The tsunami of 26 December 2004 caused untold damage to the coastal region of southern India, killing approximately 15,000 people, destroying more than 160,000 homes, damaging 83,000 boats, and causing the loss of income and livelihoods of at least 100,000 persons. Post-tsunami relief operations run the risk of exacerbating the impact of the disaster if they do not sensitively address issues that demand more than a simple humanitarian response. 

More than 2.5 million individuals have been affected by the tsunami in Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh, Pondicherry, Kerala and the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. It must be recognised that such a sizeable chunk of India’s population has diverse needs and faces a plethora of problems specific to occupations, locations and identities that may not be sufficiently addressed by a single relief policy. While several international and domestic organisations and the Government of India have made commendable contributions to the relief effort by providing resources to address the immediate needs of the tsunami victims, much remains to be done in the area of building a sustainable framework within which tsunami victims may be permanently rehabilitated. Numerous reports have surfaced in the past few months documenting emerging problems arising from the relief operations themselves, the most notable of which are consistent discrimination in the distribution of aid and rehabilitation services, unsustainable solutions to relocation and insufficient means for livelihood. 

Prioritising human rights while rebuilding tsunami-affected communities is important, not only to ensure their long-term survival, but to provide an opportunity to address longstanding human rights issues in these regions. Injecting human rights into the current discourse of recovery can ensure that tsunami victims receive more than mere compensation and are assured a vastly better future. 

Emerging issues 

Participatory planning, linked to international and domestic human rights obligations, will be crucial to the success of the reconstruction process. Invoking India’s obligations under legally binding treaties such as the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), both of which India acceded to in 1979, can ensure that accountability and obligations supersede ‘charity’ under the guise of humanitarian assistance. 

Housing and restoration of livelihoods are the two most crucial issues that must be addressed, both of which fall under the purview of the ICESCR. It must be noted at the outset that states parties must respect the core minimum standards relating to ESCRs enshrined in the ICESCR irrespective of their economic burdens or capabilities. The Indian government’s rejection of foreign government-to-government aid after the tsunami thus makes the full realisation of rights enumerated in the ICESCR all the more obligatory. 

Protection from Discrimination 

Discrimination has proven to be the largest systemic problem pervading every aspect of relief and recovery measures. Article 26 of the ICCPR states that “equal and effective protection against discrimination” must be granted to all persons before the law. However, discrimination against women in the distribution of scarce food and medical supplies, against tribal groups with regard to compensation or property rights, and against dalits, effected through the provision of separate relocation facilities, or none at all, are just a few examples of how resource redistribution in tsunami-affected areas may have exacerbated existing inequities. 

The fishing industry, which includes all persons connected directly or indirectly with the process of catching, sorting and cleaning fish, has been widely acknowledged as one of the worst affected groups. Yet the recognition of their particular plight has yet to receive adequate international exposure either in the media or by NGOs. 

Right to Work 

The loss of livelihood, not just for fishermen, but for farmers, agricultural laborers, artisans and craftsmen and other members of the affected coastal communities, has been one of the most serious repercussions of the tsunami. The Joint Assessment Mission (JAM) of the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank and the UN estimated that 38 percent of total damage and losses had negative consequences for livelihood. Article 6 of the ICESCR firmly enshrines the right to work in stating that States parties must include “the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts” and must take “appropriate steps to safeguard this right”. The government must recognise that the first step towards normalcy in tsunami-affected areas is through the restoration of means of livelihood. 

Although compensation and financial assistance may alleviate immediate economic burdens, such measures will not lead to the reinstatement of old professions or replacement through new forms of livelihood. In addition, adequate funds must be distributed for repairing damaged machinery, such as boats or farming implements. Further, if some individuals wish, or are compelled to undertake new professions, training or instruction in the relevant fields must be made available. 

Appropriate measures must also be tailored to suit the specific requirements of each of these groups. For example, in an interview with small farmers from Tamil Nadu, they expressed that soft loans would be preferred to subsistence aid, so that they could rebuild their farms, rather than merely survive. Several fishing communities have indicated that the construction of shelters for boats and catamarans would be instrumental in protecting the sole means of their livelihood. Additionally, during consultations between non-governmental organisations and local communities, it was felt that monetary compensation must be supplemented by loans, subsidies and most importantly, technical advice on reconstruction procedures. 

Right to Housing 

The Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (CESCR) notes that the right to housing is “of central importance for the enjoyment of all economic, social and cultural rights”. By implication, the disregard of this right paves the way for further human rights violations - which has in fact been the case in several tsunami-affected areas. Large numbers of people have been temporarily relocated to camps and shelters for indefinite periods of time, without any assurances of permanent rehabilitation. The structures have been decried as unsafe due to lax building practices attributed to their temporary nature. They also lack reliable supplies of clean water or hygienic toilets with efficient drainage systems. 

The lack of privacy and unsuitable locations of housing for women has proven to be particularly problematic. Widowed women, single mothers or single women who do not have any immediate support network of family and friends are most vulnerable to sexual harassment or assault. Orphaned children or children estranged from their families are also vulnerable to trafficking and forced labour, unless they are housed in safe, supervised locations. Ecologically sound and environmentally sustainable housing should also be made available. 

Another significant problem is the forced and illegal eviction of tsunami-affected persons from partially or fully damaged homes due to the fact that they are in breach of the 200-500 metre limit of the ocean as stipulated by the Coastal Regulatory Zone (CRZ) notification (1991). The CESCR has held that forced evictions constitute gross violations of human rights such as the right to housing and thereby the right to an adequate standard of living. While the GOI has ostensibly issued the distance limitation out of concern for coastal communities that were destroyed by the tsunami, it does not appear to have enforced the same limitations on luxury resorts and hotels that exceed the stipulated distance. The Government owes it to fishing communities to clarify this obvious anomaly, and act on it. 

In addition, evicting fisher-folk and other community members from the coast not only leads to their displacement, but to the loss of their sole means of livelihood. The designation of a substantial portion of coastal areas by the CRZ notification as a non-developmental area should take into account the fact that fisher-folk use these areas for various activities connected with fishing, such as drying nets, collecting fish and securing fishing boats.  

The immutable relationship between the right to health and the right to housing should also be noted. Dehydration, heat stroke, exhaustion, and water-borne diseases have been reported in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, in places where housing has been unsuitable or inadequate. 

Internal Displacement

The Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement are premised on the idea that “States bear the primary responsibility for persons within their jurisdiction”. The Principles lay down the basic standards of protection that must be ensured to persons to prevent displacement and to protect displaced persons after displacement has occurred. Particularly important in the Indian context, and as highlighted by the UN Representative of the Secretary General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, is the issue of property. The loss of property, of documentation relating to owned property, and the disappearance of previously existing demarcations of property is common in the aftermath of natural disasters. In the case of small farmers in South India, resolving competing claims over property becomes a key issue given the already contentious situation of land rights in India. In addition to a separate body being established for this specific purpose, efforts must be made by the Government of India to address pre-existing inequalities, and recognise both customary and non-traditional forms of ownership such as those exercised by tribal communities.

 Human Rights Features