During any crisis, the susceptibility of individuals, in terms of their abilities and available options during disasters, varies in nature and magnitude according to their gender. It is essential to acknowledge that, although women are more vulnerable than men during disasters, they are not invariably shown as frail and powerless victims. They are knowledgeable of indigenous coping strategies that may be utilized during disasters. Research indicates that during emergencies or natural disasters, women are the initial providers of nursing care to their families prior to the commencement of any relief efforts. They are tasked with providing safe drinking water and food for the family, in addition to delivering care, which constitutes a formidable responsibility in such environments. A multitude of disaster theorists assert that women are integral to environmental health. Nevertheless, rules and relief initiatives are consistently directed towards men to tackle challenges associated with natural disasters. During such periods, all support plans formulated are accessible to men. Although women significantly contribute to social and political rehabilitation, they are denied direct access to benefits. The current research paper aims to assess the persistent gender discrepancy regarding access, availability, and resource usage during disasters, despite women's significant contributions to risk resilience and coping strategies, from an eco-feminist and policy perspective.

Contextualizing Gender and Disaster: Reflections from different theoretical aspects

Disaster risk is socially distributed in ways that reflect the social divisions that already exist in the society (Enarsonetal, 2007). Therefore, the different communities who experience such conditions are mostly deprived from any important decision making institutions and have serious implications on their psychological, physical, political or economic conditions. Among these however, the poor, the geriatric, minorities and particularly females are at higher risks. Moreover Ariyabandu and Wickramsinghe’sbook on ‘Gender Dimensions in Disaster Management: A Guide for South Asia’ puts forward convincing arguments that the disaster management approach should be revisited and make it more gender sensitive. Their work also presents an in-depth analysis of the differential vulnerabilities of men and women in facing and coping with disasters. Based on the findings of the Beijing Action Plan, which was adopted in the ‘Fourth World Conference on Women’ in 1995, it was noted that the social and economic impact of natural disasters and epidemics are more or less invisible in any policy documents. Hence, in response to the findings of the Beijing Action Plan, the twenty- third special session of the General Assembly also raised an issue in this regard and acknowledged the fact that there is an increase in casualties and damages caused to women by natural disasters(Ariyabandu & Wickramasinghe, 2003).

Often gender based inequalities interact with class, race, ethnicity and age which put many women and girls into high risk and it leads to other sets of inequalities with respect to enjoyment of human rights, political and economic rights, land ownership, exposure to violence, education and health (particularly sexual and reproductive health), and consequently this makes women more vulnerable during and after disasters.

If we consider the case of Assam, one of the most underdeveloped and flood prone states in the country, around 87 percentage of its population is based in the rural areas and of these people, a large number are living below the poverty line. Repeated floods in the region have resulted in the shift of livelihood patterns. Mostly due to erosion in the severely affected area, the population is unable to sustain agriculture that then traps families in poverty (Dutta, 2003). As a result of desperate condition families fall prey to traffickers and send their children away to earn. Unemployment adds fuel to make youth vulnerable. This situation makes it hot bed for the traffickers to trap innocent children and women, who land up in either bonded labour or brothels. According to Nedan foundation, NGO working in the field of human trafficking in Assam, since 1998, 11,000 people are missing in Assam whereas the state machinery has no answers to where they are? (Data collected from Nedan.in) The state records as one of the highest internally displaced people in the country. The socio-political conflicts and natural disasters are the central causes, which have resulted in these regions to become the supply points. The supply line is very well organized, the route is well marked, and the geography of the state is also conducive for trafficking.

There are many studies, which shows that women are more prone to post flood diseases as they consume very less which has nutritional value and also because of physical susceptibility. As Blaike would mention ‘men’s and women’s time patterns of daily and seasonal activities also differ, and this may produce inequalities in their exposure to flood hazards’ (Blaikeet.al, 1994: 206). Moreover children also live with the women and not men even in such situation, which eventually increases the intensity of vulnerability for both.

The indigenous coping mechanisms to prevent physical economic loss could compliment the modern scientific knowledge to produce the viable solutions to cope up with the risk of disaster. Disaster theorists have observed especially in the case of India women could contribute the most important role in the restoration of livelihood process. Many field reports of the disaster theorist in the last decade have observed that because of their good knowledge on indigenous coping mechanisms women portrays good leadership skills in the resurrection of their lives and livelihoods apart from taking care of the children and the elderly members.

The understanding of social construction of gender is significant in this study as the two sexes experience disaster in different intensities. In any disaster, if analyzed closely the vulnerability of men and women with respect to their capacities and options available to them during disasters differ in character and scale according to their gender (Ariyabandu&Wickramasinghe, 2003). However, it is also essential to note that although women are more vulnerable than men during disasters, they are not really those weak and helpless victims as they are often portrayed. They have knowledge about indigenous coping mechanisms, which can be used during disasters. But unfortunately these capabilities of women are often ignored in policy decisions and in mitigation measures and as a result of which these qualities go waste (ibid). Insensitivity and ignorance of gender differences has resulted in constraining women from taking part in mitigation and relief work. Again in development planning and different mitigation measures, interventions are mostly aimed at men. So eventually such inaccurate gender assumptions of policy makers tend to not only deny women benefits, but also create pathetic condition for women (Ibid). However, one of the most important factors, which contribute to the risks and agonies of women, is the prevailing high rates of female poverty. It is very essential to understand this social aspect of poverty, as this particular factor is responsible for all kind of social vulnerabilities. As far as coping with the disaster is concerned men, women and community as a whole provide emergency assistance to one another, by helping the children and the elderly. Community is the first responder before any external assistance and help, community take charge and helps each other. However, there are research studies which show that at the time of emergency or the occurrence of natural disasters, women are the first one to provide nursing to the family before any kind of relief work begins (ITDG South Asia Research Studies, 2006). Apart from providing care they are also responsible for providing safe drinking water and food to the family, which is a seriously difficult task during such situations. The author have mentioned one of the studies by Nasreen (Nasreen, 2000), which reflect the plight of women during one of such disaster struck situations. The study is cited in Ariyabandu and Wickramasinghe’s work on gender dimensions in disaster management. This study is based in Jolpur, Bangladesh where women were responsible for collecting and storing water during the floods. ‘Almost all tube wells went under water and poor women had to take considerable risks to procure drinking water from great distances. They had to walk through chest high water or swim to collect fresh and clean water’. Women used various techniques to take water out of the tube wells so as not to mix it with flood water, and to purify the water, in the absence of fuel wood (Nasreen, 2000: 316). This study is only one of the several events in which women faces grave situations under the effect of nature’s wrath. Under such situation in which most of the emphasis is applied on the meteorological and technological research a detailed gender studies also becomes necessary to understand the status of men and women in the society in daily life and also during disasters. Such studies are useful to understand the gender based vulnerabilities that are prevalent in the society and these studies are also useful in the equitable framework of policies and planning with respect to disaster management.

Although disaster research and feminist theories are two different areas, which have evolved, independently in different periods, however, in the recent times many scholars have penned down different feminist perspectives with regard to disaster research. Elaine Enarson and B. Phillips in one of their research work cited that, “Feminist scholarship demonstrates that gender serves as a primary organizing principle of all societies and is therefore an essential lens through which to view the experience of a disaster such as a hurricane; disaster research suggests both vulnerability and capacity for women experiencing disaster” (Enarson& Phillips, 2008: 41-74).

 Disaster research always refers women as more vulnerable to men during disasters. According to the traditional norms of life, the socially constructed gender roles place women as homemakers, bearer of children and nurturer and men primarily holds the position of a protector and the breadwinner whose prime responsibilities place him as the supporter of his family. Lately with some development in this research area, it is observed that role-conditioned gender differences occur at all stages of disaster response (Hoffman, Susanna, 1998). Bateman & Bob Edwards in their work on gender and evacuation published in 2002 expressed that, “Women’s and men’s ideas about their work and family responsibilities have major consequences for their risk perception, preparedness and evacuation” (Bateman, Julie M & Bob Edwards, 2002: 107-117). Many times women as a caretaker are at a higher risk of injuries as they give more emphasis on the safety of the other members of the family specially her children at the time when emergency struck.

As already expressed earlier that women are more vulnerable than men, however their vulnerability is not only a result of their responsibilities as a caretaker but also from lack of working opportunities which results in lesser earning capacities, lack of access to transportation, lack of mobilization from one place to another and other essential resources like proper housing and health care facilities. Consequently they are not considered as an important entity in terms of decision-making. Again disasters like flood do not affect all women in equal intensities. In this context it is essential to understand the theoretical aspects of social stratification for a broader understanding. Increasingly, disaster research reveals that differences of ethnicity/race, class status have contributed significantly in the course of women’s experiences during disasters, and women who are socially and economically disadvantaged are most vulnerable to long term impacts. In fact Enarson and Phillips in their work in 2008 mentioned that, disaster theory, as well as disaster preparation and recovery policies, often assumes nuclear family structure which posits male protection, and privileges male headed households for relief aid and the reintegration of men into the workforce. As a consequence, women-headed family and non-family households do not always receive the needed assistance and services to which they are entitled (Enarson& Phillips, 2008).

From the last one-decade, various debates around gender and environment have made the relationship between environment and gender evident. Literature shows that women's work is linked with the environment through different activities like agriculture, domestic chores and so on and the situation generally becomes very difficult whenever there is environmental degradation. Susan Buckingham-Hatfield in her work Gender and Environment states that, “The relationship between gender and environment is less obvious in the West where most people are more distant from the source of their food supply, the energy and the water they use. However because of their biology, it is women who conceive, carry, give birth to and suckle children and this exposes them to a number of environmental hazards, whether it is by shopping for food (women need to be aware of whether this food has been sprayed by harmful pesticides, irradiated for preservation or genetically modified) preparing that food for safe eating, or caring for the health of their children” (Buckingham-Hatfield, 2000:1). Though there are differences between women in different parts of the world, there also exist inequalities in terms of income and occupation between men and women. Ironically, women are engaged in such activities which are very critical to the survival of humans which include feeding or providing health care and so on which are apparently not considered as productive work in the society nor do they receive any respect for such activities.

It is evident that poverty is one of the most important determinants of ill health and also environmental degradation, which results in the poor health of the women (Cited in Panchi Pathak’s Unpublished M.Phil dissertation submitted in Centre of Social Medicine and Community Health, School of Social Sciences, JNU: New Delhi, 2011:52). Also the issues of ecological and cultural crisis have always had a big impact on women than on men. Dietrich's work on Women, Ecology and Culture raised the argument that both ecology and culture have direct implications for the lives of the women. The environmental degradation adds to the suffering of women and the cultural dimension has a significant role in defining the intensity of their sufferings. Moreover male dominance in disaster decisions and ideological constraints can limit women’s access to life-saving public shelters. Hence gender issues are not manifestations of disasterrelated crisis situations, but have been always visibly prevalent in the daily life at the level of the individual, family, community and is reflected everywhere in terms of social and cultural norms (Dietrich, 1999).

1. AriyabanduMadhaviMalalgoda and WickramsingheMaithree (2003). Gender Dimensions in Disaster Management: A Guide for South Asia. ITDG, South Asia.
2. Ariyabandu, MadhaviMalalgoda (2009). Sex, Gender and Gender Relations in Disasters in Enarson and Chakravarti (ed) Women, Gender and Disaster: Global Issues and Initiatives. Sage Publications: New Delhi
3. Bateman Julie M and Bob Edwards (2002). Gender and Evacuation: A Closer look at why Women are more likely to  Evacuate for Hurricanes. Natural Hazards Review 3:107:117.
4. Blaike, P.T, Cannon.I.Davis and B.Wisner (1994). At Risk: Natural Hazards, People’s Vulnerability, and Disasters. Routledge, London.
5. Buckingham-Hatfield, S. (2000). Gender and Environment. London: Routledge.
6. Dietrich, G. 1. (1999). Women, Ecology and Culture. New Delhi: Oxford University Press
7. Dutta B, Patra S C and Seethapathi P V (2003). Flood of Assam: Causes, Control Measures and Management Options, in Sabhapandit P C (2003), ed., Flood Problem of Assam: Cause and Remedies. Omsons Publications, pp.52-60
8. Enarson, Elaine &B.Phillips (2008), Invitation to a New Feminist Disaster Sociology: Integrating Feminist Theory and Methods. In B.Phillips& Betty Morrow (eds). Women and Disasters: From theory to Practice:41-74. Philadelphia:Xlibris.
9. Enarson, Elaine, Alice Fothergill &Lovi Peek (2007). Gender and Disaster: Foundations and Directions. In Havidan Rodriguez et al (eds). Handbook of Disaster Research. New York, NY:Springer: 130-146.
10. Hoffman, Susanna (1998). Eve and Adam among the Embers: Gender patterns after the Oakland Berkeley Firestorm. In Enarson and Morrow (eds).
11. ITDG. (2006). ‘Dealing with Drought Livelihood Options for Drought Risk Reduction’, available at: http://www.duryognivaran.org/detail_bulk.php?id=66&newsindex=3&arctoday= (Accessed 31 May 2007).
12. Nasreen M (2000). Coping Mechanisms of Rural Women in Bangladesh During Floods: A Gender Perspective, in Disaster: Issues and Gender Perspectives. Ahmed N, Khatun H, eds, Department of geography and environment, University of Dhaka,2000.
13. Pathak , Panchi (2011). Social Dimensions of Water Supply and Sanitation: A study of Two Villages in Barpeta district, Assam. Unpublished M.phil Dissertation submitted to CSMCH/SSS, JNU, New Delhi-67.
14. Phillips, Brenda. D (2013). Social Vulnerability to Disasters. Edited by Thomas, Deborah S.K, Phillips, Brenda. D, Lovekamp, William E and Fothergill, Alice. Published by CRC Press.