Comment on article by Managing Director, DSIDC
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner / 07.02.03
Yesterday's Express Newsline report 'Okhla empty, govt can't see space'
<
http://cities.expressindia.com/fullstory.php?newsid=42968> describes how
conditions are bad to the extent of driving units to decisions to
relocate.
On 17.01.03 an article by the Managing Director of Delhi State Industrial
Development Corporation had appeared in the Hindustan Times (reproduced
below). The previous day the Hindustan Times had reported
<
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/160103/detCIT17.shtml>
that the National Capital Region Planning Board had submitted its draft
regional plan for 2021 to the Ministry for scrutiny and approval. The
proposals outlined in the report included 'dispersal of industrial
activities outside the limits of Delhi' and 'only hi-tech industries'
within Delhi. The report pointed out that DDA's proposal for
regularisation of industrial units in 24 residential areas and Delhi
government's similar proposal for urban villages were contrary to the
proposals of the draft NCR Plan.
The DSIDC MD's piece the following day said, well, nothing. It was written
in the vein of an observer, as if DSIDC had no role in the mess in which
the industries' matter is mired in Delhi. I had circulated it with some
intemperate comments translating to the following:
* It is for DSIDC to ensure that industrial estates are developed and used
properly. It is, therefore, uncalled for on the part of DSIDC's MD to
whine about 'pathetic condition of industrial estates', as a result of
which industries 'have been left to fend for themselves' in ways that have
'violated rules and compromised standards'.
* DSIDC could, rather should, have taken charge of all industrial land set
aside in the Plan and developed it in a time-bound manner as required by
the mandatory monitoring provisions of the Plan. It is, therefore,
uncalled for on the part of DSIDC's MD to speak of 'need' for 'rational
and dynamic location policy', 'rational planning', etc.
* Section 10(2) of Delhi Development Act and Clause-3 of the Development
Code in the Master Plan sufficiently empower Delhi Government / DSIDC to
ensure implementation of Plan provisions for industrial space at levels of
detailed planning by DDA or any one else. It is, therefore, uncalled for
on the part of DSIDC's MD to deploy a helpless tone in his public
writings.
* DSIDC has clearly failed in its responsibility of planned industrial
development, the statutory framework for which is adequately provided by
the Master Plan, and reality has overtaken DSIDC's tardy development. It
is, under the circumstances, uncalled for on the part of DSIDC's MD to
pontificate, complete with quoting Darwin, about need to be 'responsive to
change'. The 'change' is really its own implementation failure and
retroactive 'responsiveness' can not become substitute for proactive
responsibility.
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/printedition/170103/detGOV04.shtml
Non-conforming units: To be or not to be isn't the question
My Turn / Rajni Kant Verma
Scattered and unplanned growth and mushrooming of industries in
non-conforming areas has posed a challenge for administrators all over the
country. While location of industries in non-conforming area does impose a
heavy social cost, for any long-term solution one has to look beyond
knee-jerk reaction of relocating them to conforming areas. We should try
and cure the disease and not the symptoms alone.
The growth of industry and trade indicates prosperity; it would not be
practical and just to wish them away or proscribe their existence
altogether. We must not forget that industries are a necessity and an
expression of the needs of civilisation.
However, that does not rule out rational planning and making careful
choices while working out trade-offs between the cost of having them and
the paramount need to preserve the ecology and environment. We must
understand that such a trade-off is not impossible; in fact it is
inevitable if we want growth and prosperity as against poverty and
underdevelopment. What we need, therefore, is a rational and dynamic
location policy that addresses our environmental concerns and the demands
of industry for an eco-friendly co-existence.
Presence of industry is not a necessary and sufficient condition for
environmental degradation but the lack of a policy that does not address
its changing needs to global economic changes certainly is.
Since their existence cannot be denied, their being has to be facilitated
by addressing their concerns and educating them to respect the
environmental standard we cherish. No doubt there are social costs that
industrial processes impose on the society but instead of banishing their
existence we ought to weigh the benefit and minimise the cost they impose.
The haphazard growth of industries, more so in non-conforming areas, is a
sad reflection of our ability to plan and address their needs, besides
laxity in enforcement of our policies and programmes.
The pathetic condition of industrial estates characterised by lack of
civic amenities and rampant unauthorised construction suggests that the
demand-supply gap and the ever-growing requirement of the industry have
not been addressed. They have been left to fend for themselves and in
their struggle for existence they have violated rules and compromised
standards, environmental or otherwise.
We need to address our ambivalence towards industry. To have them or not
to have them is neither the question nor the answer; how much to have and
how to have certainly is. Our not addressing it would not facilitate
healthy growth, rather it would add undesirable premium on avoidance,
evasion and non-conformity.
It is high time we enforce what we don't want but at the same time
accommodate what we have or what we can't do away with. Having a
transparent policy is one way of dissuading what we don't want but
instruments that impose a cost on trade and industry also weigh heavily in
a decision to locate and we must use such instruments.
It is our ignorance all these years and the sudden enlightenment that
poses the problem. If we don't decide what to have when to have and how to
have, others would and then we are to be blamed for inflicting the agony
and pain we are going through finding new home for industries that have
mushroomed in areas where they should not have.
We must not forget that an ideal home to locate them or a decision not to
locate some does cost us, but a decision to relocate or renovate or
rechristen their existence costs much more to the society.
We must not forget what Charles Darvin said: "It is not the strongest of
the species that survives, not the most intelligent, but the one most
responsive to change."
(The author is in the IAS and managing director, Delhi State Industrial
Development Corporation.)