Bharat needs to have its own naming system for floods and tsunamis

Bharat is confronted each year by an alarming array of natural disasters like monsoon floods, riverine inundations, coastal storm surges, and tsunamis. While naming systems exist for tropical cyclones in the North Indian Ocean, there is currently no standardised national or regional naming scheme for major floods or tsunamis impacting the country. This absence is more than a semantic gap, it has real consequences for public awareness, communication, response coordination and historical memory.

Naming disasters beyond cyclones

There are several good reasons to name major flood and tsunami events:

1. Improved communication and recall. It is far easier for media, responders and the public to refer to “Flood Ramganga 2025” than “the August 2025 Ramganga basin inundation, event number 4”. A memorable name helps embed the incident in collective memory, making it easier to raise awareness, mobilise resources and recall key lessons.

2. Clarity when multiple events occur. During a monsoon season, several rivers may overtop, or landslides may trigger cascades of flooding in separate basins. Without a concise naming system, confusion arises in communication across districts, states and the national level. A standardised name helps distinguish between simultaneous events.

3. History and accountability. When disasters are named and catalogued, they become part of the historical record—easier to reference in research, actuarial work, insurance modelling and public policy. Naming also contributes to a sense of accountability: “Flood X” can be revisited in later reviews, enabling structured learning.

4. Public engagement and preparedness. A named event can become part of the public lexicon, triggering greater retention of warnings and reducing complacency. People are more likely to heed an alert about “Tsunami Wave Sagar 2026” than generic warnings of “possible tsunami risk”.

5. Cultural relevance and localisation. For a country as linguistically and regionally diverse, using names drawn from local languages or geographical references can enhance local resonance—making warnings feel more immediate and grounded.

Given these benefits, it’s worth asking: why isn’t there a formal naming system for floods and tsunamis in our country? The answers are varied—floods and tsunamis are more varied in origin than cyclones, they often emerge rapidly rather than over days, and there has been less international consensus around naming them. But precisely because the country is so flood- and tsunami-prone, establishing a naming protocol makes strong sense.

What we do have: cyclone naming in the North Indian Ocean

Bharat already participates in a well-established naming scheme for tropical cyclones in the Bay of Bengal and Arabian Sea. Some key facts:

•The practice began in September 2004 for the region.

•The naming list is managed by the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) in its role as the Regional Specialized Meteorological Centre (RSMC) for the North Indian Ocean.

•The system covers 13 countries in the region; each contributes names which are then used sequentially in a column-wise fashion.

•The 2020 revised list contains 169 names — 13 from each country.

•Rules: names should be short (max eight letters), neutral (not offensive or politically/religiously loaded), easy to pronounce, and once used are not repeated.

•Examples of names contributed by India include Akash (sky), Megh (cloud), Gati (speed) etc.

Thus, Bharat is part of a robust naming protocol for one kind of natural hazard (cyclones), which helps communication and response.

What’s missing and why floods & tsunamis require special treatment

While naming cyclones has made strides, naming floods or tsunamis remains rare. There are good reasons to extend the approach to these hazards in the country:

•Floods are ubiquitous and multi-modal. In India, floods may come from river overflow, cloudbursts in hilly terrain, urban drainage failure, coastal storm surges, or dam failures. They can affect inland and coastal regions, meaning a national naming system would need flexibility.

•Tsunamis are lower-frequency but high-impact. Though rare compared to cyclones, tsunamis like the 2004 Indian Ocean event have major consequences. A dedicated naming scheme would aid public memory and planning.

•Disaster management coordination is complex. Floods often cut across administrative boundaries (states, districts), so a simple, memorable name helps national and inter-state coordination.

•Cultural and linguistic relevance. India’s many languages and varied geographies mean that a “one-size-fits-all” approach won’t work; naming schemes should allow local language suggestions while keeping a national coherence.

•Avoiding overlaps/confusion. Sometimes a cyclone triggers flooding; other times, heavy rains alone do. If the same event triggers both meta-disasters (flood + storm surge), naming the integrated event helps unify the response rather than treat it as separate.

Given all this, it is timely for the country to develop a standardised naming framework for floods and tsunamis—much like the cyclone naming system, but tailored to flood- and tsunami-specific needs.

Brief list of Indian-origin names used in cyclones (for context)

Here are a few contributions from Bharat to cyclone naming, to give a flavour of how the naming works and what has been used:

•Akash – meaning “sky”, contributed by Bharat

•Megh – meaning “cloud”.

•Gati – meaning “speed”.

•Future names proposed by India include Neer (water), Probaho (flow), Jhar (torrent), etc.

While these examples are for cyclones, they illustrate how Indian languages and imagery (sky, cloud, speed, water flow) are used to name natural events. A flood-naming system could draw from similar imagery—for example, Pravah(stream), Abhilash (inundation), Bhāra (burden), etc.—with local contributions.

Proposed features for a naming system for floods & tsunamis

Here are some design recommendations for such a system:

•Pre-designated lists by hazard zone. For example, riverine/inland floods (Monsoon Basin), urban floods (Metro Zone), coastal storm-surge floods, and tsunami events. Each hazard zone could have its own set of names suggested by states/regions and vetted nationally.

•Sequential usage. Names pre-approved and used in order as specified events cross a certain threshold (for instance: 500 mm rainfall in basin; river crest above 85th percentile; tsunami wave >1 m).

•Short, pronounceable, neutral names. Maximum eight letters, avoiding political/religious reference, easy to broadcast in multiple languages.

•One-time use. Once a name is assigned, it is retired to preserve uniqueness and historical clarity (similar to cyclones).

•Local-language root suggestions. States/UTs can propose names in local languages; the national body (e.g., National Disaster Management Authority) approves them.

•Clear criteria for naming thresholds. For instance: “Flood X” is assigned when a river reaches a major flood stage AND evacuation is ordered; “Tsunami Y” is assigned when the first wave > 0.5 m inland or damage threshold is met.

•Public awareness campaigns. When a warning is issued, broadcasters use the disaster name (e.g., “Prepare for Flood Abhilash”) so the public recognises the event and retains the name for future reference.

Challenges and caveats

Of course, implementing such a naming system comes with issues:

•Deciding which events qualify for naming (many small floods happen annually—should all be named?).

•Ensuring consistency across states with varied languages and capacities.

•Avoiding sensationalism—a name could be mis-used in the media if not managed carefully.

•Integrating the naming system with existing structures (IMD, NDMA, state disaster management authorities).

•Ensuring that naming does not replace substantive preparedness—a name alone does not save lives; actions do.

Bharat stands at a juncture of heightened disaster vulnerability: from monsoon floods in the Ganga–Brahmaputra basin to tsunami-risk along the Andaman coast and urban flash-flooding in major cities. While we already have a robust naming system for cyclones, the absence of similar systematic naming for floods and tsunamis represents a missed opportunity. A naming scheme would strengthen public awareness, unify communication across agencies and media, build historical memory, and help embed disaster-events more firmly in the national narrative.

By leveraging local linguistic heritage (as India has done for cyclone names) and applying rigorous naming criteria, it is entirely feasible for a country to adopt a “Flood X”, “Tsunami Y” naming protocol. Doing so would not only help manage disasters more effectively—it would also deepen our collective preparedness and resilience for the next big event.

(The writer is a Creative Economy Expert)