British Ways of British Airways
Topic: Beware of British Airways
Myself & my wife had B.A tickets, Mumbai-Madrid-DFW-Mumbai, leaving Mumbai on 3rd June 2006 and returning on 30th October. It involved change over at London from Heathrow to Gatwick to Heathrow airports for both journeys, BECAUSE B.A DOES NOT HAVE SERVICE TO MADRID FROM HEATHROW OR FROM DFW TO MUMBAI FROM GATWICK, NEITHER DOES IT HAVE A CAPTIVE SURFACE OR METRO TRANSPORT BETWEEN THE TWO AIRPORTS.

We were told while buying the tickets that we would be given free vouchers for the bus journey by National Express from Heathrow to Gatwick and vice-versa. At Mumbai on 3rd June we asked the check in clerk for the vouchers and he assured us that these would be given to us at Heathrow. It was of course a blatant lie as the customer relations person at Heathrow blandly refused to give such vouchers and to our enquiry whether National express will accept US $ he breezily said “they will even accept gold”. Gold we did not offer but US $ we had which was unacceptable and we, two senior citizen, spent anxious time getting British Pounds and wondering if we would make the connecting flight!

Before our return to India I sent an email to the Customer relations officer of BA asking whether free vouchers will be given to us at DFW for our return journey and transfer from Gatwick to Heathrow. The officer Aparna Gupta, apologized for the inconvenience caused and wrote that as we had already bought the National express bus tickets from Heathrow to Gatwick similarly we could buy from Gatwick to Heathrow. On our return we can claim the reimbursement by sending the ORIGINAL tickets and assured us of reimbursement.

The British Airways had provided us with copy of rules stating that UK visa is not required for change over from Heathrow to Gatwick and vice versa. But having been warned about the “British” ways of BA we had taken a 4 month UK visa which expired before our return journey to Mumbai. On our return on 30th October we had to again spend anxious time at the immigration counter at Gatwick where the officer, while contemptuously debunking BA’s statement that no UK visa is required for change over from Gatwick to Heathrow or Vice versa (“Who is BA? it is not the ruler of Britain! It is the government that rules here not BA!”) claimed to show mercy on an old couple and granted a 24 hour transit visa. Please do not misguide your hapless passengers with such incorrect information.

On our return I wrote a letter dated 6th November 2006 enclosing the ORIGINAL TICKETS of National Express bus service. We had been following this matter with Aparna Gupta when she replied to my email saying that she is now leaving the post and the matter would be dealt with by the next incumbent.

We now have your letter dated 31st January flatly refusing to reimburse the expense incurred by us. Does such ‘lying to customers by the check in clerks and going back on written commitments given by your customer relations officer’ form part of the “British” character and culture of British Airways?

A Tale of Two Capitals: Chandigarh & Gandhinagar

When India gained independence in 1947, the division of the sub-continent severely affected Punjab which lost its capital (Lahore) to Pakistan. With his zeal and visionary – almost dreaming- character, the then Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru thought of building a new capital city for the state. The minds of Politicians and Administrators steeped in the subjugation of the British for 150 years could only look towards the west to find a ‘White’ man to design the capital. We followed the same concept in framing our constitution which is based on the British model, while the American model (a country which also had gained independence from British) could have been a more appropriate model to follow.

Their first choice of Albert Myer as Town Planner and Peter Nowicki a Polish Architect, as a team was ;in retrospect, very good. The plans drawn up by the team, particularly the housing clusters showed a very sensitive mind which tried to capture the spirit of town planning and architecture in the arid climatic zone of India. Unfortunately, Nowicki died in an air crash and later Le Corbusier managed to secure the commission to plan Chandigarh.

It is my personal opinion that Le Corbusier was a Sculptor of excellence but certainly not a “Functional” Architect and by no count a town planner. His buildings in Chandigarh and all over the world are an evidence of the sculptural qualities of his architecture. I recollect a conversation with a practicing attorney in the High Court building at chandigarh. He was quite sarcastic and critical of the design of the high court building claiming that he had to use an umbrella to go from one court room to another within the building when the sun beat fiercely or rain poured down! The building is very monumental but hardly functional!

Chandigarh town plan is static and devoid of any Indian character in the design of residential areas. Houses are just concrete boxes. It is “truly” a monument to Indian independence but far alienated from its people as all monuments are. Later Maxwell Fry and Jane Drew showed better sensitivity and understanding of Indian life styles and the ‘ethos’ while designing housing clusters and layouts for residential areas. The lowest level of employees of Government are located farthest from the Secretariat and government offices, and one has to stay there to experience the ordeal for those who peddled on their bicycles to go to work in the fierce heat! Each level of govt. employees are grouped separately in separate ‘sectors’ and the hierarchy is accentuated more in character with the imperial British rule rather than a true democracy that India aspired for.

I feel that all these shortcomings were avoided in Gandhinagar. I was personally responsible for working out the ‘mix’ of populace from different income groups and governmental hierarchy in a single residential sector which has both government and private housing and has at least 3 types of hierarchical housing mixed together. The housing clusters follow the “street” concept of the Gujarat cities leading to a far greater social cohesion than ever in Chandigarh. That, to my mind, is the real success of the town plan and architecture, it truly represents the Indian ( more specifically, “Gujarat” ) character.

I planned, designed and saw the completion of the first phase of the city and stayed there for an year. It has been an experience no other Indian planner has had so far and I am very proud of it. Gandhinagar has no ‘monuments’ or ‘master pieces’ of architecture. But we have succeeded in creating an urban environment which the local populace can identify themselves with and feel at home !


Ravi Kalia ( who has written a paper eulogizing planning of Chandigarh) seems to consider planning of Gandhinagar not worthy of notice just because it was planned by government employed town planners! He does not attempt to objectively assess the merits of Chandigarh & Gandhinagar. There is an undertone that practicing Architects and Planners are superior to employed ones! In fact, the real difference between employed and private practicing Architects is a matter of temperament than merit! Architects who do not have the knack to do “business” prefer to go in for employment. However.

If one were to pursue my article on Gandhinagar (available on my homepage at www.angelfire.com/indie/pmapte/ ) it gives an insight into the reasons for and the genesis of the Gandhinagar plan. It is deeply rooted in the planning tradition of Gujarat. After having planned the government housing clusters on the basis of the “Pole” (narrow street) pattern of old Gujarat towns I had conducted a social survey of neighbourhood and community relationships in these clusters. It was gratifying to find from the results that the feeling of neighbourliness and interpersonal relationships was much better than in the western concept of grouping houses around a square open space which was followed in Chandigarh.

Not many people in India remember that Gandhi was a Gujarati! He was a national figure. People of Gujarat of course take pride in his origins. We did make a conscious effort to build into the fabric of the city his principles of equality and easy interaction between people from all strata-economic, social, religious . The planning of each Sector where atleast three hierarchical categories of plots for general public or housing for government employees were “mixed” together is an example. We had to be however practical and try and “mix” social and economic categories that could get along with each other and not be idealistic by trying to put together the highest and the lowest! But this is a distinctive character of the city as against the “Gheto” like clusters created by Le Corbusier in Chandigarh.

In terms of ideas, we tried to follow our traditions, cultural heritage and the teachings of Gandhi. But at the same time, we adopted the state of the art building materials and technology. Hence one can find concrete pyramidal roof over classrooms in the design of primary schools (long before Architect Charles Correa used it for his museum in the Sabarmati Ashram of Gandhi near Ahmedabad) because traditionally the beginning of education was in the home of “Guru” staying in a hut with pyramidal roof of bamboo and straw. There are many such examples where we have interpreted the traditional Indian thought but in the language of modern materials, construction systems and functionality of design. Every building in Gandhinagar is highly “functional” specifically and deliberately designed to fulfill the function for its existence. These are not masterpieces that carry the personal “stamp” of the "Master" architect.

I did work in Chandigarh and visited it often later. The planning team there was very “slavish” about the ideas of the “Master”. I remember having argued with Jennerret who headed the team in absence of Corbusier about the rigidity of the ideas governed by his “ Modular” system that was based on the normal height of a European man as 6ft. 2 inches as against about 5 ft. 10 inches in India!

I will therefore say with confidence that the town planning of Gandhinagar is a logical and conscious synthesis of our town planning heritage and culture and the design of buildings and the urban design of the various complexes is a result of attention to functionality of buildings rather than their external appearance and impact.

Prakash M Apte

Posted by indie/pmapte at 10:45 AM
Updated: Sunday, 3 December 2006 6:06 PM
Post Comment | Permalink | Share This Post