The Uttarakhand disaster has once again driven our attention towards the disaster management capacity, understanding and adeptness of the National Disaster Management Authority which is the apex institution one looks up to during such times. The Disaster Management Act 2005 says that NDMA “shall have the responsibility of laying down the policies, plans and guidelines for ensuring timely and effective response to disaster”.It is also responsible for “laying down guidelines to be followed by state authorities in drawing up their plans”. Under Section 6 of the Disaster Management Act 2005, NDMA coordinates the enforcement and implementation of disaster mitigation plans, recommends provision of funds and lays down broad policies and guidelines for the National Institute of Disaster Management which is the apex training body for capacity building in handling disasters in the country.
However, a legitimate disaster management initiative in India lies in Sec 6 (i) of the Act which says that the NDMA should “take such measures for the prevention of disasters, or mitigation or preparedness and capacity building for dealing with a threatening disaster situation or disaster as it may consider necessary”. The NDMA ought to take this section with greater seriousness and commitment notwithstanding the many challenges it ought to encounter such as an understanding of local environmental and ecological resilience, alertness to law and effective agency coordination from the Centre to the State and local levels. It has been 16 years now since the Disaster Management Act (DMA 2005) was formulated. It has been quite successful in giving visibility to its institutional domain but has repeatedly failed in delivering substantive mitigation.
One would like to seek answers to the manifest deficits of an institution which is headed by none other than the Prime Minister himself and currently by a personality that has not only proved to be an able leader with a large fanbase across the world but who also has exceptional communication skills and makes overt emotional appeals to entice citizens into his policy theatrics like a Pied Piper. At a cursory look, these deficits seem not so much in the intentions or a lack of resources but in institutional failings to match with the spirit of the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA 2005) in the first place, and as a consequence of it, deviating from the Sendai Framework for Disaster Risk Reduction (SFDRR, 2015-30). The former was brought in immediately after the devastating 2004 tsunami and therefore waded through many philosophical arguments related to man’s existence and the value of progress. It was debated and accepted in the United Nations with a shared concern for human progress and the developmental goals pursued by countries. The HFA demanded that nations focus on preparedness rather than the erstwhile rescue and relief operations. It had a visionary insistence on the fact that an investment in preparedness was an investment in development, as every disaster drains out a substantial percentage of developmental gains in terms of a country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which is the market value of all the goods and services produced by a country, over and above the lives lost and delays in bouncing back to normal. This loss is roughly estimated at more than 2% of the GDP but can be much higher if the continuous externalities of environmental impact related losses are added to it, such as pollution, water loss, climate change related phenomena or a reduction in flora and fauna. The HFA clarified that preparedness builds resilience and incorporates sustainability into developmental policies and plans. If a country’s disaster management authorities and institutions do not value preparedness then they trap the country’s progress into an irretrievable retreat or fait accompli to accepting ruin as an ‘Act of God’.
The spirit of this trendsetting global meeting on disaster management was expressed as the potentially powerful location of DRR (disaster risk reduction) in a nation’s ability “to promote a strategic and systematic approach to reducing vulnerabilities and risks to hazards.” “Reducing vulnerabilities” indicates that communities should not be habiting fragile ecological zones and have good health, education and livelihood to become more resilient to the economic downturns that a disaster brings. Secondly, “reducing risks to hazards” indicates that developmental plans of construction, electricity generation, tourism, mining, oil drilling and port building should not be undertaken at locations which have a well-established scientific and geo-physical finding about a hazard. So, two facts become obviously clear: first, that it is impossible to work against nature, and second, any such policy obduracy may lead to the destruction of development. For implementing this spirit, governments should have focused on ‘communities’, (local governments, local institutions and local culture) and on annual plans based on the identification of ‘red zones’ or hazards which prohibit human trespassing in a particular location. Nonetheless, research is needed continuously for meaningful and cost-effective disaster management and achieving the Hyogo spirit.
SFDRR recognised this immense need for research by indicating it as “understanding disaster risk”, the first of four priority areas. The other three, i.e., strengthening disaster risk governance, investing in disaster risk reduction and enhancing disaster preparedness, are all located in governance and law. The need for research was passionately recognised as a starting point for DRR by former Minister of State for Disaster Management at the Ministry of Home Affairs Kiren Rijiju who encouraged disaster research as a starting point to divert policies from their dependence on western literature. By locating this research at the country’s premier multi-disciplinary research institution, Jawaharlal Nehru University, he could confidently vouch for capacity building percolation effect upon its own training institute as well. As research took off, reputed international publishers lined up to document its findings. The vibrant energy-filled environment with the young, the seniors, the uniformed forces and the local communities could not hide its inductive inclusivity in the country’s pessimistic periphery. As research teams marched to the fragile eco zones of the Sundarbans bordering Bangladesh or to Manipur’s Churachandpur, Chandel and Thaubal and further to the Teesta catchments of Kalimpong in West Bengal, Munnar hills in Kerala or waded through the flood waters of Alappuzha, local communities continued to join them, learn what they could have done and share what they needed. One evening, as researchers were explaining their day’s field work in the Sundarbans to the team leader, a former Chief Secretary, the West Bengal State Minister of Environment walked into the room to participate and share his knowledge on the subject. He was surprised to see that the State Disaster Secretary was absent. The next day, as news of this spread, not only the Secretary but other Secretaries heading other State Disaster Management Authorities were on high alert. Such was the participatory pull of this research.
While the field-based files were turning pages, parallel documentation was done by young, energetic research teams from universities and government training institutes across the country, which was later published as five continuous international volumes in a famous Palgrave-Macmillan series by Springer Nature. This unmatched information, available at one place for all prospective policymakers not just in India but the whole of South Asia, is indeed a lighthouse with the potential to crack through JNU’s academic council and establish the first trans-disciplinary centre for disaster research and make India a hub for training prospective Asian disaster managers. So strong was the Minister’s commitment to disaster management that he once publicly surprised many by asking the NDMA why they have not asked JNU experts to be part of the committee working to amend the DMA 2005. The young faculty and students still cannot forget their deep thought-provoking discussion with this minister on the DMA 2005 in the lawns of JNU one cold evening. It is worth recollecting that despite a show of willingness by the Secretary and the NDMA members in public, the official invite never came. But a day before the submission of their report, the NIDM-ED did call for expert inputs from the JNU experts, which was regretted. This community spirit displayed by MoS-DM was the key to mutual learning. Alas, both the Minister and the JNU team of researchers were soon replaced and the much-needed continuity in DRR work was lost to black letter office orders.
Wherever there is a lack of understanding of policy, the incapable ones in decision making compensate through a media display of traits other than disciplinary competence, such as charity, ideology, tears, religion and overtime work. It then becomes indispensable for their survival to steer clear of those who question. Therefore, the recent judgement of a Delhi Court in Disha Ravi’s case clarifies the perspective that the government needs to adopt. It says that “citizens are the conscience keepers of the government in any democratic nation” and further opens up the spirit of the Constitution when it uses the words, “…wounded vanity of governments”. Only an incompetent person is wounded, as the competent brightens up every department they touch. It is high time that the government looks at the norms of openness and research, rather than dubbing it as suspicious activity in preparation of overthrowing the government. By relying on such abysmal thinking, the government and academic institutions would only be piled up with incompetent opportunists making the government the biggest obstruction in its own policies. Disaster management needs openness and, more than anything else, to be liberated from the fortress of the NDMA and hold the hands of communities and researchers.
The writer is president, NAPSIPAG Disaster Research Group and a former Professor at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. The views expressed are personal.
