In Nepal, maintaining the momentum

In his second visit to Nepal, Narendra Modi will face a tricky and polarised political environment.

In a few days, Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be in Nepal, his second time in a short span. Though this visit is for the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) summit, it is the bilateral relationship and meetings with the Nepali leaders that will attract greater media attention. The reason is simple — his first visit was hugely successful which makes it a difficult act to repeat. Second, with the deadline for completing the Constitution-drafting exercise coming closer (January 22, 2015), the domestic political environment is becoming increasingly polarised. At such moments, India is often first invited to play the role of peacemaker and then blamed for interfering in Nepal’s internal affairs.

Mr. Modi’s visit to Nepal in August, early in his tenure, was the first by an Indian Prime Minister after a gap of 17 years. It was a signal that Nepal would get more high-level political attention in Delhi than it had so far. Second, his speech at the Constituent Assembly (CA) was a masterful exercise in touching all the issues that have troubled the India-Nepal relationship over years, and in striking the right notes. He spoke about respecting Nepali sovereignty and reiterated his readiness to revise the contentious 1950 Treaty in line with Nepali wishes, offering encouragement to the Constitution-drafting exercise. He wisely refrained from anything more, while expressing support for a federal, democratic Nepali republic but steering clear of the “secular versus Hindu rashtra” debate, speaking about the cultural and religious ties but without bringing in the Madhesi linkages and promising accelerated cooperation and generous terms for Nepal’s power exports to India. Even though the earlier $250 million line of credit was yet to be exhausted, a generous new line of credit of a billion dollars was announced.

Focus on development

Positive momentum generated by the visit was sustained: the two governments signed a Power Trade Agreement (PTA) while GMR also concluded a Project Development Agreement (PDA) regarding a 900 MW hydel project on Upper Karnali. Much work needs to be done on both before either can be operationalised, but their conclusion, after being held up for years, showed that both governments are keen to move forward. Out of the 28 survey licences granted to private entities over the last decade, amounting to a total of 8,000 MW, GMR was the first to conclude a PDA. Nepal has an installed hydel capacity of 700 MW with an annual shortfall of 450 MW which is only partially made up through imports from India, leading to power cuts of more than 14 hours a day in the dry season. Despite a technically feasible and economically viable proven potential of more than 40,000 MW, development of the hydel sector has remained politically blocked. It is expected that during Mr. Modi’s visit, the Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam (SJVN) Limited will also sign a PDA for the 900 MW Arun III project.

While hydel projects will take years to come on stream, these developments have generated optimism. Three new international airports at Nijgadh (near Kathmandu), Pokhara and Bhairahawa (to service Lumbini) are being planned. A new Kathmandu-Terai highway is being fast-tracked along with the Kathmandu-Hetauda tunnel project. Nepal’s Planning Commission has pointed out that in order to graduate from a ‘Least Developed Country’ to a ‘Developing Country’ by 2022, Nepal would need an investment of nearly $100 billion in infrastructure, of which more than two-thirds will have to come from private sector and multilateral institutions. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the International Finance Corporation (IFC) plan to issue long-term bonds amounting to a billion dollars each in local currency in order to provide greater depth to the capital market. There is talk about the need to create a new financial institution to undertake infrastructure financing. While all the buzz is not due to Mr. Modi’s first visit, it certainly added to it because Nepal felt that India was politically engaged, with a new decisive leader at the helm of affairs.

Quicksand of Nepali politics

Wanting to build up on his successful visit in August, Mr. Modi had wanted to visit Janakpur (site of the historic Janaki Mandir), Lumbini (birthplace of Gautam Buddha) and Muktinath (Vishnu temple), in addition to the SAARC engagements in Kathmandu. Janakpur borders Sitamarhi (Bihar) in India and Lumbini is barely 22 km from the Indian border. At both sites, Mr. Modi sought to address public gatherings which would have attracted huge numbers, including from Indian border towns and villages. Initiatives regarding border connectivity, the tourism potential of the Ayodhya-Janakpur circuit and the Lumbini-Bodhgaya-Sarnath circuit, and development of irrigation in the Terai which is the breadbasket of Nepal would have resonated with the audience and presented Mr. Modi as the tallest leader in the region. This evidently made Nepali political leaders uneasy. Nepal’s government has therefore cited security concerns to turn down the idea of public gatherings, proposing civic receptions instead where Nepali leaders would share the platform and Mr. Modi’s interaction would be limited to (selected) local community leaders.

The key reason is the deep-rooted suspicion about the Indian agenda which surfaces time and again, particularly when domestic politics deteriorates into a polarising slugfest. The Constitutional Political Dialogue and Consensus Committee (CPDCC) chaired by Maoist leader Dr. Baburam Bhattarai and mandated by the CA to resolve disputed issues is at an impasse. Sensing a hardening of positions all around on the issue of ‘federalism’, Mr. Bhattarai has threatened to quit more than once. Meanwhile the coalition government (Nepali Congress or NC, UML and Rastriya Prajatantra Party or RPP) that enjoys a two-thirds majority in the CA has said that it will push its proposal for a federal Nepal with seven provinces to a vote, if there is no consensus. Maoists resent this brinkmanship and would like to tap into Madhesi resentment who are unhappy about the fact that not only are they being presented with a divided Madhes but the districts containing the Kosi, Gandak and Karnali river basins have been excluded from the two Madhesi provinces proposed.

The ruling coalition parties (NC, UML and RPP) have traditionally been dominated by the pahadi Bahuns and Chettris who have little sympathy for federalism, a demand associated with Maoists and Madhesis. Both these groups have fractured: from three parties in 2007, Madhesis now have over a dozen and the ruling coalition could well tempt some with offers of ministerial positions. Maoist leader Pushpa Kamal Dahal Prachanda is desperate, looking for a role after the new Constitution is promulgated and ready to play spoiler in the bargain. Mr. Prachanda’s hold weakened when his colleague Dr. Bhattarai became the Prime Minister in 2011 and the hard line faction led by Mohan Baidya split. The Baidya group is again in the throes of a split with Netra Bikram Chand wanting to adopt a more aggressive position. Mr. Prachanda is eyeing this with interest as it might open the way to get a weakened Mr. Baidya back into the fold, thereby increasing his strength vis-à-vis Mr. Bhattarai.

Mr. Prachanda is not alone in his manoeuvrings for a role after the Constitution is concluded. While the CA will continue till 2017 (it was elected for a four-year term in 2013), the positions of president, vice-president and prime minister will open up. Prime Minister Sushil Koirala has announced that he will step down once the task of Constitution drafting is completed. Leaders within the NC and UML are also positioning themselves accordingly.

Under such circumstances, if the Constitution is pushed through with a two-thirds majority, it can lead to the alienation of large sections of the population. The Madhesis would feel let down by India and the Janjati groups would gravitate to hard line Maoist positions. The challenge is therefore to develop a broader consensus than rely on two thirds. In the past, faced with such deadlines, the political leaders would just kick the ball further down the road and extend the deadline. But this has been done too often and the Nepali people are getting impatient. They want the Constitution so that they can get on with the economic agenda.

Modi’s challenge

Mr. Modi will face a tricky and polarised political environment in Nepal this time. He will have to draw a fine line in terms of remaining politically engaged with all groups and yet keep the focus on the economic issues where he can promise, and should ensure, quick delivery. He will need to convey the convergence of interests between the people of the two countries while being generous to Nepal. He will need to reassure India’s friends without appearing to promote their interests. He will need to go beyond what he said last time and still expand on the positive sentiment generated in August. He will need to adopt an open style of diplomacy so that, in a break from the past, Nepali nationalism is not reduced to anti-Indianism.

(Rakesh Sood, the Prime Minister’s Special Envoy for Disarmament and Non-Proliferation till May 2014, is a former Ambassador to Nepal. E-mail: rakeshsood2001@yahoo.com)

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE CONFLICT

ISRAEL AND PALESTINE CONFLICT

Search for a feasible solution.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict can be described as an existential conflict between two peoples-two identity groups-each of which claims the same territory for its national homeland and political state. In such a conflict, the identity and the very existence of the other represent a threat to each group’s own identity and existence. In this context, periodic bloodshed between Israel and Palestine continues relentlessly. So, the search for an equitable solution must come to grips with the origin and root cause of this conflict to devise a practical solution for this highly divisive issue affecting the world peace.

ORIGIN OF CONFLICT: The origin can be traced to Jewish exiles that happened in ancient times when the land was conquered by the Romans. Later, it was taken over by the Arabs, who are residing there today.

Conflict changed gear in the late 19th century when the Jews created a movement for relocating to the land they felt were given to them by God based on the accounts in the Bible. This saw rise in national movements- Zionism and Arab nationalism. Zionism, the Jewish national movement, was established as a political movement in 1897, largely as a response to Russian and European anti-Semitism. It sought the establishment of a Jewish Nation-State in Palestine so that they might find sanctuary and self determination there.

Following World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman Empire, Palestine came under the control of the United Kingdom. The Paris Peace Conference and subsequent conferences made Palestine a British mandate. The League of Nations approved, and more Jews entered Palestine. Palestine Arabs resented this “immigration” into their homeland. The British tried to maintain a precarious peace, but Hitler’s anti-Semitic policy increased the influx of Jews into Palestine and caused further Arab resentment.

This violence and the heavy cost of World War II led Britain to turn the issue of Palestine over to the United Nations. In 1947, the U.N. approved the partition of the British Mandate of Palestine into two states- one Jewish and one Arab. The Jewish leadership accepted the plan, but Palestinian Arab leaders, supported by the Arab League, rejected the plan, and a civil war broke out. Israel quickly gained the upper hand in this inter-communal fighting, and on May 14, 1948 declared its independence.

For decades after 1948, Arab governments had refused to recognize Israel and in 1964 the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was founded with the central tenet that Palestine, with its original Mandate borders, is the indivisible homeland of the Arab Palestinian people. In turn, Israel refused to recognize the PLO as a negotiating partner.

In the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel captured the West Bank from Jordan, the Gaza Strip from Egypt, and East Jerusalem including the Old City and its holy sites, which Israel annexed and reunited with the western neighborhoods of Jerusalem. The status of the city as Israel’s capital and the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip created more conflict between the parties.

BARRIERS TO EVERLASTING PEACE: The peace process since the Oslo negotiations of 1993 had raised great hopes that an agreement would be achieved in a foreseeable future. This process, however, failed. Later this problem has been discussed enough over the decades. Today the question is rather: “What prevents the actors from taking the necessary steps leading to a solution”? Why is the negotiation process not going ahead, or why a new negotiation process is not getting into motion?” The barriers that are creating hindrances are given hereunder:

The Palestinian Perspective: The Palestinian problem apparently serves as a uniting factor in the intra-Arab arena because it is shared by all, preoccupies all, and serves as an intra-Arab test of solidarity. Those devoted to the concept of pan-Arabism fear that resolution of the Palestinian problem will hurt the cause of Arab unity because that problem has been a central factor in the formation of this unity since 1948.

Status of the occupied territories: “Occupied Palestinian Territories” is the term used by the UN to refer to the West Bank and Gaza Strip—territories which Israel conquered from Egypt and Jordan in the 1967 Six-Day War—in the conflict. The Israeli government uses the term“Disputed Territories”, to indicate its position that some territories cannot be called occupied as no nation had clear rights to them and there was no operative diplomatic arrangement when Israel acquired them in June 1967.

Palestinian refugees: There are about four million Palestinians and their descendants who were expelled or fled from Israel following its creation. Palestinian negotiators have so far insisted that refugees, and all their descendants, from the 1948 and 1967 wars have a right to return to the places where they lived before 1948 and 1967, including those within the 1949 Armistice lines, citing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and UN General Assembly Resolution 194, adopted in 1948.

Control of Jerusalem: One of the most hotly-debated issues is who should have control over Jerusalem. Both Israel and Palestine consider Jerusalem to be their capital. Over the course of the years, the distinction between the city’s holy and historical sites and its municipal territory has been blurred, as well as the distinction between the religious-historical myth and the national-political ethos of the two peoples claiming sovereignty over the city.

Israeli settlements: The presence and ongoing expansion of existing settlements by Israel and the construction of settlement outposts is frequently criticized as an obstacle to the peace process. The international community considers the settlements in occupied territory to be illegal, and the United Nations has repeatedly upheld the view that Israel’s construction of settlements constitutes a violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Water Rights: Control over fresh water is also a pressing issue. The disputed land sits in a desert where drinking water is scarce. Well drilling, plumbing, and the ability to move this resource from place to place is a matter of intense debate and strife. There isn’t usually enough for both countries to have unlimited access, and the ability to control distribution is a major source of power.

Unrestrained violence: Violence has also been a persistent part of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Palestinians have frequently used violence in an attempt to rattle the Jews, reclaim the territory, and allow their refugees to return to their former land; the Israel, in turn, has let loose its forces to dismantle any resistance from Palestinians time and again.

CONFLICT RESOLUTION: The world is in no position to impose any particular solution to the conflict, partly because that solution must emerge from political negotiations, and partly because it is the Palestinians’ prerogative to specify what they want and what they can accept, since they are the only party to the conflict with no state, no rights and no freedom. On the other hand, Israel’s own survival is dependent upon making peace with its neighbors. Israel, like every other country, does not exist in isolation; it must reach an accommodation with the countries surrounding it.

What the world can offer, however, are elements which are essential to any political solution. Without all of them being present, no solution will work. These essential elements are:

National expression for the two peoples: (Two state) solution offers a realistic prospect for lasting peace and attainable justice for Israelis and Palestinians.

-           For Palestinians, obtaining their own state means an end to decades of occupation, acknowledgment of their past suffering, the fulfillment of their national aspirations and an opportunity to shape their own destiny at last.

-           For Israelis, a two-state solution ends the demographic challenge to Israel’s character as a Jewish-majority state, removes the stigma of being an occupying power, enables a lasting peace with the entire Arab world and eliminates a critical barrier to full international acceptance.

Viability: Whatever forms a Palestinian state takes; it must be viable as well as sovereign. It must control its borders, basic resources; possess territorial contiguity and, above all, the ability to develop a viable economy.

The refugee issue: Resolution of this issue should include a healing process which could lead to reconciliation between Palestinians and Israeli Jews. This involves a “package” of three elements – (a) Israeli acknowledgement of its responsibility in resolving the refugee issue; (b)Israeli acknowledgement of the refugees’ right of return; (c) and only then, technical solutions involving a mutually agreed upon combination of repatriation, resettlement and compensation be developed.

Security: Israel, of course, has fundamental and legitimate security needs, as do the Palestinians and all the countries of the region. But the notion of Israel that security can be achieved only through military means is out of context, until the underlying causes of the conflict are addressed in totality. Israel’s assertion that the security issue be resolved before any political progress is as illogical as it is self-serving.

A regional dimension: The almost exclusive focus on Israel/Palestine has obfuscated another crucial dimension of the conflict: its regional context. Refugees, security, water, economic development, democratization – none of these key issues can be effectively addressed within the narrow confines of Israel/Palestine. Adopting a regional approach opens new possibilities of resolving the conflict in a larger context that may add flavour to two-state solution approach.

CONCLUSION: No balance of power lasts forever. A genuine resolution of the conflict will become possible in the longer term, given a change in the present balance of power. In this regard, two interconnected and mutually reinforcing processes may be vital for changing the present balance of power- (1) decline in American global dominance, and in particular in the ability of the US to go on backing Israeli regional hegemony without incurring unacceptable economic and political costs; (2) a radical-progressive social, economic and political transformation of the Arab States– most likely in the form of regional federation.

It may or may not be possible to foresee exactly how this change may come about. But it seems quite certain that it will not be confined to the relationship between Israel and the Palestinians as it will necessarily involve tectonic movements in the entire region, as well as international global shifts.

PUBLIC HEALTH IN INDIA

PUBLIC HEALTH IN INDIA… a brief overview

This article caters to the Social Issues portion of General Studies-Paper I in UPSC Main examination and is also relevant for the Essay Paper.

---

Public Health is the science and art of promoting health, preventing disease, and prolonging life through the organized efforts of society(WHO). It is a social and political concept aimed at improving health, quality of life among whole population through health promotion, disease prevention and other forms of health interventions.

Public Health approach is a holistic approach which encompasses all elements required for healthy living. It controls disease through health promotion, specific protection and by restoration and rehabilitation. In addition, disease surveillance which informs about ongoing as well as emerging public health issues is a core public health function. Other important functions are developing partnerships, formulation of regulations/laws, planning/policies and Human Resources Development.

What the Indian Constitution says? Directive Principles of State Policy consider that the State shall regard raising of the level of nutrition and standard of living of its people and improvement of public health as among its primary duties under Article 47. In addition, Article 42, the State shall make provisions for securing just and humane conditions of work and for maternity relief. The health system in India is expected to perform with objectives based on these principles and evolve its spirit and structure to achieve these objectives.

Evolution of Public Health in India: The most comprehensive health policy and plan document ever prepared in India was on the eve of Independence in 1946. This was the ‘Health Survey and Development Committee Report’ popularly referred to as the ‘Bhore Committee’. This Committee prepared a detailed plan of a National Health Service for the country, which would provide a universal coverage to the entire population free of charges through a comprehensive state run salaried health service. Later, many other committees reviewed the existing health infrastructure/situation in the country and made recommendations needed to prevent and control diseases including communicable, non-communicable and emerging diseases.

Recently, the ‘Expert Committee on Public Health system (1996)’, the ‘National Commission on Macroeconomics and Health (2005)’, National Five Year Plans, ‘National Health Policy (1983, 2002)’, and many international initiatives such ‘UN Millennium Development Goals (2000)’, have also provided strong policy directives for the development of health care delivery system to control/prevent diseases.

Public Health System in India: Broadly, the healthcare services are divided under State list and Concurrent list in India. While some items such as public health and hospitals fall in the State list, others such as population control and family welfare, medical education, and quality control of drugs are included in the Concurrent list. The Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (UMHFW) is the central authority responsible for implementation of various programmes and schemes in areas of family welfare, prevention, and control of major diseases.

The public sector ownership is divided between central and state governments, and municipal and panchayat local governments. The facilities include hospitals, secondary level hospitals, first level referral hospitals (community health centres [CHCs] or rural hospitals), dispensaries, primary health centres (PHCs) and sub centres, and health posts.

Weakness of the Public Health System in India

Broadly, the major weaknesses in the Public Health system in India have emanated from -Issues related to quality and functioning of Public Health Services.

Definition: ‘Quality of public health services’ is defined by the extent of their availability and coverage, economic affordability and social accessibility to all sections of society, efficacy, safety and epidemiological rationale, and attitudes of the personnel. This, in turn, is dependent upon the ‘culture of health services’, which consists of the organizational principles, motivations of personnel at all levels and their interactions among themselves as well as with those to whom they provide services.

Factors that have contributed towards dilution in the quality and reach of Public Health Services are given hereunder:

1. Public health has effectively remained a low priority for the Indian state in terms of financing and political attention in successive five-year plans. The overall system of health planning and decision making remained highly centralized and top-down with minimal accountability, giving little scope for genuine community initiatives.
2. It may be noted that until 1983 India had no formal health policy. Although, significant expansion of healthcare infrastructure did take place after ‘National Health Policy-1983’ yet this remained grossly underutilized because of poor facilities and low attendance by medical staff, inadequate supplies, insufficient hours, lack of community involvement and lack of proper monitoring mechanisms. The Primary Healthcare Approach was never implemented in its full form, and selective vertical programmes were pushed as a substitute for comprehensive health system development.
3. This already unsatisfactory situation seriously worsened with the onset of liberalisation era from 1990s onwards. This phase has witnessed staggering health inequities, resurgence of communicable diseases and an even more unregulated drug industry with drug prices shooting up, adding up to the current crisis in public health. Along with the retreat from the goal of universal access, special health needs of women, children and other sections of society with special needs have become further sidelined or are inadequately addressed.
4. Closely related to this, and compounding this situation has been a Techno-managerial model of healthcare inspired by the West, with an inability to evolve effective indigenous models and appropriate technologies, or to effectively integrate modern and indigenous systems of medicine.
5. Consequently, more emphasis is on more curative services and with inadequate lab capacity in the system and poor participation of private sector in public health activities. As per NFHS III, the pattern of health care expenditure in India shows that more than 70% of expenditure is from out of pocket by households. Estimates suggests that in India the total health expenditure is around 6% of GDP, and is dominated by out of pocket spending i.e. around 5%. The government/public expenditure on health care is around 1% of GDP. Due to this low public expenditure the reach and quality of public health services are below the desired level.

Rejuvenating the Public Health System in India

Making right to health care a fundamental right is an important step to initiate changes in the public health delivery mechanism. The other major steps that may be taken for rejuvenation are:

1. First, a considerably strengthened, accountable and reoriented public health system needs to be nurtured. Such a rejuvenation of the public health system would require changes at levels of policy, structure, programmes, and processes. Such strengthening should ensure adequate infrastructure, human power, services and supplies at various levels, restoring the basic functionality of the system and rebuilding public confidence.
2. Second, the base of strengthened public health would need to be a framework of comprehensive Primary Health Care including Community health workers in every habitation; much more functional and accountable Primary health centres (PHCs) and First referral units (FRUs), combined with a range of appropriate preventive and promotive activities.
3. Third, to institutionalize accountability would require a legal and constitutional framework to assure health services as a Right. Once right to health care is considered, the task of the health movement would be to make sure the range of services is as comprehensive as possible, and to ensure that the services required by various marginalized sections and groups with special needs are definitely included.
4. Fourth, substantially raising public finances for the public health system, through general taxation along with various forms of special taxation and cesses for health security. Ending subsidization of the private medical sector and effectively taxing this sector, especially its upper end; a special health security cess on all financial transactions above a certain level; and preferential taxation of industries with negative health impacts are some other measures that may be considered.
5. Fifth, specific health care requirements of various groups with special needs – such as women, children, and elderly persons – would need to be met through sets of special measures, sensitively delivered by the general health system.
6. Sixth, specific major health problems, both communicable diseases such as TB and HIV-AIDS, and non-communicable health issues such as mental health would need to be addressed through programmes closely integrated with a robust comprehensive health system.
7. Seventh, progressively bringing the private medical sector under social regulation would be essential for realization of health rights in meaningful manner. A first step in this direction would consist of legally and organizationally ensuring that this sector meets minimum standards -follows standard treatment guidelines, and observes ceilings on prices of essential health services.
8. Eighth, much more effective public health support to indigenous healing systems is required, including active research on areas such as community based evaluation of indigenous healing methods and synergistic combination with modern medicine.
9. Ninth, ensuring access to essential drugs in rights based framework, both in form of ensuring availability of the range of essential drugs free of cost in public health facilities, and stringent price control.
10. Tenth, operationalising accountability and redressal mechanisms to ensure regular civil society monitoring and inputs at various levels.

Conclusion: Besides above, for realization of ‘Public Health for All’, in its fullest and most humane sense, coordination and synchronization with other conditions such as- comprehensive nutritional and food security (linked to livelihood security), universal access to safe drinking water and sanitation, provision of healthy housing and local environments, universal healthy working conditions and a safe general environment, access to health related education and information for all, and an equitable, gender-just social milieu, free from violence are required.

Disaster Management (DM)

UNDERSTANDING DISASTER MANAGEMENT (DM)

This article caters to the Disaster Management (DM) portion of General Studies-Paper III in UPSC Mains examination.

---

Of late, there are credible evidences which portray that global warming, climate change and unplanned human intervention have contributed towards increasing the intensity and frequency of disasters.

Massive disaster in Uttarakhand in the year 2013 and recent floods in Jammu & Kashmir and the destruction caused by cyclone ‘Hudhud’ on the Coromondal coast have again brought into limelight targeted need for effective disaster management strategies in the country for addressing comprehensive– preventive, curative and rehabilitative needs of the disaster struck areas of the country.

Being one of the most disaster prone countries, the disaster management in India is of utmost importance. Considering this, let us now embark on a brief journey of understanding disaster and disaster management in our country.

What is a disaster? A disaster is a natural or man-made (or technological) hazard resulting in an event of substantial extent causing significant physical damage or destruction, loss of life, or drastic change to the environment.

It can also be defined as an event or series of events, which gives rise to casualties and damage or loss of properties, infrastructures, environment, essential services or means of livelihood on such a scale which is beyond the normal capacity of the affected community to cope with.

Types of Disasters- Broadly, disasters can be divided into- (i) Natural disasters such as volcanic eruptions, earthquakes, floods, cyclones, landslides etc. and (ii) Manmade disasters such as radiation leaks, chemical and oil spillage, wars and conflicts, industrial and transportation accidents etc.

What is meant by Disaster Management (DM)? Disaster management (DM) means managing resources and various responsibilities to deal with all humanitarian aspects of emergencies. It involves a continuous and integrated process of planning, organizing, coordinating and implementing measures which are necessary or expedient for: (i)         prevention of danger or threat of any disaster; (ii) mitigation or reduction of risk of any disaster or its severity or consequences; (iii) capacity building including research and knowledge management; (iv) preparedness to deal with any disaster; (v) prompt response to any threatening disaster situation or disaster; (vi) assessing the severity or magnitude of effects of any disaster; (vii) evacuation, rescue and relief ; and (viii) rehabilitation and reconstruction.

A typical DM continuum thus comprises of seven elements; the pre-disaster phase includes prevention, mitigation and preparedness, while thepost-disaster phase includes response, rehabilitation, reconstruction and recovery (4R).

Basic principles of Disaster Management (DM) comprises of: (i)         comprehensive approach to consider and take into account all hazards, all phases, all stakeholders and all impacts relevant to disasters; (ii) progressive in nature to anticipate future disasters and take preventive and preparatory measures to build disaster-resistant and disaster-resilient communities; (iii) risk-driven to use sound risk management principles (hazard identification, risk analysis, and impact analysis) in assigning priorities and resources; (iv) integrated to ensure unity of effort among all levels of government and all elements of a community; (v) collaborative to create and sustain broad and sincere relationships among individuals and organizations to encourage trust, advocate a team atmosphere, build consensus, and facilitate communication; (vi) coordinated to synchronize the activities of all relevant stakeholders to achieve a common purpose; (vii) flexible to use creative and innovative approaches in solving disaster challenges;   and (viii) professional attitude to value a science and knowledge-based approach; based on education, training, experience, ethical practice, public stewardship and continuous improvement.

Why DM is crucial for India? India due to its geo-climatic and socio-economic condition is prone to various disasters. The Indian subcontinent is among the world’s most disaster prone areas. Almost 85% of India’s area is vulnerable to one or multiple hazard. Of the 29 states and 7 union territories, 22 are disaster-prone.

58.6 per cent of the landmass is prone to earthquakes of moderate to very high intensity; over 40 million hectares (12 per cent of land) is prone to floods and river erosion; Of the 7,516 km long coastline, close to 5,700 km is prone to cyclones and tsunamis; 68 per cent of the cultivable area is vulnerable to drought and hilly areas are at risk from landslides and avalanches.

Vulnerability to disasters/ emergencies of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear (CBRN) origin also exists. Heightened vulnerabilities to disaster risks can be related to expanding population, urbanization and industrialization, development within high-risk zones, environmental degradation and climate change.

Evolution of DM in India: Disaster management in India has evolved from an activity-based reactive setup to a proactive institutionalized structure; from single faculty domain to a multi-stakeholder setup; and from a relief-based approach to a ‘multi-dimensional pro-active holistic approach for reducing risk’.

A permanent and institutionalized setup began in the decade of 1990s with set up of a disaster management cell under the Ministry of Agriculture, following the declaration of the decade of 1990 as the ‘International Decade for Natural Disaster Reduction’ (IDNDR) by the UN General Assembly.

Following series of disasters such as Latur Earthquake (1993), Malpa Landslide (1994), Orissa Super Cyclone (1999) and Bhuj Earthquake (2001), a high powered Committee under the Chairmanship of Mr. J.C. Pant, Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture was constituted for drawing up a systematic, comprehensive and holistic approach towards disasters.

There was a shift in policy from an approach of relief through financial aid to a holistic one for addressing disaster management. Consequently, the disaster management division was shifted under the Ministry of Home Affairs in 2002.

Current institutional structure for DM in India: Disaster Management Act, 2005, paved way for the creation of the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), headed by the Prime Minister, State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs) headed by the Chief Ministers, and District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs) headed by the Collector or District Magistrate or Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, to spearhead and adopt a holistic and integrated approach to DM. The Act further provides for the constitution of different Executive Committee at national and state levels.

National Crisis Management Committee (NCMC)-It comprises of high level officials of the government headed by the Cabinet Secretary, deals with major crises which have serious or national ramifications. It is supported by the Crisis Management Groups (CMG) of the Central nodal Ministries and assisted by National Executive Committee (NEC) as may be necessary.

National Executive Committee (NEC) – The NEC is the executive committee of the NDMA, and is mandated to assist the NDMA in the discharge of its functions and also ensure compliance of the directions issued by the Central Government. State Executive Committee (SEC) in states assists SDMA and coordinates with NDMA.

National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM) has capacity building as one of its major responsibilities, along with training, research, documentation and development of a national level information base.

National Disaster Response Force (NDRF) is constituted to emerge as the most visible and vibrant multi-disciplinary, multi-skilled, high-tech force capable to deal with all types of natural as well as manmade disasters and to mitigate the effects of disasters. NDRF units are supposed to maintain close liaison with the designated State Governments and are made available to them in the event of any serious threatening disaster situation.

Other stakeholders are -Armed forces and Para-Military forces, State Police and Fire Services, Civil Defence, Home Guards and Local Authorities which include Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRI), Municipalities, District and Cantonment Boards and Town planning authorities which control and manage civic services.

National policy on disaster management: The national policy emphasizes on- (i) promoting a culture of prevention, preparedness and resilience at all levels through knowledge, innovation and education; (ii) encouraging mitigation measures based on technology, traditional wisdom and environmental sustainability; (iii) mainstreaming disaster management into the developmental planning process; (iv) establishing institutional and techno-legal frameworks to create an enabling regulatory environment and a compliance regime; (v) ensuring efficient mechanism for identification, assessment and monitoring of disaster risks; (vi) developing contemporary forecasting and early warning systems backed by responsive and failsafe communication with information technology support; (vii) promoting a productive partnership with the media to create awareness and contributing towards capacity development; (viii) ensuring efficient response and relief with a caring approach towards the needs of the vulnerable sections of the society; (ix) undertaking reconstruction as an opportunity to build disaster resilient structures and habitat for ensuring safer living; (x) promoting productive and proactive partnership with media in disaster management

Current Scenario: With a settled institutionalized structure and sound policy, India has designed and developed adequate disaster management system suitable for Indian conditions. But what exactly required is the drastic evolution in the actual on-field responses in disaster prone areas both in pre and post disaster phases.

Recently, though the number of casualties in the recent Phailin and Hudhud cyclones has been substantially reduced but there is still more emphasis on relief and rescue. Rehabilitation and reconstruction feature low on priority as most of the disaster affected people are left to fend for themselves to rebuild their lives post disaster.

In order to strengthen the entire mechanism and to realize the vision emphasized in the national policy statement, the entire disaster management approach should address each component of disaster management cycle in totality. This can only be done by employing sound and coordinated preparedness and response systems alongwith fast, efficient and sustainable- recovery, reconstruction and rehabilitation. To fructify this, involvement of various stakeholders, efficient inter-departmental coordination and need to constantly review and improve the systems in place are required.

A train journey and two names to remember

A train journey and two names to remember

Of two co-travellers who surprised the writer with their graciousness, 24 years ago

It was the summer of 1990. As Indian Railway (Traffic) Service probationers, my friend and I travelled by train from Lucknow to Delhi. Two MPs were also travelling in the same bogie. That was fine, but the behaviour of some 12 people who were travelling with them without reservation was terrifying. They forced us to vacate our reserved berths and sit on the luggage, and passed obscene and abusive comments. We cowered in fright and squirmed with rage. It was a harrowing night in the company of an unruly battalion; we were on edge, on the thin line between honour and dishonour. All other passengers seemed to have vanished, along with the Travelling Ticket Examiner.

We reached Delhi the next morning without being physically harmed by the goons, though we were emotionally wrecked. My friend was so traumatised she decided to skip the next phase of training in Ahmedabad and stayed back in Delhi. I decided to carry on since another batchmate was joining me. (She is Utpalparna Hazarika, now Executive Director, Railway Board.) We boarded an overnight train to Gujarat’s capital, this time without reservations as there wasn’t enough time to arrange for them. We had been wait-listed.

We met the TTE of the first class bogie, and told him how we had to get to Ahmedabad. The train was heavily booked, but he politely led us to a coupe to sit as he tried to help us. I looked at the two potential co-travellers, two politicians, as could be discerned from their white khadi attire, and panicked. “They’re decent people, regular travellers on this route, nothing to worry,” the TTE assured us. One of them was in his mid-forties with a normal, affectionate face, and the other in his late-thirties with a warm but somewhat impervious expression. They readily made space for us by almost squeezing themselves to one corner.

They introduced themselves: two BJP leaders from Gujarat. The names were told but quickly forgotten as names of co-passengers were inconsequential at that moment. We also introduced ourselves, two Railway service probationers from Assam. The conversation turned to different topics, particularly in the areas of History and the Polity. My friend, a post-graduate in History from Delhi University and very intelligent, took part. I too chipped in. The discussion veered around to the formation of the Hindu Mahasabha and the Muslim League.

The senior one was an enthusiastic participant. The younger one mostly remained quiet, but his body language conveyed his total mental involvement in what was being discussed, though he hardly contributed. Then I mentioned Syama Prasad Mookerjee’s death, why it was still considered a mystery by many. He suddenly asked: “How do you know about Syama Prasad Mookerjee?” I had to tell him that when my father was a post-graduate student in Calcutta University, as its Vice-Chancellor he had arranged a scholarship for the young man from Assam. My father often reminisced about that and regretted his untimely death [in June 1953 at the age of 51].

The younger man then almost looked away and spoke in a hushed tone almost to himself: “It’s good they know so many things ...”

Suddenly the senior man proposed: “Why don’t you join our party in Gujarat?” We both laughed it off, saying we were not from Gujarat. The younger man then forcefully interjected: “So what? We don’t have any problem on that. We welcome talent in our State.” I could see a sudden spark in his calm demeanour.

The food arrived, four vegetarian thalis. We ate in silence. When the pantry-car manager came to take the payment, the younger man paid for all of us. I muttered a feeble ‘thank you’, but he almost dismissed that as something utterly trivial. I observed at that moment that he had a different kind of glow in his eyes, which one could hardly miss. He rarely spoke, mostly listened.

The TTE then came and informed us the train was packed and he couldn’t arrange berths for us. Both men immediately stood up and said: “It’s okay, we’ll manage.” They swiftly spread a cloth on the floor and went to sleep, while we occupied the berths.

What a contrast! The previous night we had felt very insecure travelling with a bunch of politicians, and here we were travelling with two politicians in a coupe, with no fear.

The next morning, when the train neared Ahmedabad, both of them asked us about our lodging arrangements in the city. The senior one told us that in case of any problem, the doors of his house were open for us. There was some kind of genuine concern in the voice or the facial contours of the otherwise apparently inscrutable younger one, and he told us: “I’m like a nomad, I don’t have a proper home to invite you but you can accept his offer of safe shelter in this new place.”

We thanked them for that invitation and assured them that accommodation was not going to be a problem for us.

Before the train came to a stop, I pulled out my diary and asked them for their names again. I didn’t want to forget the names of two large-hearted fellow passengers who almost forced me to revise my opinion about politicians in general. I scribbled down the names quickly as the train was about to stop:Shankersinh Vaghela and Narendra Modi.

I wrote on this episode in an Assamese newspaper in 1995. It was a tribute to two unknown politicians from Gujarat for giving up their comfort ungrudgingly for the sake of two bens from Assam. When I wrote that, I didn’t have the faintest idea that these two people were going to become so prominent, or that I would hear more about them later. When Mr. Vaghela became Chief Minister of Gujarat in 1996, I was glad. When Mr. Modi took office as Chief Minister in 2001, I felt elated. (A few months later, another Assamese daily reproduced my 1995 piece.) And now, he is the Prime Minister of India.

Every time I see him on TV, I remember that warm meal, that gentle courtesy, caring and sense of security that we got that night far from home in a train, and bow my head.

Jawaharlal Nehru: a legacy revisited

Jawaharlal Nehru: a legacy revisited

It is more important today than ever before to know him, his imagination and idealistic vision

“The future,” wrote Jawaharlal Nehru, “has to be built on the foundations laid in the past and the present.” But mastering the future by denying or obliterating or delinking the past is the norm today. Memory is losing its struggle against forgetting and the relevance of history is being relegated. Seeking inspiration from political stalwarts of the past, their great achievements and greater ideas by a political party is deemed as being comfortable with defeat. Our new Prime Minister finds it necessary to exalt himself as a nationalist by belittling the first Prime Minister as a lesser patriot, and finds it unimportant to pay homage to Nehru on his 50th death anniversary. In these times when looking back is forbidden, nostalgia is ominous and recalling the past is taboo, how does one revisit Nehru in the context of his 125th birth anniversary?

Nehru was an extraordinary giant of our freedom struggle, a prominent maker of modern India, a great believer of pluralism, the chief architect of our democracy, socialism and secular ethos. These were intertwined with science, technology and innovation in his scheme of things. His artistry of crafting and building a new nation from the older version marred by orthodoxy, hierarchy and the wreckage of a decaying empire was remarkable. As things stand today, most people would agree that Nehru was the undisputed hero of his age. But are efforts on to make him an outcast? I would argue that the open, civilised and reformist political system we have today is premised on three principles institutionalised by Nehru in the socio-political fabric of India: democracy, secularism and pluralism. There could have been no alternative to the Gandhi-Nehru framework of the Indian body politic. With each passing day, Nehruvian politics based on the Gandhian ethic gains relevance.

Nehru instilled democratic values in India. He cherished and strengthened democracy, knowing that by opting for the ballot box and propagating ideas of equality, in the words of Walter Crocker, he was abolishing the dominance of ‘upper class Indian nationalists of English education’ like himself from the political system. Nehru’s commitment to democracy was reflected in the respect he showed to Parliament, the Opposition, independence of the judiciary, free elections, and freedom of the press. Underlying this institutional machinery was the value system of Gandhi — based on communal harmony, non-violence, the importance of each individual and the emancipation of the oppressed sections of the society — which Nehru was heir to. He knew democracy required the spirit of tolerance and cooperation, and made Indians believe they had the capacity to sustain the democratic spirit.

It was only because of the secular construct of the state policy envisaged by Nehru — not an anti-religious or non-religious state but a non-sectarian state that won’t privilege one religion over others — that the ‘rule of law’ was established and religious fundamentalism kept away from sabotaging Indian politics. Nehru opted for secularism because he was convinced India belonged to all those who had fought for its independence and its subsequent formation as a nation-state.

One of Nehru’s achievements in carrying forward the secular ethos and rejecting an exclusivist approach has been stated by Sunil Khilnani in his introduction to The Discovery of India. He wrote: “Nehru resisted the argument in which nationalist intellectuals in India and elsewhere commonly indulged: the rebuttal of colonial views through evocations of mystical commonalities among Indians, and assertions of age-old ties to land and place. Nehru never proposed anything like, say, V.D. Savarkar’s views of a Hindu race joined by blood kinship.”

To safeguard secularism Nehru was ready to dismantle the idea of a single national identity through a minoritarian perspective. One of his letters, dated September 20, 1953, (LCM, Vol. 2, pp. 375-80) gives testimony to this fact. Here he warned against an insidious form of nationalism that makes the majority think of itself as the entire nation and in its attempt to absorb the minority actually separates them. He highlighted the need for the psychological integration of our people and said it was the obligation of the majority to safeguard the interests of minorities.

For Nehru, knowing India meant understanding its heterogeneity, multiplicity and complexities. He knew the myriad ‘private universe of thought and feeling’ of Indians is the source of India’s strength, with its capacity to transform divisions into diversity and variety into plurality.

The challenge in his times was to establish the integrity of the Indian past leading to the vitality of the Indian present which was a marvel of plurality shaped by difference and absence of uniformity. So he sought to discover a history that might help unify our people, free them of British renditions, make them conscious of ‘unity in diversity’. How we cope with the clashes within the plurality, resolve them and coexist harmoniously formed the existential dilemma of India for Nehru.

Today, as India’s young, with their hopes, aspirations and energies seek to rebuild the country by reassessing choices, it is more important than ever to re-examine this founding father of modern India — to know him, his fierce imagination and idealistic vision. It is imperative to read him, even with a pinch of salt, to rationalise his ‘Idea of India’, to ask new questions of him and to analyse the strength of his convictions which kept together this large, diverse and divided country. Most of the challenges Nehru faced still exist. Can we say the same of the values and ethos that helped him carry the nation forward facing those challenges? This question he asked should resonate: “Who dies if India lives? Who lives if India dies?”

The younger generation has to seek to know India in order to transform the ideals which went into the making of this nation into substantive reality. Amid this political churn, it is important to contest the singularity of the Indian identity, assert the importance of relegating religion to private space and see Indian secularism, democracy and pluralism as fundamental principles of the polity.