Why bigger may not be better for Indian cities
This is true not just in India, but in other countries, too—such as the growth machines in the US and local governments in China, whose officials are often disciplined for corruption. It is understandable, therefore, if state politicians balk at handing these decisions and rents over to local representatives. By contrast, smaller cities with limited rents may stand a chance of being better governed.
The GBA model is perhaps an acknowledgment of this tension with representation. It removes local politicians from decision-making and promises better coordination across civic functions. Should this be a model for the future? What if we had a trade-off, with chief ministers controlling the capital city, as in Bengaluru, but implementing the Constitution's 74th amendment—also known as the Nagarpalika Act—in letter and spirit in the other cities of the state?
Could this create an open, constructively competitive ecosystem across secondary cities, resulting in a sustainable and vibrant process of urbanisation, as hoped for by the prime minister? Eventually, those in the capital cities may also demand a voice, emboldened by an encirclement of the state capital—not Mao-like from the countryside, but by smaller cities.
Not only is urban governance not representative, it is often also performative. Like anti-smog guns, they have limited effectiveness but look modern and give the appearance of action. Delhi has shifted this expenditure to the private sector, but public money, too, is often spent on ineffective infrastructure that has popular support because of its performative aspect. Consider the metro rails in many cities. While in some they are both necessary and effective, they do little to solve the transportation problem in others. But residents feel proud to live in a city with a metro rail, unaware that for that cost they could have mitigated their transport woes with an effective bus system.
Finally, the identity crisis. Is the urban local body an artificial administrative construct and should one instead consider the 'metropolitan area' or 'economic region' determined by commuting, spread of contiguous night lights, or just fiat? How can such regions be governed? Indeed, for cities like Delhi, Bengaluru and Chennai, such a region will spill across even state boundaries and trigger a series of other questions.
Are investments such as the Namo Bharat regional rapid transit system, which takes less time to reach Meerut from Delhi than it does to reach parts of Gurugram by road, to be seen as guideposts? Is the preferred expansion of Delhi to be along this corridor? If so, should one shift defence operations to Jewar instead, and develop Hindon as a civilian airport? Where will the existing private investments along the Gurugram-Jaipur route fit into such a plan?
No such questions are raised. Urbanisation has been reduced to an assorted collection of schemes and projects, scattered pieces of a jigsaw puzzle that no one is interested in putting together. Maybe, each individual answer has become so lucrative that it's too troublesome to even remember there was a question.
Partha Mukhopadhyay | Senior Fellow, Centre for Policy Research, and former member, Technical Advisory Committee, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs
(Views are personal)
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
NDTV
29 minutes ago
- NDTV
US Court Orders Release Of Pro-Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil
New Jersey: A U.S. judge ordered on Friday that Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil be released immediately from immigration custody, a major victory for rights groups that challenged what they called the Trump administration's unlawful targeting of a pro-Palestinian activist. Khalil, a prominent figure in pro-Palestinian protests against Israel's war on Gaza, was arrested by immigration agents in the lobby of his university residence in Manhattan on March 8. President Donald Trump, a Republican, has called the protests antisemitic and vowed to deport foreign students who took part. Khalil became the first target of this policy. After hearing oral arguments from lawyers for Khalil and for the Department of Homeland Security, U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz of Newark, New Jersey, ordered DHS to release him from custody at a jail for immigrants in rural Louisiana by as soon as 6:30 pm (7:30 ET) on Friday. Farbiarz said the government had made no attempt to rebut evidence provided by Khalil's lawyers that he was not a flight risk nor a danger to the public. "There is at least something to the underlying claim that there is an effort to use the immigration charge here to punish the petitioner (Khalil)," Farbiarz said as he ruled from the bench, adding that punishing someone over a civil immigration matter was unconstitutional. Khalil was the latest in a string of foreign pro-Palestinian students arrested in the U.S. starting in March who have subsequently been released by a judge. They include Mohsen Mahdawi and Rumeysya Ozturk. Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the U.S., says he is being punished for his political speech in violation of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Khalil condemned antisemitism and racism in interviews with CNN and other news outlets last year. The Syrian-born activist plans to return to New York to be with his wife Dr. Noor Abdalla and their infant son who was born during Khalil's 104 days in detention. "This ruling does not begin to address the injustices the Trump administration has brought upon our family, and so many others," Abdalla said in a statement. "Today we are celebrating Mahmoud coming back to New York to be reunited with our little family and the community that has supported us since the day he was unjustly taken for speaking out for Palestinian freedom." The White House condemned the decision to release Khalil, saying he should be deported for "conduct detrimental to American foreign policy interests" and fraudulently obtaining a student visa. "There is no basis for a local federal judge in New Jersey —who lacks jurisdiction — to order Khalil's release from a detention facility in Louisiana," White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement. "We expect to be vindicated on appeal." Even though a federal judge ordered Khalil be freed, the immigration proceedings against him continue. The Louisiana immigration judge in his case on Friday denied his asylum request, ruled he could be deported based on the government's allegations of immigration fraud, and denied a bail hearing. Farbiarz's decision rendered the bail request moot. Like others facing deportation, Khalil has avenues to appeal within the immigration system. Farbiarz is also considering Khalil's challenge of his deportation on constitutional grounds, and has blocked officials from deporting Khalil while that challenge plays out. Earlier this month, Farbiarz ruled the government was violating Khalil's free speech rights by detaining him under a little-used law granting the U.S. secretary of state power to seek deportation of non-citizens whose presence in the country was deemed adverse to U.S. foreign policy interests. On June 13, the judge declined to order Khalil's release from a detention center in Jena, Louisiana, after Trump's administration said Khalil was being held on a separate charge that he withheld information from his application for lawful permanent residency. Khalil's lawyers deny that allegation and say people are rarely detained on such charges. On June 16, they urged Farbiarz to grant a separate request from their client to be released on bail or be transferred to immigration detention in New Jersey to be closer to his family in New York. At Friday's hearing, Farbiarz said it was "highly unusual" for the government to jail an immigrant accused of omissions in his application for U.S. permanent residency. Khalil, 30, became a U.S. permanent resident last year, and his wife and newborn son are U.S. citizens. Trump administration lawyers wrote in a June 17 filing that Khalil's request for release should be addressed to the judge overseeing his immigration case, an administrative process over whether he can be deported, rather than to Farbiarz, who is considering whether Khalil's March 8 arrest and subsequent detention were constitutional.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
BJP govt conspiring against minority institutions: Akhilesh
Lashing out at the BJP government in Uttar Pradesh, Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav alleged that it was conspiring to dismantle all minority institutions and target both Muslims and Christian organisations. Samajwadi Party president Akhilesh Yadav also alleged corruption in government departments. (HT FIle) Addressing a press conference at the SP headquarters in Lucknow on Friday, Akhilesh said: 'The BJP follows the British policy of divide and rule. Madrasas are being shut down, land records are being scrutinised, and bulldozers are being used on madrasa properties. The BJP is not just targeting Muslims, but is now trying to enter Christian institutions too. Lakhs of posts are vacant across departments, including two lakh in the education department. Yet the government boasts of a trillion-dollar economy and a developed India. Does this happen in a developed country?' On the inauguration of Gorakhpur Link Expressway by chief minister Yogi Adityanath on Friday, Akhilesh said, 'The trillion-dollar budget is not being spent on education, health and welfare for the poor, but on the highway of loot.' 'The 91-kilometre expressway has been built at a cost of more than ₹ 7,000 crore. It is not an expressway, but a four-lane highway. If you want to know the difference, pick up a book and see what the Indian Road Congress (IRC) says. Is this expressway built as per IRC standards? Will the government take action against those who flouted the norms?' asked Akhilesh. On the recent issue of alleged anomalies in transfers, Akhilesh said, 'There is a dispute as officers and ministers want to work as per their own free will. A deputy CM has complained that the officer of his department did not show him the list of transfers.' The SP chief alleged corruption in departments such as education, PWD, and urban development. 'There is a fixed rate for transfers. Despite Smart City funds from both Delhi and Lucknow, cities like Mathura, Agra and Unnao are struggling with clogged drains. The level of corruption in U.P. today is unprecedented,' he alleged. Akhilesh further alleged that the BJP was against PDA (Pichhda, Dalit, Alpsankhyak) and reservation. 'The rules of reservation are not being followed in recruitments. We all have to come together and protect reservation and the Constitution given by Baba Saheb Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar. PDA is our emotional slogan and it connects people,' the SP chief said.
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Fifty years on, we should recall how Indian democracy was tested by the Emergency
Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,' warned philosopher George Santayana in his 1905 work, The Life of Reason. Public memory is woefully short; that is why it is rekindled through anniversaries and other periodic events. One historic occasion that we must never forget is the Emergency, imposed by the regime led by Indira Gandhi in 1975. June 25 this year marks 50 years of the event that shook the foundations of our democracy. India is the world's largest democracy. It can also claim to be a successful democracy, except for those 22 months when its democratic credentials were subjected to scrutiny. Two generations have passed since that dark phase. India has learnt enough lessons. Yet, to ensure that Santayana's warnings don't come true, we must keep reminding new generations about that sordid past. Indians waged battles for decades to secure freedom from the British in 1947. B R Ambedkar, while drafting the Constitution, warned the Constituent Assembly that more than foreigners, we were responsible for the loss of independence. 'It perturbs me deeply to acknowledge that India has lost its independence multiple times… due to betrayal and treachery by its own people,' he said on November 25, 1949, poignantly asking, 'Will history repeat itself?? He was categorical that if political parties fail to raise above partisan interests, 'Indian independence will once again be in jeopardy'. His message to his countrymen was that they must resolve to fight 'to the last drop of our blood' to protect our independence. It did not take even two decades for the country to come face to face with that dangerous reality. It may be worthwhile to recall those tragic events. The Indian National Congress was split in 1969 and one faction under Morarji Desai became Congress (O-Organisation) while the other under the leadership of Indira Gandhi called itself Congress (R-Requisitionists). When elections were held to the Lok Sabha in 1971, the PM Gandhi-led Congress (R) secured a resounding victory with 352 out of 518 seats. A few months into that government came the victory in the Bangladesh War that catapulted PM Gandhi into a cult figure. The next few years saw PM Gandhi transforming from a democrat into an authoritarian and arrogant leader. With no Opposition in Parliament, PM Gandhi went about governing in a ruthless and dictatorial manner. Corruption and sycophancy became the hallmark of her governance. Then came two successive challenges to the regime, first in the form of popular agitations in Gujarat and Bihar in 1974 against corrupt Congress regimes, and an Allahabad High Court judgement in June 1975 setting aside PM Gandhi's election in 1971 on the grounds of electoral malpractices. She was disqualified not only from ruling but also from contesting elections for the next six years. With no relief from the Supreme Court and with Opposition parties, united under the leadership of Jayaprakash Narayan, leading a massive popular movement against her rule, PM Gandhi was left with two options: Follow democratic dharma and step down, or use the emergency provisions available under Article 352 of the Constitution to impose a dictatorship and continue to rule. She chose the latter. She cited a 'threat to internal security' as the reason. How was a challenge to her regime a national security challenge? The answer can be gleaned from the Congress party's mindset — its president, D K Barooah, had said 'Indira is India'. At midnight on June 25/26, 1975, PM Gandhi had emergency orders proclaimed by then-President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed. Her government suspended fundamental rights, arrested all the Opposition leaders and gagged the media. The courts were declared ineligible to hear petitions from citizens demanding the restoration of their rights. The saddest day was when the SC upheld the draconian law denying citizens the right to move a habeas corpus petition in its shameful verdict in ADM Jabalpur vs Shivkant Shukla (1976). Like all dictators, PM Gandhi, too, believed that she was invincible. 'To be human is to be free', Desmond Tutu, key to South Africa's freedom movement, once said. The people of the country reminded PM Gandhi of that profound urge when they went to the polls in 1977. While senior politicians languished in jail, a silent, leaderless movement, led by cadres of the RSS and other organisations, spread across the country to restore democracy. Not only was Congress defeated at the hustings, PM Gandhi and her son Sanjay Gandhi couldn't even win in their seats. The Emergency years saw dictatorship in its worst form. A year later, the J C Shah Commission, appointed by the Janata party government in 1977, submitted its report highlighting the excesses of the Emergency including abuse of power, violation of civil liberties, forced sterilisation, the compulsory retirement of 25,000 government employees over their alleged political affiliations and the arrests of more than 1,10,000 people. Many of those who fought that second freedom struggle against the Emergency five decades ago are in power today. They are committed to protecting the 'freedom, equality and fraternity' that summarised the spirit of our independence. Yet countrymen should always be alert to the warnings given by American jurist Joseph Story: 'Republics are created by the virtue, public spirit, and intelligence of the citizens. They fall when the wise are banished from the public councils, because they dare to be honest, and the profligate are rewarded, because they flatter the people in order to betray them.' The writer, president, India Foundation, is with the BJP. Views are personal
