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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment