Accidents and Aftermath

Country continues horrific desensitisation to cylinder explosions in vehicles, homes, hotels, offices and businesses

On Sunday July 9th, 2023, an explosion at a hotel in Jhelum led to the loss of precious lives and destruction of property.

Early reports indicate that seven people have been killed and perhaps a dozen or more injured, and some were still trapped under the debris when the news broke.

The loss of life is absolutely tragic and unfortunate.

The sad part is that most likely this will be news for a day or so, and then we will move on.

Reports such as these are increasingly becoming the norm.

A quick scan of newspapers in the last few weeks suggests that cylinder explosions in vehicles, homes, hotels, offices and businesses are frequent and not at all unusual.

But these should not be business as usual, or the status quo.

While remembering that this was not a natural disaster, let us examine a few possible scenarios and analyse how this affects the larger society.

The first scenario is that the cylinder was faulty.

If so, we should ask was this the only cylinder from the manufacturer that was installed in the entire city, or elsewhere in the country? How do we know there are no other cylinders that have the same fault? And if the cylinder had a fault, why was it not checked before being sold? Scenario two is that the cylinder was fine, but it was not installed properly.

In that case, how do we know that the installing company did not install other good cylinders, in other buildings, in the same way that would lead to other tragedies? Why are we not enforcing quality control standards in installing equipment to ensure safety of life and property? Scenario three is that the cylinder was fine, and so was the installation process, but a small explosion led to the collapse of the building because of building codes not properly enforced and adhered to, or that the building was not of sound material and an explosion resulted in significant damage.

In that case, one can — and should — ask the same question about why was that allowed in the first place? Are there other buildings that are just as vulnerable? Other lives that are just at risk? I am sure we can find many other possible and likely scenarios, and in reality it may be that more than one scenario was at play.

But why are we ok with that? Why is there no system level correction? Why do we not ask for a higher level of rigour, care and safety from the state and its institutions? We have reached a point where expecting any basic service from the state is considered naïve or silly.

If we are to ask why we don’t have safety standards that are enforced, we are likely to get bizarre looks suggesting that we are out of touch with the actual reality, and as if expecting the bare minimum is asking for the moon and some more.

We are fine with accepting that the state is not going to provide good education, quality healthcare or enforce basic standards of quality control in goods and services.

We are OK with the fact that a generation ago most people were fine going to public educational institutions (myself and my family included).

Today, my friends and family would not even think for a second to send their children to public schools and would pay a significant portion of their salary for education.

Healthcare fares no differently.

I have always maintained that Abdul Sattar and Bilqis Edhi were extraordinary people.

But they were doing what the state ought to be doing.

We should find inspiration in their actions, but the state should be ashamed that it abdicated its basic responsibility to others.

This has nothing to do with politics, since every government, for as long as I can remember, has been fine abdicating its responsibility.

At some points, we must ask: where does it end? What are the rights of the citizens, and what is the contract of the state?