publications

<<previous  |  index  |  next>>

III. The immediate response to the tsunami

India has been congratulated by the media, local groups, and donor agencies for its prompt action after the tsunami.25 Not only was an effective relief and rescue operation launched in the country, prompt assistance was dispatched from India to Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Indonesia.26 When claims of official incompetence arose in Tamil Nadu, the government immediately dispatched officers with experience in disaster management. Both in Nagapattinam and in Cuddalore districts, Human Rights Watch observed that the district chief was actively involved in the relief operations.

But Human Rights Watch also learned of numerous instances in which government and nongovernmental aid organizations were either redundant or working at cross- purposes.27 As the post-tsunami period moves into the long-term reconstruction phase, it is time for authorities to create an efficient and rational system to harness the well-intentioned energies of official and nongovernmental assistance efforts.28

Under the Indian Constitution, several key decision-making powers are vested with local village councils. The councils, or panchayats, are supposed to function as institutions of self-governance with the authority to prepare plans and implement schemes for economic development and social justice including rural housing, agricultural reform, water management or poverty alleviation programs.29 These councils are elected and it is mandatory to have some women representatives. However, in practice, the system suffers from several shortcomings, as became apparent during initial rehabilitation efforts in the weeks following the tsunami.

In some places, the village leader belonged to a particular caste or religious group and only represented that group’s interests. Although women served on the councils, women victims still faced discrimination in gaining access to an equal share of humanitarian aid, often distributed through male household heads. Government officials at the implementing level often failed to delegate authority to the village councils or to consult with them to ensure community participation in relief and rehabilitation. In some villages, Human Rights Watch witnessed local politicians and administrative officials asserting that they, not village council leaders, were the real decision makers.

Need for better coordination with nongovernmental groups

The shocking images of destruction caused by the tsunami led to an outpouring of donations and emergency supplies to India.30 Both government relief agencies and private voluntary groups received an unprecedented amount of contributions. However, in the days immediately following the tsunami, poor coordination led to duplication of efforts in some areas, while other, less accessible populations received no help at all.

According to an assessment by Bhoomika Trust, an NGO that coordinates relief efforts in natural disasters, there were numerous reports of unproductive efforts by well-meaning groups and multiple groups coming to the aid of the same community. For instance, different medical teams were found giving shots to the same people. Said Raju Rajagopal of Bhoomika Trust:

It is true that help is not reaching certain sectors. There are people with need, but there are a lot more people with supplies, waiting to give to people. The need is to share information so that we can deliver assistance.31

A lack of understanding of local needs also led to problems. For instance, trucks full of used clothes arrived, but with roads damaged, they could not always reach the affected areas. Clothes were heaped along the road, where they remained at the time of Human Rights Watch’s visit. The clothes that were delivered were often inappropriate. Activists, for instance, complained to Human Rights Watch that village women do not wear skirts or dresses; they need saris, undergarments and most urgently, sanitary towels.32

There were reports of squabbles within communities or between villages because some people received supplies that others did not. Government officials admitted that this was a problem, particularly because local communities could not distinguish between relief materials provided by the government and those supplied by NGOs. As J. Radhakrishnan, the administrative chief of Nagapattinam told Human Rights Watch:

By and large the NGOs and volunteers have been very helpful. But some people are dependent on the administration and expect us to organize rooms, vehicles and translators, which becomes a problem when all our resources are geared toward disaster management…NGO help has also been supply driven, instead of demand driven, which has sometimes been a problem. For instance, some NGOs distributed the wrong kind of rice and the administration was blamed. Another NGO distributed toothpaste in some villages, and we had angry complaints from others who thought that the government was not distributing fairly.33



[25] World Bank Country Director Michael Carter said, “It is truly impressive to see the way India has responded in providing basic necessities to the affected people,” Tsunami Recovery in India: The World Bank Responds [online], http://www.worldbank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/
0,,contentMDK:20315755~pagePK:141137~piPK:141127~theSitePK:295584,00.html (retrieved April 11, 2005).

[26]Ministry of External Affairs, Government of India, Response to Question 340 in Parliament regarding assistance to tsunami affected countries, March 2, 2005 [online], http://meaindia.nic.in/parliament/ls/2005/03/02ls20.htm.; Press Guidance on India’s position on Tsunami Relief Assistance, January 21, 2005 [online], http://www.indianembassy.org/press-release/2005/Jan/9.htm (retrieved February 15, 2005).

[27] Satya Sivaraman, “In Tamil Nadu, Ask for Bread and Get a Bakery,” Inter Press Service News Agency, January 10, 2005 [online], http://www.ipsnews.net/print.asp?idnews=26961 (retrieved February 1, 2005); Mari Marcel Thekaekara, “The Tsunami Relief Effort,” The Hindu, January 4, 2005 [online], http://www.hindu.com/2005/01/05/stories/2005010503341200.htm (retrieved April 11, 2005).

[28] UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Affected Countries said at a press conference on April 13, 2005: “We have to learn from what has been done and from what we're doing now, and come up with a set of best practices for how we should have an early warning system, how we should mitigate the disasters that do occur, how we should manage those that occur and how we should deal with the kinds of challenges that we face here,” [online], http://www.un.org/apps/sg/sgstats.asp?nid=1399 (retrieved May 9, 2005).

[29] Panchayati Raj, 73rd Amendment Act, 1992. For details see http://rural.nic.in/panch.htm.

[30] The United Nations Development Fund estimates that the corporate sector in India contributed over eight million US dollars in cash, food, medicines and other humanitarian supplies. Indian companies also contributed nearly ten million US dollars to the Prime Minister’s National Relief Fund. Private citizens contributed generously to the Prime Minister’s fund and those set up by the state governments. In addition, non governmental organizations received a lot of donations both from India and abroad.

[31] Human Rights Watch interview with Raju Rajagopal, Bhoomika Trust, Chennai, January 27, 2005.

[32] Human Rights Watch interview with the NGO Coordination Center, Nagapattinam, January 27, 2005.

[33] Human Rights Watch interview with J.Radhakrishnan, District Collector, Nagapattinam, January 29, 2005.


<<previous  |  index  |  next>>May 2005