If a 14 year old has enough money to buy a car can he buy the car? Legally he can buy the car, is he allowed to drive it?
He can sit in the car, he can pretend he is driving he can sit by the side of somebody who is driving. But he can't drive the car. Under law he is not eligible to drive the car because he's not an adult and mature enough to make his decisions.
The common road, laid by the local town planning or village planning body, is it really common? Or is it that it can be privatized, legitimately or merely through daily practice? Those of us who live in Indian cities, surely we see that common practice defines right.
If a car is parked on a public road, is it a violation of another person's fundamental right? If a pavement seller occupies the pavement or the owner of a house encroaches onto the pavement, does it not deprive the user of the pavement off his right?
Recently an eminent Indian jurist commented on "limited supplier liability". He said that to say that a nuclear power plant supplier will have a liability capped at $450 million is not right. In the light of accidents that have happened, such as the BHOPAL tragedy. This was brought to my mind, watching the rapid deterioration that is taking place in our cities and small towns, the liability for traffic, congestion, safety.
One morning, waiting at one of the traffic signals if the city of Chennai, like millions of other commuters, I was reminded of the phrase "unleashing the dogs of war" immortalized by Shakespeare in Julius Caesar. Whenever traffic signal changes color, it is almost as if a beast is unleashed. The hurry, the force, the ominous threat are all too palpable. The urgent horning, the racing of engines very close behind, vehicles coming dangerously close, these are being experienced by large numbers of men, women and children.
It is surely a matter of interest that the individuals like you and me, turn into a new species in traffic, intimidating, fearful, aggressive, angry. May be the beast is there in each of us, hidden below the surface. And all it needs is a suitable context, the caged quality of a series of traffic lights, a jostling, cheek by jowl, uncomfortably close, to bring the bloodshot eyes, the rapacious horseman with killing swords or the bloodthirsty conqueror to the fore. Forgotten that the other is like me, with children and family and fallibilities. Brushed aside courtesy, hustled by the false urgency of an inconsequential ritual of office time gathering. (Lest we forget, The Power of the Context in Malcolm Gladwell's The Tipping Point)
The pedestrian, has little space now to walk. The pavements are not flat, they need to accommodate the needs of the residents. They need to accommodate all the things that were unplanned. They need to accommodate the electrical transformers, the telephone distribution boxes and construction material for houses and road repair.
The hapless pedestrian finds the only flat terrain is the one that has been made ready for motorized vehicles. Therefore the pedestrian, the cycle, the motorcycle, the car and truck all have only the road to move on. No wonder we find the pedestrian walkways disappearing! If pedestrian paths are not used or usable, it makes sense to do away with them. That way the widening of the road can be done quite painlessly.
But let me return to the more fundamental question that is on my mind. Do the road and the pavement belong to the public? Does a citizen have a right to park his private vehicle for long periods of time on public property? The answer of the moment seems to be "yes", however illogical this sounds.
If a student cannot be allowed to drive a car because he or she is not yet 18, this means there are conditions that apply. To make an investment it is necessary for me to have a pan card. To get a telephone number it is necessary for me to have a proof of residence. To get a passport one needs a police check to ensure that the information that has been given is accurate.
Similarly should it not be mandatory that if somebody has to own a vehicle, he or she must be able to park it on private property? Would it similarly not make it absolutely necessary for one to be able to purchase a car only if there is private owned space, or rented space for one took park the vehicle? In the absence of this defining principle, particularly with a large number of motorized victims coming into our cities and towns, it will soon become law that public road equals private parking.
In a country like India this is not a trivial problem. We have a population of 1 billion people. With upward mobility and that Tata nano, it is a matter of time before the side roads are choked with privately owned vehicles, illegally or quasi-legally parked on public land.
Should not car companies take this responsibility? Since such the responsibilities are rarely taken up without legislation, should not there be a law that you can't own a vehicle unless you can show private land on which you can park it. Usurping the rights of our children is a far and distant possibility. Grabbing the rights and spaces or fellow human beings, our neighbors and others, is daylight robbery.
20 Dec 2009
No comments:
Post a Comment