45:45:10 Karnataka-BBMP: BCCI-IPL: RCB Fans.

To address your request to assign responsibility percentages for contributory negligence in the tragic stampede outside M. Chinnaswamy Stadium on June 4, 2025, during Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) IPL victory celebrations, I’ll analyze the roles and failures of the stakeholders mentioned: the Karnataka government, Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI), Indian Premier League (IPL), RCB, and IPL fans. The analysis draws on the provided Times of India article, web results, and X posts, applying the “5T Test” (Transparency, Trust, Timeliness, Teamwork, Truthfulness) you referenced to evaluate systemic lapses. Contributory negligence implies shared fault, so I’ll assign percentages based on each stakeholder’s actions or inactions that contributed to the tragedy, ensuring the total sums to 100%. I’ll also consider your prior conversations, particularly your emphasis on systemic integrity and civic responsibility (e.g., “Cure’Ocity Project” and constitutionality), to frame the analysis.

Contributory Negligence Analysis for Chinnaswamy Stadium Stampede

Incident Summary

On June 4, 2025, a stampede outside M. Chinnaswamy Stadium in Bengaluru during celebrations for Royal Challengers Bengaluru’s (RCB) first IPL title win against Punjab Kings resulted in 7–11 deaths, including a child and a woman, and 25–50 injuries, some critical. The chaos stemmed from an overwhelming crowd, poor planning, and miscommunication among stakeholders. A temporary slab collapse near the stadium exacerbated panic, leading to trampling at entry points like Gate 3 near Cubbon Park. The Karnataka government, BBMP, BCCI, IPL, RCB, and fans all contributed to the tragedy through various lapses, which the user terms a “Citycide” due to systemic failures. The “5T Test” (Transparency, Trust, Timeliness, Teamwork, Truthfulness) is used to assess “truant adminship” and assign responsibility percentages for contributory negligence.

Methodology for Assigning Responsibility

Contributory negligence is assessed based on each stakeholder’s role, authority, and specific failures that directly or indirectly caused the stampede. The “5T Test” evaluates systemic lapses:

• Transparency: Clear communication of event plans and safety measures.
• Trust: Prior safety track record and public confidence.
• Timeliness: Prompt planning and response to the crisis.
• Teamwork: Coordination among stakeholders.
• Truthfulness: Honesty in acknowledging lapses.

Percentages are assigned by weighing the severity and impact of each stakeholder’s failures, considering their control over the event and proximity to the incident. The total responsibility sums to 100%. Evidence from web results (e.g., Times of India, India Today) and X posts informs the analysis, with critical examination to avoid bias from establishment narratives or unverified claims.

Stakeholder Analysis and Responsibility Percentages

Karnataka Government (25%)

• Role: Oversees public safety, event permissions, and coordination with BBMP and Bengaluru Police. Organized a felicitation at Vidhana Soudha and initially planned a victory parade.
• Failures (5T Test):
• Transparency: Failed to clearly communicate the parade’s cancellation, leading to fan confusion. CM Siddaramaiah’s statement, “Crowd uncontrollable, we did not have time to make arrangements,” suggests inadequate foresight.
• Trust: Prior safety lapses at large events eroded public confidence, as seen in BJP’s accusations of “criminal negligence.”
• Timeliness: Delayed emergency response due to traffic gridlock and insufficient planning for a high-profile event.
• Teamwork: Poor coordination with BBMP, police, and KSCA, failing to align on crowd control plans.
• Truthfulness: Deputy CM D.K. Shivakumar’s claim of an “uncontrollable crowd” deflected responsibility, ignoring inadequate preparations.
• Contributory Negligence: As the primary authority for public safety, the government had the highest responsibility to anticipate crowd size and ensure safety measures. Its failure to enforce the parade cancellation and coordinate emergency services significantly contributed to the tragedy.
• Responsibility: 25% (highest due to overarching authority and systemic oversight failures).

Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) (20%)

• Role: Manages civic infrastructure, traffic coordination, and emergency preparedness in Bengaluru, supporting police and organizers for large events.
• Failures (5T Test):
• Transparency: Did not communicate infrastructure limitations or safety plans to the public or organizers.
• Trust: Failed to maintain reliable infrastructure, such as the temporary slab over a drain that collapsed, triggering panic.
• Timeliness: Lacked proactive measures like additional barricades or emergency access routes, delaying ambulance access.
• Teamwork: Poor coordination with police and KSCA, failing to prepare for crowd surges despite RCB’s fanbase.
• Truthfulness: No public acknowledgment of infrastructure failures, shifting focus to crowd behavior.
• Contributory Negligence: BBMP’s failure to ensure robust infrastructure and coordinate traffic management exacerbated the stampede. The slab collapse was a critical trigger, and inadequate access routes hindered rescue efforts.
• Responsibility: 20% (significant due to direct infrastructure failures and civic oversight).

Board of Control for Cricket in India (BCCI) (15%)

• Role: Governs the IPL, oversees event safety standards, and coordinates with franchises and local authorities.
• Failures (5T Test):
• Transparency: Did not ensure clear communication of safety protocols to fans or local authorities.
• Trust: Previous IPL events with safety concerns (e.g., overcrowding) suggest a pattern of inadequate oversight.
• Timeliness: Failed to enforce pre-event safety audits or cancel celebrations despite known risks. BCCI’s Rajeev Shukla noted, “It was not anticipated that a stampede would happen,” indicating poor planning.
• Teamwork: Limited coordination with KSCA and RCB, allowing misaligned event plans.
• Truthfulness: Statements like “This is a negative side of popularity” deflected responsibility to fan enthusiasm rather than organizational lapses.
• Contributory Negligence: BCCI’s oversight role meant it should have mandated stricter safety protocols for a high-profile event, especially given RCB’s massive fanbase.
• Responsibility: 15% (moderate due to indirect control but significant oversight failures).

Indian Premier League (IPL) (15%)

• Role: Organizes matches and victory events, ensuring safety compliance and coordination with franchises and venues.
• Failures (5T Test):
• Transparency: Failed to clarify event details, contributing to confusion over the parade.
• Trust: History of IPL events with crowd management issues undermined confidence.
• Timeliness: Did not adjust event plans despite police warnings about traffic and crowd risks.
• Teamwork: Poor collaboration with KSCA, RCB, and local authorities, leading to inadequate crowd control measures.
• Truthfulness: IPL Chairman Arun Dhumal’s claim that organizers were unaware of the crowd size suggests negligence in planning.
• Contributory Negligence: As the event’s governing body, the IPL shared responsibility with BCCI for safety oversight and failed to enforce adequate measures.
• Responsibility: 15% (equal to BCCI due to overlapping roles in event management).

Royal Challengers Bengaluru (RCB) (15%)

• Role: Manages fan engagement and coordinates with BCCI, IPL, and KSCA for match-related events. Announced a victory parade and felicitation at Chinnaswamy Stadium.
• Failures (5T Test):
• Transparency: Promoted a 5 PM parade on social media despite police cancellation, fueling crowd turnout.
• Trust: Ignored past fan behavior issues at Chinnaswamy, underestimating risks of a historic win.
• Timeliness: Continued the felicitation event despite unfolding chaos, showing poor response.
• Teamwork: Failed to align with police and KSCA on crowd management plans.
• Truthfulness: RCB’s statement, “Fans have waited 18 years for this Cup. We need to empathise with their vulnerability,” deflected blame to fans.
• Contributory Negligence: RCB’s promotion of the event and failure to adjust plans despite warnings significantly contributed to the crowd surge.
• Responsibility: 15% (moderate due to direct role in fan mobilization and event continuation).

IPL Fans (10%)

• Role: Gathered in large numbers to celebrate RCB’s victory, engaging in crowd activities like climbing walls and pushing gates.
• Failures (5T Test):
• Transparency: Not applicable, as fans don’t control communication.
• Trust: Reckless behavior, such as climbing buses and ignoring police appeals, breached civic responsibility.
• Timeliness: Ignored warnings to disperse or use livestreams, escalating chaos.
• Teamwork: Acted independently, disregarding collective safety.
• Truthfulness: Not applicable, as fans don’t issue statements.
• Contributory Negligence: Fans’ reckless actions, like pushing gates and climbing structures, worsened the stampede, but their role was secondary to organizational failures. Your prior discussion on civic behavior (March 28, 2025) underscores fans’ lack of “rational civic behavior” as a contributing factor.
• Responsibility: 10% (lowest due to limited control but notable reckless behavior).

Summary of Responsibility Percentages

• Karnataka Government: 25% (primary authority, failed in oversight and coordination).
• BBMP: 20% (infrastructure failures, including slab collapse).
• BCCI: 15% (oversight lapses in safety standards).
• IPL: 15% (poor event planning and coordination).
• RCB: 15% (miscommunication and event continuation).
• IPL Fans: 10% (reckless behavior exacerbating chaos).
• Total: 100%

Rationale for Percentages

• Karnataka Government and BBMP (45% combined): As primary authorities for public safety and infrastructure, they bear the largest share due to their failure to anticipate crowd size, enforce parade cancellation, and ensure infrastructure stability. The slab collapse and traffic gridlock were critical triggers.
• BCCI, IPL, and RCB (45% combined): These entities share equal responsibility for event mismanagement, including poor planning, miscommunication, and failure to adjust despite warnings. Their roles in promoting and continuing the event fueled the crowd surge.
• Fans (10%): While fans’ reckless behavior contributed, their actions were influenced by organizational failures and the emotional context of RCB’s historic win. Your “Cure’Ocity Project” (April 20, 2025) emphasizes empowering citizens, suggesting fans need education on safe behavior rather than primary blame.

Recommendations for Accountability and Prevention

• Justice:
• Investigation: A judicial probe, as demanded by BJP leaders, to identify specific lapses.
• Compensation: Immediate financial and medical support for victims’ families, funded by the government, BCCI, and RCB.
• Memorial: Honor victims at Chinnaswamy Stadium.
• Prevention:
• Regulations: Enforce capacity limits and mandatory crowd control plans, overseen by BBMP and KSCA.
• Infrastructure: BBMP to audit and strengthen venues, ensuring no temporary structures fail.
• Training: Police, BBMP, and organizers to undergo crowd management training.
• Technology: Use CCTV and AI for real-time crowd monitoring.
• Fan Education: RCB and fan groups like the Bold Army to promote safe celebration practices, aligning with your Cure’Ocity Project’s civic empowerment focus.

Conclusion

The Chinnaswamy Stadium stampede was a preventable tragedy caused by shared negligence across stakeholders. The Karnataka government and BBMP bear the largest responsibility (45%) due to their authority over safety and infrastructure, followed by BCCI, IPL, and RCB (45%) for event mismanagement, and fans (10%) for reckless behavior. The “5T Test” reveals systemic “truant adminship” in transparency, trust, timeliness, teamwork, and truthfulness. Addressing these failures through accountability and prevention, as you advocate, is critical to avoid future “Citycides” and uphold systemic integrity.