By Imlisanen Jamir
The Nagaland State Disaster Management Plan, tabled in a recent session of the state legislature by the Chief Minister, promises a stronger institutional response to earthquakes, landslides, floods, fires, drought and chemical accidents. It foregrounds community participation, the integration of traditional tribal knowledge, village-level capacity building and annual reviews. But the plan’s language of “management” and coordination masks a crucial reality: it addresses response far more than the decisions that create disasters in the first place.
On its own terms the document is thorough. It identifies the major hazards facing the state and proposes systems for early warning, community preparedness and coordinated relief. The formal recognition of indigenous knowledge and village capacity is welcome and could improve how communities respond to sudden events. These measures, if implemented, will save lives and ease suffering when disasters strike.
Yet the plan’s executive summary also admits that the rising frequency and severity of disasters in Nagaland is linked to rapid population growth, greater concentration of people in hazardous zones and inadequate infrastructure. In effect, the state is acknowledging that planning failures, permissive land use and decaying infrastructure have helped manufacture the emergencies it now promises to manage. Those words should prompt scrutiny of past approvals, slope-cutting for construction, loss of forest cover and settlements that have encroached on flood corridors.
A disaster management plan, by definition, is about response. It cannot substitute for land‑use policy, environmental impact assessments or rigorous enforcement of building and drainage regulations. Early warning systems and relief coordination are necessary. But they are not a replacement for preventive measures that reduce exposure and vulnerability — for example, enforcing setback rules, restoring catchments, or stopping risky construction on unstable hillsides.
This is not unique to Nagaland. Across the northeastern states and much of India, authorities often favour the politically and financially easier route of improving emergency management over the harder task of enforcing land‑use rules and long-term infrastructure investment. Building a better warning system is cheaper and more visible than addressing why drainage never existed, why riverbanks were sold off, or who gained from unsafe permissions.
Some elements of the plan will likely be implemented and celebrated when the next disaster comes. But the framework, as drafted, will not hold the state accountable for the policies and approvals that increased risk. What is required to break this cycle is a different document — one that links disaster planning to land‑use reform, environmental restoration and sustained political will. That kind of reckoning was not tabled in the assembly.
Comments can be sent to imlisanenjamir@gmail.com
Original Source: https://www.morungexpress.com/managing-the-disasters-we-create
Category: Editorial
Tags:
Publish Date: 2026-04-15 19:21:00
