Pollution in Amma Mandapam Bathing Area, Tiruchirappalli

 Pollution in Amma Mandapam Bathing Area, Tiruchirappalli

This post is occasioned by a fervent plea to look into pollution at the location along the banks of River Cauvery. Read the letter given below:

The sense of disgust at the pollution arises not because pollution is bad for everyone, including the bathing public, in myriad ways, but because it has driven down the ranking of the city among a categorised set (population 0.3 to 1.0 million). Tiruchirappalli ranks 49thout of 95 cities and that is an unfair ranking of this fair city, the argument and the plea go.

I have a problem; check that, more than one problem in this city. But, I would concentrate on the one indicated by the letter writer to The Hindu of July 21, 2025. This submission by the well-meaning reader appeared in the Reader’s Mail space.

“The Cauvery is also subject to pollution near Amma Mandapam ... bathing ghats.” The next line is the problem: “The onus is on the civic authorities to take steps to improve the city’s ranking”.

 

Point 1: The focus is on improving city’s ranking, in all probability a reified number is not worth much. It must be on making the city clean, all hands on the deck. The ranking would then go up automatically.

Point 2: This is like putting the horse before the cart. At the bathing ghat, the pictures show, people do more than take bath. What look like flotsam and jetsam clinging to the sides of a ship are things that I am not able to name. I could, of course, guess they are votive offerings to River Cauvery. 

You see in the distant background the Rock Fort and the temple for Lord Siva, Thayumanavar. That should establish that the bathing ghat is on the other bank of the river from those iconic constructions (a train run by Indian Railways is called Rock Fort Express!).The appellation “eyesore” must be added to the sight as shown in the photo, on the other bank of River Cauvery from  Uyyakondan Canal mentioned by the writer.

One can easily establish one-to-one correspondence between the hangers-on in the two photographs! 

Point 3: Why are the "eyesores" onus, exclusively, on the civic authorities? Aren’t citizens expected to show civic pride? If the mean looking ugliness of a city−such as those shown in the photographs−does not motivate the citizens, why should the civic authorities care more than punching-in and punching-out their time-cards? One can see that some portions of the wire mesh have been cut out (bottom right). Why? Just so, people can stray into the river farther in the hopes of catching bigger fish. 

In the first photograph, one can see the same activity being carried out by reckless people sitting on top of the screens of wire mesh, indulging in it. Haven’t they been warned? They have been. Yet, the activity goes on as if nothing has happened. Yes, nothing has happened to these people. But none can claim that such risks are necessary to make something of oneself. Risky or risk-free life? The individual shall decide, not the civic authorities.

To end this diatribe, while I appreciate the letter-writer’s desire to go up the ranking in Swachh Survekshan, the issue is really one of civic responsibility and civic sense. 

My commandment: “Thou shalt not lay all the responsibilities at the feet of governance, at whatever level.”

Raghuram Ekambaram