from fully investing, and how can we break this cycle to foster true, sustained support?

Objective

The objective of Goodwill is to get more donations to fund more projects. Let’s call this D and F. D and F have a crossover.

Variables

Has Goodwill launched a donation site? Yes

Has Goodwill partnered with a third sector organisation? Yes

Bias

In the classic Prisoner’s Dilemma game, Prisoners A and B have four possible outcomes based on their choices to either cooperate (stay silent) or defect (testify against each other). Similarly, in donating to a cause or supporting a cause, people have the will to stay silent or ignore it. The will here, though is not a rational one but the unconscious bias that keep’s one eyes and ears closed to reality

In a remarkable celebration of International White Cane Safety Day, we joined hands with Karakoram International University’s Department of Education to raise awareness about accessibility and safe mobility for the visually impaired.

This event stands as a testament to our commitment to empowering visually impaired individuals in navigating safely and confidently through the world around them. Those who are blind by birth are the navigators of society, than those who choose to be in sociopolitical chaos.

The day was filled with engaging awareness sessions and interactive discussions, shedding light on the importance of inclusivity and the daily realities faced by those with visual impairments. A heartfelt thank you to Doctor Qutoshi, Doctor Hadi Haideri, and our dedicated volunteers and participants who made this event possible.

Join us in the journey to promote accessibility and inclusivity for all in Gilgit-Baltistan!

#InternationalWhiteCaneSafetyDay #GilgitBaltistanGoodwillMovement #AccessibilityMatters #EmpowermentThroughEducation #InclusiveGB

This is our perspective, and we acknowledge that others may have differing views, which are valid and welcome. I understand that our same logic might apply to many places and situations, but I invite you to consider this scenario for a moment. Imagine you’re in a position to allocate a donor’s contribution of £5000. You have a critical decision to make, one that requires a thorough cost-benefit analysis. You could choose to invest this amount in supporting a student’s foreign education, a long-term investment that may yield returns only 20 years down the line, and perhaps even then only equal to the original donation. Alternatively, you could use these funds for something with a more immediate impact, such as healthcare, social care, or essential community support. My concern lies in guiding donors toward considering not only what they think is valuable but also what communities in Gilgit Baltistan may need most urgently.

A wise adviser once shared that in the UK, every national government, public interest (PI) firm, and donor is motivated to invest in the disability sector. There is an understanding here that investing in disability services, accessibility, and social care creates inclusive societies, boosts the economy, and empowers individuals with disabilities to lead fuller lives. This begs the question: why don’t we see this focus in Pakistan, particularly in areas like Gilgit Baltistan? Why is there a lack of targeted private investment directed at improving the lives of disabled individuals, who face some of the most significant barriers to education, employment, and social participation?

While short-term projects funded by donors are undeniably beneficial to society, sometimes producing immediate visible changes, I believe it’s essential to consider a broader perspective. Simon Sinek once said, “be different,” and this concept applies perfectly here. Why not stand out by addressing areas of unmet need? Why not focus on groups that are often overlooked and marginalized, like disabled individuals, and invest in creating lasting, equitable change for them? Inequality rules the mind

Inequality rules the mind

There’s also an undeniable sense of disparity that colors this discussion—a feeling of imbalance. In Urdu, there’s a phrase that loosely translates to “lack of awareness,” which captures an attitude that may contribute to why disability support is so underfunded. It is as if these issues are taken for granted, brushed aside without full consideration of their importance. This lack of awareness perpetuates an unequal society where certain needs remain unmet simply because they aren’t prioritized.

Let us do a thought experiment. Picture yourself as an elite in the world. Picture yourself with money, maybe 2.5 M$ is your monthly salary. Now imagine giving that to a disabled person

Let’s take a moment for a thought experiment. Picture yourself as one of the world’s elites, enjoying a life of abundance, with a monthly income of $2.5 million. Now, imagine what it would be like to invest even a fraction of that income into the life of a disabled person—someone facing barriers to education, employment, and daily life that we often don’t consider in our day-to-day existence. A small portion of such wealth, directed thoughtfully, could profoundly change the life of a person who lacks access to basic resources.

This disparity, however, reflects something much deeper—a mindset shaped by inequality. There’s an undeniable sense of imbalance here, an outlook that often ignores or underestimates the importance of disability support and social inclusion. In Urdu, there’s a phrase loosely translating to “lack of awareness,” which encapsulates this very attitude. Issues that don’t directly affect us are often taken for granted, brushed aside without adequate thought. This “lack of awareness” can perpetuate an unequal society where certain fundamental needs are unmet, simply because they are not prioritized.

When we look at places like Gilgit Baltistan, we must ask ourselves why this lack of investment in disability support persists. In the UK, for instance, governments, public interest firms, and donors increasingly direct resources toward disability services, accessibility, and inclusive social care. There is a collective understanding that supporting these areas builds an inclusive society, strengthens the economy, and enables individuals with disabilities to contribute and live fuller lives. But in Pakistan, particularly in areas like Gilgit Baltistan, private investment in disability support is almost absent. Why?

While it’s true that many donors focus on short-term projects that offer quick, visible benefits to society, perhaps there’s room for a shift. Imagine what might be possible if donors could look beyond short-term gains and recognize the profound, lasting impact of investing in underfunded areas like disability support. As Simon Sinek suggests, we can “be different.” Standing out sometimes means focusing on areas that are often overlooked and marginalized, like the disabled community, and creating equitable, lasting change for them.

The choice between funding a long-term goal like a foreign education or addressing immediate community needs in healthcare and disability support isn’t always easy, yet it’s essential to recognize the profound impact that can be made by addressing urgent needs. By guiding donors to consider not only what they value but also what communities in Gilgit Baltistan may urgently need, we encourage a holistic approach to development—one that’s deeply rooted in the immediate realities of those we aim to support.

The term ableism refers to discrimination in favour of able-bodied people. Ableism or in Loose Urdu, the ability to physically control one’s body has been a debate over decades. But what makes ableism so unique is that what we refer to Power & Culture : ableism thrives on it. Unlike Feminism, Ableism is non gender bias and non sex biased. Yes I do agree, that sexual relations and gender identity can affect it. However as social beings, ableism is still around everywhere.

As described in a earlier article, the pathological fear of ableism thrives upon society and by that effect culture. Ableism is not something measurable, though many disabled activists like Julia Harris and other people have highlighted the negative effects of ableism : there is something about it that we like, we thrive upon not just in Pakistan but across the world. One thesis/statement is that we like to be in a powerful seat or position whereby we can other the disabled/differently abled and we feel ‘ good ‘ about it.

Sociobiological theory

Now what does it mean by good? I am not referring to a pleasurable experience although we did see effects of it in Nazi Germany, that can have a article of its own and in Pakistan, where we daily blog from but somehow the human body has developed this feeling of protection amongst foreign experience’s.

Conclusion

Is there a way that we are not looking at this properly. Is Power over the disabled rooted from our biological needs described by Maslow. Should we not address this from a socio biological viewpoint?