The prime minister's statements on the earthquake must strike its survivors as quite numbingly platitudinous and exasperating - that is, if they have bothered to pay attention. He has quite plainly admitted that the nation is not equipped to tackle such an 'extraordinary disaster'. Extraordinary disasters happen regularly in India. In Gujarat, the earthquake has been preceded by a supercyclone and severe droughts. The Latur earthquake in Maharashtra is not that far behind and even more recent is the cyclone in Orissa. Almost a decade of many calamities ought to have found the prime minister being able to vouch for and demonstrate to his nation a far greater degree of readiness with the management of such crises. His survey of the devastation in Gujarat has only managed to come up with what must surely be the most infuriatingly gnomic words of caution - that the number of casualties 'should not be overestimated or underestimated'. A pervasive feeling of being abandoned by the government is being voiced repeatedly in Gujarat. Promptness - the most crucial requirement in earthquake rescue and relief - is precisely what has been lacking in the state's response to this calamity. It has taken what exists of the Centre's crisis management group three days to draw up a list of requirements to be presented to those eager to help, within and without the country. Unseemly bickerings between neighbours have also been heard. The British and Swiss rescue teams, and the private organizations and individuals who have pitched in, have repeatedly felt the absence of crucial equipment - cranes, excavators, bulldozers. Inevitably, the more affluent and influential urban centres, like Bhuj and Ahmedabad, are being favoured with most of the government's attention. Many of the poorer rural areas are yet to see the face of the army and the police. The state and Central administrations - so candidly ineffectual during an emergency and hindered, at normal times, with their own unwieldiness - have also repeatedly shown their lack of organization in handling the huge amounts of relief materials and money that start to flow in. This is likely to happen again if drastic and unprecedented steps are not taken at both the state and Central levels. What the prime minister has admitted to is the lack of a national disaster management plan, and of a networked and well-rehearsed system (involving mostly the state governments), that would implement such a plan without putting undue pressure on the armed forces. He has also shown a rather limited understanding of what it means to lead a nation towards technological progressiveness. The hype around the India of the 'new millennium' should perhaps be brought down to certain basics. The availability of essential disaster management equipment, the discipline of handling emergencies with alacrity, the organization of difficult relief operations without sliding into corruption are also important indices of a nation's progress. They may sound far less glamorous than 'intelligent' buildings, e-governance and other such wonders of information technology. But to perish without help - as the state deliberates and admits unreadiness - must feel terrifyingly distant from any notion of modernity.