The State must ensure safe mobility options
Sixteen labourers died and five others were hurt after a truck in which they were travelling overturned in Maharashtra’s Jalgaon district on Sunday. On the same day, in another road mishap, 14 people were killed and four others injured after a minibus collided with a truck in Andhra Pradesh’s Kurnool district. These two accidents are a stark reminder that India’s roads have become death traps. Last week, Union transport minister Nitin Gadkari acknowledged the dire situation, and said that India’s road accident scenario is more “dangerous than the Covid-19 pandemic”.
According to a just-released World Bank report, Traffic Crash Injuries And Disabilities: The Burden on Indian Society, despite having only 1% of the world’s vehicles, India accounts for the highest number of road accidents globally, killing 150,000 people and leaving more than 450,000 with disabilities every year. The poor suffer the most. More than 75% of poor households reported a decline in their income due to a road mishap. Low-income households (LIHS) reported twice the numbers of deaths post-crash vis-à-vis high-income households, while victims from LIHS and rural areas are also twice more likely to suffer a disability after a crash than high-income households.
The State must provide safe mobility options and better roads; regularly conduct road safety audits; overhaul the accident response systems; scrutinise detailed project reports on road construction; conduct fitness checks of on-road vehicles; and push auto manufacturers to ensure better safety features. But first, India must accept that the accidents on its roads now constitute a serious public health crisis.
isha Ravi, a 22-year old Bengaluru-based environmental activist, has been accused of sedition, promoting religious enmity and engaging in criminal conspiracy, among other offences. After the Delhi Police detained her in Bengaluru on Saturday, and formally arrested her the next day, a Delhi magistrate has remanded her to a five-day police custody. The principal basis for the allegations against Ms Ravi is that she was involved in framing and editing a “toolkit”, which outlined measures to protest against farm laws; that she provided activist Greta Thunberg the “toolkit”; that the violence on January 26 copied the “action plan” in the toolkit; and this also had the involvement of Khalistani groups.
Ms Ravi’s arrest throws up three issues. The first is the role of the State. The government has decided to politically invest in a narrative of a global foreign conspiracy against India, of which the “toolkit” is evidence. But the evidence to suggest such a conspiracy is limited. Despite its objectionable characterisation of the Indian State in parts, did the “toolkit” — a common technique in both political and civil society campaigns now — really lead to the violence on January 26? Is there direct evidence? At a time when India is facing criticism for growing illiberalism, is arresting young activists the most ethical or prudent course of action? How does it sync with India’s constitutional guarantees on free speech and political activity?
The second is the role of the judiciary. The metropolitan magistrate’s decision to remand Ms Ravi to custody, without her private counsel being present, without questions about the process of her arrest, and without adequate scrutiny of the charges and evidence, does not reflect well. Courts must treat cases involving personal liberty with more rigour, rather than casually send people to jail when bail should be the norm. And finally, there is the role of activists themselves. Dissent is indeed a right, and taking up positions — even if they are logically inconsistent (how environmental activists stand in support of the ecologically unsustainable practices of Punjab’s farmers is a mystery) — is also a right. But often, activists end up getting used in larger political games. The fact that pro-khalistan groups are actively seeking to leverage the current farm protests is not a secret, which makes it even more important for civil society to maintain its distinct identity and position on the issue.