top of page

By:

Rajendra Joshi

3 December 2024 at 3:50:26 am

Controversy over shifting plot

Questions over corporation’s plan to abandon self-owned piece of land    Ruparani Nikam Kolhapur: A fresh controversy has surfaced over the proposed construction of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) new administrative building, with questions being raised over the apparent shift from a prime, self-owned plot at Nirmal Chowk to an alternative site at Shendapark.   The civic body, which has been functioning out of the historic Gandhi Market building since its days as a nagarpalika...

Controversy over shifting plot

Questions over corporation’s plan to abandon self-owned piece of land    Ruparani Nikam Kolhapur: A fresh controversy has surfaced over the proposed construction of the Kolhapur Municipal Corporation’s (KMC) new administrative building, with questions being raised over the apparent shift from a prime, self-owned plot at Nirmal Chowk to an alternative site at Shendapark.   The civic body, which has been functioning out of the historic Gandhi Market building since its days as a nagarpalika during the princely era, was upgraded to a municipal corporation in 1972. However, despite a significant expansion in its administrative scope over the decades, the KMC has yet to acquire a modern, purpose-built headquarters. At the centre of the present debate is a 9-acre-36-guntha plot at Nirmal Chowk considerably larger than the five-acre Shendapark site now being proposed.   The Nirmal Chowk land has long been in the corporation’s possession, and even a property card had been issued following the resolution of disputes by the district administration. Despite this, the civic body has now indicated that the new headquarters will be constructed at Shendapark, prompting questions over the rationale behind abandoning a larger, strategically located plot.   Complicating matters further is a prolonged legal dispute over the Nirmal Chowk land. While the preparation of a property card typically nullifies the relevance of the 7/12 extract under Maharashtra land records, claims based on the latter continued to surface, with some parties asserting ownership and keeping the dispute alive.   Critics allege that the civic administration failed to pursue the case with due diligence, at times remaining absent during key hearings. It was only after an intervention through a separate petition filed by Dilip Desai of a local civic group that the matter regained traction. The case is now slated for hearing before the Kolhapur circuit bench of the Bombay High Court in June.   Observers argue that instead of strengthening its legal position and securing the valuable land estimated to be worth around Rs 40 crore the KMC appears to have shifted focus to the Shendapark site. This, they say, raises concerns about the intent behind the change in location.   Notably, as far back as December 2003, the corporation had organised an architectural design competition for constructing a modern headquarters at Nirmal Chowk. A contemporary design was finalised, but the project has seen little progress in over two decades.   In contrast, several municipal corporations across Maharashtra have since developed modern administrative complexes, while Kolhapur continues to operate out of cramped premises in Gandhi Market, with even council proceedings often conducted under space constraints. Civic activists contend that had the KMC pursued the Nirmal Chowk project with consistency and resolved legal hurdles in time, the city would not have risked losing control over a high-value public asset.   With the shift to Shendapark now underway, concerns are also being voiced about the future of other public spaces in the city. Activists warn that if such decisions go unchallenged, it could set a precedent affecting open spaces in urban layouts.   The controversy has triggered demands for greater transparency and accountability in the civic body’s land-use decisions, with residents seeking clear answers on why the original site was sidelined and who stands to benefit from the change.

Chaos Doctrine

For a man who relishes brinkmanship, US President Donald Trump has increasingly begun to resemble a pyromaniac with a fire extinguisher, lighting crises only to theatrically douse them. His latest performance, announcing a ceasefire to pause the ongoing Iran conflict, bears ample testament to this phenomenon. Within the span of a single day, Trump threatened to annihilate Iranian civilian infrastructure by warning that “a whole civilisation will die” before pivoting, scarcely two hours before his own deadline, to announce a two-week ceasefire.


The volte-face was as revealing as it was reckless. Markets rallied, oil prices dipped and global leaders exhaled not because a durable peace had been secured, but because catastrophe had been momentarily deferred. Beneath the relief lies a troubling reality that the world’s most powerful military is being steered by impulses that swing wildly between maximalist threats and premature declarations of victory. Trump insists that “all military objectives” have been met and that a “definitive agreement” is within reach. Neither claim survives even cursory scrutiny.


Iran has not reopened Hormuz in any meaningful sense and missiles continue to fly between Iran and Israel. The Islamic Republic has not abandoned its nuclear ambitions, nor relinquished its most potent leverage - control over the very chokepoint Trump sought to strong-arm open. Iranian leaders appear convinced they can outlast American pressure, fracture regional alliances and emerge, battered but ascendant, as a hegemon.


The ceasefire, then, is not a prelude to peace but a pause born of necessity. Analysts note that the war has proved deeply unpopular at home, dragging down Trump’s approval ratings as fuel prices climb and midterm elections loom. The president’s sudden enthusiasm for diplomacy reflects a desperate search for an exit that can be spun, however implausibly, as a triumph.


Even the choreography of the ceasefire betrays confusion. Pakistan’s Shehbaz Sharif and Asim Munir have emerged as unlikely intermediaries, inviting delegations to Islamabad. That Washington would lean on Pakistan, a country that sponsors terror and is grappling with extreme economic fragility, raises questions about the coherence of Trump’s strategy. More established regional brokers, from Qatar to Saudi Arabia to India, have been conspicuously sidelined. Mediation, like war, appears to be conducted on the fly.


Meanwhile, contradictions abound. Benjamin Netanyahu has endorsed a temporary halt to strikes on Iran, even as Israeli forces continue to retaliate against missile launches.


Trump has always thrived on spectacle. But foreign policy is not a reality show and the gap between his rhetoric and reality has rarely been wider.


The danger now is that when the two weeks of ceasefire expire, the underlying dynamics will remain unchanged: a defiant Iran, a jittery Israel, a divided region and an American president who mistakes volatility for leverage. In such circumstances, the next crisis is not a possibility. It is a certainty.


Trump has not just lost the plot. He has mistaken chaos for control, and the world is left to bear the consequences. 


Comments

bottom of page