#dnaEdit: Avoiding apocalypse

Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Omar Abdullah was deadly honest when he confessed that the state government collapsed in the first 36 hours of the once-in-a-century devastating flood that inundated the capital, Srinagar, and all the offices went underwater, thereby taking the government down with it. Abdullah could not get in touch with his officers or his cabinet colleagues because the telephone connections were down, and there was no news even of where the officials and ministers were. This is near-apocalypse on a minor scale. The chief minister had also argued, and rightly too, that the state government did not have the boats needed to send out rescue teams. The state government turning to the army and to the central government for help was inevitable and it does not in any way point to any failure on the part Abdullah administration.

What is dismaying and even alarming is that the Jammu and Kashmir government do not seem to have an emergency plan in case of an extreme situation. Even if there were no unprecedented floods or other natural calamity for decades, it should be necessary to have a contingency plan in place in case of a breakdown crisis. It should not come as a surprise that not even the central government or any of the other 28 state governments in the country do not have a contingency plan in a crisis situation. It should be like the fire alarm and evacuation process even if there has been no fire mishap in years. The situation of the J&K government points to a serious lacuna.

Without scoring brownie points and pointing accusing fingers at the Abdullah’s National Conference government even as the temptation to pin failure on the state establishment is much too tempting (with elections due in a couple of months), there is need for every one across the country to sit down, think and plan for an emergency and everyone should know, down to the district administration, as to what needs to be done in an emergency situation.

It is a fact that no state government will ever be in a position to cope with an overwhelming calamity as the floods in Kashmir this week, and central government assistance is of crucial importance. Given the complicated Centre-state relations in constitutional and legal terms, it will be better if the terms of central assistance to the state are laid out clearly in black and white. If there is a breakdown of state administration as had happened in J&K, then the Centre should step in temporarily until the state government is able to resume its charge. This is an issue that needs to be discussed by the central and state governments, including the Union territories.

Article 356 of the Constitution provides for central intervention in case of a breakdown of the law-and-order situation, as well as in the case of a constitutional breakdown when no party is in a position to form the government.

Perhaps, the same provision can be extended to include natural disasters as well as other emergencies. There, however, has to be a clear proviso that the central government takeover of the state administration is valid only till the state government resumes control. The central government should not be given the discretion to hand over charge to the local authorities. That decision should lie squarely with the state executive led by the Chief Minister and his cabinet and the state legislature. This is an issue that raises political hackles all round but that should not prevent from it being raised and discussed in candid terms.