Floods are a grim annual reminder of India’s vulnerabilities, and Punjab is no exception. Each monsoon season leaves behind inundated villages, devastated crops, and fractured infrastructure. Yet the pattern of response is familiar: a flurry of visits by dignitaries, inspection tours by central teams, media optics, and political grandstanding. Beneath this ritual, however, lies a highly structured process whose outcome depends not on handshakes or television bites, but on a single critical document—the State Government’s comprehensive memorandum.
Punjab, now reeling under widespread flood damage in 2025, must learn to approach this process with precision, discipline, and a sense of strategy.
The Ritual of Central Visits
The Union Agriculture Minister, Shivraj Singh Chouhan, has already toured the affected areas, reassuring the public of central support. Two Inter-Ministerial Central Teams (IMCTs) are currently visiting Punjab’s flood-affected districts—Gurdaspur, Fazilka, Amritsar, Ferozepur, Kapurthala, Hoshiarpur, and others. These teams, typically led by a Joint Secretary-level officer from the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) or the National Disaster Management Authority (NDMA), are composed of officials drawn from a range of ministries: Expenditure, Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare, Jal Shakti, Power, Road Transport and Highways, and Rural Development .
Their task is not political; it is procedural. They are mandated to verify the state’s assessment of damages and prepare a report that determines whether Punjab qualifies for Additional Central Assistance (ACA) from the National Disaster Response Fund (NDRF).
Yet, too often, the ritual of optics overshadows the substance of the process. The hospitality extended to visiting officials, the villages chosen for inspection, and the accompanying political leaders all influence impressions—but ultimately, the decision rests on the quality and credibility of the state’s memorandum.
Punjab Government’s team that interacted with the “Central Government’s Team” that visited Punjab to assess the damage on account of floods. (12 September, 2019, ISB Campus, Mohali).
Assessment Framework: PDNA and SDRF Guidelines
The central government follows two broad frameworks for post-disaster evaluation:
1. Post Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA)
Developed by the National Institute of Disaster Management (NIDM), the PDNA provides a scientific, multi-sectoral method for assessing disaster impacts . It requires:
Baseline data on pre-disaster socio-economic conditions.
Damage assessment, estimating the cost of replacing or repairing destroyed physical assets.
Loss assessment, capturing disruptions in economic activity.
Impact assessment, examining macroeconomic and social effects on households and communities.
Needs estimation, to determine recovery and reconstruction requirements.
2. State Disaster Response Fund (SDRF) and NDRF Norms
Financial assistance for relief and restoration is guided by strict norms laid down by the MHA . These guidelines specify eligible items of expenditure: house repairs, crop loss compensation, repair of roads and bridges, restoration of irrigation infrastructure, and ex gratia assistance for loss of life. Importantly, the norms only permit restoration of pre-flood conditions. They do not fund creation of new or “higher” infrastructure, a mistake state governments repeatedly make in their submissions.
When IMCTs conduct their field visits, they do not rely merely on verbal briefings. Their assessment is guided by structured formats rooted in the System of National Accounts classification, which spans:
Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries
Mining and Quarrying
Manufacturing
Electricity and Gas
Water Supply and Waste Management
Trade, Hotels, and Restaurants
Transport and Communications
Financial and Business Services
Community and Social Services
Environmental Impacts
Within these sectors, teams collect:
Physical damage data (extent of damage, classification as “totally destroyed” or “partially damaged,” replacement cost at pre-disaster prices).
Economic loss data (reduction in production, revenue losses, increased operating costs).
Sectoral impact assessments (public vs private ownership, affected populations disaggregated by gender, age, and socio-economic status).
The process is not impressionistic; it is deeply data-driven.
The Memorandum: Punjab’s Make-or-Break Document
The state memorandum is the single most decisive factor in securing central relief. For Punjab, this means moving beyond vague estimates like “Rs. 1 lakh crore damage” and instead presenting an itemised, evidence-backed assessment. The mandatory components include :
Detailed sector-wise damage report, supported by field verification.
Compliance with central guidelines, with figures conforming to SDRF/NDRF norms.
Geotagged visual evidence—video clips, photographs, satellite imagery.
Financial requirements, clearly distinguishing between state capacity and additional central assistance sought.
Timelines Matter
The Centre expects a staged reporting timeline:
Immediate assessment within 72–96 hours for emergency relief.
A detailed assessment within 3–4 weeks.
A comprehensive PDNA within 4–5 weeks .
Punjab must ensure that bureaucratic delays do not blunt the urgency of its case.
Common Mistakes and How Punjab Must Avoid Them
Punjab has historically erred in its approach to central assessments:
Projecting new infrastructure rather than limiting claims to restoration, which leads to rejection.
Relying on rough estimates instead of detailed, sector-wise data.
Weak documentation, with insufficient photographic and geotagged evidence.
Political overreach, where excessive optics during team visits undermine the professional presentation of damages.
The result is that even genuine repair requirements are sometimes left unfunded.
Current Punjab Flood Assessment (2025)
The scale of the 2025 floods is sobering. According to preliminary figures, the disaster has:
Affected 1,655 villages.
Damaged 1,75,216 hectares of cropland.
Destroyed or severely impacted public infrastructure across multiple districts.
Claimed 37 lives .
These figures are not just numbers; they represent the livelihood of farmers, the collapse of village connectivity, and the erosion of Punjab’s fragile rural economy. The state memorandum must reflect not only the extent of physical damage but also the broader socio-economic disruption.
Optics vs Substance: Managing Central Visits
While paperwork is paramount, the human element of central visits cannot be ignored. The choice of districts shown to the IMCT, the competence of accompanying state officials, and the quality of presentations made during field visits all shape perceptions. Hospitality matters—not in the sense of pomp, but in ensuring that the visiting team feels taken seriously and is provided with accurate, first-hand exposure to ground realities.
Punjab must strike a balance: avoiding over-politicisation, yet ensuring that the team leaves with a strong impression of both the scale of devastation and the professionalism of the state administration.
Beyond Relief: Building Long-Term Resilience
While the central framework limits assistance to pre-flood restoration, Punjab must simultaneously think of long-term resilience. This cannot be built into the central memorandum, but it should form part of the state’s own policy planning. Key measures include:
Strengthening embankments and drainage channels under state-funded or externally financed projects.
Crop diversification to reduce vulnerability of paddy monoculture to flood damage.
Disaster preparedness at the village level through mock drills, early warning systems, and community participation.
Leveraging technology, including satellite imagery, drones, and real-time flood forecasting, to both assess damage and mitigate future risks.
Conclusion: Memorandum Over Rhetoric
Flood assessment in India is both a science and a ritual. The science lies in the structured PDNA methodology, the SDRF/NDRF guidelines, and the exacting templates followed by IMCTs. The ritual lies in the optics of ministerial visits, central tours, and political statements.
For Punjab, the lesson is clear. The memorandum is the make-or-break document. Its strength lies not in rhetoric but in facts, figures, and documentation. If Punjab wishes to secure meaningful central relief, it must present a case that is precise, professional, and fully aligned with the Centre’s framework.
Hospitality and optics may shape impressions, but at the end of the day, Delhi releases funds only against credible paperwork. That is the reality of flood damage assessment in India—a reality Punjab must embrace if it hopes to rebuild what the waters have washed away.