Chief Minister initiative on Dengue- Administrative backing needed for next level

Chief Minister, Arvind Kejriwal’s weekly call to residents to check for mosquito breeding in containers is a good idea. There is no denying that if people were to involve themselves in such an activity on a weekly basis this problem would be reduced. The Aedes mosquito breeds in fresh water and is largely a container breeder. A large number of Celebrities and Journalists too, have endorsed the community engagement programme of the CM and the Hon’ble Lt. Governor of Delhi tweeted his own participation publicly.

A community initiative always leverages the work of civic agencies positively and can multiply the reach and effectiveness of civic initiatives given that the staff and wherewithal within the Government is at a perennial shortage in comparison with the population and the scale of the problem

I too met with the Hon’ble CM and we have, and continue to participate in this initiative through the voluntary groups and organisations that I engage with

I too met with the Hon’ble CM and we have, and continue to participate in this initiative through the voluntary groups and organisations that I engage with

But I must in all honesty also place my misgivings on such initiatives if they are not backed, or in tandem with proper official support of the government/municipal machinery which is, as per the Municipal Act meant to take care of anti malarial work as they alone are legally empowered to use the necessary chemicals and pesticides and or take coercive and punitive action as required

I say this because I have in my direct experience working with the RWA of Delhi for nearly a decade seen community engagement initiatives rather weak and ineffective in bringing about civic sense or legal compliance. Other leaders too have tried but except for religious functions where some divine benefits can be acquired residents of Delhi have shown little interest in getting together for community work. Possibly from cynicism as the public does not see any ‘follow through’ govt action.

Many leaders with great political and/or religious sway have tried initiatives on cleanliness, Waste burning, Illegal occupation of footpaths, Segregation of waste, composting of garden waste and kitchen waste, traffic rules, single use plastic but many other such community engagement based programmes have failed . Which is why, even as we keep trying, this is a slow moving method to get things going. We must not also forget that this is a low Aedes breeding cycle year. Dengue is cyclical and the intensity is not the same every year. This is a weak intensity year and may well give us a false positive of the CM’s well meaning initiative

I therefore request the CM Consider the following

1. Strengthen the Governance as well as the political representative (MLA/MC) response around this. People do actually respond when they see their local Councillor/MLA genuinely push for civic issues. And this one ( unlike encroachments and illegal construction) has no negative political implications
2. Support funds for the actual DBCs that go house to house every year. If this poses an administrative/political problem, the Delhi Govt can hire a suitable number of Interns and attach them to MLAs and use LAD funds for payment. The interns then assist the RWA. This will encourage the involvement of youth in community work which is currently limited to Senior citizens within RWA
3. The use of larvicides and anti malarial drugs is regulated under law and the RWA cannot carry out spraying etc. We were told this by the NVBDCP. The GNCTD can em panel certified pest control companies and allow RWA to seek their services which the Govt can pay for

There are many other such ideas but the core propeller of such programs is a serious and legally sanctioned partnership between authorized Govt departments and accountable public groups like RWA or public engagement NGOs. Generally exhorting the public alone, is not sustainable.

While I welcome the intention of the Chief Minister, I would like to see him do more on providing structural direction so that the Governance mechanism is strengthened for community engagement.

The Tantalizing Mirage of Delhi’s Five New Sub-Cities- DDA’s Land Pooling.

 

As per the 2011 Census the National Capital Territory of Delhi had a total population of 167.9 lakhs, which is estimated to grow to 225 lakhs by 2021. In order to accommodate the increasing number of migrants it has been decided to develop five new sub-cities on land pooled by individual owners in the 95 villages in the peripheral areas that have been declared urban. Instead of acquiring the land, the authorities have decided on a process whereby owners of land, may themselves undertake the implementation of development. DDA will provide the basic guide lines and land use for each individual zone.

DDA is promoting the Land Pooling proposal as an ambitious new approach for the development of the five new smart sub-cities and has invited citizens to suggest names for the five new concentrations. The five zones earmarked for land pooling have been designated as Zone J, Zone L, Zone K-I, Zone N, and Zone P-II. The population and size of proposed development of each zone varies in accordance with the area of vacant land available. The details are as below.

1. Zone J Area 15.61 hectares (38.57 acres)  Population 6000
2. Zone L Area 8020 hectares (19,817 acres) Population 30,91,710
3. Zone K-I Area 2088 hectares (5,160 acres)  Population 8,04,924
4. Zone N Area 6518 hectares (6,106 acres) Population 25,12,689
5. Zone P-II Area 2448 hectares (6,049 acres) Population 9,43,704

All the five zones lie on the fringe areas of the GNCTD. Zone L forms the largest unit which is intended to accommodate a population close to 31 lakhs.

For the Five Sub-cities Land Pooling Scheme, DDA has created a web site inviting citizens to suggest suitable names for the new smart sub-cities. The site contains a video clip explaining the notified Land Pooling Policy, the Regulations for operationalization of the Land Policy, and the Applicability of the Policy. A map showing the location of the five designated zones and, a Land Use plan, a Sector Delineation Plan, and a Revenue Map for each zone are included. The information contained in the Zonal Development Plans which indicate Land Use is diagrammatic and inadequate to guide detailed development by land owners. The Sector Delineation Plan shows the width of the existing and proposed major roads, as well as division of the zone into sectors, on which existing structures and villages have also been marked. Along with this, a table shows the area of each sector, as well as the approximate area of vacant land available for development. A Revenue Map of each zone gives the outline of khasras. The three documents are not accurate and have not been digitally co-ordinated.

Land owners with any size of land in the defined zones have been invited to come forward to register their land for pooling on line. The total area of land pooled must be at least 2 hectares (4.94 acres). After 70% of the contiguous land in an individual sector is pooled, the land owners will be required to form a consortium that will be registered to undertake the detailed planning and actual implementation of development on 60% of the pooled land as specified in the Regulations for operationalization of Land Policy, 2018 notified by DDA. The balance 40% of the pooled land will be developed by DDA to develop city level physical infrastructure, recreational and public/semi-public (PSP) facilities.

The consortium will have to prepare the detailed plan for implementation of development on the 60% pooled land, after getting necessary approval from DDA. According to the Norms for Land Pooling this shall be utilised for development of residential including neighbourhood level facilities (53%), commercial (5%), industrial (4%), recreational (16%), public/semi-public facilities (10%)and roads and circulation (12%). The detailed development plan will have to be in conformity with the sector plan, the notified Zonal Development Plan, and the prevailing Master Plan. An examination of the concerned documents, show quite clearly the contradictions in the above statement. The Zonal Development Plan of each zone shows a variety of land uses which include residential, commercial, industrial, recreational, utility, government, public/semi-public facilities, and agricultural, whereas the above statement clearly says that this 60% pooled land is to be used essentially for residential purposes along with the necessary support facilities. This will lead to confusion within each consortium as they will not be sure about what uses can be included in the particular pocket they intend to develop. It is quite clear that all the different uses shown in the Zonal Development Plan, along with the road infrastructure, cannot possibly be accommodated within the 40% component of land to be developed by the DDA. Some of these facilities will have to be located on the 60% Pooled Land.

The Framework for Implementation of the Policy suggests that with the creation of a Single Window System the entire process of operationalization and implementation will be expedited. On a review of these proposals one realises the magnitude of the proposed development. It involves the development of a total area of 19,090 hectares or 47,170 acres, with a population of approximately 73,60,000 persons (73.6 lakhs). The enormous size and scale of proposed development helps explain the hype and publicity that this proposal has generated. It is quite clear that DDA does not have the necessary technical infrastructure needed to guide and control this massive scale of development. It would also seem that the VC-DDA, and the administrators responsible are not aware of the serious nature of the shortcomings in the Land Policy proposals.

Closer examination of the framework of development proposed by DDA reveals several problems. Consider the information provided. For each zone DDA has prepared a Land Use Plan, a Sector Delineation Plan, and a Revenue Map. For some reason for Zone J, only a Land Use Plan has been provided. This is the area currently occupied by a large number of upscale farmhouses. The Land Use Plan for all the five zones, which is the operative instrument of control, is in all cases inaccurate, diagrammatic, and inadequate. The Sector Delineation Plan showing the proposed layout of roads and definition of individual sectors, along with existing structures is more realistic as it gives a clearer idea of the site as it is, with the basic proposed road layout. A table shows the area of vacant land available for development. On the Revenue Map the location of individual properties (khasras) can be identified. Owners of land willing to participate in the Land Pooling exercise will refer to these plans, to get an idea of what kind of development is likely to be permitted on their pockets of pooled land.

For the average land owner the proposal to pool land together with adjoining owners and participate directly in the implementation of large scale development is an attractive one. However there are a lot of unanswered questions. Supposing the area of 70% pooled land has pockets within it belonging to owners not willing to participate, what happens? If there are a number of scattered existing buildings within a designated sector, how will the area of 70% pooled land in the sector be determined? Will the calculation of 70% be calculated in relation to the vacant land in the sector? It is also possible that although 70% of the pooled land is contiguous, it may be odd shaped making it almost impossible to develop, unless consolidated with larger adjoining areas. There are many such complex situations, that land owners are likely to be faced with, which unless satisfactorily resolved will make development impossible. DDA is tending to gloss over most such real issues. Examination of the Sector Delineation Plans shows that every sector has some existing structures, which will either have to be integrated within the proposed new development, or built around. This is likely to result in chaotic uneconomic development. It is also possible that in some cases it may not be possible to achieve the proposed FAR 200 – resulting in considerably reduced development.

It is quite clear DDA has not seriously examined the problems that are likely to emanate from the implementation of such large scale development without the preparation of proper urban design studies. Without the detailed preparation of such studies based on accurate GIS surveys, these projects will be impossible to implement. For the accurate and detailed layout of roads defining each sector, accurate site survey along with proper traffic analysis is essential. Along with this the plan for all the infrastructural services for the entire zone along with linkages to surrounding areas will be required. Even If the road and services infrastructure network is not implemented in advance, the determination of its accurate layout in advance will be necessary in order to convince land owners of DDA’s seriousness to implement the project.

DDA does not intend to develop the proposed roads along with the services systems until after 70% of the land in each sector has been pooled, a consortium formed, and the layout plan prepared and submitted for development approval. Within a period of 120 days DDA commits to approve the proposal, enter into a Development Agreement, and issue Provisional Development License to the consortium. After submission of all required documents, and submission of escrow amount for External Development Charges, and handover of the component of land for infrastructure development by DDA, a Final Development License will be issued. Following this the consortium may prepare a detailed Layout Plan and submit it for Building Plan Approval. As can be clearly seen this is likely to be a long drawn out and complicated process.

In the Development Terms and Conditions it is stated that the Service Providing Agencies and DDA shall try to ensure to complete the external development within five years of the issue of Final Development License to the consortium. Similarly the validity of the Final Development License issued to the consortium shall have a validity of ten years within which the Completion Certificate from DDA must be obtained. This gives some idea of the period of time involved for total implementation. It should be realised that it is not intended to develop limited areas within the city, but to develop entire new sub-cities with all their complex components and massive populations. There are also likely to be changes in requirements during this period that may need to be incorporated.

Such cities cannot be built with the kind of Land Use plans that DDA has currently prepared. For the proper preparation of plans suitable for implementation, architects, engineers, planners, urban designers, services consultants, traffic planners, landscape architects, demographers, et al., will need to be involved. We are talking here about building cities with a population of 25 to 30 lakh. Such cities cannot be built with outline Land Use Plans. This involves proper planning for a large number of different uses. It calls for complex and detailed urban design proposals. With the kind of Artificial Intelligence tools that we have today, proposed development studies can be conceived in three dimensions, with each and every structure clearly outlined in detail. Live walk through studies through major areas of such future cities can effectively simulate real experience. With such a framework of development in hand, it would be possible to also project different aspects of changing urban situations over time.

There is now an urgent need to guide and effectively control future development in all urban areas. This cannot be done by outsourcing planning and urban design to private consultants, either from within the country or abroad, because it calls for building indigenous skills, with continuous involvement on an on-going basis, as our urban areas keep changing and growing.

The biggest problem that the administrators in the Ministry and senior officials in DDA have failed to address over the years is the fact that despite being responsible for the planning and development of land in the National Capital Territory of Delhi for a period of more than sixty years, DDA has not built up a cadre of competent professionals who can design, implement, review, and modify large scale development across the city on an on-going basis. Instead of recognising the need to enlarge and upgrade skills in line with the latest available technology, our politicians and bureaucrats have systematically downgraded skills related to urban development within government organisations, even as our towns and cities continue to grow at an increasingly rapid pace. Without preparing detailed design proposals for all the separate zones which will constitute significant additions to the Greater Delhi area, very little development if any, will actually materialise. The proposal for the five new smart sub-cities may just remain a tantalizing mirage for some time to come.

---

Reproduced with permission- article written by:

Ranjit Sabikhi    30th August 2019

Prof. Ranjit Sabikhi is a distinguished Architect and Urban Designer who has been in practice in New Delhi since 1961. Recognized as one of the pioneers of modern Indian architecture, he has had a wide variety of experience in education, architectural practice and urban design. He taught at the School of Planning and Architecture in New Delhi from 1959 to 1975 where he was Professor and Head of the Department of Urban Design. He has been a Visiting Critic to the Urban Design Program at the Graduate School of Design at Harvard University, and the School of Architecture at Washington University St. Louis. As a practicing architect, he has been involved in a wide variety of projects in India, the Middle East and Southeast Asia.

His work has been recognized by awards and inclusion in international exhibitions on Indian architecture. Over the last fifty years, he has written a number of articles commenting on urban issues in scholarly and mainstream publications and newspapers. As Indian cities continue to grow, he has been a vocal advocate of the need to recognize urban design as an important component of urban development.

 

 

 

Why Shekhar Gupta should be rebutted for seeing the urban mess from a less than informed position

Why Shekhar Gupta should be rebutted for seeing the urban mess from a less than informed position

Romanticism is prevalent around villages. This is correct. This myth has created many problems in our models of development, land acquisition, migration and social equity. There is nothing idyllic about villages. They are often backward, cruel, medieval and inhumane. Violence abounds and the politics is regressive

Equally, the preponderance of rural representatives in our parliament, state assemblies and municipal corporations, disconnected with the principles of Urban Governance creates its own problems. They can be misled/ or persuaded by strong vested interests which do not have public interest in mind. Often Ministers in charge of urban development, see it as synonymous with large construction projects. Unfortunately, Mr. Gupta is advocating similar solutions.

Planning failures in the master plans lay inadequate focus on affordable housing and public transport, along with hurdles in legal and financial systems that promote slums. While slums cannot be reduced to zero, this large number is not a by-product of some ‘intellectual’ inadequacy but of lack of new ideas, domain knowledge and corruption in the administrative-business-political ecosystem.

If indeed the entire Mumbai project has been stalled for ‘two patches of 0.251 and 0.11 sq. meters respectively, or about four sq. feet in all’, then it is clearly silly. However, for the sake of understanding urban challenges and solutions, the question is, if a highway in the water along the coast up to Nariman Point -the only option explored by the government. Thoughtlessly attempting to increase car-based mobility serves the exact opposite purpose in some time. Do you think other options like fast hovercraft, express train link, helicopters to the airport and beyond etc. could have been explored? There are reports that population of South Bombay may be decreasing and mass mobility solutions may be needed elsewhere in that city.

Some other questions that come to mind are: Why not Improve connectivity not only to North Mumbai, but also across the water to Navi Mumbai, Alibag, etc? There is also the aesthetic factor. The saving grace and charm of Bombay is the public spaces along the sea with beautiful sunsets. Is looking at the underside of a raised highway the same?

Massive construction to solve the urban mess my help the Cement and construction industry (which may be a noble intent in itself) but does little to solve the urban crisis to house the poorer and provide transport to citizens who do not drive cars. E.g. A single car is subsidized many times over as compared to an ordinary family where is comes to use of parking space

Mr. Gupta brings up ‘unauthorised colonies in his video. In Delhi almost 60% of Its residents live in ‘unauthorised colonies’ and slums. The parliament has stopped any demolition of unauthorised constructions in Delhi. The Sealings ordered invariably get reversed due to political pressure as politicians have no choice but to protect voters’ lives & livelihoods. So, things go to worse than status quo. This is also responsible for migrant populations not diffusing into the NCR where properties lie unused. The cost of living in the illegally& highly densified East Delhi can be lower than daily life in NOIDA, Gurgaon or other towns in the NCR.

Unlike Calcutta, Mumbai, Chennai and other Cosmopolitan Centers, Delhi is a new Urban Center and unlike those cities, its land use has been in the absolute and exclusive domain of the Government. Delhi also had little legacy burden that it carries and post the Master plan of 1960s had an unlimited opportunity to develop a planned city and keep it that way. Instead the authorities have held onto land and cynically manipulated land use for political and other well-known reasons

Most of these colonies have not always encroached upon public/Govt land but are built upon land for which the DDA did not plan in public interest to allow change of land use. Even when Delhi became a full state the ownership and power to change land use remained with the Central govt and it still does. Despite a constant influx of migrants and an exploding economy the DDA failed in freeing up privately held land in the suburbs by allowing a change in land use, and at the same time held on to the land in its charge to maximise its value for high value options to enrich itself. There are legitimate reasons why officers in the DDA are constrained to maximise profit for their organisation in opposition to real public interest (E.g. Avoiding a CBI Inquiry) but the problem then is not because of activism or romanticizing of villages. The DDA has come up with complicated schemes like land pooling to enrich itself and maintain its control over land. The Master plan has been changed 100s of times causing confusion, harassment and huge corruption. DDA’s record on developing low cost housing even though vast swathes of land are held by it could have been much better.

The Central govt has failed to also ensure that its offices and housing diffuse adequately into the NCR. Instead it wants to monetise land in Delhi by converting simple dwelling unit accommodation in the 7 GPRA colonies by hyper commercialisation and multi-storeyed construction. To do this it hacked thousands of trees, violated the Delhi Master plan, and failed to look at the traffic mess it will create in the area. There are few independent takers for its commercial schemes in these colonies so PSUs have been prompted to buy properties. There is no problem if the govt makes money legitimately but this is ridiculous and illegal. Activists can scarcely be blamed for stepping in to protect their city

The Transit Oriented Development (TOD) policy is factored around increasing FAR. There is no attempt to integrate EWS into these schemes. The Record on law enforcement and traffic is well known for anyone to imagine the nightmare that the TOD will generate around this wrongly understood model of densification. Increased FAR in itself is not always a problem but when the Govt has shortage of staff and little intention of enforcing civic laws, high FAR in a city with 1 crore vehicles is opening the door to hell.

Nothing worthwhile has been done on last mile connectivity and freeing of footpaths for walking. This right is for the government to protect and it simply does not do that. The Civic authorities and politicians are hand in glove with land and parking mafia. No number of flyovers, Tunnels, elevated roads will help if the simple act of safely walking in the neighbourhood is compromised. Local motorised traffic circulating within 1-2 KM in Neighbourhoods are a major source of congestion on roads

Environmental issues which were once considered esoteric and a distraction- like pollution but have rightly become mainstream concerns given that Urban planning can no longer be seen as distinct from the environment but intertwined with it. This is why Solar Energy, Water conservation, Electric Vehicles and Better fuels are being widely put into service. It is scarcely possible that these issues are ignored selectively where mega construction projects are planned. Development Vs Environment is not a sensible binary to have any longer.

Yes, it is disingenuous to compare Delhi to western Metros. Those countries have better governance and less unpunished violations of civic and traffic laws. Less corruption too. But Activists or villages can’t be blamed for that. The political economy, the Politicians and the bureaucracy are totally responsible for the Urban mess. Shekhar ji should direct his anger towards them. Activists and urban planners will support him.

 

 

The Politics of Hindus, Hinduism & Hindutva- A perspective

The Citizens’ Alliance provides me the constant opportunity to work with people with whom I disagree.  Even though we share a common concern for how our city is governed, I often do not agree with their political or social views. Since I work closely with several politicians across the political spectrum as well as NGO and think tanks, one has to work with people who think differently. I don’t have the luxury of working only with the ‘like-minded’

One learning from watching political and social workers for the last few years has been that when a set of ideas and people retain power for many decades, they begin to confuse power for moral superiority and assume their story to be of some universal and infinite value with cumulatively advantageous returns.

I am seeing signs of that in the reaction of the opposition parties following the general elections of 2019. We hear a rash of opinions asserting that voting is no longer the test of ‘democracy’ – this is not useful learning for politicians who will continue to be obliged to fight elections and cannot rely on the opinion pieces in the Guardian newspaper to enter the Lok Sabha. More recently demonising an entire population of voters as idiots, criminals, bigots and brutes has become quite the norm.

In the current environment, differentiating between exploring a situation as opposed to defending it has become difficult. Any attempt at a discussion with friends and colleagues who profess right of centre views or those on the left, on the reasons for Hindu consolidation manifest in the  recent election , result in charges of  ‘fascism’, ‘regressive’, ‘history of Germany’ and ‘death of democracy’ or of ‘selective outrage’ ‘pseudo secularism’ and ‘minority appeasement’, respectively. The mildest disagreement will have ‘bhakt’ or ‘libtard’ being flung at each other. This is not useful in figuring out the problem and its political solutions. Hinduism, Hindutva and Hindus are presently here to stay and will influence the politics of the near future. Dismissing the motivations of a very large number of people who voted in this election as bigotry is an over simplification, a generalization and in, any case, not clever strategy if the opposition wants to return to power while at the same time effecting a change in this thinking. So, what seems to be going on in the mind of the regular-Ramesh voter who is also a Hindu-

Hindu Angst: It has long been the grouse of Hindus, even the educated and overtly seemingly liberal, that Indian thought leaders and political masters have been unfair to Hindus.  Until a few years ago this vast number remained disconnected, in a huddle without a platform for speaking their mind. Then came social media and all that changed. This grouse echoed and amplified with many others who nursed similar views.

At this point it is not relevant if this is fact or imagination in the Hindus’ mind. What is relevant is that a very large number of Hindus believe this discriminatory attitude to be a fact. That this may be due to special provisions in the constitution for minorities, minority institutions and religious places, cuts little ice with regular- Ramesh who is struggling to earn a living, educate a child or find a job – he believes that such special privilege is unfair. Initially the liberal elite simply refused to acknowledge “Hindu Angst”. Any discussion regarding its “root cause” was dismissed as “whataboutery”. In the recent past there were opinions expressed that there must be openness to hearing the “Hindu” point of view. That too is out, as the “Hindu” no longer wants to talk to the elite. Politically the BJP and its Hindutva model has ridden on this sentiment. It channeled “Hindu Angst” into a vote for itself.

Hindus have been repeatedly told that casteism is evil and that it is their Achilles heel. All social reformers have castigated Hindus and Hinduism for being casteist. Despite this, politics in India has openly and cynically deployed caste divisions for political gains. Hindus saw the opportunistic use of caste by political leaders for what it was but went along with it because that is what political parties offered – jobs, political relevance, access to resources but only if you belonged to the caste supported by that political party.  While the urge to not be used as divided castes remained, the opportunity was missing. Political Hinduism/Hindutva provided that platform. The BJP owned it. Hindu political unification should not be so difficult to understand when a religious and caste minority unification for political gains has been quite easily accepted and, indeed, promoted for decades.

Seeing Hindutva only through a ‘minority sensitivity’ prism, misses the whole picture. When masses of Kanwarias descend on roads and highways, or when millions gather for the Kumbh, is it bigotry and Hindutva or is it simply a mass of Hindus on a pilgrimage? It may be scary for the city dweller because of the sheer numbers and potential for mob behaviour but is the gathering directed against anyone? If not, then why call it bigotry, majoritarianism or fascism? In a highly populated country with high population density there is bound to be high visibility and noisy expression. Is it not better to find ways to manage it as a law and order and traffic management issue instead of scoffing at it and branding it as regressive? They will not vapourise if the political dispensation changes. 

Political Hinduism is not an anti-minorities issue; it is a pro- Hinduism issue. Singing praises of ancient temple architecture, fanciful flights confusing mythology with reality are all a part of this syndrome. The problem arises the moment this vainglorious impulse is positioned as aggression against a minority or bigotry and communalism in general. The moment that comparison appears, average- Ramesh, seeing it as unnecessary needling, turns his anger upon the accuser because he has seen the same accuser indulgent or defensive of regressive practices among minorities. For a vast majority of Hindus, there is a need to openly express their Hindu identity, praise their literature, express an emotional attachment to their culture and mythology without being shamed as regressive and communal in their country, and laughed at by the anglicized and the entitled. Regular-Ramesh attends a ‘jagrata’ or throngs behind the truck carrying his Ganesh or Ma because he wants to publicly wear his religion on his sleeve- he isn’t doing all this to because he hates his neighbor from another community or caste.   

On the contrary, if there is such a thing as ‘Hindu anger’, it is directed at the elite class which is mostly made of Hindus themselves.  This anti-elitism is not unique to India and is a worldwide phenomenon. It requires examination and there are reasons why voters in large numbers do not respect or trust the elite and do not see their point of view as of any value for themselves any longer. This should not be confused with anti-minorityism.  Injecting minority sensibilities into every discussion on majority social behaviour instantly positions minorities as a target and the majority as bullies (at best) and criminals (at worst). This does not help minorities but, more importantly, does not embarrass Hindus anymore.

The caste Hindu (about 25% of the population) has also banded together:  They are no longer willing to be casually blamed for every problem. Words like Brahmanism, ‘manuvaad’ and being made responsible for everything wrong with Indian society is not making them cringe in embarrassment any longer. In their view almost 50% reservation including that for OBCs for more than 3 decades and for SC/ST since independence, coupled with a large presence of OBC politicians & Chief Ministers along with significant bureaucratic power with the SC/ST/OBCs is enough for people to take responsibility for themselves. Throwing everything at the doorstep of the caste Hindu is being resented by them and is showing up in voting in favour of the BJP. 

Social Media has opened the floodgates of information and argument: It simply does not help being professorial in the social media space. People access information through all sorts of sources and will throw it back. Established norms and positions are being challenged and will continue to be as information/disinformation sharing increases. It is a challenge that cannot be fought through disdain. A select few no longer control the flow of information and cannot any longer filter out stuff they disagree with or dislike.

Whether we like it or not, electoral democracy is the will of the people through universal adult franchise. Democracy seen through the prism of minority and special interest groups alone will not work. Technology now allows a leader to obtain enormous personal data about the electorate and reach out directly, by-passing the usual party hierarchy and interest group leadership. This reduces internal checks and balances. The individual voter has become more relevant as compared to interest group leaders.

Opposition politicians who contest elections have a real stake in electoral democracy and will require leadership skills if they want to change their fortunes as well as steer the electorate to their ideology in their quest for political power. The public is not obliged to prop up anyone’s leadership dreams. That is the burden of a leader.

 

Delhi’s ELECTRIC VEHICLE POLICY: Tries too hard – Simplify and focus to create impact

Ashutosh Dikshit & Meenakshi Nath

 

The Draft Electric Vehicle(EV) Policy released for public comments will get several public responses on the merits of each point. It is not our intent to do that. Instead we focus on the larger goal of urban mobility & ease of access and how the Electric Vehicle policy sits within it regarding its intention of reducing air pollution in Delhi.

This is a policy we would have loved to like unreservedly. In general, electric vehicles are welcome as compared to Internal Combustion Engines (ICE). However, there is appears to be an acceptance of status quo in terms of number of vehicles and level of congestion in Delhi.

The policy begins by stating that the current electric vehicle use in China & Norway is 11 times to 20 times more than India. It notes that India has agreed to a target of 30% electric vehicle use by 2030 as part of a global Electric Vehicles Initiative (EVI), a multi-governmental policy forum dedicated to accelerating the deployment of EVs. There are two issues here: As mentioned, what Delhi desperately needs is fewer private vehicles, not just replacement of ICE with EV. In some parts of the policy the government is in danger of sounding like a promotional for EVs. And secondly, the scale, density, cultural habits and political economy of the country does not lend itself to following foreign models and extrapolation is best avoided.

Policy does well in committing 50% EV buses in the fleet by 2022. Its conceptually sound on ICE cross subsidising EV, with a focus on vehicles that operate at scale and the need for enabling infrastructure. A primary goal is vehicle registrations in Delhi being 25% EV. However, a recent EPCA report informs that almost half the four-wheelers on Delhi’s major roads are registered in other states^[1]. The policy will not reduce the usage of Delhi roads by this segment at all. Instead, this segment may increase with ICE buyers choosing to register their vehicles in other states. In parallel, EV registrations in Delhi may increase to avail the benefits whilst plying elsewhere. Thus, Delhi citizens will pay more without the commensurate benefit of reduced pollution.

We also have concerns that the policy tries to do too much, given the limited capacity of the government.  The proposed policy dilutes its workability by going all over the place into electric bikes, cars autos, battery types and charging infrastructure, provision of apps, etc. Of all initiatives, provision of subsidies, that too to individual buyers is invariably fraught with implementation failures, e.g., Rs. 15000/- scrapping incentive for two wheelers. Tax waivers are easier but are questionable if they mainly serve to offset GST charged on EVs or their components. The policy is silent on this aspect.

We would have preferred that for its first phase, the EV policy should have focused on delivering on electric buses, their charging & parking infrastructure including perhaps multi-storey bus depots, integration with metro, commercial centres, district centres and large shopping centres, universities and suburbs. Alongside introduce measures to reduce usage of private vehicles. Then it could focus on promoting commercial and then private electric vehicles.

As with regard to public charging facilities – there is concern that these may also come under the control of the parking mafia. We also wonder how public chargers will be spatially allocated when MCD itself has no legal fix on recognised parking spaces vs overflow. The possibility of serpentine queues behind chargers causing traffic jams is not very hard to imagine. There is a proposal that RWAs provide / manage such facilities without realising that RWAs have no powers over common spaces except in the very limited Co-operative group housing (CGHS) areas, cannot contract DISCOMS for charging infra, and do not have the management bandwidth for this.

The state and municipal authorities in Delhi have failed in the management of public spaces which are encroached and dirty, with footpaths taken over by cars and small retail. We worry that a policy that relies on the use of common areas for charging infra will marginalise the pedestrian and average resident even further. Could the policy consider putting greater reliance on private charging facilities, given that electricity is widely available, as compared to say, CNG or petrol.

Delhi has one of the highest population and vehicles densities in the world. Even though old vehicles have been banned from plying, it is not clear how the defunct vehicles would exit Delhi’s land space. There is no room for more vehicles in Delhi. People will continue to buy tried and tested ICE powered vehicles unless their cost and convenience is significantly worse as compared to EVs. Some may shift but others may just add one to their already large fleet of cars. In all, the motorized ecosystem will see no respite from further overloading.  All this is not going to reduce air pollution, instead its going to increase, noise, traffic jams and urban stress.

We would therefore request the Government to consider the following steps:

1. Contextualise the policy against the target of reducing private & ICE vehicle usage in Delhi, making public transport, walking and cycling easier.
2. Simplify and minimise what the government needs to do. Focus initially on making a success of electric buses; make ICE vehicle use costlier and more inconvenient so that users shift to public transport or EV; avoid subsidy pay outs; look at revenue models for parking and charging Infrastructure that avoid the use of public spaces.
3. Free up last mile walkability by recovering and returning footpaths to pedestrians, at least in planned colonies where thousands of crores worth of public land in the form of footpaths has been grabbed and encroached upon. All civilized and modern world cities recognise safe walking as a fundamental right.

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

^[1]      http://www.epca.org.in/EPCA-Reports1999-1917/EPCA-Report-no92.pdf

 

 

Aggravating the Urban Chaos- Inexplicable Changes in MPD 2021 on LSCs & Mixed Land Use Streets.

The Citizens’ Alliance, an advocacy group, has written to the Minister for Urban Affairs and housing explaining why the DDA should be trifurcated. This is not without reason. The Delhi Development authority has failed to live up to the purpose it was established for and is now a bundle of conflict of interests that make it impossible for this organisation to extricate itself from a mess of its own making

For long it has a become vehicle for tweaking the master plan repeatedly and that to in a manner which is at times vexing and at other times suspicious. From 2007 onwards the Master plan had been amended nearly 180 times. Each time one motivated/badly thought amendment crumbles it is replaced by another equally vexatious amendment.

The recent amendments to the MPD that emerged from the brouhaha over commercialisation in Delhi present one such picture

Any Government that promotes the rule of law will encourage lawful behavior and discourage unlawful behavior right?  Wrong. In the case of the DDA the Master plan does the exact opposite. It penalizes those markets that exist in local Shopping Centers and winks at illegal commercial operations in residential area. Let me explain.

Some years earlier, the DDA had notified approximately Rs. 89000 per square meter as conversion charges in Local Shopping Centers for using their upper floors for Commercial Activity. While doing so the DDA levied a conversion charge of only Rs. 6000 per square meter on notified Mixed Land Streets. (Both are in A & B categories). This raised a lot of eyebrows on the following count.

1. There was little reason for a ‘Conversion Charge’ when no conversion of land use was being undertaken and if at all any charges levied should have been called additional FAR charges. That would keep the principle intact. Hence this deliberate obfuscation could not be ignored
2. Mixed use streets may have become a default necessity since the Municipal officers and Delhi’s politicians had allowed this illegality to flourish for obvious reasons. But at best this method should have been used only to serve the ends of densification by bringing under regulation what was a result of DDA’s failure to create commensurate commercial space in keeping with the needs of the city. However, the much lesser charges levied seemed to send a signal that Mixed use streets were being preferred as commercial spaces to the detriment of legitimate local shopping centers

The traders from the LSC had demanded this anomaly to be reversed and having thought it to be a legitimate request from the Government expected that the DDA would rectify this error. But it was not to be. The same principle is followed by the DDA in their recently notified norms much to the annoyance of business enterprises in LSCs

This is suspicious. Business activity, whether in mixed streets or commercial notified streets or LSCs, are business activities per se and it is strange that the DDA has given a huge subsidy by winking at these violations on mixed use streets thereby signaling that illegally converting houses into businesses is the way of the future. That bars and pubs are banned or that parking space will have to be created as a condition for mixed use is a condition best to be laughed at and dismissed knowing how the officialdom in Delhi has compromised itself over any law enforcement or implementation of policy. It will be another money spinner for the ruling powers.

It gets curiouser and curiouser, a time of further 6 months given at discounted FAR charges on notified roads and hefty concession is also granted to them. But LSCs, which are better, qualified than others, have been deprived of this benefit and are being charged 400% higher. It seems that, the DDA is again encouraging business activities on mixed land or notified roads, instead of in the LSCs.

In LSCs, the arrangements for parking are already in place, so are parks and gardens, citizen’s plaza and seating.  So is the water and sewerage infrastructure. All this was created as a result of overall planning yet, in residential areas & on notified roads/commercial street, those who have violated the law, have been given a window of 6 months, for paying a lower slab of FAR charges which in reality is not applicable only.  Simply because In Residential plots/Mixed Land Use/Notified streets/Commercial Streets there is NO FAR Charges till permissible Limit. Therefore, the applicability of FAR Charges on Mixed Land streets is absurd.

On the other hand, the legal LSCs are again being penalized by asking them to pay 4times the mixed land rates. It’s clear case of fooling the public and the LSC owners.

Further Residential FAR of 350 has been applied to LSCs in the recent amendments. Principally this, in, itself is wrong. In LSC the FAR is given to a complex not to a Plot.

Since all residential norms are being applied to LSCs,, it becomes hard to understand why FAR Charges are being applied till the permissible Limits and that too at 400% for the same activity. The DDA has no explanation for this

All in all, a picture of discrimination and confusion seems to emerge. If there be any method to this madness it can only be that, incentives are being given, to promote commercial activities from residential plots/area rather than from Commercial Complex like LSC/CSC. It makes sense for LSC owners to sell the building and move to Mixed Land Streets as it will be cheaper and more profitable for them

Once again, and as usual it seems the political class has succumbed to the lobby in mixed use streets and while appearing tough has punished legitimate businesses in LSCs by subsidizing mixed land use in residential areas.

In the meantime, those traders who have invested large sums to run their businesses in LSCs/CSCs are left wondering as to how they can elicit a sensible response from the DDA

Waste Management in Delhi & The Government’s Strange Submission to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

Waste Management in Delhi & The Government’s Strange Submission to the Hon’ble Supreme Court

————————————————————————————————————————–

Readers may please refer to The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India – Record of Proceedings, Suo Moto Writ (C) No(S).1/2015 on which the most recent order is of 6^th August 2018

The respondents have stated that they are doing a pilot on waste management in four  South Delhi colonies.

We find this strange for the following reasons;

Firstly, under normal circumstances Pilots should be done before making the rules or at least in the intervening years before updating the rules. This would be normal process to test if the rules proposed are workable or not in the first place. What were the Government/ Municipal Corporation doing all these years?

Secondly, should not pilots be carried out in areas which are unable to handle their waste at all and where it is often strewn across the streets? Instead the Municipal Corporation makes claims of pilots in Defence Colony, Maharani Bagh, Green Park and Lajpat nagar. We know for a fact that these better off areas in any case try & manage their waste through RWA involvement, private contractors and some spirited activists

Thirdly the Hon’ble Supreme Court asks if an awareness campaign needed to be carried out in these colonies and indeed throughout the city. Why has the Hon’ble Supreme court been misled on this? Almost two decades after the first SWM rules were notified, some of the most posh, most educated and wealthiest colonies of south Delhi still require an awareness campaign on segregation? They do not. This is an example of how the constant refrain on awareness minus implementation & enforcement has subverted municipal action and accountability.

Fourthly how are policies and rules being regularly made and never implemented? Who is writing/making these policies? who is benefiting from this? 

& Finally. Who is to be held accountable for not implementing Govt policy? Which Politician?Which Department? Which officer?

From the order of the hon’ble court it appears that Municipal Corporation appraised the court on four kinds of waste that are generated in houses / households. Further that these four kinds of waste need to be segregated for a proper management of solid waste in the city.  The Corporations have known this distinction for 18 years, have taken no steps to educate and implement and is now pretending that the distinction between different types of waste is a recent phenomenon.

It is incredible that the corporation calmly informs the Highest Court of the land that it has undertaken a ‘pilot’ in 4 South Delhi colonies. Given the advanced stage of garbage and waste crisis the Govt should have provided a municipal ward by municipal ward report of all activities undertaken with a status report on all Dhalaos, Weight transported to landfill vs composted locally  across 272 wards and thousands of colonies. For the Corporation to exhibit such a cavalier attitude in court is alarming.

The reader may plea.e consider the following:

The SWM 2000 Notification says:  in S.NO – 2. Of Schedule -II [see rules 6(1) and (3), 7(1)]

‘In order to encourage the citizens, municipal authority shall organise awareness programmes for segregation of wastes and shall promote recycling or reuse of segregated materials. The municipal authority shall undertake phased programme to ensure community participation in waste segregation. For this purpose, regular meetings at quarterly intervals shall be arranged by the municipal authorities with representatives of local resident welfare associations and non-governmental organizations.’

Sixteen years after that notification, the succeeding SWM 2016 rules, Para 4 (6, 7, and 8) state that:

…‘All resident welfare and market associations shall, within one year from the date of notification of these rules and in partnership with the local body ensure segregation of waste at source by the generators as prescribed in these rules, facilitate collection of segregated waste in separate streams, handover recyclable material to either the authorised waste pickers or the authorised recyclers. The bio-degradable waste shall be processed, treated and disposed off through composting or bio-methanation within the premises as far as possible. The residual waste shall be given to the waste collectors or agency as directed by the local body…..’ The notification says the same for Gated Communities of more than 5000sq.m and all hotels and restaurants.

Clearly our system of Governance tolerates this degree of incompetence and unaccountability. Almost two decades after the first SWM rules were notified, the corporations should have been talking about achievements on near hundred percent compliance and reasons for any minor shortfall.  Instead, having achieved zero percent compliance after 18 years they are holding forth on the nature of waste and some pilot projects.

The “compulsion” around tipping fee notwithstanding, Municipal Ward level Waste Management is totally possible & it is not rocket science

The SWM 2016 rules had stipulated compliance in two years. That period has lapsed. We hope that the hon’ble Courts now order & monitor a time bound implementation of SWM 2016 rules.

 

Not Just trees- It’s the law that has been violated

By Ravi Kaimal and Ashutosh Dikshit

When the residents of Delhi erupted in protests against the felling of trees for the GPRA in Sarojini Nagar, it was seen a case of contractors going wild in a bid to finish their project. As time went by much more started to tumble out and it became clear to us that in a bid to fast track the redevelopment project the Government had itself violated several laws. We have put out a paper on a point by point assessment of the MoU between the NBCC and the Central Govt. This document begins to examine the Environment Impact Assessment (EIA)that were placed before the Govt.

Though not exhaustive this article goes to show that an assessment was never really done.

The Minister of State for Environment Mahesh Sharma recently said in Parliament “  “environmental clearances are granted with specific stringent conditions which are both project specific and general in nature as well as mitigative measures in accordance with the Environment Management Plan Report, prepared on the basis of the study and are to be complied with by the project proponents. “The compliance of these conditions is strictly assessed, evaluated and monitored by the concerned authorities at the state and central level,” he said. In order to protect the environment, different conditions were stipulated in the environmental clearances issued to these projects.” ”

These reassuring words collapse into a heap when the EIA is studied.

So what do these EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment) reports actually say?  A look at the EIA for the Sarojini Nagar Project is eye opening. Here are some examples.

A location map shows the “Project location” at the border of Punjab & Haryana. (Page9, figure 2.1 map)

Further a “Drainage Map” of the land shows disjointed channels lying around and none of them connect to the Yamuna. This is quite incredible and is perhaps the strangest map of Delhi seen by us. The little square dots are supposed to show habitation/built up areas! (page15, figure 2.5). This gives the impression that the Project is in a vast open empty land.

One gets the impression that these companies that prepared the reports are hired by companies which have projects in deep rural areas. The report seems to have simply taken a rural area format, removed the old reports and punched in arrant nonsense into the resulting blank spaces.

Continuing on to the “IMPACTS DURING CONSTRUCTION PHASE – 4.2.1 Impact on Topography and Land Use

The proposal is for redevelopment of General Pool residential accommodation colony at Sarojini Nagar. There will not be any change in the land use, land cover or topography as the site is categorized as residential area as per the Development control rules of Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Hence, it will not alter the topography of the site. This development will further improve the environment. Thus, no negative impacts are identified with respect to topography.” Quote “No change in Land use, land cover or topography, no negative impacts”

This is a classic example of different people being asked to prepare ridiculous reports over the same project without even exchanging the barest possible notes with each other.

This obviously contradicts the MoU with NBCC which specifically says that there will be large Commercial & office areas, and that MoUD will facilitate changes to the MPD2021, which is the Development Controls document for Delhi. The entire EIA report has no mention of these huge 8.07 lakh Sq.mtrs. of Commercial Area anywhere in this EIA report.

The standard format and text of these EIA reports with apparently no ground level reality is shown by the “list of villages around the site” include “Parliament Street” and “Connaught Place”. One wonders when “Parliament Street” was made a village. The list also includes Vivek Vihar which is about 25km from Sarojini Nagar. This brings us to our earlier point on copy pasting over a possibly earlier report on rural areas.

Finally coming to the objective of this report- The Impact of the Project. This paragraph here is the entirety of the Ecological impact: ” 4.4.1.5 Ecological Aspects During construction period, there could be some clearing of vegetation in order to prepare the site for construction. …A comprehensive greenbelt program will improve the ecological condition of the region. “. The entire issue of the existence of thousands of grown trees is dismissed with the words- “there could be some clearing of vegetation in order to prepare the site for construction”. There is no plan of the proposed project, which could have shown the ‘greenbelt”.

Subsequently the EIA also mentions: ” Potential Loss of Green spaces: Demolition of huge buildings would reduce the natural greenery of the area… However, the large landscaping planned and suggested in the Master plan for the project, would compensate for this loss. “.  “Demolition of huge buildings” – What are the huge buildings in Sarojini Nagar?  The existing buildings are almost all double storey or single storey buildings and do not qualify to be huge. As a matter of fact, it is huge buildings which are planned, that would replace the earlier housing

On to the so called ” Mitigation Measures: Compensatory land plantation against the felling of trees from Landscape and Environmental Planning unit, Delhi Development Authority is in process and NBCC (India) Limited has approached on this aspect and copy of the letter is enclosed as Annexure V. The plantation may be done with recommendations from the Forest Department. ” So even before the EIA report is made so called “Mitigation Measures” are already in progress!!!

There is a table titled “Recent Earthquakes in Delhi” which says that apparently there was a earthquake of magnitude 9.3 in Delhi “December 26, 2004 – – 9.3″ (Table7.1 page118). This belies all fact as one wonders how much of Delhi would have been left standing with an earthquake of such magnitude.

The report is filled with large portions of irrelevant verbiage for padding up the report, like : ” 8.3.1 Socio-Economic and Community Development- The socio-economic conditions of the population in the region represent the standard and quality of life. The important indicators, which decide the quality of life and required to be improved for better living conditions are literacy levels, occupational structure, industrial development, infrastructure facilities, transportation and communication facilities etc. “.  What does any of this have to do with Sarojini Nagar?

Inspite of being a project of thousands of crores by a large corporate, there is No CSR in this mega project!  ” Clause 8.4 CORPORATE SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY: …. Since NBCC (India) Limited is a blue-chip Government of India Navratna Enterprise …., Corporate Social Responsibility is not applicable. “Why not? Shouldn’t NBCC be setting a best example of CSR and to the best of our knowledge and belief Navratna Companies are not exempt from CSR.

Apparently, this project doesn’t need a Environmental Cost Benefit Analysis either as stated in the EIA. Quote ” 9. ENVIRONMENTAL COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS: Not applicable, as this chapter is needed if recommended at the scoping stage. “.

There is a list of existing trees (page150, table10.4) which seems highly dubious. For example, there is a whole avenue of Gmelina arborea (Gamhar) which is not even mentioned. But here are some honourable mentions like: ” Cactus 4”, ” Flower 12”, and more….

Finally there is the “SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION”:

” 11.2 JUSTIFICATION FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PROJECT

The proposed redevelopment project will have marginal adverse impacts on the local environment. However, with the implementation of the proposed pollution control and environment management measures, the minor impacts anticipated due to construction and operation of the proposed plan will be mitigated. The proposed redevelopment project will provide business opportunities for the local people, they will also be benefited in the areas such as education, health care, infrastructure facilities and women empowerment. Thus, in view of considerable benefits from the project without any major adverse environmental impact, the proposed project is most advantageous to the region as well as to the nation. “!

And finally, here is the grand conclusion:

” 11.4 CONCLUSION

The proposed redevelopment project will have certain level of marginal impacts on the local environment. However, development of this project has certain beneficial impacts/effects both during Construction and operation phase of the project. Thus, it can be concluded that with the judicious and proper implementation of the pollution control and mitigation measures, the proposed project will be beneficial to the society and will contribute to the economic development of the region in particular and country in general.  ”

The EIA seems to have been made with only a vague idea of even the location of the project site, in addition to its complete ignorance of the Project’s contents and context. Merely because it is a Govt redevelopment project does not make it automatically deserving of the ‘In Public Interest” tag. That can only be tested through due process and abiding by the rule of law.

This EIA would make better use as script for a spoof comedy show than as anything to do with the environment or physical reality.

 

 

 

 

The Lieutenant Governor is the ‘go to’ man in town

The High Court of Delhi pronounced its Judgment on the 4th of August, 2016 in the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi Vs Union Of India, that the Lieutenant Governor (LG)was in fact the executive head of Delhi.

That position remains, and while the Delhi Government later moved the Supreme Court against the Judgment, the operation of order of the High Court was not stayed. The Supreme Court has reserved its Judgment in this case.

Simply put, unless the Supreme Court rules otherwise, it is the LG who is Delhi’s executive head and governs it for the President of India.

The Governance model devised for Delhi was a strategy to make a union territory appear as if it were being administered via a local government elected by the people of Delhi and not the Central Government – elected by all of India. It was an attempt to accommodate into a formal legislative structure the large number of local political aspirants who were forever growing in numbers. Similar exercises had been tried in earlier decades. Handing over Delhi under the executive charge of local political representatives made the Union Government very uncomfortable. Indeed the Parliament of India agreed.

The political representatives in the Municipal Corporations as well as in the Legislative Assembly, Mayor and Chief Minister have no real power. The municipal commissioners – who are civil servants – and not the corporators –who are elected- run the Municipal  Corporations. They indulge the mayors but let there be no illusion that it is the commissioners who are in charge.

It is only partly true, that the Delhi model of governance collapses when the political party at the state and the centre are at loggerheads. Clash of personalities and overlapping turfs creates festering conflicts even if the party at the centre and state are the same. Sheila Dikshit faced this constantly but was adept at keeping it under wraps knowing fully well that exposing it would only show her as powerless against the LG and the centre.

When the Congress was in power at the Centre and in Delhi, in 2006 Sheila Dikshit locked horns with the then LG, BL Joshi, over several issues such as changing building laws in unauthorised colonies & over the issue of nominating legislators for foreign trips. There was a similar instance of confrontation with LG, Tejinder Khanna, including one over the construction and length of the Rao Tula Ram flyover.  Another example was in 2011, when Tejinder Khanna confronted the Delhi government’s decision on increasing circle rates for properties. However, in this case, the Union Home Ministry sided with Dikshit. Matters were resolved quietly.

But a camaraderie based model suggesting friendship (or worse cronyism) as a process of governing is disingenuous. Suggesting that an elected government should tip-toe around civil servants and officers to get them to work is silly. Statecraft is important but minus executive/coercive power the Chief Minister is a glorified Non-Government Organisation, an NGO. This is not to absolve Arvind Kejriwal but to only state that it is the centre that is in power in Delhi and should therefore be held accountable for Delhi’s problems. The Chief Minister is actually irrelevant in the scheme of Delhi’s governance.

Since this is not made explicit, there continues to be total confusion in the public on who governs Delhi. For the interested, it is important to go into some detail so bear with me:

In 1998 a Central Government notification said that “The Lieutenant Governor, shall in matters connected with public order, police and services exercise the power and discharge the functions of the Centre, to the extent delegated from time to time to him by the President, in consultation with the Chief Minister, except in cases where, for reasons to be recorded in writing he does not consider it expedient to do so,”.

This did provide the CM with a degree of say in the state’s affairs, but overturning this, the Central Government in a May 21 gazette notification of 2015 said:

‘And whereas it is well established that where there is no legislative power, there is no executive power since executive power is co-extensive with legislative power’.  It then proceeds to expand the powers of the LG to provide that in relation to matters connected with ‘Public Order’, ‘Police’, ‘Land’ and ‘Services’ the LG will exercise the powers and discharge the functions of the Central Government, to the extent delegated to him from time to time by the President, provided he  may, in his discretion, obtain the views of the Chief Minister of the National Capital Territory of Delhi in regard to the matter of ‘Services’ wherever he deems it appropriate. Services here refers to the civil services (DANIC, DANIPS).

Which, in simple language, leaves it to the LG’s discretion “to obtain the views” of the CM in regard to the matter of “services” wherever he considered it to be appropriate. This notification makes LG the total boss as far as the reserved subjects of public order, police and services are concerned. No consultation is required with the CM.

But if the Chief Minister of a State has absolutely no powers over the officers or the police then he simply cannot govern. Period.

This brings us to the point that it is then the Central Government and the LG that is responsible for the state of Delhi, its waste problem, its choked roads, its filthy river and its foul air.

The Chief Minister of Delhi is only a ‘National Narrative Maker’ for or against the political party that forms the government at the centre. With a national election coming up, the National Narrative Maker’s role will gain in significance.

With the Supreme Court having reserved its Judgement, as things stand now, the elected representatives in Delhi have the limited role of keeping people occupied in political theatre, build public opinion for or against issues, have political personalities retain a pie of Delhi’s GDP (if they like to) but in real terms it is the LG (and, therefore, the Central Government) who governs the National Capital Territory of Delhi.

Thankfully there is a substantial private as well as civil society involvement in Delhi’s functioning. There are large private players in power distribution, water billing and accounting, road construction, retail,  waste management, healthcare and that enables the Delhi that we live in to keep operating.  The Police are independent from the state Govt and Delhi’s RWAs, citizens’ groups and residents contribute by themselves and compensate for absent security and civic amenities. Delhi’s political crisis is never big enough or precipitous enough to bring the city to a halt.

Asking for a total return to UT or grant of full statehood both seem impossible since that would require a constitutional amendment by the Parliament. That seems unlikely bordering on the impossible. Until such time as the Hon’ble Supreme Court announces its decision, your ‘go to’ man is the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. Call him up when you have a problem.

Karnataka- Again our MLAs cede moral space to Elites and Intellectuals

The process of government formation in Karnataka recently became a major controversy. The role of the Governor, political parties and the court came into much discussion

In the melee a political situation was hijacked by the elites who started to moralize about elected politicians. It’s a trap unfortunately which our political leadership succumbs to time and again. I believe that the positions taken by our intellectuals, thought leaders and journalists reflected their own bias instead of a genuine interest in democracy. There was the usual lampooning of political parties and the comfort in calling all politicians corrupt. The conflict was positioned as one set of politicians on the prowl on a buying spree and another set being saved by being abducted and hidden away to prevent them from being sold. The narrative was one of Venal Vs Venal warlords competing to save democracy. As a sideshow another set of warring journalists and ‘intellectuals’, enslaved by their fixed positions took to their respective sides and attacked each other in this puerile show.

What should be solved through democracy is sought to be saved by institutions, and when it suits them, political high commands strategise to rely on courts on a matter which is really not for courts to solve. The process of Government formation was positioned in this case as one of corrupt MLAs, shorn of any morality or ideology, & being  up for sale. This is insulting to our democracy and it is surprising how legislators would allow such an impression be perpetuated about them. That it was a part of submissions in court that legislators will be bought, and further that legislators themselves allowed themselves to be confined to a hotel/resort in this period is truly disappointing. The position taken was elite politicking more than people’s politics. We are a democracy that routinely shows our politicians in a bad light. This is not good. It takes a lot of courage to get into electoral politics, far more than politics by other means.

We will now have a Government made up of people no one will look up to. Even though each MLA won in his own constituency he would be seen as having united in Government by being restrained from taking bribes. The opposition MLA who also won will be seen as a sullen loser.

It is sad that this will be the impression about them, especially because it will be an incorrect one. A Government so formed will be full of contradictions and will not serve the interests of the State.This weakens democracy and people’s power. This empowers elites and the bureaucracy.

While I do not Know Karnataka politics, I do know that Governments cannot just be formed by buying off legislators. If that were so, the party with the deepest pockets would simply buy off the parliament. If money or inducement/ coercion was so simple then between funds and CBI or ED etc any bill could be made to pass in parliament

Elected leaders have to face people on a daily basis, they also have to face their families, friends, peer groups, and they have to look at their long term political prospects before they take a decision. Even the most turncoat politician is sensitive to his constituency as well as his beliefs. This is not to say that money does not play a role at all in decision making but that money is not the sole consideration. Often money is not the consideration at all

For a stable government in a fractured mandate the solution is not courts interfering to save democracy but legislators resorting to more democracy. What has happened in Karnataka positions elected MLAs in a shameful position and it should not be repeated. It reinforces the belief that the politician who rises from the ground and elected by common people is an immoral person. While the perpetuation of this image suits the elite, it is fallacious and should not be reinforced.

For a stable government, where a pre poll alliance does not exist & requisite majority does not exist for the largest party would it be more democratic if we tried the following?

The Governor will in most cases tend to favour the dispensation that afforded him his position. The counter to that are not courts, but the newly elected legislators themselves. I propose that in such cases a 3 month period should be given and let all political parties resort to   politics. It will be hard to keep many MLA in resorts for that long in isolation. The newly elected MLA will have to get back to their constituency and will Willy nilly get a feedback from voters. In the current scenario, the short period allows them to act only as party representatives subject to party ‘whip’ and not consider how voters feel about their newly considered alignment. But given three months they will come under questioning from their voters and the media. In this time they will start to let their high command know what the pulse on the ground is. One should not forget that the rival candidate who lost the election will also rake up the issue among people. It will not be that easy to just ‘buy’ someone off by creating an unnecessary emergency.

I do not want to quibble on the time period. It may be 45 days or 2 months but the intent is not to hurry the process but to give it sufficient time. All in all, public opinion will pressurize the elected MLAs to take decisions more carefully. In this time all democratic negotiating happens with the political friends and rivals, peer groups, political NGOs and parleying with the media. It is mostly democratic deal making, negotiating, convincing and arguing. That’s part and parcel of our culture.

It is a settled matter that if the largest party is not in a position to form the Government, then the leader of the post poll alliance be called to form the Government. That is fair and should usually be the course taken. However in the Karnataka the leader of JDS, a party with the smallest mandate and one which only won regionally was prompted to head the state. This is perverse. Had it been a Congress CM with JDS support the matter would have been different as the Congress party had the highest vote share. It therefore becomes all the more important that legislators were given a long enough period to navigate through public opinion and negotiate accordingly. The Governor should in such cases exercise his discretion by giving elected more time rather than less.

That is democracy. Three months is not that a long time when a 5 year stable Govt has to be established and it is likely that a lasting government would emerge through this process than a hastily cobbled one.

 

*The Sarkaria Commission recommended that a Chief Minister, unless he is the leader of a party which has absolute majority in the Assembly, should seek a vote of confidence in the Assembly within 30 days of taking over. This is only a recommendation and not a constitutional binding.

Also read – Oligarchy of the Unelected-  https://ashutoshdixitblog.wordpress.com/2016/03/31/oligarchy-of-the-unelected/