Is the Uttar Pradesh government shielding the founder of the ashram where a stampede left 63 dead and 64 injured on Thursday?
The Allahabad divisional commissioner's preliminary report, submitted to the state government on Saturday, was a clear indicator in that very direction. Even as Ajay Kumar Upadhaya, the divisional commissioner, has indicted the management of the spiritual ashram for the disaster, he has reportedly kept the ashram founder Kripaluji Maharaj out of the controversy.
Similarly, he also does not see any prima facie neglect or negligence on the part of the local police of administrative officials at all.
In his preliminary report submitted to the state government, the commissioner said the ashram administration not only failed to assess the extent of the crowd that actually converged at the venue , but also did not care to put up basic things, like a public address system .
UP principal home secretary Fateh Bahadur told a hurriedly convened press conference on Saturday, "The ashram trust manager, Hrinmay Chatterjee, did inform Pratapgarh additional superintendent of police about the March 4 event, but he sought deployment of just about 10-15 policemen, who proved to short of the actual requirement as the ashram had made arrangement for hosting the proposed feast for at least 10,000 people."
He said, "While the ashram authorities had mentioned 12 noon as the time for commencement of the programme, the crowd started pouring in at the venue from 9.30am itself, and became unmanageable by noon when the entry gate crashed, triggering a stampede that took 63 lives and left 64 injured."
What the ashram authorites as well as the local police overlooked was that the magnificent ashram founded and run by popular Godman Kripaluji Maharaj is spread across a sprawling 6-acre area in Mangarh village near Kunda town of Pratapgarh district, about 160 km from Lucknow, was used to drawing huge crowds on the day of the annual feast, that was held to mark the death anniversary of the founder's wife.
However, while avoiding any indictment of local police or government officials, the principal home secretary went on to further pass the buck to the ashram management for failing to put up a public address system.
"Had they bothered to install a public address system, the tragedy could have been minimised," he pointed out.
Asked why the local administration and cops had been absolved of any responsibility, he claimed, "Well, we have no intention to save anybody's skin. What we have so far was only the preliminary report ; once the final report of the commissioner was ready, the picture would become clearer and perhaps bring out more facts to light."
When his attention was drawn to the fact that the ashram founder enjoyed the partronage of a number of politicians and influential bureaucrats , he sought to assure, "No one would be allowed to go scot-free in case his was found to be even remotely responsible for the tragedy."
