When an earthquake measuring 7.8 on the Richter scale hit Nepal on April 25, everyone was grief-struck. Within a few minutes, Kathmandu, one of the most beautiful cities in the world, lost its glory. The Dharahara tower, which withstood the quake of 1934, could not stand the tremors this time. The nine-storey building built by the royal rulers in the 19th century no longer stands tall proclaiming the nation’s rich heritage.
For years, scientists have been warning about a “big earthquake”. Nepal did not take them seriously. There were no building by-laws in force, leading to indiscriminate and unplanned construction. Poor economic conditions and years of unstable government affected the country’s growth and development. The earthquake was followed by around 200 aftershocks and another quake measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale. However, this may not be the last, as another prediction had pegged the event as the tip of an iceberg.
The earthquake had a major impact on Indian states—Bihar, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal—too. Tremors were also felt in Delhi, West Bengal, Uttarakhand, Punjab, Haryana, Gujarat and in the Northeast. Even in distant Kerala, the people reportedly experienced the quake.
One shudders to think what would have happened if the Nepal quake had its epicentre in New Delhi. The national capital is as ill-equipped to resist an earthquake of such a magnitude as the Himalayan nation, which is rich in resources but poor in using them for people’s welfare.
India is one of the most vulnerable nations as far as natural disasters are concerned. Of the 29 states and seven Union Territories, 22 are disaster-prone. If one goes by figures, India lost 1,43,039 people during the last three decades and 150 crore people were affected in one way or the other by natural disasters. The economic loss is estimated at $4800 crore in this period. Yet, when it comes to disaster management, India is still in its infancy.
India never had a proper disaster management policy until 2005 when the Disaster Management (DM) Act came into being. Despite an extensive mechanism to tackle disasters with different disaster management authorities at the central, state and district levels, the Act has not achieved a breakthrough. The local authorities have been made responsible for implementation of the disaster management policy. Yet, nothing much has been done on the ground.
The Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) of India in one of his reports came out with shocking revelations. Many projects taken up by the government were either left midway or were running beyond deadlines. One of the programmes for the creation of a national database for seismic hazard and regional risk appraisal could not fructify despite an allocation of `298 crore. The ministry of earth sciences and the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) were given the responsibility of preparing an updated seismic hazard and risk microzonation map which remained incomplete till 2013. In fact, the guidelines for microzonation were released only in October 2012.
The National Executive Committee (NEC), entrusted with the responsibility of monitoring the implementation of the disaster management plan and policy, did not meet after May 2008 till December 2012. Some states did not form state disaster management authorities, forget implementation of the disaster management policy. Even if the required authorities were formed, they did not follow the national guidelines for disaster management. The floods in Uttarakhand in 2013 and J&K (2014) point to the colossal mismanagement of disaster management.
Recent reports in leading newspapers portray a dismal picture of various disaster management centres (DMCs) in Delhi, as most are being used as civic agency offices. The centres were formed mainly to store relief material, equipment for evacuating people and distribution of aid. Some of the DMCs do not even have a building. The land is being used for dumping garbage. If the national capital is not fully equipped, one can easily imagine the situation in other states.
Apart from setting up disaster management authorities, the Act constituted a National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) for undertaking relief measures effectively whenever a disaster strikes. The NDRF, comprising 10 battalions, has been formed essentially with paramilitary personnel, who lack the expertise of handling complex situations. Moreover, the NDRF depends largely on the armed forces for movement from one place to another, resulting in unavoidable delay.
Another report brings out the plight of the NDRF, too, which has been struggling to work without infrastructure. The task force is provided neither logistics nor sufficient assets and tools to evacuate people. While the national disaster management authority (NDMA) houses a building built over a 75,000 sqft land, the NDRF doesn’t have basic infrastructure and staff for carrying out its operations.
Eight out of 10 battalions do not have a building and basic facilities. The budgetary allocation for disaster management for the last fiscal was `387.46 crore. A majority of the budgeted allocation for disaster management was spent on the upkeep of the NDRF in the absence of a separate allocation. The government has always focused its attention on post-disaster management with stress on announcement of relief packages. A study shows various ministries/departments floated as many as 37 dedicated schemes till 2013 for disaster management/disaster risk reduction and 85 embedded schemes indirectly facilitating disaster management with a different objective.
None of the embedded schemes has been framed with the larger aim of disaster risk reduction, as defined in the DM Act. Nor was any action taken to modify these schemes for mainstreaming disaster risk reduction.
Though there has been a considerable increase in the amount spent on dedicated schemes after 2005, their relative share to the budget has declined to less than 1 per cent. Contrarily, embedded schemes have a share of 30 per cent of the budget. Besides, the allocations are being made for temporary relief and rehabilitation. There is hardly any allocation for long-term reconstruction and recovery.
The government has to redraw its strategy, from allocation of budget to redefining disaster management policy. The NDRF must be supplemented with effective communication system, support staff, training and basic infrastructure for effectively managing the relief process during a disaster. India, like many other nations, has adopted the Hyogo framework of Action recognising science and technology’s role in disaster risk reduction (DRR). The knowledge gained through science and technology must be translated into useful techniques and integrated into long-terms plans, policies and regulations on disaster management.
Knowledge becomes redundant unless it is upgraded from time to time. The government’s commitment towards DRR should not merely reflect on papers but should crystallise into action, beyond providing medical aid, clothes and eatables to people. A holistic approach needs to be adopted with focus on long-term sustainable development rather than a less productive post-disaster-centric approach. After all, a disaster does not affect a particular area, it impacts the economy.
The writer is a company secretary and director,communications, Deepalaya. Email: jassi.rai@gmail.com