Regulating the Sevayat System and Strengthening Temple Governance in Odisha: A Holistic Roadmap for Reform

 

Temples as Cultural Pillars and Political Symbols in Odisha

Odisha's major temples, particularly the Jagannath Temple in Puri and the Lingaraj Temple in Bhubaneswar, are not merely places of worship but are deeply intertwined with the state’s identity, culture, and politics. These temples play a crucial role in preserving Odia heritage, language, rituals, and regional pride. The annual Ratha Yatra of Lord Jagannath, for instance, is not only a religious event but a moment of global significance and political visibility. However, the governance structure of these temples, particularly the sevayat system, is increasingly under scrutiny for its inefficiencies, lack of accountability, and conflicts that often paralyse temple functioning.

Image 1: Shri Jagannath Dham Rath Yatra 2025
Image Credits: SJTA

The Complex Role of Sevayats: Tradition vs. Accountability

According to academic studies, including a 2019 research paper published by Taylor & Francis, the Sevayat system has evolved into a dual identity, ritual caretakers on one hand and informal powerbrokers on the other. In Puri, the servitor community is divided into nearly 36 different groups (nijogs), each with hereditary rights over specific temple services. While their sacred role is deeply respected, issues such as resistance to reform, non-cooperation with administrators, and disputes over privileges have severely undermined smooth governance.

Political parties have traditionally tiptoed around these issues due to the sevayat community's influence. Several servitors hold strong political connections, making unilateral reform a challenging prospect. Moreover, incidents such as disputes over the temple kitchen (Ananda Bazar), violent protests over reforms, and even the obstruction of rituals have made it clear that a structured, consultative, and culturally sensitive reform process is necessary.

The Supreme Court’s Observations in the Mrinalini Padhi Case (2018)

In the landmark judgment of Mrinalini Padhi vs Union of India (2018), the Supreme Court addressed the chronic mismanagement of the Puri Jagannath Temple, responding to public grievances regarding the harassment of devotees, misconduct by servitors, inadequate sanitation, and lack of transparency in financial matters. The Court made several important recommendations:

1. Protection of Devotees’ Rights: Devotees must be treated with dignity and allowed a smooth darshan experience without fear, harassment, or coercion by servitors.

2. Accountability for Sevayats: Servitors found guilty of misconduct should be debarred from ritual privileges, either permanently or temporarily, following due process.

3. Digitisation of Records: All records, including sevayat rosters, temple assets, and hereditary rights, should be digitised for transparency and dispute resolution.

4. Codification of Rituals: Clear documentation of temple rituals and servitor roles should be developed to prevent conflicts and ensure timely performance.

5. Financial Audits and Transparency: Temple finances and donations must be subject to regular and independent audit.

Ritual Disruptions: The Most Visible Symptom of Systemic Issues

One of the most pressing issues plaguing temple administration in Odisha is the frequent delay and disruption of rituals. In both Puri and Bhubaneswar, temple rituals are increasingly disrupted due to conflicts among sevayat groups, the lack of coordination with the civil administration, and a general lack of enforceable discipline. Several instances have emerged where key rituals were halted for hours, and in some cases, for days, due to disagreements over precedence, personal grievances, or resistance to regulation. These delays cause distress to lakhs of devotees, undermine the sanctity of the temple, and erode public trust in the religious establishment.

Need for Stronger Government Oversight and Reform of Management Committees

While sevayats are crucial as the custodians of religious traditions, their unchecked power has led to misgovernance. The current temple administration, often bogged down by appeasement politics and legacy systems, lacks the authority and capacity to enforce discipline. To address this, the state government must assume a more active and structured role in temple governance.

A reformed Management Committee should be empowered under a revised legal framework. This committee must include experienced civil servants, heritage experts, scholars of Odia rituals, and members of the servitor community, functioning under a clear code of conduct. As the religious head of Jagannath Temple, the Gajapati’s endorsement will be vital to legitimising reforms and maintaining trust. Given the sensitivities, especially around religious rights and the socio-political power of sevayats, Odisha cannot afford sudden top-down reforms. Instead, a phased, participatory approach is recommended.

Learning from Andhra Pradesh: Executive Officers (EOs) and Temple Governance

The EO system in Andhra Pradesh, particularly at the Tirumala Tirupati Devasthanams (TTD), provides a robust administrative framework where trained civil servants oversee crowd control, finances, land management, and infrastructure. At the same time, priests and servitors concentrate on rituals. The Andhra Pradesh Charitable and Hindu Religious Institutions and Endowments Act, 1987, provides a clear legal mandate for this system, allowing for a division of religious and administrative functions.

Odisha currently lacks such a modern statutory framework. Temple management is primarily governed by the Sri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955, which is now outdated and vague on matters such as financial oversight, disciplinary mechanisms, or digitisation of records. Implementing an EO-like system would require a new Odisha Temple Endowment Act, drafted after due consultation with religious scholars, the Gajapati Maharaja, temple committees, and legal experts to avoid violating constitutional safeguards.

Unifying Jagannath Temples Across Odisha under a Common Institutional Framework

A significant reform opportunity lies in bringing smaller Jagannath temples across Odisha under a unified institutional framework overseen by the Puri Srimandir administration. Many of these temples suffer from poor funding, inadequate management, and deteriorating infrastructure. Establishing a dedicated Jagannath Temple Development Board under the leadership of the Puri Temple could address these gaps by providing financial support, ensuring ritual discipline, improving priestly accountability, and modernising infrastructure and devotee facilities. This initiative would help transform smaller temples into vibrant pilgrimage destinations, thereby extending the spiritual and cultural influence of Lord Jagannath across the state.

Jagannath Pilgrimage Circuit and Tourism Development

The state government should proactively develop a dedicated Jagannath Circuit, connecting key temples in Puri, Bhubaneswar, Cuttack, Kendrapara (Baladevjew Temple), and Koraput (Sabara Srikhetra) into a unified pilgrimage and tourism corridor. Drawing inspiration from successful models like the Ram Van Gaman Path in Chhattisgarh and the Char Dham Circuit in Uttarakhand, this initiative should focus on building integrated tourism infrastructure. The circuit should be incorporated into national schemes, such as PRASAD and Swadesh Darshan, to attract central funding. Importantly, the focus must remain on strengthening ritual consistency, temple development, and service quality across all Jagannath shrines included in the circuit, helping elevate Odisha’s spiritual landscape while boosting its cultural tourism economy.

Conclusion: Reforms with Responsibility, Not Rupture

Odisha’s temple ecosystem, centred on the unique and sacred traditions of Lord Jagannath, deserves both reverence and reform. Odisha stands at a crucial juncture. With rising public awareness, growing devotee footfall, and national attention to heritage governance, it is imperative to create a temple administration system that respects sacred traditions while ensuring transparency, safety, and public trust. Sevayats are and will remain central to Odia religious life. However, their roles must be redefined within a modern legal and administrative framework to ensure temples like Jagannath and Lingaraj remain not only spiritually vibrant but institutionally sound. Reform is no longer optional; it is a cultural and constitutional necessity.

Recommended Readings:
1. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/23311886.2019.1669382#d1e1721 

(A Socio-Economic Study Of Ritual Functionaries (Sevaks) Of World-Famous Shri Jagannath Temple, Puri, India)

2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/3221281/ (Mrinalini Padhi vs Union Of India on 4 November, 2019)

India’s Missed Play: The Need for an Aggressive SIF

 Rethinking Public Capital: Beyond Welfare and Infrastructure

India has long relied on public-sector institutions like LIC, EPFO, and state-run banks to mobilise domestic capital, but these funds have largely remained risk-averse and domestically focused. Despite the vast capital reserves available through District Mineral Funds (DMFs), insurance premiums, pension contributions, and state surpluses, there exists no truly aggressive and profit-seeking sovereign investment vehicle to channel this wealth into high-growth opportunities, particularly in emerging global markets.

While the National Investment and Infrastructure Fund (NIIF) was established to boost infrastructure financing, it still operates more like a traditional government agency: slow, bureaucratic, and domestically focused. What India needs today is a bold and outward-facing sovereign investment institution, backed by the Reserve Bank of India (RBI), that pools public funds for global investments, not only for economic returns but also for strategic influence.

Current Investments By India's Largest Public Fund Houses

Learning from the Best: The China and Singapore Model

Countries like China and Singapore have already mastered this game. China’s CIC (China Investment Corporation), with over $1.2 trillion in assets, holds stakes in global commodities, energy, infrastructure, and even technology firms across continents. Singapore’s Temasek Holdings, with a value exceeding $300 billion, owns shares in cutting-edge biotech companies, major banks, and even Western tech giants. These countries utilise their sovereign wealth funds not only to generate wealth but also to expand their soft and hard power, influencing trade routes, innovation flows, and even political alliances.

Comparision of International Funds With NIIF

India, meanwhile, stands as a passive observer. Ironically, much of India’s strategic infrastructure is now partially owned by foreign sovereign wealth funds, including the UAE’s ADIA and Canada’s CPPIB, while India itself holds little to no sovereign stake in foreign economies. This imbalance speaks volumes about missed opportunities and untapped ambition.

The Problem with Private-Led Investment Models

Today, India's limited exposure to high-return global investments has been largely facilitated by private players, including alternative investment funds (AIFs) and venture capital firms, which channel private and some public wealth into riskier sectors. But there’s a catch: these profits are privatised, while losses are often socialised. When these private ventures fail, it's often public-sector banks that absorb the hit through non-performing assets (NPAs), using taxpayer funds to write off bad loans. Essentially, the public pays for private failures.

By contrast, a publicly owned sovereign fund backed by the RBI but professionally managed could ensure that profits are returned to the state and the people, rather than siphoned off by a handful of elite investors. This could also reduce dependence on corporate bailouts and politically motivated lending by state banks.

Turning Surplus into Strategic Assets

The underutilised capital lying in District Mineral Funds across India can be reimagined as a seed corpus for such a fund. Similarly, state governments can pool unspent resources or surpluses, which can then be invested in foreign infrastructure projects, strategic minerals in Africa, renewable energy parks in Southeast Asia, or even AI and semiconductor startups in the West. Unlike current state subsidies or welfare schemes that offer short-term relief, these investments would generate sustainable long-term returns.

Rather than each state trying to create its version, leading to policy loopholes, corruption, or inefficiency, a centralised, aggressive investment institution monitored by the RBI can ensure coordination, risk oversight, and efficient capital deployment. The resulting profits, whether from global dividends, asset appreciation, or equity stakes, can then be equitably distributed among the participating states, creating a new model of fiscal federalism based on capital returns rather than handouts.

Pride, Power, and the Soft Capital Game

Owning a sovereign investment fund is not just an economic necessity; it is a matter of national pride and strategic identity. Just as countries take pride in owning global brands or winning diplomatic battles, India must seek pride in owning assets and influence abroad, built through the pooled strength of its people’s savings. This new institution could serve as India’s financial diplomacy arm, creating economic allies through investment rather than aid or rhetoric.

Strategic Investment Opportunities For Indian Funds

Public protests may arise, especially from critics who prefer a pure welfare-driven state model or who equate public capital with domestic-only spending. But the global reality is changing. In an interconnected world, capital is power, and those who deploy it strategically will shape the international order. India can no longer afford to keep its capital confined within its borders while allowing foreign sovereign funds to profit from its markets.

Why Inward-Only Investment Is Not Enough: The Risk of Technological and Strategic Dependency

While the government may argue that investing public capital locally ensures employment generation and local economic development, such an approach, though important, is no longer sufficient in a globally competitive landscape. A purely inward-looking investment strategy leaves India vulnerable to technological backwardness, where we become consumers and not creators of emerging technologies. Without targeted investment in key global sectors such as AI, semiconductors, critical minerals, green hydrogen, and advanced manufacturing, India risks being reduced to a supplier of cheap labour and raw materials, while foreign powers reap the strategic and financial benefits.

Holdings of International Funds In India

Moreover, the lack of sovereign economic leverage abroad also undermines India’s internal economic security. During times of geopolitical stress or economic downturn, nations that own foreign assets can bargain from a position of strength. Countries like China and the Gulf states have repeatedly used their foreign investments as tools of soft and hard power, shaping agendas and negotiations to their advantage. If India continues to avoid building sovereign stakes in other economies, we risk being strong-armed or cornered in future global crises, forced into reactive diplomacy instead of proactive statecraft. Holding sovereign equity in global value chains, ports, digital infrastructure, and resource basins gives India the strategic autonomy to resist coercion and shape the world on its terms.

Why Now? Why Under the RBI?

Launching such a fund now, during India’s most geopolitically ambitious phase, would be symbolic of a new India that is not just a market for others but also a stakeholder in global wealth creation. The RBI’s oversight would instil trust among cautious investors, such as LIC, state banks, and pension funds, enabling large-scale capital aggregation. At the same time, a professional management structure with market-linked incentives can ensure aggressive performance and avoid bureaucratic sluggishness.

Conclusion: From Welfare to Wealth Creation

India is at a fiscal crossroads. Continuing down the path of populist expenditure and inefficient capital allocation will lead to mounting debt without sustainable returns. On the other hand, creating a profit-oriented sovereign investment institution, anchored in the RBI, fueled by public capital, and driven by strategic intent, offers a way to transform India from a capital consumer to a creator of global wealth.

It’s time to stop selling public assets to foreign funds and start building our own. A sovereign wealth fund is not just a financial entity; it’s a tool of national resurgence, economic sovereignty, and geopolitical strength.

The Farm Bills Fiasco: How Farmer Unions Held Back Agricultural Progress

In India, farmers are revered as Anna Dattas, providers of our sustenance, stewards of the soil, and the backbone of the economy. It is because of their toil that the country continues to feed its vast population. But respect should not come at the cost of reason. The ongoing opposition by farmer unions to the now-withdrawn Farm Bills reveals not just a misplaced sense of entitlement but a deep resistance to much-needed reform, reform that, if implemented, could have transformed Indian agriculture and ensured long-term prosperity for small and marginal farmers.

The three farm laws passed in 2020 were designed to give farmers more freedom: the freedom to sell their produce outside the traditional government-run mandis, the freedom to enter into contracts with private players, and the freedom to access better prices and more efficient supply chains. These reforms aimed to dismantle the stranglehold of the MSP (Minimum Support Price)-mandi regime, which, while well-intentioned, has long ceased to benefit the majority of farmers in India.

Image Credits: Deccan Chronicle

Problem with the MSP Regime:

Contrary to popular belief, MSP is not always higher than market prices; in fact, it often acts as a ceiling price. The government announces MSP for only a limited number of crops, and even among those, procurement is heavily skewed towards a few states like Punjab and Haryana. This system benefits only a fraction of farmers. In contrast, most small and marginal farmers are forced to sell their produce below the MSP in local markets, far from the attention of government procurement officers.

Worse still, the MSP-mandi model encourages monoculture farming, leading to ecological stress and depleting water tables, particularly in regions heavily reliant on rice and wheat cultivation. The government sought to diversify crop patterns, modernise the supply chain, and encourage private investment in agriculture, particularly in cold chains, warehousing, logistics, and exports. It was these reforms that the unions rejected.

The Missed Opportunity:

The farm laws offered a way out. They enabled direct sale to private players, promising farmers prices potentially above MSP due to reduced intermediation and improved linkages. Examples of successful corporate-farmer partnerships already exist, like potato farmers supplying to chip manufacturers, or contract farming models in horticulture and dairy, where farmers receive assured returns, technology support, and access to markets.

These reforms were especially crucial for small and medium-scale farmers, who lack the bargaining power and infrastructure to efficiently store and market their produce. The fear of corporate exploitation, though valid, is not a reason to dismiss reform altogether. The government had already proposed safeguards and dispute resolution mechanisms. Moreover, Farmer Producer Organisations (FPOs) and Farmer Producer Companies (FPCs) are emerging as collective bargaining tools to protect farmers' interests while ensuring scale and efficiency.

Resistance to Reform Is Not Heroism:

Instead of negotiating better terms or seeking amendments, farmer unions chose a complete rollback, a maximalist, often undemocratic stance. Roads were blocked, violence was threatened, and national symbols were disrespected. The romanticism around the protest blinded many to the regressive nature of the demands. Instead of moving forward, the unions dragged the entire nation back into the same inefficient and leaky system that farmers themselves often criticise.

Image Credits: Arab News

This isn’t just a policy debate; it’s a larger question of attitude. In a country that urgently needs a scientific temper and innovation, demanding perpetual subsidies, guaranteed prices, and protection from market forces is unsustainable. The tax-paying citizen is already stretched, and further expansion of inefficient subsidies only burdens the exchequer, with little to show in terms of productivity or sustainability.

Reforming Agriculture Is a Strategic Necessity:

India is already the world's top rice exporter, and with the streamlining of private entry into paddy procurement and cultivation, it will help in monopolising the sector altogether. With climate change posing serious threats, crop diversification and investment in resilient agriculture are non-negotiable. Private players, unlike the government, have both the capital and the incentive to adapt quickly, whether it’s promoting millets, investing in climate-resilient seeds, or building efficient logistics networks.

A well-regulated private entry, coupled with government monitoring, can strike the right balance between free enterprise and food security. The state should mandate food security crops on designated lands while encouraging private investment in warehousing and supply chains, thereby reducing post-harvest losses and improving farmer income. These efficiencies can also be leveraged diplomatically; India’s agricultural surplus can serve as a tool of hard power, enhancing ties with developing nations, especially in Africa and Asia, and countering the strategic influence of China.

Time for Farmers to Rethink:

It’s essential to state this plainly: change is challenging, but resisting it blindly is even more perilous. Farmer unions, in their attempt to strong-arm the government, have robbed farmers of a potentially transformational opportunity. I once sympathised with their plight. But as the layers unravelled, it became evident that this protest was less about farmers and more about political posturing.

Indian agriculture needs reform, not nostalgia. Farmers should demand stronger protections within modern laws, not a return to outdated systems. The future lies in integration with markets, not isolation from them. It’s time to stop romanticising resistance and start embracing reform.

Ultimately, it is progressive policies, not populist protests, that will benefit both the farmer and the nation in the long run.

Give it a read, Data is really fascinating when it gives new perspective

 https://www.economist.com/interactive/asia/2025/05/28/if-india-chokes-less-it-will-fry-more 

The Unequal Republic: What Army Recruitment Tells Us About India's Future Cohesion

Disclaimer:

The author expresses complete faith in the professionalism, discipline, and patriotism of the Indian Defence Forces. This article is not intended to question their integrity or commitment. In fact, the author extends heartfelt gratitude to every soldier, officer, and veteran for their continued service to the nation and for upholding democratic civilian authority, particularly at a time when many neighboring countries, including Myanmar, Pakistan, and Bangladesh, have witnessed the erosion of democracy through armed coups. The Indian Army’s steadfast support to elected governments remains a defining feature of its legacy. This article merely reflects an intellectual observation and analysis of recruitment patterns and their possible long-term implications in a democratic framework. It does not target any institution, policy, or individual.

Main Article:

 India’s armed forces continue to enjoy deep trust and pride across the nation for their discipline, professionalism, and constitutional commitment. However, beneath this layer of national respect lies an under-discussed imbalance, one that concerns the army’s regional composition. Over the past few years, state-wise recruitment trends reveal that a significant share of personnel continues to come from a handful of states in northern India, while large parts of the country remain conspicuously under-represented. While the army’s integrity is not in question, this structural skew, if ignored, could have long-term implications for national cohesion, representation, and political stability.

A Military That Doesn’t Mirror the Nation

As of the latest available data, Uttar Pradesh accounts for over 167,000 soldiers in the armed forces, contributing nearly 14.5% of all personnel. Punjab follows with around 89,000, while Haryana and Rajasthan contribute upwards of 60,000 each. Bihar and Maharashtra are also substantial contributors. However, when we look to the south and parts of the east, the numbers drop sharply. States such as Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana, Gujarat, Odisha, and Chhattisgarh send disproportionately fewer recruits. In the tribal and northeastern states, the presence is almost negligible in national-level officer training institutions such as the National Defence Academy (NDA).

Even in elite intakes, the imbalance persists. NDA data shows that over half the cadets in recent years have hailed from just four northern states, Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Punjab, and Rajasthan. In the case of female cadets, Haryana alone has contributed nearly 30%, a striking concentration. This pattern reflects a structural problem that extends beyond recruitment, it influences promotion, leadership formation, and cultural norms within the armed forces.

Image 1: State Wide Armed Forces Personnel Contribution

Colonial Legacies and the Lessons of History

This isn’t the first time military recruitment has been heavily regional. Under British colonial rule, the structure of the Indian Army was deliberately skewed to favor certain martial races, Particularly Sikhs, Gurkhas, Rajputs, and Dogras. The British strategy, perfected over the 19th and early 20th centuries, emphasized recruiting from communities that were both politically marginal and numerically smaller in their provinces. The idea was to ensure that the recruited class would have fewer societal linkages to urban, educated, and politically active populations, and thus would be more loyal to the colonial establishment.

This model of selective military recruitment, applied not just in India but across the British Empire was deeply political. It ensured that power remained disconnected from the broader masses. In India, recruitment from Punjab and Nepal became a tool to discipline restive provinces like Bengal and the Deccan. J.S. Mill, in his writings on representative government, warned that the absence of “fellow feeling” between ruling institutions and the ruled could destroy the moral legitimacy of any regime. The danger he foresaw, a military unmoored from the general population has not vanished in independent India. Today, when recruitment is heavily concentrated in a few states, the risk reappears in another form: a disconnection between who defends the nation and who feels represented in that defense.

Strategic Consequences in a Polarized Democracy

While India today is a democracy and the army is subject to civilian control, we must be mindful of how political rhetoric and regional divides are evolving. In a worst-case scenario such as a constitutional crisis, widespread civil unrest, or an attempted power grab, the question of which states dominate the armed forces could take on new meaning. Would the rest of the nation feel represented by an institution so heavily drawn from a few regions? Could such imbalance feed perceptions of bias, even where none exists?

These risks are not necessarily about actual intent, but about perception. In polarized times, perception can be as powerful as reality. If the army is seen as “belonging” more to one part of India than another, it could weaken the legitimacy it currently enjoys across regions and social groups. In democracies, legitimacy flows not only from legal authority but also from emotional and cultural connection. An armed force that lacks regional diversity may gradually lose this bond.

When Politics Invade Uniform

This concern is further exacerbated by the politicization of the armed forces in public discourse. Over the past decade, opposition parties have occasionally accused the military of being too close to the ruling party, while some political leaders have invoked surgical strikes and military operations during election campaigns. These trends, if left unchecked, can harm the neutrality and image of the forces. While the army leadership has repeatedly reaffirmed its apolitical nature, the regional concentration of recruits and officers creates a vulnerability, a rhetorical weapon that could be exploited by domestic or even foreign actors.

The Cariappa Reflection: Democracy’s Mirror

India’s first Commander-in-Chief, Field Marshal Shri K.M. Cariappa, maintained strict nonpartisanship during his tenure. However, in his later years, he expressed deep dissatisfaction with the erosion of democratic values, growing corruption, and poor governance. He went so far as to suggest that civil liberties might need to be curtailed if the country failed to govern itself properly. Though these remarks were made in retirement, they reflected the growing disillusionment within the higher ranks about the state of Indian democracy. Such sentiments are not calls for military intervention, but they should be taken as warnings about how even the most disciplined institutions can be demoralized by systemic failure.

Toward a Truly National Force

A force that is meant to defend 1.4 billion Indians must look like them. The current imbalance in military recruitment is not just about numbers, it’s about the nature of representation, the optics of legitimacy, and the health of the republic. Ensuring equitable recruitment from all states, including southern, northeastern, and tribal regions, is not merely a matter of fairness, it is a strategic necessity. Without fellow feeling, as Mill warned, the chain between state and society breaks. India cannot afford that break, not in its military and not in its future.

Rethinking Urban Planning in India: From State Control to Local Empowerment and Future-Ready Cities

India’s urban landscape is at a crossroads. From Bangalore to Guwahati, Hyderabad to Jaipur, cities are expanding rapidly, yet they continue to grapple with dysfunctional infrastructure, fragmented planning, and unresponsive governance. Despite the existence of local development authorities and elected urban bodies, state governments continue to dominate urban governance, effectively sidelining municipal institutions. This overcentralization is a structural barrier to meaningful urban transformation.

Image Credits: 

Prudhvi Chowdary

Development Authorities vs. State Control: A Flawed Balance

India’s key metropolitan areas like Bangalore (BDA), Hyderabad (HUDA/HMDA), and Chennai (CMDA) have dedicated planning authorities. However, real power often rests with state urban development departments and ministers, reducing these local institutions to implementers rather than decision-makers.

This trend isn’t limited to megacities. Indore, Pune, and Visakhapatnam, cities with strong growth records, continue to function under tight state oversight. Guwahati, for instance, struggles with coordination between the Guwahati Metropolitan Development Authority (GMDA) and Assam’s state machinery, causing delays in basic urban services. Kolkata’s KMDA is similarly overshadowed by state decisions, and in Jaipur, despite being a growing tourism and heritage hub, city planning remains dictated by state-level politics.

This state dominance weakens democratic decentralization, even though the 74th Constitutional Amendment (1992) mandates the devolution of powers to Urban Local Bodies (ULBs). Over 30 years later, most state governments have failed to implement this in letter and spirit.

Judicial Backing for Local Empowerment

The Supreme Court of India, in multiple judgments, has emphasized the importance of strengthening local governance. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. Kohinoor CTNL Infrastructure Co. Ltd. (2014), the Court noted that urban governance must follow the constitutional principle of subsidiarity, where decisions are taken at the most local competent level. The judiciary has also highlighted that municipal bodies are not subordinates but distinct tiers of governance. Yet, administrative and political practices continue to ignore this, rendering local bodies ineffective.

Central Schemes: Missed Opportunities

The Central Government has launched several ambitious urban development initiatives like Smart Cities Mission, AMRUT, HRIDAY, and earlier, JNNURM. While these programs promised transformation, their impact has been nominal rather than systemic.

Most smart city projects focused on isolated "smart zones" rather than overhauling core urban services. Bureaucratic hurdles, lack of capacity in ULBs, and top-down planning led to under-utilization of funds and uncompleted projects. As of now, very few Smart Cities have delivered noticeable, scalable models of urban renewal.

The fundamental problem remains: schemes are designed and evaluated centrally, but executed locally without adequate autonomy, resources, or capacity.

Way Forward: Empower Local, Build New

1. Empower Urban Local Bodies

Urban governance should be decentralized:

• States must enact laws that genuinely empower mayors and city councils.

• Municipalities should have control over town planning, building approvals, solid waste, water supply, and public transportation.

• Capacity-building programs must be institutionalized through national urban academies.

2. Financial Independence through Municipal Bonds

Cities must be weaned off state dependency:

• Promotion of municipal bonds will enable cities to raise capital for infrastructure directly from markets.

• Credit ratings of municipalities must be incentivized and linked to transparent governance metrics.

• PPP models should be encouraged with safeguards to protect public interest.

3. Design Greenfield Cities with Purpose

Instead of expanding chaotic cities further, India should invest in new, purpose-built urban centers. These Greenfield cities can:

• Be developed around industrial clusters, logistics hubs, technology parks, or green energy zones.

• Follow climate-resilient urban design, zero-waste targets, and integrated public transport from the outset.

• Be planned with strict implementation timelines, ensuring that learnings from past failures guide future success.

The Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) attempted this vision but faced land acquisition and governance challenges. A refined approach combining strong public oversight with private expertise,  can make such models viable.

4. Collaborative Urban Governance Framework

Urban development should be seen as a shared responsibility:

• Central government must set standards, fund capacity-building, and create monitoring frameworks.

• State governments should provide enabling legislation and supportive infrastructure.

• Local bodies should lead in implementation, monitoring, and community engagement.

Conclusion: Cities That Work for Their People

India cannot become a $5 trillion economy with dysfunctional cities. Urban governance must move from control to collaboration, from expansion to planning, and from projects to people.

True urban transformation will happen only when cities are governed by those who understand them best, local people, local leaders, and local institutions. It’s time to rethink how we build and govern our cities, not just for today, but for the next generation.

Let us stop treating cities as administrative zones and start seeing them as living ecosystems, deserving of autonomy, resources, and vision.