Alpine Illusions

When disaster strikes in India, the world’s editorial writers know exactly what to say. Safety norms are lax. Enforcement is absent. Lives are cheap. The tone is brisk, the moral certainty absolute. But when a similar catastrophe unfolds in Switzerland - Europe’s byword for order, insurance and impeccable regulation – that script falters. The deaths of more than 45 people at a New Year’s party in the Swiss ski resort of Crans-Montana should puncture the comforting illusion that competence, wealth and latitude alone guarantee safety.

Crans-Montana is no backwater. Perched high in the Valais canton, gazing out toward the Matterhorn and Mont Blanc, it is marketed as an alpine haven with discreet luxury and a clientele drawn from Europe’s well-heeled middle and upper classes. At the end of the year, it fills with visitors from Switzerland, France, Britain, Italy, Belgium and beyond. This was the setting for a fire that broke at Le Constellation bar during New Year celebrations, killing scores, injuring more than a hundred and leaving families across borders anxiously counting the missing.

Witnesses describe sparklers or flares placed in champagne bottles. A staff member reportedly held a candle aloft near a wooden ceiling. Flames raced across combustible interiors. The ceiling collapsed. Exits, for reasons not yet fully explained, were blocked or unusable. Panic followed. Italy says 16 of its nationals are missing; France has eight unaccounted for.

This reads uncannily like the recent Goa nightclub tragedy that sparked outrage across India. There, too, pyrotechnics met flammable décor. There, too, a confined space turned festive exuberance into a death trap. In Goa, amid the ire, the verdict from abroad was swift and sanctimonious. In Switzerland, the tone is more sorrowful and procedural.

Yet the uncomfortable truth is that such fires obey no passport regime. Nightclubs, resort bars and party venues around the world share the same vulnerabilities: decorative wood, theatrical effects, overcrowding and a casual attitude to exits once the music starts and the champagne flows. The difference lies not in culture but in complacency. Switzerland’s reputation for safety may have bred the very confidence that allowed obvious risks to go unchallenged. If this can happen in one of Europe’s most regulated countries, it can happen anywhere.

That is precisely why selective outrage is so hollow. When tragedy strikes in India, it is treated as evidence of systemic failure. When it happens in Switzerland, it is framed as a tragic accident in an otherwise flawless system. This distinction is intellectually dishonest. Regulations on paper mean little if they are ignored in practice. Enforcement is only as strong as the willingness to inconvenience businesses, cancel events or shut venues that cut corners. Human behaviour tends to defeat even the best-designed rules.

The real lesson of Crans-Montana is not that Switzerland has suddenly become unsafe, any more than Goa’s tragedy proved India uniquely negligent. It is that crowd safety is a global problem hiding in plain sight.