Nepal: natural disaster, unnatural suffering

Rescuers dig through the rubble, 17 April, 2015. Demotix/Thomas Kelly. All rights reserved.It’s been one
week since a 7.8-magnitude earthquake and subsequent aftershocks struck Nepal. The
death toll has now passed 6,600 and will almost certainly reach 10,000 or more, as information trickles in from the rural
areas. More than 14,000 people are injured and this number will also rise. The
earthquake has caused a national catastrophe, with heart-rending destruction
and untold suffering.

But while a natural disaster had been expected for decades, there is
nothing natural about the outcome. The capacity of
the government and international agencies to respond has to be understood in
the context of Nepal’s history of underdevelopment, poverty and inequality. Whether
in rural areas or in Kathmandu, it’s the poorest who always suffer the most.
The earthquake is no different.

It is in fact the dire poverty of
so many in Nepal that is turning the earthquake into a tragedy of immense
proportions. Nepal is amongst the world’s poorest countries, with a human
development ranking of 145 out of 187 countries. Levels of inequality
are on the rise and are unsustainable, and
discrimination against ethnic minorities and indigenous groups remains rampant.

In urban
areas many houses are badly built, there
is overcrowding, and access to piped water is difficult at the best of times.
The lack of electricity – known as loadshedding – is a constant problem, particularly
for the poorest who cannot afford alternative sources. Rural settlements are
characterised by minimum basic facilities, and the poor often live in
makeshift, self-built homes. They are isolated from population centres because
of poor roads and unreliable public transport.

According to the UN, in 2005 more
than 90% of Nepalese homes were built on an informal, individual basis and
there has long been a well-documented need for a massive programme of house
building and upgrading. No wonder then that while a lot of modern city
buildings withstood the shocks, there are many
reports of devastation in the villages.

The prognosis for the next days and
weeks is grim. With water and sewage pipes burst, there are fears
of cholera and other infectious diseases. Survivors
in many communities are going to find it hard.

Part of the responsibility for
this desperate situation lies with the west. Nepal has never been directly
colonised, but it was subject to centuries of domination by imperial powers.
From the mid-nineteenth century, Britain backed the brutal and repressive Rana
regime that kept much of the population in a state of chronic underdevelopment
for over a century. Following the transfer of power from the Rana regime back
to the monarchy, western powers backed the monarchical regime, known as the panchayat. Political parties were banned
and Nepal was relatively isolated. Development was a significant part of the
nationalist ideology of the panchayat,
but subordinate to it. The regime was overthrown in 1990 through a popular
mobilisation.

Since the mid-1980s, when Nepal became
indebted through World Bank-imposed structural adjustment, there have been enforced
cuts to already minimal development, public services and welfare programmes.

Subsequent dependence on foreign
aid has unquestionably made Nepal more vulnerable to conditionalities and
further debt. These in turn have produced political pressures that have forced
Nepal to calibrate foreign and domestic policy objectives with western
interests.

For international donors, who
have been working in Nepal since the early 1950s, development has always been secondary
– their effort primarily went into preventing the spread and influence of
communism and promoting free market ideas. For example, the overthrow of the
Rana regime in 1950-51 combined with the perceived threat of communism
following the Chinese Revolution led the US to establish a presence in Nepal.

The aim was to weaken communist
influence from both China and India, particularly in the countryside, by
promoting rapid economic growth. US officials were conscious of the fact that
it was precisely the colossal levels of poverty and inequality that made the
peasantry vulnerable to communism. But it’s arguable that the US failed in these
efforts. Communist parties grew in popularity and, following the 1990 people’s
movement, the Maoists rose to prominence fighting a People’s War.

Breaking this communist influence
has also been the objective of aid programmes in recent decades. As the Maoists
developed a growing base of support on the basis of struggle against poverty
and inequality, western governments – and their regional allies such as India –
did everything in their power to stem the Maoists’ influence. In 2006 they
succeeded in bringing them into mainstream politics. Development was mainly a
political project meant to strengthen western, pro-neoliberal interests, while
poverty eradication was subordinate to these broader economic and political
interests.

The Maoists subsequently embraced
the neoliberal line, almost completely eroding their support base as they joined
the political elite. It is this class that shares responsibility for Nepal’s
ills, including for poor governance and corruption, refusing to distribute
resources more equitably, and failing to write the much-anticipated
constitution. Local
elections have not been held since 1997
because of disagreements amongst the parties about how to conduct them. The
provision of public services at local levels has been compromised.

The result is a country with a
barely functioning infrastructure and, despite consistent
earthquake warnings, predictions
as to its size and scale, and numerous high-profile
projects on disaster preparedness and
emergency response, the last few days have shown these to have had little
useful impact.

Under these circumstances, the
response of the ‘international community’ in financial terms to date has been
pitiful. While ordinary people and the Nepali diaspora around the world are
clearly horrified by the tragedy – over 2,500 people attended just one vigil in
Trafalgar Square in London – governments have pledged meagre amounts of aid.
Perhaps shamed by public reaction, the US upped its initial offer of $1
million dollars to $10 million on Monday.

The British government, despite its
long-standing, exploitative relationship with Nepal, only belatedly
pledged £15 million and a 60-member search and
rescue team, upped from £5 million and a handful of advisors. The British
public has now given more than double that of the British government – DEC
has raised over £31 million in
public donations. Even now only a handful
of helicopters are operating shuttle
missions into Nepal’s interior. It is a travesty that the Nepal
government has to choose between rescuing
those in the worst-hit rural communities and those on the mountains.

The UN’s
appeal for £270 million is significant, but still a fraction of what will be required
to ensure immediate relief. But most shockingly, none of the
funds that have been pledged by
international donors have actually been transferred to Nepal. The government
financed the entire relief operation on its own.

Given the public statements from the
government of Nepal and humanitarian agencies that reconstruction will be a
long-term effort and billions
in aid will be necessary, these sums are not only grossly
inadequate, but they are being delivered unacceptably slowly. We know that the US,
Britain and India and other regional military powers are capable of rapid response when their security or economic interests
are threatened. It’s appalling that the same
urgency can’t be focused on humanitarian relief and reconstruction that is properly
funded and co-ordinated. The west has an obligation, given the history of aid
in Nepal.

Even if billions are eventually
provided, as
they were in Haiti, co-ordination remains
a challenge. Aid is getting through to some
areas but people are angry that it isn’t reaching them quickly enough and there
is no transparency about how foreign aid in particular is being distributed. One
of the problems with the aid effort is that it is driven by competition.

The government of Nepal should be
in charge of co-ordinating
relief efforts and aid money. As has been
argued, this
is a matter of autonomy and governance. Much
of the relief
work is already being done by the Nepal Army,
local organisations and the efforts of individuals
on the ground. The stories that have
come out about people
pulling together are uplifting.

Reliable research now exists showing
the link
between Nepal’s last major earthquake in 1934 and the current one, and suggesting that there will be another earthquake in the
coming decades. Both the UN and the government estimate that more than
300,000 homes have been destroyed or damaged, but the number
is almost certainly higher. When the rebuilding begins,
it is imperative that all homes are earthquake-proofed, for a start.

But the unmistakeable fact is that
questions of democracy and development are linked. The key to development lies
with the social and political struggles of the Nepali people, to which foreign
interventions have in general been hostile.