[in-enaction] Politics of development: Metro, mis-governance and maddening histrionics

On 31st August 2002, with news reports of Delhi's first metro train arriving
from Korea and indications of the Congress government in Delhi and the BJP-led
Central governments fighting over the new toy, I'd posted something at

By then, in her Independence Day speech Congress Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit had taken credit for the Metro and, at a press conference the next day, BJP party president Madan Lal Khurana had said that Congress had no moral right to do so [1]. Delhi BJP had announced that Deputy Prime Minister Advani would inaugurate the trial run in September and was planning to have Prime Minister Vajpayee inaugurate the first rail run in December, while the Congress was pushing for Congress president Sonia Gandhi. Over the last week, much has happened in the forever-continuing mis-governance drama in Delhi in which the Metro has been rather central. On 3rd September we read that Delhi Cabinet had settled on a ?neutral name? for the inauguration, that of President A P J Kalam, and decided that Dikshit would invite him [2]. On 4th September we read that the Ambassador of Japan (which is extending loan for 70 per cent of the cost of the Metro) had paid rich tributes to the metro corporation for introducing a completely new work culture to the city [3]. At the same time Khurana had called a press conference and lashed out, "How can Dikshit invite the President on her own to inaugurate a Central project? Who is she to decide on this? ?She could have spoken to the Centre if she had something on her mind about the inauguration". Dikshit, on her part, had said, ??Who are they to decide? Are they trying to mislead the people? ?They could have approached the state government and expressed their views on the matter." [4]. Even as the Central government had already drafted the Delhi Metro Railways Operation and Maintenance Bill, Delhi government decided to bring a separate legislation in Delhi assembly [5]. Delhi Transport Minister, Ajay Maken, argued that the Constitution says all modes of transport operating within the state are subject to state government's control. The Metro relates directly to the lives of Delhiites, whose needs Delhi government understands best. Delhi and Central government were contributing equally (15 per cent each) towards the cost. Repayment of the loan (70 percent) would come from the earnings of the metro corporation from residents of Delhi. The leader of the opposition in Delhi assembly, Jagdish Mukhi, counter-argued that operating the Metro would require huge subsidies and the second phase would require huge investments and Delhi government could not afford the responsibility. The Metro was a national project in which Central Government had a major role, including that of guarantor, BJP had done all the groundwork, and the contribution of the Congress Government in the first phase had been virtually nil. Maken said Delhi government knew its proposed Bill had no legal standing in view of the Centre's Bill (since it needs the Centre's approval to table a Bill), but it was going ahead ?for the sake of moral accountability to the people of Delhi?. Mukhi said Delhi Government was trying to politicise a developmental matter when it should be thinking of the second phase, which was very important for the people of Delhi. On 5th September we read that the fight over the Metro (in the name of the people of Delhi) had taken a curious turn. On 4th September Dikshit had called a press conference to attack a Central government Circular of 29th August reminding Delhi Government of the powers of the Central Government (specifically its nominee the Lieutenant Governor) in the governance of Delhi. The Circular followed developments over several weeks that followed years of Delhi ministers kowtowing to the Lieutenant Governor when they could have acted on their own. But the ?issue? (in the name rights of a ?duly elected government? in a democracy) began to dramatically hog headlines with Dikshit's political outburst [6]. Over the next four days of prolific reportage it became clear that The Circular merely affirmed the de-jure and de-facto status of governance in Delhi, dominated by power games sans responsibility [7]. On the one-way-no-U-turns-allowed streets that ?political outbursts? take, the matter is headed for a special session of the Delhi Assembly on 11th September [8], where the issue of full statehood for Delhi is to be raised, very appositely in the maddening histrionics that pass as political debate, by the BJP! [9]. Through all this the Metro kept surfacing. In her press conference on 4th Dikshit attributed the Centre's Circular to its dubious intent to take credit for Delhi government's work on the Metro, etc. One news report even quoted ?an official? as saying that The Circular seemed to have been issued ?to prevent the city government from introducing the Metro Bill in the assembly? [10]. Dikshit's visit on 5th to inspect the newly arrived metro train provoked news reports with remarks like ?Dikshit was delighted to inspect the imported Metro train ?Happy enough to deny that there was any tension between her government and the Centre? and ?the CM who had taken a belligerent stand on Wednesday, looked somewhat mollified on Thursday? [11]. It does appear that an imported train, besides some other political exigencies, has precipitated yet another fracas that leaves the average citizen rather bewildered. With both BJP and Congress very inclined to provide the city bad entertainment in lieu of good governance it is becoming increasingly unclear who is fighting who over what in the name of Delhi's democracy and development. The Metro is a particularly tragic example of the ?disconnect? between the city's politics and its reality (democratic, developmental or otherwise). While our duly-elected (through processes becoming rather alarming) governments (having less and less to do with governance of representation and responsibility and more and more to do with politics of power and control) squabble over the credit, someone needs to do the worrying. From the beginning serious reservations have been expressed about the details of Delhi Metro ? ridership estimates, corridor alignments, track decisions, station design approaches, property development ideas, financial viability, etc. Neither government has seen it fit to allay the apprehensions of professionals and others on these counts. The metro corporation just locked itself inside its plush offices and appointed a good PR officer to keep feeding us savvy details about its work culture and fashionable innovations like designer uniforms, arty stations, plush coaches, etc. If and how these fancy pieces fit the effective solution to our urgent mass transit problem is a question that has been effectively sidelined. There is a sad inevitability about this trend, located in at least some measure in the fractured nature of professional communities, which remain forever caught in their debates, leaving politicians free to call all the shots on technical aspects (duly legitimised by select professionals, of course). But the Metro seems to have gone too far even on the inevitable track, all the way to the bizarre point of saying the city must be ?metro-trained? and sighing about metro-users not always being burger-and-pizza-eating-crowd that fits into the pretty picture of metro-stations with Dominoes outlets. What is it that this city must pay back a huge loan for ? needed city transport or some one's notion of desirable city image? Galling as the pre-occupation with frills and fancies (and fighting over credit for the same) is, it is not unexpected. Our representatives have always in recent history demonstrated a marked tendency to shy away from technicalities even in the most technical matters, ?contributing? only in grandmotherly or grand-uncle style to frivolous add-ons. In this instance what has been, at least to my mind, far more appalling is the stubborn refusal to talk even of statutory entitlements. For over a year I have been writing to our metro corporation, urban arts commission and development authority as well as our Central and Delhi Governments about Master Plan provisions that make it mandatory for space for hawkers to be reserved at stations. Surely, anyone can see that hawkers are going to happen around stations, they always do. Delhi has these unique statutory provisions to help us pre-empt problems. It also has two governments claiming to represent people, including hawkers (the Central government even came out with not one but two policy initiatives for the poor hawkers last year after being egged on by two (women's) NGOs). It has premier professional institutions who are also taking a keen interest in hawking issues (especially ever since the NGOs got interested). It has a plethora of public authorities who are also engaging (often in departure from their own mandates) on the national hawker policy (rather unnecessarily, one might add, since the rather robust Plan provisions already have status of national guideline in view of having been approved by Parliament). Despite this, there is no provision for hawkers at Metro stations even as it is obviously needed by the city, even as it is a statutory entitlement of the hawkers. Even if the governments are lucky or clever and all other reservations about design expressed by others turn out to be unfounded, the matter of non-implementation of hawker provisions will remain problematic and no amount of Dominoes pizzas will change that. What credit for development are our governments fighting over, when they have scant regard for the statutory framework for our city's planned development? What are they fighting for in our name if they care not even about our settled entitlements? Why do we just watch their ludic histrionics in the name of development and democracy, knowing fully well they are committed to neither? And why oh why do we help them along by our own unprofessionalism? Gita Dewan Verma / Planner 08.09.02 --------------------------------------------------- [1] 2002-08-17: ?Congress slammed tram plan, can't claim Metro?, Express Newsline [2] 2002-09-03: ?Metro rail: Delhi takes on Centre?, Daily Pioneer; 2002-09-04: ?City Govt to go ahead with own legislation?, Times of India. [3] 2002-09-04: ?Japanese envoy praises Delhi Metro?, Hindustan Times. [4] 2002-09-05: ?PM gets invite to open Metro, card for President too?, Express Newsline. [5] 2002-09-04: ?City Govt to go ahead with own legislation?, Times of India; ?Delhi Govt to table Metro Bill?, Times of India); ?Congress politicising Metro project, says Mukhi?, The Hindu. [6] 2002-09-05: ?New Delhi Usurps Delhi?, Daily Pioneer; ?Delhi Govt. stripped of powers?, The Hindu; ?Centre trims Delhi?s powers?, Hindustan Times; ?Lt-Governor gets administrative powers?, Times of India; ?Delhi govt resents L-G?s new big brother role?, Indian Express. [7] 2002-09-06: ?Delhi circular legally sound: Advani?, Times of India; ?CM is overreacting: Mukhi?, Times of India; ?Advani ready to rethink MHA letter?, Hindustan Times; ?Govt was just told, keep in touch with L-G?, Express Newsline; ?CLP meet to discuss circular?, Express Newsline; 2002-09-07: ?Govt defined, Delhi doesn?t like meaning?, Express Newsline; ?BJP divided on powers for Delhi Govt?, The Hindu; 2002-09-08: ?Sheila Govt. woes are its own making?, The Hindu. [8] 2002-09-02: ?Cong decides on special session... But will it really help??, Hindustan Times; ?Row with L-G: Special session likely on Sept 11?, Express Newsline; ?Fourth special session, one too many?, Express Newsline. [9] 2002-09-08: ?Sheila?s outburst triggers debate on statehood for Delhi?, Hindustan Times; 08.09.02: ?BJP to take up statehood issue in session?, Asian Age; ?BJP to propose statehood?, Times of India. [10] 2002-09-05: ?Centre trims Delhi?s powers?, Hindustan Times. [11] 2002-09-02: ?CM inspects Metro train, says no row with Centre?, Express Newsline; ?Sheila to meet Advani over 'powershift'?, Daily Pioneer.