CHENNAI: With Andhra Pradesh Governor Biswa Bhusan Harichandan giving assent to the State’s three-capital proposal recently, discussions over the idea of a second capital back home has also resurfaced and may gain steam given the general elections are less than a year away.
Plans for decentralising Chennai and shifting the capital to Tiruchy was first mooted in 1983 by the then chief minister MG Ramachandran. With his demise, the plan was put into cold storage. Successive governments seemed not very interested with the idea.
Experts say there is no reason for not developing alternative capitals for large States such as Tamil Nadu.
“Instead of calling it the second capital, let us call the project Cities Sharing Capital Functions (CSCF). CSCF is a geographical connect having people, government, occupation and socio-cultural activities in an accessible location within regions of the State,” School of Planning and Architecture, Vijayawada, senior professor Dr Abdul Razak Mohamed said.
Mohamed was part of the high-level committee constituted by the Andhra government for developing State capitals. “Rather than Chennai expanding in all aspects, multiple cities sharing functions of the capital city will help distribute both human and economic resources,” the professor added.
Besides, it will reduce migration to Chennai, where the land costs are skyrocketing. “Having multiple capital cities would encourage people to invest in their own land,” Mohamed further said. Retired IAS officer MG Devasahayam too preferred the idea of a State having alternative capitals for political, commercial and administration purposes.
“After expanding for decades and with all the haphazard development activities at present in Chennai, the State’s people desperately need another ‘magnet’.” Developing another capital city within reasonable distance from Tiruchy on the banks of Cauvery river is not a bad idea, he added. “But it should not be how Amaravati was planned, without taking the agricultural activities into consideration.
Alternative capitals must not be planned keeping in mind only the real estate interests of the region. The pandemic crisis is a warning of why migration to just one place is dangerous,” he observed. Political observers say that if any proposal for a second capital, both Dravidian majors are unlikely to oppose it considering the political ramifications.
The AIADMK-government that renamed the Central Station and a metro station after MG Ramachandran, is not averse to the late leader’s idea of a second capital. “Decentralising the State capital is both a political and administrative decision. Any party that promises a second capital will have a huge advantage in the general elections,” says ‘Tharasu’ Shyam, a political commentator. He claims that people of southern districts and the delta region feel that the political parties have not paid enough attention to development activities outside Chennai.
“In 1983, MGR showed real interest to shift capital to Tiruchy. Remnants of the ‘yet to be constructed chief minister’s office’ are still there. Reviving the 35-year-old proposal will certainly change election dynamics,” Shyam added.
Confederation of Indian Industry, Tamil Nadu State Council, chairman Hari K Thiagarajan believes creation of additional capital will multiply demand for physical and social infrastructure. “Considering socio-economic factors, many companies would be interested to shift out of Chennai. Office rent has become unaffordable for MSMEs in Chennai. Decentralising administration processes will also enhance ease of doing business and large projects, which involve environmental concerns, may also get expedited. Some IT corridors are already shifting out due to high land costs,” he added.