EPW Editorial
January 15, 2005
Coping with the Future
Even as the attention in India and the other Asian countries ravaged by the December 26 tsunami shifts to
rehabilitation and reconstruction, one question still lingers. Given that the massive waves triggered by the
earthquake of magnitude 9 on the Richter scale on December 26 took about two hours to hit the Tamil Nadu
seaboard at 08:00 am, could this human tragedy have been at least minimised if India had tsunami warning
systems in place? It is difficult to answer this question with any certainty because there are several factors
involved in reliable predictions of a tsunami. In this case, however, the scientists of the US Geological Service
(USGS), who have the best earthquake and tsunami detection and prediction programmes, had initially
determined that the earthquake was of magnitude 8.1, which is believed not to give rise to highly destructive
tsunamis. According to the National Geographic website, the determination that the Sumatra earthquake was
of magnitude 9.0 was made only after the tsunami had actually struck. Hence, an early warning system, which
was unable to predict the imminence of the tsunami could have done precious little to save the human beings
who perished.
There are also no cases reported from anywhere in the world where coastal communities were successfully
evacuated and saved before a devastating tsunami struck. Japan was unable to prevent loss of human lives
in a tsunami in the July 12, 1993 earthquake off Hokkaido: more than 200 people died on the small island of
Okushiri. Moreover, even a cyclone warning system, which is believed to be far more reliable than an
expensive tsunami warning system, of the Indian Meteorological Department was unable to predict the Orissa
super cyclone. This is not to suggest that it is futile to install an early warning system. It is only to point out that
it is futile to have faith that technology can deliver with a high degree of accuracy and reliability. It is also
important to explore alternative warning systems. According to the US-based Cooperative Institute for
Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), tsunamis in the deep oceans can be remotely detected
through changes on ocean surface roughness. For potentially destructive tsunamis, expected changes in
surface roughness are such that the ‘tsunami shadows’ should be observable on the high seas with airborne
and satellite-based microwave radars and radiometers. Of particular significance is the fact that the ‘tsunami
shadows’ propagate at a known and very distinct speed, which facilitates unambiguous differentiation from
other features of the ocean surface.
Many deaths perhaps could definitely have been averted on December 26 if people had known that a fast
receding sea is a sign of an imminent tsunami. Many in Kerala rushed to the exposed coastal seabed to pick
up stranded fish and shellfish only to be hit later by the tsunami. This is an area where information
dissemination about signs of an imminent tsunami might have helped to better prepare people. It could have
saved thousands, especially children who perished in large numbers. In the immediate aftermath of the
tragedy there has been no shortage of proposals about how to prevent such devastation in the future. Some
are decidedly either fanciful or wasteful or likely to adversely affect coastal communities in other respects. For
instance, the Tamil Nadu government has proposed building a massive 1,000 km seawall at a cost of Rs
5,000 crore to protect its seaboard from tsunamis. Here again, from the experience of countries like Japan,
there is no guarantee that a seawall provides protection against tsunamis. Besides, construction of seawalls
all along the Tamil Nadu seaboard would make it difficult, if not impossible, for many of the beach-based
fishing operations to undertake fishing and these fishers will be forced to operate from existing harbours and
fish landing centres, adding to the overcapacity of such facilities. There are several options that have been
proposed for the protection of coastal communities from natural calamities such as tsunamis and cyclones.
These options – such as creating setback zones, coastal afforestation and wave mitigation measures at sea
itself – should be considered according to the geomorphology of the coastline before deciding on
specific measures.
As in the case of the Gujarat earthquake, most of the houses that collapsed in the tsunami and trapped
people inside were built on poor foundation. Houses in the tsunami-prone coastal areas should be elevated
and built on stilts at least 3 m above the ground level, as has been suggested by tsunami disaster
management guidelines developed by the US. Since many parts of India are in the seismic zone and often
also exposed to cyclones, the challenge is to develop a design to withstand all these calamities. Changing
designs and building houses on better foundation or on stilts are likely to be costlier; hence reconstruction
programmes should include a subsidy component for incorporating safer designs.
In spite of India’s history of tsunamis – four such historical incidents had been recorded, in 1883, 1884, 1941
and 1945 respectively, on the Indian east coast, according to a 1999 paper in the journal, Science of Tsunami
Hazards (Vol 17) – it is surprising how a tsunami was never thought of as a potential calamity that could hit
the coastal population. The pattern of previous recorded incidents of tsunamis in India seems to suggest that
a second tsunami within five years from the first one of the century is a possibility. There is no guarantee that
any of the proposed measures would be effective against a major tsunami or that it will have the same impact
as the one on December 26 or that it will hit the same areas. Perhaps the best measure to adopt will be to
plan coastal development activities in such a manner that loss of human lives and destruction of property is
minimised. The path of destruction left behind by a tsunami is horrendous, but we have to learn how to
sagaciously coexist with nature.