Death of Shri Rohit

May 2011.

Master Rohit, son of Shri Bankeylal, died from a fall at the SBRA extension construction site in the Indian Institute of Technology Kanpur campus on 18th May, 2011 at around 11.30 am. There was a brief official communiqué from the Director’s office at around 4.30 pm on the same day (Appendix I). A team from Hamara Manch consisting of workers, students, faculty and community members then talked to various persons who had some knowledge of the accident or about the victim and have pieced this report together. The team talked to coworkers who were present and took him to the hospital, other coworkers, site supervisors, residents of the same locality as Rohit, and his family members. We are withholding the specificities of the individuals concerned to protect their identity.

Unfortunately, the death was followed in quick succession by another death. The otherwise unresponsive institute, chose to unofficially counter allegations by Hamara Manch -- we still do not comprehend why an institute official engaging in official communication with the Alumni needs to set up an alternate website away from IITK website to present his views on the incident. More detailed communication took place around second death, and its details can be found on the relevant page, however a critique by the institute of the Hamara Manch report on Shri Rohit and our response to the same is referenced below:

In the aftermath of these events, institute also constituted official committees to look into the same. There are two official committees which looked into the same:

It is particularly intriguing that the latter committee contradicts several findings of the former committee (for example it finds the workers were using safety harnesses, while the former report explicitly concludes otherwise). It paint the incidents as "pure and simple cases of accidents, in which no negligence or responsibility could be attributed to either the Contractors or the workers" and concludes that "such accidents though unfortunate, do take place sometime at construction sites".

The administration refused to share with us the remaining twenty-eight pages of the report because it apparently contains "sensitive" testimonies. As presented, the report seems as a shoddy piece of work, demonstrating no attempt at understanding the incident and merely hastening to reach preconceived conclusions.