CAPITAL QUESTION

Dehradun or Gairsen?

Serious challenges call for well-thought out, well considered solutions. In the life of a person, the answers may lie in the advice of elders, the wise, the experienced and the well-informed. Friends will be there to give moral and tangible support. And a leap by a person who is so fortified is likely to be safe; the fall is well cushioned, and a bone-crunching thud will be avoided. When it comes to taking decisions that might impact a large number of people, the decisions are best when wise counsel and, in more cases than not, consensus is in place. Governments in a democratic set up have to arrive at decisions with an immense sense of responsibility, with the mantra of maximum good for most. The decision, for instance, that the Uttarakhand government has made, regarding relocation of the state’s permanent capital away from its current temporary one, is one decision that calls for a no-nonsense, no-politics kind of clear-headed call steeped in sound reason on a multitude of fronts.

It was indeed a statesmanlike decision to appoint a committee headed by a seasoned man of judiciary to guide the decision through the many traps that may waylay a decision-maker who has to negotiate issues of politics and regionalism, apart from other vested interests. Once that was done, the committee’s recommendation should have been considered with due respect. In the case of Dixit Commission report, however, all the wisdom the report encapsulated after seven years of painstaking examination of the issues, this respect on the part of the decision-making government was replaced by vested political interests, chiefly for electoral considerations. The parameters on which the report was prepared included topography, water resources, climate, land-availability, natural drainage and investment that was thought to be called for in developing the necessary infrastructure. One can hardly find fault with these parameters. However, while the recommendations of the Commission are said to have rejected the idea of locating the new capital in Gairsen, the government did finally gave in to popular perception that decision to place the state’s life-centre there would be in the best interests of the state.

Let us examine the case put forward by the proponents of converting the temporary capital, Dehradun to the permanent one. There are, in essence, the following reasons offered:

The capital should be located at a place whose accessibility is plentiful and all-season; not merely from within the state but from outside the state as well; Dehradun has that connectivity. The connectivity of Gairsen is limited to a single means: roads.  We cannot overlook that there are hazards like landslides occurring very often, rendering accessibility unachievable. Dehradun has, on the other hand, rail and air connectivity in addition to all-season roads. Dehradun has a number of important government institutions, and has a large number of buildings which are already being used as government buildings. Secretariat and a temporary Vidhan Sabha building are also in place.

If all aspects are considered and the unequivocal answer is that the capital must be relocated, then the issue of finances will have to be considered very seriously. We should check financial resources to assess this inescapable aspect. The unfortunate fact is that our resource-strapped state can hardly come up with the enormous money that is needed for all the necessary buildings, roads, other institutions, residences, etc. A state like Haryana, which is miles ahead of Uttarakhand in resources, has not built a new capital though it has been in existence for close to five decades. To get an idea, we have to only look at the likely budget for building the Vidhan Sabha building in the new location. Two years ago, the estimated cost of the building was Rs 75 crores. Two years down the line, the costs have escalated substantially, and we might be looking at a three-figure estimate now. This is just one of the many dozen buildings that will have to be built. Then roads will have to be made within the new city, what to talk of the hundreds of kilometres of roads that will have to be made to connect this city with other centres of activity in the state. Rail lines may also be called for, and an airport will be a necessity too. Schools, colleges, parks, city centres, markets, hospitals, theatres and other centres for cultural performances, will all be required. All these buildings will cost a few thousand crore rupees. It may be mentioned that for Amravati, the proposed capital of Andhra Pradesh, the Centre has extended the mind boggling amount of Rs 26,000 crore !  Where is this kind of money with our state? A state which hardly musters basic resources to run day-to-day business, can hardly conjure such an enormous amount. Uttarakhand is a newly formed state which has great liabilities to surmount. If Dehradun offers basic necessities to do the business of governance as it does, then it can continue to fill the gap, while we work for improving the infrastructure here in such a way as to retain the beauty and character of the lovely city that Dehradun is. The Dixit Commission appears to have arrived at the inference that Dehradun is the most suitable location. The report says that centralization of population, appropriate land distribution, relatively less vulnerability to landslides and earthquakes, easy transportation and connectivity, less possibility of deforestation and less pressure on agricultural land, security from international border, proximity to national capital and scope for expanding public facilities made Dehradun a preferred location.

Those who prefer Gairsen, come up with the argument that the main objective to create the hill-state was faster development of hill areas. Also mentioned was the fact that amongst hill-states, Uttarakhand alone did not have its capital in the hills.It was also pointed that the accessibility of Dehradun from far-flung districts of the state was not good enough, and a lot of time was spent in travelling from from districts like Pithorgarh, Chamoli, Bageshwar, Champawat. A view was expressed that the state population is predominantly ‘pahadi’, and the capital should therefore also be located in the hills.

It may be mentioned that the Dixit Commission finds Gairsain less viable for the location of permanent capital. The reasons that have been cited are poor connectivity, distance from the national capital, insufficient land for future development, insufficient water resources, steep slopes, proneness to landslides and earthquakes, difficult climate, proximity to flood area, non-centralization of population and possible threat from the international border.

The argument that location of the capital at Gairsen will accelerate the development of the hills does not seem to be logical. It may be said that Gairsen and a few areas around it may benefit, there will still be far-flung areas that will continue to be neglected for one or the other reason. To say that the capital should be in the hills because other hill-states have their capitals in hills is hardly a strong one. It may be mentioned that Jammu, the winter capital of J&K, or Guwahati, the capital of Assam are hardly hilly. The Himachal capital, Shimla, was the summer capital during British rule, and the infrastructure already existed there when Himachal was carved out in the year 1971. So there was no requirement for spending money on creating the infrastructure. It may also be mentioned that the state’s population is densely concentrated in the Terai areas. Should the capital be located in the interior of the state when a larger population finds it easier to travel to a location connected by rail and road?

The 14^th century ruler, Muhammad Bib Tughlaq, is rarely, if ever, remembered for his unquestionable scholarship. He is almost universally recalled for the very controversial decision to shift his capital from Delhi to Daulatabad. He had his reasons, and took the decision based on his own judgement. He was a king, not the head of a democratic government. He was not required to go to polls for seeking a mandate. Analyses over the last few centuries tell us that his decision was a flawed one. His confidante and chronicler, Ibn Batuta, called Delhi ‘one of the greatest cities in the universe’. Yet, Tughlaq had other ideas. Maybe, Dehradun is not the greatest city in the universe, yet prudence would dictate that a shift out of Dehradun may be made only once all parameters point to the inescapable conclusion that this is in the best interests of the population of the state. Purely political considerations (How sure are we that this indeed is a political cracker?) will certainly lead to a decision which will find a most unenviable parallel in history. And even if an infrastructure is finally created, say a decade later, we may still have a city which lacks one basic lifeline: the soul.

We have to look at the question of the establishment of the permanent capital dispassionately, and see if there is a good reason to spend huge sums of money just because the idyllic Doon has a threat of assuming an ugly face. If Chandrababu Naidu wants to sink tonnes of money into the Bay of Bengal to chase his dream, we need not be inspired to jump to Gairsen. Should we not visit the Dixit Commission report and reconsider the whole question once again? Can we not consider a better way to make Dehradun free of all the troubles that some people mention; and of using money in a more productive way?