top of page

By:

Correspondent

23 August 2024 at 9:59:04 pm

Fatal Negligence

Newborns dying in a fire inside a government hospital is a devastating indictment of a system that is supposed to protect its most vulnerable patients. The Amravati District Women’s Hospital tragedy, where a blaze killed three infants, joins a long list of preventable institutional failures. Thirty-nine babies were inside the three-compartment facility when the fire erupted after a ventilator in the neonatal unit caught fire. Thirty-six were eventually rescued. Parents and eyewitnesses have...

Fatal Negligence

Newborns dying in a fire inside a government hospital is a devastating indictment of a system that is supposed to protect its most vulnerable patients. The Amravati District Women’s Hospital tragedy, where a blaze killed three infants, joins a long list of preventable institutional failures. Thirty-nine babies were inside the three-compartment facility when the fire erupted after a ventilator in the neonatal unit caught fire. Thirty-six were eventually rescued. Parents and eyewitnesses have alleged that the fire alarms did not sound and the automatic sprinklers failed to activate even as the district administration has said the hospital underwent regular fire audits and had applied for this year’s audit. An audit is meaningful only if it establishes that equipment works when lives depend on it. Maharashtra has already witnessed the deadly consequences of fire-safety failures in public hospitals. In 2021, eleven Covid-19 patients died in a fire at the Ahmednagar district hospital even though a fire audit conducted months earlier had recommended a firefighting system. The Amravati tragedy demands more than the familiar ritual of a high-level inquiry, compensation and promises of “strictest action”. The announcement of ex gratia payments cannot compensate parents who have lost a child they had barely begun to know. The investigation must establish not merely what ignited the fire, but why it was allowed to become fatal. Was the ventilator properly maintained? Were electrical and medical devices routinely inspected? Did alarms function? Were sprinklers operational? Was the NICU appropriately located and equipped for evacuation? Were staff trained and drills conducted? And most importantly, who was responsible for ensuring that every safeguard worked? There is another troubling detail: the neonatal unit was reportedly housed on the third floor, rather than at ground level, and questions have arisen over whether the unit was part of the building’s original plan. The state has built an elaborate architecture of laws and child-protection standards which seldom matches the situation on ground. Whether in government hospitals, schools or anganwadis, safety has become a box to be ticked rather than a responsibility to be lived. The most vulnerable children are consequently left dependent not on systems, but on the vigilance and heroism of individual staff members. That is an appalling way to run the childcare infrastructure of one India’s most developed states. A NICU is perhaps the worst possible place for institutional complacency: its patients are immobile, medically dependent and extraordinarily vulnerable to smoke, heat and even brief disruption of life-support equipment. The government must ensure that the Amravati deaths do not become another entry in the grim ledger of hospital tragedies followed by inquiries, outrage and forgetting. The real test will be whether the state can prevent the next newborn from dying in a hospital that was supposed to save him.

Ceasefire Duplicity and the Challenge of Military Diplomacy

India and Pakistan have agreed to a ceasefire along the Line of Control (LoC). However, the reality on the ground tells a different story – marked by continued cross-border shelling, terror attacks, and propaganda warfare. The recent terror strike in Pahalgam and Pakistan's immediate violation of the ceasefire agreement raise serious concerns about the credibility of Islamabad's commitments and the sustainability of peace in South Asia.


Parallel to its military posturing, Pakistan has unleashed an aggressive information warfare campaign, spreading fake news, fabricated videos, and social media propaganda aimed at discrediting the Indian Armed Forces and destabilizing India internally. From misrepresenting conflict zones to amplifying communal narratives, Pakistan’s digital tactics are designed to tarnish India’s global image.


Moral struggle

Across India, public sentiment has reached a tipping point. The collective mood is one of resolve and clarity, with citizens demanding a firm and lasting solution to crossborder terrorism and internal radicalization. The repeated provocations have also sparked a broader reflection on national unity, as people from diverse backgrounds call for greater vigilance against divisive narratives and misinformation – whether they originate externally or from within.


Defining aspect

India’s fight against terrorism is now a defining aspect of its global identity, and the events unfolding now will serve as a milestone in the country’s evolving stance: zero tolerance for terror, unwavering pursuit of national security, and a clear moral compass in the face of persistent threats.


In my view, agreeing to a ceasefire at this stage may have been premature, especially considering the strategic advantages India had already gained. The momentum was clearly in our favor, and sustained pressure might have compelled Pakistan to concede more comprehensively.


There was an opportunity to send a strong and lasting message that any aggression against India would be met with decisive and overwhelming force. Leadership in such moments, as seen in other global contexts, often involves resisting external pressures to ensure long-term national security objectives are achieved.


Familiar Pattern

On paper, Pakistan agreed to a so-called ceasefire, rearming the 2003 agreement with India. However, in less than 10 hours, Pakistani forces violated the ceasefire, launching unprovoked shelling on Indian territory.


This pattern of duplicity is neither new nor surprising. Over the past two decades, Pakistan has routinely broken ceasefire agreements soon after signing them – more than 5,000 ceasefire violations were recorded in 2020 alone.


This time, their ceasefire plea came only after facing increasing military pressure and internal instability. Reports indicate that a call was made from the Pakistani Director General of Military Operations (DGMO) to his Indian counterpart, seeking immediate de-escalation after Pakistan realized the consequences of further escalation. But can such a plea be taken seriously, especially when it's followed by another violation?


A Moment of Strategic Strength for India India’s current position of military and moral strength has sent a powerful message across the region and beyond. The ability to swiftly neutralize threats, counter aggression with precision, and maintain strategic restraint despite provocation demonstrates India's evolving doctrine in the face of cross-border terrorism.


Many believe that had the ceasefire not been agreed upon, Pakistan – facing operational setbacks and international isolation – would have found itself with little choice but to deescalate or surrender. The limited tactical support Pakistan reportedly received from foreign allies failed to bolster its standing, further underlining India’s superior strategic posture.


Terrorism as State Policy

Despite international pressure and FATF scrutiny, Pakistan continues to harbor UNdesignated terrorists and provide sanctuary to organizations such as Lashkar-e-Taiba, Jaish-e-Mohammed, and others. These groups not only plan and launch attacks on Indian soil but also serve Pakistan’s objective of creating unrest and undermining Indian sovereignty, particularly in Jammu & Kashmir.


India has repeatedly presented dossiers and intelligence to international bodies, detailing Pakistan’s involvement in state-sponsored terrorism, yet tangible punitive action has been limited.


Strategic Resolve

India has shifted its posture from one of strategic restraint to one of deterrence and assertive diplomacy. From the 2016 surgical strikes to the 2019 Balakot airstrikes, New Delhi has demonstrated it will not tolerate cross-border terrorism. At the same time, India has chosen to pursue military diplomacy to avoid unnecessary escalation, engaging DGMOs, maintaining hotline communications, and leveraging multilateral pressure.


The new Indian war doctrine, reportedly accepted by key global players including the U.S., defines any terror attack as an act of war—a stark warning to those who underestimate India’s resolve.


(The author is a resident of Mumbai. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page