Earlier today, I wrote the following on my linkedin status -
GIS based Master Plans...it's a bit like saying pen based novels...or camera based photographs.
India's farcical flirting with technical terms has to stop.
It shows an unreflected acceptance of meaningless sentences - in other words, it helps accelerate collective stupidity.
I felt that this should be elaborated upon.
To be sure, I am not against flirting - it is a creative art. Anyone who wishes to study it seriously could turn to Act 5, Scene 2 of William Shakespeare's play "Henry V".
Here is a youtube link to the scene in the classic film adaptation by Sir Lawrence Oliver -
Of course, one is free to point out that strictly speaking Henry was wooing Lady Katherine and not flirting with her.
But then I am equally free to reply, that while Henry was indeed wooing Katherine...he was also flirting - not with her - but with the just altered geo-political situation in Europe following the battle of Agincourt where Henry achieved decisive victory over the French and was in a position to dictate terms to her.
Yes, flirting is art indeed - of geo-political scale and significance.
So much for my admiration for genuine (geo-political or not) flirting.
But the recent tendency (increasing at an exponential rate) in India to flirt with "tech" terminology (including the ridiculous sounding word "tech") without any regard for what they really mean, can be considered farcical indeed.
Sentences beginning with the following should immediately put one's BS-filtering systems on high alert -
- "We are developing digital tools for..."
- "According to our AI based tools..."
- "As per our machine learning algorithms..."
- "We use high-resolution satellite imagery for..."
- "We have adopted a data-driven approach for...."
The trouble is not with terms like digital, AI, machine learning, high-resolution satellite imagery etc., but with the things that generally appear in the second part of the sentence.
Consider the following statement - "We use high-resolution satellite imagery to track land-use violations in Bhubaneswar smart-city on a monthly basis."
If this video clip (with an animation showing a satellite "diving" from its orbit every time it tries to get a better look at Bhubaneswar and other such wonderful things) is not enough to turn you numb, consider the following questions -
- How exactly does a high-resolution satellite imagery help me understand what use the buildings it shows are put to - commercial, residential etc. ?
- How does it help me understand violations in bye-laws such as height restrictions ?
- How exactly does it help me understand the prescribed use of the land on which the building is situated ?
AND...
- What about the fact that last I checked the master plan of Bhubaneswar was under revision the new one is not even out in the public yet ??
By beginning the sentence with the 'cup' and ending it conveniently with the 'lip', without ever clearly mentioning what all lies in between betrays either complete ignorance of the processes involved or a sly ploy to shock-n-awe anyone not familiar with such technology for the sake of furthering ones agenda.
As regarding all that lies in between the cup (the technology) and the lip (its successful application), we can turn to Shakespeare again and say,
"Ay, there is the rub !"
It is precisely in all the activities that need to be done to make a technology effective, that the real professional grind lies - and that which most would like to steer clear of.
It is easy to write a software...but notoriously hard to organise and clean the data that would be used by the software; and fix the organisations that would use the software.
And now let's turn to the star of the show...one that really cracks me up every time I hear it -
GIS based Master Planning.
I wonder who came up with that one, and most importantly - why ?
Do we ever say ludicrous things such as a pen-based novel; or a camera-based photograph; or a type-writer based article etc ?
What exactly is the point of defining a planning process using one of the many tools, which may be deployed to aid its preparation, apart from either or both of the following -
a) Zero understanding of planning.
b) Zero understanding of the role of GIS in planning.
Well, there is a set of more realistic causes which are far more sinister than the above two - but let's go with these for the moment.
Applying the GIGO (garbage-in-garbage-out) model - which suggests that if the input (data) is garbage, then the output (solution) would be garbage too - to our present topic, we can argue that if the input (the planning approach) is meaningless, then the output (plans produced), would be meaningless too.
Thankfully, we have an elaborate dash-board available in the public domain to support our argument.
As expected, the dash-board is a cool and elaborate one containing all kinds of information, except the most important one - the plans themselves.
The first alarm bell rings when we scroll to the middle of the page and look at the master plan formulation status. We learn, that after 8 years of implementation, only 135 out of the total 500 cities covered by the scheme have reached the final step of "Final Master Plan". A total of 257 have reached the level of "Draft Master Plan".
But where are these amazing 135 GIS based Master Plans ?
For that one has to scroll right to the bottom of the page and click on the relevant states (or cities) on a map to access the plans. One has to repeat a few more rounds of needless clicking until one finally reaches the page from which two separate files can be downloaded - Master Plan Report and Land Use Map.
As Gujarat was proudly colored green (all tasks completed for all cities), I decided to click on a random city called Botad.
I didn't expect to hit jackpot on the first city I clicked on, but this is the Master Plan Report that popped up -
You can download the report directly from this link.
It was a pdf copy of a 30 page long report in Gujarati language. And here is a screenshot and direct link to the land use map that accompanied it -
The map too is in pdf format; a jumble of different layers overlaid on top of each other; with no clear distinction between existing and proposed land-use.
The map is a cartographic nightmare but that's the least of our worries.
Forget about using available technology to develop a planning approach based on decades of theoretical and practical advances and reflections in the field of planning, we are offered a national level scheme which purports to use GIS but provides us with pdf files that tell us nothing and which we can use for nothing.
The reports and plans of different cities seem to be prepared by different private consultants, each following their own cartographic rules; structure of report; and occupying their own unique positions on the scale of being slapdash.
The only thing that we can be certain of regarding the meaning of the term "GIS based Master Planning" is that all consultants have made some use of GIS software in preparing the maps.
Pardon my French, but what the F*** is the use of that ?
And yet, why is it that we don't burst out laughing and brush aside the moment we are presented with these ludicrous "tech"-loaded planning terms, be it GIS based planning or the galaxy of terms following that other ubiquitous and incomprehensible adjective - Smart ?
What makes us take such tragic farces seriously....discuss them, develop projects around them, organise conferences and webinars on them ?
May be because we are distracted from the real tasks that face us...and alienated from the scienctific knowledge that we need to tackle the urban challenges facing us.
This nonsense seems to be everywhere...and relentless.
But it seems to contain the petrified brittleness of all things insecure...one tiny push and it may crumble to dust.
Then why not give it a resounding whack ?
No comments:
Post a Comment