September - October 2008 Edition
Anupam Mishra
It is difficult to predict what the cities of the future will be like. But we can predict the future of our cities big and small because we live in them and know from one day to the next the direction in which they are headed. In a sense we are co-travellers with these cities on a journey in which we are as responsible for what happens to them as we are victims of their decay. Cities are all about people. Not so long ago all our big cities were not so big. Even if they had a geographical spread much the same as today's, they were really small and well defined, with people connecting and interconnecting as members of a community do. It is the story of Kolkata, Mumbai, Delhi or Bangalore. But in the explosive growth that the past two decades have witnessed, not only have populations gone up, but cities have gone through a personality change.
The small big city where once everyone knew everyone has become the impersonal urban engine with parts working in unison but oblivious of each other. Gone from these cities is the sense of being manageable, the bonding and spirit of community. The transition from village to town and town to city is both internal and external. In the absence of social leadership, it comes with several aberrations and wayward manifestations. People thrash around as they seek equilibrium. In the absence of an overarching vision for our urban centres and the destruction of their emotional core, the equilibrium is mostly never found. Take the example of Gurgaon. Five thousand years ago, it was Gurugram or the village of the guru. It was very much a satellite of the capital, Indraprastha, similarly as it today sits on the border of Delhi.
But then it was the village of Guru Dronacharya, who taught the art of war to the Kauravas and Pandavas in the Mahabharata. Even as a satellite, the Gurgaon of yore could hold its own and was not to be trifled with. But now Gurgaon, in its modern manifestation, has neither guru nor gaon (village). As a bustling centre for corporations and markets it has a modern identity. But below its veneer of skyscrapers and shopping malls, is the tattered social fabric of a people who have been sucked into a kind of urban change they cannot understand. The new urbanisation is exploitative and beats Gurgaon into submission. Earlier Gurgaon had a dynamic self- eliance. It had a resplendent agrarian economy. It had elaborate water harvesting and waste disposal systems. Even today the ruins of these systems are in evidence. They are easy to identify. But the tanks have long gone into disuse. The drainage systems have been constructed over. Has all the development into a so-called modern city improved the quality of life? Unfortunately it hasn't. Gurgaon has gone from self-reliance to the edge of collapse. It is estimated that all those highrises have been drawing groundwater at three times the rate aquifers are recharged and chances are that in the next decade Gurgaon could run out of water altogether. Sewer systems do not exist and where they do they are either inadequate or do not work.
There is growing crime because the social order has collapsed. Much is made of the vast sums paid to farmers for their land. But look what easy money has done to their lives and that of their children. Builders and developers with their political connections have had a free reign with no guru to control them in Gurgaon. The absence of equilibrium has a profound effect on the quality of life that we experience. As the community breaks down and together with it the collective sense of well being is diminished, many of the ills that we associate with our collapsing cities come to dominate. Whether it is water or clean air it is finally the way we connect as human beings that makes the difference. Big cities that cope with these problems are really relearning to function as the village communities from which they once evolved. They are learning to conserve and be caring. Gurgaon's story is the story of most emerging cities. The process of urbanisation could have been more wholesome had it been an organic and genuine transformation.
But since the new cities are driven by a model of consumption that is delinked from the reality of resources, the new urbanisation is inherently dependent on what it must get from elsewhere. People, skills, technologies and services all pour in. That in itself is not bad, but there should also be the capacity to absorb the inflow. Our new cities are unfortunately defined entirely from the outside. Their growth is measured through externalities. Invariably their growth has no correlation with their sustainability. Take something as basic as water. Delhi at one time had an intricate network of water bodies linked to its river, the Yamuna. These systems made it secure. Now Delhi cannot do without drawing water from 300 km away. Some time ago there was the spectacle of the then Chief Minister himself going on a public fast to have water released from a neighbouring state. To have the nuclear deal passed in Parliament recently, the ruling Congress had to negotiate for every MP’s vote. The time is not far off when similar transactions will have to take place to ensure that water is available.
Resource management finally comes from within. The overdrawing of groundwater has left some of Delhi's most posh residential areas dry. Attempts at water harvesting have followed. Every other bus stand has slogans asking people to harvest water when it rains. There are bylaws that forbid construction without water harvesting channels. But bylaws are easily bypassed. For all the shortages, the residents of Delhi do not practice water harvesting with any seriousness. Like the quality of politics in Delhi, its groundwater levels are plunging. Previously, it didn't matter how many people lived in an area. It would be asked, how many water bodies are there? It was the tradition that a medium-sized settlement should have 126 water bodies so as to be prosperous and secure. The hallmark of sustainability was summed up with the expression: 6 agar and 6 kori or 6 x 20 + 6. When Delhi had just 500,000 residents at the turn of the century it had more than this number of water bodies. It had small rivulets in every neighbourhood. There was one behind the India International Centre where a stone bridge still exists. These rivulets brought water from the Aravalli catchment, enriched the Yamuna and simultaneously carried away surplus water. Today's Delhi has 12 million people and no water security.
The Yamuna has been reduced to the status of a drain. The flooding of streets we witness is the result of the destruction of the natural channels and water bodies. Present and future cities have a lot to learn from the cities of the past. Delhi can and should learn from its own history. In the past how we looked at land was different. There was space for water and green cover. These days Delhi wants to be water secure but does not set aside the land which will give it this security. Land in the current perception has to be monetised. But what about its value to the community? No one is ready to put a figure to that. So, while the price of land has gone sky high, the rain that falls from the sky and can make such a difference to the quality of life in the city is no longer retained because open spaces have been built over. It is important to learn from the past cities that there have to be limitations to greed. Balance is the key. Urbanisation's benefits can only be reaped when resources are generated and shared. Land is one such vital resource and when it goes into a few hands or is not made the subject of rigorous governance for the general good, the result is that a few get rich, but the kind of collapse that follows affects everyone.
So, what is it that the future city should learn from the past city? It should take its most serious lesson from Fatehpur Sikri, built near Agra as a new capital, by no less a visionary that Emperor Akbar. Fatehpur Sikri had to be abandoned in 15 years because it ran out of water. When Fatehpur Sikri was planned there were 50 water bodies that were included in it. But there was a mismatch between consumption and retention and the city failed. No urban story from the past can perhaps be more modern in its implications! It is not uncommon to hear people in Gurgaon say that with so much investment there, surely a solution will be found to its water shortages. No doubt the same thing was said in Fatehpur Sikri, for surely Emperor Akbar would have planned for his new capital? The new city must remember the mistakes of the past. So Fatehpur Sikri should never be forgotten. More importantly the new city should emulate the spirit which made past lifestyles sustainable. The chances of making that spirit work even better today are higher with the availability of new technologies for recycling and collection.
Anupam Mishra is with the Gandhi Peace Foundation, New Delhi.
He is an
authority on traditional water systems.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
 |
Newsvine |  |
del.icio.us |
|
Disclaimer
The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.
Your feedback on this story...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society
.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )
