Revealed: Why the Govt Failed in its Response to Cyclone Ockhi

Will the government follow up Cyclone Ockhi with another meaningless round of clerical guidelines never implemented?

At least 90 fishermen dead, 821 rescued and 661 still missing. More than 10,000 houses destroyed.

Thousands distraught. Rescue operations underway. Indian Navy, Indian Coast Guard and Indian Air Force at work. Kerala government seeks Rs 7,340 crore in relief. Tamil Nadu government wants Rs 9,300 crore.

This is what Cyclone Ockhi has left in its wake.

And what will the Government of India do? While the people suffer, the government is likely to set up a committee to find out why the previous committee’s recommendations were not implemented.  This tedious process keeps getting repeated. This sums up the government’s attempt to tackle cyclones and its subsequent losses during the last five decades.

Why Cyclones Are a Big Deal for India

According to the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), 76 percent of India’s coastline is prone to cyclones of varying degrees. To add to this, a third of the country’s population – or 32 crore people – live in coastal states. Why then has the government not done more?

A 2016 World Health Organisation (WHO) report, which was quoted in the Rajya Sabha in 2017, says 12 crore Indians are already exposed to coastal floods and cyclones each year.

Existing Guidelines? Faulty and Ill-Thought-Out

Let’s examine what went wrong during Cyclone Ockhi by asking questions which place the latest guidelines on cyclone management against ground realities.

1. Was There a Delay in Sounding Alert for Cyclone Ockhi?

Well, officially no.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh said in Lok Sabha on 23 December 2017, "The IMD issued a warning on 29 November itself, and bulletins were issued every three hours. It was a rare storm which developed from deep depression to lethal cyclonic storm in only six hours."

According to the IMD website, cyclone warnings come in four stages. The first warning known as the "pre-cyclone watch" is to be issued 72 hours in advance, followed by the cyclone alert issued at least 48 hours in advance, and the rest of them every few hours.

Devasahayam, a former IAS officer, said that there is a need to revisit the cyclone warning system.

The IMD got the direction and speed of the cyclone wrong. They didn’t expect cyclone Ockhi to turn and move towards our coast and as fast. Rare or not, something in the technology was faulty making their analysis and warnings incorrect.

Speaking to The Quint, Peer Muhamad, who is Convenor of Rebuild Kanyakumari Movement, said the warnings came too late. Also adding that there was sufficient information to sound a warning days before, considering how fishermen venture into the sea for more than a month at a stretch.

“Fishermen pack supplies and go into deep into the sea. For them a cyclone alert that sounded 48 or 24 hours in advance holds no relevance whatsoever. It was definitely too late,” he said.

“Even the warning issued on 29 November by the fisheries department merely said that the seas are rough and winds will blow at 70km/h. This is not a good enough warning. By 30 November, the cyclone had already devastated Kanyakumari,” he said.

Muhamad says that if rescue operations had started a week in advance, the Indian Navy and Coast Guard could have gone up to 200 nautical miles and escorted the fishermen to safety.

2. Was there adequate co-ordination to ensure a speedy response and rescue?

In the eight chapters of the NDMA’s 2005 guidelines, all aspects of cyclone management – which include warning, structural mitigation measures, management of coastal zones, awareness generation up to response, etc – have been discussed in detail.

Each chapter in the end lists a few ‘Major Action Points’.

Almost every action point has to be carried out by four or five ministries, making co-ordination a pre-requisite.

Former NDMA member Mohan Kanda, who retired as the chief secretary of Andhra Pradesh, told The Quint that:

He went on to say that during Cyclone Huhud, which hit Vishakapatnam and other coastal states in October 2014, the co-ordination was far superior. “But, this is utter failure. The co-ordination is anchored by the NDMA body headed by the PM of India. Where were they?” Kanda said.

Devasahayam says the body responsible for co-ordination has been lying defunct.

“The NDMA is headed by the PM and they should hold quarterly review meetings with representatives of these ministries. But the body is not functioning. The body has been considerably downsized from eight people to four, and the post of its vice-chairman was abolished.”

The PM should have called for review meetings once in a quarter. Narendra Modi hasn’t called even one meeting. Only if NDMA works, will the guidelines work.

While the NDMA’s performance in the last few years has not been up to the mark, India’s track record of managing the aftermath of devastating cyclones over the last five decades has been questionable. Here’s why:-

Attempts to Mitigate Cyclone Damage Started in 1970

Yes, almost 50 years ago.

After two cyclones struck Andhra Pradesh in 1969, the Government of India appointed the Cyclone Distress Mitigation Committee (CDMC) in 1970. This committee made 59 recommendations which were valid for all states vulnerable to cyclones.

The CDMC was only the first of many committees appointed to this job.

Eight years later, Andhra Pradesh was hit by another cyclone in 1977. But what was the reason to worry? We had 59 solid recommendations made which would come to the rescue.

After the cyclone caused devastation, the government decided to see if the 1970 recommendations were even implemented or not. For this, another committee was set up. (Please keep count).

The second committee observed in May 1978 that many important recommendations of the first committee had not been implemented.  Additionally, they made more recommendations and decided to set up an Empowered Committee of Secretaries (third committee? Yes) with the aim of implementing the CDMC’s recommendations.

Ok, so let's get this straight.

Now, a second committee was set-up to ensure the implementation of recommendations made by the first committee. Why? Why can't we just implement the recommendations straight off and not get engrossed in the clerical spiral of committees considering the unpredictability of natural disasters.

It was in 1978 that that government also realised there was a need to use science and technology to come up with the best solutions. Alright, but did this ‘realisation’ lead to better performance? Let’s see.

In 1979, A 'Complete Review’ Was Needed

In 1979, a decade after the 1969 Andhra Pradesh cyclone, the secretary of the Department of Science and Technology brought the cyclone issues to the notice of another committee, which one this time? The National Committee of Science and Technology (NCST).

The secretary said a Cyclone Review Committee (Fourth one, keep up the count) be set up under the NCST to carry out a complete review of all aspects of cyclone management. The committee submitted its report along with recommendations in 1984. And guess what?

Apart from some institutional arrangements for issuing cyclone warnings, till date, no major recommendations of this fourth committee have been implemented.

Fifth-Time Lucky? This Time a ‘High-Powered Committee’

A high-powered committee (fifth committee in 30 years) was constituted in 1999 to prepare a comprehensive plans for the management of disasters at the national, state and district levels.

These recommendations were used by state governments to set up:-

i) State Crisis Management Groups
ii) Relief commissioners
iii) Put in place state/district contingency plans
iv) Set up a Calamity Relief Fund, etc

Are We There Yet? Not Really...

After five committees under various departments gave their guidelines, another action plan was issued by the NDMA in 2005. What was the need when we already had guidelines in place?

Well the NDMA says: "The paradigm shift in the Government of India’s focus from the earlier rescue and relief-centric approach to a holistic approach covering all aspects of disaster management has been the thrust of this effort to evolve national guidelines for the management of cyclones."

So what does this mean? That till 2005, the government wasn’t approaching cyclone management holistically enough? Also, and more importantly, were all the earlier guidelines issued focusing on rescue and relief, which happens after a cyclone has devastated lives?

What is clear is that existing guidelines need a revamp, and co-ordination between ministries have to be smoother. “The government has not shown the kind of initiative needed to save lives, only lethargy and laziness,” said Peer Mohamad.

To reduce tragedy to another clerical round of committees would expose the government’s lack of initiative or pure disinterest, or has it already?