The need for a localised urban agenda | Explained

India's urban evolution, shaped by central government missions, raises questions on local autonomy and citizen-centric urban development.

The story so far:

India is on the cusp of a profound urban metamorphosis. In the forthcoming decades, India is anticipated to boast the most significant urban population globally. However, India’s urban future is shaped by blueprints drawn far from the streets where people live.

The urban evolution was set in motion in the post-90s era when India embraced a liberalisation policy. Successive Union governments have played a pivotal role in steering India’s urbanisation through a series of missions, from the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) to the five urban flagship missions. This journey underscores the crucial role of the Union Government in sculpting India’s urban fabric.

As ‘urban development’ is a State subject, how much of a role should the Centre have to shape the urbanisation process has always triggered many questions. Many housing schemes such as the Indira Awas Yojana, the Rajiv Awas Yojana, and now the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) as well as welfare schemes for essential utilities starting from the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) during the UPA regime, to the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), and the Swacch Bharat Mission (SBM), have all been strong catalysts in triggering the urbanisation process in Indian cities.

In the mobility sector, centrally run urban missions supported cities in planning their city mobility plans. During the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime, the Union government focused on metro rail projects, which consumed almost 30% of the total Union budget. However, these missions often impose a prescriptive, top-down approach, prioritising spatial distribution, financial modalities, and administrative procedures over local needs. This leaves States and cities limited flexibility to customise and prioritise operational mechanisms within diverse contexts.

There are many reasons, with one of the major ones being that cities were treated as the “engines of growth”, leading urbanisation. Another plausible reason is that successive Union governments have seen cities as potential hubs with which they never wanted to part. It could also be the recognition that infrastructure is a ‘crucial enabler of growth’ for raising India’s competitiveness and achieving the target of a $5 trillion economy by 2025. Hence, even though the budgetary transfers were bracketed in centrally sponsored and Central sector schemes, they influenced urban trajectory. However, cities need targeted investments to accelerate economic growth. This includes building skilling centres, trade hubs, and innovation spaces; prioritising infrastructure that directly impacts economic indicators, not just livability.

Successive Union finance commissions, while transferring funds have put conditionalities to shape and design the urbanisation process at the sub-national level. For example, the conditionalities levied on city governments to enhance property tax and make it commensurate to the rise in the State’s GDP were suggested by the 15th Finance Commission. Likewise, instead of recommending grants directly to the city governments and letting them take a call according to their priorities, the Commission added conditions to the grants.