In a just and equitable society, particularly one that prides itself on being democratic, welfare-oriented, and secular, there exists no room for discrimination. Every individual, irrespective of her background, deserves to be treated equally. This principle becomes even more crucial while considering disaster victims who, having already endured immense suffering, need to receive equal support and benefits.

Constitutional validity of discrimination

One might call unequal treatment, if real, as being contrary to the Constitutional provisions as Article 15 of the Constitution however prohibits discrimination amongst citizen and that too by the state and only on grounds related to religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. So, in theory non-state entities can discriminate on any ground, and even the state can discriminate on grounds other that religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth.

The Magnitude of the Disaster: The Root of Discrimination

The magnitude of a disaster often becomes the unfortunate basis for discriminatory treatment. Yet, there exists no clear and objective criteria based on degree of impact, affected geographical area or population to determine the magnitude or severity of a disaster. Even the Disaster Management Act, 2005 remains silent on this critical issue.

In reality, perceived magnitude of a disaster is often manipulated by media coverage or the affected population’s access to the media. An event close to major urban centres or having some unusual or sensational attribute often tends to garner more attention, creating a skewed perception of its severity.

The Visibility Factor

Being in the media spotlight people get curious to get updates not only on the incidence but also on action being taken by the state. The public pressure compels the government to act and it often acts in haste, without any prior planning. It’s however a win-win situation not only for the state but also for non-state actors who miss no opportunity of showcasing their social responsibility and responsiveness and thus strengthening their brand value. 

This often results in hastily announced relief measures, primarily focused on image-building through media coverage, rather than well-planned and sustainable welfare initiatives.

The Impact: Universal Suffering

Irrespective of magnitude, severity, intensity  or media attention, disasters inflict similar hardships on victims. 

These kill and decapacitate individuals, disrupt lives and livelihoods, often resulting in permanent loss of income and productive assets, creating unimaginable trauma and immense uncertainty for the affected families.

The State’s Response: A Tale of Two Disasters

While routine relief or assistance to the disaster victims is routinely provided out of the State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) in accordance with the norms set forth by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) against losses covered by it, victims of high-profile disasters invariably receive additional aid out of the Prime Minister and Chief Minister Relief Funds (PMRF/CMRF), and they often get relief for losses not covered by SDRF norms. 

As a state policy, disaster induced losses inflicted to commercial properties and assets are not entitled for relief or assistance out of SDRF as these entities are expected to insure their assets, but in both 2013 Kedarnath and 2023 Joshimath incidences in Uttarakhand assistance was provided for the loss of commercial assets as well.

Similarly, as a welfare measure state often tends to be extraordinarily benevolent in providing relief or assistance in case of certain high profile disasters. So on the aftermath of Joshimath disaster of 2023 state issued an order wherein the disaster affected properties were to be valuated and provided assistance based on covered area of the damaged structured on the basis plinth area rate of CPWD. 

This disparity in assistance, often dictated by media visibility, fosters a sense of discrimination among those affected by less publicized disasters.

Non-State Actors: Amplifying the Divide

Voluntary organizations, religious groups, cooperate entities and international aid agencies tend to focus their efforts on high-profile disaster incidences, particularly in easily accessible areas, which further widening the gap in support received by victims in remote and less visible areas.

Discrimination by the State: A Constitutional Question

The discretionary nature of assistance provided out of PMRF/CMRF  and sanction of special packages for the victims of high profile disasters  as also uneven application of “local disaster” notifications across states wherein the victims of the same hazard in one region do not get the assistance at par with that provided to the victims in another region. This creates a clear sense of discrimination amongst the victims getting less.  

This preferential treatment based on location can be argued as violating Article 15 of the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination based on place of birth.

The Way Forward: Towards Equitable Disaster Relief

To rectify this inherent discrimination, several measures can be adopted:

Compulsory Insurance 

Shifting from relief to a compensation-based model through a mandatory insurance scheme, wherein premium is scaled according to vulnerability and collected along with routinely admissible electricity, water or house tax bills of the households. 

This would not only ease the burden on state finances but also incentivise individuals to invest in vulnerability reduction and safety so as to minimise the insurance premium and also to improve net worth of their assets.

Redefining Local Disasters 

Restricting the application of “local disaster” notifications to genuinely unique events and minimising the inclusion of man-made incidents.

Transparent and Objective Norms

Establishing clear, objective criteria for assistance from PMRF/CMRF , independent of media influence, and avoiding the announcement of special relief packages solely for high-profile disasters.

Dispersing Non-State Actors

A mechanism needs to be devised wherein non-state actors are incentivised to provide support to the victims of less publicised incidences, particularly in remote and inaccessible areas.  

Conclusion

Rather than criticising the benevolent assistance provided to the victims of Kedarnath, Joshimath and other disasters, the contention is to bring forth awareness on this important issue and highlight the apathy of the system towards people in remote, inaccessible and uncovered areas so as to build public pressure in favour of a uniform regime, wherein all victims of disasters – small or large, well-covered or neglected by media, in accessible or remote inaccessible areas – get equal assistance and support from both state and non-state actors so as to be in a position to bounce back, recover from the impact and attain a status that is better than their pre-disaster situation.

The suggested measures, if implemented, would not only address the grievances of disaster victims in remote and inaccessible areas but also encourage a more responsible approach to disaster coverage by the media. 

Moreover, this would foster a sense of trust and ownership towards the state’s post-disaster recovery efforts, mobilise public opinion in favour of disaster safety and mitigation,  incentivise individuals and organisations to partner in state’s post-disaster initiatives and more than anything this would motivate people to invest in safety and ensure voluntary compliance of the norms, that in turn would reduce the burden of public exchequer and ensure sustainability of development initiatives.

So, instead of criticizing anyone, we must advocate for a uniform system ensuring equal support for all affected, regardless of location or media attention. This approach fosters trust, encourages responsible media coverage, and motivates public participation in disaster safety. 

By incentivizing preparedness and compliance, we reduce the burden on public funds and ensure sustainable development.