 |
|
The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, has ignited a fierce debate in the Rajya Sabha, with opposition members vehemently accusing the NDA government of attempting to consolidate power at the Centre while simultaneously weakening the authority and autonomy of states. This accusation stems from the perceived shift in control over disaster management resources and decision-making processes, raising concerns about the erosion of federalism and the potential for delayed or inadequate responses to natural disasters at the state level. The core argument presented by opposition parties revolves around the notion that a robust and effective disaster management system necessitates strong, empowered states capable of independently addressing local needs and challenges. They contend that the proposed amendments, by increasing the Centre's influence and control over the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and other crucial aspects of disaster response, undermine this principle and create a top-down structure that may prove less responsive to the unique circumstances of each state. Sanjay Yadav of the RJD emphasized the fundamental link between strong states and a strong nation, arguing that the prosperity and power of the Union are directly dependent on the health and well-being of its constituent states. He criticized the emerging trend of centralizing power in all bills, asserting that such amendments diminish the role and autonomy of states, ultimately hindering their ability to effectively address the challenges they face. Yadav also highlighted the specific needs of Bihar, a state particularly vulnerable to various types of natural disasters, and called for a dedicated disaster relief budget to ensure adequate resources are available to mitigate the impact of these events. Manas Ranjan Mangaraj of the BJD echoed these concerns, focusing specifically on the proposed amendments to the NDRF allocation process. He pointed out that the original 2005 Act defined disaster response as addressing any threatening disaster situation or disaster, while the amendment seeks to redefine it as for meeting different aspects of disaster management. This seemingly subtle change, Mangaraj argued, is deeply worrisome, as it suggests a shift towards greater central control over the fund and a potential reduction in the flexibility and autonomy of states to utilize these resources in a manner best suited to their specific needs. He further alleged that the Centre has not provided adequate assistance to Odisha, a state highly prone to natural disasters, despite its commendable track record in disaster preparedness and response. The opposition's critique extends beyond the allocation of funds to encompass the broader issue of decision-making authority in disaster management. They argue that the centralizing tendencies evident in the amendment bill could lead to delays and inefficiencies in the delivery of relief measures during disasters, as states may be forced to navigate bureaucratic hurdles and seek approval from the Centre for actions that could be taken more swiftly and effectively at the local level. The potential for conflict and friction between the Centre and states is also a significant concern, as differing priorities and perspectives could lead to disagreements over resource allocation and response strategies. This, in turn, could undermine the overall effectiveness of the disaster management system and jeopardize the well-being of affected populations. Sanjay Singh of the AAP called for unity and cooperation in disaster management, urging the government to rise above political differences and blame games. He stressed the importance of bringing together societies, organizations, and political parties to effectively manage national disasters, highlighting the crucial roles of the Centre, state governments, civil society organizations, and political parties in this collective effort. Singh's call for collaboration underscores the recognition that disaster management is a complex and multifaceted challenge that requires a coordinated and integrated approach involving all stakeholders. He emphasized that political considerations should not impede the timely and effective delivery of assistance to those in need, and that a spirit of cooperation and mutual support is essential to ensure the safety and well-being of the nation in the face of natural disasters. However, the opposition's concerns were not universally shared. Ayodhya Rami Reddy Alla of the YSRCP acknowledged the bill's aim to modernize India's disaster management plans and address the evolving challenges posed by climate change and urbanization. He recognized the need to update the existing framework, which has been in place since the enactment of the Disaster Management Act 2005, to better prepare for and respond to the increasingly complex and frequent natural disasters that the country faces. However, Alla also raised critical concerns about the bill's shortcomings, particularly its failure to mandate disaster risk assessment as part of the approval process for new infrastructure projects. He argued that this oversight could lead to preventable disasters, as new developments may be built in areas vulnerable to natural hazards without adequate consideration of the potential risks. Furthermore, Alla pointed out that the bill does not recognize disaster relief and compensation as enforceable legal rights, raising concerns about the protection of the rights of affected populations. This lack of legal recourse could leave vulnerable communities without adequate support and redress in the aftermath of a disaster. Ashok Kumar Mittal of the AAP echoed these concerns, acknowledging the bill's potential to modernize disaster management but also cautioning against the potential for the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to limit the independence of states. He emphasized the need to ensure that states have sufficient funds to effectively deal with disasters and called for the inclusion of disaster prevention provisions in the bill. Mittal's comments highlight the delicate balance between central coordination and state autonomy in disaster management, emphasizing the need for a framework that empowers states to effectively address local needs while also ensuring a coordinated national response. Naresh Bansal of the BJP defended the bill, asserting that it will strengthen and improve the efficiency of disaster management through early warning systems. He highlighted the importance of technological advancements in disaster preparedness and response, emphasizing the role of early warning systems in mitigating the impact of natural disasters. Praful Patel of the NCP supported the bill and commended Home Minister Amit Shah for strengthening the NDMA and enhancing disaster preparedness at all levels of government, from the Centre to state, district, and urban bodies. Patel's support underscores the recognition that disaster management is a shared responsibility and that a concerted effort is required at all levels of government to effectively prepare for and respond to natural disasters. The debate surrounding the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, reflects a fundamental tension between the need for central coordination and the importance of state autonomy in disaster management. While the government argues that the amendments are necessary to modernize the system and improve efficiency, opposition members fear that they will lead to an erosion of federalism and a less responsive disaster management framework. The outcome of this debate will have significant implications for the future of disaster preparedness and response in India, and it will be crucial to ensure that the final legislation strikes a balance between central coordination and state autonomy, while also prioritizing the rights and needs of affected populations.
The Disaster Management Act of 2005, which forms the foundation for India's disaster management framework, was enacted in the wake of several devastating natural disasters, including the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami. The Act established the NDMA as the apex body for disaster management in India, responsible for formulating policies, plans, and guidelines for disaster preparedness, mitigation, and response. It also created the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), a specialized force trained to respond to natural and man-made disasters. The Act also emphasized the importance of state-level disaster management authorities (SDMAs) and district-level disaster management authorities (DDMAs), recognizing the crucial role of local governments in disaster preparedness and response. The Act has been amended several times since its enactment to address emerging challenges and improve the effectiveness of the disaster management system. However, the proposed amendments in the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, have sparked significant controversy, particularly regarding the balance of power between the Centre and the states. The opposition's concerns about the centralizing tendencies of the amendments are rooted in the historical experience of disaster management in India, where states have often played a crucial role in responding to local needs and challenges. The argument that strong states are essential for effective disaster management is based on the understanding that states are best positioned to understand the specific vulnerabilities and needs of their populations and to tailor response strategies accordingly. The opposition parties fear that increasing the Centre's control over the NDRF and other resources could lead to delays and inefficiencies in the delivery of assistance to affected populations, particularly in states that may have different priorities or perspectives than the Centre. The debate also raises fundamental questions about the nature of federalism in India and the appropriate division of powers between the Centre and the states. While the Constitution of India vests significant powers in the Centre, it also recognizes the importance of state autonomy and the need for a cooperative approach to governance. The opposition parties argue that the proposed amendments undermine this principle of cooperative federalism by encroaching on the powers and responsibilities of the states in the area of disaster management. The government, on the other hand, argues that the amendments are necessary to ensure a more coordinated and efficient national response to disasters. They contend that a centralized approach is essential to address the increasingly complex and transboundary nature of natural disasters, which often require a coordinated response across multiple states and regions. The government also argues that the amendments will help to modernize the disaster management system and improve its ability to cope with the challenges posed by climate change and urbanization. The debate over the Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, highlights the ongoing tension between the need for central coordination and the importance of state autonomy in disaster management. Finding the right balance between these two competing priorities is essential to ensure that India is well-prepared to face the challenges of natural disasters in the years to come. The bill's focus on modernizing disaster management plans and addressing the evolving challenges posed by climate change and urbanization is undoubtedly important. Climate change is increasing the frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, such as floods, droughts, and cyclones, which pose a significant threat to India's population and economy. Rapid urbanization is also creating new vulnerabilities, as cities become increasingly crowded and infrastructure struggles to keep pace with population growth. The Disaster Management (Amendment) Bill, 2024, needs to incorporate disaster risk assessment as part of the approval process for new infrastructure. This would help to prevent preventable disasters by ensuring that new developments are built in a way that minimizes the risk of damage from natural hazards. The bill also needs to address the issue of disaster relief and compensation as enforceable legal rights. This would provide vulnerable communities with greater protection and ensure that they receive adequate support in the aftermath of a disaster. The bill also lacks sufficient provisions for disaster prevention. Disaster prevention is the most effective way to reduce the impact of natural disasters. Investing in disaster prevention measures, such as building codes, early warning systems, and public awareness campaigns, can save lives and reduce economic losses. These improvements can create an effective comprehensive disaster management system that protects all citizens.
Source: Opposition members accuse govt of attempting to centralise power through bills amendments