 |
Indian protestors sit
behind lighted candles during a protest in New Delhi on December 29,
2012. after the death of a gangrape victim from the Indian capital. AFP
he Delhi-based victim of the 16 December gang rape in a moving bus
was "shifted to Singapore when it was already clear that she would not
survive the next 48 hours," a senior official connected with logistics
claimed. He added that "soon after the protests, Delhi Chief Minister
Sheila Dikshit wanted the victim to be transferred to a better hospital
than Safdarjung" (most likely Medanta in Gurgaon). According to him,
this request by the CM was rejected as "those in the decision-making
loop (presumably the Prime Minister and the Home Minister) were worried
that secrecy would no longer be maintained were the victim to be
transferred from the government-run Safdarjung Hospital to Medanta".
According to the official, who is unwilling to reveal his identity,
there was considerable disquiet among a section of the medical staff
about the late-night decision on 27 December to transfer the battered
girl out of the country, in view of the trauma and strain that a such a
major shift would entail. His claim is that the decision (to shift the
patient to Singapore) was taken because "those at the top felt that
public reaction would be less severe, were her death to occur out of the
country". A question that is likely never to be satisfactorily answered
is whether the cardiac arrest the victim suffered — and which resulted
in irreversible brain damage — was exacerbated by the shift, or would
have resulted in her death anyway. The Prime Minister's Office and the
Ministry of Home Affairs both claim that the decision to shift the
victim to Singapore was taken solely "according to the wishes of the
doctors attending on her" at Safdarjung Hospital. They portray the move
to Singapore as proof that the Manmohan Singh government "left no stone
unturned to try and save the life of the girl", and deny that her health
situation was "already hopeless" when the decision was taken to move
her out of the country.
The official agreed that the hospital in question in the city-state
had much better facilities for an organ transplant than Safdarjung
Hospital, but pointed out that "the time for such a measure would come
only after her overall vital parameters stabilised", and that this could
have been done in either Safdarjung Hospital or at Medanta. He claimed
that the decision to shift the patient to Singapore was seen by some
medical staff as a "desperate move by a government nervous at the
reaction to the possible death of the victim in a government hospital"
rather than a genuine effort at saving a precious life. "All that the
government wants is to somehow manage the perception situation till the
public cools down," before going back to business as usual. He adds that
"intelligence agencies have recorded that the routine measures
announced after the rape, such as the appointment of a commission headed
by a retired judge, has done nothing to dampen public anger at the bad
policing which is at the heart of the law and order crisis in Delhi". It
remains to be seen whether the death of the victim abroad rather than
at home will ensure that public anger gets dampened. Given the country's
justice system, a legal expert said that "fast-tracking the trial of
the six accused will be almost impossible, for they each have a
constitutional right to appeal to higher courts, besides the obvious
fact that one of only two witnesses to the crime (both victims) is now
dead and unable to testify". Others point to the allegedly "slipshod and
dilatory way in which crucial evidence was gathered in the case",
including not preventing the possible destruction of evidence caused by
subsequently cleaning the bus in which the rape and murder took place,
as evidence. However, the Delhi Police point out that all six culprits
were identified and apprehended within hours, as proof of their
performance.
Unless a public hearing takes place, which involve all those who
handled the situation after the criminal act was committed, including
the policepersons, doctors and others at the crime scene and by the
hospital bed of the victim, it may be impossible to know if the Manmohan
Singh government is being truthful in its repeated claims that the
23-year-old victim was shifted from Delhi to Singapore not so that her
death would take place on foreign soil but solely with a view towards
saving her life. Doctors of high reputation and integrity — both from
Safdarjung Hospital and Medanta — are involved in the case, and it is
unlikely that they would jeopardise their careers and their reputations
by revealing anything other than the truth. A full and public enquiry is
the only way forward in such a sensitive matter, rather than — as usual
— a small group coming to conclusions in seclusion. The question
needing to be answered is: Was the victim already beyond hope when the
decision was made to shift her to Singapore? Also, if not, what was the
advantage of the other country when it came to the immediate question of
stabilizing the condition of the patient, when world-class facilities
exist within the National Capital Region itself for that very purpose?
The official who claims that the victim was shifted to divert
responsibility rather than to seek to save her life says that "all those
involved in this cynical exercise know the truth, including diplomats
involved". However, this view is controverted by those claiming that the
government did all that was humanely possible to save a precious and
innocent life, reportedly including spending a total of Rs 6 crores on
transfer to Singapore and treatment there. An official involved in some
of the decisions asked why, "if the family of the girl is satisfied
(with what the government has done), why should others point fingers?"
Whatever be the reactions of the victim's family, the incident is
generating many more questions than answers with each passing day.
|
No comments:
Post a Comment