All pride, no grace
Idon’t view pride as a laudable emotion although when it’s a response to creditable achievements it is, at least, understandable. But when it’s not, it appears arrogant and ungracious, it can prove to be self-defeating and, often, leave you looking ridiculous. Sadly, all three is the case with India’s refusal to accept international aid in response to Kerala’s devastating floods.
Now I know this is a policy that stretches back to the Manmohan Singh government’s response to the 2004 tsunami. It was also implemented during the Uttarakhand calamity of 2013. So it’s been India’s practice for the last decade and a half. But what’s happened over Kerala best illustrates why this is a deeply mistaken response.
Let’s first examine the facts. According to the Kerala government, the state has suffered damage of nearly ~200 billion. Over 350 have died; 1.3 million are in camps; 200,000 houses destroyed. The government has asked for ~26 billion of immediate relief assistance. In response, the Centre has given ~6 billion and various state governments perhaps another ~2 billion. Together that’s just about 30 per cent of what the state believes is required.
UAE’s alleged offer of ~7 billion was a sizeable step towards filling that gap. Assistance has also been offered by Qatar, Thailand and The Maldives. No doubt others would have helped
as well but they’ve probably been choked off.
The first question is a simple one: Can New Delhi on its own provide all the financial assistance Kerala needs and do so promptly? Remember the devastated state is in no position to wait and be patient. If the answer is not an unequivocal yes, it’s self- defeating to refuse assistance when you need it. Those who have suffered will pay the price. Not the rest of us.
India’s position, articulated by Dr Manmohan Singh during the 2004 tsunami, is “we feel that we can cope with the situation on our own”. It’s intended to prove we are a power of substance and not dependent on assistance. But the major economies of the world have behaved very differently in similar circumstances.
At the time of Hurricane Katrina in 2005, America accepted aid from 150 countries including India. UAE, Qatar and Kuwait gave “very large cash” donations. Even Bangladesh pledged $1 million. During the
Fukushima earthquake in 2011, Japan’s doors were open to international assistance. India was one of the contributors. The same was true of China when the Sichuan earthquake struck in 2008.
It seems we wish to give but not accept. Doesn’t that feel ungracious? Doesn’t it smack of arrogance? The UAE has a special relationship with Kerala. It wishes to share the state’s pain and suffering. This is why it wants to contribute. This is also why it’s mean-spirited to reject its offer, no matter how politely done.
We may be a fast developing country but remain a poor one. Twenty-two per cent live below the poverty line, defined as a mere ~816 per capita per month in rural areas and ~1000 in urban areas. Perhaps just as many scratch a living just above it. Abject poverty is the only phrase that can accurately describe their existence. Even when you take the rest of us into account, the country’s per capita income is only $7,060. In contrast, it’s $16,760 in China, $45,470 in
Japan and $60,200 in USA.
In our own eyes, we believe we can do without aid but is that how others see us? I doubt it. Though not to our face, I’m sure they will snigger behind our backs and think we’re being ridiculous.
The bizarre bit is that Clause 9 of the 2016 National Disaster Management Plan envisages the acceptance of international assistance. It says: “If the national government of another country voluntarily offers assistance as a goodwill gesture in solidarity with the disaster victims, the Central Government may accept the offer.” Prime Minister Narendra Modi needs to explain why he won’t. He should also explain why the Ministry of External Affairs spokesperson says: “Contributions to the Prime Minister’s Relief Fund and the Chief Minister’s Relief Fund from NRIs, PIOs and international entities such as foundations would, however, be welcome.” Is this a case of accepting money by the back door whilst refusing it through the front? It certainly feels like that.