Can accept foreign government aid, says 2016 disaster management plan
New Delhi, Aug 23 : India may not have accepted the UAE government's offer of Rs 700 crore financial aid to flood-devastated Kerala but according to the National Disaster Management Plan of 2016 if the national government of another country offers assistance as a goodwill gesture to disaster victims, the central government may accept it.
"As a matter of policy, the government of India does not issue any appeal for foreign assistance in the wake of a disaster. However, 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," says the Plan drafted by the National Disaster Management Authority.
According to the 2016 Plan, the Home Ministry is required to coordinate with the External Affairs Ministry, which is primarily responsible for reviewing offers of assistance and channelising the same.
It said that in consultation with the state government concerned, the Home Ministry "will assess the response requirements that the foreign teams can provide".
Kerala Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan has cited this Plan to make his point for India to accept the offer from the United Arab Emirates (UAE), home to around 2.8 million expatriate Indians, most of whom hail from Kerala.
Apart from the UAE, Qatar has offered Rs 36 crore and the Maldives $50,000 as financial aid to Kerala.
The worst floods to hit Kerala since 1924 have claimed around 370 lives since monsoon rains began on May 29 and displaced hundreds of thousands this month.
India on Wednesday politely declined financial aid from foreign governments citing an existing policy.
"The government of India deeply appreciates offers from several countries, including from foreign governments, to assist in relief and rehabilitation efforts after the tragic floods in Kerala," External Affairs Ministry spokesperson Raveesh Kumar said in a statement.
"In line with the existing policy, the government is committed to meeting the requirements for relief and rehabilitation through domestic efforts," Kumar said.
"Contributions to the Prime Minister's Relief Fund and the Chief Minister's Relief Fund from NRIs, PIOs and international entities such as foundations would, however, be welcome."
Sources here also told IANS that current stand stemmed from a decision taken by the then UPA-I government after the 2004 tsunami when it decided that India will not be accepting financial aid directly from foreign governments.
The UPA-II government too reiterated New Delhi's position after the 2013 cloudburst in Uttarakhand in which over 5,700 people died.
The sources referred to the government's statement then which said that "as a general policy in case of rescue and relief operations we have followed the practice that we have adequate ability to respond to emergency requirements".
The statement said that for a variety of reasons, India has not in the past too, unless there are specific circumstances, been able to accept offers of assistance for rescue and relief.
"Beyond the rescue and relief phase there are other phases," the Ministry stated.
"These are rehabilitation, reconstruction, and so on. If reconstruction and other measures are provided for those elements, we will examine how they fit into the broader plan in terms of rehabilitation and reconstruction in the region and take a call at that stage rather than say that this was for all times," the Ministry had said after the Uttarakhand cloudburst.
Meanwhile, two former Foreign Secretaries -- Shiv Shankar Menon and Nirupama Rao -- feel there is nothing wrong in accepting foreign governments' aid.
Rao said that offers of flood relief from Gulf countries should be treated with sensitivity. "True that as country we can give rather than take assistance but 80% of Indians in the Gulf are Malayalis," Rao tweeted.
"Offer of flood relief assistance from that region must be treated with sensitivity. Saying no is simple, but for Kerala-in-crisis, it's not so simple."
Menon said the 2004 decision was not to accept foreign participation in relief but take it for long-term rehabilitation.
"If (my) memory serves (me right), the 2004 decision was not to accept foreign participation in relief but accept it for for long term rehabilitation case by case," he tweeted in response to Rao's comments.
"No rescue teams needing hand-holding and interpretation but yes to rebuilding houses, bridges, roads... A way forward for Kerala?" he stated.
Sanjaya Baru, media advisor to former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, concurred with Menon.
He said in a tweet: "You are correct. We said no to relief but accepted support for rehab. Also one must distinguish between normal aid and help in disaster. Later more humanitarian. Also Gulf Kerala relationship is unique. Lots of goodwill for Malayalis in Gulf."
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Karnataka Assembly passes bill on Palace Grounds amid opposition protest
Bengaluru, Mar 6 (PTI): The Karnataka Assembly on Thursday passed the Bangalore Palace (Utilisation and Regulation of Land) Bill, reaffirming state ownership over 472 acres and 16 guntas of land here, amid protests by the opposition BJP.
During the discussion, Karnataka Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state government would have to provide Rs 200 crore worth of Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) for each acre of land, which means that for 15 acres, Rs 3,000 crore worth of TDR would be issued.
“If we accept it, then this 2-km stretch of road will become the costliest road in the world. If we accept it then how are we going to develop the city in later stages? How will you carry out development works?” asked Patil.
He also pointed out that this question was raised not only under the Congress government but also during the previous BJP regime.
However, the BJP-led cabinet has opposed the project.
ALSO READ: Budget session: Law Min. HK Patil introduces Microfinance bill in Karnataka assembly
“Suppose we agree to it then, what will be the valuation of the 472 acres? It will be lakhs and lakhs of crores of rupees. Can we accept?” Patil wondered.
The Minister said the government had previously exercised its executive powers to issue an ordinance, which was approved by the Governor. Now the government is bringing a bill with two amendments.
“In this bill, we have made provisions either to develop or drop the road development work,” Patil explained.
However, BJP state president B Y Vijayendra and BJP MLA Arvind Bellad opposed the move, alleging that the government was targetting Yaduveer Krishna Datta Chamaraja Wadiyar, the scion of the Mysuru royal family, and the BJP MP from Mysuru-Kodagu constituency out of political vendetta.
“We talk of 472 acres of Mysuru Maharaja but here there are many Maharajas who too own 400 acres, 500 acres and thousands of acres of land, which is known to everyone,” Bellad said.
He slammed the Congress government, saying political power should not be misused for personal vendetta.
“Why (the then Deputy Chief Minister) Siddaramaiah brought the law in 1996 pertaining to the Bangalore Palace? Why are you setting eyes on the Bangalore Palace?” he asked.
Vijayendra charged that Wadiyar won the election on BJP ticket so the state government realised that it should acquire it.
“This bill has been brought for political vengeance. We are not discussing whether Rs 3,000 crore is exorbitant or not but the moment Yaduveer became MP, the state government woke up. You should be ashamed. This house should not be used for political vendetta,” he said.
Intervening, Minister Priyank Kharge said Vijayendra should not have raised it because the intention behind building the road was noble.
According to him, the BJP too had the same plan when it was in power.
He sought to know whether thousands of crores of rupees be spent on a road which should have cost significantly less.
In response, BJP MLA B A Basavaraj (Byrathi) said issuing TDR will not be a burden on the state government and appealed to the ruling Congress to reconsider its stance.
Minister Ramalinga Reddy too explained that the Karnataka government acquired the entire land way back in 1996.
The Mysuru royal family went to the High Court, which gave ruling in favour of the state government. The royal family then approached the Supreme Court, where the case is still going on, the Minister pointed out.
“The final judgment is pending in the SC to decide whether the acquisition was right or wrong. If the SC says it’s the royal family’s property then let it be so. If the order is in the state government’s favour then we can take a decision. The bill is only about it,” Reddy explained.
Speaker U T Khader then called for a voice vote and the bill was passed by the Assembly amidst opposition BJP’s discontent.
