For a tragedy that strikes with such regularity in India, borewell rescues of children have yet to address the vast amount of time spent in employing previously untested methods, otherwise known as robotic devices. Each time a child slips and falls into an open borewell, fire and rescue personnel nearest to the spot are dispatched, the issue escalated to the State Disaster Response Force (SDRF), then the National Disaster Response Force (NDRF), until a parallel hole is drilled some distance away to tunnel through to the child. And nearly every time, rescue operations press pause and devices developed by private individuals are specifically requested, owing to their ‘technological superiority’.
In the latest case of two-year-old Sujith Wilson, who died after a four-day battle in a borewell in Tamil Nadu’s Trichy district, nearly a dozen experts with varying levels of expertise were called in. Manikandan from Madurai, Daniel from Trichy, Sridhar from Coimbatore, Rouban Kumar from Manapparai, Venkatesh from Namakkal, Senthil from Chennai and Veeramani from Pudukkottai, arrived over the weekend to aid in the rescue operations. According to government officials present at the site, the robotic devices brought by these experts allowed for ropes or robotic arms to be lowered and tightened around the wrist of the child. This was intended to pull him out. However, this failed since the narrow space meant the machine couldn’t reach deep down. These efforts were further complicated by hard terrain, a moist borewell interior, and eroding soil falling on the child.
This isn't the first time. In August 2014, when a child was stuck in a borewell in Bagalkot in Karnataka a private expert and his robot was called in. The contraption just ended up dumping some more mud into the bore well.
With an unenviably low record of these devices having worked successfully on real missions to rescue children lodged deep in borewells, it is worth asking if time should be spent in testing the efficacy of robotic devices when a life is at stake? Should they not be employed after sufficient research testifies them as fail-safe?
Speaking to TNM, Shantha Sinha, former chairperson of the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) says, “If it is a well-designed method and has a proven track record, then there is no problem. It's worth trying since it would be better than digging. However, if it is on an experimental basis, these robotic devices should be tried out on inanimate objects, not children. Rescue is always a knee-jerk reaction even though that's not what we expect. So it could be impulsive during contingencies and so it must be tested on inanimate objects first.” The activist and social worker also underlines the importance of preventing such situations in the first place.
Speaking on condition of anonymity, one private borewell expert, who was also at the site of Sujith’s rescue, told TNM that a technical certification is a must for these devices to be deployed in dangerous situations. “We will obviously go when the government calls us for help, but not all robotic devices function at the same level of efficiency for every situation. There is no one most effective method. Devices like robotic arms are only able to hold the child by its arms; they cannot securely retrieve the child from depths of 30- 50 feet. When such untested devices are used, it complicates the rescue efforts either by throwing soil at the existing depth on the child or dislodging side soil, sending the child further down,” says the expert.
In addition to technical certification, the expert calls for independent scientific evaluations of each of these devices by reputed academic institutions in the country. “The priority should be to use the best method to rescue the child. It should not become a free-for-all where every person claiming to have invented a device is given a chance to try. Time is of the essence in such situations,” points out the expert.
While innovative technology to address borewell rescues is no doubt welcome, with the lives of children at stake, the success rate of these devices should also be made publicly available. TNM has previously investigated claims that these robotic devices have successfully retrieved children. Barring the rescue of a three-year-old in Sankarankovil, Tirunelveli in 2014, these devices have not yielded results. Rescue teams have had to rely on parallel holes or borewells.
When asked if the government was aware of any specific instances where the robotic devices had worked in the past, Principal Secretary J Radhakrishnan who was overseeing Sujith’s rescue efforts said, “They have been successful in the past. There are two SOPs— one is a technique where the walls [of the borewell] are weaker and you can clamp the body. This is successful when the hole is wider. But that was not the case here.”
However, with the diameter of the borewell in Sujith’s case being four inches, this was a simple fact that ought to have ruled out the pursuit of uncertain rescue measures. Since most state governments, including Tamil Nadu, are eager to call in these robotic devices each time, why can't they invest money to conduct research, develop and improve these machines?