In cohesive action, if not similar insensitivity, is being displayed at the moment in respect of reaching succor to the flood-affected people. Participation of cross-section of the society has been a cipher, and involvement of political parties in relief operations has been stunted by the government insistence on putting certain conditions on them for undertaking relief work. The general view of the government's handling of relief is that it could have been better organised.

To start with, the media was blamed by some experts for misleading the policy makers by either failing to distinguish between what is flood and what is actually a state of human beings going under water, having chosen to build up habitat in low lying areas, or exaggerating the actual situation. In fact, there was difference of opinion between different agencies of the government as to how many districts fitted the definition of "flood-affected" area.

Floods, like all other calamities that are perennially with us or visit us on a yearly basis, some years with more intensity than others, provide an opportunity for a particular segment of the society to reap dividends. There are the traders (with exceptions of course) for whom floods come as a good opportunity to mark up the prices of their merchandise many times more than what is justified.

Then there are those who go out of their way to demonstrate their sympathy for the affected by undertaking relief activities; most are driven genuinely by fellow feelings, some do so to profit in some form or the other. Then there are the people's representatives who undertake relief activities, mostly, as per the admission of a senior member of a major political party, for reaping political dividends.

Then there are the NGOs who, by the very nature of their work and their organisational set-ups that run down to the village level, are more adept than most outside the government agencies in providing planned relief to the affected.

But whatever be the basic motivation, their act of providing relief supplements the government's efforts in this regard and alleviates the sufferings of the flood-hit people.

This time, the situation is somewhat different. We have never had floods during the tenure of any previous caretaker government. (This is one of the natural hazards that caretaker governments must be prepared to face if their stay is prolonged unnecessarily). Political activities are banned and we have an emergency. (Is there a need to declare another emergency, this time for flood?). There is another thing that is different, too. There is no opposition party to criticize the government for not doing enough for the flood-affected people.

Some feel that providing relief and other post-flood rehabilitation support is the duty of the state. True, but when have we ever had floods and not have people of all walks of life come to the aid of the distressed? Memories of the floods since1988 are still vivid in our minds. People came together during natural disasters, brushing aside party lines; their only concern was for the humanity in distress.

The CA has called upon the people to come forward to support the relief work. Regrettably, not many private or charitable organisations or NGO's, and certainly no political party, have come forward in any large number as yet. One is disappointed at the less than enthusiastic response.

The government is yet to see the flood as a disaster, and, therefore, does not see the situation as warranting declaration of a "disaster situation." And perhaps dignity and self-respect prevent the caretaker government from seeking foreign help. That is all fine and good, but our sense of dignity must be backed by our ability and efficiency to provide timely assistance to the stricken people.

Every time we see an advisor confronted with questions about relief work the answer one hears is that there is enough stock of everything and there is no need to worry. Having enough of everything stocked up in government godowns is of little comfort to those who are up to their necks, literally, in floodwaters. The need is to get the materials to the needy. That is made difficult with roads going under water.

We have requisite resources with the air force and boats and river crafts with the other services to transport emergency relief material and evacuate the marooned from the outlying areas. Have they been used optimally so far? The emphasis should be on distribution of dry food since there is very little scope of cooking anything in the circumstances that the flood-stricken people find themselves in.

As for the political parties, several contradictory statements from some of the advisors have created confusion. Initially, it was suggested that the political parties, as parties, will not be allowed to undertake relief operation. That was then watered down to allow relief work by political parties but without party banners.

Another impediment, some feel, is the instruction to route all efforts through the armed forces that are deployed all over the country. (This is necessary to make distribution of relief more efficient).

One is not sure about the logic behind the respective positions. That a moratorium on political activity should automatically debar the political parties from carrying party banners during relief work doesn't appear a very cogent argument. After all, political party members justify their existence as a group, and mean very little as individuals. And, of course, there is always the party identity that reinforces their claims to donation of their supporters.

Don't overlook the media coverage that gives additional mileage. But, must all humanitarian acts be motivated by ulterior gains? Why is there a need to assert one's political identity when the main consideration must really be the plight of the distressed, who carry no identity of any sort except that they are at the mercy of nature and of those that are more fortunate than they are at that particular time.

A rigid position is bound to create misgivings such as the one expressed by the CAS in respect of the motive of political parties in withholding their participation in flood-relief operations.

There is no reason for the government to be apprehensive that flood relief work would turn into political rallies. It should relent on its insistence on not allowing party flag or banners during relief work. As for the political parties, it should be their actions that should really speak louder than a thousand banners and party flags.

The time we waste squabbling over insignificant matters can be better spent at the services of the suffering masses.

The author is Editor, Defence and Strategic Affairs, The Daily Star.