Politics of Mumbai and Hyderabad point to need for new urban strategy
Exactly a week before New Delhi’s ill-drafted statement on Telangana precipitated movements for the reorganisation of Indian states, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh took “great pride” in telling a national conference on urban development that his government’s initiatives on urban renewal would be a “game-changer for urban India”.
“There is recognition today that the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) has created a paradigm shift in how the urban sector is to be viewed, both at the state and city levels”, the prime minister said.
The “paradigm shift” and the “game-changer” the prime minister referred to include a range of initiatives taken up through the JNNURM, including repeal of urban land ceiling, reform of rent control Acts and passage of community participation and public disclosure laws. Emphasising the need for municipal reform, improvement of municipal finances, investment in basic infrastructure like sanitation and drinking water supply, public transport and such like Dr Singh said, the Centre’s “firm commitment” to urban development “stems from the recognition that the balanced development of the urban sector is an integral part of our strategy of inclusive growth.”
The new focus on urban development stems from the fact that close to 40 per cent of India’s population now lives in urban centres and as many as 74 of India’s 542 members of the Lok Sabha get elected from fully urban constituencies. A vocal urban middle class is demanding better cities and India’s cities are increasingly competing with urban centres in Asia for investment and livelihood opportunities, including higher education.
Asia’s rapidly-rising cities are outpacing Indian cities in terms of urban infrastructure. Five decades ago, a city like Mumbai would have been on a par with Singapore, Hong Kong and Shanghai, and far ahead of Kuala Lumpur, Jakarta and even Seoul. Today, none of India’s cities can compete on any matrix with the major capitals and business centres of Asia.
There is the story of Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiao Bao’s visit to Mumbai in 2005. He had been told that Mumbai was “India’s Shanghai”. Looking out of his window as the plane landed, a bewildered Mr Wen asked an aide whether this was in fact Mumbai and wondered aloud, “Why do they call it India’s Shanghai?”
The sorry state of our best cities is a commentary on many aspects of India’s political economy and fiscal priorities. However, in recent years, there is recognition that we must reverse this, that cities are important and that there are huge positive externalities in urban development for employment generation and economic development.
Yet, the interests of a city rarely figure in the political calculations of most of India’s political parties. Kolkata and Mumbai stand testimony to the decline of two great cities as a consequence of the misplaced priorities of successive governments in these states. New Delhi has been relatively spared because it is the national Capital and a large part of its administration has been delinked from state-level political pressures and priorities.
It is against this background that one must appreciate the rise of cities like Bangalore and Hyderabad, howsoever limited their rise may seem against the even more impressive rise of south-east Asian cities.
It is, therefore, shocking that no political party seems to have given any consideration to the issue of Hyderabad’s future in the discussions on statehood for Telangana. What is worse, when the issue has finally been raised, some votaries of separatism have denounced these concerns on the grounds that they represent the views of “vested interests” with investment in property. If those invested in a city do not worry about its future, who else will? Tourists?!
Given the importance of cities to our economy, especially of cosmopolitan, pan-Indian metropolitan centres — like Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad — any policy on reorganisation of Indian states must include a strategy to deal with the future of metropolitan centres.
Urban development has an even greater significance for India given the rapid growth of India’s services sector and that sector’s role in the economy. India needs a twin-track approach to urbanisation — a policy for large towns (one million plus population) and another for major metros. Major metropolitan development cannot be left to state governments alone. Not only are the financial requirements of infrastructure development in such big cities beyond the reach of state governments, but the required social infrastructure cannot be created and protected by state or local governments alone. Most importantly, major metros cannot grow and develop on the basis of “sons-of-soil” employment and other policies.
By definition, India’s major metros will have to be multi-lingual (local language/s, English and Hindi) — for schooling and signage at least — Mumbai is, Chennai is not. They have to find ways of providing affordable housing both to the poor and the floating middle class. They have to have modern social and cultural amenities that globalised professionals now expect, be it in New York, Shanghai or Singapore.
What all this means is that India’s major metros must become Union Territories, even if they remain capitals of specific states. Delhi is the Capital of India and of the State of Delhi, but is a Union Territory that remains open to citizens from around the country and the world. Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad — to begin with — must also become Union Territories, like Chandigarh, even as they remain the administrative and political capital of an existing or a new state or states.
This will delink the issue of states reorganisation from that of the growth of major metropolitan centres. This is the kind of “paradigm shift” in urban planning India needs for its big cities to grow and compete with their Asian counterparts. One day then Mumbai will grow up to become a Shanghai and a Hyderabad can aspire to compete with a Singapore.
