Save lives, livelihoods, trees and the City therefore

A couple of months ago Bangalore Police Commissioner Mr. Shankar Bidari admitted that 53 people died during 2008 in road accidents on the newly widened 30 kms stretch of Bellary Road connecting the city to the new airport. A maximum number of the dead were pedestrians and most were killed since the airport opened in May 2008. The number of injured could easily be 10 times for every death. Many families and their communities have been brutalised but left with little choice.

It is so very easy to anticipate such problems in the design stage and invite local communities to help shape good decisions as the law demands. But it is the disease in our administrative culture to overlook such statutory provisions, disregard alternatives, rubbish people's serious concerns and then look askance when confronted with the terrible consequences of their poor design that is the real culprit. Unfortunately, Courts have been very mild against such lapses.

Road building and widening is a process that has been done for generations now. The collective wisdom of this deep experience has helped shaped scientific standards such as the National Building Code of India and guidelines of Indian Roads Congress, which implementing authorities have to follow. The requirement to consult affected communities in urban planning and infrastructure development is articulated in great detail in municipal laws derived from pre-independence era and the Town and Country Planning Act enacted in 1960s! The latter legislation, in particular, mandates that the wide public in urban areas must be involved at various stages of planning and implementation of projects. But it is these very laws that are violated with impunity when planning and developing urban areas and infrastructure, resulting in the urban crisis that we all suffer today.

It is in this context that Environment Support Group and this author brought a PIL before the High Court of Karnataka arguing that compliance with such progressive statutes was mandatory while widening roads or developing the Metro. Accepting this submission the High Court ruled on 16 March 2009 that implementing agencies must “strictly follow the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act” when widening roads and developing related infrastructure. (Download the interim direction from: http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/Tree%20felling/Hasire%20Usiru/legal/HC_Road_7107_2008_PIL_160309.rar)

When the PIL was admitted last year (a copy of which can be accessed at: http://www.esgindia.org/campaigns/Tree%20felling/Hasire%20Usiru/legal/PIL_ESG_RoadWidening_Indexed_Final_HC_2008.pdf), the High Court had considered the Petitioners grievance that Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) widening 91 core roads of Bangalore running into a length of over 400 kms. without any compliance with the Town and Country Planning Act. This would unjustly cause the destruction of homes, businesses, offices, schools, colleges, shopping areas, vendor zones, safe pedestrian pathways, and at least 40,000 avenue trees. The loss would be so irreparable and inconceivable that only the Court's restraining hand could help salvage the situation for affected communities and the voiceless trees. BBMP in its defense had argued that if roads were not widened traffic congestion could not be resolved. (A point that has been squarely contested by the current Traffic Commisisoner Mr. Praveen Sood). The Petitioners argue d that traffic congestion could be substantially reduced merely by treating intersections scientifically. In addition, developing safe zones for walking and cycling and providing pubic transport options – especially the very cheap bus based transport – would be the real long lasting solutions. World over, progressive efforts include traffic calming and discouraging cars in core city areas are being actively proposed – but the opposite was being done by BBMP.

The Court considered all these views and observed that authorities should be concerned “not only (about) the felling of trees and the widening of roads to reach the international airport but also such other incidental and related matters which result in the traffic hazards and also in relation to public/private transport, senior citizens, physically handicapped persons, children, ecology, environment and health”. To ensure such considerations were sincerely integrated in projects at the design stage itself, by consulting the wide public, the Court constituted an inter-disciplinary Committee headed by former Environment Secretary Mr. Yellappa Reddy.

The hope that the public would now be involved in decisions and that projects would be developed with sensitivity and in conformance of applicable laws and standards was shortlived The Committee Chair first made meetings out of bounds for the public and under pressure from implementing agencies began to issue suo moto clearance for projects in clear contravention of Court directions. Written protests from several Committee members that implementing agencies were violating the law were trivialised and not one representation of affected communities was even considered.

The Petitioners appealed to the Lok Adalat to arbritrate and on 19 November 2008 the Adalat ordered the Committee to act transparently and formulate recommendations only after hearing all concerned. Despite this direction, the Tree Officer of BBMP, who was also Convenor of the Committee, ordered the felling of all 350 trees on Sheshadri Road even when no recommendation had been formulated by the Committee. The Petitioners were once more compelled to rush to the Adalat for relief.

The Hon'ble Adalat was deeply disturbed by the violation of its orders and observed in its order of 6^th January 2009 that little could be done about the tree felling on Sheshadri Road as “...most of the trees are already removed.” On the Petitioners submission, the Adalat returned the matter back to the Court to decide on the issue of non-implementation of the Town and Country Planning Act. It was in this context that the Court ruled on 16 March 2009 that implementing agencies would “strictly follow” provisions of particular Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act and the Karnataka Preservation of Trees Act. This might sound like the Court is stating the obvious – authorities must follow the law. That authorities must be directed by Courts to follow the law else they will not, is a disturbing trend and indicative of a crisis in law.

Meanwhile it is also important to note how brazen officials are in violating even judicial orders evidenced by an order of the Tree Officer of BBMP who within hours of the Court's decision ordered felling of over 90 trees on Palace Road. Even if we consider the Tree Officer had the power to order felling of trees, it is inconceivable how he managed to fulfill norms of tendering out contracts for felling trees and auctioning the wood. History will record this dastardly act as destroying Bangalore's real charm. If only BBMP was sensitive to progressive street design not only could these trees have been saved, but the network of Race Course Road, Palace Road and Sheshadri Road could have been intelligently developed into a cyclists and walkers paradise, and also a zone for smooth traffic flow.

It is pyrrhic relief then that the Chief Minister now confirms he smells a scandal in the widespread felling of avenue trees. (Read: http://www.thehindu.com/2009/07/24/stories/2009072453560400.htm and http://newsrack.in/news/display?ni=213805603b0ecfa96a9529f58381368c%3A8588163) Should he not begin by enquiring why his office did not bring to his attention tens of representations and letters complaining that there was something really wrong with such widespread felling of trees? Shouldn't he have cared about the tens of protests across the city against such felling – covered regularly in newspapers? Should he have waited so long – and that too for an MLA to bring up the issue in the Assembly that cartels are at work to fell trees unnecessarily - when trees were being felled right around his house and office with gay abandon?

The vandal act of felling trees unnecessarily must not go unpunished. At least now, the Chief Minister must follow through on his suspicion and order an enquiry, catch the kingpin behind these cartels (even if s/he is a forest or BBMP official?) and stem the rot in the system. The issue should not merely be that the trees felled were grossly devalued, but to ask if needed to be felled at all.

A good beginning could be made by ensuring that the 16^th March High Court order is strictly complied with. Only when the implementation of this judgment becomes everyone's cause can we help shape Bangalore as a healthy, safe, equitable and green city.

Leo F. Saldanha

24 July 2009

How Bangalore Metro Chugs Along Matters to all

I read today in the Deccan Herald (http://www.deccanherald.com/content/13042/bu-ask-bmrcl-realign-metro.html) that the Bangalore University has written to the Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. that they should change the alignment and avoid destroying the Central College Campus. One of the key reasons reported is that Central College is designated as a heritage site per the Protection of Ancient Monuments Act. This got me thinking. A lot actually.

Bangalore Metro authorities have been claiming that the alignment was fixed after a thorough analysis, survey, and consultation with the wide public. How then, I wondered, was it possible that they missed out the University? Especially given that the Dept. of Environmental Science of the Bangalore University conducted the "Environment Impact Assessment" for the Metro. (Notice my reference to the EIA is in " ", and there is a reason, which I will come to later.)

Clearly, if there were consultations before fixing the alignment, then it would seem improper for the University's Registrar (who is appointed by the State) to now raise objection to the alignment ruining the campus. From what is reported in the paper, the Registrar has claimed that not only will the campus be destroyed by the Metro, but that the heritage structure would be de-stabilised. Further, it is stated that crores of Rupees will be lost to the University in terms of property value. The Registrar also claims it is possible for the Metro to do all that they want to do, without disturbing the Central College campus, right across the road, and without in any manner disturbing the heritage college campus.
Metro is being touted as a technological intervention - a state of art engineering feat that will put to rest our traffic and transport management woes. Mr. E. Sreedharan, Padma Shri Awardee, and a doyen of Metro engineering in India, has given his stamp of approval for the Bangalore Metro. In fact all that is now being done is per the designs he has originally reviewed, and according to the Detailed Project Report prepared, again under his guidance and supervision, by M/s Rail India Technical Economic Services (RITES).

Now Central College has a pride of place for every engineer worth his/her salt from Karnataka. Talk to any senior official, engineer, or even a Judge, and you know how deeply their association with Central College is valued. It is here that began to imagine big. Imagine amazingly. Imagine wildly even based on the foundational knowledge they gained here. Central College has set them free.

Now it is the engineering of the Metro project that is eating into the very edifice of engineers in this part of the world. Distressingly, the technology that is every engineer's dream project is unattentive to the glorious tradition of this campus, and the charm and regality of its ambience. Central College is calling attention of all, and feebly, and rather belatedly, has the Registrar spoken out against it likely destruction. (Of course we all know that the building will remain... But we also know that when you have a Metro station right in front of the Senate Hall, with all the chaos that will reign supreme, where is there a chance to loiter around in the campus contemplating ideas?)

What needs to be noticed critically is that it is not just Central College that will be affected by the Metro. Minsk square will go soon. Part of Lalbagh has already been taken away for a Metro station. And the entire Lakshman Rao boulevard, the country's most charming street I say, will be ruined forever. (Those who doubt the veracity of this statement only need to look at what the Metro has done to beautiful parks and trees that not too long adorned K. R. Road.)

Now don't get me wrong. I am not against the Metro. But I have serious, in fact very serious doubts, that the Metro will solve our traffic and transport problems. Metro is only one of public transport options, and its implementation could have been far more sensitive than is presently the case. In fact it could have been an intensely public affair, as such projects ought to be. This would have helped shape a Metro that works for all.

It is only when I finally got hold of a copy of the Detailed Project Report (DPR) in toto sometime ago, that I realised that there is very big gap between what the public expect the Metro to do, and what it will actually do. One major revelation is that the Metro will serve a rather small percentage of the travelling public, thus leaving open the question about what happens to others. Further, the Government decided to put the Metro through areas which were park lined because they wrongly claimed parks are Government lands. They are not. They are public commons, and the Government is only a custodian.

Unfortunately, the DPR was considered privileged, confidential and not open to public for review - one only got access to it because of the RTI Act, and that at a considerable cost. Were this DPR and as much of the detail of designs that could be publicly shared were out there on the Metro website, not only would Central College authorities have known the exact nature of the impact, but so would the Horticulture authorities who are upset about how Lalbagh has been encroached into. Additionally, entire wide world, including residents of Bangalore, would have had the opportunity to understand what the Metro is all about. (What the Metro has not done, the organisation I work with will soon do. Very soon, you can download the DPR from www.esgindia.org, the website of Environment Support Group.)

The Metro is not a defence project. Considering it is a public project, almost all of its documents should have been in public domain from the word go. But what has denied to the public in India, and to Indian citizens therefore, is easily accessible to Japanese citizens. This is because the Metro is subsantially financed by Japan Bank. Consequently, Japanese nationals can access documents of projects financed by the bank.

Now getting back to why the EIA was in " ". One obvious reason is that the document claimed to be an EIA of the project flatly fails to meet any of the basic quality standards that apply to formulation of the EIA. It is nothing more than a brochure of claims, and expectedly fails to meet any objective standard of verification. In fact the Metro did not need an EIA as a conservative reading of the applicable law does not specifically mention that Metros need to prepare this document. This has an interesting background.

In 2005 Indian Ministry of Environment and Forests under the terribly weak leadership of then Minister Mr. A. Raja, and extraordinarily strong crafting of the Ministry's Secretary, then Dr. Pradipto Ghosh, piloted a comprehensive amendment to the EIA Notification. This effort was widely opposed across the country as advancing a comprehensive weakening of a key environmental regulatory legislation and as a sell out to investor and industrial lobbies. When the final EIA Notification 2006 was being drafted, Mr. E. Sreedharan, Chief of Delhi Metro, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister arguing that because the Metro will resolve public transport crises in Indian cities, it is good for the environment. Further, it was argued that the Metro has no significant environmental and social impacts and thus need not be brought under the purview of the EIA Notification.

Without contesting or debating or questioning the legality of Mr. Sreedharan's, the Ministry was instructed to delete any reference to Metro projects in the EIA Notification. As a result, no Indian Metro project is being reviewed for it and social. What is proposed by engineers, goes straight onto our roads as the Metro - and that too without any compliance with the Town and Country Planning Act. People are caught in the mystification of technology and realise only when the project strarts grinding through their neighbourhoods that the consequences are immense.

This retrograde legal initiative is in jarring contradiction to the rest of the world, including even in many undemocratic countries, that mega projects like the Metro go through a very careful public review of its economic, social and environmental consequences. Statutory public consultations are held in every neighbourhood, and repeatedly even, to assess and evaluate various items, including changes in neighbourhood profile, loss of property and livelihoods, aesthetic and architecture elements, impact on greenery, debating whether the Metro has to be overground, at grade or underground, and so on....

Our law also demands such a deeply democratice process - only if we regard and follow the Rule of Law. It is little wonder that there are so many people agitated about the implementation of Metro projects in different cities - Mumbai, Bangalore, Delhi and the unimaginable scandal in Hyderabad. It is also one of the reasons why University is only now waking up to the impacts of Metro on the Central College campus. Why is the Horticulture Department is unhappy about the manner in which the Government forced them to part with a portion of Lalbagh - an issue which is under challenge in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. (Details of this PIL can be downloaded from www.esgindia.org.) And, withouth doubt, why there is so little acceptance of the Metro amongst impacted communities.

Had we subjected the Bangalore Metro to a thorough and public review of the environmental, social and economic consequences , then we would not have been in the current mess that the project has run into. All that was required was to comply with the law which demands that public involvement is fundamental to decision relating to conceptualisation, development and implementation of small, medium, large and mega projects.

We only need to review the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act, for instance. This law written into effect in 1961 envisages a deeply iterative process of people engagement, careful planning, sensitive appraisal of various interconnected issues and deliberate debate on implications, and there is no provision in this law to boycott its provisions. Sadly that is not what is happenning in the implementation of the Bangalore Metro. In fact, this project is a fantastic representation of the active disdain with which the wide public is regarded by the authorities.

Nothing prevented Mr. Sreedharan from instructing his subordinates to ensure every rule of every law that had to be complied with should be complied with. Had Mr. Sreedharan reviewed how Metro projects were implemented worldwide, he would have easily recognised the substantial efforts of project authorities in engaging the public, sharing information, seeking responses by walking - literally - street to street, enquiring if this solution was appropriate in contrast with other public transport options. Such statemanship would have embellished Mr. Sreedharan's fantastic record as the Chief Architect of Metro in India, and people would have cherished his visionary leadership in ensuring Metro projects would not ruin our cities.

In contrast, there has not been one single Statutory Public Hearing on the Bangalore Metro. There has been no compliance whatsoever with the provisions of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act. The Metro is now being extended by the Chief Minister all the way to the Art of Living Centre on Kanakapura Road, and there is absolutely no analysis to back its viability - in fact no one lives around here as it is either forest land, largely institutional area or the Roerich Estate. Where are the public in these decisions? Forget the public, not even the Legislators have been consulted.

Sadly, what we have now is a Metro project implementation schedule that is independent of context and local residents. Local traditions, cultures, landscapes, heritage monuments, public spaces, our streets, our parks, our way of life, are being undemocratically re-scheduled, re-arranged, disregarded to meet the technocrats dream of meeting the Metro schedule. As a result, Bangalore as we know it will end very soon.

What if, after all this, and the thousands of crores invested, our streets remain clogged with traffic? Let's ponder deeply and intelligently on such questions of immense important to each and every one who works, plays, lives in and cares for Bangalore. Not just for now, but for the future as well.

For the largely overhead Metro has a life of 150 years, at least.