Posting author's original article

IN response to this post http://bangalorebuzz.blogspot.com/2006/02/listen-to-citizens-before-dreams-turn.html written by Ammu Joseph and reproduced from the Times of India, I received a note and the original article from the author herself. I am reposting it here


SOS BANGALORE
Before dreams turn to dust





If the customary honeymoon period of the new regime in Karnataka is not to end in acrimonious dispute or even divorce within a few months, unrealistic vows will have to give way to less wide-eyed responses to the many problems confronting the state and the city. What is urgently required at this point is honest appraisal and definitive action on many fronts.



On the city infrastructure front, Bangaloreans have seen and heard it all over the past several years (not just two): promises galore, deadlines upon shifting deadlines, visions of vast sums of money coming in for this project or that and, of course, repeated announcements about action on various crucial civic works, all invariably and interminably due to begin or end "soon."



In fact, the new government would be doing the increasingly despondent, confused and cynical citizens of this burgeoning metropolis an invaluable service if it would, first, release a status report on all the different aspects of urban infrastructure, providing details of projects currently underway as well as those in the pipeline, along with up to date information about the funding and time lines for each. If the government does not voluntarily and speedily provide such proof of its serious intent, citizens do have the option of nudging it in that direction with the help of their newly won right to information.



Whether the various Agenda Task Forces of the past are revived or new avatars created in the form of Development Committees, the fact is that not much is going to be achieved without thorough, hard-headed analyses of what is wrong on various fronts, including management systems, followed by consistent, hard work on the ground to set it right. And neither is possible without taking citizens into confidence.



The popular mantra of public-private participation (PPP) can be intoned ad nauseam but it is unlikely to yield results unless the actual public is informed and involved. The present form of PPP – largely restricted to high-level, high-profile interaction between the state and private sectors – is no substitute for people's participation, backed up by the Right to Information Act and, of course, the neglected 74 th Amendment to the Constitution (relating to urban local bodies).



Another term that needs to be clarified is "stakeholders." As a fellow Koramangala resident pointed out the other day, the government departments and civic agencies involved in different aspects of urban development, which are often described as stakeholders, are in reality service providers. We, the people, are the stakeholders – with an explicit interest in and concern about the development of this city, as well as the state and the nation.



If proof were needed of the imperative of people's participation, take the small example of one tiny part of one of the major road projects currently being executed in the city: the restoration of 80 Feet Peripheral Road, Koramangala, under the World Bank (WB) supported project aiming to strengthen and rehabilitate 40 arterial roads. Both local residents and the large number of other citizens who regularly pass through the corridor that the locality has become are desperate to see this important road rendered navigable after nearly two years during which it has been virtually unusable.



The recent history of the road can serve as a case study of the lack of coordination that plagues the management of the city. It was first dug up by the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (BWSSB), which took an inordinately long period to get underground sewage pipes laid along the length of the road -- partly because, they claimed, the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) would not give them permission to cut through certain sections of the road that were within its jurisdiction and not that of the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (BMP). Then the road was left to resemble the surface of the moon for several months, through sunshine and rain, with the elusive promise of the WB project dangled before beleaguered and bemused citizens every now and then.



The project finally got off the ground with the signing of contracts in October 2005. Work on the most difficult section, which has to be completely reconstructed, began at long last on 7 December. Problems cropped up almost immediately, with water pipes and electricity and telecom cables damaged in the process of digging. Some alert and active members of the local community took the initiative to convene an urgent meeting of all the service providers (BMP, BWSSB, BESCOM and BSNL, as well as private telecom companies) and the contractor relaying the road to encourage better coordination and cooperation among the various players, thereby streamlining work and minimising inconvenience to citizens. They also worked with the local police to plan alternative routes for traffic and to disseminate information about these to road users.



Despite these constructive interventions, all work stopped within a few days and several weeks of inaction followed, ostensibly because the soil had to be sent for testing (this section of the road being particularly vulnerable since it runs along an erstwhile tank bed). When work finally resumed, progress was extremely slow and erratic. The group of citizens monitoring the situation called another meeting, getting residents and the officials and contractors responsible for the project together to discuss ways to get around the numerous stumbling blocks that were causing problems and delaying work.



Several issues were raised, including the difficulties posed by the haphazard laying of pipes and cables (by residents, too) and the importance of provisions to ensure that no digging and road-cutting would spoil the road once it is finally reconstructed and asphalted (this was highlighted as a priority by residents whereas the authorities had, amazingly, not even identified it as an issue). The officers and gentlemen in charge of the project at the local level undertook to provide a detailed schedule of work that would not only enable residents and shop owners on either side of the road to plan coping strategies but also help citizens monitor progress. It was agreed that review meetings would be held periodically. A report on the meeting and its outcomes was disseminated via the steadily growing e-group set up 17 months ago to facilitate communication among concerned residents. Citizen volunteers continue to be on the job keeping a watchful eye on the work.



There is no guarantee that a tripartite effort like this will work, especially since it is unofficial and therefore dependent on the good will and earnest intent of all the parties. And, of course, different communities will come up with different models of intervention. However, under the present circumstances, intercession that involves citizens may be the only way to ensure that the apparently impossible dreams spun by the new regime actually translate into reality on the ground. In any case, it is clear that at least one of the Ps in PPP must represent the public, the genuine stakeholders.


Ammu Joseph

17 February 2006