Sharad Pawar’s Lavasa is about conflict of interest, not ecology

The prima facie observation by an inspection team from the Union ministry of environment and forests (MoEF) that there has been no large-scale destruction of forests in the Lavasa Lake City project ought to bring relief to all concerned.

Last week, an MoEF team led by member-secretary Naresh Dayal concluded its 3-day visit to the project on the outskirts of Pune city and Dayal told the press that besides absence of evidence of widespread forests’ destruction, the proposed hill station-city was unlikely to have an adverse impact on Pune city’s water supply, as feared.

Dayal refused to comment on the permission given by the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) to Lavasa Corporation to construct 10 mini-dams in the backwaters of the Warasgaon Dam in the Mose river valley. “The multiple dam issue is beyond the purview of our inspection team,” he said. (This issue is now part of a PIL before the Bombay high court.)

On the same day, Hindustan Construction Corporation’s (HCC) chairman-managing director Ajit Gulabchand who is driving the project through Lavasa Corporation accepted that some mistakes may have happened while undertaking this large project and corrective action will be taken.

Quoting the late management guru CK Prahalad, he stressed that India will need 500 new satellite townships in the future and the Lavasa model could be emulated. The fact is that both, Pawar (who, for the first time revealed in a special interview to DNA that he selected the Lavasa site) and Gulabchand are correct when it comes to speaking on the merits of the Lavasa project.

Pawar has explained his support by citing his policy as the then Maharashtra chief minister, to promote tourism around dams, water bodies and pilgrim centres. Gulabchand is not wrong when he says that India will need many more satellite townships. It is also true that Lavasa has not been planned like any other township but designed on the principles of  New Urbanism.
The problem of Lavasa is the perceptible politician-builder-government nexus, issues of conflict of interest and lack of transparency.

For example, why did it take Sharad Pawar 10 years to reveal that it was he who selected the site for India’s largest hill station-city being constructed by a private company? (See DNA November 3, 2010: Pawar reveals Lavasa links: I selected the site).

The Lavasa project was launched in 2000 by Pune-based builder-developer Aniruddha Deshpande through his firm Pearly Blue Lake Resorts Pvt Ltd. Why was there no disclosure that Pawar and his family were stakeholders in Deshpande’s construction firm City Corporation, through their companies Lap Finance and Consultancy Pvt Ltd and Namratta Film Enterprises Pvt Ltd? In an exclusive interview to DNA last month, Deshpande confirmed these holdings and also revealed that Lavasa was born out of a “common vision” shared by him with Sharad Pawar. (See DNA of December 26, 2010: Lavasa trail reinforces Sharad Pawar connections, IPL link.)

Why were the Maharashtra government, HCC and Lav-asa Corporation secretive and tight-lipped about the project in its early years between 2000-04? For example, the controversial agreement between the MKVDC and Lavasa Corporation for the construction of mini-dams in the Warasgaon backwaters became public only through an RTI application filed by a Pune crusader.

Isn’t it too much of a coincidence that many members of Pawar’s “inner circle” including his daughter Supriya Sule, son-in-law Sadanand and Pune-based confidants Vitthal Maniyar and Aniruddha Deshpande had strong financial stakes in the early years of the project?

Thus, it is pertinent to ask whether the Lavasa project has drawn extraordinary benefits from the Maharashtra government because of links with politicians.