Communicate More in Times of Crisis

Editorial:
A letter published in today’s edition in response to the feeling of hurt expressed by people in Dzongu over the still-awaited arrival of Ecclesiastical Department officials to inspect the damage suffered by Tholung Monastery would not have been required if government departments had communicated more effectively with the affected people. The people are upset not because the monastery was damaged in the 18 September earthquake, but are peeved because no official word has reached them on what is being done about it.
When they express resentment that no official from the concerned department has inspected the damage yet, what they are conveying is that they have not been informed of the official response to the monastery’s condition. All that was required to placate and reassure them was for the Department to have officially conveyed, in time, what they explain in the rejoinder published in this paper today. The Chief Minister has already announced that all religious institutions will be repaired or rebuilt [as the situation may require] by the State Government. The official machinery should have conveyed this announcement effectively to villages which are worrying about the fate of their places of worship. Given that places of worship, many of substantial historical and cultural significance to Sikkim, have suffered extensive damage, it would not be out of place here to suggest that the Ecclesiastical Department release a detailed list of such damaged institutions, the scale of damage and what is being planned for their restoration.
Communication is important in the wake of a crisis, especially one which has peppered devastation in the scale that litters Sikkim at present. When communication does not travel down to the people coherently and frequently, they start suspecting disinterest among the powers-that-be and one does not want to wish such disconcertment on already traumatised people. One saw such outbursts in how people in Chungthang, Lachung and Lachen alleged callous state response to their suffering; this, despite the fact that the State machinery delivered remarkably quick response and assistance despite the unprecedented scale of the devastation. Officials worked hard on the ground and did their best to reach relief and rescue despite the challenges of broken roads and disrupted communication networks, but were perhaps not as quick in communicating with the people, explaining things to them. This is important because in the absence of official communication and explanations, conspiracy theories abound. Often, officials refuse to even acknowledge complaints in the belief that doing so would somehow give credence to allegations. Such response is ill-advised even during ‘normal’ times and potentially disastrous during times of crises. Every delay, every disruption and every effort should be explained immediately to the affected people not only to keep them better informed, but more importantly to reassure them that they are not forgotten.
Take the example of the ‘compensation’ being disbursed to people whose houses have suffered damage due to the earthquake. The sheer scale of the endeavour makes it obvious that there will be complaints of favouritism and victimisation, and the concerned officials have done well by addressing these concerns instead of playing the old line of dismissing them outright. By coming on record with the assurance that all complaints will be enquired into and claims reviewed, concerned officials down the line have addressed what is bound to be an arduous task and blocked out the shouting matches which are bound to erupt with a flurry of press releases eventually.