top of page

By:

Correspondent

21 August 2024 at 3:50:16 pm

Paper Towers

The collapse of the Delhi hostel which has left six people dead and several more injured brings into sharp relief the dangerous disconnect between what is sanctioned and what is actually built in Indian cities. The structure was reportedly sanctioned only up to ground-plus-one, yet had grown to five storeys and was being used as a densely occupied student hostel. While the investigation will establish whether the basement alterations, weakened pillars, waterlogging or some other structural...

Paper Towers

The collapse of the Delhi hostel which has left six people dead and several more injured brings into sharp relief the dangerous disconnect between what is sanctioned and what is actually built in Indian cities. The structure was reportedly sanctioned only up to ground-plus-one, yet had grown to five storeys and was being used as a densely occupied student hostel. While the investigation will establish whether the basement alterations, weakened pillars, waterlogging or some other structural failure caused the building to give way, the circumstances already raise a more uncomfortable question: how does a building apparently approved for two floors become a five-storey hostel without the system noticing? Delhi’s student neighbourhoods have developed a voracious market for cheap accommodation, and where demand rises faster than regulated housing, buildings acquire floors, rooms and tenants with remarkable speed. A residential property becomes a paying guest facility; a basement becomes usable space; another floor appears; more beds are squeezed in. The paperwork, if it exists at all, struggles to keep pace with the construction. There is no reason to assume that this is uniquely Delhi’s problem. Pune’s student districts, Bengaluru’s rental corridors, Mumbai’s crowded suburbs and other education and employment hubs face the same pressures. Wherever land is scarce, rents are high and demand for accommodation is relentless, the temptation to build beyond what was sanctioned is immense. The danger is obvious. A building designed for one purpose and a particular structural load cannot indefinitely be treated as a piece of elastic real estate. Adding floors, altering columns, excavating beneath an existing structure or cramming dozens of occupants into a building designed for far fewer people is not renovation. It is gambling with lives. Yet India’s municipal systems too often seem to discover illegal construction only after something has collapsed. The response is then predictable: an FIR, inspections, sealing drives and promises that officials found negligent will be punished. Delhi has already ordered inspections of nearby paying guest accommodations and buildings with fifth floors. Such action is welcome. It is also painfully late. The real test is not how efficiently the authorities clear the rubble. It is whether they can prevent the next building from becoming rubble. The country needs more than inspection drives. It needs municipal bodies capable of knowing what is being built in their jurisdictions, enforcing sanctioned plans before violations become permanent and making officials answerable when obvious breaches are ignored. A city’s housing shortage cannot be solved by allowing unsafe buildings to multiply. Nor can affordable accommodation be secured by making students the unwitting occupants of structural experiments. Satya Niketan has exposed a dangerous gap between the buildings cities need and the buildings their regulations can safely accommodate. If that gap is not closed, the next collapse may simply have a different pin code.

‘Haq ka pani’ – Reclaiming India's Rightful Share

Prime Minister Narendra Modi's Independence Day assertion last year that "Haq ka pani" will serve Indian farmers marks a decisive shift in India's approach to the Indus Waters.


Far from being a departure, it is a long-overdue correction of historical restraint that has disproportionately disadvantaged India while enabling persistent misuse downstream. It signals that India will no longer allow its rightful share of water to go underutilised and wasted while its own farmers face scarcity.


When the Indus Waters Treaty was signed in 1960, India, as the upper riparian, made a remarkable concession by agreeing to restrict itself to about 20 per cent of the Indus system waters, allocating the overwhelming 80 per cent share to Pakistan. This decision reflected extraordinary goodwill.


The expectation was that such generosity would be matched by responsible conduct and a cooperative spirit. Instead, over the decades,  that spirit was never reciprocated.


Prime Minister Modi's statement must also be seen against the backdrop of repeated acts of cross-border terrorism emanating from Pakistan that have vitiated the trust.


The long-standing reality, captured in the phrase, "blood and water cannot flow together", is no longer rhetorical. Incidents such as the Pulwama terror attack, along with other attacks in the Valley, including the Pahalgam region, have underscored how sustained hostility undermines the very foundation on which cooperative arrangements like the Treaty rest.


No agreement, however well-crafted, can remain insulated from a complete breakdown of trust.


At a structural level, the Treaty itself contained asymmetries that became increasingly untenable. It imposed considerable restrictions on India's use of its allocated waters, yet places no corresponding obligation on Pakistan to justify its requirements or ensure efficient utilisation.


This is reflected in the widespread inefficiencies, losses in irrigation systems (estimated at about 47 MAF), inadequate storage and poor water management on their side leading to large volumes of Indus waters (upto 35 MAF) flowing to the Arabian Sea unutilized.


Meanwhile, India has borne the cost of restraint. Regions such as Rajasthan and Haryana have remained water-stressed, their agricultural potential constrained despite the availability of water that India is entitled to use.


This imbalance is precisely what the statement seeks to correct. "Haq ka pani" is, therefore, about rightful utilisation, not denial.


India is asserting that every drop of the Indus system will now be used productively for irrigation, hydropower and development.


Indian projects on the Western rivers, including Baglihar and Salal, highlight another dimension of the challenge. Over time, sedimentation has reduced their efficiency and storage capacity.


Flushing operations, essential for maintaining dam safety and performance, were delayed for years due to unfounded objections and procedural hurdles created by Pakistan.


The eventual need to remove accumulated sediment only reinforced the cost of such delays. Going forward, India's approach will prioritise timely, state-of-the-art technical interventions, without being held hostage by malign and hyperbolic political theatrics disguised as technical differences.


The broader message is clear. First, India will fully utilise its rightful share of water in water-stressed regions. Second, it will no longer accept a framework where inefficiency and waste go unchecked on one side while artificial and unscientific constraints are sought to be imposed on the other.


Third, it will assert its technical autonomy, ensuring that infrastructure creation and maintenance proceed apace, in line with current scientific thinking and international best practices.


This is not a repudiation of any customary principles; it is a response to the destruction of the foundational pillars of the Treaty. When the very promises that undergird a treaty are breached by hostility, terror, misinformation, and misuse, recalibration becomes inevitable.


For decades, India exercised patience, even at tangible cost to its own development. That era is giving way to one of clarity and balance. "Haq ka pani" is an overdue commitment that India's water will serve its people, its farmers, and its future.


While some vested interests may try to mischaracterise it as a threat, it is nothing but a necessary course correction in a changing context.


(The writer is Former Chairman of Central Water Commission.)

Comments


bottom of page