Controversy dogs the IX Asiad like the old man used to cling to Sindbad the sailor. Starting with the heated arguments over whether the Games were really necessary, the incessant wrangles have embraced the colossal cost, the politicisation of the organising committees, favours allegedly rendered in allotting prime hotel sites,Controversy dogs the IX Asiad like the old man used to cling to Sindbad the sailor. Starting with the heated arguments over whether the Games were really necessary, the incessant wrangles have embraced the colossal cost, the politicisation of the organising committees, favours allegedly rendered in allotting prime hotel sites with financial support for construction, the selection of contractors with shady records and any number of alleged irregularities committed in purchases in India and abroad.The Asiad project has progressed through four governments – it was mooted during Mrs Gandhi’s Emergency regime, gained strength during Morarji Desai’s Janata regime, nearly came a cropper in Charan Singh’s caretaker regime, and was finally consolidated after Mrs Gandhi returned to power in 1980. Charan Singh had objected to the “luxurious” games, but the Congress(I) Government created fresh problems by refusing to recognise the committees constituted during the Janata regime and by delaying the selection of venues for the events.A new Special Asian Games Organisation Committee (SOC) was set up under Vidya Charan Shukla, and Delhi and Haryana were chosen as venues. The Haryana Government under Chief Minister Bhajan Lal launched a massive construction drive at Rai, Haryana, but the authorities suddenly discovered that the site was unsuitable for security and transport reasons and Rai was scratched. Four precious months had been lost and at last Delhi, was asked to shoulder the entire responsibility for the Games.Changes: Just then, major changes took place at the top levels leaving lower-level officials in a quandary. Shukla resigned from the SOC after resigning from the Union Cabinet. The then education minister S.B. Chavan, who was chairman of the steering committee of the Cabinet on the Asian Games, was moved to planning, and Minister of State for Education Sheila Kaul took charge as the Education Ministry is the nodal ministry for the project.advertisementThus, a minister of state was presiding over a group which had three Cabinet rank ministers – an unusual arrangement. Says a Congress(I) MP who, despite repeated requests, has not been made a member of any of the Asiad committees: “All the changes at the top level were done to accommodate a particular group. Merit was just ignored.” Most of the 28 committees are packed with Congress(I)MP’s and senior IAS officials who have hardly any experience of organising a major sports event. No office bearer of the over 100 sports organisations in the country is chairman or vice-chairman of any committee.The first flyover to be commissionedThe MP’s in the committees include Arun Nehru, Madhav Rao Scindia, Ghulam Nabi Azad, Jagdish Tytler, Dharam Dass Shastri, H.K.L. Bhagat, Sajjan Kumar, R.N. Mirdha and Amarendra Singh – all from the ruling party – and Sheikh Abdullah, who can hardly be accused of a consuming interest in sports. Despite the ‘harmonious’ composition of the committees, there have been key changes.Almost all the commitees’ membership has been changed thrice. Charanjit Singh, MP, was earlier chairman of three committees – catering, accommodation and medical and health – but has been shifted elsewhere. However, his soft drink Campa Cola is the official drink for the Games. The Government’s Double Seven will be sold at 70 paise as against the market rate for Campa Cola. Participants will be supplied Campa Cola free.Wranglings: Many senior IAS and other officials with questionable records in their states are part of the SOC. A public relations officer of the Press Information Bureau was shunted out to make way for the confidant of a senior Union Cabinet minister. At a later stage a new vice-chairman, General J.T. Satarawala, came to handle the situation, but the wranglings had had their effect, not only at the apex but also in the various implementation agencies: the DDA, the Central Public Works Department (CPWD), the New Delhi Municipal Committee (NDMC), the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) and the India Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC), among others. Among the prominent controversies are: the selection of Sharat Dass as architect for the DDA’s Indraprastha Indoor Stadium, though he had won second prize in the competition. Dass’s design was selected by the DDA technical committee on the plea that it would be possible to complete the project within two years;the selection of sites for some flyovers and their faulty designs. For example, according to a survey conducted by a non-official agency, the flyover in front of Oberoi Hotel was not necessary. The Barakhamba Road flyover will create more traffic jams; the purchase of imported cars by the ITDC. The differences between the ITDC and the Tourism Ministry over the choice of imported cars delayed the actual import by over a year. While the ITDC was in favour of the Datsun and the Mercedes, the Ministry was promoting the Toyota; the selection of foreign and Indian consultants; the allotment of three hotel sites to pro-Congress(I) businessmen by changing the land-use pattern in some cases; Seven hotels, excluding the ITDC’s. are not likely to be completed by November; three have not progressed beyond the first floor, and piling operations are not yet over. At a recent SOC meeting, Tourism Secretary Dr B. Venkatraman who is in charge of coordination, hotel construction, reported that the promised hotel accommodation would not be available. Prudently, the SOC had decided to hire rooms in guest houses.When Asiad work started, the three ITDC hotels – Samrat (300 rooms), Kanishka (300 rooms) and Ashok Yatri Niwas (526 rooms) – were already under construction. Eight private businessmen were given permission to construct hotels for a total of 1,596 rooms. In January 1982, when the SOC reviewed the construction, it discovered that at the present rate of construction, only 500 rooms would be ready by September 1982.advertisementThe SOC conducted another review last month: only five hotels – Centaur, Samrat, Maurya Sheraton extension, Asian Hotels and Siddharth Intercontinental – were on schedule while Surya International, Indian Hotels, the DDA’s Bharat Hotel, Meridien Hotel and Park Hotel were lagging behind. It also appeared that two private hoteliers had been giving vastly inflated reports on their progress: they had said they would provide 260 rooms by November 1982, but they hadn’t finished piling work.The SOC officials also did not care to visit the sites before recommending the cases for financial support by the Government. The investment in each hotel is: Indian Hotels – Rs 33 crore, Surya International – Rs 15.50 crore. Asian Hotels – Rs 33.63 crore, Siddharth Intercontinental – Rs 9.90 crore, Maurya Sheraton extension – Rs 6.40 crore, Bharat Hotel – Rs 18 crore, Park Hotel – Rs 23 crore, Meridien Hotel – Rs 35.65 crore, Centaur Hotel – Rs 30 crore, and other hotels – Rs 60 crore.Concessions: The SOC did not question the allotment of site, steel, cement, import licences, soft loans and the violation of the master plan in the case of the laggards. Two have been allowed to sell 25 to 40 per cent of the covered area as commercial space instead of the 17 per cent normally permitted. Over 50,000 tonnes each of cement and steel was granted to these hotels at priority and concessional rates; they got low interest loans despite the credit squeeze.After hotels, costs. Central Government figures never rise above Rs 67 crore, while Opposition leaders’ estimates hover around Rs 600 crore. A calculation shows that the actual expenditure on construction of all structures is around Rs 472 crore . Much of the cost over-run is due to additional building taken up in the name of the Games.The NDMC got clearance from the soc to cover the Shivaji Stadium with a 150m span roof for Rs 90 lakh. This technically unfeasible project was entrusted to a contractor who has considerable influence over NDMC officials and was stopped only when SOC member Arun Singh asked questions – the contractor is now demanding compensation.advertisementRising Costs: Each agency has also contributed to cost escalation. The DDA is responsible for three-fourths of Asiad construction and has added various new projects to its basic plan. For example, a Rs 11 crore players’ complex which has come up at the indoor stadium was not part of the original idea. Despite the additions, the DDA is the only body which has been able to complete all its projects in record time.Ailawadi (left) and GroverThis includes the Yamuna velodrome and the Asiad village complex extending over 800 acres. Says Vice-chairman Ailawadi: “I can account for each and every penny spent on DDA projects. Without asking for additional funds from the Union Government we have created assets which will give us additional revenue of over Rs 1 crore every month.”The Asiad has proved a useful peg for foreign trips. Between them, over 100 officials of the DDA, the ITDC, the Tourism Ministry, the CPWD and the SOC have circled the globe hunting for technical advice and materials. According to SOC sources, committee Secretary-General S.S. Gill and two other members have led the field in this costly marathon. An embarrassed Education Ministry is averse to supplying the number of such visits; an MP who asked for the information was told “it was being collected and would be supplied in due course”.Controversy Uncovered: The storm about the NDMC swimming pool is typical of the situation. The original plan, submitted by noted architect Satish Grover had the Rs 9 crore pool both covered and air-conditioned. But when completed it will be open, with accompanying air-conditioned facilities. Swimmers will thus have to negotiate different temperatures inside and outside the pool. Differences between the architect and NDMC officials are responsible for both the altered design and the delay.As Grover’s design had been selected during the Janata regime, an attempt was made to acquire a new architect and a new design. But Mrs Gandhi and Rajiv intervened and Grover’s plan survived – but not for long.For Grover and his consultant Professor K.A. Patel, other troubles had just begun. NDMC authorities, unlike other agencies, kept them away from the actual construction and hired a contractor who had very little experience of handling such a complex job involving a 100 m diameter roof.Besides, the present contractor, G.S. Atwal & Co, did not even figure in the list of six contractors invited to submit tenders. His name was allegedly included after pressure was put on the tender committee by politicians and civil servants in the SOC secretariat. The other names included leading firms such as Shah Construction, Shapoorji Pallonji & Co and Hindustan Construction Co. The list swelled to 10 to accommodate Atwal. Only five tenders were submitted and Atwal was chosen because his tender was the lowest: Rs. 4.5 crore.Foul-up: While Atwal’s quotation was really rock-bottom, it was the high cost of inputs that started fouling things up. In May 1981, a retired government official that Atwal had hired as his consultant prepared a report which was submitted to the NDMCWork in progress at the swimming pool: Unanswered questioThe report said that Grover’s design for the roof was faulty and that it would be unsafe to have a roof. The NDMC directed Atwal to stop work – without consulting Grover or Patel. It didn’t even demand explanations from Atwal for not going through with the tender conditions. These held that the contractor should study the drawings in detail before offering himself for the job. Incidentally, Patel had won the first prize for designing the Indian pavilion at the Osaka exhibition in 1979.Gill summoned NDMC officials and the contractor; again, the architect and his consultant were left out of the proceedings. Instead, a senior teacher at New Delhi’s Indian Institute of Technology – a person unversed in steel structures – was entrusted with the job of finding out if the roof was stable or not. Says a junior engineer at the project: “This was like going to an eye specialist for a heart disease.” The report came in September 1981, allegedly without incorporating computer tests, and stated that the roof was unsafe. The SOC accepted these findings without informing Grover.Fresh designs were called for and another architect came on the scene. Atwal was asked to restart construction of the pool while Grover and the new architect submitted new roof designs. A committee headed by Delhi Lt Governor S. L. Khurana, Gill, Arun Singh and V. S. Tripathi, joint secretary in the Prime Minister’s Secretariat, again chose Grover’s design. The design was sent to Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd, Bangalore, for computer tests, but before the report came, Grover was directed to design a roof-less swimming pool – which he did.Cost Escalation: The delay had led to massive cost escalation. The total project cost, including air-conditioning and arena lighting was to be Rs 6 crore. Now the estimate stands at Rs 12.5 crore, a raise of over 100 per cent. The pool itself would cost Rs 8.5 crore, up from the Rs 5.4 crore originally allocated. Seeing that the costs were getting out of hand, SOC took control of the project. The NDMC chief engineer was replaced with another and a project implementation board which included Khurana and Gill was constituted. But architect and consultants are being kept away. The swimming pool is at last nearing completion – sans roof – but unanswered questions remain:Why were tenders called for a second time when there were reputed construction firms already in the field ?Did the tender committee look into the feasibility of implementing a project worth Rs 6 crore at Rs 4.51 crore?Was Atwal’s past record checked out? Why were Grover and Patel not asked to modify their roof design?Why were the architect and his consultant not involved in the consultations?Why has the responsibility for cost escalation not been fixed so far?How was the second architect hired without competitions or advertisements?Why was the entire project given to one contractor?Favourites Galore: There are no answers forthcoming to these questions. This leaves little room for doubt that from the beginning an attempt was made to ease out Grover and manipulate tenders in favour of favourites. Says a committee member: “The whole thing is extremely suspicious. The entire exercise has been done to ensure some extra benefits to some persons.”Atwal has reportedly been given an advance of Rs 85 lakh. He is also likely to demand compensation for the loss he has suffered for not doing the job he was contracted for. He has already submitted a long list of orders and advances he had made for completing the pool with the roof. Atwal has a legally sound case, thanks to NDMC bungling.The authorities, however, dismiss this and other controversies as insignificant and without substance. Says R. S. Gupta, DDA member (engineering): “We have ensured that the ecological balance of Delhi is not disturbed. For every tree which has been cut for the various projects, we have planted at least 10.” Asserts Bhishma Narain Singh, Union works and housing minister: “We should ignore minor lapses. I am proud of the engineers and officials who have given such wonderful pieces of architecture in such a short time.” read more