The devastating fire at a lodging facility in Delhi’s Malviya Nagar, which claimed 21 lives, had barely faded from public memory when another catastrophe unfolded in Lucknow. Fifteen students and staff members perished after a blaze engulfed a 3D animation centre housed in a commercial building in Aliganj. Several others sustained injuries, with some jumping from the first floor in desperate attempts to escape. While Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Uttar Pradesh Chief Minister Yogi Adityanath expressed grief, a high-level inquiry was announced. Property owners and officials came under scrutiny. Yet, amid the familiar expressions of anguish and promises of accountability, an unsettling question surfaced once again. Why do such disasters continue to recur despite countless lessons from the past? Initial reports indicated that the Lucknow fire may have been caused by a short circuit. Eyewitnesses alleged that fire services took nearly forty minutes to arrive, by which time flames had engulfed the entire building. Wooden interiors reportedly accelerated the spread of the blaze. In Delhi, preliminary investigations suggested that the six-room Bed and Breakfast establishment had expanded into a 26-room operation, while a licence issued for a tea stall allegedly covered a full-fledged restaurant. The similarities are too striking to ignore. Buildings become death traps not overnight, but through years of accumulated violations, administrative indifference and societal complacency. Shared Burden From the Karol Bagh hotel fire of 2019 to the Mundka commercial complex tragedy in 2022, the Vivek Vihar neonatal hospital fire in 2024 and now the twin horrors of Delhi and Lucknow, a disturbing pattern emerges. Regulations exist. Investigations follow. Arrests are made. Yet prosecutions move slowly, and memories fade until the next tragedy strikes. Blaming owners alone provides only partial answers. Legal responsibility undoubtedly rests with them, but the failures are institutional as much as individual. How do multiple violations continue in plain sight? How do unauthorised expansions, blocked exits, unsafe electrical systems and inadequate fire protection remain unnoticed by agencies entrusted with public safety? Even Delhi Tourism Minister Kapil Mishra admitted that it was impossible that nobody knew what was happening at the Malviya Nagar property. The Municipal Corporation, police, tourism department and fire authorities all possessed pieces of the regulatory puzzle, yet the complete picture escaped attention until lives were lost. Economics compounds the problem. Businesses often prioritise profitability over compliance. Tenants seeking premises focus on affordability and location. Consumers seldom ask whether a restaurant, coaching centre or hotel possesses valid fire clearances or emergency exits. Safety becomes somebody else’s responsibility. Sadly, this indifference extends even to hospitals, schools and care centres, where vulnerable individuals have little chance of escape during emergencies. Preventive Governance Experts increasingly argue that India must move from reactive firefighting to preventive governance. Japan offers an instructive example. Following devastating earthquakes and fires, stringent regulations were supplemented by independent certification systems and insurance mechanisms. Buildings that fail to comply face financial consequences. Safety is viewed not as a burden but as an investment. Several Indian cities have also begun employing technology-driven solutions. Geographic Information Systems and digital platforms now allow public access to approvals and fire safety clearances in selected zones. Transparency enables both authorities and citizens to verify whether establishments operate within permissible limits. Yet technology alone cannot compensate for weak enforcement. Routine inspections have often been diluted in the name of ease of doing business. Random audits become paper exercises. Fire drills are conducted merely to satisfy procedural requirements. Such cosmetic compliance creates an illusion of preparedness without guaranteeing actual safety. Perhaps the most urgent reform required is cultural rather than administrative. Safety must cease to be treated as an inconvenience. Emergency exits cannot serve as storage spaces. Electrical systems cannot remain neglected. Structural audits cannot be optional. Societies are ultimately judged not merely by how efficiently they punish the guilty after disasters, but by how effectively they prevent avoidable deaths. Every tragedy leaves behind grieving families and solemn promises. Delhi and Lucknow are separated by hundreds of kilometres, yet both tell the same painful story. Human lives were extinguished not simply by fire, but by a chain of compromises stretching across institutions, businesses and society itself. The true measure of progress lies not in the speed with which compensation is announced or arrests are made. It lies in ensuring that safety never becomes an afterthought and that convenience, profit and administrative complacency never outweigh the sanctity of human life. (The writer is a retired banker and author. Views personal.)
Comments