Governance of Disasters

Despite increased institutional capacity for preventing and addressing disasters in the world today, new disasters continue to expose governance deficits. Indiaâs own track-record in preventing and responding to disasters is less than exemplar. In the past month, three different disasters have seen three different types of responses.

The Cyclone Phailin hit the coast of Odisha on Saturday evening. Its enormous wind speed and fury destroyed much of the property in Ganjam district, uprooted trees and electric poles and caused havoc with livelihoods of thousands of families. Yet, human life was saved. In comparison to 1999 super cyclone in Odisha when thousands of people had died, this is a remarkable achievement. This was possible due to proper early warning system, effective preparation and evacuation and deployment of enough official capacities to respond quickly. It will take weeks to bring any kind of normalcy back to peopleâs lives, yet the process of responding to this natural disaster has been commendable.

In contrast, the man-made disaster in Muzaffarnagar  (UP) last month was a communal conflict that has killed hundreds, destroyed homes and livelihoods of thousands and resulted in displacements of unknown many. This communal conflict was allowed to simmer, spread and expand its impact while the district and state governments fumbled. The early warning of impending disaster had been ignored; the political leadership had become party to the conflict; the functioning of public officials and agencies was severely  obstructed. This disaster was governed in a disastrous manner, with relief and rehabilitation, let alone punishment to the guilty, yet to be adequately implemented.

Over this weekend, another disaster took place in MP; a stampede of devotees to a temple has already killed more than hundred and injured many more. The stampedes in religious and cultural places and on such occasions in India continue to be a regular phenomenon with huge loss to human life. Such occasions are well-known in advance; the density of human presence can be easily anticipated; systems of ‘crowd managementâ can be put in place to ensure human safety; support services in case of any incident can be kept ready. Yet, stampedes in religious and cultural places and occasions continue unabated in the country.

Therefore, deficits in governance of man-made disasters are not being addressed adequately, though there has been considerable improvement in the prevention of and response to natural disasters. National Disaster Management Authority has demonstrated its response capacity in case of Odisha, though not much in case of Uttarakhand this summer. Why this difference? Clearly, the governance capacity in Odisha is better tuned than in Uttarakhand. If there is failure of governance at state level, should not the central government intervene to prevent loss of life and property?

Indian Meteorology Department seems to be better able to predict cloud bursts and cyclones rather more accurately these days. But who is responsible for predicting man-made disasters? Is there a responsible agency for predicting communal conflicts? Or any agency responsible for anticipating stampedes?

Given the nature of Indian society and polity today, given the growing size and density of Indian population, given the ease of mobility for a larger number of Indians, shouldnât governance of disasters not pay particular attention to man-made ones then? How can governance of man-made disasters improve in an accountable manner so that such disasters are minimized, prevented and responded to capably?

Rajesh Tandon

October 14, 2013
President, PRIA
New Delhi