DELUGE OF WARNINGS

As Kerala’s worst floods hit it like a bolt from the blue this August, they left behind a devastating and demoralising trail of destruction. Nearly 450 people lost their lives, tens of thousands their livelihoods, with about 20 people still unaccounted for, as well over 12 lakh displaced people were compelled to take refuge in over 5,500 relief camps set up in various locations of what has been popularly known as God’s own country. Apart from this, the material damages have been humungous as well. Some 10,000 kilometres of roads, 100,000 houses, and millions of hectares of crops have been damaged or destroyed, inflicting a total loss of around Rs 20,000 crore on the south Indian state.
However, amid large-scale relief efforts and rescue operations that the Centre and the state carried out commendably with support also coming in from other states across the country, many uncomfortable questions were raised and heated debates raged over a few issues.
As the sun finally shone brightly over Kerala for the first time, Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan announced the United Arab Emirates (UAE), home to hundreds of thousands of Keralites, had pledged US$100 million (Rs 700 crore) for relief work. “A new Kerala has to be built… Funds are the prime requisite for this. This will be raised by us through various sources besides getting it from the Centre and other agencies,” he told the media.
Apart from the UAE, Qatar has offered Rs 36 crore and the Maldives $50,000 as financial aid to Kerala.
However, India politely declined financial aid from other countries to the flood-devastated state. “The government of India deeply appreciates offers from several countries to assist in relief and rehabilitation efforts after the tragic floods,” External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said in response to queries.
“In line with the existing policy, the government is committed to meeting the requirements for relief and rehabilitation through domestic efforts,” Kumar said.
“Contributions to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund from NRIs, PIOs and international entities such as foundations would, however, be welcome.”
Various political leaders from Kerala appealed to Prime Minister Modi to allow foreign aid. However, according to sources earlier that day, the Centre had decided against accepting foreign financial aid in line with a decision taken by then UPA-I government after the 2004 tsunami.
The sources here referred to the government’s statement then that said that “as a general policy in case of rescue and relief operations we have followed the practice that we have adequate ability to respond to emergency requirements”.
CONTENTION POINT
The matter soon became political, not surprisingly.
Lashing out at the Centre, CPI-M Secretary Kodiyeri Balakrishnan said that clinging to rules that will deny aid from foreign countries to flood-hit Kerala is nothing but an act of vengeance by the Centre.
“This should be seen as a follow up to statements that have come from Sangh Parivar agencies asking people not to contribute to the Chief Minister’s Distress Relief Fund,” he told the media.
“This is the latest example of an anti-Kerala stand taken by the Centre. India avails huge amounts of assistance from countries and other international agencies… If the Centre feels that India is not going to accept international aid from various countries for Kerala, there is no issue if the Centre compensates it,” said Balakrishnan.
A few days earlier, hours after the Centre announced Rs 500 crore as a relief package for Kerala, in addition to the Rs 100 crore it had allotted for the same previously, Congress President Rahul Gandhi thundered that the funds were “nowhere near enough” as he called for the calamity to be declared a “national disaster.”
As his party accused the Modi government of “playing politics” on the issue, Rahul said the Centre should “not vacillate as the people were suffering”.
Congress party’s communications in-charge Randeep Singh Surjewala also conveyed in a series of tweets that the amount sanctioned by the Centre was a “pittance” and a function of “partisan politics.”
“Tragic that PM Modi announced a pittance of Rs 500 cr for Kerala flood relief against the State’s demand of Rs 2000 cr. Painful that Modi Govt is playing politics over flood relief merely because BJP has no presence in the state,” he said.
After India’s refusal to accept the UAE government’s offer, the issue caught fire when many media reports revealed an interesting fact: According to the National Disaster Management Plan of 2016 if the national government of another country offers assistance as a goodwill gesture to disaster victims, the central government may accept it.
“As a matter of policy, the government of India does not issue any appeal for foreign assistance in the wake of a disaster. However, if the national government of another country voluntarily offers assistance as a goodwill gesture in solidarity with the disaster victims, the central government may accept the offer,” says the Plan drafted by the National Disaster Management Authority.
MAKING CASE
According to the 2016 Plan, the Home Ministry is required to coordinate with the External Affairs Ministry, which is primarily responsible for reviewing offers of assistance and channelising the same.
It said that in consultation with the state government concerned, the Home Ministry “will assess the response requirements that the foreign teams can provide”.
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan also cited this Plan to make his point for India to accept the offer from the UAE.
Meanwhile, two former Foreign Secretaries – Shiv Shankar Menon and Nirupama Rao – also expressed their agreement with the notion that there was nothing wrong in accepting foreign governments’ aid.
Rao said that offers of flood relief from Gulf countries should be treated with sensitivity. “True that as country we can give rather than take assistance but 80% of Indians in the Gulf are Malayalis,” Rao tweeted.
“Offer of flood relief assistance from that region must be treated with sensitivity. Saying no is simple, but for Kerala-in-crisis, it’s not so simple.”
Menon said the 2004 decision was not to accept foreign participation in relief but take it for long-term rehabilitation. “If (my) memory serves (me right), the 2004 decision was not to accept foreign participation in relief but accept it for long-term rehabilitation case by case,” he tweeted in response to Rao’s comments.
“No rescue teams needing hand-holding and interpretation but yes to rebuilding houses, bridges, roads… A way forward for Kerala?” he stated.
Sanjaya Baru, media advisor to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, concurred with Menon.
He said in a tweet: “You are correct. We said no to relief but accepted support for rehab. Also one must distinguish between normal aid and help in disaster. Later more humanitarian. Also Gulf Kerala relationship is unique. Lots of goodwill for Malayalis in Gulf.”
The issue, however, seems to have cooled off temporarily what with the Modi government assuring that the release of Rs 600 crore by it was just advance assistance and additional funds would be released after the assessment of flood damage.
“It is clarified that Rs 600 crore released by Centre is the advance assistance only. Additional funds would be released from NDRF (National Disaster Response Fund) on assessment of the damages as per laid down procedure,” said a statement issued by the Home Ministry.
The ministry also sought to remind all that many normal rules and procedures were already set aside while supplying relief materials in view of emergency nature of the requirement in Kerala.
FACING HEAT
It was not just the Modi government that faced questions in the wake of the disaster; the Kerala government has received its fair share of flak on another account.
One came from within.
Former Kerala Chief Minister Oommen Chandy said that the tragedy caused due to heavy rains and floods in the state was due to the present state government’s glaring omission of not being able to foresee things.
Chandy said that even though this was not the time to politicise the tragedy, he was forced to say what Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan himself pointed out. “Since the monsoon season began in the end of May, Kerala received heavy rains in three parts and since being in segments there should have been a basic planning process. But for some reason it did not happen and hence tragedy struck the state very hard,” Chandy asserted.
Monsoon began in the last week of May and heavy rains came in three segments till the second week of August.
“The glaring omission came when the government failed to act according to the pattern of rains. In hindsight, it’s easy to say that it should have been done this way and not that way, but it’s here where the calculations went haywire,” the former leader said.
For the first time in the history of the state, on account of the heavy rains during the past three months the sluice gates of 33 dams were opened after 26 years.
“The authorities misfired when it came to handling the Idukki dam as it was not opened earlier and instead waited till the last minute which caused a huge damage to life and properties. The weather forecasts were right in front of the authorities. To substantiate what I said, you can just look into the manner in which state Power Minister M.M. Mani handled the Idukki dam and then correlate it with what Vijayan said,” Chandy added.
‘MANMADE CALAMITY’
The biggest questions, however, were raised by the environmentalists.
It was noted that Kerala received 2,378 mm over 88 days this year, which was four times more than normal but 30 per cent less and spread over 61 days more than the deluge of 1924 – the most intense flood in the state’s recorded history which had submerged nearly it’s entire coastline.
Then, the big question arose: How could the recent flood be as devastating as the one brought by 3,368 mm of rainfall in Kerala 94 years ago?
The general answer to that, according to many environmental and ecological experts, was this: Kerala suffered to the extent it did as it had reduced its capacity to deal with such extreme floods by allowing illegal stone quarrying, cutting down forests and grasslands, changing drainage patterns and sand mining on river beds.
“Rampant stone quarrying and digging of pits is the reason behind the landslides and landslips, which worsened the situation in the Kerala floods,” said Madhav Gadgil, ecologist and founder of the Centre for Ecological Sciences at the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru. “These quarries cause deforestation and block the natural streams, which help in reducing the intensity of the floods,” he explained.
Gadgil was also the lead author of a 2011 government-commissioned study written by the Western Ghats Ecology Expert Panel (WGEEP) — commonly called the Gadgil committee report — which he headed. The report recommended that development be restricted in the Western Ghats, which sprawls across six states, including Kerala.
Most of the regions overwhelmed by the recent floods were classified as “ecologically sensitive zones” — where there should be limited or no construction or deforestation — by the Gadgil committee.
Unfortunately, in 2011, the Centre and the Western-Ghats states, including Kerala, had refused to accept the Gadgil committee report.
Spread across 160,000 sq km, more than three times the size of Haryana, the Western Ghats extends over six states – Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Goa, Maharashtra and Gujarat — along India’s western coast.
With the biodiversity, water security and retention characteristics in mind, the Gadgil committee had suggested classification of the Ghats into three zones: Ecologically highest sensitive zones (ESZ1), where certain types of areas would be “no-go”; ecologically high sensitive zones (ESZ2), where construction of new railway lines and major roads would not be allowed, except when “highly essential”; and ecologically moderately sensitive zones (ESZ3), where new energy projects and infrastructure such as roads may be allowed but with “strict environmental regulations”.
The committee’s recommendations included restrictions on mining and quarrying, use of land for non-forest purposes and no construction of high-rises.
“A study in the southern region, comprising the states of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, showed that between 1920-1990 about 40 per cent of the original forest cover was lost or converted to another form of land use,” said the Gadgil committee report.
“Change in land use of forests exposes the region to such [Kerala-like] calamities,” said Gadgil, who went so far as to call the Kerala floods a “manmade calamity” while making the point that the scale of the disaster could have been reduced.
Like other experts, V.S. Vijayan, a member of the Gadgil committee and former chairman of Kerala State Biodiversity Board, said that cutting trees in the catchment areas of dams, illegal construction and farming on slopes exceeding 30 degrees were among the main reasons for flood devastation.
NATIONAL LESSONS
“Many of these activities end up loosening the soil, making it susceptible to landslides,” said Vijayan. “We had recommended against all of these practices in the Gadgil committee report, but no one listened.”
One of the main reasons for the rejection of the Gadgil committee report was the government’s confusion between the definition of ecologically sensitive zones and ecologically fragile areas, according to Vijayan.
Kerala has a 15-year-old law called the Ecologically Fragile Lands Act, which says people can be evicted from protected areas, such as wildlife sanctuaries and national parks. The government thought that the ecologically sensitive zones were essentially the same, “which was not the case”, Vijayan pointed out.
“We clearly divided the entire Ghats into three zones based on their ecology and needs of protection … It never meant that humans were to be evicted from sensitive areas,” he continued, adding that extreme rainfall events cannot be stopped, but the impact of floods can be reduced if forests and natural landscapes are used as shields.
What Kerala witnessed was an event of high intensity rainfall over a short span of time. The intensity of such heavy rainfall events have been rising across India. Over 110 years to 2010, heavy rainfall events in India show an increasing trend of six per cent per decade, said a November 2017 study co-authored by Pai, who said high-intensity rainfall results from rising temperatures caused by climate change.
India could see a six-fold increase in population exposed to the risk of severe floods by 2040 — to 25 million people from 3.7 million facing this risk between 1971 and 2004 – according to a 2018 study published in Science Advances, a peer-reviewed journal.
There is one conclusion that might be drawn from these facts: All the ongoing political debates and environmental analyses will be futile if the crucial lessons from Kerala floods are forgotten in time, as they often have been in case of other natural disasters that have struck this country in the near and distant past. But if that continues, the bolts from the blue will only get ever more devastatingly destructive and painfully regretful.