At Least 121 People Killed in Uttar Pradesh Stampede

Were Crowd Control Measures Used and Proper Planning Executed?

Newsreel Asia Insight #270
July 3, 2024

Emerging details from media reports suggest several failings by local authorities and the police in preventing the tragedy of the stampede in Uttar Pradesh’s Hathras district, where at least 121 people, mostly women and children, had died as of July 3.

The stampede occurred on July 2 at a satsang (prayer meeting), organised by a godman, Bhole Baba aka Narayan Saakar Hari, in Phulrai village, as attendees were leaving the venue due to overcrowding, according to NDTV.

India Today reported that an estimated 250,000 people attended the satsang.

“Right after the satsang finished, several people started coming out from there. A stampede took place as the road was uneven and people fell on each other...,” ANI quoted Shakuntala Devi, a witness, as saying.

“There are almost 100-200 casualties and there was only one doctor at the hospital. There was no facility for oxygen. Some are still breathing but there are no proper treatment facilities,” The Hindu quoted a youngster as saying.

The FIR states, as reported by NDTV, that people sitting on the ground were trampled due to the massive crowd exiting the venue. Nearby, as the crowd moved through muddy fields, the event organisers tried to stop them using sticks, which increased the crowd’s pressure, causing more women, children and men to be crushed.

While the formal police complaint appears to focus entirely on the organisers of the satsang, the local administration appears to have underestimated the number of attendees or the potential risks involved in managing large crowds at the satsang.

Local authorities should have been able to anticipate the need for effective crowd control measures and proper planning to ensure the safety of the people.

The situation was worsened by the insufficient medical services available. Reports of only one doctor being available at the hospital and a lack of necessary medical facilities like oxygen indicate a severe lack of preparedness.

The description of a road built high over a drain, where people fell atop each other, points to possible infrastructure issues that were not appropriately addressed despite the anticipation of large crowds.

There also appears to have been a lack of coordination between the event organisers and local authorities regarding security and crowd management inside the venue. While the district magistrate noted that the local administration was responsible for security outside the venue, as reported by The Hindu, the internal management was seemingly left entirely to the organisers. This division of responsibility might have led to gaps in managing the overall safety of the attendees.

The granting of permission for the event by the sub-divisional magistrate without ensuring adequate safety measures and preparedness for potential emergencies raises questions about the thoroughness of the regulatory oversight.