The delay in finalisation of plans for construction of Amaravati capital city can be attributed to the ‘destructive model’ proposed by the AP Capital Region Development Authority (APCRDA) and the government trying to ‘bulldoze’ its way ignoring the objections raised by various agencies, opines social activist Bolisetty Satyanarayana.
The Indian Society of Landscape Architects (ISOLA) felt that the CRDA plan was not appropriate as it would ‘destroy the floodplains’ of the river. The World Bank also said that the plan was against the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals.
The CRDA unveiled its Master Plan created by Subarna Jurong in 217 sq. km. The Environment Impact Assessment Report prepared by the Tata Consulting Engineers Limited confirmed that 32 sq. km contains deep floodplains.
Quoting from various sources, Mr. Satyanarayana says that the floodplain, if spared from construction activity, will provide 100% clean water for the entire capital city, apart from providing organic vegetables, milk and rural employment. But, as per the present plan, the entire seed capital is on this floodplain. This is not only uneconomical but also totally illegal, he claims.
Many benefits
Since the State government is keen to build the capital city only in Guntur, a group of environmentalists sat together along with Prof. Vikram Soni and Romi Khosla (creators of ‘Natural Cities’, a less invasive model to develop townships) and chalked out an alternative plan for Amaravati, which would bring in a lot of advantages like free water, low cost organic vegetables, milk, rural employment apart from lowering the ambient temperatures by 4 degrees. All this will be possible just by saving 32 sq. km of floodplain and adopting a ‘chess board’ type development model, which places agriculture and city in a grid of 1.5 sq. km each alternatively.
Booklet
Mr. Satyanaranaya says: “This concept was printed as a booklet and sent to the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh and the Commissioner of CRDA. Further, this model was appreciated and recommended by various people including eminent agriculture scientist M.S. Swaminathan, who took pain to write a personal letter to Mr. Chandrababu Naidu, along with a copy of the book, requesting him to implement this model as it met the UN Sustainable Development Goals.”
Justice Sivaramakrishnan Commission had also objected to the building of the capital city on the river bank and suggested building it on elevated land. “Urban agriculture is a new concept emerging across the world in the building of new cities. The greens, amidst the concrete buildings, at equal intervals, would provide a pleasant sight to the eyes, apart from making food available locally, providing local employment and income generation. This will also avoid the prospect of bringing food from outside by vehicles, resulting in pollution of the city and high transportation cost,” maitains Mr. Satyanarayana.
‘Unfortunately, the present CRDA model will destroy fertile agricultural lands that are known to support three crops a year,” he adds.
‘Power politics’
According to Romi Khosla, “The very notion of the current plan of Amaravati is dependent upon political power and a few people who have all the resources and power that they will not give up for the lives of our future children and citizens of Amaravati.
“We propose, therefore, the formation of a ‘League for Natural Amaravati’, in which a large number of groups, wherever they are, agree to do the following: Grow natural food in small plots, balconies, large plots, farms etc. We will bring together all the natural farmers in India to join the league. Suddenly, the idea of ‘Natural Amaravati’ becomes an all India question about our future and how we want to live.”
“Invest in the idea of ‘Natural Amaravati’ by using crowd funding, small contributions and every other way. Supporters will join the League for Natural Amaravati, whether they live in Andhra, Kerala or Himachal Pradesh. We share only one idea: live naturally in future and eat natural food,” says Khosla.
