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.

The Modi-Trump Contrast

Though often grouped together as ‘nationalist strongmen,’ Narendra Modi and Donald Trump reveal strikingly different approaches to power, diplomacy and governance.

Politics in the 21st century has become increasingly personalised. Institutions still matter, but voters often view governments through the prism of individual leaders rather than parties or policies. Few contemporary politicians illustrate this trend better than Donald Trump and Narendra Modi. Both have cultivated powerful personal brands, reshaped their political movements in their own image and built direct connections with millions of supporters. But beneath superficial similarities lie profound differences in governing style and strategic outlook.


America and India are bound together by growing strategic ties, but the relationship is also shaped by the personalities of their leaders. The recent interaction between Trump and Modi during the G7 summit saw both men exchanging public compliments and displaying an unusual degree of personal warmth. Yet diplomacy, is more complicated than personal chemistry.


Different Temperaments

At first glance, the two leaders appear to belong to the same political family. Both are nationalists who speak the language of national revival. Trump’s slogan, “Make America Great Again” and Modi’s vision of a self-reliant India seek to reassure voters that their countries can regain lost confidence and status. Both have presented themselves as outsiders willing to challenge established elites. Both have bypassed traditional intermediaries to speak directly to citizens through mass rallies, television and social media.


Yet, Trump’s political style thrives on disruption. Throughout his political career, unpredictability has been both a strategy and a trademark. Supporters regard it as evidence that he is unconstrained by conventional thinking; critics see it as a source of instability. Whether in trade policy or diplomacy, Trump has often preferred sudden moves and dramatic announcements to incremental statecraft.


Modi, by contrast, has cultivated an image of steadiness and long-term planning. His supporters frequently describe him as a leader who delivers on promises, while critics accuse him of centralising power. Yet even opponents acknowledge that his administration generally projects consistency in its strategic objectives. India’s domestic programmes, infrastructure expansion and foreign-policy initiatives have largely followed a coherent long-term framework rather than abrupt shifts in direction.


Trump’s worldview is transactional. International relationships are often judged according to immediate economic or strategic returns. This approach has led him to question longstanding alliances, impose tariffs on friends and rivals alike and demand greater reciprocity from partners. His scepticism towards multilateral institutions reflects a belief that international arrangements frequently disadvantage America.


India’s foreign policy under Modi has pursued a different course. New Delhi has embraced “strategic autonomy” - the ability to maintain productive relationships with competing powers without becoming dependent on any one of them. India has deepened ties with America while preserving relations with Russia. It has cultivated partnerships with Israel while maintaining channels to Iran. It participates enthusiastically in Western-led initiatives while remaining an active member of groupings such as BRICS.


Balancing Act

This balancing act reflects both necessity and ambition. As a rising power, India seeks room for manoeuvre in an increasingly polarised world by maximising options.


Economic policy offers another illuminating contrast. Trump’s protectionist instincts have remained remarkably consistent. Since entering politics, he has argued that globalisation disadvantaged American workers and enabled unfair competition. Tariffs, once regarded as relics of a bygone era, became central instruments of his economic strategy.


Modi’s economic approach combines market-oriented reforms with selective protectionism. ‘Make in India’ and ‘Atmanirbhar Bharat’ encourage domestic manufacturing and self-reliance, yet India continues to seek foreign investment and integration into global supply chains. The result is a hybrid model that attempts to balance openness with national economic priorities.


Their personal journeys are equally revealing. Trump entered politics after a career in business and entertainment, bringing with him the instincts of a dealmaker and showman. Modi’s rise followed a more traditional political path, from grassroots organisational work to state leadership and eventually national office.


Both men have transformed their respective political movements. Yet their political environments differ dramatically. America remains a mature superpower grappling with questions of relative decline and domestic polarisation. India is an ascending power seeking a larger global role while managing the challenges of development and diversity.


Contemporary leadership cannot be understood merely through ideology. Charisma and personal authority are increasingly shaping political outcomes across democracies today. Trump and Modi are among the most prominent examples of this phenomenon.  History, however, judges leaders by the durability of the institutions they leave behind rather than rhetoric. In that respect, the ultimate verdict on both men remains unwritten.


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

Comments

bottom of page