This piece attempts to discuss a few things under this theme. In the urban context, it relates more to defining or designating places for various activities. We tend to avoid incompatible urban uses to avoid conflicting interests. The sanctity of “designated” space is assured only when no use, other than that authorised, is allowed. Obviously, we do not allow a cinema house next to a school or give permission for an abattoir close to airports.
Roads or highways are designated for vehicle movements that require drivers to follow laid out rules. Broadly speaking, these do not allow drivers to (a) jump red lights (b) park at “no parking” (c) overtake from the left (d) disregard pedestrian rights at crossings (e) pick and drop-off passengers from curbs (f) carry more than two people on a motorbike, etc. Rules are generally restrictive and there are many more don’t “dos” than that listed above. Unfortunately, the vital aspects related to “road etiquettes” are neither found in rulebooks nor taught at the mushrooming driving centres.
Driving in Kathmandu is stressful. It is not for the fainthearted and the city’s roads are certainly not for novices to hone their D-skill. As there are hardly any calm stretches in the urban jungle for one to learn driving quietly, inappropriate places are often used to practice manoeuvres that are essential to ace the trial. Securing a license, however ill-prepared, being the only aim. There is no time to learn or think about driving etiquettes. Armed with such attitude, it is no wonder we end up with drivers programmed to compound the traffic problem from the day they hit the street. Those who are wee bit sensitive, unfortunately, get overwhelmed in the mayhem as “non-complying” Romans!
When chaos is the rule, rather than exception, it is questionable whether defined land use functions will be applicable in our urban context. The establishment may argue that it could have been far worse had it not been for the rules in place. But it is usually the people in the establishment who look to undermine the very rules they stand to defend, as the following story shows.
The story relates to a vacant roadside plot where built area was fixed at half the size of the plot. A senior officer, who also wore a private consultant’s hat off duty, devised a way to help his client game the rule. He first helped secure permission to build on one half of the plot legally. After six months of lull, he then applied with another building plan, this time to build in the remaining half of the vacant plot. Cleverly enough the area, related to first permit, was shown vacant, as nothing was built there. The genius was thus able to subvert the system to benefit his client build on the whole parcel.
There are others who go to the extent of sacrificing common open space for personal gains. The congested city core has many shared courtyards that help provide light and air in the interior. The plot begins with users concocting a fictitious legal dispute with neighbours regarding the courtyard, which is “amicably” settled in the court with the legendary milapatra by dividing the area between the “adversaries”. It is eventually gobbled up by whatever is built on it. Naturally, this would not be possible without some inside help; lack of proper records or their inaccessibility is one of the factors emboldening to such infringements.
It would be nice to have everything in their proper places. Apparently, not in our country.
It may look a little out of place, but even the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly (CA) can be looked at from the perspective of ‘a place for everything’. CA was the designated venue for constitution making and returning it to the public domain. If it was possible to get the process over and done within a couple of days, then why was billions spent in unnecessarily prolonging the pantomime? In the sixties the cartoons of Sudhir Dar used to be the daily features in The Statesman. I remember one in particular, that showed a student, burning midnight oil, while zipping through a 6” thick book titled “Zoology in a Night”! Obviously the “hard working” student had wasted most of his precious time, but he probably fared better than our CA members trying to write a constitution in a night!
The student might still have passed the examination but our CA members, blinded by their arrogance, and short term utopian dream, failed the state and the majority of its people. As usual constricted vision, lack of reasoning and, above all, impatience for dissenting views made the assembly look more and more like the unruly streets of Kathmandu. While the assembly may have been useful in seating 601 comfortably, it was apparently not a place to come up with a constitution. We were compelled to bear with the behemoth structure believing it would soon be over, much like a person in a “do or die” situation. As that was not possible, we only hope that the next experience will not be as long and as harrowing.
harjyal@yahoo.com
Related story
SC directs govt to set order of precedence of Chief Justice and...
