Prejudice in our society is associated with the recognition of difference, and an integral part of it is the concept of normality. Culture as the basis of social representation has been exerting a domineering impact on moulding peoples’ identities or self-representations across the globe and has more serious implications as people with disabilities may analyze their experiences in light of the existing meanings and practices prevalent in society. The words “disability”, and “culture” are each value-laden, charged with emotion in almost every culture. People with disabilities tend to analyze their experiences in light of the existing meanings and practices prevalent in society and the matrices of recurring themes in representation of disability and discourses of “normalcy”. This often results in them internalizing the prejudices held by the dominant group—the acceptance and incorporation of “their values about our lives” and become “slave of their archetypes”. The paper addresses the milieu of recurring themes representing disability and discourses of “normalcy” embedded within the Indian Religious discourses and the dominant role they exert in accentuating an inconsequential image and attitude wherein “disability” is reduced to being perceived as punitive, dependence, disequilibrium or social misfit with special focus on women with disabilities. Personal experiences as endorsed by the social model have ushered in a paradigm shift in conceptualizing and analyzing disability. Lack of scope for people with disabilities to have control over their own representation projected a discriminatory form of representation. The invisibility of the disability identity necessitated the need to adopt a non-tragic view of disability and impairment all over the world which encompasses positive social identities, both individual and collective, and to be based on narratives of persons with disabilities. The paper bases its argument on the premises that although metaphorical representations usually tend to construct the body as a functioning whole which delineate and constitute that body’s integrity, but it is those same exemplifications that become highly debatable and conspicuous especially in case of bodies that deviate from the so-called “norm” of being “able-bodied”.