Experiences of Gendered Norms and Mobilizing for Rights of Women Living With Disabilities in the Post-war Context in Sri Lanka

Sarala Emmanuel and Shreen Saroor center a question that policy categories often divide apart: how do disabled women in eastern Sri Lanka’s post-war context encounter gender norms, inaccessible public services and difficulty reaching safety and support? Published in 2022, this policy brief does not simply list a “vulnerable group.” It brings women’s situated experiences into rights advocacy and asks whether institutions can hear them and enable them to take part in decisions.

The material comes from consultations conducted between March and July 2020 in Ampara, Batticaloa and Trincomalee. Working with local disability organizations, the authors consulted 75 women and 11 men living with disabilities. Cases describe inaccessible transport, service delays amid flooding, care responsibilities and conflict-related injury; another account follows a woman trying to leave domestic violence but unable to reach shelter during COVID restrictions. These examples show how systems for seeking help and support may fail disabled women. More broadly, a rule or service designed without attention to mobility, communication and care needs may be formally available without being practically reachable.

The analysis does not treat disability as an isolated personal attribute. The ability to travel safely, obtain services and communicate one’s needs is shaped by gendered expectations, built environments and institutional responses together. Responses to violence make the limits of the idea of a service “for everyone” particularly visible: when shelters, referrals or information are not accessible, systems intended to protect can still leave some people unable to enter. The authors bring disabled women’s experiences into broader gender-justice debates rather than confining them to a separate welfare category.

The brief also asks how knowledge travels into policy. Consultations and cases were developed into a position paper; claims and disability-rights terminology were discussed collectively and submitted to a constitutional committee. Materials were made available in English, Sinhala and Tamil. Participants were not only people represented in policy: they helped define the problems, calibrate the language and identify directions for change. Collective advocacy cannot by itself remove power differences within organizations, but it creates a more direct line of accountability between policy language and those affected by it.

This is not a representative survey of all Sri Lanka. Its evidence comes from consultations in three eastern districts and cases situated in a particular post-war and pandemic period; it should not be generalized into one account of all disabled women. Its value as a policy brief lies in connecting situated experience to institutional responsibility and collective action. Read it with the study of reproductive autonomy among disabled women in Zimbabwe: this brief foregrounds services and policy advocacy, while the Zimbabwe study approaches intimacy and reproductive care through narrative research. The Vietnam participatory-film study offers another point of comparison about who gets to define a problem. The Frontiers article sets out the consultation context, case boundaries and recommendations.