Editor,
The explanations given by the CM of Meghalaya which appeared in the media as reasons for the collapse of the Meghalaya Assembly dome based on IIT Guwahati’s enquiry is complete hogwash, ridiculous and belittles the intelligence of the citizens of the State. If the IIT Guwahati enquiry report says the collapse is only due to “Dead Load,” ill design and lack of coordination and that no one is responsible then the IIT has not done a proper study and not brought out the reasons for the collapse or identified the people or agencies responsible for the structural failure.
This report should therefore be trashed; no money should be paid and no further studies should be entrusted to IIT Guwahati. It is extremely disappointing that a reputed technical institute like IIT has not pin-pointed the structural design lapses or the agency responsible for such designs or for that matter tested and reported on the quality of materials used for constructing the base on which the dome was to rest. It is a procedure in designing a structure that the total dead load, live load and all external loads including the seismic factor are taken into consideration to ensure that the structure itself is safe and that the ground can safely take the load of the building. The CM’s explanation of “Dead Load” as the reason for the dome collapse implies that the dome was originally not part of the plan and suddenly a 70 tonnes load was added to the structure. If such is the case, all persons responsible for the decision to add the dome should be prosecuted as per law .
However, as far as public knowledge goes everyone was aware that a dome adorned the original plan. If the dome was part of the original plan, then the collapse would be due to shortcomings in designing the structure. In that case the designing agency should be prosecuted along with all who had vetted the design.
The crux of the matter here is that responsibility has been completely diluted and therefore no one is accountable. Just some epoxy treatment, filling up of cracks at no cost and changing over to a lighter dome seems to be the quick-fix solution for the CM.
The Chief Engineer, PWD (Buildings) who is the technical head insofar as government building construction is concerned, does not seem to have any role in this project and the public glare has fallen only on an Executive Engineer. Did the CE, PWD not technically approve this structure? If not why was the Executive Engineer, PWD supervising the work? What was the role of the Departmental Technical Committee of PWD in this project? If the CE, PWD has not technically vetted this building and the Departmental Technical Committee has not recommended for technical approval of this project or the competent authority has not examined and accorded building permission then there is serious violation of the standing Rules of State Government Manuals of PWD, the building bye-laws and the building is unauthourised and liable to prosecution as per law.
Getting external agencies for project execution is fine, looking at the performance of our own government departments but what role did the Buildings Division of PWD play in this project? Were they not supposed to check the design and to ensure that only the finest quality materials were used for construction purposes? Was there any system put in place to test and check the quality of materials used in the construction? It seems all responsibilities were abdicated by PWD Buildings and everything was left to external agencies. Another important question is- What was the role of the Project Management Consultants (PMC)? Were they constituted only to channelise funds to beneficiaries without any technical responsibilities? Weren’t there any engineers in the PMC? Weren’t they supposed to coordinate between the designers, contractors and the PWD? The fact that standing rules of the State Government have been bent and the haste shown in selecting the contractor – Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd – and subsequently allowing them to sub-contract the work to a firm that was also blacklisted, reeks of serious irregularities. It will be interesting to see what was in the original contract agreement.
The role of the High Powered Committee set up by the Government appears ambiguous and is aimed towards dilution of responsibility. While they have approved the architectural and building plan of the Assembly building they should have had no role in the technical aspects of the project or to condone any technical lapses because none of the members of the HPC are technically qualified to adjudicate on the matter. They are mere politicians.
Government projects are guided by Government rules and procedures as laid down in the PWD Manual but in this particular project the entire system has been by-passed and therefore no one is responsible or accountable. What a farce indeed! It is very important that the above-cited issues are addressed and responsibilities fixed. Otherwise, a very bad precedent has been set. If everything is hunky dory and no one is at fault in the entire incident and if everything is brushed aside casually as is being done in this case, just think of a situation, where God forbid, the collapse would have taken place when the Assembly was in session! How many lives would be lost? I am sure that in such a situation the Government would not have treated the matter lightly or left garbage behind.
In such a situation, I am sure the Government would not have treated the matter so lightly and would not have been in such haste to brush everything under the carpet. After all, in such a scenario the lives lost would not have not have been those of hapless migrant coal mine workers who have no one to back them but of legislators!
Yours etc.,
D Nongrum,
Shillong-3
Animal lives over human lives?
Editor,
Recently, a pack of stray dogs were roaming and terrorising the streets of Laitumkhrah. They attacked several people including children. Unfortunately, I was one of them. Naturally, as residents of the locality we had to do something. So, we called the Municipal Board to handle the situation. No sooner had we called the Municipal Board when we got a call from a renowned ‘Animal lover’s association.’ They told us that they had heard we called the Municipal Board about the situation and instructed us that it was against the law to relocate the stray animals even if they were a threat to our daily lives. We were concerned as many of us were terrified of even leaving our homes. But even then, we tried to listen to their views and reasons. Hence we waited for them to give an alternate solution but instead they told us we should let them be, as it was according to the Court’s order that the strays should not be captured and relocated.
It would seem that the Court is more concerned about the lives of these animals than the lives of innocent people. How in our right minds would we let a pack of dangerous strays roam the streets on which our children and elders commute every day? Is this right? If they were to oppose the way we handled things they should have an alternate solution ready. We asked them if they would come and pick up the dogs and provide shelter for these strays. Instead, they said they were not financially equipped to shelter the strays. So, what do we do then? Live in fear for the very lives of our families. Do the lives of these animals matter more than the lives of our children, parents etc?
I strongly believe that if these animal lovers were to oppose to the ways things are handled they should have alternate solutions – ones that endanger neither the lives of these animals nor that of innocent people.
Yours etc.,
Adrialli Lyngdoh
Via email