When rain gods weep

The environmental impact of constructions must be taken into account

Mumbai Mega Flood, the hour-long documentary which was premiered on Sunday night on National Geographic channel, could not have ended more ironically. After detailing the travails of Mumbaikars on July 26, 2005, it added a postscript with footage of a similar deluge the following year. Had the film-makers had the time, they could have included this July’s floods too, to reiterate  the point that the infrastructure of the financial capital capitulates on such occasions.

You can blame the rain gods for such calamities, as Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh once again did, fresh from his US visit (where he had gone to solicit investments). Meteorologists will point out how New York and other cities in industrial countries would have been laid low with far less rainfall. This is undoubtedly true, but Mumbai happens to be located in a monsoon country, unlike the rest.

‘Unprecedented’ downpours ought to be expected a few days every season and have to be planned for, at least to minimise their impact. It does not require  a knowledge of rocket science to remind ourselves that the total amount of rainfall over India isn’t increasing, but its periodicity is becoming erratic and this is due to climate change. If the rain in Mumbai coincides with high tide, as may happen, it has to be anticipated and drainage systems put in place.

It is good that this year’s deluge has prompted some introspection and that the Mayor took the initiative in calling an all-party meeting, which announced the formation of a core committee consisting of politicians, bureaucrats and experts. The Shiv Sena, which rules the BMC, blames the state government for permitting encroachments and high-rises, which hamper run-off of water and impede drainage.

Just as the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and BMC blame each other for potholes and floods, the Sena is holding the state government accountable for sanctioning real estate development without any thought to the carrying capacity of an area.

The mill precinct in Parel-Lalbaug is a perfect example, as well as the congested locality of Tardeo, where two 60-storey towers compound the high-rise blight. Vilasrao Deshmukh has retaliated by holding the BMC responsible for sanctioning such projects.
Uddhav Thackeray, who chaired the meeting, has called for an end to such bickering, as well as a halt to all construction in the city until infrastructure is in place. The probable exceptions to this are slum redevelopment schemes —  the Sena’s brainchild — and redevelopment of dilapidated ‘cessed’ buildings.

Each building plan, particularly of large projects, ought to be vetted for its environmental impact. Apart from drainage and open spaces, such a plan ought to specify what parking it will provide. As the National Geographic film reminded us, no one could provide relief on 26/7 because the arteries were clogged with cars.

Two other perennial demands being made after this year’s floods ought to be dismissed. One is the call for a CEO for the city — which is not democratic. The other is Metropolitan Commissioner T Chandrasekhar’s controversial demand for restrictions on migration. This country’s Constitution permits free movement of its citizens, unlike China or Singapore.

He has advocated permitting only those who have a job and housing to enter the city, which exonerates the state from its responsibility to provide employment for all citizens. According to the 2001 census, an average of 480 people — not families, as is commonly mistaken — enter Mumbai every day, but the bulk of the population growth is natural increase.

Where Chandrasekhar hits the nail on the head is in calling for restrictions on cars registered in the city. Mumbai is unique in that only eight per cent of the rush hour traffic uses private motorised transport, on which some Rs 9,000 crores is spent, to the detriment of public transport. The Centre for Science & Environment shows that in Delhi, with nearly four million vehicles, 308 private cars are registered daily.

If a car requires an average of 23 sq metres for parking and each parks at three locations during a day, cars occupy around one-tenth of New Delhi’s geographical area. That proportion is exactly equivalent to what Mumbai’s roughly eight million slum dwellers occupy in this city. Which is a bigger nuisance: cars or slum dwellers?
Environmentalists firmly believe it is the former.

The writer is Chairperson, Forum of Environmental Journalists of India