On public land as public asset, a few questions for the BMC

What principle of a democratically elected govt means you have the mandate to do as you please while keeping the rest of us on mute?

Dear BMC and Maharashtra government, your handling of land and land-related issues in Mumbai is getting more and more confusing, opaque, and illogical by the day. The saying is that the left hand does not know what the right does, but, in your case, it seems that both hands know perfectly well what’s being done and why; it’s only us, the people of Mumbai, who are deliberately kept in the dark or confused. So, here are a few questions.

How and in what role, do you see yourself vis-à-vis public land in the city? Ideally, and legally, you are the custodian of all such plots and stretches of land, not their owner to do as you deem fit or your bosses, whoever they may be, dictate to you. You hold custody of land on behalf of the people of Mumbai and should be keeping public interest—the good and welfare of the majority of Mumbaikars—at the heart of all the decisions you take about the land in the city. Yet, without public consultations and open discussions of plans calling for alternatives in a city flooded with experts and professionals, acres and acres of public land have been handed over—leased, as your circulars say, but we know it’s a euphemism—to private entities and large conglomerates in the name of ‘development’.

What ‘development’ happened in Mumbai after nearly 600 acres spread across the erstwhile Girangaon, the village of textile mills, were similarly monetised? How many and which Mumbaikars benefited from this anyway? The naïve amongst us, those who thought that governments functioned in public interest, believed it was an exceptional sacrilege. But it turned out to be the preferred template. In the past few years, we have mutely witnessed you allow nearly 600 acres of public land in Dharavi to slip out of your hands; hand over nearly a thousand acres to one entity; prepare to monetise nearly 190 acres of BEST bus depot land as recommended by your institution for transformation (MiTRA); sign off on 140 acres of land in Motilal Nagar and 98 acres in Bandra Reclamation held by MHADA; and not press your claim on any part of the 2,330 acres of port trust land.

When you make land-related plans, why do they not make logical sense but come with a host of contradictions? Take the recent case of Neville D’souza Football Ground in Bandra West; you are adamant that it can no longer be used for the sport by thousands of Mumbaikars because its original statutory reservation is for a convention centre, and it would have to hold. But in at least two cases—Alexandria Cinema in Byculla and a fire station in Versova—you sought to change such statutory reservations to allow residential use. What explains such randomness? Or, perhaps, it is not random at all? What is this demon of ‘monetisation’ that seems to guide land decisions to the exclusion of all else?

Do you keep track of such contradictions that you have birthed? Take, for instance, the handing over of 256 acres of Mumbai’s salt pan lands for Dharavi redevelopment and the slashing of nearly 46,000 mangroves for the Rs 18,263 crore Versova-Bhayandar coastal road. These are Mumbai’s flood mitigation infrastructures given by nature. Let’s set aside, for a moment, that the Bombay High Court and the Supreme Court permitted the cutting of mangroves, citing ‘public interest’, with some conditions, but what is the logic in getting rid of them, concretising the areas, and then spending crores to build 164 ‘sponge parks’ as part of the city’s climate action?

How difficult is it to be guided by what the Mumbai Architects Collective reminded you this week that “planning decisions should be guided by one simple principle: public land is a public asset”? Highlighting how recent proposals “suggest an increasing reliance on public and ecological assets to meet the city’s development, infrastructure, and financial needs”, as many as 127 of the city’s planners and architects, several of them acclaimed personalities with decades of experience, pointed out that the government’s role is not only to facilitate development but also “to act as a trustee of the city’s common assets on behalf of present and future generations”.

The true measure of government, they reminded you, is not only what it builds but also what it chooses to protect, and that “open space is not land waiting to be built upon. It is public infrastructure already performing invaluable environmental, social, and economic functions. Parks, playgrounds, wetlands, mangroves, and natural landscapes recharge groundwater, absorb stormwater, reduce flooding, improve air quality, lower urban temperatures, support biodiversity, strengthen neighbourhoods, and improve both physical and mental health. They are every bit as essential to a city’s functioning as roads, drainage, water supply, and public transport.” If you haven’t already, would you find a few minutes to read and reflect, and then act on these words? If you have, can you initiate dialogues to know what viable alternatives can be considered?

Most of us Mumbaikars are too busy saving our lives while getting from one part of the city to another twice a day for work to demand answers of you every time you sign off on land deals, land that in principle and on paper belongs to the public. What drives you to be the custodian, the guardian, to happily give our assets away in order to enrich a few? Even if some of us eke out the time and find the inclination to ask you questions or offer suggestions, you hardly ever respond and change decisions in true public interest. Why is that so? What principle of a democratically elected government means you have the mandate to do as you and your wealthy friends please while keeping the rest of us on mute? For whom are you building Mumbai, after all?

SMRUTI KOPPIKAR