Natural calamities bring out the worst in Centre-state ties

The states feel Centre plays politics in distribution of compensation and unduly favours those ruled by the same party

A few years ago, the Haryana government declared a drought in almost all of the state’s districts and demanded adequate compensation from the Centre. But even after 20 days, no notification was made in the state gazette. This technically meant a drought was declared but not entered into official records.

Days later, without waiting for proper central assessment, the state government alleged a stepmotherly treatment was being meted out to it; the Centre was “ignoring” its demand for a Rs 4,500-crore compensation.

Haryana’s is not the only such instance. It is in times of natural disasters such as floods, droughts and famines that claims and counter-claims over the extent of damage and loss to life and property fly thick and fast among the Centre and states.

It was a similar story, again, when unseasonal rain and hailstorm recently affected more than 10 states across northern, central and western parts of India.

Within two days of estimating crop damage on 18 million hectares across states, the Centre lowered the numbers to 10 million hectares, after getting inputs from state governments. For a state like Uttar Pradesh, this gap between preliminary and the revised damage estimates meant a difference of 18 per cent.

In the first estimate, Uttar Pradesh reported crop damage on 9.72 million hectares. Within days, this stood lowered to 2.67 million hectares. The estimated wheat crop damage on 12 million hectares across India was brought down, too — by about half.

What explains this wide variation in crop damage estimates in such little time?

“Usually, states tend to exaggerate the extent of damage, knowing they will get only a fraction of what they demand as compensation. So, in most cases, a state gives an estimate that is 10 times the actual,” says an official of the National Disaster Management Authority.

He says there is a fixed formula for estimating compensation. It is done on the basis of lives lost, area affected and so on; these can be manipulated. “It is like auditors visiting an office; the more you inflate the numbers, the more are the chances of getting relief. The final figure might be somewhat close to the actual damage,” he explains.

On their part, states feel the Centre’s politics is in play at the time of compensation distribution — states ruled by the party in power at the Centre get undue benefits. “All these problems arise as we have an inadequate and non-scientific system of damage estimation,” says another official, who has served in both the agriculture and food ministries in senior positions. In the case of agricultural damages, the problem takes a new dimension, he says.

“In times of floods, fields are waterlogged. So, when a state official visits the fields and bases his estimation on what he sees, the picture might not be clear. On many occasions, it has been seen that the actual crop damage after water recedes is much lower than initially thought,” the official explains.

The solution to the problems, he says, is proper scientific assessment of damage through an independent private agency. “Else, one should quickly move towards a weather-based crop insurance scheme that will address such problems,” the official says.
SEARCH FOR GREENER PASTURES

• Centre lowers crop damage estimate by 8 million hectares due to unseasonal rain
• Damage estimate falls the most in UP
• Experts say states usually exaggerate damage figures with an eye on more compensation; states deny this
• Absence of independent evaluating agency complicates the matter