at odds and evens
basically i am against odd even scheme because, in my view, it makes very little difference to overall pollution.
however it is amusing to see national green tribunal rejecting exemptions to scooterists while govt. wants it. the reason is simple. very few motorists bother to vote . for scooterists, it is different story. kejriwal has to go to the voters while the tribunal has no such problem, hence one wants exemptions, other wants to negate them.
govt. has pleaded for allowing it at least this time arguing that even partial ban will help the society. but then the tribunal, if not worried about votes, is not worried about society either. it is committed to what duty it has been charged with.
it is same every where. those who succeeded in getting sale of crackers banned were not worried about the petty shopkeepers who had stored crackers in anticipation of demand but only worried about pollution. those like kailash satyarthi who successfully persuaded european countries to ban import of carpets from india because it involved child labour were not worried about depriving the children and others (adults) of employment. their concern was only with child labour.
to think of the effect on the society is not the concern of the crusaders. they are absorbed only in themselves and their so called ideals, be it judicial officers, so called humanitarians and do gooders. included in them are those who want ban on burning of straw in the fields of punjab and haryana without considering the impact of ban on the economics of the peasents who will not be able to grow another crop or have to spend a lot on removal of the straw.
the basic point is that the problems should be looked at holistically and not in piecemeal fashion suiting the occasion. the problems themselves are not being denied but ad hoc ism is no better as it creates other problems.