It is becoming increasingly clear that the Kosi floods reflect not just a one-off failure of the state, but deep disarray in our development paradigm for the region. As human misery continues to mount, the range of reactions is predictable. The first is the unhelpful blame game: Bihar blames the Centre, the Centre Bihar, elements from both blame Nepal; Nepal in turn looks to India for compensation. The second is the seeming disarray in relief operations. The enormity of the task suggests one should be cautious about underestimating the difficulties at hand. But there is little doubt that the structures of the state were simply not up to the challenge.

Matters have arguably been made worse by politicians deciding that this is more an occasion for competitive politics than constructive partnership, with the railway minister more intent on confusing lines of authority, than solving problems. The degree to which flood relief is still trotted out in the language of noblesse oblige is shocking for a democratic society. What was a sad old story of embankments not being repaired, under every regime, has now become a veritable nightmare. Nature it seems can change; our politicians cannot.

But beyond this surface consternation, we all have to ask deep questions about the place of North Bihar in our imaginations. It is striking the degree to which most of those regions of India that border other countries, with some minor exceptions, share the same vulnerabilities. These regions tend to be the poorest, and most regularly prone to natural disasters. The management of the broad ecology of these areas depends crucially on our relations with our neighbours. To put it bluntly, the way we manage our international relations, is not just about security issues narrowly understood; it affects our developmental paradigm centrally.

... contd.