Nepal – Disaster, Disability & Difference: Challenges for Persons with Disabilities in Post-Earthquake Nepal – Gender
Author: WUNRN
Date: September 5, 2016
Nepal – Disaster, Disability & Difference: Challenges for Persons with Disabilities in Post-Earthquake Nepal – Gender
Direct Link to Full 102-Page 2016 Report: file:///C:/Users/Lois%20Herman/Downloads/Disaster%20Disability%20&%20Difference_May%202016%20(10).pdf
19 May 2016
Document Summary
“Disaster, Disability and Difference: A Study of the Challenges Faced by Persons with Disabilities (PwDs) in Post-Earthquake Nepal. The report is prepared by Social Science Baha and published with assistance from the UNDP in Nepal and the National Federation of the Disabled Nepal – NFDN.
This research-based report seeks to empirically assess the contemporary landscape of disability in Nepal, with a focus on the unique challenges faced by persons with disabilities (PwDs) in the wake of the earthquakes that devastated Nepal in April and May of 2015. Based on our findings, this report also makes a series of policy recommendations focused on the meaningful inclusion of Nepalis with disabilities within both disaster risk reduction activities and the broader development agenda–offering a toolkit for the operationalization of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the recently adopted Sustainable Development Goals, and the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction in Nepal.
2.1 Gender and Disability
Intersectional discrimination begins first from the family itself for women with disabilities (WwDs) affecting her life towards deprivation, pessimism and isolation. Slipping lower and lower in the social hierarchy, they are most of time perceived as ‘unwanted and unproductive human resources’ and are silenced. Having no social security, government unable to respond, identify and sensitize the rights and service delivery of WwDs both in private and public sphere, WwDs are ‘excluded within exclusion’. (Gurung 2010: ii)
The CRPD critically acknowledges the importance of gender and “recognizes that women and girls with disabilities are subject to multiple discrimination, and in this regard shall take measures to ensure the full and equal enjoyment by them of all human rights and fundamental freedoms” (CRPD 2006). Equally, understanding patterns of discrimination faced by people with disabilities in Nepal requires consideration of the gendered nature of these experiences and the ways systematic discrimination of Nepali women perpetuates certain patterns of disability and neglect. Issues of gender color the experiences of women with disabilities (WwDs) in the social, political, familial, economical aspects of their lives, and they are routinely marginalized by “double discrimination that is the root cause of the inferior status of women with disabilities, making them one of the world’s most disadvantaged groups” (Dhungana 2006).
A 2007 survey by the Nepal Disabled Women Association (NDWA) indicated that 84% of disabled women reported not being able to lead a dignified life (Khanal 2007: 48) Further,
“Disabilities were seen more prevalent among males than female. The result of sex differentiation reduces the chance of survival among females. The reason for the lower prevalence of disabilities in women could be because their disabilities were not identified. Girls and women are often able to perform certain activities, albeit at enormous personal cost (pain and/or effort), to hide their disabilities” (NPC 2001: 6). Despite these challenges and advocacy efforts by groups such as the NDWA, the policies and programs focused on disability in Nepal do not adequately account for the additional challenges faced by women with disabilities in Nepali society.
This study brought out starkly the gendered differences in marital status between men and women with disabilities, as 75.6% of the men with disabilities surveyed were married compared to only 43.2% of women with disabilities; further 32% of WwDs in our survey were widowed, divorced, or separated. Similar findings have been reflected in other research as well with one suggesting that “most disabled women in Nepal are single and they may face increased stigma, being disabled, single and childless” (UNESCAP 1995, cited in Morrison et al 2014). Most WwDs themselves choose to remain single as they do not want to become a ‘burden’ for another family, as a single woman with a physical disability from Dhulikhel said. Marriage is often times connected to household work, reproduction and contribution to household economy through agriculture or other forms of labour, and women with disabilities are perceived as being unable to contribute fully or not at all. Being female adds another layer of complexity to the disability narrative. Being female and disabled not only affects your chances of getting married but decreases one’s status. Male PwDs, on the other hand, have greater chances of marriage as the numbers suggest.6 As a woman with disabilities from Sindhupalchowk says: “Even if men are disabled they have an inheritance. But we women don’t. That is why a disabled man can marry an abled woman.”
“As long as a disabled man earns a living his chances of getting married and having a family life are much higher than those of a disabled woman” (Dhungana 2006). It is clear that property and inheritance are important factors that determine one’s ‘bargaining power’ and imbalance gender relations, which reproduces the perception that women are of diminished value for society (Agarwal 1997).
Numerous international studies have shown show that persons with disabilities are more vulnerable to harassment and abuse compared to able-bodied people (see Mays 2006). For example, a survey in Orissa, India, found that virtually all of the women and girls with disabilities were victims of domestic violence, 25 per cent of women with intellectual disabilities had been raped and 6 per cent of disabled women had been forcibly sterilized (UN Enable CRPD Fact Sheet). Similarly, NDWA has conducted numerous studies that show that ‘gender related violence is a cause and consequence of disability’ (De Alwis 2010, cited in Norad 2012).
This study found a higher proportion of men with disabilities (47%) reporting having faced problems accessing public facilities compared to women with disabilities (32%)—probably a reflection of the fact that WwDs are generally confined to their homes while men tend to be more mobile and hence more likely to experience such difficulties. As a visually impaired woman from Sindhupalchowk told us, “Men can go anywhere with the white stick but women are humiliated when walking with the white stick. In crowds and even in vehicles, there are problems of men trying to touch the private parts of the body.”
A mother of an intellectually disabled woman in Sindhupalchowk also expressed fears of public violence: “I have heard about cases of rape. And since my daughter is disabled, I fear that such a terrible thing might happen to her. That is why I cannot leave her alone and go outside.” This respondent’s worry for her intellectually disabled daughter is not unfounded and should be treated with serious concern. Her worry for her daughter is based on the prevalent assumption/notion that underpins the vulnerability of disabled women (Chenoweth 1993, 1997, and Sceriha 1996 cited in Mays 2006) and also on the even more disturbing assumption about 6 A study of the discriminatory laws of Nepal by the Forum for Women Law and Development (FWLD) highlights the fact that Nepal’s Civil Code allows a man to remarry if his wife becomes disabled.
intellectually disabled women being promiscuous (Chenoweth, 1993, 1996, 1997; McMahon et al 1996).
In the wake of the 2015 earthquakes in Nepal, many persons with disabilities have now been living in temporary circumstances and collective housing, which includes internally displaced peoples (IDP) camps. These living conditions have been especially tough for women with disabilities who have to share the same living space and toilet facilities with others. A physically disabled woman from Sindhupalchowk says:
Women had problems after the earthquake as they had to stay in the same shelter as everyone else. Personally, it was difficult for me as I had to share one tent with my parents, older brother and sister-in-law, so there was a lack of privacy. Maintaining hygiene was a challenge, especially during my periods. The water source was not nearby and we had to share public toilets with other displaced quake victims.
Likewise, a woman from Kavrepalanchowk who has speech and hearing impairment told us that she used to have her own room, but that after the earthquake she is required to share the same space with her brother and sister-in-law. The brother-in-law and sister in law feel that it is difficult to maintain personal privacy in such a space. She finds it difficult to change her clothes and feels uncomfortable, and she has difficulty in expressing herself. On a similar note, a physically disabled woman in Nuwakot told us that the simple act of going to the bathroom is a major issue for young girls with disabilities since fathers and mothers are able to carry a disabled boy to the bathroom, but gender norms limit the help that female children receive after a certain age. Parents and caregivers of PwDs, especially female PwDs also reported having a difficult time living in temporary shelters. One father of an intellectually disabled daughter in Nuwakot says: “Apart from life-threatening condition, this group of population especially female is more prone to other types of violence as well such as sexual violence. It can occur in an unsafe shelter or in the absence of parents.”
Returning to issues of intersectionality (Tamang 2011, Nightingale 2013) or ‘exclusion with exclusion’, Pratima Gurung of the Nepal Indigenous Disabled Association (NIDA) provided the following statement: “The general public realizes only a single factors of exclusion, what is presented, like if a woman is disabled. If she has a severe disability then her disability is reflected and focused. If they can’t see her disability, then maybe her gender is reflected, but not the other factors like poverty, caste, ethnicity, geographical location, education, awareness about the legal procedures, her language or culture. These reasons for exclusion and their impacts are not fully acknowledged.” Again, it is crucial to understand disability as just one layer among the many factors and barriers that reproduce social exclusion, many of which may be invisible.
Categories: Releases