My post is based on this tweet by Ramesh Srivats. Isn’t it odd that a rule, which is enforced by law, followed by people is considered a success. Let me clarify here that I am not against the odd-even rule but I am against the wrong use of the word success. The real “success” of the rule won’t be when people follow it but when it caters to its purpose i.e. reducing pollution.
Now some “journalists” are sharing some figures (something which they don’t do usually) which compare the PM 2.5 levels in the afternoon to that in the morning and saying that pollution levels have dropped ‘drastically’. First of all I want tell them please do a basic search on how pollution varies throughout the day. Levels are always higher in the morning than at noon so comparing them proves nothing.
As far as traffic is concerned it is bound to reduce there is no miracle in it. As far as success is concerned we should wait for an actual working day and see wether pollution levels are actually reducing or no and not see wether people are following it or not.
Let us consider an hypothetical situation of some state A. The CM of that state feels that liquor is the major reason for crimes in the state so he bans it. A strict ban is enforced. A person found with alcohol will have to pay a hefty fine. Now it is obvious that liquor consumption in that state will go down. But this will have no benefit till it is proved that there has been a reduction in crime levels in the state after the liquor ban.
The ban in liquor may reduce crime levels in the state but it is not the only solution. Similarly the odd-even rule alone won’t solve the pollution problems of the state. It is just one step maybe in the right direction but a lot more needs to be done. We will have to wait for a few days more to see wether the odd-even scheme is really a ‘success’.
