💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (July Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Disaster Management

  • [1st April 2026] The Hindu Oped: Counting people is not counting disaster risk

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2019] Vulnerability is an essential element for defining disaster impacts and its threat to people. How and in what ways can vulnerability to disasters be characterized? Discuss different types of vulnerability with reference to disasters.Linkage: The PYQ tests core concepts of vulnerability, exposure, and disaster risk assessment, which form the foundation of GS-3 Disaster Management. The article directly critiques flawed vulnerability measurement (income-based proxy), reinforcing the need for multidimensional vulnerability assessment as demanded in the PYQ.

    Mentor’s Comment

    There is a critical flaw in India’s disaster financing architecture, the shift from risk-based assessment to population-based allocation. The issue is in the news due to concerns over the 16th Finance Commission’s disaster risk funding formula, which paradoxically allocates higher funds to States with larger populations rather than those with greater disaster exposure. This marks a sharp departure from earlier approaches and undermines decades of progress in disaster preparedness. The scale of the problem is significant, States like Odisha, with the highest hazard score (12), receive less effective consideration than States like Bihar (224.2) and Uttar Pradesh (413.2) due to population weighting.

    What structural flaw exists in the disaster funding formula?

    1. Multiplicative Risk Formula: Uses Disaster Risk Index (DRI = Hazard × Exposure × Vulnerability), but distorts outcomes due to flawed exposure metrics.
    2. Population-Based Exposure: Defines exposure as total population (scaled 1-25), ignoring actual hazard-prone zones.
    3. Bias Toward Larger States: Ensures States like Uttar Pradesh receive higher weight despite lower hazard intensity.
    4. Departure from Previous Approach: Replaces additive model of 15th Finance Commission, which treated hazard and vulnerability separately.
    5. Outcome Distortion: Rewards demographic size rather than disaster risk, contradicting risk-based allocation principles.

    Why is ‘exposure’ measurement scientifically flawed?

    1. Incorrect Definition: Uses total population instead of hazard-zone population.
    2. IPCC Standard Ignored: Defines exposure as people in hazard-prone areas, not administrative boundaries.
    3. Misleading Comparisons: Inland plateau populations treated equal to cyclone-prone coastal populations.
    4. Example: Odisha’s high-risk coastline equated with safer inland regions in other States.
    5. Result: Artificial inflation of exposure scores for populous but less vulnerable States.

    How does vulnerability measurement misrepresent actual risk?

    1. Income-Based Proxy: Uses per capita NSDP, which measures fiscal capacity, not vulnerability.
    2. Multidimensional Nature Ignored: Overlooks housing quality, health infrastructure, and early warning access.
    3. Kerala Case Study: Despite ₹31,000 crore flood damages (2018), receives low vulnerability score (1.073).
    4. Hidden Inequality: Average income masks intra-state disparities and disaster susceptibility.
    5. Outcome: Underestimates real vulnerability in disaster-prone but relatively richer States.

    Why does the formula penalize disaster-prone States?

    1. Population Bias: Prioritizes demographic size over risk intensity.
    2. Funding Paradox: Odisha (highest hazard score) loses out due to lower population score.
    3. Disproportionate Allocation: Bihar (224.2) and UP (413.2) overshadow Odisha despite lower hazard exposure.
    4. Kerala’s Loss: Loses 0.78 percentage points despite high vulnerability ranking.
    5. Systemic Inequity: Smaller, disaster-prone States receive inadequate fiscal support.

    What are the implications for disaster governance in India?

    1. Misallocation of Resources: Funds diverted away from high-risk zones.
    2. Reduced Preparedness: States with higher hazard exposure face fiscal constraints.
    3. Climate Risk Escalation: Cyclones, floods, and droughts increasing in intensity and frequency.
    4. Regional Inequality: Coastal and northeastern States disproportionately affected.
    5. Policy Credibility Issue: Undermines objective of risk-based disaster financing.

    What reforms are required in disaster risk assessment?

    1. Hazard-Zone Mapping: Measures exposure based on population in disaster-prone areas.
    2. Composite Vulnerability Index: Includes housing, health, agriculture, and infrastructure indicators.
    3. Use of Data Systems: Integrates Building Materials and Technology Promotion Council (BMTPC) Vulnerability Atlas, National Family Health Survey-5 (NFHS-5), Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana (PMFBY) database, National Health Mission (NHM) facility surveys, and India Meteorological Department (IMD) monitoring records. 
    4. Institutional Mechanism: Mandates NDMA to publish annual State Disaster Vulnerability Index.
    5. Policy Continuity: Institutionalizes methodology across Finance Commissions. 

    Conclusion

    A population-based approach to disaster funding undermines the principle of risk-sensitive governance. A shift toward hazard-specific exposure mapping and multidimensional vulnerability assessment is essential to ensure equitable and effective disaster resilience in India.

  • [12th March 2026] The Hindu OpED: A seismic decision: On revision to India’s earthquake zoning, rollback 

    PYQ Relevance[UPSC 2021] Discuss about the vulnerability of India to earthquake related hazards. Give examples including the salient features of major disasters caused by earthquakes in different parts of India during the last three decades.Linkage: It highlights India’s seismic vulnerability and the need for accurate hazard assessment. The revision of the earthquake zoning framework and adoption of probabilistic seismic hazard assessment strengthen disaster preparedness and risk mapping.

    Mentor’s Comment

    The rollback of the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) revision of India’s earthquake zoning framework has revived debate over seismic risk assessment. The proposed revision sought to replace the simplified fixed seismic zoning model with probabilistic seismic hazard assessment, a method widely used globally. It also introduced a new high-risk Zone VI covering vulnerable regions such as Kashmir and the Himalayan belt. However, stricter zoning raised economic concerns, as construction costs could increase by about 20% with a one-zone rise and nearly one-third with two zones. 

    Why does India require a revised earthquake zoning framework?

    1. Urban Expansion and Risk Exposure: Rapid urbanisation increases population and infrastructure in seismically vulnerable areas. Large infrastructure such as metro systems, dams, highways, and power stations require updated seismic design standards.
    2. Disaster Preparedness: Accurate zoning enables safer city planning, infrastructure design, and disaster management strategies. It reduces casualties and economic losses during earthquakes.
    3. Climate and Disaster Resilience: Earthquake-resilient infrastructure contributes to broader climate-resilient development and sustainable cities.
    4. Infrastructure Protection: Critical infrastructure projects must incorporate seismic design standards to prevent catastrophic failure during earthquakes.

    What is the current earthquake zoning system in India?

    1. Fixed Zoning Model: India currently uses a simplified seismic zoning map, dividing the country into fixed categories based on historical seismic activity.
    2. Seismic Zones: India’s seismic classification includes Zones II, III, IV and V, with Zone V representing the highest risk areas.
    3. Limitations of Fixed Zoning: Fixed zones rely heavily on past earthquake records and may not fully capture future seismic probabilities or micro-level risk variations.
    4. Urban Planning Integration: These zones influence building codes, infrastructure design standards, and urban planning guidelines.

    What changes were proposed in the BIS revision?

    1. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA): Introduces probability-based simulations to estimate earthquake intensity and frequency rather than relying solely on historical data.
    2. Introduction of Zone VI: Adds a new highest-risk seismic zone, covering Kashmir, parts of the Himalayan belt, Kutch in Gujarat, and the northeast.
    3. Improved Risk Modelling: Uses dynamic modelling of ground motion probabilities to improve earthquake preparedness.
    4. Alignment with Global Practice: Aligns India’s seismic risk assessment methodology with advanced economies and seismically active regions worldwide.

    Why did the proposed revision face opposition?

    1. Economic Cost: Construction costs could rise significantly.
      1. One-zone increase: Costs may rise by around 20%.
      2. Two-zone increase: Costs may rise by nearly one-third.
    2. Infrastructure Cost Escalation: High-value projects such as metro systems, dams, and power stations may face substantially higher structural design costs.
    3. Development Concerns: Urban planners fear stricter zoning could slow infrastructure development in economically fragile regions.
    4. Housing Informality: Nearly 80% of India’s housing stock lies in the informal sector, raising concerns that stricter regulations may increase unregulated construction.

    What are the broader governance and policy challenges?

    1. Institutional Coordination: The proposal faced resistance from multiple agencies including Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, Home Affairs, Central Water Commission, and National Dam Safety Authority.
    2. Policy Consultation Gap: Large regulatory changes require extensive consultation across government agencies, industry stakeholders, and technical experts.
    3. Balancing Safety and Affordability: Stricter building standards improve safety but increase construction costs and housing affordability pressures.
    4. Implementation Capacity: Enforcement challenges remain significant due to informal housing markets and limited regulatory capacity.

    How does the debate intersect with climate and sustainability goals?

    1. Construction Sector Emissions: The construction sector is among the largest dispersed sources of carbon emissions in India.
    2. Infrastructure Lifecycle: Seismic-resilient structures reduce the need for reconstruction after disasters, lowering long-term carbon and economic costs.
    3. Resilient Urban Development: Disaster-proof infrastructure supports climate adaptation strategies and sustainable urbanisation.

    Conclusion

    Revising India’s earthquake zoning framework remains essential for ensuring disaster-resilient urban growth and infrastructure safety. However, scientific improvements must be accompanied by broad institutional consultation, economic feasibility assessments, and strong implementation mechanisms. A balanced framework that integrates advanced risk modelling with practical governance capacity is critical for strengthening India’s long-term disaster resilience.

  • NDMA’s first ever guidelines for identification of disaster victims

    Why in the News

    The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued India’s first Standard Operating Procedures for Disaster Victim Identification. This comes after several recent mass fatality incidents such as the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, the chemical factory explosion in Sanand, floods in Dharali, and the Balrampur earthquake.

    Earlier, India did not have a uniform national system to identify disaster victims. Identification was often ad hoc, poorly coordinated, and slow, causing logistical problems and long delays for families. The new guidelines shift India from fragmented local practices to a standardised, scientific, and dignity-based national framework for handling disaster victims.

    Why were Disaster Victim Identification Guidelines Needed?

    1. Absence of Standardisation: Lack of a national protocol resulted in inconsistent identification methods across States.
    2. Operational Gaps: Shortage of forensic experts, poor inter-agency coordination, and logistical constraints delayed identification.
    3. Humanitarian Deficit: Families faced prolonged uncertainty due to delayed or incorrect identification of remains.
    4. Rising Mass Fatality Events: Increase in industrial accidents, floods, fires, earthquakes, and aviation disasters heightened systemic risk.

    What is the Scope of the NDMA Guidelines?

    1. Applicability: Covers identification of victims in mass fatality incidents across natural and man-made disasters.
    2. Geographical Reach: Designed for uniform adoption across States, districts, and local administrations.
    3. Lifecycle Coverage: Extends from disaster site management to final handover of identified remains to families.

    What Forensic and Scientific Methods are Prescribed?

    1. Forensic Archaeology: Supports recovery and documentation of remains at disaster sites.
    2. Forensic Odontology: Enables identification through dental records.
    3. DNA Profiling: Facilitates identification when bodies are fragmented or decomposed.
    4. Anthropology and Pathology: Assists in age, sex, and injury profiling.
    5. Medical Records Integration: Enables cross-verification using antemortem data.

    How do the Guidelines Address Operational Challenges?

    1. Inter-Agency Coordination: Defines roles of police, forensic teams, health authorities, and district administration.
    2. Logistical Planning: Addresses gaps in storage, transport, and preservation of remains.
    3. Administrative Clarity: Reduces jurisdictional overlaps between local, State, and Central agencies.
    4. Capacity Constraints: Acknowledges shortage of forensic branches and specialists across States.

    How is Sensitivity Towards Victims’ Families Ensured?

    1. Cultural Sensitivity: Mandates respect for community customs during handling of remains.
    2. Counselling Support: Emphasises emotional support for affected families.
    3. Transparent Communication: Ensures timely and accurate dissemination of identification status.
    4. Dignified Handling: Treats victim identification as both a technical and humanitarian exercise.

    Who Drafted the Guidelines and How Were They Developed?

    1. Institutional Leadership: Drafted under NDMA’s Joint Advisor.
    2. Expert Committee: Included specialists in forensics, archaeology, odontology, and pathology.
    3. Learning from Past Disasters: Incorporated lessons from earthquakes, floods, industrial accidents, and aviation crashes.
    4. Consultative Process: Involved State governments and central agencies over multiple years.

    Conclusion

    The NDMA’s Disaster Victim Identification guidelines institutionalise scientific rigour, administrative clarity, and humanitarian ethics in post-disaster management. By standardising procedures nationwide, they strengthen disaster governance, enhance public trust, and ensure dignity and closure for affected families.

    PYQ Relevance 

    [UPSC 2018] Describe various measures taken in India for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) before and after signing ‘Sendai Framework for DRR (2015-2030)’. How is this framework different from ‘ Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005’?

    Linkage: The question relates to GS-III disaster management, highlighting India’s shift from relief-based response under Hyogo to risk reduction and institutional accountability under the Sendai Framework. Sendai embeds ethics in disaster governance by stressing human dignity, compassion, and state responsibility in disaster response.

  • Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) Guidelines 

    Why in the News?

    India has released its first ever national guidelines and Standard Operating Procedures for Disaster Victim Identification (DVI) to address long standing gaps in identifying victims of mass fatality disasters.

    What is Disaster Victim Identification (DVI)?

    • A scientific and systematic process to identify deceased persons in mass fatality incidents
    • Used in air crashes, earthquakes, floods, fires, industrial accidents and terror attacks
    • Ensures accurate identification and dignified handover of remains to families

    Organisations Involved

    • National Disaster Management Authority as nodal agency
    • National Forensic Sciences University for technical and drafting support
    • State police, health departments, forensic laboratories and emergency responders
    • Aligned with global best practices of Interpol DVI framework

    Aim of the Guidelines

    • Ensure accurate identification and legal certification of deaths
    • Create a uniform national protocol for mass fatality management
    • Integrate modern forensic science and digital tools into disaster response
    [2014] Consider the following statements: 1. Animal Welfare Board of India is established under the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986. 

    2. National Tiger Conservation Authority is a statutory body. 

    3. National Ganga River Basin Authority is chaired by the Prime Minister. 

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct? 

    (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 2 only (d) 1, 2 and 3

  • NDMA’s first ever guidelines for identification of disaster victims

    Why in the News

    The National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA) has issued India’s first Standard Operating Procedures for Disaster Victim Identification. This comes after several recent mass fatality incidents such as the Air India plane crash in Ahmedabad, the chemical factory explosion in Sanand, floods in Dharali, and the Balrampur earthquake.

    Earlier, India did not have a uniform national system to identify disaster victims. Identification was often ad hoc, poorly coordinated, and slow, causing logistical problems and long delays for families. The new guidelines shift India from fragmented local practices to a standardised, scientific, and dignity-based national framework for handling disaster victims.

    Why were Disaster Victim Identification Guidelines Needed?

    1. Absence of Standardisation: Lack of a national protocol resulted in inconsistent identification methods across States.
    2. Operational Gaps: Shortage of forensic experts, poor inter-agency coordination, and logistical constraints delayed identification.
    3. Humanitarian Deficit: Families faced prolonged uncertainty due to delayed or incorrect identification of remains.
    4. Rising Mass Fatality Events: Increase in industrial accidents, floods, fires, earthquakes, and aviation disasters heightened systemic risk.

    What is the Scope of the NDMA Guidelines?

    1. Applicability: Covers identification of victims in mass fatality incidents across natural and man-made disasters.
    2. Geographical Reach: Designed for uniform adoption across States, districts, and local administrations.
    3. Lifecycle Coverage: Extends from disaster site management to final handover of identified remains to families.

    What Forensic and Scientific Methods are Prescribed?

    1. Forensic Archaeology: Supports recovery and documentation of remains at disaster sites.
    2. Forensic Odontology: Enables identification through dental records.
    3. DNA Profiling: Facilitates identification when bodies are fragmented or decomposed.
    4. Anthropology and Pathology: Assists in age, sex, and injury profiling.
    5. Medical Records Integration: Enables cross-verification using antemortem data.

    How do the Guidelines Address Operational Challenges?

    1. Inter-Agency Coordination: Defines roles of police, forensic teams, health authorities, and district administration.
    2. Logistical Planning: Addresses gaps in storage, transport, and preservation of remains.
    3. Administrative Clarity: Reduces jurisdictional overlaps between local, State, and Central agencies.
    4. Capacity Constraints: Acknowledges shortage of forensic branches and specialists across States.

    How is Sensitivity Towards Victims’ Families Ensured?

    1. Cultural Sensitivity: Mandates respect for community customs during handling of remains.
    2. Counselling Support: Emphasises emotional support for affected families.
    3. Transparent Communication: Ensures timely and accurate dissemination of identification status.
    4. Dignified Handling: Treats victim identification as both a technical and humanitarian exercise.

    Who Drafted the Guidelines and How Were They Developed?

    1. Institutional Leadership: Drafted under NDMA’s Joint Advisor.
    2. Expert Committee: Included specialists in forensics, archaeology, odontology, and pathology.
    3. Learning from Past Disasters: Incorporated lessons from earthquakes, floods, industrial accidents, and aviation crashes.
    4. Consultative Process: Involved State governments and central agencies over multiple years.

    Conclusion

    The NDMA’s Disaster Victim Identification guidelines institutionalise scientific rigour, administrative clarity, and humanitarian ethics in post-disaster management. By standardising procedures nationwide, they strengthen disaster governance, enhance public trust, and ensure dignity and closure for affected families.

    PYQ Relevance 

    [UPSC 2018] Describe various measures taken in India for Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) before and after signing ‘Sendai Framework for DRR (2015-2030)’. How is this framework different from ‘ Hyogo Framework for Action, 2005’?

    Linkage: The question relates to GS-III disaster management, highlighting India’s shift from relief-based response under Hyogo to risk reduction and institutional accountability under the Sendai Framework. Sendai embeds ethics in disaster governance by stressing human dignity, compassion, and state responsibility in disaster response.

  • Cyclones

  • India’s disaster response, a slippery slope for federalism

    Introduction

    The Wayanad tragedy of July 2024, claiming nearly 300 lives and destroying thousands of homes, revealed deep weaknesses in India’s disaster financing structure. Though Kerala estimated losses at ₹20,820 crore, the Union approved only ₹260 crore, signalling a widening disconnect between State needs and Union allocations. As climate disasters intensify, India’s disaster-risk financing model shows visible drift, raising questions on fiscal federalism, institutional design, and equity.

    Why in the news

    The Wayanad landslides (July 2024) brought focus to an unprecedented gap between State-estimated losses (₹20,820 crore) and Union-approved relief (₹260 crore). For the first time, the mismatch was so steep that the State sought a special memorandum to claim recovery support. This experience, mirroring similar delays in Himachal, Uttarakhand, Assam, and Odisha, highlights growing centralisation of disaster financing, outdated relief norms, and procedural bottlenecks that slow down urgent aid.

    Where is the drift in India’s disaster financing framework?

    1. Two-tier structure: SDRF (shared) and NDRF (Union-funded) forms the legal basis under Disaster Management Act, 2005; however, practice diverges from cooperative design.
    2. Outdated norms: Relief amounts, like ₹6 lakh for death and ₹1.2 lakh for fully damaged houses, have not kept pace with current needs.
    3. Limited use flexibility: States face constraints using SDRF funds beyond notified categories, leaving gaps during reconstruction needs.
    4. Delayed releases: Sequential approvals (State-Centre-High-level committees) slow down disbursal even during severe calamities.

    Why does classification and discretion weaken the system?

    1. Ambiguous disaster definition: The Act gives no clarity on what qualifies as a ‘severe’ disaster for NDRF aid, leaving room for variable central discretion.
    2. Procedural-not automatic triggers: India relies on approvals; unlike global practices using rainfall thresholds, satellite data, or actuarial triggers.
    3. Bias in allocations: Finance Commission criteria use population and geography proxies; actual vulnerability (poverty, hazard exposure) gets underestimated.

    How did the Wayanad episode reveal institutional deficiencies?

    1. Unspent SDRF balances: Kerala had ₹780 crore in SDRF and earlier deposits but faced constraints using them due to rigid rules.
    2. Cuts in interest support: ₹529 crore Centre interest-free support was withdrawn, reducing flexibility.
    3. Mismatch in severity classification: Landslides treated as “severe disaster” only after delays, reducing timely access to NDRF.
    4. Comparative delays: Similar underfunding seen in Himachal, Uttarakhand, Assam, Nagaland, and Karnataka after recent floods.

    How can global models inform India’s reforms?

    1. US FEMA: Catastrophe declarations based on clear, measurable thresholds; faster releases.
    2. Mexico FONDEN: Automatic fund release beyond rainfall limits; rules-based framework.
    3. Philippines model: Quick-response funds tied to rainfall-fatality indices.
    4. Australia: Funds tied to State expenditure and accountability.
    5. African/Caribbean insurance pools: Satellite-data triggers reduce discretion and delays.

    What is needed to restore India’s federal spirit?

    1. Sixteenth Finance Commission: Expected to overhaul financing architecture, align relief norms to actual costs, revise allocation formulas, and integrate vulnerability indicators.
    2. Unified disaster authority: A national, airshed-like authority beyond NCR to manage transboundary disaster risks.
    3. Stable fiscal autonomy: Allow States greater control over disaster funds without excessive approvals.
    4. Rules-based financing: Objective, measurable triggers (rainfall intensity, satellite data, loss-to-GSDP ratio) to reduce delays.

    Conclusion

    India’s disaster-response financing, originally structured for cooperative federalism, has shifted toward centralised discretion, resulting in mismatches between actual losses and approved relief. The Wayanad landslides demonstrate the urgent need for rules-based, automatic, and scientifically triggered fund release mechanisms. Strengthening fiscal autonomy, updating norms, and adopting global best practices are essential for a resilient, federal, and future-ready disaster management system.

    PYQ Relevance

    [UPSC 2020] Discuss the recent measures initiated in disaster management by the Government of India departing from the earlier reactive approach.

    Linkage: The question aligns with the article’s focus on outdated, reactive SDRF-NDRF procedures and delays exposed during the Wayanad disaster. It reinforces the need for proactive, rules-based, science-triggered disaster financing and stronger federal coordination.

     

  • Low-Pressure Area in Bay of Bengal (November 2025) 

    Why in the news?

    According to the India Meteorological Department (IMD), a low-pressure area formed over the Bay of Bengal on November 22, 2025. It is expected to intensify into a depression by November 24 and move west-northwestwards.

    What Has the IMD Reported?  

    a) Formation: Low-pressure area formed near the Malacca Strait over the South Andaman Sea. It arose due to a cyclonic circulation.

    b) Likely Path: Expected to move west-northwestwards. Likely to intensify into a depression over southeast Bay of Bengal & adjoining south Andaman Sea by November 24.

    c) Further IntensificationCould intensify further over the southwest Bay of Bengal within 48 hours after formation. IMD is uncertain whether it will develop into a cyclonic storm.

    d) State Impact (Odisha & Coastal Areas): System is far from Odisha coast → dry weather Farmers in coastal and southern regions have started harvesting mature paddy in anticipation of possible heavy rains. The State Agriculture Department has not yet issued advisories.

    (2015) In the South Atlantic and South-Eastern Pacific regions in tropical latitudes, cyclone does not originate. What is the reason? 

    (a) Sea surface temperatures are low 

    (b) Inter-Tropical Convergence Zone seldom occurs 

    (c) Coriolis force is too weak 

    (d) Absence of land in those regions

  • Cyclone Montha makes landfall in AP

    Why in the News?

    Cyclone Montha, classified as a severe cyclonic storm, has made landfall near Kakinada (Andhra Pradesh) on October 28.

    Back2Basics: Tropical Cyclones

    • What is it: Large low-pressure systems over warm oceans, marked by rotating winds, heavy rain, and storm surges.
    • Conditions: Form when ocean temps >27°C, with moist rising air releasing latent heat to fuel convection.
    • Rotation: Driven by the Coriolis force – anticlockwise in Northern Hemisphere, clockwise in Southern.
    • Structure: Eye (calm), Eyewall (violent winds/rains), Rainbands (widespread showers).
    • Regional Names: Typhoons (Pacific), Hurricanes (Atlantic/Caribbean), Cyclones (Indian Ocean).
    • Drivers & Frequency: Common in Southeast Asia due to warm Pacific waters, El Niño/La Niña cycles, and climate change.
    • Impacts: Loss of life, property damage, flooding, soil salinisation, displacement, and disease outbreaks.
    • Climate Change Link: Global warming is making tropical cyclones stronger, less predictable, and more frequent, raising risks for coastal populations.

    What is the Landfall of a Cyclone?

    • Overview: A tropical cyclone is said to make landfall when its centre (eye) crosses the coastline from sea to land.
    • Not the Same as a Direct Hit:
      • Landfall = when the eye crosses the coast.
      • Direct hit = when the eyewall (zone of strongest winds) impacts the coast, even if the centre remains offshore.
    • Duration: Landfall usually lasts a few hours, depending on wind speed and storm size.
    • Post-Landfall Behaviour: Cyclones lose intensity rapidly after landfall due to loss of oceanic moisture and increased land friction.

    Behind the Naming of Cyclones:

    • Overview: Cyclones in the North Indian Ocean are named under the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) / United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP) Panel on Tropical Cyclones (since 2004).
    • Naming Authority: Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC), New Delhi, operated by IMD.
    • 13 Member Countries: Bangladesh, India, Maldives, Myanmar, Oman, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Yemen, Iran, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and UAE.
    • Submission of names: Each country submits 13 culturally neutral, gender-neutral names, forming a 169-name rotating list.
    • Non-repetition: Names are used sequentially and not repeated after one use.
    • “Montha”: It was suggested by Thailand, meaning “beautiful” or “fragrant flower.”
    • Significance: Naming helps public communication, ensures clarity in warnings, and avoids confusion during multiple simultaneous storms.
    • Current sequence: Shakthi (Sri Lanka) → Montha (Thailand) → Senyar (UAE) → Ditwah (Yemen) → Arnab (Bangladesh) → Murasu (India).
    [UPSC 2020] Consider the following statements:

    1. Jet streams occur in the Northern Hemisphere only.

    2. Only some cyclones develop an eye.

    3. The temperature inside the eye of a cyclone is nearly 10°C lesser than that of the surroundings.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 2 only* (d) 1 and 3 only

     

  • Cyclone Shakhti forms over Arabian Sea

    Why in the News?

    The India Meteorological Department (IMD) confirmed the formation of Cyclone Shakthi (named by Sri Lanka) over the northeast Arabian Sea.

    About Cyclogenesis in the Arabian Sea:

    • Overview: Cyclogenesis is the formation and intensification of tropical cyclones under favourable oceanic and atmospheric conditions.
    • Seasonality: Most active during pre-monsoon (Apr–Jun) and post-monsoon (Oct–Dec) periods, when sea surface temperatures (SSTs) exceed 27 °C, moist convection intensifies, and the Coriolis effect induces rotation.
    • Formation Process: Warm moist air rises forming low pressure; latent heat of condensation deepens the system; upper-level outflow and low vertical wind shear sustain vertical growth, producing a warm eye with spiral rainbands.
    • Historical Pattern: The Arabian Sea was once less cyclone-prone than the Bay of Bengal due to cooler waters, dry winds, and high wind shear. Limited basin size and monsoon winds restricted cyclone growth.
    • Recent Change: Ocean warming and climate change have sharply increased cyclonic activity, making the region far more active in the last decade.
    • Rapid Intensification Trend: Short-term surges in wind speed (< 24 hrs) are now common, linked to warmer SSTs, Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) shifts, and monsoon wind variability.
    • Oceanic–Climatic Drivers:
      • Indonesian Throughflow imports warm Pacific waters, raising SSTs.
      • Southern Ocean inflow brings cooler deep water, stabilising lower layers.
      • Dual cyclone seasons arise from monsoon wind reversal unique to the region.
    • Climate Change Impact:
      • IMD data show a 52 % rise in Arabian Sea cyclones in two decades, while Bay of Bengal activity slightly declined.
      • The Indian Ocean is among the fastest-warming oceans, increasing heat-moisture availability, altering global weather, and heightening coastal risks to life and infrastructure.

    Recent Examples:

    • Tauktae (2021) – winds > 185 km/h, heavy damage along Gujarat–Konkan.
    • Biparjoy (2023) – lasted 13 days, fed by SSTs ~31 °C.
    • Tej (2023) – hit Oman & Yemen, showing cross-basin movement.
    • Shakthi (2025) – latest late-season, fast-intensifying cyclone.

    Back2Basics: Tropical Cyclones

    • What is it: Large low-pressure systems over warm oceans, marked by rotating winds, heavy rain, and storm surges.
    • Conditions: Form when ocean temps >27°C, with moist rising air releasing latent heat to fuel convection.
    • Rotation: Driven by the Coriolis force – anticlockwise in Northern Hemisphere, clockwise in Southern.
    • Structure: Eye (calm), Eyewall (violent winds/rains), Rainbands (widespread showers).
    • Regional Names: Typhoons (Pacific), Hurricanes (Atlantic/Caribbean), Cyclones (Indian Ocean).
    • Drivers & Frequency: Common in Southeast Asia due to warm Pacific waters, El Niño/La Niña cycles, and climate change.
    • Impacts: Loss of life, property damage, flooding, soil salinisation, displacement, and disease outbreaks.
    • Climate Change Link: Global warming is making tropical cyclones stronger, less predictable, and more frequent, raising risks for coastal populations.

     

    [UPSC 2020] Consider the following statements:

    1. Jet streams occur in the Northern Hemisphere only.

    2. Only some cyclones develop an eye.

    3. The temperature inside the eye of a cyclone is nearly 10°C lesser than that of the surroundings.

    Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

    (a) 1 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 2 only* (d) 1 and 3 only