On 13.02.04 Gautam Puri II was demolished in manner
that can only be called a slap in the face of
democracy. Its location at IP crossing, with Delhi
Government Secretariat, the premier School of Planning
and Architecture and the towering offices of the Delhi
Development Authority on the other three sides of the
crossing, makes it a resounding slap.
The demolition was purportedly in compliance of High
Court orders of 03.03.03, 29.10.03 and 28.01.04
(against all of which an SLP has been filed in Supreme
Court on 13.02.04) and all hurdles were cleared with
Delhi High Court dismissing on 11.02.04 the last of
several cases praying for time till end of winter, end
of examinations, provision of services in resettlement
areas. Like the Delhi discourse, these cases accepted
the premise that slum residents are 'encroachers' and
sought only clemency. This premise is deeply flawed,
slums in Delhi being result only of failure to
implement statutory Master Plan provisions for EWS
plots. That is the premise of the SLP filed.
On 11.02.04 the High Court, in effect, directed
demolition of Yamuna Pushta slums in a hearing where
all relevant facts and the law were not before it.
What was before it, besides a case based on lack of
services in resettlement areas, was an affidavit of
Union Government ? represented not through Ministry of
Urban Development that is responsible for lawful
planned development of Delhi but Ministry of Tourism
and Culture. This relies almost entirely on a 'piece'
written by the Minister, Jagmohan, formerly Urban
Development Minister, published as a 'brochure' on
31.01.04.
This 'brochure', grandiosely titled 'Yamuna River
Front ? Undoing a tragedy of governance and ushering
in a new dawn', is about a 'scheme' that does not
cover the area in which Gautam Puri II is located. Why
was Gautam Puri II demolished then? That is the most
important question and it must be ? will be ? asked
till answered and answered satisfactorily by all. The
following is only about questions about 'tragedy of
governance' and dubious 'new dawn' that the Minister's
'brochure' raises.
The 'brochure' is about 'one chapter of the story' of
Yamuna Pushta and its author's 'attempt to end this
tragedy'. The 'current chapter' commences with the
High Court order of 03.03.2003, though the author also
refers to Yamuna Maily case. His own 'passionate
intensity' is repeatedly asserted:
"Separately, I had been having my own plans... my
passionate attachment to certain Delhi projects like
Yamuna River Front. When I took over as Urban
Development Minister in June 1999, I thought I had got
my life-time opportunity particularly when... the
Supreme Court ...made my Ministry as a Nodal Agency
for ensuring that local authorities removed polluting
industries from Delhi and took measures to clean up
Yamuna. I myself wrote an affidavit ...I also got
deposited Rs.25.00 crore ...to meet the cost of
resettlement of squatters... But my strides towards my
goal were halted by change of my portfolio...
Nevertheless, I strapped up my boots once again and
started cutting another road to my destination... This
was from the side of the old city wall and the Red
Fort Complex..."
Whether such uni-dimensional 'passionate intensity' is
to be celebrated or condemned is a question of
governance that ought not to be scuttled, not only
because of demolition caused but also because of the
dubious 'case' that the 'brochure' builds against
citizens in pursuit of a dubious 'scheme'.
The 'case' against citizens is built simply with 'five
sets of photographs' and what the author calls 'a few
pertinent questions with regard to each of them' and
'an answer which would lay bare the truth'.
The photographs are glossy and make up most of the
'brochure'. None of them are captioned, nearly all
fail to provide any indication of location or detail.
And there is nothing to say to what extent are they
representative of the overall reality. Of the
'pertinent questions' raised, one is about
electro-plating units, curiously connected to Supreme
Court orders for H-category units, though these are B
or F category depending on scale and, like
non-conforming units elsewhere, await government
decision. The relevance of this question, or ones
about dairies and kabaris (also needing to be shifted
to appropriate sites), to the 'case' for demolishing
homes is unclear, indeed non-existent. The 'pertinent
questions' about homes are impertinent. One, with
reference to photographs of TV sets asks if these are
homes of the 'poor'. Another, with reference to one
photograph of a cluster of jhuggis and a vague remark
about 'recent squatters', claims 'proliferation'
without any time series data. The 'answer' to these
vague questions bears no relation to demolitions that
it purportedly justifies.
"powerful commercial and political interests have...
weaved a vast network of corruption and malpractices.
The industrialists, the kabaris, cattle-farm owners
and jhuggi 'dadas', have parcelled out the public
lands, set up factories, allotted plots and are
deriving huge illegal pecuniary benefits... They have
also made the officials of the police and local bodies
fellow conspirators. ...Inaction on the part of the
senior functionaries and the increasing disposition of
well-meaning persons to look the other way have only
whetted the appetite of the wrong-doers...".
Why, then, punish the victims with slanderous
photographs in a glossy brochure placed in court to
secure its approval for demolition of their homes,
especially when for those identically situated in,
say, unauthorised colonies regularisation is being
considered?
The answer lies in the 'scheme', of which the
'brochure' has (against 9 pages of misleading pushta
photographs) only three pictures ? 2 'computer
generated landscapes' [photo-montages], including one
on the cover, and a schematic 'entire plan' on rear
cover, imperiously titled 'My Plan ? Your Choice'.
The 'scheme' is wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction. It is not open to any minister to
declare his homegrown idea 'My Plan' and impose it on
the city as 'Your Choice'. The Master Plan for Delhi
explicitly states, "After the results of the model
studies for the channelisation of the river Yamuna
become available, development of river front should be
taken up, considering all the ecological and
scientific aspects, as a project of special
significance for the city". It designates the riverbed
as 'O-Zone', ie, a zone in the city requiring a Zonal
Plan to be holistically prepared by due process under
the Act, inclusive of opportunity for public scrutiny
and comment, before 'schemes' are undertaken in it.
O-Zone Plan has not been notified. High-handed
resettlement in haste for an illegal 'scheme' (instead
of resettlement in accordance with law) is not just a
consequent illegality but also illegal distortion of
priorities. For instance, the other Annexure in the
Affidavit before High Court on 11.02.2004 indicates
only 18705 available resettlement plots, half in
Bawana and needed for resettling workers alongside
shifting of non-conforming units. There is no case to
use all resettlement stock for pushta, especially
since Plan targets for EWS plots in adjoining zones
are unmet. How come pushta suddenly became top
priority for resettlement (considering the Minister
did not respond in 2000 to representations to make it
so for Narela)? The Minister says in his 'brochure':
"I wrote, on December 11, 2003 to ...Minister of State
...Urban Development... "There is a very important
project of cleaning up of Yamuna River Front and
developing a vast Green Complex... A lot of investment
has already been made in this complex and Rs. 5.00
crores more have been allocated for immediate
investment. But further implementation ...has been
held up for want of action ...for which the requisite
cost was deposited with the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi for clearance and resettlement of jhuggies... If
further delayed, it will ...result in huge investment,
already made, going waste." ...I called a high-level
meeting on January 3, 2004, in which, besides the two
Ministers of State, Urban Development and Home, and
their senior officers, Lt. Governor, Delhi,
Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, and
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi were
present. I drew pointed attention ...to the fact that
about 19,000 plots were available for resettlement of
eligible squatters and yet the orders of the Delhi
High Court regarding clearance of Yamuna River Front
were not being implemented. This could cause serious
consequences, including punishment under the Contempt
of Courts Act. When the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, referred to the 'demand' for
resettlement from other areas, I said that it should
be obvious that top priority had to be given to those
cases, like Yamuna River Front, wherein the orders of
the High Court, setting time limit, had been passed,
and where cost of resettlement had been paid and the
budgetary provisions for undertaking development /
construction work, immediately after clearance,
existed. After some discussions, it was unanimously
decided that, for the first phase, 5000 plots should
be earmarked and work of clearance and resettlement
commenced by January 10, 2004, from the side of old
Shahdra / Indraprastha Bridge...".
This illegal 'scheme' with all its 'investments' made
and imminent and whatnot just sailed through Delhi
High Court, with its victims piously painted culprits
and all hypnotised by the red herring. No one plays
this game like Jagmohan does. One way or the other,
everyone ends up playing for him.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html
that can only be called a slap in the face of
democracy. Its location at IP crossing, with Delhi
Government Secretariat, the premier School of Planning
and Architecture and the towering offices of the Delhi
Development Authority on the other three sides of the
crossing, makes it a resounding slap.
The demolition was purportedly in compliance of High
Court orders of 03.03.03, 29.10.03 and 28.01.04
(against all of which an SLP has been filed in Supreme
Court on 13.02.04) and all hurdles were cleared with
Delhi High Court dismissing on 11.02.04 the last of
several cases praying for time till end of winter, end
of examinations, provision of services in resettlement
areas. Like the Delhi discourse, these cases accepted
the premise that slum residents are 'encroachers' and
sought only clemency. This premise is deeply flawed,
slums in Delhi being result only of failure to
implement statutory Master Plan provisions for EWS
plots. That is the premise of the SLP filed.
On 11.02.04 the High Court, in effect, directed
demolition of Yamuna Pushta slums in a hearing where
all relevant facts and the law were not before it.
What was before it, besides a case based on lack of
services in resettlement areas, was an affidavit of
Union Government ? represented not through Ministry of
Urban Development that is responsible for lawful
planned development of Delhi but Ministry of Tourism
and Culture. This relies almost entirely on a 'piece'
written by the Minister, Jagmohan, formerly Urban
Development Minister, published as a 'brochure' on
31.01.04.
This 'brochure', grandiosely titled 'Yamuna River
Front ? Undoing a tragedy of governance and ushering
in a new dawn', is about a 'scheme' that does not
cover the area in which Gautam Puri II is located. Why
was Gautam Puri II demolished then? That is the most
important question and it must be ? will be ? asked
till answered and answered satisfactorily by all. The
following is only about questions about 'tragedy of
governance' and dubious 'new dawn' that the Minister's
'brochure' raises.
The 'brochure' is about 'one chapter of the story' of
Yamuna Pushta and its author's 'attempt to end this
tragedy'. The 'current chapter' commences with the
High Court order of 03.03.2003, though the author also
refers to Yamuna Maily case. His own 'passionate
intensity' is repeatedly asserted:
"Separately, I had been having my own plans... my
passionate attachment to certain Delhi projects like
Yamuna River Front. When I took over as Urban
Development Minister in June 1999, I thought I had got
my life-time opportunity particularly when... the
Supreme Court ...made my Ministry as a Nodal Agency
for ensuring that local authorities removed polluting
industries from Delhi and took measures to clean up
Yamuna. I myself wrote an affidavit ...I also got
deposited Rs.25.00 crore ...to meet the cost of
resettlement of squatters... But my strides towards my
goal were halted by change of my portfolio...
Nevertheless, I strapped up my boots once again and
started cutting another road to my destination... This
was from the side of the old city wall and the Red
Fort Complex..."
Whether such uni-dimensional 'passionate intensity' is
to be celebrated or condemned is a question of
governance that ought not to be scuttled, not only
because of demolition caused but also because of the
dubious 'case' that the 'brochure' builds against
citizens in pursuit of a dubious 'scheme'.
The 'case' against citizens is built simply with 'five
sets of photographs' and what the author calls 'a few
pertinent questions with regard to each of them' and
'an answer which would lay bare the truth'.
The photographs are glossy and make up most of the
'brochure'. None of them are captioned, nearly all
fail to provide any indication of location or detail.
And there is nothing to say to what extent are they
representative of the overall reality. Of the
'pertinent questions' raised, one is about
electro-plating units, curiously connected to Supreme
Court orders for H-category units, though these are B
or F category depending on scale and, like
non-conforming units elsewhere, await government
decision. The relevance of this question, or ones
about dairies and kabaris (also needing to be shifted
to appropriate sites), to the 'case' for demolishing
homes is unclear, indeed non-existent. The 'pertinent
questions' about homes are impertinent. One, with
reference to photographs of TV sets asks if these are
homes of the 'poor'. Another, with reference to one
photograph of a cluster of jhuggis and a vague remark
about 'recent squatters', claims 'proliferation'
without any time series data. The 'answer' to these
vague questions bears no relation to demolitions that
it purportedly justifies.
"powerful commercial and political interests have...
weaved a vast network of corruption and malpractices.
The industrialists, the kabaris, cattle-farm owners
and jhuggi 'dadas', have parcelled out the public
lands, set up factories, allotted plots and are
deriving huge illegal pecuniary benefits... They have
also made the officials of the police and local bodies
fellow conspirators. ...Inaction on the part of the
senior functionaries and the increasing disposition of
well-meaning persons to look the other way have only
whetted the appetite of the wrong-doers...".
Why, then, punish the victims with slanderous
photographs in a glossy brochure placed in court to
secure its approval for demolition of their homes,
especially when for those identically situated in,
say, unauthorised colonies regularisation is being
considered?
The answer lies in the 'scheme', of which the
'brochure' has (against 9 pages of misleading pushta
photographs) only three pictures ? 2 'computer
generated landscapes' [photo-montages], including one
on the cover, and a schematic 'entire plan' on rear
cover, imperiously titled 'My Plan ? Your Choice'.
The 'scheme' is wholly illegal and without
jurisdiction. It is not open to any minister to
declare his homegrown idea 'My Plan' and impose it on
the city as 'Your Choice'. The Master Plan for Delhi
explicitly states, "After the results of the model
studies for the channelisation of the river Yamuna
become available, development of river front should be
taken up, considering all the ecological and
scientific aspects, as a project of special
significance for the city". It designates the riverbed
as 'O-Zone', ie, a zone in the city requiring a Zonal
Plan to be holistically prepared by due process under
the Act, inclusive of opportunity for public scrutiny
and comment, before 'schemes' are undertaken in it.
O-Zone Plan has not been notified. High-handed
resettlement in haste for an illegal 'scheme' (instead
of resettlement in accordance with law) is not just a
consequent illegality but also illegal distortion of
priorities. For instance, the other Annexure in the
Affidavit before High Court on 11.02.2004 indicates
only 18705 available resettlement plots, half in
Bawana and needed for resettling workers alongside
shifting of non-conforming units. There is no case to
use all resettlement stock for pushta, especially
since Plan targets for EWS plots in adjoining zones
are unmet. How come pushta suddenly became top
priority for resettlement (considering the Minister
did not respond in 2000 to representations to make it
so for Narela)? The Minister says in his 'brochure':
"I wrote, on December 11, 2003 to ...Minister of State
...Urban Development... "There is a very important
project of cleaning up of Yamuna River Front and
developing a vast Green Complex... A lot of investment
has already been made in this complex and Rs. 5.00
crores more have been allocated for immediate
investment. But further implementation ...has been
held up for want of action ...for which the requisite
cost was deposited with the Municipal Corporation of
Delhi for clearance and resettlement of jhuggies... If
further delayed, it will ...result in huge investment,
already made, going waste." ...I called a high-level
meeting on January 3, 2004, in which, besides the two
Ministers of State, Urban Development and Home, and
their senior officers, Lt. Governor, Delhi,
Vice-Chairman, Delhi Development Authority, and
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Delhi were
present. I drew pointed attention ...to the fact that
about 19,000 plots were available for resettlement of
eligible squatters and yet the orders of the Delhi
High Court regarding clearance of Yamuna River Front
were not being implemented. This could cause serious
consequences, including punishment under the Contempt
of Courts Act. When the Commissioner, Municipal
Corporation of Delhi, referred to the 'demand' for
resettlement from other areas, I said that it should
be obvious that top priority had to be given to those
cases, like Yamuna River Front, wherein the orders of
the High Court, setting time limit, had been passed,
and where cost of resettlement had been paid and the
budgetary provisions for undertaking development /
construction work, immediately after clearance,
existed. After some discussions, it was unanimously
decided that, for the first phase, 5000 plots should
be earmarked and work of clearance and resettlement
commenced by January 10, 2004, from the side of old
Shahdra / Indraprastha Bridge...".
This illegal 'scheme' with all its 'investments' made
and imminent and whatnot just sailed through Delhi
High Court, with its victims piously painted culprits
and all hypnotised by the red herring. No one plays
this game like Jagmohan does. One way or the other,
everyone ends up playing for him.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Finance: Get your refund fast by filing online.
http://taxes.yahoo.com/filing.html