Claim for National Disaster tag futile and ignorant

The advance preparedness with the help of a credible institutionalised response system by the Odisha government to counter Cyclone Fani, is quite exemplary.   

It successfully evacuated about 14 lakh people living in low-lying areas, leading to a remarkable reduction of human casualties.

After every natural calamity, there is a demand for declaring it as a ‘National Calamity’. Fani is no different, given the enormity of destruction. It has been declared as an ‘Extremely Severe’ natural calamity by the Union government, which entitles the state government to seek logistic and financial support for relief and restoration work from the Union government.

A look at the recent history of some of the deadliest natural disasters would reveal that the Union government has awarded this nomenclature only to Fani and not to the super cyclone of Odisha (1999), the massive Kosi floods in Bihar (2008), the catastrophic tsunami in Tamil Nadu (2004), and the Kerala floods last year.

All issues related to natural disaster and post-disaster management is governed by the Disaster Management Act, 2005. Section-2(d) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005, defines disaster as a “catastrophe, mishap, calamity or grave occurrence in any area, arising from natural or man-made causes, or by accident or negligence, which results in substantial loss of life or human suffering”.

A natural disaster includes earthquake, flood, landslide, cyclone, tsunami, urban flood, heatwave; a man-made disaster can be nuclear, biological or chemical. This Act, however, does not define the term “national disaster”. It means there is no provision in statutes or manuals or in any code to declare a disaster as ‘national disaster’, howsoever devastating it may be. It is only an expression used in general parlance or in media circles.

The high-powered committee (August 1999) during the tenure of Prime Minister AB Vajpayee, had attempted to work out classification in terms of vulnerability of the disaster-affected area and the capacity of the authorities to deal with such situations. It had categorised disasters into levels 1 to 3.

This was, to a great extent, done in conformity with international standards. Though this classification does not find a place in the Disaster Management Act, 2005, it figures in the National Disaster Management Guidelines, 2007, and the National Disaster Management Plan, 2016.

In fact, the Committee missed a great opportunity to come out with a better, more realistic and precise classification of disasters in terms of intensity and the magnitude of damages around the affected areas.

The Disaster Management Act, 2005, does not prescribe that any calamity be given more importance or urgency, if the nomenclature of `National Disaster’ is attached.

A calamity labeled as ‘Severe Nature’ or ‘Rare Severity’ automatically gets adequate financial support and assistance from rescue forces like the NDRF.

The 10th Finance Commission (1995-2000) had an occasion to examine as to which disaster is a “national calamity of rarest severity” and which is not. However, the panel stated that it has to be adjudged on a case-to-case basis.

Labeling or quantifying disaster has been a vexed issue across the world, though it is necessary for quantifying the aid required.

Various national governments and global agencies grappling with determination of such indicators, have not reached any unanimity.

The philosophy behind not using certain nomenclatures may be a question of a nation’s self-respect. Declaring a national calamity might give the big economic powers the chance to show their benevolence.

Thankfully, India has a better system of central assistance than many countries who boast of federalism, including the US. The Central government is quite responsive in providing immediate assistance to states, without any paperwork.

There is no fool proof methodology of assessing the impact of natural disaster in terms of damage caused. Under the procedure, the Odisha government has to present a memorandum to the Union government accounting the detailed losses suffered and the money needed. The Centre will then send an inter-ministerial team to the affected area to assess the damage and arrive at the quantum of relief aid.

The fact is, the demand for ‘National Disaster’ is raised either out of sheer ignorance or as a deliberate political ploy. While a demand for more central funds does make better sense, clamour for a “national” label does not.

Author is an advocate, Supreme Court of India