The Hindu : Whose Secretariat is it anyway?

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Wednesday, Sep 17, 2003

Southern States

Southern States - Tamil Nadu

Whose Secretariat is it anyway?

By Tara Murali

The Tamil Nadu Government's decision not to build a new Secretariat on the historic Queen Mary's College campus in Chennai should have been greeted with joy. However, the announcement of the proposed site near the Anna University does not lay the controversy to rest but raises concerns yet again.

City planning must be viewed as a process and conducted as a democratic exercise. The resultant infrastructure and buildings are just a manifestation of this process. If conducted in a spirit of inclusiveness and common good, it will provide systemic checks and balances, flexibility for change and give true meaning to the word sustainability. Recognising the need for civic participation, the 74th Amendment to the Constitution, the Nagar Palika Bill, places master planning within the purview of local bodies.

Statements in the press suggest that a few locations within the city were studied before the Anna University-Government Data Centre site was chosen. Apart from the financial implication of the proposed Secretariat (reportedly Rs. 300 crores), it is the choice of site — in an already developed area of Chennai, adjacent to academic institutions — that causes concern. This land had been set aside for purposes of education and the decision taken by the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) to use this land for the proposed Secretariat raises serious doubts about the soundness of the process. It also goes again the grain of past decisions, made with its participation to declare the IIT-CLRI-Anna University area a Science City dedicated to furthering the cause of education, science and technology in a conducive environment.

Two proposals were developed in the recent past. One was the much talked about Greater Chennai project; the other was the set of proposals in the Draft Second Master Plan to promote growth outside the city. The CMDA, in a contradictory act, raises no objection to an ad hoc proposal.

Any construction that is intended to accommodate over 5,000 people will have a major impact on the neighbourhood in which it is located and strain the available infrastructure. It will bring about expected and unexpected peripheral developments. It is precisely to evaluate this impact and quantify financial, social, environmental costs that an Impact Assessment Report is prepared for major projects. The onus is on the authorities to disclose to the public why this site is suitable, how it is likely to benefit the city as a whole, what items have been included in the estimated costs, and how the negative impact of this development will be mitigated.

The physical costs of land and rebuilding of academic institutions, which will be demolished to accommodate the Secretariat, will need to be included in the cost estimates. Further, this development is coming up next to a well-established residential locality. It is unlikely that residents of Kotturpuram will welcome the change in their relatively quiet neighbourhood.

In selecting the site, the CMDA seems to have given little thought to the future of the city. Any objective impact study will point out that new infrastructure will be needed to ensure smooth flow of traffic near the proposed Secretariat. Increased vehicular traffic, additional bus stops, pedestrian crossings, and overbridges or subways will have to be planned. In a city in need of urgent improvements to its drinking water and sanitation facilities, such a sizable investment in infrastructure, for limited benefit, raises questions regarding developmental priorities.

Another important question that must be raised is: why is the proposed Secretariat viewed merely as a building to house government departments and not as a planning tool to promote and spur greater developmental activities? Governments the world over have linked the issue of large developments to a larger vision. The creation of infrastructure has been used to promote growth in less developed areas or as a mechanism for urban renewal. Many State capitals in the United States were originally not their largest or well-known cities. In the long-run, however, they have grown into important cities.

The integration of infrastructure and buildings required to conduct the Olympics into the larger cityscape is another example of how limited use is included in a greater vision of the city. Barcelona and Sydney are two such success stories.

Gandhinagar in Gujarat is one such example of a capital complex growing to become a city. Even the First Master Plan for Madras (Chennai) envisioned the creation of business centres and industrial areas as nodes for development.

Why then is the proposed Secretariat in Chennai not approached as an instrument for economic growth and developmental activity?

Finally, questions must be raised about the rights of the citizens. Such a major development is surely a matter to be discussed in public fora, as indicated in the 74th Amendment, before finalisation.

The Government may well succeed in building its Secretariat at Kotturpuram but whether this will serve the interests of the citizens, the city and the State is another matter.

(The author is an architect.)

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Southern States

News Update

Stories in this Section

Power tax on domestic consumption goes

Any employee can be shifted anywhere

Whose Secretariat is it anyway?

'Professor suspended for defamatory notes'

Bank safety vault recovered, 3 held

Group clash over temple consecration

Held in tiger death case

Gopal receives charge sheet

Prosecution witness answers reflect identity confusion

Medical seat vacancies

`Panel won't help in conducting bypoll in reserved panchayats'