Ajay Banerjee

Tribune News Service

New Delhi, June 13

In what could sort out the much-debated issue of opening of select roads inside cantonments for use by civilians, the Army is to suggest a set of checks and balances for road usage.A review of the scheme is slated this month and these suggestions will be part of the review, top sources told The Tribune. On May 22, a total of 80 roads in cantonments were opened for use by commoners.These suggestions are separate from the recommendations that will be made by the Local Military Authority (LMA) on keeping these roads open or closed.Under a formula to be suggested by the Army, passes could be made available to civilians who lived in the vicinity of cantonments—62 in all across the country. There is an existing civilian population within the cantonment and these passes are being suggested for people outside the premises and could be issued on the basis of proof of residence and identification.On May 21, the Director General of the Land Works and Environment Directorate specified the methodology of opening the roads: “All barriers, check-posts and road blocks will be removed. Vehicles will not be stooped or checked.”The pass system will also restrict long-distance vehicles. Sources said a taxi passing through Delhi need not use the Parade Road in Delhi Cantonment to take a short cut to reach the Indira Gandhi airport as the existing roads for long-distance travellers could be used. The pass facility would only be for people living in the vicinity.  Also, the Army is suggesting that no heavy vehicle other than authorised school buses be. It would also be clarified that locals who get passes to access the cantonments do not authorise them to use facilities inside like a gym, a sporting facility for troops or even a swimming pool. There have been requests pouring in to allow the same.Free for all to endBy issuing a pass, the existing ‘free for all’ through cantonments would end. The unhindered access had led to furore by retired military personnel and wives of serving military men who termed the practice as a grave threat to security of military men and their families.