While advancements in technology have improved lives in many areas, the failure to mitigate the destruction caused by recurring floods exposes a glaring disconnect

The rains were here. They were here for a long time-if one goes by the weeks and months, the news channels were reporting their havoc from one end of the country to the other. From streets in Surat to fields in Biraul of Darbhanga, water was found everywhere. From the hills of Himachal to the banks of Kavery, water was found in all the wrong places. Physical devastation and human tragedy were writ large. Rains are not new, and equally clearly, technology is progressing by leaps and bounds.

One wonders when ‘the train shall meet’. One would have thought that repeated experiences, such as what Kosi has caused in north Bihar, would have changed the contours of its effects. It would not be the same in terms of embankments breaking in the same style, and it would not be the same manner of misery caused by the devastation of fragile huts and repeated breaking of embankments over and over again. Surely the country that boasts the landing on the moon and explorations of the planet can better respond to the devastations of nature.

There is a missing link somewhere which is so close to all that it’s not even visible to the affected people. In some other countries, people are talking and doing as it were. They are changing the course of rivers and planning habitation in a manner that makes life less vulnerable and the potential for tragedy more manageable. To get back to the example of Bihar, whether it be the neighbourhood of the Budhi Gandak River or Kosi, habitations have been built to keep them away from the reach of floods.

However, the devastations have their ways of surprising. Consider the recent claim of the UGC Chairman in the printed world about the citations of Indian research in international forums. Consider the pronouncement of the political elite on the scientific breakthroughs of leading centres of science and technology in the world of research.

All of them are legitimate claims duly annotated and evidence tested. The question remains how much of this technology has altered the quality of life of the people? It is not all a dreary story. Technology has changed the lives of several crores of people, especially in matters which have to do with the supply of clean water. This is as true as the story of the fury of floods.

However, somewhere the coexistence of such opposite experiences remains an enigma and difficult to explain. Science and technology cannot be bereft of responsibilities to society at large. Equally clear is the fact that death and destruction experiences would serve as the bottom line of the outcomes of devastation.

Somehow a bottom connection between technological progress and its tangible effects needs to be established. Somewhere the definition of progress and growth has to cover elimination of the same stories of destruction and death in the same regions over and over again.  So long as the devastation of Kosi remains an annual affair with the same results most of the time, there is something in the developmental agenda that needs to be addressed.

It is not an easy question to answer, especially after decades of application of the prescriptions whether it be a Planning Commission or the Niti Ayog.  These questions need to be flagged and repeated till answers are found.  In a country filled with bright people like India, there must be actionable solutions to mitigate human misery. Perhaps the part answer would lie in empowering local people with skills, resources, and more to handle local problems. Higher levels of administration, like the district at the state level, have to deal with issues of connectivity, coordination, mobilisation of resources, and using the skills of the people with commitment in that part of the country to work for the welfare of the local context and the local circumstances. Far too much have rewards been focused on recognition gained abroad and talking of the big and the grand. 

While there may be nothing wrong with that recognition and solutions to local problems should be picked up by the decision making system, the influential clientele, and the political elite. A culture has to be built to identify the local problems and use means of technology and resources to handle them at a local level.  Interventions of this variety should recognise the same approval and celebration as an invitation from abroad or for that matter making of the great in a foreign institution. Somewhere a paradigm change would help the mitigation of local problems. It can be done and needs to be done.

(The writer is an internationally acclaimed management consultant; The views expressed are personal)