Video Editors: Purnendu Pritam and Ashutosh Bhardwaj
Cameraperson: Shiv Kumar Maurya
Why is India refusing to accept aid from foreign governments for flood relief operations in Kerala, and is the Centre justified in doing so?
The answer may lie with Modi, but it begins with Manmohan Singh, and his decision to reject aid from foreign governments after the tsunami in 2004. But more on that in a bit.
Here are the main arguments given in support of the government’s decision, and our counter-questions against them.
Whether or not the UAE government ends up officially offering an aid package, the question remains: is India’s policy of refusing aid from foreign governments beneficial to us?
Argument 1: Capacity Kaafi Hai
The first argument is that India has the capacity to handle disasters like these. Those working on the ground may complain that better and more efficient allocation of funds is needed. But that is a problem that the Central and state governments can solve among themselves, without necessitating foreign aid.
Our Counter-question
Kerala has suffered damages to the tune of Rs 21,000 crore.
- More than 10,000 kilometres of highways destroyed
- 100,000 houses and buildings damaged
- Millions of hectares of crops lost
Other states have given around 200 crore, but clearly, more aid is needed.
How can further aid hurt Kerala’s immediate relief and consequent rehabilitation efforts? You’re right, it can’t. So what’s stopping us from taking the help?
Argument 2: India’s Growing Economic Clout – Donor, Not Receiver
India’s growing economic clout has been offered as a reason for saying “No, thank you” to foreign governments offering disaster relief.
The basic argument being that we are no longer a “poor country”, we are economically developed enough to provide for our citizens.
What’s more is that India has been a donor country after natural disasters in other countries.
After the 2004 tsunami, India gave 26.5 million dollars to Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Thailand. In 2005, after Hurricane Katrina, India offered 5 million dollars in aid to the American Red Cross. An Indian Air Force aircraft also delivered 25 tonnes of relief supplies to the US.
To those saying, “How can a nation rich enough to be a donor be receiving aid itself?”, here’s our counter-question.
Our Counter-question
Just because India has become a regular donor to other countries following natural disasters does not mean we cannot accept aid ourselves.
The US is the world’s biggest provider of international aid. But that didn’t stop them from receiving millions of dollars in foreign aid from across the world after disasters like Hurricane Katrina.
Does it make you a poorer country if you accept aid in times of a humanitarian crisis? No, it doesn’t. India can very well be a donor when others are in crisis, and a recipient when we ourselves are in crisis. That’s how interdependence should work, right?
Argument 3: Diplomatic Difficulties
A government source told The Indian Express that another problem is the diplomatic fallout of foreign aid.
“Accepting from any one government opens the floodgates for others as well, and it would be diplomatically difficult to refuse from some while accepting from others,” the source said.
Our Counter-question
We understand that India may not be willing to accept aid from certain countries. For example, in 2005, India had offered $25 million to Pakistan for the Kashmir earthquake, which our neighbours refused to accept.
So it’s unlikely that India will ever accept any aid from countries like Pakistan, with whom there is a strained political relationship.
But the diplomatic difficulty of saying “No” to some and “Yes” to others is definitely not insurmountable. After all, that’s what diplomats are there for – to navigate these otherwise tricky situations with expertise.
Also, since when does foreign policy need to be uniform for all nations to avoid difficulties? Consider this analogy – simply because we accord some nations with the Most Preferred Nation status for bilateral trade, doesn’t mean we sour trade ties with all the other nations.
Argument 4: Maintain Status Quo
The decision by the current Modi regime to reject aid is in line with the disaster aid policy set in December 2004 by then PM Manmohan Singh.
Following the tsunami that year, Manmohan had famously said, “We feel that we can cope with the situation on our own.”
Till then, India had gladly accepted aid from foreign governments after numerous natural disasters, right till the Bihar floods in July 2004.
But the UPA government’s decision after the tsunami changed that. In the last 14 years, we’ve said ‘No’ to help after the 2004 tsunami, 2005 Kashmir earthquake, 2013 Uttarakhand floods and 2014 Kashmir floods.
So the argument is: why should the BJP government reverse a policy that's been in place for 14 years?
Our Counter-question
Firstly, because it may not be a good policy in the first place.
For instance, accepting the aid package from Maldives may actually improve our troubled foreign policy equation with the nation. The 34 lakhs they have offered may be a small figure, but accepting it could be a big token of political goodwill.
And finally, some fine print – as per India’s National Disaster Management Plan, “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.” So why not do so?
The MEA has also said that contributions to the PM's and CM’s Relief Funds are welcome from international entities such as foundations.
So, if a foundation based in the UAE, maybe even funded by the government of UAE, can contribute to the PM’s Relief Fund, why can’t the government of UAE do the same directly?
In light of all these arguments, my question today is – Is the Modi government rejecting all the foreign aid on offer without gaining much in return? And is Kerala losing out due to this policy by the Centre?
(At The Quint, we are answerable only to our audience. Play an active role in shaping our journalism by becoming a member. Because the truth is worth it.)