BackUrban decentralization: the forsaken opportunity
Twenty years after constitutional amendment, devolution of powers to local bodies remains India’s greatest forsaken governance opportunity
Premium(Mint)
When India liberalized its economy in the early 1990s, it also amended its constitution to provide for decentralized elected local governments. Sadly, 20 years later, devolution of powers to panchayats, municipalities and city corporations remains India’s greatest forsaken governance opportunity.
There is one glaring flaw in the 74th amendment, which deals with urban local governments, compared with their rural counterparts. In rural areas, every voter automatically becomes a member of the constitutionally mandated gram sabha, the primary citizens’ participation forum in governance. There is no institution on the urban side comparable to the gram sabha. The 74th amendment mandates the creation of wards committees, but leaves it to the states to determine their composition. Most states have not constituted these committees, a long-standing violation of the constitutional mandate. Where they have been constituted, they are typically formed through nominations, usually of favourites of the local councillor or member of the legislative assembly.
With the urban population galloping, the issue of urban decentralization is now taking the spotlight. Three states that are fast urbanizing—Haryana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu—have woeful records on urban decentralization. Indeed, they present contrasting styles of how to marginalize local governments while pretending to abide by constitutional mandates.
Haryana is fast losing the tag of being a breadbasket, as its rich agricultural lands are being swamped by a tsunami of urban development. As steel and glass skyscrapers take over the landscape, villages become slums, imprisoned between these architectural behemoths. Gurgaon is a good example of such development; impressive urban facades hide slush and squalor. The contrast is striking; gated communities have plush unreal landscapes; public infrastructure is a mess. This was exacerbated by a short-sighted decision, now reversed, to abolish property taxes in Haryana. The state’s urban development model raises some disturbing questions. Does a collection of gated communities, malls and offices constitute a city? Where is the city centre in Gurgaon, the public space, public parks and public markets that give a city its culture?
Tamil Nadu is more honest in its opposition to decentralization. In a rare show of solidarity, both the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK) opposed the 73rd and 74th amendments, the former by voting against it and the latter by abstaining from the vote. Given this political indifference to decentralization, it is no wonder that urban local governments in Tamil Nadu function as no more than extensions of state departments. Yet, they run relatively better, even in the absence of devolution; a frustrating admission for a pro-decentralization activist to make. There have been a number of pragmatic innovations in Tamil Nadu, largely driven by a bureaucracy that is often left alone to do good, which enables urban local governments to function more efficiently. A stellar example is the Tamil Nadu Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corp. Ltd, which led the way in raising money for smaller municipalities through municipal bonds. This example has been emulated elsewhere in the country, but there is nothing like being the first. This pragmatic approach has been a contributory factor to the emergence of a large number of growing urban centres apart from Chennai.
Karnataka’s dilution of urban decentralization has been through more subtle strategies, which are no less effective. Karnataka is snapping at the heels of Tamil Nadu in the rapidity of urbanization, but habitation patterns are likely to be highly skewed. It is estimated that by 2021, 76% of the state’s urban population will be living in just three highly urbanized corridors, namely Bangalore-Belgaum, Mysore-Bangalore-Kolar and Mangalore-Udupi-Karwar; other cities will not grow as fast.
Karnataka has had a ghastly tendency to delay panchayat and municipal elections nearly every single time that polls have been conducted over the last 20 years. Recently, the state legislature hastily attempted to pass an amendment to the Karnataka Municipalities Act to make it mandatory for the state election commissioner (SEC) to announce poll dates in concurrence with the government. Legislators of all hues concurred with this amendment. This was in flagrant violation of the constitution and a Supreme Court constitutional bench judgement that mandated the conduct of regular elections every five years. In a courageous step, the SEC moved the Supreme Court, which passed a stinging order directing the state to extend full cooperation in holding elections for urban local bodies.
Karnataka’s most effective strategy to marginalize local governments is to mandate frequent changes of guard in them. In Karnataka, mayors and standing committee chairpersons hold office only for 11 months before giving way to the next batch. It is a delightfully effective way of preventing the local leadership from emerging and challenging entrenched political interests.
The central government’s Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) introduced conditionalities that mandated states to energise their urban local governments by setting up institutions for people’s participation in urban governance. However, these suggestions have had little effect in these states.
Haryana has passed the law for urban participation by creating ward committees, but these are to be nominated bodies. Its urban public disclosure law bears no resemblance to the framework law circulated by the central government. Karnataka delayed passing the required laws to create wards committees till it was forced to do so recently by a court directive. Even so, these are to be nominated bodies as there are no area sabhas from where committee members can be democratically elected.
This is in marked contrast to the state’s Panchayat Raj Act, which provide extensive powers to gram sabhas and ward sabhas to prepare and implement local plans through the panchayats. True to its consistent stand on resisting Central interference in state matters, Tamil Nadu has not passed any law to make ward committees more representative. Buckling to JNNURM pressure, the state has passed a public disclosure law for urban areas, but has left out the critical aspect of disclosing budgets, expenditures, incomes and service quality from its ambit.
As regards local planning in metropolises, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu flagrantly violate the constitution. Both states have not constituted metropolitan planning committees for the Bangalore and Chennai metropolitan areas in consonance with the mandatory provisions of Article 243ZE of the Constitution.
Urban planning is in the hands of institutions such as the Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority or the Bangalore Development Authority. Similarly, in Haryana, the district planning committee has no powers over urban planning. This violation of the constitutional provisions by states would be an open-and-shut case if a public interest litigation was to be filed in this regard.
There are a few glimmers of hope. By forcing the conduct of elections to urban local governments in Karnataka through court directives, the first battle of democracy has been won. The state can no longer deny citizens the right to elect their representatives to local governments. In Gurgaon, the election of a large number of independents to the corporation raises hopes that they will in turn promote more public participation. Yet, the battle promises to be a long one. As long as laws are not amended to constitute representative ward committees, citizen participation in urban governance will continue to be weak. They will not be able to hold officials and elected representatives accountable for repeated failures in service delivery. Only time will tell how long it will take for urban citizens in Haryana, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu to lose their second class status.
T.R. Raghunandan is consultant on anti-corruption and decentralized public governance, and member, State Planning Board, government of Karnataka.
Unlock a world of Benefits! From insightful newsletters to real-time stock tracking, breaking news and a personalized newsfeed – it's all here, just a click away! Login Now!
