Disaster of an amendment which falls short of addressing the pressing concerns of vulnerable communities

By Maju Varghese 
The Lok Sabha has passed the Disaster Management Amendment Bill, 2024, which will now be presented in the Rajya Sabha. In its statement of purpose, the central government states that the amendment incorporates lessons learned from past disasters and insights gained during the implementation of the 2005 Act.
The country has been witnessing increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events. According to a report in Down to Earth, India experienced extreme weather events on 314 out of the 365 days in 2022. That year alone, 2,026 people lost their lives, 1.96 million hectares of crops were damaged, and more than 423,000 houses were destroyed or severely affected. These alarming statistics reflect a disturbing trend, with disasters like lightning, storms, heavy rains, floods, landslides, heatwaves, cold waves, cloudbursts, cyclones, and snowfall becoming increasingly frequent.
In light of these challenges, one would expect the Disaster Management Act 2005 to evolve into a sharper and more inclusive legal framework. Disasters such as heatwaves, which claimed over 730 lives this year, and coastal erosion, which continues to displace coastal communities, remain conspicuously absent from the Act's definition of disaster.
Missed Opportunities
The 2005 Act marked a significant shift in disaster management by focusing on prevention and mitigation rather than just sending relief and response. It established various authorities and institutions at national and state levels, creating a comprehensive framework for disaster preparedness. However, the current amendment falls short of addressing the pressing concerns of vulnerable communities such as informal workers, construction laborers, agricultural workers, fishworkers, and people living in disaster-prone areas which have come up over the past years. It fails to address issues around responsibility, definition and specify rights and entitlements of directly and indirectly affected communities.
Rather than leveraging this amendment to advance a rights-based framework and strengthen institutional mechanisms to combat the escalating impacts of climate change, the government has failed to address critical issues.
Controversial Deletion
A key focus of the amendment seems to be the removal of Clause 13 of the 2005 Act, which empowered the National Authority to recommend relief in loan repayments. This clause was central to demands for loan waivers made by victims of the Mepadi (Wayanad) landslide, a demand supported by the Chief Minister of Kerala and raised by the state in the State Level Bankers committee in the presence of representatives of all the banks and the Reserve Bank of India. The Kerala High Court had even directed the central government and the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) to clarify their stance on writing off loans—personal, housing, and vehicle—under this clause.
By eliminating this provision, the amendment removes a vital legal remedy for communities devastated by disasters. This move is particularly alarming in the context of the people’s campaign in Wayanad, where affected families, already burdened by the loss of homes, agricultural lands, and livelihoods, were demanding not just compensation but systemic support for their rehabilitation.
Unaddressed Issues
The amendment does not address critical concerns like livelihood compensation. Disasters often impact large sections of people who are not directly recorded as affected because they do not own property. However, these individuals—dependent on agriculture, small businesses, or informal labour—suffer lasting livelihood disruptions, sometimes beyond repair. The Act needs to clearly define minimum standards for relief and prioritise livelihood restoration.
M
Additionally, the amendment does not address the plight of people repaying loans for destroyed houses, vehicles, and businesses. The continued demand for EMIs in such situations reflects the inadequacy of existing relief mechanisms. By withdrawing the word “compensation” from the Act, the amendment reveals a deliberate move away from providing substantive relief, exposing the government’s disregard for the needs of vulnerable communities.
A Flawed Approach
Instead of strengthening disaster preparedness and fostering better center-state collaboration, the amendment centralises power further, fails to devolve financial resources, and lacks transparency in disaster relief fund allocation. It also creates multiple new institutions without ensuring clarity in their mandates or funding sources.
The amendment could have been a landmark opportunity to align India’s disaster management framework with the realities of climate change and its growing impacts. Instead, it takes a myopic approach, prioritising administrative control over the rights and well-being of affected communities.
By adopting this short-sighted amendment, the government has not only missed an opportunity to strengthen India’s disaster resilience but has also created yet another disaster—this time in policymaking.