Controversy of Art Of Living

Art of living foundation have to pay Rs. 4.75 crore which is remaining to the compensation for making damage to the Yamuna riverbed during the three days of world cultural fest. This was hosted in the month of March and which was hosted at very large scale in New Delhi.

Art of living foundation, Art Of Living controversy, AOL controversy, AOL

Art of Living Controversy

This decision was clear that Art of Living foundation has to pay the remaining amount. The National Green Tribunal has rejected plea of art of Living regarding re-inspection of the site. Art of Living had requested that fresh panel has to be made in oreder to inspect the site again and make the unbiased report and should arrive at the final compensation fee after the inspection. But National Green Tribunal has rejected their proposal.

NGT also rejected the request of AOL to pay the remaining amount of compensation by bank’s guarantee. AOL had claimed that no damage was done during the 3 days cultural fest to the flood plain. They also claimed that the committee which was appointed had not done the impact assessment scientifically and therefore a fresh committee is required to do the fair assessment of the damage if had any. Seems this Art Of Living controversy is going to take a quick turn.

Scientific Analysis of Art Of Living Controversy

If this whole matter is seen objectively then it can be seen that assessment done is not fair and AOL has strong ground on which basis they are claiming. Lets have some observations- The expert committee of NGT which had gone for the assessment over the site had only did one hour visual inspection only and compensation was got fixed over this one hour inspection.No scientific analysis was done on the site, no qualitative or quantitative assessment of the damage was carried out and no samples were taken for the same. If we see then any scientific process takes a lot of time to give final result and it requires many levels of analysis, then sampling of the existing data and then finally to relate it with the historical data.

This analysis would also require to relate with the actual thing that what the organisation had done on the damaged place with what actually was the condition of the flood plains before taken for the festival, but no such thing had happened.

When such scientific things were missing from the process then on what basis such a huge amount got charged to the foundation. If really any damage has been done then it should be proved on the scientific basis. Seems AOL is fighting fair on their part.