Why Bigger May Not Be Better For Indian Cities

Urban planning in India is often performative, going for glitzy projects that add little value to governance. To manage our cities effectively, first we need to delineate them smartly

- PARTHA MUKHOPADHYAY

weeks have offered a window into how India's governing class, regardless of party, sees our cities.

On May 15, the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) replaced, nominally for now and substantially in due course, the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagar Palike as the city's governing body. The chief minister of Karnataka will be GBA's chairman. Various civic functions, including land, water supply, sewage and electricity, currently provided by separate agencies under the state government, are to come under its umbrella.

Later in May, the prime minister, speaking to the governing council of Niti Aayog, asked states to make cities, especially Tier 2 and Tier 3 ones, the engine of sustainability and growth, and referred to the Urban Challenge Fund (UCF) announced in this year's budget with a planned corpus of ₹1 lakh crore.

The UCF also anchors the $10-billion plan for India's urban transformation announced by the Asian Development Bank, after its president met with the prime Minister. Curiously, the announcement makes specific reference to "metro extensions [and] new regional rapid transit system corridors" and "private investment for urban infrastructure", indicating that the investments and UCF are targeted at larger cities.

Finally, last month, following on from the trend to mandate sewage treatment plants in apartment complexes in which Karnataka is a pioneer, the newly-elected Delhi government made it mandatory for high-rise commercial, institutional and hospitality buildings to install anti-smog guns to combat air pollution.