The authors of the study say, the chasm between policy and practice is stark for PWDs who remain disproportionately impacted and under-represented.
As India grapples with an increasing frequency of extreme weather events, a new study sheds light on a critical yet often overlooked population – people with disabilities. Titled “How inclusive is disaster risk reduction? Perceptions and predicaments of persons with disabilities during disaster in Assam, India”, the study says that though India has established disaster risk reduction frameworks, their inclusive implementation remains insufficient, raising urgent questions about whether the most vulnerable are being truly protected, the study says.
In 2024, India experienced extreme weather on 322 days, leading to over 3 400 deaths. The first 90 days of 2025 alone saw 87 days of intense weather events – including floods and heat waves – underscoring an alarming upward trend in disasters. This intensifies the threat faced by the country’s estimated 28.6 million people with disabilities (PWDs), who are often disproportionately affected. Yet, according to the study, their needs are still overlooked across preparedness, response and recovery phases.
Policy on Paper, Gaps in Practice
In the last four decades, the occurrence of disasters in South Asia has quadrupled, making it one of the most disaster-affected territories in the world. The increase in the frequency and severity of natural hazards also affects the vulnerability of the 28.6 million people living with disabilities in India, the study says. In response, the Government of India has established various policies on the national level to strengthen the rights and participation of PWDs in the country.
Over a decade ago, India adopted the United Nations Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (2015–2030), aiming to significantly reduce disaster losses in lives, livelihoods, and health, as well as the impact on economic, physical, social, cultural and environmental assets. Complementing this, the Disaster Management Act 2005 sets out the legal and institutional architecture for effective disaster management. The National Disaster Management Plan was introduced in 2016 and revised in 2019 to include provisions for people with disabilities (PWDs).
Yet, despite these formal inclusions, real world implementation remains uneven. The study highlights that “little is known about the status of disability inclusive policymaking and the implementation of policies on the ground.” In fact, the incorporation of disability inclusive disaster risk reduction (DIDRR) diminishes markedly as one moves from the national level down to states and districts. At these more local levels, PWDs are merely referred to “in only a few sections” of disaster management plans. In effect, they are rendered invisible in key planning documents that guide preparedness and response.
The original paper, accessible via Wiley, reinforces these observations. In the pre disaster phase, preparedness exercises such as mock drills, early warning systems and evacuation procedures are often not inclusive or accessible. As a result, PWDs are less likely to be warned or able to respond to hazards, and frequently remain fully dependent on others to survive.
The authors stress that, in practice, people with disabilities usually have to rely on their social capital – meaning family, friends and neighbours. While such networks can be lifesaving in times of crisis, relying on them as the only option compounds the vulnerability and uncertainty of those with disabilities.
Why Inclusion Matters – Now More Than Ever
One of the study’s key recommendations is that inclusive disaster strategies must draw on local knowledge and capacity building. First responders, policymakers and community members alike need to understand and plan for the specific needs of PWDs – not as an afterthought, but as a core design element in policy and practice. Without this, disaster preparedness risks remaining top-heavy and ineffectual.
India’s growing susceptibility to disasters, from intense heat waves to floods, renders inclusive disaster planning not only ethical, but essential. Without embedding disability inclusion at every level – from national frameworks to district action plans – many continue to be left behind. This is not simply a matter of oversight; it is a profound failure of system design.
The combination of severe weather trends and structural exclusion poses immediate risks. For example, early warning systems inaccessible to visually or hearing impaired individuals are inadequate. Evacuation procedures that do not account for mobility limitations inevitably leave some stranded. And recovery strategies that ignore disability perspectives fail to restore equitable lives in post-disaster environments.
Building Better: Inclusive by Design
To build resilience that truly serves all, disaster risk reduction must:
- Inclusively engage PWDs in planning – ensure their voices are central to policy formulation, not marginalised.
- Mainstream inclusion across all levels – from national to district planning documents and practices.
- Design accessible early warning and evacuation systems – for example, visual and audio alerts, accessible shelters.
- Train first responders – so that they recognise and can assist people with disabilities effectively during crises.
- Leverage local knowledge and social capital – not as a substitute, but as a complement to formal inclusive planning.
India’s disaster management architecture – anchored by the DRR framework, legal statutes and national planning – holds promise. Yet, the authors of the study say, the chasm between policy and practice is stark for PWDs who remain disproportionately impacted and under-represented. As natural hazards intensify, the stakes are higher, and inclusivity can no longer be optional.
At the district level, the policy framework lacks concrete measures to put the implementation of DIDRR into action, the study says.
According to the paper, a DRR officer described the situation regarding DIDRR policies in the framework as follows: ‘We have many policies on national and state level. On the district level, we have management plans, but they are not very specific, have left a lot of room for implementation, and are in a primitive state’.
