India’s Disaster Response: Centralisation Concerns and the Road Ahead

Source: TH

Subject:  Disaster Management

Context: The Wayanad landslides (Kerala, 2024) and the Centre–State mismatch in relief have raised concerns that disaster funds are becoming more centralised and conditional.

About India’s Disaster Response: Centralisation Concerns and the Road Ahead

What Is India’s Disaster Response?

• It is a national, multi-level system created under the Disaster Management Act, 2005 to manage prevention, preparedness, response, relief, and recovery.
• It brings together Union, State, district, local bodies and specialised forces to reduce disaster risk and support affected communities.

Existing Disaster Response Models:

1. Relief-Centric Model (Traditional):
   • Historically focused on post-disaster relief and compensation, not on prevention or resilience.
   • States depended heavily on central grants after each major calamity.
2. Risk Reduction & Preparedness Model (Current Policy Direction): NPDM 2009 and NDMP 2016/2019 shift emphasis to prevention, mitigation and preparedness.
3. Institutional Multi-Tier Model:
   • NDMA leads at national level, with SDMAs and DDMAs implementing at State and district levels.
   • This creates vertical coordination from Delhi to Gram Panchayat.
4. Multi-Hazard Vulnerability Approach: Recognises that India faces earthquakes, floods, cyclones, landslides, droughts, industrial accidents, etc.
5. Sendai Framework–Aligned Model:
   • Aligns Indian policy with Sendai Framework 2015–2030 on risk reduction and resilience.
   • Stresses “build back better”, inclusive response and risk-informed development.

Successes So Far:

1. Robust Institutions (NDMA, NDRF, SDMAs, DDMAs): India now has a full legal–institutional chain from national to district level for disaster governance.
2. Reduced Cyclone Mortality: Odisha and Andhra Pradesh are often cited as global best practices for cyclone response.
3. Improved Forecast & Early Warning:
   • IMD now offers more accurate track and intensity forecasts for cyclones and extreme weather.
   • Use of satellites, Doppler radars and SMS alerts has strengthened last-mile communication.
4. Mock Drills & DMEx Culture: Large-scale exercises like Suraksha Chakra in Delhi-NCR test responses to major earthquakes.
5. Volunteer Involvement: Programs like Aapda Mitra train community volunteers for first response. Civil society and local NGOs are increasingly embedded in planning and drills.

Challenges Associated with India’s Disaster Response:

1. Centralisation & Fiscal Asymmetry:
   • Centre often releases much less than assessed losses, forcing States to borrow or cut other spending.
   • Negotiated, delayed NDRF support weakens trust in cooperative federalism.
2. Outdated Relief Norms & Inadequate Compensation: Fixed amounts for death and house damage do not match present-day costs of rebuilding.
3. Ambiguity and Discretion in ‘Severe Disaster’ Tag: “Severe” disaster is not clearly defined, enabling subjective decisions on NDRF eligibility.
4. Procedural Delays & Bureaucratic Layers: Relief depends on memorandums, central teams, high-level approvals and file movement. This delays fund release at a time when speed is most critical.
5. Weak Risk-Based Allocation Criteria: Finance Commission uses population and area rather than hazard maps and exposure indices. Vulnerability is approximated by poverty, not by scientific risk assessment.
6. Capacity and Implementation Gaps at Local Level: DDMA/ULB capacities in planning, GIS, and enforcement remain uneven across states.

Way Ahead:

1. Rules-Based, Trigger-Linked Financing:
   • Use objective indicators (rainfall thresholds, per capita loss, loss–GSDP ratio) to trigger aid.
   • This reduces political discretion and ensures predictable, timely relief.
2. Revise Norms & Expand Eligible Uses of Funds:
   • Periodically revise compensation norms to reflect real reconstruction costs.
   • Allow SDRF/NDRF to also support livelihood restoration and basic rebuilding, not just immediate relief.
3. Empower States, Districts and Local Bodies:
   • Give SDMAs and DDMAs greater operational control over funds and planning.
   • Strengthen ULBs and panchayats with training, EOCs and clear local response protocols.
4. Develop a National Disaster Vulnerability Index:
   • Combine hazard, exposure, population density, ecology and socio-economic vulnerability.
   • Use this index to prioritise funds and mitigation projects transparently.
5. Mainstream Risk Reduction into Development:
   • Enforce building codes, zoning laws, CRZ norms and floodplain regulation strictly.
   • Make all major infrastructure climate and disaster resilient by design.
6. Strengthen Cooperative Federalism & Trust:
   • Institutionalise Centre–State consultation on criteria, triggers and norms.
   • Keep Union’s role as supportive and rules-based, not ad hoc and discretionary.

Conclusion:

India has built a strong legal and institutional base for disaster management, but its financing and federal practices lag behind its ambitions. As climate shocks intensify, disaster response must shift from negotiated, discretionary relief to a transparent, rules-based partnership. Only then can India’s federal system protect both lives and the constitutional spirit of cooperative, resilient governance in times of crisis.