Rather than relying on a single nation to handle the majority of HADR engagements in the Bay of Bengal region, a unified regional approach should be embraced.
The Bay of Bengal (BOB) region is marred by devastating cyclones, routine flooding and erosion, and water insecurity. Four of the countries in this region—India, Bangladesh, Myanmar and Thailand—rank in the top 10 countries most vulnerable globally to natural disasters. The drastic variabilities in ecological cycles tend to have consequences for both the environmental and security outcomes in this neighbourhood. As the climate conditions worsen, domestic instability in any state threatens to spill across borders, destabilising the region on the whole.
While, over the last two decades, the littoral states of the BOB have made significant strides in their disaster preparedness, their efficacy has been limited. The region lacks a dedicated security agenda that recognises the shared plight of natural disasters. This stems from the currently missing understanding that the burden of natural disasters—across the littoral states—arises from a core source of contention, i.e., disturbances in the environmental balance. Shared burdens require a shared response and thus a comprehensive multi-state disaster relief authority and task force is the need of the hour.
The region lacks a dedicated security agenda that recognises the shared plight of natural disasters. This stems from the currently missing understanding that the burden of natural disasters—across the littoral states—arises from a core source of contention, i.e., disturbances in the environmental balance.
Due to the geomorphology of the region, the most intensive cyclonic storms appear here as compared to any other place in the world. As the West Bengal Disaster Management Department reported, over the past 200 years, 20 out of the 23 major cyclone disasters that have occurred globally, have occurred over this region. Other associated disasters plaguing the region are recurrent floods and droughts, Himalayan landslides, coastal erosion and mangrove loss. These are not new problems, however, anthropogenic stressors and the long-term effects of climate change are further intensifying the plight felt in the region. This includes issues of rising sea levels and temperatures, increased intensity of heat waves, ocean acidification, and decline in ocean productivity.
Adding to the casualties is the high population density—which means greater loss of life and physical damage to infrastructure, as the housing structures are often fragile constructions. Natural disasters also disrupt communication lines—which hinder rescue operations. They can also contaminate water supplies and upset the crop cycle while destroying fertile lands—all of which has a grave impact on the food security of the region. Unfortunately, any region-wide attempt to address such issues suffers from major institutional deficits.
One of the major relevant multi-regional bodies operational in this region is the Bay of Bengal Initiative for Multi-Sectoral Technical and Economic Cooperation (BIMSTEC). Since its inception in 1997, there have been two Disaster Management Exercises in 2017 and 2020, both of which have been spearheaded and hosted by India. These exercises aim to strengthen regional responses and improve coordination amongst member countries.
However, the regional body suffers from some striking shortcomings. Due to an absence of financial commitments, BIMSTEC’s natural disaster response remained largely dormant till 2014, with progress in this sphere being limited to developing early warning systems. Given that BIMSTEC is the only organisation with all BOB littoral states as members, the lack of proactive engagements is holding it back from sufficiently addressing the spectre of natural disasters for the region.
Given that BIMSTEC is the only organisation with all BOB littoral states as members, the lack of proactive engagements is holding it back from sufficiently addressing the spectre of natural disasters for the region.
A report published by the Council on Foreign Relations’ Centre for Preventive Action found that positive outcomes in the BOB hinge on international cooperation and initiatives taken by “bigger states”. It further highlights a vacuum in multi-state dialogue over climate cooperation and resilience building in the region. This can be evidenced by the fact that no BIMSTEC- or SAARC-wide delegations have been deployed during natural calamities.
The bulk of Human Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR) engagements for the BOB are undertaken by India, given its economic and political preponderance. However, most of this aid is provided through bilateral channels, as India’s multilateral HADR contribution is significantly lesser than the bilateral assistance provided.
Within the BOB and beyond, India has been decisive in its role as the ‘first responder’ to disaster management. Some examples of this commitment include the critical relief and assistance provided in Myanmar, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and Nepal. These efforts are coordinated by the National Disaster Management Authority, and the National Disaster Response Force. Crucial rescue and relief services are also provided by the Indian Army and Navy in this regard.
Such interventions help strengthen India’s soft power in the region and are reflective of its diplomatic commitments to its ‘Neighbourhood First’ and ‘Act East Policy’ strategies. Further shaping India’s approach to disaster management is its maritime doctrine—Security and Growth for All in the Region (SAGAR). Under this, as Defense Minister Rajnath Singh explained, India aims to strengthen multilateral partnerships to tackle common threats, such as natural disasters, through regional mechanisms.
And herein lies the problem. What can explain India’s hesitation to contribute multilaterally, despite its self-acknowledgment that HADR preparedness hinges on integrated action by all concerned parties and nations? One possible reason could be the lack of financial and infrastructural support that multilateral organisations provide. For example, BIMSTEC Secretariat is significantly understaffed—with only 10 employees, armed with a lean budget of only US 200,000. With such glaring shortfalls, it cannot come near matching India’s disaster relief deployments or aid grants. To put it in perspective, India’s foreign developmental aid was over 5,000 crores for this fiscal year. Another reason points to India’s concern for its own image, and wanting to be seen as the ultimate provider of aid and protection in the region, rather than a passive recipient or mere collaborator. Whatever the reasons behind New Delhi’s approach may be, it is clear that the looming threat of climate change makes pursuing a bilateral approach costlier than a multilateral one—where the costs and obligation can be shared. The rising burden of unilaterally heading the HADR campaign can be seen in the reduced budget set aside for India’s neighbouring countries for the previous financial year and the plateauing in India’s humanitarian contribution over the years.
This is not to disparage the serious and significant strides made by the Indian government and associated bodies in the HADR domain. Yet, a bilateral framework is ultimately disadvantageous to India’s intentions. In line with India’s ambition of being the net security provider, it should formalise its security agenda in the region. Thinking beyond its military doctrine, India could spearhead the environmental security dialogue for the region, working alongside all the stakeholders. Such an approach can have many benefits.
This is not to disparage the serious and significant strides made by the Indian government and associated bodies in the HADR domain. Yet, a bilateral framework is ultimately disadvantageous to India’s intentions.
Firstly, it can help institute a standard operating procedure while tackling the shared impact of natural disasters. Currently, within India, HADR decision-making is largely ad-hoc with several agencies needing to coordinate their disaster response. This can lead to delays in implementing help and also limits the policy imaginary of natural disasters.
Disasters do not respect borders. It affects coastal populations alike, across geographies. This is why it should not be New Delhi, Dhaka, or Colombo that unilaterally drives HADR policy and undertakings in the region. Instead, a common authority that can warn coastal communities, coordinate their localised response, and utilise indigenous knowledge to formulate disaster relief policy can be more effective in responding to and mitigating environmental perils.
Moreover, by meaningfully engaging with smaller littoral states in forums which equalise their positions, India can demonstrate its willingness to work together. It can be seen as a partner and not the regional hegemon. This can help build mutual trust, which can have an immense impact on the security dynamics and enduring peace in the region.
Roshani Jain is a Research Assistant at the Observer Research Foundation.
The views expressed above belong to the author(s). ORF research and analyses now available on Telegram! Click here to access our curated content — blogs, longforms and interviews.
Roshani Jain is a Research Assistant for the Strategic Studies Programme, under the Neighbourhood Team. Her research interests include South Asian environmental security and international ...
Read More +
PREV
