CITYZEN. Not-so-smart urbanisation

The list of 98 cities chosen for the Smart City programme reveals, more than anything else, the approach of State governments to the challenge of urbanisation. The Centre had, based on the share of urban population and the number of urban centres in individual States, allotted a fixed number of cities that each State could claim support for. The chosen cities reflect the strategies for urbanisation. It is difficult to miss the roles individual States have visualised for their largest cities, usually the capital.

For some governments, the capital remains the main focus of strategies for urbanisation. In some cases this may not be a purely economic decision. Telangana’s choice of Greater Hyderabad as one of the two cities allotted to it was predictable. With the dust over being granted Hyderabad in the division of erstwhile Andhra Pradesh not having entirely settled down, the new State could not be seen to be already abandoning the city.

A clearer affirmation of this strategy is in Maharashtra. The State’s urbanisation has tended to be focused around Mumbai and the choice of urban centres suggests that this focus will continue. Greater Mumbai and Navi Mumbai are among the 10 chosen cities. Some of the others, such as Thane, can also be seen as the periphery of Mumbai-centric urbanisation.

West Bengal did not have the luxury of the large number of cities allotted to Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu and had to make do with just four. It did not have the option of choosing Kolkata as well as its periphery. It has wisely chosen New Town Kolkata as one of its Smart Cities. Since the amount allocated to each city is fixed at ₹1000 crore, it would be more viable to spend the entire amount in a fixed part of the periphery rather than spread it over the entire city.

Arguably the boldest choice is that of Karnataka. Its largest urban centre, Bengaluru, does not find a place in the list of six cities allotted. Clearly the State government has decided that single city urbanisation is not sustainable. It puts too much pressure on Bengaluru’s physical and social infrastructure. And when the city cannot absorb that pressure it only leads to capital being driven away. The State has instead chosen six smaller cities that have the potential for growth. With some of them having populations in the range of just 3 lakh, the impact of the ₹1000 crore will be more transformational.

The sensitivity of State governments to local patterns of urbanisation is a somewhat unexpected boon. If the hundreds of millions of people that India’s urban centres are expected to absorb in the coming decades are not to throw the country into Industrial Revolution-like turmoil, it is necessary to follow the process of urbanisation closely.

It is unfortunately not entirely clear that the Centre shares the same sensitivity to the process of urbanisation. The Smart City programme is itself city centric, in that it deals with people after they have come into the city. There is no effort to address issues related to the process of migration into cities. Strategies that would provide labour for cities while they continue to live in neighbouring villages are not on the agenda. This is despite the fact that States like Tamil Nadu have demonstrated the value of efficient localised bus networks in such a process of urbanisation.

More significantly, the very method of allotting a certain number of Smart Cities to each State is indicative of a somewhat static approach. The allocations are based on existing patterns, with States that are more urbanised getting more funds. When seen in isolation this would appear to be the appropriate thing to do. The cities that are growing more rapidly will face the greatest pressures. But the steps needed to ease these pressures do not always lie within these urban centres.

The pressures of urbanisation felt in particular cities would be eased if the process was more dispersed. For one, the upward pressure on land prices in major cities would ease if the demand for land were to be spread over a larger number of cities. The dispersion of the pressures of urbanisation would require greater support to the development of alternative urban centres. But that calls for a shift in focus from smart cities to smart urbanisation.

The writer is a professor at the School of Social Science, National Institute of Advanced Studies, Bengaluru