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.

From Trading Partners to Strategic Allies

As the Indo-Pacific enters an era of heightened geopolitical competition, India and South Korea are discovering that economic complementarity alone is no longer enough.

For decades, India and South Korea have enjoyed cordial relations built upon commerce, investment and the success of Korean conglomerates in the Indian market. Yet, despite flourishing economic ties, the relationship often lacked strategic urgency. That complacency is no longer tenable. The Indo-Pacific has become the principal theatre of global competition, supply chains are being redrawn, and technology has emerged as an instrument of national power. In such an environment, India and South Korea are no longer merely useful economic partners but are becoming strategic necessities for one another.

 

It is against this backdrop that External Affairs Minister Dr. S. Jaishankar’s recent visit to South Korea deserves attention. This one indicated that New Delhi and Seoul recognise that the logic underpinning their Special Strategic Partnership has changed. What was once centred on trade is steadily evolving into a broader alignment encompassing technology, defence, maritime security and resilient supply chains.

 

Wider Realities

The transformation reflects wider geopolitical realities. South Korea occupies one of Asia's most consequential strategic locations. Sandwiched between China, Japan and Russia, while facing the perpetual threat from North Korea, Seoul has long mastered the difficult art of balancing economic interests with security imperatives. India, meanwhile, has emerged as the principal resident power in the Indian Ocean, seeking to preserve a free and open Indo-Pacific while maintaining its tradition of strategic autonomy. Their geographies differ, but their strategic calculations increasingly converge.

 

Both countries have much to gain from closer cooperation. South Korea is among the world's foremost innovators in semiconductors, shipbuilding, batteries, electronics and advanced manufacturing. India offers scale, a vast consumer market, growing manufacturing capacity and one of the world's most dynamic digital economies. At a time when multinational companies are seeking alternatives to excessive dependence on Chinese production networks, this complementarity has acquired fresh strategic value.

 

The discussions during Dr. Jaishankar’s visit reflected precisely this shift. Cooperation is no longer confined to automobiles or consumer electronics. It increasingly extends to semiconductors, artificial intelligence, clean energy, fintech, healthcare, defence manufacturing and digital infrastructure. The proposed extension of the Joint Strategic Vision for 2026-30 reflects an ambition to institutionalise cooperation rather than rely on episodic diplomatic engagement.

Security considerations reinforce this trend. Neither India nor South Korea seeks confrontation with China. Both, however, have an interest in preserving an Indo-Pacific governed by international law rather than coercion. Maritime trade remains the lifeblood of both economies, making freedom of navigation, secure sea lanes and stable regional balances matters of national interest rather than abstract diplomatic principles.

 

Defence Ties

Defence cooperation therefore assumes growing significance. Joint research, defence co-production, naval exchanges and cybersecurity partnerships are becoming increasingly relevant as military technologies evolve and non-traditional threats proliferate. Terrorism, cyber-attacks, disinformation and disruptions to critical supply chains cannot be addressed by any nation acting alone. Strategic partnerships must now encompass economic resilience as much as military preparedness.


The relationship is also underpinned by something less tangible but equally valuable: shared political values. India and South Korea are vibrant Asian democracies navigating an increasingly fragmented international order. While neither seeks formal alliance structures, both favour a rules-based regional architecture, stronger multilateral institutions and greater strategic stability. Their cooperation demonstrates that middle powers can exercise influence not merely by choosing sides but by building networks of practical collaboration.


Yet considerable work remains. Bilateral trade continues to fall short of its potential, investment flows remain uneven, and implementation often lags behind diplomatic declarations. Regulatory bottlenecks, market access concerns and delays in concluding commercial agreements continue to impede deeper economic integration. Strategic intent must therefore be matched by administrative execution.

 

Relations between nations seldom advance through dramatic breakthroughs. More often, they deepen through sustained institutional cooperation, expanding business links and regular political dialogue. India’s partnership with South Korea has reached precisely such a moment. The foundations have already been laid; what remains is to build upon them with consistency and ambition.

 

As Asia emerges as the centre of global economic and strategic gravity, partnerships between democratic middle powers will increasingly shape the regional order. For India and South Korea, the choice is no longer between commerce and strategy. The two have become inseparable. In an era defined by technological rivalry, geopolitical uncertainty and economic fragmentation, the relationship’s greatest promise lies not in what it has achieved, but in what it is now uniquely positioned to become.

 

(The writer is a foreign affairs expert. Views personal.)

Comments

bottom of page