स्मार्ट सिटीज का तुग़लकी चयन का तरीका- मोदी सरकार का ब्लंडर (English Article)

ThoughtsforBetterIndia

• 13 Posts
• 9 Comments

Competition: A non-smart way of selecting Smart Cities
Hariprakash ‘Visant’

Making 100 selected cities ‘smart’ is regarded as a highlight of Modi’s development vision and also termed as his ‘signature initiative’. In this regard, the Ministry Of Urban Development issued a concept paper in December 2014 and superficially modified it twice. It was said to be the basic document, according to which the whole scheme will move forward. But surprisingly, neither the media & intellectuals nor the opposition paid enough attention over it. After studying it thoroughly, I have pointed out 8 big mistakes or undesirable points in it and gave 11 suggestions to reform the ‘concepts’, through a letter to the PM. But, there is no reaction till now. Rather suddenly, the ministry took an astonishing step. They declared that the selection of smart cities will be based on a competition among the cities. After going into the details of this move, it was found that actually the said competition is not at all among cities (i.e. it is not based on their attributes) but it is among the bureaucrats & technocrats working in the competing cities. This declaration was made after a close room meeting of municipal commissioners of 130 cities on January 16.
It is highly disappointing way of selection, because it is highly irrational and against the basic intent of the scheme. Among the various objectives and arguments in favour of the scheme, two were the most convincing and impressive arguments. The first & foremost was that, these 100 cities will act like the ‘growth engines’, for speeding-up nation’s development and for making India ahead in the global competition. The second good objective was that these cities will become model cities for demonstrating ‘quality urban life’. These two were also the proper reasons for the big appreciation received over this idea. The concept paper issued earlier by ministry was also in line with these right arguments. But, now with the gimmick of competition, the government has moved away from the foundation of the idea itself. Though, the earlier concept paper is still available on the website of the ministry. That paper has entirely different sort of flaws and problems; but this competition gimmick is a big blunder.
For clearly understanding ‘how this idea of competition is irrational?’ let’s consider a simile. Imagine that a big school begins a very attractive new course for students of all classes. For admissions in that course, the management declares a competitive exam. But the irony is that, the students need not to appear in the exam and actually their parents have to face the exam. It means that, for which purpose, the school should have arranged an aptitude test of students; it is arranging an exam for the parents. Hence, the school is deciding the worthiness of students on the basis of the competence and smartness of their parents. What will you call this management style – irrational, non-smart or perhaps ‘Tughlaquee’? Why not?
Which of the cities have the right to become ‘growth engines’ for the country? The answer to this question is clearly related with the present and future potentials of development of that city and its probable contribution in the national development goals. The potentials of different cities can be easily estimated by objective comparison of the statistical data and through other relevant socio-economic studies. Contrary to the competition approach, the right approach is that, there must not be any influence of the bureaucrats and technocrats working in the competing cities. ‘Smart City’ must not be considered as a medal or tag, which is to be distributed after a competition among the officers; which are also not like the non-replaceable parents but they are temporary or transferrable. The issue of rewarding the officers for good performance is totally irrelevant here. It’s good that, they should be given challenges and competitions but the rewards should also be their own. If any officer does good work or has got some expertise, then he should be rewarded and presented as an example; besides his expertise can be utilized to train or empower other officers. But, there is no logic in deciding the future of any city, on the basis of the performance of their presently available bureaucracy.
This is not just the question of awarding funds and resources to some selected cities; but ‘100 smart cities’ is a much needed idea to make the country more progressive, competitive, attractive and strong. The declaration of this competition is not only illogical but it also indicates that the ministry has completely derailed from the original axioms of the scheme. In this irrational competition, many potentially worthy but small (or with less capable/ less smart officers) cities will lose and it will further increase the present regional imbalances.
The earlier concept paper is still not officially rejected, but it can be clearly understood that, it cannot go along with this competition gimmick. It was defective, but not in wrong direction. In that paper, the population data (of 2011) were taken as the basis of selection and planning. While for the selection, much better and the most important index can be ‘the rate of migration towards the competing cities’. Because increase in population due to migration indicate the attractiveness of the cities and the need of urbanization in the region. They indicate high potentials of employment, trade, industry, tourism, education, etc. Therefore, the natural process of development & urbanization is the best indicator for making right choices for smart cities.
After these arguments, some of you might have developed doubt over this fact that, this irrational idea has been adopted by our popular and much admired ‘Modi Sarkar’. Whosoever has this doubt can make it confirmed, using internet and searching for the ’10 commandments for smart cities’ declared by the urban development minister Vankaiya Naidu. With the name of commandments, he has mentioned the 10 question papers of the competitive exam for the parents of the cities (i.e. bureaucrats & technocrats). These are briefly as follows: 1) City Master Plan and Sanitation Plan, both based on Geo-spatial Plan and GIS Mapping, 2) Long Term Urban Development Plan, 3) Long Term City Mobility Plan, 4) City-specific strategies for promotion of renewable energy sources, 5) Regulatory bodies for pricing of utilities like water and power and for assessment/ revision of taxes, 6) Taking necessary initiatives for assessing credit worthiness of each city to mobilize resources, 7) Promotion of water harvesting and water recycling on a large scale, 8) Promoting citizens in urban planning, decision making and management, 9) Capacity building in key disciplines 10) Improving urban governance through adoption of ICT platforms with online delivery of services.
This list also shows that the ministry is having very tall expectations from the municipal level bureaucracy. There are questions over the practical fulfillment of these high expectations. On the next day of announcement of these 10 commandments, K. Yatish Rajawat has posted a useful and worth reminding comment on the ‘First Post’ portal, raising various practical questions over the real participation in the competition by the municipal bureaucracy. However, he too has not raised question of rationale and utility of the said competition. As per his information, the 130 municipal commissioners were just given commandments but not appropriate resources and inputs for fulfilling them in the competitive spirit. It is a known fact that no municipal level bureaucracy itself has enough expertise and resources for qualitatively & timely participation in competition. So, how they will arrange for the services of experts from private/non-govt. organizations? Hence, the doubt also arises that, whether the ministry really wants to create competitive atmosphere or it just want to prolong the process and to put the blame of delay over the bureaucracy?
As per some of the news appearing on the internet, it is also reported that, this idea of competition based selection was originated by the PM himself. There is possibility of communication gap too. Idea of having a competition may have been given by someone and some other person may have wrongly made it, the basis of selection. Anyway, if this is by mistake, it must be corrected soon, sooner is better. If the ministry rolls back to its earlier concept paper, then again it need to see the defects or flaws in it, by discussing it properly in the parliament and putting open for public criticism. Otherwise, the future will tell that, India implemented the smart city concept in a non-smart way.

From: Hariprakash Garg ‘Visant’
(Thinker & blogger on policy issues)
Email: prakashvisant@gmail.com