The article ‘Two rights do not make a right – and certainly not at Kasturchand Park’ rightly exposes a serious planning failure. To correct the flawed landing of the Sadar flyover at RBI Square, authorities now propose extending it through Kasturchand Park, a Grade I heritage open space. This is not a solution, but a second mistake. A design error is being ‘fixed’ by sacrificing public heritage. We had earlier opposed the diversion of Kasturchand Park land for Metro infrastructure, clearly stating that viable alternatives existed without touching the park. Unfortunately, the same pattern continues; first encroach, then justify.

 

Kasturchand Park is not vacant land waiting for repurposing. It is a protected urban common land, a historic precinct, and a vital breathing space in an increasingly congested city. Any intrusion whether by metro structures earlier or flyover pillars now dilutes its integrity irreversibly. This also raises a critical question: What is the role of the Heritage Conservation Committee? Is it to safeguard heritage as mandated, or to facilitate incremental compromises in the name of expediency? At this juncture, it is important to ask, what options do citizens have?

 

1. Public Objections: Citizens must immediately submit written objections to the Heritage Conservation Committee, Nagpur Municipal Corporation, and District Administration.

2. Legal Recourse: Given that Kasturchand Park is a protected Grade I heritage site, any such proposal can be challenged before the Hon’ble High Court, especially in light of earlier directions restricting misuse.

3. Demand for Alternatives: Authorities must be compelled to place in the public domain a comparative study of alternative traffic solutions that do not affect the park.

4. Public Awareness & Media Engagement: Civil society, resident groups, and professionals must come together to ensure this issue is not treated as a routine infrastructure decision. City stands at a critical crossroads. If we allow repeated intrusions into Kasturchand Park, we risk losing it piece by piece, not in one dramatic act, but through a series of ‘adjustments’ justified as necessity. It is time for citizens and institutions alike to decide: Are we custodians of our heritage, or silent spectators to its gradual disappearance?