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.

‘Deep State’ and Donald Trump

Updated: Nov 7, 2024

Donald Trump

If Donald Trump wins a second term as U.S. President, his primary target will likely be what he describes as “the Deep State” in America. According to him, the Deep State comprises the Justice Department, the CIA, and the FBI. Last week, American magazine ‘Politico’ noted that “regaining control of the Justice Department is most vital to his [Trump’s] agenda, both political and personal.”


The U.S. Justice Department has a unique history, as it can be considered even older than the fully ratified U.S. Constitution. Although the Constitution was initially signed by 39 of the 55 delegates on September 17, 1787, it took an additional two years and seven months for all states to ratify it, with the final ratification occurring on May 29, 1790. Meanwhile, Congress passed the Judiciary Act on September 24, 1789, recognizing the importance of establishing a judicial system for peace and security. This was technically possible as the Confederation Congress, established on March 9, 1789, marked the start of the Constitution’s operation.


The final clause of the Judiciary Act addressed the appointment of the Attorney General, stating that they “shall prosecute and conduct all suits in the Supreme Court in which the United States shall be concerned, and give advice and opinion upon questions of law when required by the President of the United States.”

Following the Civil War (1861–1865), the need for a full-fledged department became apparent. In 1870, the Department of Justice (DOJ) was established, with the Attorney General designated as the Federal Government’s chief law enforcement officer.


The Attorney General serves a dual role, acting as the legal representative of the executive branch to the Supreme Court and advising the President and heads of executive departments.


Over time, more powers have been delegated to the Attorney General. Under the Independent Counsel Act, the Attorney General is responsible for conducting preliminary inquiries whenever they receive sufficient information to justify investigating potential federal law violations, including those involving the President and Vice President.


This was the process that led to President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in 1994. Janet Reno, whom President Clinton appointed as Attorney General in 1993, selected Robert Fiske as an independent counsel in January 1994 to investigate the Whitewater controversy, which scrutinized Bill and Hillary Clinton’s real estate investments. Fiske was later replaced by Ken Starr.


This suggests that Trump, even if re-elected, would face limitations in reshaping the Justice Department to serve his personal needs. While he may have the power to dismiss the current Attorney General and appoint new personnel, Senate approval would be required for certain key positions. Furthermore, any new appointees would find it challenging to alter existing evidence, as the DOJ operates under rigorous judicial and Congressional oversight.


The next two entities within Trump’s ‘Deep State’ are the FBI and CIA. Established in 1908 under Title 28 U.S. Code 533, the FBI, like the Attorney General, is supervised by the DOJ and other federal law enforcement agencies, operating independently of any president’s personal preferences. While the President requires Senate concurrence for high-level appointments such as the Attorney General and FBI Director, other appointments are within presidential purview. However, all must operate within the law and remain accountable to the courts.


The CIA, created under the Central Intelligence Act of 1949, also requires Senate confirmation for its Director. With a Democratic majority currently in the Senate, Trump may encounter challenges in appointing his preferred candidate if this composition remains unchanged.


Historically, presidents attempting to install their own choice of CIA Director to “teach a lesson” to the agency have often met with limited success. Despite Senate approval, these directors have found it challenging to implement reforms inconsistent with the agency’s statutory mandates under Congressional Intelligence Committee oversight. A New York Times report dated December 22, 1974, noted that James R. Schlesinger, brought in by President Richard Nixon, struggled to enact reforms within the CIA and served only six months.


Conversely, Admiral Stansfield Turner, whom President Jimmy Carter appointed to “sanitize” the CIA, fired 820 agents from the CIA’s Clandestine Service in the so-called “Halloween Massacre.” Reflecting in 2005, Turner admitted he might have overreached in taking such a drastic step.


In fact, Turner’s actions inadvertently fostered cooperation between the CIA and Chinese intelligence services against the Soviet Union, which, as French investigative journalist Roger Falligot detailed in ‘Chinese Spies,’ opened opportunities for Chinese penetration into the Western world—a story I reviewed for Indian readers in 2019.


For the American electorate, the upcoming election will not just be a referendum on Trump’s leadership but a pivotal moment in defining the nation’s commitment to democratic norms and the independence of its institutions. In a time of escalating division, the resilience of these pillars of democracy may be the most crucial battleground of all.

(The writer is a former Special Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat. Views are personal)

Comments

bottom of page