Context:

The recent stampede at the Venkateswara Swamy Temple in Kasibugga, Andhra Pradesh, once again exposed the fragility of India’s crowd management systems. Nine lives, including those of two children, were lost when a railing collapsed during Ekadashi rush. This is the third such tragedy in the state this year, underlining the broader national pattern. India witnesses frequent crush incidents across temples, railway stations, festivals, sporting events, and political gatherings, with close to 100 deaths already reported in 2025.

A Pattern of Repeated Tragedies:

India has witnessed several stampedes in 2025 alone:

• • Kasibugga Temple (November 2025): Overflow of over 25,000 devotees at a temple meant to handle far fewer. A broken railing triggered the collapse.
  • Tirupati (January 2025): Six deaths during the rush for special darshan tickets.
  • Bengaluru RCB Parade (June 2025): Rumours of free passes and confusion over parade permissions led to heavy crowding and multiple deaths.
  • Goa’s Shirgaon Yatra (May 2025): Unregulated crowds at a village religious procession resulted in fatalities.
  • Kumbh-linked Railway Stampedes (February 2025, January 2025): Over 40 people lost their lives in separate incidents linked to inadequate crowd control at the New Delhi Railway Station and Sangam ghat in Prayagraj.

Why India is Highly Susceptible?

1. Weak Administrative Accountability: Event venues routinely exceed safe capacity limits. Permissions are often granted without inspecting infrastructure, and private organisers frequently bypass mandatory approvals. After the Kasibugga tragedy, officials blamed each other instead of accepting responsibility.

2. Poor Planning and Coordination: Crowd safety depends on a tight partnership between local authorities, police, and organisers. But in most cases, coordination breaks down. Decision-making is slow, responsibilities are unclear, and evacuation plans remain missing or outdated.

3. Low Use of Technology: While NDMA recommends real-time surveillance, many events still rely on manual monitoring. The absence of drones, AI-based crowd density tools, or sensor-enabled alerts means authorities cannot intervene when density crosses dangerous thresholds.

4. Societal Behaviour and Crowding Culture: Public spaces in India already operate at high density. People are accustomed to tightly packed queues, pushing, and spontaneous surges. This makes it harder to sense early warning signs. According to crowd behaviour researchers, individuals rely heavily on non-verbal cues; by the time discomfort spreads, it is often too late.

5. Growth in Pilgrimage Tourism: Higher incomes and more connectivity have increased pilgrim numbers significantly. However, infrastructure at many temples and religious gatherings has not expanded at the same pace.

6. Delayed Emergency Response: Police forces and event volunteers are often inadequately trained in handling human behaviour under stress. Once panic spreads, miscommunication worsens the situation.

Science Behind Crowd Disasters:

Crowd disasters occur not because people “run” but because bodies get compressed. When density reaches 6–7 persons per square metre, individuals lose control of their movement. At 8–10 persons per square metre, chest expansion becomes impossible, triggering compressive asphyxia. Many victims die standing upright.

Research shows:

• • Narrow passages contribute to 27% of deaths.
  • Overcrowding causes 23% of fatalities and 35% of injuries.
  • A single fall can trigger a domino effect.
  • Rumours or sudden blockages escalate panic rapidly.

This scientific understanding highlights why proper design and forecasting are crucial.

Failures in Policy Implementation:

• • Inadequate Risk Assessments: NDMA mandates Hazard, Risk and Vulnerability Analysis (HRVA) before major gatherings. Yet many organisers skip it. Prior warnings of overcrowding are often ignored.
    • Example: 2013 Ratangarh Temple stampede, where 115 people died after a railing collapse.
  • Poor Exit and Pathway Design: Many venues have narrow entry/exit points, blocked corridors, weak railings, and poor lighting. These design flaws worsen panic during surges.
    • Example: 2005 Mandhradevi Temple stampede, aggravated by a narrow staircase.
  • Little Real-Time Surveillance: Major gatherings still lack CCTV networks, monitoring rooms, and AI crowd analytics.
    • Example: 2022 Vaishno Devi shrine stampede, where absence of real-time tracking contributed to loss of control.
  • Weak Inter-Agency Coordination: Multiple agencies give conflicting instructions.
    • Example: 2015 Godavari Pushkaralu stampede, where poor traffic and crowd control heightened chaos.
  • No Unified Command Structure: Different departments work in silos. During surges, this creates confusion about who leads rescue and evacuation.
  • Limited Regulation of Spontaneous Crowds: Events at railway stations, village gatherings, or local festivals often arise without formal approvals. Authorities respond reactively rather than proactively.

Existing Positives: Where Policy Works:

1. Multi-Agency Coordination: Well-organised events like the 2019 Kumbh Mela in Prayagraj showed what integrated management can achieve, with police, health teams and disaster forces working jointly.

2. Scientific Forecasting Models: Use of HRVA and Failure Mode and Effect Analysis (FMEA) helps map risk zones and predict choke points.

Example: Jagannath Rath Yatra, where planners use predictive modelling to manage peak footfall.

3. Technology-Driven Controls: Drone surveillance, geo-tagging, and AI crowd maps were used effectively at the 2021 Kumbh.

4. Improved Evacuation Protocols: Some festivals now use holding areas, staggered timings, and designated corridors to regulate movement.

Example: Thrissur Pooram uses controlled entry-exit points and diversion routes.

5. Public Awareness Initiatives: Temple administrations like Tirupati Balaji conduct regular drills and inform devotees on safe movement and queuing practices.

What Needs Urgent Fixing:

1. Make Pre-Event Risk Assessment Mandatory: HRVA (Hazard, Risk, and Vulnerability Analysis) and FMEA (Failure Mode and Effects Analysis) should be compulsory for all gatherings above a defined threshold. Permissions must be tied to compliance.

2. Adopt AI and Real-Time Monitoring: AI-based density analytics, drones, and sensor-heavy surveillance must become standard practice. Alerts should be issued when density crosses 5 persons/m².

3. Strengthen Legal Accountability: Criminal charges alone are insufficient. Civil damages, liability insurance, and penalty frameworks should hold organisers, administrators, and private temple boards accountable.

4. Improve Infrastructure Design:  Wider exits, emergency corridors, strong railings, clear signage, and unobstructed pathways must be made mandatory.

5. Unified Command System: An integrated control room connecting police, surveillance teams, health units, and local administration must operate during major events.

6. Professional Training: Crowd management training should be mandatory for police, volunteers, and event staff. Training must include crowd psychology, communication skills, and evacuation drills.

7. Regulate Private Religious Establishments: The Kasibugga incident revealed that private temples often bypass safety permissions. A strict permit-based system is necessary.

8. Use Predictive Technology: Quantum AI-based simulations, congestion prediction, and evacuation modelling can drastically improve planning.

Way Forward:

India’s frequent stampedes are not “accidents”; they are preventable failures rooted in weak planning and lapses in accountability. The science of crowd behaviour is well-established, and global standards demonstrate that tragedies need not recur if authorities learn from past mistakes. Going forward, India must shift from voluntary guidelines to legally binding safety standards. Crowd safety must be recognised as a multidisciplinary responsibility that integrates engineering, behavioural science, administration, and real-time monitoring.