The government’s recent declaration of the Wayanad landslides as a “Severe Nature Disaster,” after months of persistent pleas from the region, has exposed glaring shortcomings in disaster management. While this long-overdue acknowledgment might seem like a step forward, the absence of any allocated funds for rehabilitation raises serious questions about the government’s priorities.
Against this backdrop, the recently passed Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, debated in the winter session, underscores a troubling reality that the government approach to disaster preparedness is riddled with policy gaps, a lack of foresight, and an alarming disregard for equitable recovery mechanisms.
The new Amendment Act marks a significant overhaul of the Disaster Management Act of 2005. It introduces key measures such as establishing Urban Disaster Management Authorities (UDMAs) for state capitals and municipal corporation cities and granting statutory recognition to bodies like the National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC) and High-Level Committee (HLC).
Technically, The NCMC will function as the nodal body for dealing with major disasters with serious or national ramifications. The HLC will provide financial assistance to state governments during disasters. Additionally, it centralises the responsibility of disaster management planning under the National and State Disaster Management Authorities and mandates the creation of detailed disaster databases.
Despite its ambitious scope, the Act has faced intense criticism. Analysts argue that the move toward centralisation could forge biases against opposition-ruled states and weaken cooperative federalism. Moreover, the Act’s intricate chain of command risks delaying disaster responses, while insufficient financial resources leave state and local bodies ill-equipped to implement these provisions effectively.
Most alarmingly, apart from creating some on-paper vacancies, it even fails to adequately address the growing threats of climate change, particularly in metropolitan centers, raising serious concerns about its effectiveness in protecting vulnerable populations.
A vision for legalised disaster relief
The Act magnifies these issues by not making disaster relief a legal right, keeping the affected at the mercy of discretionary grants. To ensure true federalism, the center must ensure just and equitable relief assistance. This failure is a glaring omission that demands immediate rectification.
If the government is not making it possible via ensuring legal scrutiny over the relief allocation through a transparent legal body that includes disaster management experts, legalising relief measures would transform the existing framework from a discretionary system to one rooted in accountability and transparency. This is particularly crucial for ensuring equitable treatment of states, irrespective of their political affiliations.
Legalising disaster relief would empower affected populations to claim their rights through judicial mechanisms, ensuring timely assistance. It would also mandate the development of region-specific mitigation strategies, particularly for ecologically sensitive areas like Wayanad and other disaster-prone areas. Such a legal framework must incorporate climate-resilient development measures, such as sustainable farming practices and community-based disaster preparedness programs.
Additionally, a legal mandate would compel the central government to adopt a more inclusive approach, prioritising the welfare of all citizens rather than selectively addressing disasters based on political considerations. This would foster trust and cooperation between the Centre, states, and local bodies, creating a more cohesive disaster management system.
Relief denied: Wayanad and the politics of disaster response
The short-sightedness of the Centre is particularly apparent in its handling of the Wayanad disaster, where affected populations still await meaningful relief. The Wayanad disaster stands as a stark testament to the central government’s apathy towards disaster-affected communities, especially in opposition-ruled states.
Wayanad, severely impacted by landslides and floods, saw widespread devastation, with thousands displaced and livelihoods destroyed. Yet, the central government has failed to allocate sufficient relief grants to assist those in need. This neglect reflects a troubling trend of politicising disaster response, where assistance is often withheld or delayed for states governed by political adversaries.
This perpetuates a system where financial assistance is granted based on political considerations rather than the severity of the calamity, leaving marginalised communities, such as Wayanad’s farmers, vulnerable to the dual crises of natural disasters and bureaucratic inertia.
Furthermore, the Act’s centralising tendencies deepen this inequity. By concentrating decision-making power in the National Disaster Management Authority and the National Crisis Management Committee, the legislation sidelines state and local authorities, who possess a deeper understanding of regional challenges.
Need for rethinking urban governance of disaster-ready cities
Article 21 of the Indian Constitution guarantees the right to life and personal liberty, which includes the right to live peacefully as well. But, cities such as Delhi and Mumbai, etc. which are plagued by extreme air and water pollution, are on the brink of public health crises. Yet, the government’s disaster management merely proposes Urban Disaster Management Authorities without granting them substantive powers to overcome the pressing needs. It is evident that these paper entities are unlikely to make a meaningful impact on urban resilience.
India urgently needs the establishment of Metropolitan City Disaster Management Authorities (MCDMAs) with comprehensive powers to tackle the city’s pressing challenges. These authorities must be vested with quasi-judicial powers to regulate pollutants, enforce compliance, and implement disaster mitigation measures effectively.
A fully empowered MCDMA could:
- Combat Pollution: Enforce stringent measures to curb air and water pollution, including issuing closure notices to industries and construction sites violating environmental norms.
- Impose Penalties: Levy substantial fines on defaulters to fund mitigation efforts and create a deterrent against non-compliance.
- Promote Urban Resilience: Develop and implement disaster management plans tailored to the needs of metropolitan areas, with a focus on sustainable infrastructure and public safety.
- Ensure Judicial Oversight: Function with the appellate authority vested in High Courts to ensure transparency and accountability in decision-making.
Such an authority would be pivotal in addressing urban disasters, which traditional frameworks are ill-equipped to manage. For instance, Delhi’s persistent air quality crisis demands immediate intervention to regulate vehicular emissions, construction activities, and industrial pollutants. An empowered MCDMA could coordinate with local and national bodies to implement solutions effectively, preventing recurring health emergencies.
Similarly, Mumbai’s chronic flooding during monsoons reveals the need for a specialised authority to oversee urban planning and drainage systems. By integrating disaster resilience into urban governance, an MCDMA could minimise the socio-economic impacts of such calamities, ensuring that metropolitan cities remain livable and sustainable.
Also Read: Climate Change Intensified Rainfall That Triggered Wayanad Landslides
While introducing structural reforms, the Disaster Management Bill fails to address the systemic issues plaguing India’s disaster governance. Its neglect of equitable relief distribution, lack of legal rights, and inadequate urban focus reveal a policy framework that is reactive rather than proactive. The Wayanad disaster is a painful reminder of the human cost of these deficiencies, with thousands left to bear the brunt of political apathy and policy gaps.
To build a truly resilient disaster management system, the central government must adopt a vision that prioritises the welfare of all citizens. Legalising disaster relief as a right and empowering metropolitan authorities with real decision-making powers are crucial steps in this direction. By addressing the root causes of disasters and fostering equitable governance, India can ensure that no community or state is left behind in the face of adversity.
The government must recognise that disaster management is not just about responding to crises but preventing them through forward-thinking policies and empowered institutions. Anything less is a disservice to the people it claims to serve.
Nabeel Kolothumthodi is Parliamentary Secretary to a Lok Sabha MP and alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi.
