For whom the Bridge Tolls??? This is the tale of two bridges and that of a community of people who suddenly find that a project that was originally supposed to provide relief is now bleeding them.
Mattacherry is part of old town Cochin. This was Cochin as it was originally known to the rest of the world in the eras gone by, and an area that boasts trade links to Egypt, Persia, Greece, and various other nations. An extension of Mattacherry is Fort Cochin, a strategic fort that was set up by the Portuguese, then taken over by the Dutch and finally taken by the English. Together, Fort Cochin and Mattancherry provide an eclectic mix of cultures, with settlements of (descendents of) Greeks, Arabs, Pathans, Bahaai Muslims, Jews (Jew Town has the oldest synagogue in the orient), Kutchchis, Bohras, Marwari traders, Marathi spice merchants, a large population of Gowda Saraswats and a very diverse Anglo-Indian community that comprises of Portuguese-Indian, Dutch-Indian and Anglo-Indian people.
All in all this is a very mixed up place. This is also the favourite haunt of tourists (especially the foreign ones) and has a great collection of coffee-houses, art cafes and boutique hotels. Kaika's at Mattancherry also serves the best biryani in this side of the world. I dare say its the best I've ever eaten.
As the years went by, Mattancherry remained in a time-wrap while the rest of Cochin developed in the mainland (Ernakulam) and the man-made Wellington Island.
Mattancherry was connected to the mainland thru Wellington Island by the very picturesque Mattancherry Bridge, which featured a raisable mid-section to allow ships to pass underneath. While not in the scale of other famous bridges worldwide, the bridge had a certain charm to it with its silhoutte becoming a sort of mascot for the city.
A few years ago, the 70 year old iron bridge was (finally) deemed unsafe to handle the levels of traffic that it does today. It was also a major bottleneck, with its 1.5 lanes being hardly sufficient for two lanes of buses, trucks and container-hauling trailers headed for the port.
A contract was awarded to Gammon Indian Limited to build the bridge on a B.O.T (build, operate, transfer) basis. In about a year, a new 500m long bridge came up parallel to the old bridge that has served the city for decades. For the sake of nostalgia, it was proposed to keep the old bridge open for two and three-wheeled traffic. Subsequently there were plans to turn the old bridge into an informal bazaar over water, with food stalls, curios and other miscellaneous vendors being permitted to operate temporary stalls while the bridge was turned into a sort of promenede. This never materialized.
Trouble began soon after the bridge was completed. People who were used to paying nothing were soon asked to pay up exhorbitant charges to travel to and from the mainland - something that people did as part of their day-to-day life. Worse still, the tolls were valid for just one trip, whereas people routinely went to and from the island to the mainland several times a day.
Protests and boycotts became a mode of life for the people of mattancherry who had to take a boat (or swim) while these protests were on - they braved it out. For a bridge that allegedly cost Rs.20 crores to build, toll receipts were in the order of a 2.5 lakhs plus per day, working out to about 7 Crores per year. The company was given the rights to collect tolls for 13 years - work out the math!
The conspiracy theory started gaining ground with news that the son of the local MP had a high-ranking position in the company that built the bridge. There was also talks about vested interests holding shares either, direct or 'benami' in the new company that was formed to 'run' the bridge.
To make matters worse, toll collectors acted like goondas, often damaging vehicles in the name of stopping evaders. A brand new Accent Viva that was being driven home from the showroom had its roof smashed by overzealous toll collectors who brought the barricade down just as the owner was driving away from the toll booth.
The final straw on the camel's back came when the bridge company started raising tolls every year in line with some price index that was probably invented by them. Toll rates started rising in geometric progression, till public agitation forced the government to roll back tolls to older levels. A slew of litigation also followed from members of the public.
Finally, under a compromise the toll-concession was extended from 13 years to 20 years.
Recently, the toll company brought about a new regulation, forcing private buses to pay a toll of 25 paise per passenger they carried. This was struck down in court and all buses boycotted the bridge for over 2 weeks as a result of which the bridge company was forced to offer buses a multiple-entry pass per day.
What was not known then was that as part of this compromise the bridge company also negotiated a Rs.1.6 crore per year subsidy from the state government for the loss in revenue on account of issuing multiple-entry passes to the buses. If the government had this kind of money to pay out every year, couldnt they have built the bridge in the first place.
This issue has now raked up a political storm.
The moot point here is - can the government ask people to pay for BASIC infrastructure? I agree that costly new projects cannot be financed by the state, but this is the case of a SMALL bridge that is so crucial to day-to-day life. The Brits who built the first bridge did not charge a toll on their foreign subjects, but our own rulers look at this as an opportunity to fleece people WHO HAVE NO OTHER OPTION.
Is it right to ask people to pay for infrastructure that should've been provided as a matter of course? If yes, is it right to ask people to pay for replacing or renewing a facility that has been provided free of cost? If yes, it is right to allow a company like Gammon to have the right to fleece people day and night, bringing in ridiculously high fees and hiking them from time to time? Is it right for the state government to allow a company earning over 7 crore every year in revenues to increase the tenure of their concession to 20 years? Finally, is it right for the state government to provide a subsidy to a private undertaking to compensate for the loss of revenues?
In every other country that I have seen, consumers always have an alternative to the paid highway / bridge. It could involve the use of a long winded or a less developed route.
In this case, the people of mattancherry either have to pay or swim. This is criminal in a situation where a suburb was allowed to develop using an existing bridge and after it was sufficiently developed the noose was tightened around its citizen's necks. The injustice of the whole situation and the total helplessness of the people of Mattancherry made my blood boil. I spent a day in Fort Cochin visiting old friends and relatives and the only topic of discussion there was the toll bridge and how the government and its shenanigans are fleecing the very people it is supposed to represent.
Last edited by Steeroid : 26th March 2006 at 13:35.
|