As the adage goes, "cursed are those who are born during the age of transition." This Chinese proverbial plight applies more so in the case of the struggling millions in the over-crowded metropolitan cities, belonging to the poor countries. With due regard to our President's vision relating to provision of urban amenities in rural areas, it is debatable whether urban amenities are conspicuous by their absence or mismanagement thanks to the unenviable capacity of the city administration to do so.
No doubt the quality of life in terms of material welfare has been enhanced for the average middle-income group given the globalised scenario. Yet what is being denied raises the issue whether it is all really worth the trouble in terms of the compromises that are made.
What is at stake is the ecological sensitivity of citizens. As a citizen, one has the fundamental right to enjoy a pollution free environment and decongested urban spaces for healthy and prosperous living.
"Open spaces" allow the weary citizens to steam off after a day's slogging, especially in a tropical climate. In fact, the sanity of city life is being preserved only in the open spaces. If overcrowding and spurt in vehicular traffic eat into the "open spaces" available to the common man, it would hamper his emotional and psychological well-being and is nothing short of a violation of human rights.
The problems relating to negative externalities due to overcrowding of public spaces affect both the rich and the poor alike. Yoga, transcendental meditation, gym, and other outlets are the available stress relievers to the higher income groups for recharging themselves. The low-income groups, lacking both in awareness and affordability, naturally look upon the open space as lubricating mechanism for their deprivation in private spaces. They invariably emerge from polluted and overcrowded slums and it is not only ethical but also sensible not to deprive them of open spaces lest there should be more crime and violence.
No comments:
Post a Comment