Even though this disaster was brought about by an extreme rain event which could be symptomatic of climate change effects (8 times the highest expected rain in a day, 20 days before schedule, in geologically unstable valleys), the real causes of the destruction lie in the typically Indian situation of
- poor governance;
- inadequate enforcement of local building and development laws and by-laws due to local politics;
- exponential rise in religious tourism from an emerging middle class that is intensely religious;
- and most importantly, haywire river training and management, with very little long term thinking.
In my mind, the only effective remedy of the situation has been frequently identified, but which is never effectively applied: improved local governance. This state, like much of north India, has been traditionally a strong society, with a weak state, as explored in detail in Sh. Gurcharan Das's new book, India Grows at Night. Whether it be building by-laws to avoid riverbeds and floodplains or laws around disposal of muck from hydropower sites, the enforcement is weak and often over-ridded by politically connected individuals, who consider the formal State a mere irritant at best and an adversary at worst.
The climate change effects of worsening adverse rain events, more rain in lesser time, can be handled if there is social agreement (resulting in political consensus) on how to run the state to avoid further such disasters. However, like always, the political bickering has already started, without any consensus on how to handle these issues.
Even though this disaster was brought about by a weather event, the failure of the state in preemption and response is not any different from similar failures from those in the Nirbhaya gangrape case, the frequent terrorist attacks, the slowing growth, the policy gridlock or rampant general misgovernance. The state of affairs can be remedied not by technological solutions, but by a consensus for a stronger state. This call for a stronger and more effective and responsive state can be seen in the recent quasi-political movements led by Anna Hazare and Arvind Kejriwal, who seem to be reflecting the political wishes of an emerging middle class. However, this demand is currently being thwarted by the entrenched polity, which is responsive to the traditional richer farmers of the country and the Delhi elite. However, this elite can only delay the takeover of power by the emerging middle class, not deny it.
Recently, I wrote a response on someone's FB status after the Amartya Sen article in the New York Times on Why China is ahead of India. I'd like to copy it here: Culture, work ethic, attitude and a value system that places personal integrity over personal benefit are usually derived from a common societal belief system, a 'Higher Ideal', if you will.
This system can be based on religion in many countries (eg Israel and Saudi Arabia); common ethnicity in some other countries (eg Japan, Germany, Poland, China and most African countries); the Constitution in the US and Ataturk's Turkey; Communism in several erstwhile Communist countries or shared experiences from a recent turmoil (post-War Korea and perhaps now Sri Lanka).
Would it be fair to say that India (and perhaps South Africa, Indonesia and Brazil as well) misses out such a common thread, unlike most other World powers? Forcible secularization of the State in a deeply religious country after Independence and an inadequately trusted Constitution mean that, as a people, we don't have a higher ideal to believe in. And money steps in to become that ideal! Hence the for-sale politicians, the for-sale bureaucrats, the for-sale regulators and the for-sale Railway Board members!
Does the answer lie either in a more representative Constitution or a State more representative of the country's religious beliefs?
