Creating fresh human suffering is not prudent
Friday, 11 June 2010
Enayet Rasul Bhuiyan
Media reports focused on a Cabinet decision this week about hounding down all depots of chemicals or fire-causing type of inflammable materials stored within residential areas of the city. The stocks of such risky materials will now be searched out and removed immediately away from these places or taken from their owners or seized.
It is not clear whether the seized and removed materials will be returned to their owners or destroyed. From the announcement it only becomes clear that the swiftest of actions will now be taken against operators of all kinds of businesses in residential areas with potentials to start fires. Last week's fire incident -- unprecedented in its fury and devastation in a part of the old city -- is now considered to be linked mainly to such stores of inflammables that combusted too quickly and spread leading to the large-scale human casualties and destruction of properties.
The government's concern is appreciated. Its activism from being sensitized by the tragedy is also well understood. But the only objection would be about the manner in which a solution to this huge problem is now being sought at one stroke. For such sudden and drastic attempts at solution to problems involving a large number of people -- their occupations or means of earning a livelihood, their way of life as allowed or tolerated by the authorities for many years -- can only create fresh human sufferings, albeit in a different form compared to the sufferers from the fire incidents.
Old Dhaka has many areas where it is difficult to tell residential areas apart from cottage industry-type of ventures that have mushroomed in them. For example, there are to be found here small enterprises making plastic goods. Typically in many cases, the operator of such an industry may have set up an unplanned or poorly planned building with the machines or moulds for making the goods inside one or two rooms in it which also serves as his own residence. The rest may have been rented out. The raw materials for his manufacturing are also kept stored in the same building. There is, no doubt, high danger of fire incidents arises from this casual way of keeping easily combustible matters so close to human occupants of such a house.
Not only makers of plastic goods, there are makers of polythene sheets, leather goods and dealers in chemical goods who run their operations from well within clusters of human dwellings in the old city. They either own these houses or have rented them out for carrying out such businesses as well as for living.
What they have done suits their convenience. But would it be a business-friendly move or helpful in any way from the perspective of employment and income of people on a large scale, to address this problem in a cut and dry manner? There are about 25 thousand makeshift factories of different sorts within residential areas of the old city. Besides, there are thousands of similar make-shift stores of chemicals and inflammables in the same areas that feed these so-called factories. Thousands of workers have found employment or a means of sustenance from working in them. The owners of such factories have invested a great deal of capital in them. A great deal of trading in the raw materials to run these enterprise is also there for consideration as well as the links to financial institutions like banks that also have financed them in many cases.
Can it be economically prudent in any way to suddenly cripple these wide networks of economic activities at one go without providing time and support for the ones to be affected to relocate their businesses? As it is, the government has already embarked on a drive to uproot offending enterprises from residential areas. This paper reported on Tuesday the shutting down of four such factories throwing their owners and workers into great uncertainty and financial distresses. The drive is expected to be relentless and many more victims of the same are expected unless this reckless decision is not reconsidered or improved from new thinking.
The offending enterprises have not grown overnight. These have sprung up under the very eyes of the authorities over many years without being told that they stand a chance of being evicted or shut down for non-compliance of rules and regulations. Thus, these enterprises have acquired a sort of quasi-legitimacy also for their operation. Successive governments and authorities cannot say that they owe no responsibility for the establishment of these enterprises or for their uninterrupted functioning for so many years. In fact, the governments have only presided quietly over the functioning of such enterprises all these years giving their operators a sense of confidence that what things they have been doing were nothing wrong. Therefore, government also has been a party to their offences by not doing or saying anything about it. Can the government, therefore, absolve itself of having no responsibility in the matter?
In all fairness or for not creating fresh large-scale problems for a large number of people who are threatened to lose their means to income and livelihood all on a sudden, the government needs to rethink its decision. Of course, no sensible person would suggest that the government should withdraw the decision entirely. Only it should be sought to be implemented sensibly allowing time or space to the affected ones to save and relocate their businesses over a period of time.
For example, a period of six to twelve months may be allowed for shifting of stocks of inflammable materials and the industries that use them to new locations away from residential areas. The government should sincerely consider helping such relocation by offering its own lands for the purpose. Meanwhile, the government should maintain strict vigilance to ensure that the resettlement takes place within the stipulated period. This approach will lead to smooth attainment of the official objective while not throwing these businesses into sudden extreme troubles.
Like removing risky substances and enterprises from residential areas, a move is also there to immediately demolish risky old buildings in the city. Buildings are also being demolished by the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) for not observing its building code during construction. In these cases also, RAJUK and the government cannot disclaim the fact of not doing their duties when such structures were built. But RAJUK has now assumed a very rigid self-righteous disposition completely mindless about its own inefficiency and irresponsibility in the matter.
Thus, it would be only fair to give some breathing time to the builders of risky buildings. Most of them have spent their life savings or a great deal of resources on constructing them. Some would be reduced to penury from carrying out demolition. Besides, willfully destroying assets like buildings in a poor country like Bangladesh can be looked upon as only extravaganza. Instead of tearing own these buildings, RAJUK can help their owners to carry out changes or modifications in their structures that would reduce or eliminate the risks of their collapse. A fund can be created for giving loans to owners of risky buildings at lower than market rates of interest to do the job on their own while RAJUK can keep high vigil over the process till it is carried out satisfactorily.
The same can also be done about very old houses. Owners of many of them lack the finances to break them down and rebuild. Here also the government can create incentives by setting up a fund from which such owners can take loans at lower than market rates and soft terms of repayment. The old houses in this manner will gradually disappear but their owners will not be made suddenly homeless as RAJUK breaks them down.
Media reports focused on a Cabinet decision this week about hounding down all depots of chemicals or fire-causing type of inflammable materials stored within residential areas of the city. The stocks of such risky materials will now be searched out and removed immediately away from these places or taken from their owners or seized.
It is not clear whether the seized and removed materials will be returned to their owners or destroyed. From the announcement it only becomes clear that the swiftest of actions will now be taken against operators of all kinds of businesses in residential areas with potentials to start fires. Last week's fire incident -- unprecedented in its fury and devastation in a part of the old city -- is now considered to be linked mainly to such stores of inflammables that combusted too quickly and spread leading to the large-scale human casualties and destruction of properties.
The government's concern is appreciated. Its activism from being sensitized by the tragedy is also well understood. But the only objection would be about the manner in which a solution to this huge problem is now being sought at one stroke. For such sudden and drastic attempts at solution to problems involving a large number of people -- their occupations or means of earning a livelihood, their way of life as allowed or tolerated by the authorities for many years -- can only create fresh human sufferings, albeit in a different form compared to the sufferers from the fire incidents.
Old Dhaka has many areas where it is difficult to tell residential areas apart from cottage industry-type of ventures that have mushroomed in them. For example, there are to be found here small enterprises making plastic goods. Typically in many cases, the operator of such an industry may have set up an unplanned or poorly planned building with the machines or moulds for making the goods inside one or two rooms in it which also serves as his own residence. The rest may have been rented out. The raw materials for his manufacturing are also kept stored in the same building. There is, no doubt, high danger of fire incidents arises from this casual way of keeping easily combustible matters so close to human occupants of such a house.
Not only makers of plastic goods, there are makers of polythene sheets, leather goods and dealers in chemical goods who run their operations from well within clusters of human dwellings in the old city. They either own these houses or have rented them out for carrying out such businesses as well as for living.
What they have done suits their convenience. But would it be a business-friendly move or helpful in any way from the perspective of employment and income of people on a large scale, to address this problem in a cut and dry manner? There are about 25 thousand makeshift factories of different sorts within residential areas of the old city. Besides, there are thousands of similar make-shift stores of chemicals and inflammables in the same areas that feed these so-called factories. Thousands of workers have found employment or a means of sustenance from working in them. The owners of such factories have invested a great deal of capital in them. A great deal of trading in the raw materials to run these enterprise is also there for consideration as well as the links to financial institutions like banks that also have financed them in many cases.
Can it be economically prudent in any way to suddenly cripple these wide networks of economic activities at one go without providing time and support for the ones to be affected to relocate their businesses? As it is, the government has already embarked on a drive to uproot offending enterprises from residential areas. This paper reported on Tuesday the shutting down of four such factories throwing their owners and workers into great uncertainty and financial distresses. The drive is expected to be relentless and many more victims of the same are expected unless this reckless decision is not reconsidered or improved from new thinking.
The offending enterprises have not grown overnight. These have sprung up under the very eyes of the authorities over many years without being told that they stand a chance of being evicted or shut down for non-compliance of rules and regulations. Thus, these enterprises have acquired a sort of quasi-legitimacy also for their operation. Successive governments and authorities cannot say that they owe no responsibility for the establishment of these enterprises or for their uninterrupted functioning for so many years. In fact, the governments have only presided quietly over the functioning of such enterprises all these years giving their operators a sense of confidence that what things they have been doing were nothing wrong. Therefore, government also has been a party to their offences by not doing or saying anything about it. Can the government, therefore, absolve itself of having no responsibility in the matter?
In all fairness or for not creating fresh large-scale problems for a large number of people who are threatened to lose their means to income and livelihood all on a sudden, the government needs to rethink its decision. Of course, no sensible person would suggest that the government should withdraw the decision entirely. Only it should be sought to be implemented sensibly allowing time or space to the affected ones to save and relocate their businesses over a period of time.
For example, a period of six to twelve months may be allowed for shifting of stocks of inflammable materials and the industries that use them to new locations away from residential areas. The government should sincerely consider helping such relocation by offering its own lands for the purpose. Meanwhile, the government should maintain strict vigilance to ensure that the resettlement takes place within the stipulated period. This approach will lead to smooth attainment of the official objective while not throwing these businesses into sudden extreme troubles.
Like removing risky substances and enterprises from residential areas, a move is also there to immediately demolish risky old buildings in the city. Buildings are also being demolished by the Rajdhani Unnayan Kartripakkha (RAJUK) for not observing its building code during construction. In these cases also, RAJUK and the government cannot disclaim the fact of not doing their duties when such structures were built. But RAJUK has now assumed a very rigid self-righteous disposition completely mindless about its own inefficiency and irresponsibility in the matter.
Thus, it would be only fair to give some breathing time to the builders of risky buildings. Most of them have spent their life savings or a great deal of resources on constructing them. Some would be reduced to penury from carrying out demolition. Besides, willfully destroying assets like buildings in a poor country like Bangladesh can be looked upon as only extravaganza. Instead of tearing own these buildings, RAJUK can help their owners to carry out changes or modifications in their structures that would reduce or eliminate the risks of their collapse. A fund can be created for giving loans to owners of risky buildings at lower than market rates of interest to do the job on their own while RAJUK can keep high vigil over the process till it is carried out satisfactorily.
The same can also be done about very old houses. Owners of many of them lack the finances to break them down and rebuild. Here also the government can create incentives by setting up a fund from which such owners can take loans at lower than market rates and soft terms of repayment. The old houses in this manner will gradually disappear but their owners will not be made suddenly homeless as RAJUK breaks them down.