D is for demolition, not to forget despair

D is for demolition, not to forget despair
By Ammu Joseph
The Times of India

The Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP) seems determined to demolish any hope of citizen action to improve the quality of life in the city. Less than a fortnight after the last spell of heavy rain exposed the abysmal state of Bangalore’s drainage system, and with the city continuing to attract negative national and international attention on account of its crumbling and choked roads, the BMP appears hell-bent on bulldozing its way through a neighbourhood where concerned citizens have been involved in constructive collective action to tackle the wide range of civic problems they are confronted with on a daily basis.

Bangaloreans woke up on November 6 to headlines announcing the demolition of four buildings in Koramangala. The area is, naturally, in turmoil. Emergency meetings, protest marches and local bandhs have been organised to register protest against the authorities and solidarity among citizens. However, the dramatic developments threaten to eclipse the critical core issues underlying the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) now credited with having catalysed the process leading up to the weekend events.

The story began in April 2005, when eight residents of Koramangala filed a PIL in the Karnataka High Court, calling the attention of city authorities to the rampant commercialisation of what was originally meant to be a primarily residential area. They contended that the misuse of residential plots and buildings for commercial purposes had caused and exacerbated many of the problems currently faced by local residents, including over-crowding, traffic jams, illegal parking, encroachment of footpaths, vehicular and noise pollution, and so on.

The petitioners resorted to a PIL because earlier, repeated efforts by individual citizens, as well as residents’ welfare associations, to deal with the menace of unbridled commercialisation through direct representations to the authorities had been unsuccessful. The petitioners were also frustrated in their efforts to access official documents relating to this matter. Having learnt that the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) had identified a large number of buildings being misused for commercial purposes and/or in gross violation of building by-laws, and had sent the list to the BMP for action, the petitioners attempted to obtain a copy of the document under the provisions of the relatively new Right to Information Act. The authorities chose to obfuscate the issue. As a result, litigation in the public interest appeared to be the only way forward.

The PIL placed responsibility for the present situation squarely on the agencies charged with planning, managing and regulating the city. Accordingly, the respondents in the case are the State of Karnataka (represented by the Principal Secretary, Department of Urban Development), the Bangalore Development Authority, the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike, the Deputy Commissioner (East) of the BMP and the Police Commissioner of Bangalore. Among the several documents submitted along with the PIL was a list of 87 buildings, compiled on the basis of a limited, informal survey by residents, which was merely meant to provide the court with a glimpse of the widespread problem.

The High Court took serious note of the petition, clearly mindful of its relevance and implications for the city as a whole. In an interim order issued in June 2005, Chief Justice N K Sodhi and Justice N Kumar directed the BDA and BMP to survey the list of properties submitted by the petitioners in order to determine its validity. Since the official survey conducted in mid-July revealed that most of the buildings included in the list were in violation of the law, in September the court called for a comprehensive survey of buildings in Koramangala as a first step towards cleaning up the locality and, eventually perhaps, other parts of the city.

Both surveys were conducted, in their own inimitable, citizen-unfriendly style, by the city authorities.

From the beginning the policy appeared to be one of divide and rule, with the petitioners cast in the role of villains and the administration merely “doing its duty” as directed by the court. The present demolition drive is evidently part of this strategy: it is clearly not meant to address the fundamental issue raised by the PIL — the deteriorating quality of life in residential areas as a result of unchecked commercialisation. The message is quite clear: do not attempt to set things right in the city. Or, at least, do not implicate the authorities or hold them in any way accountable in the process of trying to make this city liveable again.

(The writer is a journalist and author who lives in Koramangala)