Sabarmati - An alternate perspective
Mohan Rao for LA journal 36 • November 22, 2012
Published in
LA Journal 36
The Sabarmati Riverfront Development, both as an idea four decades ago and approaching reality now, has raised interesting and at times acrimonious debates on the larger questions of development, design polemic and environmental concerns, specifically as relevant in the Indian context. Interventions in the public realm are never free of such debates or controversies, increasingly so when the larger development vision is driven by a select few. While one has to recognize that it is simply not practical to address every single viewpoint in such public projects, it is critical that the vision in principle address a larger spectrum of concerns that balances society, culture, environment and of course economics.
Much has been written about the physical and spatial design of the Sabarmati Riverfront Development; as much on its impact on traditional social fabric, issues of equity and so on. This article intends to situate the debate around issues of environment and ecology.
Of course, it is quite futile to separate these issues and examine them independent of each other in a transitional society such as ours unless one takes an extremely narrow and limited view of development.
Every society has developed specific and unique responses to the natural environment. Traditional societies in particular tend to relate to elements of nature in a manner that is beyond the utilitarian and mundane. Cultural practices evolved over millennia recognize, respect, internalize and respond to these elements that respects their intrinsic and dynamic nature. Rivers in particular evoke not merely ideas of recreation or real estate but of an essential connectedness with nature; frequently invoked in spiritual, religious or cultural events. It has been particularly distressing to note the extreme disengagement of India’s planning and development processes from lakes and rivers over the past half a century. Cities have continually turned
their backs- literally and figuratively – to river systems that in most instances have been the originators have settlements. A sudden shift to engineering and technology based system for managing water needs has meant that the role and percieved value of natural water systems vis-à-vis cities has taken a serious beating. Rivers are seen as little more than nuisances to be tolerated and at best used to serve human needs in the form of a convenient drainage channel. A rich tradition of long-standing hydraulic civilization has effectively been buried under ‘slums’, landfills and sewage works. In this context, the Sabaramati Development is certainly a distinct and welcome break from the standard way of acknowledging rivers in cities.
Sabarmati is typical of the smaller river systems in peninsular India and essentially a seasonal river whose flow depends on the rainfall in its catchment in the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan. The very nature of such river systems transforms >
> the landscape they meander through between extremes – a dry river bed that can be walked across to a raging torrent. While such systems are ‘understood and tolerated’ in their natural setting, they start becoming ‘inconvenient’ when seen through specific design frameworks. As stated in the EIA report of 2007, “The Sabarmati is a monsoon river that remains partially dry for most part of the year. But for water from the Narmada canal that met it upstream of Ahmadabad, the Sabarmati lacked aesthetic appeal. Its (riverfront) is unlikely to be an inviting public place conducive to cultural and recreational activities.”
It is extremely important to understand this philosophical shift in the framework of aesthetics that does not see the river as the original reason for the city’s coming into existence rather it questions the nature of and reason for the river’s existence in the city
The stated vision for Ahmedabad to become a ‘world class’ city can be a useful starting point to understand some of the shifts and conflicts between perceptions and goals of ‘designer’ and the ‘designed for’.
It is not too surprising to note that visions of world class city is invariably rooted in the Neverland of leisure. What is surprising though is the kind of leisure that is seen as aspirational, as elaborated on the official website. “It’s like a dream that one lives. Waking up by the river, driving down the riverside; board meeting with vast blue vista in the background and then a cruise across the water for a power lunch on the other bank… And then, a dinner on the gloating restaurant with family to chill out…In the midst of concrete and steel that is the dream that city planners are conjuring for apnu Amdavad.”
The process of diverting and disciplining an otherwise ugly and bothersome river does yield dividends, it seems.
As declared by a prominent thought leader like KPMG, the Sabarmati Riverfront Project is in the list of ‘100 Most Innovative Projects’
(1); hailing it as a project towards urban regeneration and environmental improvement, which will transform the river as a focal point of leisure and recreation”.
Words such as ‘urban regeneration’, ‘environmental improvement’ and ‘innovative’ seem to often describe and decorate the development, albeit in a prosaic
manner and here in lies the contradiction between the construed and the constructed. Depending on the lens from which the development is viewed - environment, social integration and equality, urban place making, infrastructure or political - the hierarchies of contradiction or the ‘lost opportunities’ may differ but nonetheless are significantly cumulative towards
‘Sabarmati’s Sorrow’
(2)
It is easy enough to see the contradiction between the ground reality of a shifting, dynamic and living water system with myraid facets and the ‘requirement’ of a constant and unchanging canvas to help the city arrive on the global map of modernity. Specially when one’s vision of what is ‘modern’ is itself rooted in such a disconnected and irrelevant plane.
As disturbing as the shift in one’s perception and relationship to natural systems in our cities, equally so in our response to such systems. It does not take years of studies to understand that peninsular river systems based on the monsoon in tropical India are vastly different from snow-fed ones in temperate Europe. That riverside cities with>
> centuries of history anywhere in the world have distinct and often unique relationships to the rivers that were the seed of their birth. Ignoring these simplistic trusims have in fact been the cause of much conflict in the case of Sabarmati Riverfront development both intellectually as well as physically. Attempting to articulate a river system that can change from a few metres in cross sectional flow to several hundred metres in a matter of weeks is an extreme challenge in any environment. The challenge is compounded when the desired end result is a predetermined model drawn from distant cultures and climates. It is unfortunate that the obviously alien aesthetic framework imposed on the river is continually justified with what basically amounts to pseudo-science. The principal designer has been reported and quoted extensively in the media on the concept of controlling a river system based on hydrological principles. ‘Pinching the River’ is a fond phrase of the architect which refers to the ‘art’ of training and controlling the river so that it does not flow into the city's nullahs and floods the low-lying areas’... “…If you want to reach plants some distance away, you tighten your grip on the hose so that the water spurts out further. This does not affect the flow of water in the hose. In the same manner, narrowing the river will not interfere with the natural flow of water.”(3) It is interesting to note the designers’ imaginative metaphor comparing the river to that of a hose pipe. While it is true that both convey water from point A to point B, the similarity stops exactly there.
The questions posed are pertinent, as the river front development reflects an attitude of entitlement to the environment rather than acknowledging the river as an invaluable natural resource. By equating river ecology to ‘hose piped water’, the project envisages a sad understanding of the Sabarmati merely as an aesthetically pleasing ‘water feature’ to benefit human pleasures and rarely makes an attempt to comprehend the embodied ecological dynamics associated with it. Rather than traversing the universal ‘promenade approach’ and by recognizing the non-perennial ecological dynamics of the river system, the development could have dared to “look at alternate water management
techniques (both storm and waste) to connect the city back to water, re-defining the edge, defining accessibility mixed with utilities and to bring about a dynamic landscape, a hard and a softscape which at times would be flooded and some parts retained, thus making one observe an ever changing and dynamic
phenomenon.”(4)
It would have certainly been interesting to see the completely varied solutions that could have been derived if, rather than stressing on the heroics of ‘channelizing the river’, the designers had explored a more nuanced or literate dimension so as to “evolve a strategy for the development of a coherent urban system which is capable of handling the pressures of a fast developing city”. It is rather unfortunate that ‘the vision is limited to focus on the development of the riverfront on either side of the Sabarmati by constructing embankments and roads, laying water supply lines and trunk sewers, building pumping stations, and developing gardens and promenades. (5)
In the end, though the project claims to address problems of flooding, sewage treatment, and “removal of slums” and providing a plethora of trade opportunities to the city, for the city of Ahmadabad it’s an immense and invaluable opportunity lost. Lost in terms of addressing development issues that negotiates between ground realties and political visions; of positioning and conceiving a development (that was most definitely required considering the lack of open spaces in the city) not in an overbearing manner but more in terms of strategic interventions and localization. A lost opportunity in addressing relations of river floodplains and urban development, one that recognizes contextual hydrology and ecology and is not fraught with Western ‘concretisizing’ techniques to achieve sweeping narratives of progress, beautification and cleanliness as seen and associated with the present development model.
If the Sabarmati project is the leitmotif in the context of river and waterfront redevelopment projects now popping up in Indian cities like Mumbai, Delhi, Surat, Kolkata and Lucknow, then the larger
questions that looms the planning and design fraternity of the country is the understanding of our hydraulic civilization traditions. 'It is paradoxical that the old, low-tech/low-coat and rich systems of irrigation networks, tanks, ponds and ghats are not maintained and, in fact, disappearing, while largest investments are being made to build new dams, contain water in pipes and embank riverfronts. Urbanization and flood control are not developed in tandem, but in different sectors and often with contradictory consequences.”
(6). The design fraternity undertaking such ‘mega-projects’ probably needs to engage in a more multi-disciplinary approach that equates demands of ecology, pressures of development, associated livelihood, contextualization of ‘recreation’ and more importantly recognize that rivers are meandering by nature, dynamic in flow and supports living ecosystems and are not designed on a drafting board to flow in slide rule straights.
In the case of the Sabarmati Riverfront Development, it is unfortunate that the large scale intervention pays scant regard to an entire river system and limits the ‘vision’ of development to a stretch of ‘frontage’ as seen relevant to the immediacy of the city. Given the long tradition of design engagement (both traditional and contemporary) that the city is famous for, the strong economic climate of the region and the overwhelming political support the development has garnered, the intervention could have easily been positioned to benchmark the highest standards addressing public space engagement as well as the future of development in transitional societies. Rather than recreate insipid versions of riverfronts from the Seine or the Thames, the Sabarmati Riverfront could easily have leap frogged a century of design thought, demonstrating effective integration of natural systems, cultural appropriateness and development needs. It would have been extremely interesting to examine how dynamic river systems could have been understood, addressed and articulated in a manner that other public projects in the country could emulate for decades to come.
- (INDIA Behind the Lens, Aug 2012)
- (Darryl D’Monte, Frontline, January 2011)
- (Darryl D’Monte, Frontline, January 2011).
- (Choudhuri, P. (2009), Re-structuring the development along a non-perennial river. Case: Sabarmati river,CEPT University, Master Thesis, Ahmedabad)
- (Darryl D’Monte, Frontline, January 2011).
- Shannon, K. (2008), 'South Asian Hydraulic Civilizations', in: Water urbanism, Amsterdam: SUN
Theme: Water Resilience: Fostering integrated approaches at the region, city, and settlement scales
Being a member of the Adaptation Research Alliance, ARA (a global, collaborative effort to increase investment and opportunities for action research to develop/inform effective adaptation solutions) and an ARA Micro grantee, Integrated Design (INDÈ) was invited to organise a networking session at the Global Gobeshona Conference-2 (conference theme: exploring locally led adaptation and resilience for COP27). The networking session was titled ‘Situating Urban (City) Resilience within the City-Region’ and was held on 1 April 2022.
The online magazine SustainabilityNext carried an article by Benedict Paramanand titled “Has Fatigue Set into Civic Activism in Bengaluru?” The article caught my eye amidst the Covid 19 humdrum as I was looking for alternative news. I have been actively engaged in the debates around the (ill)growth and mis(management) of Bangalore for over two and half decades in my capacity as a professional planner straddling civic society, public policy circles and academia. The article revived in my mind some thoughts and suggestions that I articulate here. The attempt is not so much to answer the question, as it is to understand the shortcomings and limitations of civic activism in steering the complex politico-socio-economic and cultural layers that make up a vast conglomeration like Bengaluru. A disclaimer here merits mention. The premise that no individual stakeholder, public or private, has the knowledge and resources to tackle the wicked problems underpins successful governance arrangements. What this premise implies, by extension is that all stakeholders – public or private – have limitations. Civic Society (CS) is one amongst the numerous stakeholders that have a role – by no means a lesser one- to play. Yet, there are limitations to this role. While these limitations are embedded in the very nature of operation of the CS, there are conscious ways and means of overriding some limitations to move towards a larger impact. Bridging limitations is a critical need. Much of what I articulate while contextual to Bengaluru, perhaps holds true for civic activism across domains and geographies. To begin with, a critical question requiring reflection is the difference between civic activism and the much advocated (in (good) governance debates) Civic Society Organisation (CSO) engagement. These generally get clubbed in one category – while in theory and practice, that is not the case and therein lies the first limitation. Activism defined as direct vigorous action especially in support of or, in opposition to, one side of a controversial issue is willy-nilly an act of reaction. Reaction often leaves little space for taking distance and exploring the systemic cause of the challenge – the challenge itself sets the agenda. In contrast a proactive engagement of the civic society, through progressive partnerships while also triggered by a challenge is different in that the challenge is anticipated and therefore the agenda is set by civic society themselves. In Bengaluru, protests against the state-imposed flyover (# steelflyoverbeda ) and elevated corridors (# TenderRadduMadi ) is an example of the former. In contrast, the long-standing work on the ward committees which has seen some traction in the recent past – albeit slow and tardy – is an example of the latter. Having started as a proactive CSO engagement, the movement for neighbourhood planning and governance through ward committees (# NammaSamitiNamagaagi ) in the recent past has bordered on being reactionary, thereby hinging on activism. Although an ‘always proactive approach’ is not possible, given the capacity of our government to spring surprises, it is critical that the CS begins to move towards a proactive stance. There will always be a non-uniform interplay between being reactive and proactive. A second limitation, linked to the first, is the lack of capacity of the CS to act on relevant and practical evidence. This will require the CS to open their doors and develop progressive partnerships, including partnerships with policy makers, professionals (note that I do not use the word experts) and academia. An all-time reactionary mode of operation allows neither for collaborations nor evidence. Evidenced advocacy and conversations require domain knowledge (experienced domain knowledge is even better) which can facilitate knowledge production and mobilization. Activism hinges on passion (amongst other drivers) which is not the same as domain knowledge and knowledge mobilization. Both passion and domain knowledge have a role, yet the two can neither replace each other nor should be confused. Rather, passion that pivots on evidence and knowledge is a double-edged sword, one that has the capability to steer reactionary behavior to an informed proactive engagement. Such a move will serve to, over a period of time, course correct policies that are currently influenced by dominant political structures, electoral volatility and elite capture, as against being evidence based. A third limitation that needs consideration is the nature, purpose, goal and objective of the civic society coalition/group. Most often mobilisation is around a seemingly common purpose, goal and objective. For instance, groups that coalesced against large infrastructure projects as mentioned above or the demand for footpaths and public transit (# BusBhagyaBeku ) and sub-urban rail (# chukuBukuBeku ) are not homogeneous. It is often a mixed bag as against an imagined and perhaps desired integrated unit. Underpinning this pursuit of collective goals and objectives are individual desires, identities (which in themselves are multiple), beliefs, perspectives and previous experience, all of which are critical drivers, often leading to fragmented voices. This fragmentation notably, also derives from the inability to use evidence or domain knowledge. Elitist Activism Furthermore, activism in itself is and can be elitist. When linked to high levels of access it can be potentially hampered by what is referred to as ‘elite capture’. There are two types of activism: elite activism stemming from mobilization of charismatic individuals capable of getting their voice heard. Mass activism, in contrast, is where the general public, the haves and the have-nots, mobilize collectively. The two are not mutually exclusive, although both are critical. Barring a few occasions, Bengaluru’s activism has been elitist with a few voices that can access public policy corridors and therefore get heard. Consequently, consciously or unconsciously there is a leveraging of public policy for personal or limited gains (to a neighbourhood or a community). Activism is a luxury that not everyone can afford. Those who can afford it have a dual responsibility of using it to build bridges by roping in knowledge and experience on one hand and ensuring inclusion by creating spaces and opportunities for mass activism, on the other. The current modus operandi lacks on both counts. These shortcomings have led to what is being referred to as limited success, although limited from whose lens and success for whom is an additional enquiry, one that merits a separate post. What I do concur with is that at best the city has seen some cosmetic changes. Let me take the same two examples the article uses to demonstrate a going forward beyond cosmetic progress. First are the lakes in Bangalore that have seen a fair bit of activism. In many neighborhoods, thanks to the many charismatic residents, lakes have been claimed as better maintained natural resources. But for the initiatives of a few citizens, many lakes would have morphed into real estate projects. Yet, the same groups have done little to engage the larger neighborhoods to ensure that these natural resource ‘spaces’ become public ‘places’ for the neighborhood and the city. This would require a proactive engagement in identifying the larger neighborhood and the numerous linkages – backward and forward – that this neighborhood has had and can nurture with the lakes as public places. The second is the Tender Sure roads pioneered by Bengaluru. The implementation of Tender Sure roads is progressing incrementally moving from a pilot in the city core to radiating outwards in various directions. Putting aside the debates on the efficacy of the design as well as the appropriateness and relevance of the idea, the incremental implementation is marked by controversies on the criteria to shortlist roads such that both the visibility of and utility to the neighborhood and the city can be maximized. This too has not happened. Both these examples offer a critical insight: that the activism (and the few instances of engagement) has not translated into a thinking city. Changes are still hovering around the thinking individual. The transition to a thinking city is an emerging imperative, one that demands systemic change along various dimensions, some of which I have discussed above. To sum-up, sustained and big bang change as against cosmetic and incremental change is the need of the hour. It requires at the outset, one, more proactive engagement and less reactive activism; two, passion combined with experienced domain knowledge to trigger evidenced advocacy and change; and, three a less fragmented approach through creating meaningful spaces for mass activism along with the existing elite activism that the city has. While there may be numerous ways to act on these three, the Ward Committee space offer a ready platform for proactive action, evidence-based advocacy and wider participation. Arguably, this space is rife with political contestations and may seem a daunting challenge, yet, an engagement within this space is a surer foot forward. Clearly, there is a passion amongst Bangalore’s elite to be part of something bigger and this is a moment to be seized.