Invention of a car owning 'elite' in Delhi

Instead of objectively analyzing the odd-even car formula for Delhi, commentators have resorted to inventing imaginary elites with their imaginary antipathy to fixing the pollution problem

History records that Muhammad-bin-Tughlaq, who ruled over Delhi ordered his capital to be moved from Delhi to Devagiri, which he named Daulatabad. The decision caused much consternation and hardship to common citizens. There is however, no record of any debates on the said decision once the Sultan had issued the ‘farmaan’.

Today, the same city of Delhi’s modern day rulers have decreed that the new year 2016 will see an experiment in which odd numbered cars will ply on odd dates while even numbered ones will ply on even dates. Delhi’s AAP government’s decision has faced as much criticism in the media as Tughlaq’s would have been criticised openly, in the 14th century; that is, not much. The decision has met widespread approval from the commentariat with some trenchant criticism seen only on social media platforms.

The commentators have taken to approving the policy decision with much gusto having suffered from increased pollution in Delhi-NCR in recent times; the rise attributed to stubble burning in Delhi’s rural areas and neighbouring states. Social media criticism and general cribbing has met with a disdain reserved for politicians and industrialists. Anything remotely critical of the policy is seen and criticised as heartburn caused by loss of privilege. A new class of Delhi “elites” has been invented and where there are elites, there must exist - by definition - the oppressed, the downtrodden, the subaltern; in other words, the underdogs. In the most classic reductionist fashion, a complex issue has been reduced to a battle between the haves & the have-nots and once you have this distinction, any criticism of the policy decision becomes anti-poor and hence unassailable.

This is a clever trope; a straw-man argument that has many sub-parts. This invention of elites is based on three assumptions. One, that there exists an elite who are cribbing. Two, the elite are the ones criticising this policy even though they are causing this pollution and three, the policy itself is beyond reproach.

So, who are these ‘elites’? The elites being referred to here are the car-owners in Delhi and they have been pronounced guilty of causing pollution in the capital. This definition of ‘elites’ is based on the assumption that a car is a luxury in Delhi-NCR  rather than a necessity. How true is that? It is true for those who live in tony neighbourhoods in Delhi with better and easier access to public transport. This classification ignores the fact that unlike some other metros, NCR is spread over a wide area under three different states including Delhi. Do elites include those who have finally managed to invest their savings in a flat in some remote Noida extension sector or somewhere between Gurgaon and Manesar as housing in the city limits of Delhi is unaffordable. Does it include the residents of pockets within Delhi, like Najafgarh, that are not on the Metro line and where the residents need to depend upon their own vehicles to reach their workplace with some dignity intact?

When it comes to judging privilege, the true elites in Delhi are the ones living (and working) in those areas of Delhi that are well connected by public transport. These supra-elite, often with inherited privilege, are now projecting themselves as the equals of every car owner in Delhi-NCR. For the inheritors, a car maybe a luxury, but for the neo-middle class it is either an aspiration or an achievement. A car often represents escape from a precarious journey of a family of four on a two-wheeler battling the law, the elements and tempting fate. This misplaced classification as ‘elites’ seeks to make them feel guilty of having escaped from that journey on a scooter with their limbs intact.

The second assumption is that these ‘elites’ with their cars are the real cause of pollution in this city and are now a barrier between a lung-full of clean air and the poor residents of this state. This flies in the face of the study that this Delhi government action is based on. This ‘Source Apportionment Study’ by  IIT-Kanpur found that less than 10 per cent of particulate matter was contributed by cars and jeeps. Trucks and two-wheelers contribute more while road-dust and construction-dust are the biggest contributors to PM 2.5 and PM 10 levels in the city.

We must do something. This is something. Therefore, we must do this.

This wisdom from Yes, Prime Minister is what seems to have motivated this policy decision that has been welcomed with nary a thought being given to preparation. The policy decision suffers from two major challenges: the lack of public transport; particularly last mile connectivity and second, the capacity constraint when it comes to the state’s ability to enforce this. Delhi Metro with its existing capacity and the CNG buses run with full capacity at rush hours and even then are not able to serve all parts of the city.

The city’s auto-rickshaw drivers with their Olympic-level skill in inventing excuses to deny service are unreliable. Metro-feeder mini-buses  are a traffic hazard and no improvement is in sight in the near future when it comes to public transport in the city. Enforcing this decree requires the support of the already understaffed Delhi Police whose chief has already gone on record that they have not been consulted about this decision.

This raises questions about how this decision was arrived at. Was it discussed with various stakeholders like the police? Were their concerns and suggestions taken on-board? Was it discussed with citizen groups? Delhi has a much publicised and well funded Delhi Dialogue Commission. What ‘dialogues’ took place with citizens who are going to face the brunt of this policy? The odd-even formula is said to have been implemented after the IIT-Kanpur study was submitted to the Delhi government in late November. What discussions, debates or dialogues have taken place in Delhi on this issue since then?

Commentators are probably aware of these flaws in both the reasoning of this policy and the method in which it has been arrived at. That perhaps explains the reluctance to objectively critique this decision instead of inventing an imaginary elite with its imaginary antipathy to reducing pollution.

The discourse on this odd-even formula threatens to mimic the discourse that existed on the issue of Lokpal, the old issue that Mr Kejriwal championed. Any criticism of the Lokpal demands was met with the accusation that critics supported corruption. Now, any criticism of this rushed policy is met with the same self-righteousness that the critics are supporters of pollution. Mr. Kejriwal deserves a citation for managing to create another unassailable debate where any nuanced criticism is dismissed not only by his party’s retinue online, but also by the wider commentariat. Twitter: @bhayankur