Introduction

Disability, Gender and Society

RENU ADDLAKHA

The most recent addition in the well-established grid of categories

of oppression such as class, caste and gender is disability. Although
it has been an intrinsic element of the human condition since time
immemorial, disability remained lost in the shifting terrain
between other related concepts and experiences, namely, disease,
impairment, illness and sickness. Today, it has emerged as a critical
axis of oppression in its own right: indeed, the disability movement
is perhaps the youngest civil rights movement the world over.
The global recognition of disability is marked by the recent
adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis-
abilities (CRPD) and its Optional Protocol by the United Nations
(UN) General Assembly on 13 December 2006. It is a major step
towards according recognition to the needs and aspirations of the
disabled population, which continues to be marginalised and
stigmatised in most parts of the world. Till date over 100 members,
including India, have signed it.1 One of the highlights of the Con-
vention is a separate article on women with disabilities. In light of
these developments,2 it is only apt that the Indian Journal of Gender
Studies brings out a special issue on disability. The eight articles in

Acknowledgement: This special issue would not have taken shape without the
commitment and co-operation of the Indian Journal of Gender Studies. I am especially
grateful to Ms. Leela Kasturi for her insightful comments and painstaking editing
of all the papers.

Renu Addlakha is Senior Fellow, Centre for Women’s Development Studies,

25 Bhai Vir Singh Marg, New Delhi 110 001. E-mail: renu@cwds,ac.in.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore
DOI: 10.1177/097152150801500201

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

192 • Renu Addlakha

this issue address a range of core concerns around disability,

gender and society in the Indian context, such as the interface be-
tween the women’s movement, the disability movement, civil
society and the state, female embodiment, identity and disable-
ment, prenatal testing, motherhood and caregiving.
But what is a disability and what does it mean to be disabled in
the first place? Disabilities may be congenital, that is, from birth.
For instance, most intellectual disabilities are congenital. Malnu-
trition, micronutrient deficiencies and infections may result in
childhood disabilities, polio being the most obvious example.
When disabilities are acquired later in life due to accidents, injuries
or advancing age, they may be characterised by episodic upsurge
of symptoms and/or progressive degeneration. Many mental ill-
nesses like schizophrenia, multiple sclerosis and Alzheimer’s Dis-
ease also fall in this category. A disability may be static, such as
the loss of a limb due to an amputation. Then, there are hidden
and visible disabilities, diabetes and epilepsy being a couple of
examples, while leprosy and blindness are visible conditions.
Disabilities may be temporary or permanent. A mild fracture may
result in temporary disablement, while a spinal cord injury sus-
tained in an automobile accident might result in a permanent con-
dition. In addition, there are many gradations of disability, ranging
from mild to severe.
A disability generally has two interconnected components—
medical limitation(s) and social prejudice—which often get trans-
lated into discriminatory behaviour towards the person with a
disability. In legal documents and policy statements, disability is
defined in terms of what qualifies for public assistance. Keeping
in view the sheer diversity of this overarching category, the CPRD
includes within its ambit those who have long-term physical,
mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which, in interaction
with physical, social and attitudinal barriers, may hinder their full
and effective participation in society on an equal basis with others.
According to conservative estimates derived from the 2001
Indian census, 1.8 to 2.1 per cent of the population of 1.2 billion
suffers from some form of disability, which in absolute numbers
comes to approximately 18.49 to 21.92 million persons. Using a
wider definition of disability, which includes conditions like

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 193

diabetes and cardiovascular disease, the World Health Organ-

isation (WHO) estimates that 6 to 10 per cent of the population
suffers from an identifiable physical or mental disability. That
comes to over 70 million persons in India.3 Phenomena such as
war, ethnic conflict, HIV/AIDS, natural disasters, industrial in-
juries and road accidents are increasing the number of persons
with disabilities. Ironically, enhanced life expectancy has also in-
creased manifold the incidence of age-related, chronic disease-
induced disabilities worldwide.
The 2001 census estimates that there are over 9 million women
with disabilities in India, constituting around 1.87 per cent of the
population. Some researches put the number of women with dis-
abilities in the country at over 35 million (Bacquer and Sharma
1997). Others put the figure at 20 million, 98 per cent of them being
illiterate; less than 1 per cent can avail of health care and rehabilit-
ation services (Action Aid 2003). The violation of rights of persons
with disabilities through multiple physical, economic, health,
educational, legal and attitudinal barriers are too well known to
be repeated. Nonetheless, it will suffice to bear in mind that the
impact of these barriers is magnified manifold when it comes to
gauging the level of neglect, isolation, stigma and deprivation that
characterise the lives of women with disabilities. The majority of
women with disabilities in India suffer the triple discrimination
of being female, being disabled and being poor. Indeed, not only
are they a socially invisible category, but their plight is worse
than that of men with disabilities and of non-disabled women.

Disability: A New Paradigm of Oppression

Political economy and historical contingency have intersected to
give rise to a distinct discourse of disability in the latter half of the
20th century. After World War II countries in Western Europe, Japan
and the United States were faced with the challenging task of
rehabilitating a huge number of soldiers with disabilities. This his-
torical necessity placed disability at the centre of social welfare
policies in both Europe and the United States. The subsequent
organisation of persons with disabilities themselves into a vibrant
social movement, along the lines of the women’s movement,

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

194 • Renu Addlakha

resulted in a redefinition of the concept not as personal tragedy

requiring therapy, but as collective oppression necessitating pol-
itical action (Oliver 1996). In this perspective, the focus shifts from
the inability of persons with disabilities to adapt to the so-called
‘normal’ environment, to the failure of the social and structural envir-
onments to adapt to their needs and aspirations. As advocates of
equal rights for persons with disabilities, these organisations
lobbied with national governments for a barrier-free environment,
inclusive education, and affirmative action in employment, in
addition to the whole range of civil, political, social and economic
rights to which all citizens are entitled.
Internationally, however, the situation only started changing
from the 1980s with the passing of specific UN declarations for
the welfare of persons with disabilities.4 The year 1981 was de-
clared the International Year of Disabled Persons. A World Plan of
Action on Disabled Persons was adopted by the General Assembly
in 1982, for the implementation of which the period 1983–92 was
proclaimed as the United Nations Decade of Disabled Persons.
In 1993 the General Assembly adopted the Standard Rules on the
Equalisation of Opportunities for Persons with Disabilities.5
The 1990s saw a spate of pro-disability legislation, beginning with
the Americans with Disabilities Act 1990 and the Disability Dis-
crimination Act 1995 in the United Kingdom, among others. The
landmark UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Dis-
abilities appears to be the logical culmination of these develop-
ments. In the contemporary international political climate in which
the UN plays a significant role in steering national policies and
programmes, Amita Dhanda’s analysis in this volume of the in-
depth country-level discussions that went into arriving at a mutu-
ally acceptable approach for engendering the Convention is an
intriguing case study of the development of international legal
instruments. The ‘twin track approach’ that the Convention em-
bodies attempts to both mainstream and provide special measures
for ameliorating the lives of women with disabilities in the laws,
policies and programmes of member states.
In India, however, the situation has been slow to change. Persons
with disabilities are technically entitled to the same rights under
the Indian Constitution as other citizens, and no discrimination is

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 195

allowed on grounds of disability. Even though the Constitution

recognises socially disadvantaged groups, such as Scheduled
Castes, Scheduled Tribes, religious and linguistic minorities, and
even women and children, there is a total invisibility of the category
of disability in constitutional provisions guaranteeing rights to
individuals and groups. Disability is absent both from Article 15,
which prohibits discrimination on grounds of caste, class, sex, re-
ligion and place of birth, and Article 16, which guarantees equality
of opportunity in employment. So, while the idea of special rights
accruing to groups derives from the constitutional framework that
acknowledges group rights, there is no specific enumeration of
disability (Addlakha 2007a).
Instead of giving rights to citizens with disabilities and em-
powering them, a culture of charity and welfare has been system-
atically promoted in India since the colonial period. Medical
rehabilitation, distribution of assistive aids and appliances, special
schools, and vocational training in low-end occupations and shel-
tered employment have been the pillars of state policy. Further-
more, electoral politics of caste and gender have pushed persons
with disabilities to the margins of the political landscape, making
them a weak political constituency. They have, in fact, been sys-
tematically disenfranchised by the political system. Things began
to change marginally after 1981 (International Year of Disabled
Persons) when the issue of disability was opened up at the national
level. The changing international climate, focusing on human
rights and empowerment of marginal groups, impelled the Indian
government to make some policy changes, such as token reser-
vations in educational institutions and employment. But real pro-
gress in the form of concrete legislation to deliver the promise of
equality of opportunity and social justice only came in 1995 with
the passage of the Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities,
Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act.
The impact of the international human rights movement and
anti-poverty initiatives have turned in the issue of disability from
one of social welfare to one of social development. Develop-
ment essentially means inclusion. If the needs and aspirations of
a whole population group are not taken into account, then social
development in the true sense of the word has not taken place.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

196 • Renu Addlakha

Disability is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. They re-

inforce each other, leading to increased vulnerability and exclusion.
Poverty decreases the opportunities of persons with disabilities,
further marginalises them, making it impossible for them to have
access to the basic conditions of life like health, education, trans-
portation and employment. For women with disabilities, there is
the added burden of gender bias and discrimination. In this volume,
Hans, Patel and Agnihotri show that allocating resources is not
enough when social, political and cultural realities block access of
persons with disabilities, and particularly of women with disabilities,
to such resources. One of the important findings of their research
is the steadily diminishing utilisation of resources in the disability
sector in some of the poorest states of the country, like Orissa,
Andhra Pradesh and West Bengal. Bad governance and lack of
awareness of such programmes among persons with disabilities
and their families are major reasons for this underutilisation. This
trend does not bode well for the welfare of persons with disabilities,
particularly women and tribal persons with disabilities.

Disability, Feminism and Eugenics

Disability has historically been conceptualised overwhelmingly
in terms of biological abnormality or dysfunction necessitating
medical intervention and rehabilitation. The medical model looks
at the impairment as a personal tragedy, and at the individual
through the lens of patienthood. Through self-advocacy by persons
with disabilities, the concept of disability was redefined not as an
individual affliction necessitating therapy, but as a form of social
oppression necessitating political action. The social model of dis-
ability6 locates disability, which is viewed as an important dimen-
sion of inequality, in the social and economic structure and culture
of the society in which it is found, rather than in the bodies of
individuals with disabilities.
Despite the ideological vortex generated by the international
women’s movement and the emerging social model of disability
during the 1960s and 1970s, women with disabilities continued to
remain an invisible constituency. The body has been a key construct
in feminism, but it was more often than not the able-bodied

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 197

perspective that dominated theory construction and advocacy

work. It was mainly during the 1990s that the theoretical innov-
ations and social activism of feminists with disabilities catapulted
women with disabilities as a separate identity category. Conse-
quently, it is only in the course of the past two decades that the
masculine bias in disability theory has been questioned and the ex-
clusion of women with disabilities from feminist theory and praxis
highlighted, primarily by women with disabilities themselves
(Corker 1999, 2001; Meekosha 2002; Morris 1991, 1993, 1996;
Thomas 1999; Wendell 1996).
The beginnings of a critical feminist analysis of disability in a
multidisciplinary perspective has been initiated in the Indian
context by a number of feminist scholars like Renu Addlakha (1997,
1998, 1999, 2001, 2005, 2007a, 2007b), Bhargavi V. Davar (1999,
2001), Amita Dhanda (2000), Anita Ghai (1998, 2000, 2001, 2002a,
2002b, 2003) and Asha Hans (Hans and Patri 2003), among others.
Historically, the Indian women’s movement has focused on issues
like poverty, caste inequalities, employment, social practices like
sati and dowry, population policies and technologies, female
foeticide, sexuality and domestic violence. But disability-based
oppression did not feature in its agenda. Only very recently has
the issue been raised in the movement from two distinct and ap-
parently disconnected perspectives: first, the experiences of
women with disabilities within the movement, discussed in this
volume by Davar; and, second, sex-selective abortion, which is
the theme of the joint article by Ghai and Johri.
In her autobiographical account of her engagement with the
Indian women’s movement over the past two decades, Bhargavi
V. Davar delineates the tensions between a feminist politics of em-
powerment that seeks social transformation in gender relations
and the personal experiences of distress of individual women in
search of healing. Using the emerging concept of ‘psychosocial
disability’, Davar feels that the disability paradigm offers both
theoretical validation and strategic opportunities for making
understandable and conferring legitimacy on women’s experiences
of mental distress and illness. Her discussion is framed within a
political economy of women’s mental health promoted by the
medical profession and pharmaceutical industries.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

198 • Renu Addlakha

Again, while women’s mental health and distress were explored

even earlier (Davar 1999, 2001; Dhanda 2000), women with phy-
sical or sensory disabilities did not find a separate discursive space
in the Indian women’s movement. While Dalit women, women
workers, agricultural labourers, and minority status groups have
been highlighted as marginalised groups, women with disabilities
are only now being recognised as a distinct marginal category.
The use of genetic screening for aborting foetuses with disabil-
ities does not feature in female foeticide and infanticide debates,
which have been critical pillars of the movement. This is a serious
lacuna. Anita Ghai (2002a, 2002b) points out that the reason given
for such exclusion by representatives of the movement is the non-
participation of women with disabilities in advocacy. But the same
invisibility that marks their lives in their families and the com-
munity has prevented them from taking part in meetings and other
activities. To say that their invisibility is the cause of their non-
participation reflects a lack of understanding of the existential
reality of their lives, wherein moving out of the home and using
public transport are painful and difficult goals often beyond their
reach. On the other hand, we know that choice of issues in advo-
cacy is dependent on needs and priorities of participants; and a
simple majoritarian logic operates in such selection processes.7
While the invisibility of women with disabilities in the male-
dominated disability movement is, to some extent, understandable,
their absence from the women’s movement cannot be so easily
overlooked. Women with disabilities did not figure in international
conventions and policies till the Beijing Declaration (Platform of
Action) of 1995, which clearly mentions women with disabilities
as one of the groups facing barriers and suffering violations of
basic human rights. Even in the case of abortion debates within
the women’s movement, the right to survival of foetuses with dis-
abilities has not been brought into discussion. Ghai and Johri, in
this volume, show that the pro-choice stance, promoting antenatal
testing for elimination of defective foetuses, feeds into prevailing
notions of bodily perfection. Drawing upon arguments of free
choice in the context of female foeticide and disability selection,
the authors question the uncontested abortion of foetuses with
disabilities, a practice that is not only legitimised by the dominant

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 199

medical and legal discourses but is also accepted by the women’s

movement in India. Drawing upon testimonies of mothers of
children with disabilities and of young women with disabilities in
Delhi, Ghai and Johri make a case for a more nuanced understand-
ing of the disability experience and the importance of diversity in
social life. Indeed, the real tussle between the medical and social
models of disability is illustrated by predictive eugenic testing.
Medical definitions of disability collide with socially-based value
judgements of flaw and perfection, and the unequal distribution
of material resources to manage differences.
Anatomy is not destiny. It is inconsistent with a feminist ethic
to eliminate a category of persons who do not fit into the socially
constructed (oppressive) categories of normal, healthy and fit. This
argument is also forcefully articulated by Mehrotra and Vaidya in
their discussion of the emasculation of the intellectually challenged
male in this volume. Combining multiple data sources (historical,
anthropological and medical) with ethnographic fieldwork in
NGOs working with the intellectually challenged in Delhi and
in the neighbouring state of Haryana, the authors explore the eco-
logical, cultural and gendered underpinnings of competent person-
hood. The fact that the intellectually challenged are more socially
integrated in the rural areas of Haryana than in the urban land-
scape of Delhi undercuts any attempt to universalise norms of
intelligence and competence that are not context-specific. In the
face of declining extended family structures, the authors highlight
the need for greater NGO participation in caregiving activities
in the disability sector, especially for adults with severe intellec-
tual disabilities.
Despite some omissions and points of contention, feminist dis-
ability activists also share the basic premises of feminism in general,
such as questioning the validity of universalising norms, challeng-
ing the politics of appearance and naming, and actively working
towards the creation of positive identities. As Carol Thomas
(1999: 28) points out: ‘forms of disabilism8 are refracted in some
way through the prism of gendered locations and gender relations’.
Feminists and disability advocates are both opposed to a norm
assumed to be innately superior; patriarchy and ableism9 are the
ideologies that they oppose, respectively. Then, in keeping with

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

200 • Renu Addlakha

the credo of plurality, heterogeneity and identity politics of femi-

nism, feminist disability studies, challenge, not only the universal
category of woman, but also the unitary category of woman with
a disability.

Care Work and Caregiving

The family has been the major caregiving institution in society,
providing ongoing care to its dependent, ailing and disabled mem-
bers, be they children, the elderly, the chronically ill or the disabled
(Shelton and John 1996). Intra-familial division of caregiving labour
is a gendered phenomenon in which the primary caregiver is a
woman (Coward et al. 1992; Dwyer and Coward 1992; Horowitz
1992; Pavalko and Woodbury 2000). The costs and rewards ac-
cruing to the carer vary depending on the duration and nature of
care work and the availability of resources. Caregiving may be
temporary or long-term. Even though long-term caregiving in-
volves the participation of all family members sharing a common
residence in various ways, the bulk of daily care work falls more
often that not squarely on the mother (even extending to her natal
family) or other female member for whom it is a lifelong ‘career’
(Aneshensel et al. 1995). Chronic psychological stress is a necessary
aspect of the subjective experience in the latter case (Schulz et al.
1990; Schulz and Williamson 1991), often accompanied by adverse
health outcomes (Pavalko and Woodbury 2000).
Caring for adult persons with disabilities further complicates
the relationship. Issues central to care work and caregiving in the
Indian context are raised from different perspectives in this volume
by Mehrotra and Vaidya, and by Chakravarti. While Ghai and Johri
look at parental rights, parental choice and parental autonomy,
Mehrotra and Vaidya, and Chakravarti, examine parenting through
the lens of ongoing caregiving in a social context where the entire
responsibility is squarely put on the family.10 The non-availability
of state-sponsored support and limited family resources for the
care of members with disabilities also highlight another important
issue, namely, that it is not just individual medical care that persons
with disabilities require, but families also require a range of sup-
port services to be able to successfully care for a member with a

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 201

disability. Families, require, not only material resources but also

continual psychological support, as highlighted by Chakravarti’s
interviews with mothers of young adults with cerebral palsy. Many
issues germane to their day-to-day lives, such as feelings of anger
and helplessness, apprehensions about the child’s future, especially
after the death of the primary caregiver, and religious faith, are
discussed. Unfortunately, these concerns are invisibilised by so-
ciety and the resulting personal and social suffering and ignored.

Self-affirmation and Assertion of Difference

Identity politics is epistemology inextricably tied to praxis. The
underlying ideas are that some social groups are oppressed; that
one’s identity as a woman or as a person with a disability makes
one peculiarly vulnerable to cultural imperialism (including stereo-
typing, erasure or appropriation of one’s group identity), violence,
exploitation, marginalisation and powerlessness (Young 1990).
Identity politics not only involves a common group experience of
injustice and a collective effort (in the form of a social movement)
to overcome the common oppression, it also involves cultivating
a sense of pride and reclaiming a positive identity. The second
half of the 20th century has seen the emergence of large-scale pol-
itical movements—black civil rights in the US, second wave
feminism, gay and lesbian liberation, and, more recently, the dis-
ability movement.
A prime example of the success of the disability–identity–politics
paradigm is in what has come to be called ‘Deaf studies’ (Breivik
2005; Ladd 2003; Lane et al. 1996). Working on the boundary be-
tween deafness (with a small d) defined as a medical condition with
disabling social consequences, and Deafness (with a capital D)
referring to a linguistic and cultural minority group, Michele
Friedner makes a strong case for engendering Deaf studies in this
volume. Her interviews with members of the Delhi Foundation of
Deaf Women help her examine how discursive flows contribute
to the constitution of (D)deaf identity in a context where ideas
and resources flow from the global North to the global South.11
How do deaf women belonging to a lower socio-economic urban
context negotiate with such concepts as Deaf culture and Deaf

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

202 • Renu Addlakha

identity? Friedner comes to the conclusion that culture plays a

critical role in their construction of selfhood. The universality and
cultural neutrality underlying Deaf Studies are challenged by their
privileging of their kinship identities over all other identities
(including Deafness). This transcultural investigation of deafness
also alerts us to the dangers of a culture-blind acceptance and ap-
plication of identity politics, perspectives and paradigms generated
in specific politico-economic and socio-cultural contexts.
While Friedner looks at Deaf identity in the context of global
flows and transnational discourses, Sandhya Limaye presents two
detailed case studies of hearing-impaired adolescent girls in
Mumbai in this volume. Framing her discussion in the context of
the developmental tasks of adolescence,12 she shows how Radha
and Hasina challenge the discrimination and marginalisation
meted out to them by their families, teachers and the wider society.
They attempt to exercise autonomy by choosing life partners, plan-
ning careers and forging social lives that contest the notion of deaf
persons as secluded and dependent. These adolescents’ efforts at
self-affirmation notwithstanding, the gap between being deaf
and being Deaf is starkly brought out in the articles by Limaye and
Friedner respectively. For instance, the emphasis on oral commu-
nication in the case studies of Limaye, as against the use of sign
language among Friedner’s informants, highlights the differences
between hearing impairment, embedded in the medical model of
disability, and Deaf pride, deriving from the social model of disability.

A Note on Terminology
As language is a key tool of oppression, naming is critical when a
socially disadvantaged section of the population seeks recognition
and rights. Analysis of key linguistic terms and the replacement
of pejorative with more value-neutral and positive terms are es-
sential preliminary steps in any movement towards collective self-
affirmation and empowerment. The disability movement has pro-
moted a move away from a language of handicap towards a more
empowering language that emphasises self-determination and
personhood. In the American context, this ‘people first’ language
approach (Vaughan 1993) has given rise to the use of the term

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 203

‘person with disabilities’. On the other hand, due to the impact of

the social model that emphasises structural and attitudinal barriers
as a source of oppression lying outside the individual, ‘disabled
person’ has become more common in Britain. In the Indian context
the tendency is to use a mix of terms like ‘differently-abled’, ‘chal-
lenged’, ‘person with a disability’ and ‘child with special needs’
in media reports and by disability activists.
No attempt has been made in this volume to standardise ter-
minology about disability across the different articles. Choice of
language is not just about political correctness, but more about
reality construction. Hence, when such terms as ‘madness’, ‘im-
paired person’ and ‘handicapped person’, regarded as inappro-
priate if not downright stigmatising, have been used by authors,
they have not been edited because they carry a semantics that
might have been erased had they been replaced by other, more
politically correct substitutes.
In conclusion, it is hoped that this special issue of the Indian
Journal of Gender Studies on disability, gender and society con-
tributes to situating disability within mainstream research and
advocacy in the Indian context. The articles address different
aspects of disability, raise complex questions, and make a case for
culture, class/caste and gender-sensitive interdisciplinary and
multidisciplinary research. They lay the foundation for beginning
a serious engagement with disability studies in the academy and
in public policy in this country.

Notes
1. Interestingly, the United States has not yet signed the CRPD. As far back as
2003, it declared that it would not be a party to the proposed Convention on
Disability. Some of the reasons put forward were that disability measures
should be a matter of domestic policy, and that the US already has a com-
prehensive set of such measures, precluding the need for adopting an inter-
national convention.
2. Prior to the CPRD, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, Gov-
ernment of India, responsible for policies and programmes for persons with
disabilities, released the National Policy for Persons with Disabilities on
10 February 2006. The policy document has a set of recommendations to
improve the lives of women with disabilities.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

204 • Renu Addlakha

3. Estimates of the total number of persons with disabilities in a country vary

depending on the definition of disability used, degree of impairment, survey
methodology, including use of scientific instruments for identification and
measurement of disabling conditions.
4. In 1971 the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Rights of
Mentally Retarded Persons, which stipulated that the mentally retarded are
not only entitled to basic human rights like everyone else, but they also have
special rights corresponding to their special needs in medical, educational
and social fields. In 1975 the Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons
was adopted, which proclaimed equal civil and political rights for persons
with disabilities.
5. These rules were aimed at facilitating the development of national disability
programmes of member states. These standards provide a scheme to address
the needs of persons with disabilities in accordance with the principles of
human equality, dignity and respect. They deal with the provision of medical
services, education, employment and social security, etc.
6. As against the medical model, the social model of disability asserts that ma-
terial barriers, social prejudice and exclusion define who is disabled and who
is not in a particular society. While some people have physical, intellectual or
psychological differences from a statistical norm, these do not have to lead to
disability unless society fails to accommodate and include them in the way it
would those who are ‘normal’. The term ‘social model of disability’ was put
forward by the disabled British academic Mike Oliver in 1983. Subsequently,
it was extended and developed by other academics and activists in the UK,
the US and elsewhere.
7. Ironically, the forced hysterectomies of inmates of a home for the mentally
disabled in Pune district of Maharashtra, India, in 1994 did not elicit any
response from the disability movement in India, which, as Ghai (2003) points
out, has continued to be the preserve of elite men with disabilities. It did,
however, ignite a debate around disability in the women’s movement and
the medical profession in the country, but it was a fleeting engagement that
ended as abruptly as it began.
8. Disablism may be defined as discrimination on grounds of disability.
9. The obverse of disabilism is ableism, which is discrimination in favour of the
able-bodied.
10. Although disability pensions and other minimal welfare measures are pro-
vided to persons with disabilities by the state in an ad hoc way, there is no
assistance to families caring for an adult with disabilities.
11. Many disability activists feel that the minority view predominates in the inter-
national disability movement, that is, the perceptions and experiences of
disability prevailing in the Western world (Priestly 2001; Stone 1999). As Maijet
points out: ‘If one looks at the [disability] agenda, we can ask who sets the
agenda globally for human rights. My impression and humble opinion, is
that this agenda is very much set by the North and that we need to take issue
with that’ (cited in Priestly 2001:3). While the focus in the South is more on

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 205

nutrition, education, employment and other issues of survival, in the North

independent living services, assistive technologies, leisure and recreation are
regarded as of prime importance because issues of basic survival have been
taken care of. Disability studies privilege the minority world-view since the
theoretical perspectives and empirical data largely come from accounts in
Western Europe and North America, which comprise a minority of the total
world population of persons with disabilities.
12. The reference is to the psychosocial development theory put forward by the
psychoanalyst Erik Erikson (1982). This theory describes eight developmental
stages from infancy to late adulthood through which a healthy developing
human being should pass. At each stage new challenges have to be mastered
before the individual can pass on to the next stage. Adolescence is one of the
critical developmental stages involving a distinct set of developmental tasks.

References
Action Aid. 2003. Just People—Nothing Special, Nothing Unusual. Bangalore: Books
for Change.
Addlakha, R. 1997. ‘The Marginalisation of Gender in Mainstream Psychiatric
Theory and Practice’, Indian Psychologist, 1(2): 9–15.
———. 1998. ‘Nisha: Who Would Marry Someone Like Me?’ in A. Bhaiya and L.F.
Lee (eds.), Unmad: Findings of a Research Study on Women’s Mental and
Emotional Crisis: The Voice of the Subject, pp. 60–73. New Delhi: Jagori.
———. 1999. ‘Living with Chronic Schizophrenia: An Ethnographic Account
of Family Burden and Coping Strategies’, Indian Journal of Psychiatry,
41(2): 91–95.
———. 2001. ‘Lay and Medical Diagnoses of Psychiatric Disorder and the
Normative Construction of Femininity’, in B. V. Davar (ed.), Mental Health
from a Gender Perspective, pp. 313–333. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
———. 2005. ‘Affliction and Testimony: A Reading of the Diary of Parvati Devi’,
Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 12(1): 63–82.
———. 2007a. ‘Gender, Subjectivity and Sexual Identity: How Young People with
Disabilities Conceptualise the Body, Sex and Marriage in Urban India’.
Occasional Paper No. 46, Centre for Women’s Development Studies,
New Delhi.
———. 2007b. ‘How Young People with Disabilities Conceptualise the Body, Sex
and Marriage in Urban India: Four case studies’, Sexuality and Disability,
25(3):100–113.
Aneshensel, C.S., L.I. Pearlin, J.T. Mullan, S.H. Zarit and C.J. Whitlatch. 1995. Pro-
files in Caregiving: The Unexpected Career. San Diego: The Academic Press.
Bacquer, A. and A. Sharma. 1997. Disability: Challenges vs Responses. New Delhi:
Concerned Action Now.
Breivik, J.K. 2005. Deaf Identities in the Making: Local Lives, Transnational Connections.
Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

206 • Renu Addlakha

Corker, M. 1999. ‘Differences, Conflations and Foundations: The Limits to Accurate

Theoretical Representations of Disabled People’s Experience’, Disability and
Society, 14(5): 627–42.
———. 2001. ‘Sensing Disability’, Hypatia, 16(4): 34–52.
Coward, R.T., C. Horne and J.W. Dwyer. 1992. ‘Demographic Perspectives on
Gender and Caregiving’, in J.W. Dywer and R.T. Coward (eds.), Gender,
Families and Elder Care, pp. 18–33. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Davar, B. 1999. Mental Health of Indian Women: A Feminist Agenda. New Delhi:
Sage Publications.
———. (ed.). 2001. Mental Health from a Gender Perspective. New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Dhanda, A. 2000. Legal Order/Mental Disorder. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Dwyer, J.W. and R.T. Coward. 1992. ‘Gender and Family Care of the Elderly:
Research Gaps and Opportunities’, in J.W. Dywer and R. T. Coward (eds.),
Gender, Families and Elder Care, pp. 3–17. Newbury Park, CA: Sage
Publications.
Erikson, E.H. 1982. The Life Cycle Completed: A Review. New York: W.W. Norton
and Company.
Ghai, A. 1998. ‘Living in the Shadow of My Disability’, The Journal, 2(1): 32–36.
———. 2000. ‘Towards Understanding Disability’, Psychological Studies, 45(3):
145–49.
———. 2001. ‘Marginalisation and Disability: Experiences from the Third World’,
in M. Priestly (ed.), Disability and the Life Course: Global Perspectives, pp. 26–37.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
———. 2002a. ‘Disabled Women: An Excluded Agenda of Indian Feminism’,
Hypatia, 17(3): 49–66.
———. 2002b. ‘How Indian Mythology Portrays Disability’, Kaleidoscope, 45(1): 6–10.
———. 2003. (Dis)Embodied Form: Issues of Disabled Women. Delhi: Shakti Books,
Haranand Publications
Government of India. 2001. Census of India. New Delhi: Director General of Census.
Hans, A. and A. Patri (eds.). 2003. Women, Disability and Identity. New Delhi: Sage
Publications.
Horowitz, A. 1992. ‘Methodological Issues in the Study of Gender within Family
Caregiving Relations’, in J.W. Dywer and R.T. Coward (eds.), Gender, Fami-
lies and Elder Care, pp. 132–50. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Ladd, P. 2003. Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon, UK:
Multilingual Matters.
Lane, H., R. Heifmeister and B. Bahan. 1996. Journey into a Deaf World. San Diego:
Dawn Sign Press.
Meekosha, H. 2002. ‘Virtual Activists? Women and the Making of Identities of
Disability’, Hypatia, 17(3): 67–88.
Morris, J. 1991. Pride and Prejudice: Transforming Attitudes to Disability. London:
The Women’s Press.
———. 1993. ‘Feminism and Disability’, Feminist Review, 43(1): 57–70.
———. (ed.). 1996. Encounters with Strangers: Feminism and Disability. London: The
Women’s Press.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015

 Disability, Gender and Society • 207

Oliver, M. 1983. ‘The Individual and Social Models of Disability’. Paper presented
at the Joint Workshop of the Living Options Group and the Research Unit
of the Royal College of Physicians on People with Locomotor Disabilities
in Hospitals, University of Leeds, Leeds.
———. 1996. Understanding Disability: From Theory to Practice. London: Macmillan.
Pavalko, E.K. and S. Woodbury. 2000. ‘Social Roles as Process: Caregiving Careers
and Women’s Health’, Journal of Health and Social Behaviour, 41(1): 91–105.
Priestly, M. 2001. ‘Introduction: the Global Context of Disability’, in M. Priestly
(ed.), Disability and the Life Course: Global Perspectives, pp. 3–14. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, R., P. Visintainer and G.M. Williamson. 1990. ‘Psychiatric and Physical
Morbidity Effects of Caregiving’, Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sci-
ences, 45(5): 181–91.
Schulz, R. and G.M. Williamson. 1991. ‘A 2-Year Longitudinal Study of Depression
among Alzheimer’s Caregivers’, Psychology and Ageing, 6(4): 569–78.
Shelton, B.A. and D. John. 1996. ‘The Division of Household Labour’, Annual Re-
view of Sociology, 22: 299–322.
Stone, E. (ed.). 1999. Disability and Development: Learning from Action and Research
on Disability in the Majority World. Leeds: Disability Press.
Thomas, C. 1999. Female Forms. Buckingham: Open University Press.
UN. 1995. ‘Fourth World Conference on Women: Action for Equality, Develop-
ment and Peace’. Beijing, China, http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/
beijing/platform/, accessed 4 December 2007.
Vaughan. C. 1993. ‘People First Language: An Unholy Crusade’, Braille Monitor,
36(8): 868–70.
Wendell, S. 1996. The Rejected Body: Feminist Philosophical Reflections on Disability.
London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Young, I.M. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton Uni-
versity Press.

Indian Journal of Gender Studies, 15:2 (2008): 191–207

Downloaded from ijg.sagepub.com at WESTERN OREGON UNIVERSITY on May 20, 2015