CITYZEN. When the Greens go too far

As the land acquisition Bill re-enters the centre-stage of political discourse it will focus attention on a number of important questions. Is the shortage of industrial land as serious as it is made out to be?

Given the practice of giving projects more land than they really need, is it time to withdraw their rights to unused land? Should land be taken back from failed industries?

In addition to these attention-gathering questions there are also those that tend to slip under the radar because they are politically incorrect. High on the list of such unasked questions are those related to land claimed by environmentalists. There is an unquestionable need for trees and parks in any city worth living in. But how can we be sure that these demands have not received more land than the city really needs to give them; or what is now being seen across the world as Green Grabbing.

With the growth of a much-needed ecological consciousness there often emerges, especially in Indian cities, an unchallenged acceptance of certain green activities. There is very little attention paid to the possibility that in some cases these activities can be at the cost of other equally, sometimes even more important support a city must provide. Preventing the cutting of trees for the widening of roads has an inherent appeal when seen as a conflict between elitist speeding cars and the environment. But if the space that the cutting of trees generates were to be used for pavements, the moral choice is less clear. Surely, with the growing rate at which pedestrians are being killed in several Indian cities, saving the lives of pedestrians should be as worthwhile as saving the environment?

What makes matters worse is that in some cities the few pavements that remain are encroached upon by individualistic green activism. House-owners in these cities have been known to plant trees and even gardens on the pavements outside their homes.

This sentiment is apparently so popular and unchallenged that elected representatives in these cities have been known to use their Local Area Development funds to growgardens and plant trees on the pavements they are claiming to develop. The fact that this green activism makes the pavements much less pedestrian friendly is lost in the ecology.

The main case for ecological extremism in our cities is that it serves to protect the interests of future generations. But Green Grabbing can result in hurting the interests of the very next generation: our children. In several cities there is a growing tendency to convert playgrounds into parks.

The greenery in the parks is laid out in a way that it helps joggers and senior citizens. Very often this is at the cost of urban space for children to play in. And a city that has no space for children to play cannot complain about producing unsporting adults!

The line between environmental sensitivity and Green Grabbing is a very thin one. To ensure that this is drawn in a way that helps the growth of a desirable city, it is imperative that we have institutions that can take the interests of all those who are affected into account and come up with a solution that is both sustainable and fair.

The manner in which this negotiation is carried out today is both arbitrary and opaque. The interests of some groups, particularly pedestrians and children, are barely heard.

The trade-off between pedestrians and car-owners in most Indian cities is heavily loaded in favour of the latter. And the attitude to sport has become so commercialised that parents whose voices would be heard prefer to leave their children in coaching camps with the potential for future financial success, rather than give their children the sheer joy of play.

In the absence of an effective institution the burden of arriving at solutions often falls on the judiciary. While the judiciary has played an important and effective role on several green issues, this institution is typically constrained by the need to focus on the interests of those involved in specific cases.

Several other interest groups, such as children, often do not have the ability to become parties to the case. And it is also possible that solutions that seem fair in isolated instances may not be fair or sustainable for the city as a whole. The case for not cutting trees has often received judicial support, but when it severely hampers the movement of pedestrians the interests of the city as a whole can be hurt.

As political discourse moves to the conflict about urban land we can expect that in our democratic process political interests will come under intense scrutiny, but it is also important that we look beyond the veil of political correctness to recognise the role of Green Grabbing.

The writer is a professor at the School of Social Science, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru

COMMENT NOW