India’s Disaster Response: Centralisation Concerns and the Road Ahead

 1. What’s the Issue? (Context)

India’s disaster response framework—built around the Disaster Management Act, 2005—has recently drawn attention for becoming highly centralised, especially during large-scale disasters like COVID-19, cyclones, floods, and heatwaves.
States and experts argue that this centralised approach affects flexibility and local responsiveness.

2. Why in News?

• Discussions around the Asia-Pacific Disaster Report 2025 and India’s preparedness have revived concerns over whether centralisation is hampering effective disaster response.

• Several states have flagged delays in fund release, bureaucratic bottlenecks, and insufficient local autonomy.

3. Key Concerns About Centralisation

A. Over-dependence on National Authorities

• NDMA and NDRF have become the primary actors, overshadowing State Disaster Management Authorities (SDMAs) and local bodies.

B. Limited Role of Local Governments

• Panchayats/urban local bodies have minimal decision-making authority despite being front-line responders.

C. Slow Fund Flow

• Reliance on National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF) and State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) rules limits quick local action.

D. Uniform Guidelines for Diverse Regions

• Same protocols across India fail to consider regional vulnerabilities (Himalayan region vs. coastal belts vs. drought-prone interiors).

4. Why It Matters

• India is among the world’s most disaster-prone countries (cyclones, floods, landslides, droughts, heatwaves).

• Effective response requires speed, contextual knowledge, and local empowerment—which centralisation can restrict.

5. Government’s Stand

• Centralisation ensures coordination, accountability, and standardisation across states.

• National agencies argue that unified command is crucial during large-scale emergencies.

6. The Road Ahead (Reforms Suggested)

1. Decentralise Decision-Making

Empower:

• District Disaster Management Authorities (DDMAs)

• Panchayats and municipalities

Give them authority for localised evacuation, shelters, and relief planning.

2. Strengthen Local Capacities

• Train local volunteers, NGOs, SHGs, community workers.

• Fund grassroots capacity-building.

3. Flexible Fund Usage

• Allow states to use SDRF/NDRF more freely based on local vulnerability assessments.

4. Tech-Driven, Community-Centric Model

• Use AI-based early warnings, mobile alerts, GIS mapping.

• Combine tech with community knowledge, especially in tribal and remote regions.

5. Promote Cooperative Federalism

• Establish Centre–State coordination cells.

• Reduce bureaucratic delays in fund disbursal.

7. Conclusion

India’s disaster response system is robust but tilted toward central control.
The way forward lies in strengthening states, empowering local bodies, improving last-mile readiness, and adopting a community-led, technology-supported framework.
A balanced structure—where the Centre provides support but states lead on-ground action—is key for a resilient India.

India’s disaster response system is robust but tilted toward central control.
The way forward lies in strengthening states, empowering local bodies, improving last-mile readiness, and adopting a community-led, technology-supported framework.
A balanced structure—where the Centre provides support but states lead on-ground action—is key for a resilient India.