ESCORTS Ltd on Wednesday said that it has sold its
equity in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre
(EHIRC) to Ranbaxy-controlled Fortis Healthcare for Rs
585 crore... ...
The deal, however, comes amid stiff resistance from Mr
Rajan Nanda's younger brother Mr Anil Nanda, CMD of
Goetze India, who moved the Delhi High Court on
Wednesday to prevent the deal. "I will do whatever I
can in my capacity to stop this deal and take EHIRC
back to its original status as a charitable society. I
am even more astonished that Escorts plans to use
funds derived from the sale of a charitable society to
revive a commercial entity... ...
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/09/29/stories/2005092903000100.htm
----
18/12/2004:
MR Anil Nanda, the younger brother of Escorts Ltd
Chairman, Mr Rajan Nanda, has resigned from the post
of Managing Director in Escorts Ltd. ... ... Company
officials from both sides meanwhile declined to
comment on whether the resignation had any connection
with the differences that had come up recently in the
Nanda family over the sell-off of Escorts Heart
Institute and Research Centre Ltd (EHIRC). ... ...
http://www.blonnet.com/2004/02/18/stories/2004021802680100.htm
------
02/08/2003:
... ...the recent fissures that have developed between
Mr Rajan Nanda and his younger brother, Mr Anil Nanda,
seem to be centred around the future course of the
healthcare business ... ... While the ostensible
reason for the company's decision was to bring a
strategic investor, Merlion India Fund, on board to
generate funds for expansion, Mr Anil Nanda,
Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Escorts Ltd,
fears that the institution will lose its "charitable"
character and "should be reverted to the original
status of being a charitable institution." Further, he
is of the opinion that divestment allows access to the
corpus of Rs 100-odd crore of EHIRC's tax-exempted
reserves for an investment of Rs 2 crore by the
company, according to his spokesperson.
http://www.blonnet.com/2003/08/02/stories/2003080202520100.htm
-------------
| Anil Nanda make more PI sense than SocialJurist
| Recall the 51 cr offer made in court in SJ PIL?
<http://plan.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/f/040823>
PIL-driven discourse about free beds and free seats
has achieved in 2003-2004 what was unthinkable or at
least unspeakable ? managers of noble professions of
healthcare and education ignobly violating the law of
land have declared that they would rather be mercenary
than noble and the state, having for long made clear
that it could not care less, has stooped in the week
after Independence Day to negotiating the fee for
abrogating nobility, bargain price for selling the
city?s health and education resources to those who
have been violating health and education rights of
citizens with impunity. Before pushing further its
mercenary interpretations of facility and charity,
untenable in law or sense, this historic discourse
might want to consider how history will judge it.
| Health and education policy developments | Facility,
charity and law | Insidiousness |
Health and education policy developments
(In the week after Independence Day)
Much of the President?s address on the eve of
Independence Day 2004 was devoted to education. Health
and education are two of ?Seven Sectors (saat sutra)
?pillars of the development bridge we must cross to
?more equitable ?development? that Prime Minister in
his Independence Day address said he has identified
from the National Common Minimum Programme as
?priority sectors for focused attention?.
Four days later, the side-show about free beds in
hospitals that has been playing alongside the
seven-month long circus following court order of
20.01.04 about free seats in schools in Delhi
reportedly reached a high point in High Court. It may
be recalled that in course of this PIL there were
reports in May 2004 of hospital being shut for
violating and hospital offering money to be released
from the free beds? condition (<Vimhans land allotment
cancelled> and <Escorts makes Rs 50-cr offer to skip
quota clause>). On 19.08.04 Escorts reportedly
informed the court that ?it?s offer to pay Rs 51 crore
to DDA to get rid of the lease condition was under
consideration? and DDA reportedly ?said the proposal
has been put forward to MoUD and sought four weeks to
communicate the decision? (<Beds for poor: Govt denies
relaxing condition>). On 20.08.04 it was reported that
?At a meeting with urban development secretary Anil
Baijal, it was decided that Escorts' offer would be
accepted as it is "not feasible to monitor the
hospitals" and for the hospitals to follow this
procedure.? (<DDA's hospital move may cut the poor
out>). Simultaneously, on 21.08.04 it was reported
that ?policy? to auction rather than cheaply allot
school sites has been sent by DDA to LG and Delhi
Government has ?objected? on general ground of
commercialization and out of specific concern that
?charitable institutions and non-government
organisations will get sidelined?. It has also
suggested that auction proceeds be shared with it on
the premise that "since the land acquisition is done
by the government through the LAC the revenue should
be ploughed back in to development and welfare
activities". (<Govt objects to DDA's land policy>).
Before starting to elaborate the subversions involved
here, three things need to be said. One,
?commercialization? that Delhi Government claims to be
opposed to is intrinsic to its ?vision? for Delhi,
based on exclusive bhagidari with a few in abrogation
of Constitutional obligations for all and ad-hoc
projects in contravention of statutory Delhi Master
Plan framework for equitable and efficient city
development. (Chief Minister has declared, in her
Independence Day speech, that her government remains
committed to consolidate gains of Bhagidari in making
Delhi a world-class city). Considering that violaters
in the instant matter are mostly NGOs / Trusts to whom
Delhi Government has been distributing ?essentiality
certificates? for land allotments (with no regard to
DMP) and not restraining from willfulness even after
court orders, its ?concern? for them vis-a-vis the new
?policy? is, at best, concern for ?bhagidaars? in its
?vision? (and its claim to share of proceeds from
auction of public land is really a ?vision? finance
solicitation, illegal since its ?powers? of land
acquisition are governed by Delhi Development Act,
which requires proceeds from land disposal to be
ploughed back into DDA?s revolving fund and expressly
prohibits use of this for any purpose other than DMP).
That Delhi Government?s ?vision? continues to be
shared by Central Government has become amply clear in
the last three months. On 19.08.04, when offer of 50
crores was reiterated and accepted, hoardings with
pictures of Tourism Minister were up in South Delhi
for inauguration by her of a ?Medical Tourism? wing in
an up-market Hospital unlikely to be providing 25%
free beds and outer Delhi MP?s personal plan for
healthcare (drawn up with party colleagues in Delhi
government), with ?super-specialty units? featuring
prominently, were also reported (<Health facilities to
be upgraded>).
Two, not only is government disinclined to enforce the
law, it is in no position to do so because it is
itself violating it. On 19.08.04 shuttering material
was being unloaded for Delhi Government?s
super-specialty Institute of Liver and Billiary
Sciences in Vasant Kunj, for which foundation stone
was laid by Chief Minister in September 2003 ? on a
site for 200-bed government hospital somehow allotted
to it in Master Plan Green Belt in duly notified
ground water critical area, at the end of residential
access road, amidst an upcoming up-market unauthorized
colony replete with farmhouse party menace (<Liver
institute skips over Masterplan>). The 40-crore
project is among those in the area challenged in PIL,
after numerous representations, but construction on it
started in July 2004 (<Construction of liver institute
at VK begins>). Central Empowered Committee appointed
by Supreme Court is also seized of the PIL, which
relies also on precedent judgment of 2002 against
identically illegal Sultangarhi scheme, a case of
statutory authority itself indulging in illegalities
it is duty-bound to act against that the Court had
found fit case for inquiry by DDA Chairman (LG) but
which has not been inquired into, despite recent
requests to (new) LG and MoUD Secretary (also in
letters forwarded by President?s Secretariat). The
court?s apprehension that authorities would be
emboldened to perpetuate identical illegalities has
come true, to set example also for others. On 19.08.04
was also reported the case of a building constructed
on a site cheaply allotted for 200-bed charitable
hospital in Vasant Kunj being up for sale for 45
crores after a builder took over the private Trust
that was allotted the land for 1.97 lakhs.
Three, government is inclined not only to allow public
land to be misused by ?bhagidaars? in its ?vision? but
also to ensure that they are not burdened with the
costs of their private profits from such misuse. The
illegal policy announced in February to allow
commercial misuse of farmhouses at a ?fee? is
reportedly in limbo only because farmhouses desire a
lower ?fee?. The illegal cooperative Bill passed in
July 2003 to regularize power-of-attorney sales (with
cooperative sector, also allotted cheap land, largely
having been taken over by realtors) is currently being
reconsidered after notification only because
beneficiaries wish to pay less for ?conversion?. This
is even as the ?fee? originally determined is itself
throwaway, no where near recovering costs of the
illegalities being ?condoned?. By agreeing to accept,
even consider, Escorts? offer of 50 crores, government
has now progressed to gifting away the state?s
privilege even to decide the starting point for such
illegal negotiation. The temerity with which Escorts
has offered peanuts is well suited to this
monkey-business. A globally reputed health facility
making such offer out of any genuine compulsion would
have offered the profits it has made by not providing
25% free healthcare from the day it started
functioning and whatever amount is settled for
condonation for future. DDA and MoUD, duty-bound to
penalize misuse, ought to have immediately informed
the court, before any consideration of Escorts? offer,
that an Act amendment is under consideration to
enhance misuse penalties, reportedly to ?10 per cent
of the market value of the property per day? (<Plan
violators to pay dear>, 13.02.04). Instead, like the
builder that reportedly took over a shady Trust, the
world-class Escorts put, and government of India
decided to accept, the worth of health rights of
citizens at paltry 50 crores, reportedly calculated on
basis of difference between allotment rate and
prevailing market rate and interest rate ? a mercenary
basis utterly devoid of basis not only in the
statutory regime from which the lease conditions flow
but also in principles of either planning or medical
professions, and arising only from simplistic PIL that
entirely erroneously connects conditions for free beds
in hospitals (and free seats in schools) to cheap land
allotments.
Facility, charity and law
Land in Delhi is not just cheaply allotted at times
but also cheaply and compulsorily acquired all the
time for over 40 years under a policy of socialization
of land to facilitate development according to DMP and
safeguard the interests of the poor in its benefits.
The provisions of DMP are statutory, amounting to
entitlements of citizens, and it is explicitly
stipulated that all land will remain in public
ownership and be leased out on equitable basis. Lease
conditions are for ensuring enforcement of DMP
entitlements and have NOTHING to do with charity.
Price charged for use of public land is NOT amenable
to mercenary interpretations because DMP and its land
policy are not mercenary in conception and are
explicitly aimed at equitable and efficient
development for enforcing fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Conditions
for free seats and free beds are NOT conditions in
lieu of cheap land allotments but instruments for
efficient and equitable DMP implementation, arising
from and contributing to at least three fundamental
planning principles and their underlying assumptions:
- On the assumption that health and education
facilities are not to be commercialized, they are
contemplated as non-remunerative uses to benefit from
proceeds from remunerative development like commerce,
up-market housing, institutions, etc, in DMP logic of
cross-subsidy across classes of uses. While
remunerative disposal may be justifiable in certain
situations, land disposal policy that treats
facilities at par with commerce, etc, is contrary to
this logic. Additional concessions are not charity
compensation but incentives for speedy development for
universalisation of healthcare and education.
- On the assumption that communities must be
integrated for equity and efficiency DMP logic of
cross-subsidy across classes of users requires free
seats / beds or equivalent conditions, quite
irrespective of price charged for sites, since there
is neither any other land nor any other way by which
the poor can have equitable access to facilities,
which is a key objective of DMP land policy. The
over-riding DMP provision for integrated communities
is the stipulation of 25% EWS housing in every
community / residential development of 100,000 persons
and the 25% in conditions for free beds and free seats
is consistent with this and not open to arbitrary
changes.
- On the assumption that community facilities have to
be viewed from vantage of communities and not facility
sites or managers, their provision is embedded in DMP
logic of hierarchical community structure ? cluster,
pocket, area, district, zone, city, region.
Inclusivity is intrinsic to this logic ? through
provisions for inclusive communities and self-seeking
balance of supply and demand at hierarchical local
levels ? in which trivia like lease conditions are
mere safety valves, neither contemplated for nor
capable of driving the larger scheme of the logic.
Insidiousness
The PIL driven discourse about free seats and free
beds, by disconnecting the procedural regime of lease
conditions from its statutory context, is subverting
the law, the planning principles underlying the law
and, now, also the very assumptions about equitable
health and education.
The assumption that health and education will not be
commercialized (more or less duly reiterated in
Independence Day addresses of President and Prime
Minister) has been put on its head in developments
following court orders in PIL about free seats in
schools including policy decision to dispense with
them, and in policy decision on 50 crore offer
emanating in court in PIL about free beds in hospitals
(and, also this year, in recent property tax ?reform?
that creates category of ?commercial? education and
health facilities). The assumption of integrated
communities, under grave threat for some time now from
two-pronged attack via demands of illegal resettlement
and illegal regularization to disconnect the slum
problem from its DMP integrated housing solution, is
tottering with the decision, as per <Rajya Sabha press
release of 16.08.04>, to disconnect it also
institutionally by privatizing low-income housing to
NGOs/builders in line with some UNDP policy project
signed last year (consistent with developments in PIL
and court appointed committee on slums in 2000-2001)
and may not survive the side attack from the
facilities front. The assumption that concerns of
communities, not of facility managers, will guide
provision of community facilities has already fallen
to this PIL-driven discourse, not only stuck between
violaters, authorities indulging them and PIL lawyer
petitioners, but also bent upon disregarding brazen
violations of DMP hierarchical communities logic
without which conditions for free seats / beds cannot
be violated. The discourse that has picked, from
glaring violations of the logic of the law, there for
all to see, conditions for free seats and beds to go
on going aghast will hopefully have to answer either
for its utter incompetence or for its incredible
complicity.
Consider the case of ... ...
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/f/040823
| read on, if u can suffer the prose
| pl tell if u come across anything re Anil Nanda case
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/
equity in Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre
(EHIRC) to Ranbaxy-controlled Fortis Healthcare for Rs
585 crore... ...
The deal, however, comes amid stiff resistance from Mr
Rajan Nanda's younger brother Mr Anil Nanda, CMD of
Goetze India, who moved the Delhi High Court on
Wednesday to prevent the deal. "I will do whatever I
can in my capacity to stop this deal and take EHIRC
back to its original status as a charitable society. I
am even more astonished that Escorts plans to use
funds derived from the sale of a charitable society to
revive a commercial entity... ...
http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2005/09/29/stories/2005092903000100.htm
----
18/12/2004:
MR Anil Nanda, the younger brother of Escorts Ltd
Chairman, Mr Rajan Nanda, has resigned from the post
of Managing Director in Escorts Ltd. ... ... Company
officials from both sides meanwhile declined to
comment on whether the resignation had any connection
with the differences that had come up recently in the
Nanda family over the sell-off of Escorts Heart
Institute and Research Centre Ltd (EHIRC). ... ...
http://www.blonnet.com/2004/02/18/stories/2004021802680100.htm
------
02/08/2003:
... ...the recent fissures that have developed between
Mr Rajan Nanda and his younger brother, Mr Anil Nanda,
seem to be centred around the future course of the
healthcare business ... ... While the ostensible
reason for the company's decision was to bring a
strategic investor, Merlion India Fund, on board to
generate funds for expansion, Mr Anil Nanda,
Vice-Chairman and Managing Director, Escorts Ltd,
fears that the institution will lose its "charitable"
character and "should be reverted to the original
status of being a charitable institution." Further, he
is of the opinion that divestment allows access to the
corpus of Rs 100-odd crore of EHIRC's tax-exempted
reserves for an investment of Rs 2 crore by the
company, according to his spokesperson.
http://www.blonnet.com/2003/08/02/stories/2003080202520100.htm
-------------
| Anil Nanda make more PI sense than SocialJurist
| Recall the 51 cr offer made in court in SJ PIL?
<http://plan.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/f/040823>
PIL-driven discourse about free beds and free seats
has achieved in 2003-2004 what was unthinkable or at
least unspeakable ? managers of noble professions of
healthcare and education ignobly violating the law of
land have declared that they would rather be mercenary
than noble and the state, having for long made clear
that it could not care less, has stooped in the week
after Independence Day to negotiating the fee for
abrogating nobility, bargain price for selling the
city?s health and education resources to those who
have been violating health and education rights of
citizens with impunity. Before pushing further its
mercenary interpretations of facility and charity,
untenable in law or sense, this historic discourse
might want to consider how history will judge it.
| Health and education policy developments | Facility,
charity and law | Insidiousness |
Health and education policy developments
(In the week after Independence Day)
Much of the President?s address on the eve of
Independence Day 2004 was devoted to education. Health
and education are two of ?Seven Sectors (saat sutra)
?pillars of the development bridge we must cross to
?more equitable ?development? that Prime Minister in
his Independence Day address said he has identified
from the National Common Minimum Programme as
?priority sectors for focused attention?.
Four days later, the side-show about free beds in
hospitals that has been playing alongside the
seven-month long circus following court order of
20.01.04 about free seats in schools in Delhi
reportedly reached a high point in High Court. It may
be recalled that in course of this PIL there were
reports in May 2004 of hospital being shut for
violating and hospital offering money to be released
from the free beds? condition (<Vimhans land allotment
cancelled> and <Escorts makes Rs 50-cr offer to skip
quota clause>). On 19.08.04 Escorts reportedly
informed the court that ?it?s offer to pay Rs 51 crore
to DDA to get rid of the lease condition was under
consideration? and DDA reportedly ?said the proposal
has been put forward to MoUD and sought four weeks to
communicate the decision? (<Beds for poor: Govt denies
relaxing condition>). On 20.08.04 it was reported that
?At a meeting with urban development secretary Anil
Baijal, it was decided that Escorts' offer would be
accepted as it is "not feasible to monitor the
hospitals" and for the hospitals to follow this
procedure.? (<DDA's hospital move may cut the poor
out>). Simultaneously, on 21.08.04 it was reported
that ?policy? to auction rather than cheaply allot
school sites has been sent by DDA to LG and Delhi
Government has ?objected? on general ground of
commercialization and out of specific concern that
?charitable institutions and non-government
organisations will get sidelined?. It has also
suggested that auction proceeds be shared with it on
the premise that "since the land acquisition is done
by the government through the LAC the revenue should
be ploughed back in to development and welfare
activities". (<Govt objects to DDA's land policy>).
Before starting to elaborate the subversions involved
here, three things need to be said. One,
?commercialization? that Delhi Government claims to be
opposed to is intrinsic to its ?vision? for Delhi,
based on exclusive bhagidari with a few in abrogation
of Constitutional obligations for all and ad-hoc
projects in contravention of statutory Delhi Master
Plan framework for equitable and efficient city
development. (Chief Minister has declared, in her
Independence Day speech, that her government remains
committed to consolidate gains of Bhagidari in making
Delhi a world-class city). Considering that violaters
in the instant matter are mostly NGOs / Trusts to whom
Delhi Government has been distributing ?essentiality
certificates? for land allotments (with no regard to
DMP) and not restraining from willfulness even after
court orders, its ?concern? for them vis-a-vis the new
?policy? is, at best, concern for ?bhagidaars? in its
?vision? (and its claim to share of proceeds from
auction of public land is really a ?vision? finance
solicitation, illegal since its ?powers? of land
acquisition are governed by Delhi Development Act,
which requires proceeds from land disposal to be
ploughed back into DDA?s revolving fund and expressly
prohibits use of this for any purpose other than DMP).
That Delhi Government?s ?vision? continues to be
shared by Central Government has become amply clear in
the last three months. On 19.08.04, when offer of 50
crores was reiterated and accepted, hoardings with
pictures of Tourism Minister were up in South Delhi
for inauguration by her of a ?Medical Tourism? wing in
an up-market Hospital unlikely to be providing 25%
free beds and outer Delhi MP?s personal plan for
healthcare (drawn up with party colleagues in Delhi
government), with ?super-specialty units? featuring
prominently, were also reported (<Health facilities to
be upgraded>).
Two, not only is government disinclined to enforce the
law, it is in no position to do so because it is
itself violating it. On 19.08.04 shuttering material
was being unloaded for Delhi Government?s
super-specialty Institute of Liver and Billiary
Sciences in Vasant Kunj, for which foundation stone
was laid by Chief Minister in September 2003 ? on a
site for 200-bed government hospital somehow allotted
to it in Master Plan Green Belt in duly notified
ground water critical area, at the end of residential
access road, amidst an upcoming up-market unauthorized
colony replete with farmhouse party menace (<Liver
institute skips over Masterplan>). The 40-crore
project is among those in the area challenged in PIL,
after numerous representations, but construction on it
started in July 2004 (<Construction of liver institute
at VK begins>). Central Empowered Committee appointed
by Supreme Court is also seized of the PIL, which
relies also on precedent judgment of 2002 against
identically illegal Sultangarhi scheme, a case of
statutory authority itself indulging in illegalities
it is duty-bound to act against that the Court had
found fit case for inquiry by DDA Chairman (LG) but
which has not been inquired into, despite recent
requests to (new) LG and MoUD Secretary (also in
letters forwarded by President?s Secretariat). The
court?s apprehension that authorities would be
emboldened to perpetuate identical illegalities has
come true, to set example also for others. On 19.08.04
was also reported the case of a building constructed
on a site cheaply allotted for 200-bed charitable
hospital in Vasant Kunj being up for sale for 45
crores after a builder took over the private Trust
that was allotted the land for 1.97 lakhs.
Three, government is inclined not only to allow public
land to be misused by ?bhagidaars? in its ?vision? but
also to ensure that they are not burdened with the
costs of their private profits from such misuse. The
illegal policy announced in February to allow
commercial misuse of farmhouses at a ?fee? is
reportedly in limbo only because farmhouses desire a
lower ?fee?. The illegal cooperative Bill passed in
July 2003 to regularize power-of-attorney sales (with
cooperative sector, also allotted cheap land, largely
having been taken over by realtors) is currently being
reconsidered after notification only because
beneficiaries wish to pay less for ?conversion?. This
is even as the ?fee? originally determined is itself
throwaway, no where near recovering costs of the
illegalities being ?condoned?. By agreeing to accept,
even consider, Escorts? offer of 50 crores, government
has now progressed to gifting away the state?s
privilege even to decide the starting point for such
illegal negotiation. The temerity with which Escorts
has offered peanuts is well suited to this
monkey-business. A globally reputed health facility
making such offer out of any genuine compulsion would
have offered the profits it has made by not providing
25% free healthcare from the day it started
functioning and whatever amount is settled for
condonation for future. DDA and MoUD, duty-bound to
penalize misuse, ought to have immediately informed
the court, before any consideration of Escorts? offer,
that an Act amendment is under consideration to
enhance misuse penalties, reportedly to ?10 per cent
of the market value of the property per day? (<Plan
violators to pay dear>, 13.02.04). Instead, like the
builder that reportedly took over a shady Trust, the
world-class Escorts put, and government of India
decided to accept, the worth of health rights of
citizens at paltry 50 crores, reportedly calculated on
basis of difference between allotment rate and
prevailing market rate and interest rate ? a mercenary
basis utterly devoid of basis not only in the
statutory regime from which the lease conditions flow
but also in principles of either planning or medical
professions, and arising only from simplistic PIL that
entirely erroneously connects conditions for free beds
in hospitals (and free seats in schools) to cheap land
allotments.
Facility, charity and law
Land in Delhi is not just cheaply allotted at times
but also cheaply and compulsorily acquired all the
time for over 40 years under a policy of socialization
of land to facilitate development according to DMP and
safeguard the interests of the poor in its benefits.
The provisions of DMP are statutory, amounting to
entitlements of citizens, and it is explicitly
stipulated that all land will remain in public
ownership and be leased out on equitable basis. Lease
conditions are for ensuring enforcement of DMP
entitlements and have NOTHING to do with charity.
Price charged for use of public land is NOT amenable
to mercenary interpretations because DMP and its land
policy are not mercenary in conception and are
explicitly aimed at equitable and efficient
development for enforcing fundamental rights
guaranteed by the Constitution of India. Conditions
for free seats and free beds are NOT conditions in
lieu of cheap land allotments but instruments for
efficient and equitable DMP implementation, arising
from and contributing to at least three fundamental
planning principles and their underlying assumptions:
- On the assumption that health and education
facilities are not to be commercialized, they are
contemplated as non-remunerative uses to benefit from
proceeds from remunerative development like commerce,
up-market housing, institutions, etc, in DMP logic of
cross-subsidy across classes of uses. While
remunerative disposal may be justifiable in certain
situations, land disposal policy that treats
facilities at par with commerce, etc, is contrary to
this logic. Additional concessions are not charity
compensation but incentives for speedy development for
universalisation of healthcare and education.
- On the assumption that communities must be
integrated for equity and efficiency DMP logic of
cross-subsidy across classes of users requires free
seats / beds or equivalent conditions, quite
irrespective of price charged for sites, since there
is neither any other land nor any other way by which
the poor can have equitable access to facilities,
which is a key objective of DMP land policy. The
over-riding DMP provision for integrated communities
is the stipulation of 25% EWS housing in every
community / residential development of 100,000 persons
and the 25% in conditions for free beds and free seats
is consistent with this and not open to arbitrary
changes.
- On the assumption that community facilities have to
be viewed from vantage of communities and not facility
sites or managers, their provision is embedded in DMP
logic of hierarchical community structure ? cluster,
pocket, area, district, zone, city, region.
Inclusivity is intrinsic to this logic ? through
provisions for inclusive communities and self-seeking
balance of supply and demand at hierarchical local
levels ? in which trivia like lease conditions are
mere safety valves, neither contemplated for nor
capable of driving the larger scheme of the logic.
Insidiousness
The PIL driven discourse about free seats and free
beds, by disconnecting the procedural regime of lease
conditions from its statutory context, is subverting
the law, the planning principles underlying the law
and, now, also the very assumptions about equitable
health and education.
The assumption that health and education will not be
commercialized (more or less duly reiterated in
Independence Day addresses of President and Prime
Minister) has been put on its head in developments
following court orders in PIL about free seats in
schools including policy decision to dispense with
them, and in policy decision on 50 crore offer
emanating in court in PIL about free beds in hospitals
(and, also this year, in recent property tax ?reform?
that creates category of ?commercial? education and
health facilities). The assumption of integrated
communities, under grave threat for some time now from
two-pronged attack via demands of illegal resettlement
and illegal regularization to disconnect the slum
problem from its DMP integrated housing solution, is
tottering with the decision, as per <Rajya Sabha press
release of 16.08.04>, to disconnect it also
institutionally by privatizing low-income housing to
NGOs/builders in line with some UNDP policy project
signed last year (consistent with developments in PIL
and court appointed committee on slums in 2000-2001)
and may not survive the side attack from the
facilities front. The assumption that concerns of
communities, not of facility managers, will guide
provision of community facilities has already fallen
to this PIL-driven discourse, not only stuck between
violaters, authorities indulging them and PIL lawyer
petitioners, but also bent upon disregarding brazen
violations of DMP hierarchical communities logic
without which conditions for free seats / beds cannot
be violated. The discourse that has picked, from
glaring violations of the logic of the law, there for
all to see, conditions for free seats and beds to go
on going aghast will hopefully have to answer either
for its utter incompetence or for its incredible
complicity.
Consider the case of ... ...
http://plan.architexturez.net/site/dmp2021/ncmp/f/040823
| read on, if u can suffer the prose
| pl tell if u come across anything re Anil Nanda case
______________________________________________________
Yahoo! for Good
Donate to the Hurricane Katrina relief effort.
http://store.yahoo.com/redcross-donate3/