#SaveAareyMetro

Nature’s call

I recently came across a friend’s Instagram story, in which, he had posed with a friend of his, who was holding a placard that said “Today, it is Amazon. Tomorrow it may be Aarey. Later it can be Himayat Bagh.” He was wearing (yes, wearing like an ornament, really) a non-rebreather mask (without a bag, though) and carrying a 5 litre Bisleri water can containing a rose sapling. My friend had put a caption of his own, which said, “Nature is the only religion that matters today. Prepare to face the unthinkable. Good going, XYZ. #FarkPadtaHai #SaveAareyForest”.

This reminded me of the issue this was all in reference to, the Aarey Milk Colony Mumbai Metro Railway Corporation Ltd (MMRCL) issue. This piece of news has been around for a good couple of years now. As far as I remember, this started when some active citizens of Mumbai saw notices stuck on trees of the Aarey Milk Colony (23/11/2014), that they were going to be cleared to make way for Metro Line 3 car shed. I hadn’t formed any particular opinion about this issue until then. Then, while I was surfing Facebook, I saw a headline reading, “Hundreds brave rains to form a human chain to protest BMC order to chop 2700 trees.”

So far, I’d argued with a couple of friends about the point of protests and stalling govt work. The best argument I had come across was that 2700 trees is a lot and felling these many trees would lead to an increase in pollution, loss of plant life and habitat for quite a few animal species and a few local tribes. Another argument was about the morality of sacrificing the environment for the sake of urban development. Both arguments are thought provoking, but to someone like me, not compelling.

This whole issue reminded me of an inter-school debate competition that my high school hosts every year for local schools. I remember that the subject was something like Economic development vs biodiversity. The format of the debate was such that the motion would be put in place, each team would consist of 2 speakers and an interjector. One speaker would speak for the motion, the other would speak against the motion, for example, in this case, one would bat for economic development and the other would defend biodiversity. Each team was given a number tag. Lots were drawn and the interjector from one team would ask questions to the speakers of one other team based on the lots. I remember asking the pro-economic development speaker of the team I was up against this question. “How would you respond when 20 years from now, your kid asks you about what happened to the Royal Bengal Tiger and where did all of them go?” It wouldn’t be an overstatement to say that this question received a thunderous applause and the speaker struggled to find words. Among other things, this served as an indication that even sub-urban public in 2010 appreciated concern about the environment.

In light of all of this happening around and to me, I decided to dig this issue to its bottom. The only reason I do so is because this movement to supposedly “Save Aarey Forest” has gained traction among the youth of Mumbai, who are marching on streets, forming human chains, shouting slogans, holding placards, signing petitions on ‘change.org’ and leveraging social media reaches of celebrities, all for the seemingly thankless job of rescuing Mother Nature from the ravages of industrial overreach.

An investigation

Now, I am a scientist by inclination (and by training.) So, I decided to pursue this issue logically and rationally. I should clarify that I do not claim to be an expert on anything other than my own area of research and that all of this is an exercise of rationalization based on the Socratic Method. A little healthy skepticism never did me much harm.

For the timeline of certain protests, I refer to the website of an NGO called Aarey Conservation Group. As I mentioned earlier as well, this started in November 2014, when a few Mumbaikars saw notices on trees of Aarey Milk Colony, or simply Aarey, that said something to the effect that they were slated to be cut and objections, if any, are to be filed within 15 days with the Tree Authority (TA). These trees were to be chopped to make way for a metro car shed for Metro Line 3, which is a facility where metros can be parked, serviced, cleaned and maintained when not in use. Within 15 days, sure enough, citizens filed objections with the TA, moved a public interest litigation (PIL, a case filed in public interest under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution) before the Bombay High Court (HC) and also met with the MMRCL officers, Municipal Commissioner and TA to request the, to relocate the car shed other than Aarey.

Hereafter, I dug into the depth of the internet, resisting all urges to binge watch Jordan Peterson or BB Ki Vines or monkeys stealing food from tourists, to try and find news articles on the judgement of this case by HC, which I came to know was pronounced in October 2018. I found a few reports of the judgement in the mainstream media, though they didn’t touch upon a lot of details that I was sure were important. I am not as of now, alleging any bias on their part. This could be because of any number of reasons. But, I did notice that some reputed media outlets that reported everything under the sun, including the protests against MMRCL, had not reported on the HC judgement.

Naturally, I was intrigued about this judgement, since the reports in the media mentioned that the HC dismissed the petition against the notification that declared that Aarey could be used by MMRCL for the metro car shed, under some conditions. So, I decided to look for the judgement itself. I found a website called Indian Kanoon, that contains a great database of judgements. The case is a writ petition (L) 2766 of 2017 which was adjudicated on 26/10/2018 by Bombay HC judge S. C. Dharmadhikari. I will now briefly highlight all the major arguments, documents, observations and comments from this judgement.

The petition before the Court challenged the notifications, dated 24/8/2017 and 9/11/2017 by the State Govt, or simply govt, to modify the status of the land, 33 hectares in size, in Aarey Milk Colony, from a No-Development Zone (NDZ) to a Special Development Zone (SDZ) for a metro car shed. I shall refer to these notifications as the modification.

The court case

The petitioners of this case are Amrita Bhattacharjee and Biju Kattain, represented by Mr. Janak Dwarkadas. The respondents are the following State Govt of Maharashtra, DDTP of Greater Mumbai, represented by Mr. Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and MMRCL, represented by Mr. Aspi Chinoy. I have explained some major arguments and their rebuttals in this blog post. The most important point here is that an affidavit dated 25/3/2018, which clarified some conditions posed on MMRCL. These conditions are as follows.

1. Open areas shown on the Part Plan shall be kept open and the trees on that land must be conserved permanently.
2. To mitigate the environmental impact to the Aarey Colony, following measures shall be undertaken.

• Ground water recharging arrangements to be provided.
• Trees be planted as per recommendations of the TC.
• Trees above 10 ft height of native variety only to be planted.
• Plantation to be undertaken by professional agencies only.
• Annual audits of the plantation to be conducted by a third part and report to be displayed on the company website.
• MMRCL to maintain these trees for 5 years.

1. Total 33 ha of land shall be used only for the depot and its allied users only. Commercial users shall not be permitted.
2. Before the depot is developed, all necessary permissions must be obtained.
3. The character of the overall construction shall be such that the underground water table shall not get disturbed.

The judgement has been detailed in the same post. But, the highlight of the judgement is here.

The Court now pronounced the following observations.

• The change of status from NDZ to an SDZ for metro car depot is legal.
• Conditions are put in place in an effort to mitigate any damage done.
• Expert committee constituted to declare the land as an ESZ, rejected the proposal unanimously and the final notification did not include the 165 ha as such.
• The car depot is not in a statutorily recognized forest land.
• This is not a case where forest land is allotted to MMRCL without regard for environmental and wildlife protection laws.
• Concerns of Dr. Shyam Asolekar, Professor, IIT Bombay and Dr. Rakesh Kumar, Director, NEERI, are entirely valid. These are members of the TC who were on disagreement with some conclusions and recommendations. But, the modifications of the land status is conditional, which is specifically in place to address these concerns.

So saying, the court dismissed the petition. This clarified any reservations and doubts I had in mind about all the arguments that the petitioners and protesters has presented. I cannot verify if these are indeed the strongest arguments from their side but the pragmatic thing to do is to assume that the points mentioned in the Court are the most potent arguments, assuming the petitioners indeed wanted to bring about change, and not just attract attention. The fact that the petition was dismissed by the Bombay HC goes saying, and I’m quoting, “The project can not suffer on account of general concerns.” That being said, the conditions put forth are in keeping with the idea of preservation and conservation of Aarey ecosystem.

Denying the bully’s veto

There is a concept mentioned in the Constitution of USA, in their First Amendment. It is called heckler’s veto, which is defined as people the suppression of speech by the govt, because of [the possibility of] a violent reaction by hecklers. Now, I know that the protesters haven’t been violent, but they are basically demanding that the govt stall the project because they are shouting at the top of their voices, hence my term, bully’s veto. If there are conditions already in place, what is the point of protesting now? So, I read tons of petitions on ‘change.org’, news articles, Facebook posts and watched several videos by people associated with protests. I am now going to dive into the reasons behind these concerned citizens’ protests.

This is a website, where any person can float a petition and ask people to submit their concerns about any issue in order to attract attention from govts. The current CM of Maharashtra was the first CM in India to be a registered user on the website. This petition is titled Mumbai’s climate and ecology in danger.

The link to the petition is here. I recommend reading this petition and its updates. To me, some arguments made in the petition and its updates seem unsubstantiated, lacking scientific and/or legal evidence and some even come across as vacuous claims. That is not to say that the concerns themselves are unfounded. But, one must be informed in the best way possible before one plans to influence 600,000 people on ‘change.org’ and many more on the ground. I will now discuss arguments made in this and some other petitions and calls for protests. This petitioner put forth a few really interesting points. Let’s go through them.

1. It is said in the petition that the Japanese collaborator (JICA) for this project was given wrong information that the land in question is in the city area and that there is no wildlife in it, when, it says, that Aarey is a forest land housing 400,000 trees and a variety of fauna.
   This was argued in Court and was found to be incorrect. The land is not a statutorily recognized forest, under Forest Conservation Act, 1980, it is not a part of SGNP.
2. A study conducted at Center of Environmental Sciences and Engineering (CESE), IIT Bombay on Green House Gases (GHG), asserts that the 11.4 km Versova-Andheri-Ghatkopar metro reduces vehicular CO2 by 22.7 tonnes a day. But, the metro itself releases 75.6 tonnes of CO2 a day on account of its electricity consumption for its operation resulting in a net 52.9 tonnes of GHGs a day being released. This link has been provided as a reference.
   As it turns out, the 75.6 tonnes a day number is equivalent to 90,000 units of electricity, which will be released at the place this electricity is generated. This metro line reduces emissions of 0.3 tonnes of carbon monoxide (CO), 0.15 tonnes of hydrocarbons, 0.17 tonnes of oxides of nitrogen and 0.01 tonnes of particulate matter a day, besides saving 20–50 mins of commuters’ travel time. Why has the petitioner conveniently omitted these numbers? Dr. M Chandel of CESE IITB is of the opinion that once the whole metro network is developed and functioning, it will be a net carbon negative system. Since this petition says that the metro being projected as a carbon negative system is the most ostentatious lie coming from the metro authorities, the article provided on literally the same page by the same person says otherwise. Would it be wrong for me to call this petition, that omits certain numbers that undermine its case, the most ostentatious lie coming from professional holier-than-thou protesters?

I even watched as many videos as I could, on YouTube on using the keywords “Aarey public hearing”. I shall refer to 2 major videos that actually show any public hearing, either the one conducted by the MMRCL, video released on 11/10/2018 or the one conducted by the MMRDA, video released on 9/7/2019.

This video shows a mess of a public hearing. It is a collage of people’s observations, objections and opinions. Going by the first look, the hearing is thoroughly chaotic. The issues raised are mostly addressed in the judgement explained previously, which was actually pronounced on 26/11/2018, after this hearing.

Environmentalist vs MMRDA

The second video was uploaded on 9/7/2019, recorded in an MMRDA hearing, which was conducted on 8/7/2019. It shows an environmentalist explaining various contentions and alleged illegalities.

1. Tree Authority’s permission has to be obtained before cutting even one tree, under the Tree Act of 1975.
   In a hearing on 7/12/2018, the SC had sought a report on the damage done to the environment by the project. Till then, the work of the metro car shed shall continue. So, this, as I understand, lays to rest any claims of requiring permissions needed to carry out the work. I am open to corrections on this front, but to me, the SC’s word seems to settle it.
2. Multiple petitions are pending before the HC, the NGT and the SC. Why are trees being cut in this situation?
   Merely because a matter is sub judice, doesn’t always mean that a status quo must be maintained. There has been no stay order in place since 7/12/2018, as I understand, because the SC has okayed the continuation of metro car shed. And, that work certainly involves cutting the designated trees. However, the HC has again issued a stay order on cutting trees till 30/9/2019.
3. The number of trees to be cut in order to make way for the project has increased since 2012. The tree census is playing tricks.
   Entirely valid point. But, as far as I understand, the plans themselves have gone through changes several times, as is also discussed in the judgement explained previously.
4. Supreme Court, in a landmark order in 1996, had said that the term ‘forest’ has to be interpreted in the sense of its dictionary meaning. By that definition, Aarey is a forest land.
   As any legal expert or lawyer or a person with any understanding of law, recognizes the fact that any definition, howsoever wide, must be read in a context. And this context has already been explained in a SC judgement of the case T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad vs Union of India, 3/12/2010, writ petition (civil) 202 of 1995, paragraphs 26 through 31, which in turn refers to another SC judgement of the case State of Bihar vs Banshi Ram Modi, 1985 (SCC643), paragraph 10. It says, “The 2 parts of the section 2 of Forest Act 1980, mean that after the Act comes into force, no fresh breaking up of forest land or clearing of forests on any such land can be permitted by the State Govt or any authority without prior approval of the Central Govt. But, if such permission was granted before the Act came into force, the section cannot apply in retrospect.” So, all this considered, the interpretation used in the video is ignorant.
5. A sapling or a new tree planted by MMRCL, will not comparable in its environmental impact to a much older tree that will be cut.
   Anyone with any semblance of a brain knows that a small tree is not a substitute for a fully grown tree. But, the plantation of trees is in keeping with the laws that are in force, which, according to the conditions placed on MMRCL, which will be overseen by a professional agency. And, I cannot believe an adult, reasonably informed person can make such an argument. Their whole concern is for the future, isn’t it? Then a sapling now will be a tree in the future, won’t it? So, this argument is more of a rhetorical device to sway people’s opinions that can be used in speeches, not in logically in a hearing.

Environmental Justice Atlas

This was a weird one. This organization, Environmental Justice Atlas is a self-styled “teaching, networking and advocacy resource”. I read a few extremely strange word choices in their article regarding the Aarey issue. The description on this webpage is so far the only petition that I have come across that alleges that the land has been changed from a NDZ to a SDZ to benefit builder lobbies. Now, I tried to find any evidence that they provide to back this allegation, but I couldn’t. Dare I call this allegation baseless, then? Apart from several factually incorrect claims, which I have addressed in various sections of this article itself, there are some other claims that I find worthy of discussion.

In Conclusion

I only have one appeal to make, specifically to young people who are likely to join these movements and form crystallized opinions on shaky moral grounds and factually incorrect claims that are fed to them by people with, here it comes, vested interests. I can understand how some people can feel outraged at trees being chopped for a metro shed. I do not wish to engage in ad hominem attacks against anyone, but I have found that these petitioners are professional petitioners who have a pattern of interrupting development projects. Just in this case, the multiple delays have escalated the cost of this very project. This only gives more ammunition to the professional protesters.

The legality of these notifications was upheld in the HC judgement that I have explained above. The fact that the petitions don’t contain all this can be attributed to ignorance, since some of the petitions was started before the HC had pronounced the judgement. But, my grouse with the petitioners is, even after the judgement had been pronounced, why has it not been incorporated in any update to the petition? In fact, one of the petitions, mentions that the SC rejected a plea seeking to shift the shed to any alternate locations. This plea was made by the same person whose plea was dismissed in the judgement that I have explained above. It is perfectly legal to appeal any judgement in a higher court, but why not mention what was observed by the Court that you yourself have approached and hailed as a potential saviour of Aarey? I do not have any issue with the petitioner seeking to “save the forest”, but if you plan to lead 600,000 people, the least you can do is put out the facts as they stand in their entirety.

I can understand that one may disagree with the subjective opinion of the judges of any court as I myself on numerous occasions have. I do not agree with the SC’s views in the Sabarimala case, or the Dahi Handi case of Bombay HC and the SC, or even the cracker ban of Delhi HC. I think having a disagreement with a court and voicing any opinion that runs contrary to that of the court is fundamental right in a liberal democracy like ours. It is our birthright to think, which is recognized in Article 25(1), Freedom to Conscience and it is also our birthright to speak our mind, which is recognized under Article 19(1), Freedom of Speech and Expression, with certain reasonable restrictions, which I thoroughly disagree with. But that is a subject for another day.

Having a dissenting opinion with respect to courts of our land and voicing them in public in a decent manner does not constitute contempt of court. Hence, the petitioners are entirely within their Constitutional and moral rights to disagree with the Court’s opinions that in this case, general concerns should not impede the development plans that are for the public causes. But, you cannot disagree with observed facts. And it was observed, unequivocally, that the modification of the status of the land was legal. It can still be challenged in the SC, but, if the argument is made on the basis of the same documents, I don’t see SC concluding any differently. Then, the question remains, that why has it not been clarified in the petitions? Would it not be reasonable to argue that this was done on purpose to mislead people? Would it not be logical to attribute this situation to malice, since ignorance is ruled out by the fact that the petition to the SC finds a mention but the HC judgement and observations are not present in the petitions?

There is a reason why people, especially the youth, get easily influenced by soaring rhetorics about selfless issues, especially environmental. These subjects tap into everyone’s vision of a utopian landscape. The season of spring. Diffused sunlight in the woods. A cuckoo chirps somewhere in the distance. It is the paramount of serenity. It does create a longing for such an experience. Sometimes, I think that these thoughts are outcomes of evolutionary processes. People do have an instinct to preserve that utopia, even if it is only a naive attempt, untouched by some truths of the functioning world that cannot be denied. And I do not blame them. A society must always aim for some kind of a utopia or an idealistic version of the world. But, the key is to find the most pragmatic way to create a world as close to it as possible. And I think some idealistic youth do act based on these instincts to protect that Garden of Eden from the evils of the world. It might perhaps be a reason why I ended up winning the interschool debate competition award for the best interjector.

Originally published at http://rescurrectingobjectivity.wordpress.com on November 7, 2019.