Key Arguments

1. Recurring Pattern of Stampedes
   ○ Stampedes in India often occur at rallies, religious events, or railway stations where sudden panic sparks chaos.
   ○ Inadequate planning and poor crowd management amplify risks.

2. Delays in Rescue Efforts
   ○ High fatalities linked to slow rescue response; first responders struggle to access dense crowds.
   ○ Lack of timely medical aid and control measures worsens casualties.

3. Context of Recent Incidents
   ○ Karur rally (2023), New Delhi Railway Station (2023), and earlier Kumbh stampedes highlight recurring risks.
   ○ NCRB data: ~4,000 stampede events in 30 years, with 300+ deaths in 2022 alone.

4. High Fatalities Linked to Human Behaviour
   ○ Panic spreads rapidly via non-verbal cues, creating ripple effects in dense crowds.
   ○ Larger gatherings magnify panic, causing compression, suffocation, and impaired breathing.

5. Systemic Gaps in Planning and Safety
   ○ No institutionalized safety norms, weak enforcement, and lack of simulation drills.
   ○ Political negligence and absence of global best practices worsen vulnerability.

Author’s Stance

● Analytical and critical of systemic failures in managing large crowds.
● Argues stampedes are preventable, stemming more from governance failures than fate.
● Cautionary tone: neglect of crowd science and safety costs lives repeatedly.

Possible Biases

● Critical bias against authorities – overemphasis on government and organizers’ negligence, underplays unpredictability of panic.
● Urban-centric lens – focus on NCRB and international comparisons, less on rural contexts.
● Data framing bias – fatalities highlighted more than successful examples of crowd control in India.

Pros

● Raises awareness of systemic crowd management failures.
● Uses NCRB and global data (Germany, South Korea) for perspective.
● Highlights human psychology’s role in stampedes.
● Identifies policy gaps and accountability failures in event management.

Cons

● Underplays unpredictability of panic in extreme crowd density.
● Limited focus on infrastructural constraints in developing regions.
● Weak discussion on responsibility-sharing between state, organizers, and public.
● Solutions remain more implied than explicitly detailed.

Policy Implications

1. GS Paper II (Governance):
○ Ensure accountability of local administrations and event organizers.
○ Enforce safety standards at mass gatherings.

2. GS Paper III (Disaster Management):
○ Integrate crowd science into NDMA guidelines.
○ Develop SOPs for crowd management and stampede prevention.

3. GS Paper IV (Ethics):
○ Ethical duty of leaders to prioritise safety over political/religious optics.
○ Responsibility-sharing between institutions and event stakeholders.

Real-World Impact

● Public confidence – repeated stampedes reduce trust in safety of large gatherings.
● Social cost – women, children, and elderly disproportionately affected.
● Urban planning weakness – poor emergency response highlights systemic inefficiency.
● Global image – inability to manage large crowds hurts India’s reputation during festivals/events.

Balanced Summary

Stampedes in India are largely man-made tragedies, not natural disasters. With thousands of incidents reported by NCRB, the problem stems from poor planning, political negligence, and inadequate emergency systems. Panic in dense gatherings is predictable and manageable, yet governance repeatedly fails to institutionalize preventive measures—making stampedes recurring and deadly.

Future Perspectives

● Institutionalize SOPs for crowd management at festivals, rallies, and religious gatherings.
● Train first responders and use modern tools like drones, AI surveillance, and simulation tech.
● Public safety campaigns to educate citizens on safe behaviour in crowded spaces.
● Legal accountability for organizers failing to ensure safety.
● Incorporate crowd science into disaster management to prevent tragedies like Karur or Hathras.