We must save as many lives as possible, but why should we shamelessly seek brownie points for it?
The rapidity with which the Indian government responded to the earthquake in Nepal and the extent of help provided can only be welcomed. Within a few hours of the earthquake striking north-west of Kathmandu and with initial reports coming in of massive devastation to property, the Indian government mobilised both the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) and the armed forces to send relief as well as specialised rescue teams to help its northern neighbour.
The extent of the death and destruction from the earthquake, which struck Nepal and adjoining areas of India on 25 April 2015, has yet to be fully measured and estimated. Some villages near the earthquake epicentre have been entirely flattened, while damage and death have been substantial everywhere. The already fragile and insufficient infrastructure of Nepal also seems to have suffered grievous damage. From all accounts it does seem that Indian rescue workers, doctors, relief supplies and medicines have been an important part of the Nepal government’s efforts.
India’s disaster and emergency response seems to have matured and is now dependable when any such event strikes. One only has to discern the professionalism of the response to the present earthquake and compare it with the reaction in 2001 to the Bhuj earthquake to realise how much of an improvement there has been; or compare the response to the 1999 cyclone in Odisha with the reaction to Cyclone Phailin.
The watershed event for India’s disaster response seems to have been the tsunami of December 2004. Some lessons—institutional as well as policy—were learnt and implemented by both the government as well as non-governmental actors. The National Disaster Management Authority was formed, protocols for responding to disasters were drawn up, and a range of non-governmental actors were involved in consultation and formulation of policies. Later, the NDRF was drawn up with contributions from the central police and security forces. The Navy and the Air Force too have built capacities to deal with civilian emergencies in coordination with the NDRF. India’s attempts at building a blue water Navy and its larger policy of projecting its “emerging power” status have together also contributed to its enhanced capabilities. This has been evident during the process of evacuation from war zones like Iraq, Libya and, most recently, Yemen.
This enhancement in capabilities of meeting disasters seems, at present, to be restricted to sudden destruction and damage of war, earthquakes and cyclones. It has not been in evidence with equal efficiency and professionalism in facing floods, nor in dealing with situations of terrorist attacks, riots or mob violence. India confronts a continuing, and growing, disaster of road accidents and even the relatively “minor” matter of reaching first aid to victims and transporting them to hospitals remains grossly inefficient. Nor has there been any perceptible improvement in dealing with fire accidents.
Further, while the rescue and immediate relief measures have seen improvements, there has not been a parallel advance in preparing for disasters (perhaps Cyclone Phailin was an exception). The building code for earthquake-prone areas is poorly enforced; safety drills and civil defence measures are poor and there has been little investment of time, money or attention to fulfilling any of these standards and courses of action. The longer, more difficult, work of rehabilitation too remains patchy and haphazard at best and grossly neglected at most times. Victims of disaster are left, after the first flush of rescue and relief, to fend for themselves as they try to rebuild their lives. Matters of class, caste and gender discrimination, bureaucratic sloth and callousness, political one-upmanship and such other venalities have, more often than not, blighted whatever feeble attempts made at rehabilitation. The few success stories can be traced either to the ability of local communities to come together to help themselves or to the individual initiative of some administrator or politician. Unfortunately, these have not been codified into standard operating procedures, or institutionalised into protocols.
As the people of Nepal pick up the pieces from the devastation of this earthquake, they will need all the help to rebuild and improve their infrastructure. This provides Nepal’s friends, India foremost, an opportunity to partner with the Nepali government and people, and also, in the process, improve our own capabilities in the job of rehabilitation and reconstruction.
That may, unfortunately, be a hope which seems unlikely to be met. While the Government of India did an exemplary job in saving many lives, it has also shamelessly been seeking as many brownie points as possible, this in the crass manner of a “public relations (PR) exercise.” The Prime Minister’s social media team worked overtime to “trend” the hashtag #thankyouPM on Twitter and every small act of the rescue and relief mission has been publicised as if India is doing a great favour to Nepal. These tactics were on display earlier too during the evacuation of citizens from Yemen.
Geologists warn us that more earthquakes, perhaps more devastating than the present one, are expected in the Himalayas. Moreover, unexpected weather events are only increasing and the number of people who would be exposed to danger will only grow. Rather than use the competence we have in rescue and relief work only as a tool for political PR or to win diplomatic brownie points in some geopolitical great game, we need to draw on our success to build our capacities in both loss prevention/minimisation as well as in rehabilitation.
