Development Cannot Be Held Hostage to Political Interference
Development must have a human face, but human concerns cannot become a permanent roadblock to development.
Anil Kumar Sharma
If a country and its people have a vision to see their nation developed, there must also be a clear thought and collective resolve to create the infrastructure required to support that vision. Development cannot remain merely a slogan. It has to translate into better roads, efficient transportation, modern cities, improved public services and infrastructure capable of meeting the aspirations of a growing population.
At the same time, development in a constitutional democracy cannot and should not come at the cost of the livelihood of genuine people who are displaced or adversely affected by a project. If their livelihood has to be disturbed in the larger public interest, proper rehabilitation, compensation and alternative arrangements must be part of the project planning itself. A Detailed Project Report should not merely calculate the engineering cost and technical feasibility of a project. It should also foresee its human consequences and provide for them.
The Government at the Centre has laid down regulations and procedures for projects to be examined and implemented through a defined framework. There are processes for assessment, consultation, compensation and rehabilitation wherever applicable. The purpose of such a framework is to ensure that development and human concerns move together.
But what happens when a project reaches the local level?
Almost every major project seems to encounter the same cycle. The moment some people apprehend displacement or loss of livelihood, there is a hue and cry. Their concerns may be genuine and deserve to be heard. But very often, instead of helping find a practical solution, political parties enter the scene and take up the issue. The genuine grievance of a few can then become a larger political confrontation, with demands often reduced to one simple slogan: shelve the project.
This is where the larger public interest begins to suffer.
The government, seeing protests receiving attention in the media and political pressure mounting, sometimes begins to reconsider or derail a project that may have already gone through considerable planning and expenditure. A project that was expected to be completed within a defined timeframe gets delayed. The cost escalates, uncertainty continues and the general public, which was waiting to see the benefits of the project, continues to suffer.
The irony is that the same project may have been conceived precisely to solve a problem that thousands of ordinary citizens face every day.
I remember once discussing such an issue with a senior bureaucrat who had worked closely with a Chief Minister. He narrated an incident which has remained in my mind.
There was a serious traffic bottleneck on a highway in a town near the State capital. It had become a regular headache for daily commuters. The solution required widening a portion of the highway, for which a few shops in the market had to be relocated.
Whenever the government tried to proceed, there would be protests at the spot. Political leaders would sit on dharnas and pressure would build. Eventually, the government would have to shelve the proposal.
The situation was reportedly becoming a source of irritation for the then Chief Minister. One day, while going to attend a Cabinet meeting, he instructed the officials that the particular patch should be cleared and that nobody should be allowed to approach him on the issue while he was in the meeting.
The work was carried out.
Even the party president and the concerned MLA tried to approach him. Later, when they met him personally, they conveyed their political concern that the action would affect their vote bank because the people at that particular spot were angry.
The Chief Minister’s response, as narrated to me, was blunt. If development had to take place, the government had to be prepared to face resentment from some individuals. Those immediately affected might be unhappy, but the larger population, which would ultimately benefit from the decision, would recognise the importance of the action.
The anecdote may belong to another time and another place, but the larger lesson remains relevant. Governance cannot always be about avoiding every resentment. At the same time, taking a difficult decision does not mean ignoring those who are affected. It means finding a way to protect their legitimate interests while keeping the larger public purpose in view.
This brings me to the present situation in Jammu.
The city has grown several times over the last two decades. The number of vehicles has multiplied, residential colonies have expanded and commercial activity has moved far beyond the old city. Yet the road infrastructure has not expanded at the same pace. Roads and junctions designed for an earlier Jammu are now carrying traffic far beyond their original capacity.
The result is before us every day. Long traffic jams, bottlenecks, wasted fuel, lost working hours and inconvenience to ordinary commuters have become a part of urban life.
The proposed flyover projects at Bakshi Nagar and Amphalla Janipur have therefore generated considerable public discussion. For a city struggling with congestion, such infrastructure is not merely about construction. It is about preparing Jammu for the traffic and urban requirements of the future.
At the same time, shopkeepers and other affected people have raised concerns about their livelihood. Their apprehensions cannot simply be dismissed. For a shopkeeper, a shop may represent decades of hard work, family income and an investment built over generations.
But there is a difference between raising a legitimate concern and demanding that development itself be abandoned.
If shops have to be relocated, let the government clearly identify who will be affected. Let proper compensation be worked out. Let alternative commercial spaces be explored. Let the project design be examined to see whether displacement can be reduced. Let affected people be consulted before the work begins.
But once all these aspects have been examined, there must also be a point where a government takes a decision and moves forward.
If the proposed flyover is not the right solution, then what is the alternative?
If widening the road is not acceptable, how will the congestion be addressed?
If another route is suggested, will it provide the same traffic capacity?
What will be its cost and how much additional time will it require?
These are the questions that should form part of the public debate.
Simply opposing a project does not provide an alternative. Political leadership should not only stand beside those who are affected; it should also help find a workable solution for the thousands who are affected every day by traffic congestion.
This is where the concept of vote-bank politics becomes a serious challenge to development.
A political party has every democratic right to raise the concerns of citizens. But if every difficult infrastructure decision is converted into an electoral calculation, no city can plan its future with certainty. Governments will hesitate, projects will be delayed and the public will eventually pay the price.
The solution is neither to bulldoze the concerns of shopkeepers nor to surrender development to political pressure.
The solution lies in responsible planning and responsible politics.
The human impact of a project should be assessed at the DPR stage itself. Rehabilitation should not become an afterthought after protests begin. Compensation should not take years. Alternative arrangements should be planned in advance. The government should communicate openly with the affected people and explain the long-term benefits of the project.
And once a transparent decision has been taken, the government must have the courage to implement it within the promised timeframe.
A city cannot remain frozen because every change creates some inconvenience. At the same time, a city cannot call itself developed if its development leaves genuine citizens without a livelihood.
We therefore need a development model that carries people along.
India’s aspiration to become a developed nation will require thousands of difficult decisions. Some will involve land, some livelihood, some relocation and some temporary inconvenience. The test of governance will be how sensitively these consequences are handled, not whether every project can be implemented without opposition.
Politics will always be a part of democracy. Public opinion will always matter. But development planning must look beyond the next election and towards the next generation.
The Jammu flyover debate, therefore, should not become a contest between development and livelihood. It should become an opportunity to demonstrate that both can be protected through intelligent planning, dialogue and political maturity.
A city cannot move forward if every road to development is blocked by politics. But development must also ensure that those standing in its path are not simply pushed aside, but taken along.
Manzil sabki ho, safar sabka ho,
Vikas bhi ho, aur insaan bhi mehfooz rahe.
(STRAIGHT TALK COMMUNICATIONS EXCLUSIVE. The author is a Columnist | Former Banker I Social Commentator. He can be reached at: anil.kumar.sharma9419@gmail.com)
