Darkness inside the pandal: Eyewitness raises serious questions about crowd management

Amid the festivities, tragedy has cast a shadow over Durga Puja. The stampede at Chorbagan Sarbojanin in North Kolkata has reportedly claimed 19 lives so far. In the aftermath of the incident, questions have been raised about crowd management, lighting inside the pandal and the safety of visitors.

On Saptami evening, 26-year-old Rianka Roy, a resident of Barrackpore, visited the Chorbagan pandal with her friends to offer prayers and see the Durga idol. They had left the pandal shortly before the accident. Although she did not witness the tragedy itself, she had a close view of the crowd pressure inside the pandal and the conditions as visitors made their way out.

Speaking to an Inscript representative about her experience, Rianka levelled several allegations concerning the organisers' arrangements for crowd management.

Rianka said she had visited the pandal with five friends. Despite entering through the VIP queue, they had to wait for nearly two hours. According to her, pushing and shoving had begun even before they entered the pandal. The pressure of the crowd eventually separated the friends, forcing them to stay in touch over the phone as they tried to navigate the situation.

Rianka alleged that VIP visitors and members of the general public were being funnelled through the same entrance. Based on her previous visits, she said, the pandal usually had multiple entry points open to visitors. She questioned why the other gates had been kept closed this time.

Describing the conditions inside the pandal, Rianka said, "It was so dark inside that we could not even see the people standing next to us clearly. After standing in the crowd for a long time, I began feeling unwell because of the heat."

She alleged that even when visitors tried to pause briefly to rest or get some air, volunteers would ask them to move along. She believes the conditions could have made the experience particularly difficult for elderly visitors and children. She also claimed that she did not see enough police personnel to manage the crowd and questioned whether the volunteers had received adequate crowd-control training.

Rianka further alleged that, despite the apparent risk of overcrowding, visitors were repeatedly warned against running inside the pandal instead of being provided with effective crowd-management measures.

According to her, announcements were made over the public-address system stating that the organisers could not be held responsible if anyone was trampled in a stampede. In her view, such warnings should have been accompanied by effective measures to control the crowd.

She claimed that people waiting in the queue were not allowed to move forward together but were released in small groups. Consequently, after waiting for long periods, visitors would suddenly find an opportunity to move ahead, triggering a rush within the crowd.

Rianka said a police officer eventually instructed them to leave through a passage at the rear as the crowd continued to build up towards the front. The friends followed the route and managed to exit the pandal.

After coming out, they ordered tea at a nearby tea stall. It began raining shortly afterwards. According to Rianka, they heard about the tragedy before their tea was served. They had, therefore, escaped what could have been a potentially dangerous situation by just a few minutes.

Rianka believes the rain may have further aggravated the situation, as visitors might have tried to seek shelter to avoid getting wet. However, she cautioned against attributing the tragedy solely to the rainfall.

Even after leaving the pandal, escaping the crowds was not easy, she claimed. According to Rianka, several major roads in the surrounding area had been blocked with barricades, directing visitors through a particular narrow lane. Pushing and shoving were also taking place along this route, she said.

She alleged that there were not enough volunteers along the passage to manage the situation effectively. In her assessment, crowd-control arrangements were inadequate throughout the entire process, from entering the pandal to exiting the surrounding area.

Rianka also questioned why the crowd had been allowed to build up inside the pandal. She alleged that visitors were being held back for long periods and permitted to move forward only in small groups.

She speculated that the arrangements might have been designed, at least in part, to create visually impressive images of the crowds for publicity. Referring to the presence of the media during award ceremonies and the photographing of the crowds, she raised questions about whether such considerations had influenced the management of visitors. These remain her allegations and have not been independently established.

Rianka had also visited other North Kolkata pujas, including Ahiritola and Kashi Bose Lane, on the same day. Although visitors had to navigate narrow lanes at these pandals as well, she said, the crowds were kept moving continuously. She believes that Chorbagan lacked a similar system.

In all her years of visiting Durga Puja pandals, Rianka said, she had never encountered a situation quite like this. The darkness inside the pandal, the prolonged waiting, and the sense of insecurity caused by the pressure of the crowd left her frightened.

Rianka narrowly escaped the Chorbagan tragedy. Her account raises several important questions: Why were adequate precautions not taken despite the likelihood of heavy crowds? How were the entry and exit routes planned? Was there sufficient lighting inside the pandal? Were adequate safety measures in place? And how effective were the roles played by the police and volunteers?

Will these questions raised by Rianka be answered?

Her experience has brought renewed attention to the urgent need for effective crowd management, clearly designated emergency exits, and adequate safety measures at large public gatherings such as Durga Puja. Ensuring the safety of visitors must remain a priority, regardless of the scale of the celebrations.