COMMENTARY Unfortunately, successive governments Chennai’s Rain Check have allowed for weaker plans and poor enforcement of the rules; they have even Fifteen Years and Counting pushed for amendments that regularise violations and exemptions that will benefi t the more affl uent. Satyarupa Shekhar, Madonna Thomas Submitting to Real Estate The recent fl oods in Chennai hennai remains unprepared to The state’s approach to city governance are a fallout of real estate combat rains every year. This, can be seen to be exemplifi ed by the case riding roughshod over the city’s Cdespite various citizens’ groups of the Adyar Poonga, an eco-park built calling for the need to abide by planning on fragile estuarine lands of the Adyar waterbodies. Facilitated by an rules and regulations since the past 15 creek. In 1993, a group of civil society administration that tweaked years. The current fl oods in Chennai are organisations comprising Citizen Con- and modifi ed building rules and a wake-up call to everyone to think sumer and Civic Action Group (CAG), urban plans, the real estate about how the city has developed Exnora and the Environment Society of without any refl ection on the implica- Madras fi led a case in the Madras High boom has consumed the city’s tions of violating the urban ecology, in- Court to restrain Tamil Nadu for build- lakes, ponds, tanks and cluding our rivers, lakes, wetlands and ing activity and housing projects. The large marshlands. open spaces. petition sought to protect fi ve major Tamil Nadu experiences severe water lakes in Ambattur, Kakkalur, Nolambur shortages and water stagnation/fl ood- and Chitlapakkam from being converted ing every year. The recent policy focus into residential sites and an Ambedkar in the state has been on groundwater Memorial. Unfortunately, the court recharge through rainwater harvesting, ruled that the government could use 1.5 but in practice, the public water utility acres—rather than the original 45 has been acquiring “water fi elds”—public acres—for the memorial to be set up. agricultural lands in the peripheries of Through the 1990s and 2000s, this frag- Chennai—where the levels and quality ile estuarine area was overrun with ex- of groundwater is amenable to cater to tensive construction that included the [This article was written before the rains the city’s burgeoning water demands. Leela Palace hotel and several high-end and fl oodings restarted on Sunday, Simultaneously, poor planning practices residential and commercial buildings. In 29 November 2015.] and lax enforcement of building rules 1995, M A M Ramasamy, a real estate Satyarupa Shekhar ([email protected]. have resulted in the majority of the baron, sought permissions to construct in) and Madonna Thomas are with the Citizen city’s lakes and ponds being built over, multistorey buildings close on a portion Consumer and Civic Action Group, Chennai. obstructing its natural hydrology. of the estuarine lands. Economic & Political Weekly EPW DECEMBER 5, 2015 vol l no 49 19 COMMENTARY In 1996, the Chennai Metropolitan constructions have taken place therein illegal constructions till 1999. The state Development Authority (CMDA), the city’s in the form of construction of residential also extended regularisation schemes in apex planning agency, gave the necessary quarters for ministers and other govern- 2000, 2001 and 2002. CAG had challenged planning permission after the builder ment officials, including the construction Section 113A in 1999 and each of the sub- had paid the requisite fees and trans- of residential quarters for the members sequent regularisation schemes in 2000, ferred 2,321 square metres of land under of the Legislative Assembly, etc.” Though 2001 and 2002, respectively. In 2006, the open space reservation (OSR) rule to the government has repeatedly removed Justice A P Shah held that the government the Corporation of Chennai. The Corpora- slums and informal settlements from the could regularise violations till 22 Febru- tion of Chennai was to give the building areas adjoining the river under the guise of ary 1999 and directed that a monitoring permission but objected that the proposed safeguarding them, it has also frequently committee be set up within the CMDA to building violated the Coastal Regulation allocated land and built low income frame the guidelines and penalties for this Zone (CRZ) prescriptions of no construc- housing in large marshlands and natural process. However, in 2007 the government tion within 500 metres of the high tide line. catchment areas in the city, such as proposed further amendments to the However, Ramasamy furnished evidence Semmenchery, amplifying the vulner- T&CP Act 1971 to allow for regularisa- that the site was located 720 metres— abilities of the urban poor. All this while tions till 1 July 2007. When this was chal- well beyond the high tide line, and also the state—both the judiciary and the lenged in 2007, the high court ruled that got the Indian Institute of Madras (IIT executive—have abetted and even par- the government could take actions for the Madras) to state that a public road was taken in the acquisition and degradation purpose of administration, but that it could already in existence between the creek of wetlands and waterbodies. only do so by framing proper rules and and the building site. In 1997, Rama- guidelines. As a result, the Justice Mohan samy petitioned the Madras High Court Making It Easy Committee was set up on 1 June 2007 to to mandate the Corporation of Chennai Several citizen groups have also been look into the regularisation process till (CoC) to give the necessary permission criticising such dilution of planning 2007 and its recommendations were rati- and received a favourable response. The rules and guidelines. CAG had challen ged fied as guidelines and rules inGo 234 and CoC, having already sought and acquired the Tamil Nadu government’s decision 235, respectively. The reco mmendations the OSR lands and unable to contest the to regularise building violations in the under GO 234 were r eje cted by the high planning permission given by the CMDA, Madras High Court in 1987. In 1998, the court because they were too liberal. was compelled to give its permission. Government of Tamil Nadu introduced Fourteen years after the government The CAG challenged this order in Section 113A, an amendment to the Town had promised the high court in 1999 that 1997 on grounds of public interest but and Country Planning (T&CP) Act 1971, it would enforce the rules, it amended lost on account of the area “booming with and framed the relevant rules under the T&CP Act with Section 113C allowing developmental activities and several Government Order (GO) 190 to regularise for further exemptions, and set up yet The Problem of Caste Edited by SATISH DESHPANDE Caste is one of the oldest concerns of the social sciences in India that continues to be relevant even today. The general perception about caste is that it was an outdated concept until it was revived by colonial policies and promoted by vested interests and electoral politics after independence. This hegemonic perception changed irrevocably in the 1990s after the controversial reservations for the Other Backward Classes recommended by the Mandal Commission, revealing it to be a belief of only a privileged upper caste minority – for the vast majority of Indians caste continued to be a crucial determinant of life opportunities. This volume collects significant writings spanning seven decades, three generations and several disciplines, and discusses Pp xi + 425 Rs 595 established perspectives in relation to emergent concerns, disciplinary responses ranging from sociology to law, the relationship ISBN 978-81-250-5501-3 between caste and class, the interplay between caste and politics, old and new challenges in law and policy, emergent 2014 research areas and post-Mandal innovations in caste studies. Authors: Satish Deshpande • Irawati Karve • M N Srinivas • Dipankar Gupta • André Béteille • Rajni Kothari • Kumkum Roy • Sukhadeo Thorat • Katherine S Newman • Marc Galanter • Sundar Sarukkai • Gopal Guru • D L Sheth • Anand Chakravarti • Carol Upadhya • Ashwini Deshpande • Meena Gopal • Baldev Raj Nayar • Gail Omvedt • Mohan Ram • I P Desai • K Balagopal • Sudha Pai • Anand Teltumbde • Surinder S Jodhka • Ghanshyam Shah • Susie Tharu • M Madhava Prasad • Rekha Pappu • K Satyanarayana • Padmanabh Samarendra • Mary E John • Uma Chakravarti • Prem Chowdhry • V Geetha • Sharmila Rege • S Anandhi • J Jeyaranjan • Rajan Krishnan • Rekha Raj • Kancha Ilaiah • Aditya Nigam • M S S Pandian Orient Blackswan Pvt Ltd www.orientblackswan.com Mumbai • Chennai • New Delhi • Kolkata • Bangalore • Bhubaneshwar • Ernakulam • Guwahati • Jaipur • Lucknow • Patna • Chandigarh • Hyderabad Contact: [email protected] 20 DECEMBER 5, 2015 vol l no 49 EPW Economic & Political Weekly COMMENTARY another committee—the Justice Rajes- the devastation from unexpected fl ood- the site where low income communities waran Committee (JRC)—to frame the ing to the results of nature and climate were allocated land. The Pallikaranai rules and guidelines. The JRC recom- change when in fact it is a result of poor marshlands, once a site for beautiful mendations are far more liberal than planning and infrastructure. In Chen- migratory birds, are now home to the even the provisions of Go 234 of the nai, as in several cities across the coun- second of the two landfi lls in the city where T&CP Act—that had been rejected by the try, we are experiencing the wanton the garbage is rapidly leeching into the Madras High Court. For example, where destruction of our natural buffer zones— water and killing the delicate ecosystem. the GO 234 prohibited all developments rivers, creeks, estuaries, marshlands, These are all human-made disasters in the Aquifer Recharge Area and the lakes—in the name of urban renewal and we need to take drastic steps to Red Hills Catchment Area, JRC allows and environmental conservation.