Chief of the Army Staff Ashok Raj Sigdel told a parliamentary committee on Friday that Nepal's post-disaster rescue operations need a short chain of command with clearly assigned responsibilities, arguing that a lean and unambiguous command structure is essential for an effective response. He was speaking at a meeting of the parliamentary special committee studying and monitoring disasters in the Bhotekoshi and Kaligandaki corridors, where he drew on the Nepali Army's experience of disaster response in the Bhotekoshi and Budhigandaki corridors.

A short chain of command for faster rescue

Sigdel's central message to lawmakers was that rescue work after a disaster is only as good as the command arrangement that guides it. A short chain of command with clear responsibilities, he told the committee, is what effective post-disaster rescue demands. In practical terms, a short chain of command means fewer layers between teams working at the disaster site and the authorities who take decisions and commit resources, an arrangement designed to cut delay at the very moment when speed matters most.

Clear responsibilities, in his framing, are the natural companion of a short chain. When every agency involved in a rescue knows exactly what it is accountable for, the command line above it can act quickly and with confidence, rather than losing precious time sorting out who is responsible for what.

The army chief did not present the argument in the abstract. He drew on the experience of disaster response in the Bhotekoshi and Budhigandaki corridors, bringing the lessons of those operations before the committee as evidence of the kind of command structure that works on the ground. By placing frontline operational experience at the centre of a parliamentary review, Sigdel effectively asked the committee to weigh disaster governance through the lens of those who carry out the rescue itself.

The setting for the remarks was a meeting of the special committee formed to study and monitor disasters in the Bhotekoshi and Kaligandaki corridors. Sigdel's briefing formed part of that mandate, giving lawmakers a direct account of how the army has responded when disasters have struck along those routes.

Responsibilities matched to the nature of the disaster

Beyond the question of hierarchy, Sigdel told the committee that responsibilities in disaster response should be categorised according to the nature of the disaster. His point was that different events place different demands on responders, and that the division of roles among agencies should reflect those differences rather than rest on a single, fixed template.

Taken together with his call for a short chain of command, the suggestion points to a two-part proposition: compress the layers of decision-making, and assign roles in line with the type of disaster. In his telling, it is the combination of a short chain and clearly categorised responsibilities that allows a rescue operation to move quickly and without confusion in the critical hours after a disaster.

For the committee, whose work is focused on studying and monitoring disasters along the two corridors, the remarks offered a military perspective on a question that is often debated in administrative terms. The army chief's testimony can be summarised in three broad points:

  • A short chain of command with clear responsibilities is needed for effective post-disaster rescue.
  • Responsibilities should be categorised according to the nature of the disaster.
  • The army's air capability is a national asset that should be further strengthened and upgraded.

Air capability framed as a national asset

Sigdel also turned to the army's own resources, describing its air capability as a national asset that should be further strengthened and upgraded. The choice of words was notable: by calling the capability a national asset, he framed the army's air wing not simply as a military resource but as an instrument that serves the country as a whole, and he told the committee that it required further strengthening and upgrading.

In asking for the capability to be built up, Sigdel tied the readiness of the army's air wing to the broader question before the committee: how well prepared the state is to respond when disaster strikes. The remark placed the army's aviation assets squarely within the national disaster response framework that the committee is examining.

The message the committee heard

The special committee studying and monitoring disasters in the Bhotekoshi and Kaligandaki corridors heard Sigdel's views as part of its ongoing work. His testimony spanned three linked themes, namely command structure, categorisation of responsibilities and air capability, each directed at the same underlying question of how Nepal can respond faster and more effectively when disaster hits.

For the army chief, the message was unambiguous: effective rescue depends on clarity. A command chain that is short, responsibilities that are defined according to the nature of the disaster, and an air capability that is continually strengthened and upgraded were, in his presentation to the committee, the building blocks of an effective national response.

Sigdel's remarks to the committee were reported by Nagarik News, Khabarhub and Pradesh Khabar.