India is not a post-constitutional democracy

All political parties have to be registered and state that they will conform to constitutional principles. Once this is done by them, any violation of this which is brought to the election commission's notice through complaints can be used to question the registration itself. They could be disqualified or even de-registered in case of severe violations.

To a large extent un-elected and un-electable or failed political workers get nominations as chairpersons or presidents in boards, corporations and similar authorities. sometimes like in the case of Karnataka Milk Federation (KMF) elections are held, but most likely rigged as well. Similar nomination without public scrutiny happens in case of batf and abide and an extra constitutional role for corporates in city planning is created. Corporate or business plans for growth do not have any space in this form at all!

Social justice and equity plans or other plans for a city like Bengaluru or region need to go through a metropolitan planning committee (mpc) which if formed properly is likely to have representatives from various parties and technically qualified people. To prevent a single party from dominating decisions in the mpc elected reps from all different parties and urban and rural jurisdictions shd be represented.

And if they are unaware they shd legalistically read up Part-IX (73rd CAA) and Part IX-A (74th CAA) of the Indian Constitution both of which have just completed 20 years recently.

Better days are ahead if more people know how to prepare plans with a constitutional morality, and more people inside and outside government have the capacity and the capability to conform to it and make other committees like batf or abide conform to it.

Equality before law as well as one person one vote are constitutional principles. Similarly equity in terms of resource allocation or use is just as important. In urban or rural areas any other form of influence will amount to buying favours / lobbying or even reverse clientelism (from corporates to politicians).

We need more people to commit themselves as upholders of constitutional norms. As the local government delivers facilities closest to the people all attempts to divert resources away from human development and reallocate funds to more profitable "infrastructure growth" comes into conflict with both the role of local government and constitutional norms.

We must bring back the focus on the all round development of people's and local government capacities and capability to deliver the amenities and facilities.

 
Separating the roles of government such as in the case of MP's vs MLA's vs corporator's / councillor's / panchayat members, and respect for all tiers of government (esp., local govt) are part of this framework of principles. So while the state govt provides the funds, functions and functionaries, the local government provides the facilities and amenities.

extra constitutional forms like govt committees for infrastructure or other corporate lobbies should not deliberately encroach on the constitutional form instead they must allow democratic decision making. Any number of committees as per law could be started but they have to confirm such principles and conform to them. These are the built in checks and balances and those who support the constitution will agree that an important role for citizens also exists for protecting the same, nurturing and helping move ahead.

'privatising' urban policymaking?

While b.pac, is formed only few months ago in run up to KLA elections 2013, the links between some members of these groups go back over a decade to the 1999 - Bangalore agenda task force (batf). e.g., at least 2 members of b.pac were in batf.

Many individuals from non-profit groups being from corporate sector, they are likely to have links with industry associations such as assocham, ficci, cii, nasscom, fkcci etc.

This is an important and long standing affiliation for most of them and in many cases they are office bearers and /or representatives of these industry chambers at various forums.  
Similar industry associations with foreign countries like USIBC, prince of wales business leaders forum etc., also exist and have similar objectives.

But we need to examine in detail these groups / committees :- batf, janagraha, bcct, abide. Why is there such a need? because many of them are closely involved in preparing plans, policies, primers, legislation, guidelines and the identification and implementation of contracts and projects.They are also funded by private corporate sector and / or their foundations.

This seems to be part of an unstated strategy. This funding has been used to lobby and influence specific outcomes, profitable to sectors such as urban housing, urban roads, urban infrastructure, urban sector policy, regional urban planning, urban land titling etc.,

A change in the policy making process has occurred with politicians and bureaucrats recognising that the private (corporate) sector can have increased role in policy and planning with the influence of world bank, adb, dfid, usaid etc. The use of consultants such as pwc, kpmg, e and y, ipe, etc was facilitated by them through many policy, legislation and projects and now local consultants are also part of the same.

These non-profits now operate through a consensus in which they have aligned their objectives for a city's growth, the sectors which should grow and the 'stakeholders' who should profit from this growth at the city level. Similarly the future investment destinations, and new locations of manufacturing and services are also planned by the corporate investment interests with support from govt and the chambers.

Individuals in these also have common link with corporate funded non-profit sector. Some of these are bcct (f), iusf, janaagraha, b.pac, abide etc. Some of these seem to work in tandem.

They are also represented on various Union or state govt committees, such as infrastructure, investment, ppp, urban governance, affordable-housing, micro-banking, transport etc.

They are also ably supported by favourable media conglomerates who occasionally become their mouthpieces.

Why has this process, privileged and advantaged corporate local plans over the constitutional processes such as district planning committee, metropolitan planning committee and ward committees etc?

If the local and regional planning paradigm is to be framed by multilateral banks, bilateral funders and now corporate funded non-profits, it is almost as if the plans should be adopted by the MPC's / DPC's without proper deliberation, debate or discussion!

Why shd the constitutional framework be disregarded except for making them into rubber stamp authorities for plan approval?

Directly elected Mayor for BBMP would conflict with the Constitution and public demands?

The argument against the very concept of a directly elected Mayor for a 5-year term comes from the need to have a representative, democratic, decentralisation based electoral process, with caste reservation and the principles enshrined in the Indian constitution, as well as the need for representation of the historically deprived urban poor.

Abundant safeguards need to be identified and implemented to ensure compliance with these principles in conformity with Part IX-A (74th CAA). The expression of the need for a directly elected mayor conflicts with them.

This could well be the classic conflict which a face off between concepts of globalisation and modernity throw up. In the Indian context the principles of equality and social justice implemented through the form of reservation for backward and historically deprived castes and communities (SC/ST, Women) is itself the expression of modernity. This is because it shows how the nation can move forward and how such a step ahead is consistent with the long standing demands for maintaining social justice and equality.

This is crucial when it comes to elections to municipal and local governments, use of resources and decision making regarding the planning and allocation of resources for fulfillment of basic public needs.

On the other hand the demands of the globalised terrain of for profit corporates and MNC's is to place a city such as Bengaluru in the governance frameworks of New York or London. Their not for profit foundations also join the chorus. In Bengaluru this reactionary force has crystallised into the Bangalore Political action committee (b.pac) a trust, which positions itself as the promoter of a middle class 'vote bank', the young educated globalised urban youth.

b.pac the "infrastructure advocates"

But there is a consensus among members of the b.pac trust to support the creation of infrastructure for the economic growth of city of Bengaluru rather than the human development of its citizens. This would mainly include highly expensive and profitable signal- free corridors, underpasses, toll based expressways, metro rail and stilt flyovers. Many of these would be access controlled due to high tolls or by restricting certain vehicles (like cycles, buses, horse drawn carriages and other non-motorised Transport) but not restricted for cars, SUV's, MUV's and XUV's.


Clearly this approach is distinct from supporting the implementation of projects for basic needs such as water supply, roads, drains and street lights, which are paid for by the property taxes of citizens. In fact by prioritising infrastructure growth as opposed to basic needs the property taxes are being diverted away from essential core functions of local governments such as water supply, streets, roads and roadside drains.

5-year term conflicts with constitutional principles

It is not possible to have adequate rotation, reservation, or representation if the term is five years for one directly elected Mayor. But would this conflict with constitutional principles? Yes - since this may result in the election of a Mayor from the SC/ ST community only after a period of 20-25 years depending on the rotation in reservation. It would be a gross setback to such principles and public demands.


Similarly an argument for the election of a mayor with a Bengaluru vision based on profits for 'stakeholders', commercialisation and corporatisation are also inconsistent with the principles listed above.

This is exactly why the current corporate obsession with 'infrastructure led growth' and growth rate of cities and city economies cannot be the drivers of a city vision consistent with democratic constitutional norms.

In fact the corporate vision for planning and infrastructure growth at local government level calls for a sacrifice of local democracy. These are more consistent with the vision of a city -state or a union territory which end up negating the need for a BBMP municipal council.

The democratisation required to strengthen the functioning of a local municipal council must also be debated and would be the subject of a future blog.....

JNNURM-II Failure is its own reward for MoUD

JNNURM-II

Failure is its own reward for MoUD

Indian city-dwellers, rejoice! JNNURM Mark Two is coming your way – bigger, brighter, bolder than its first avatar – more money, more reforms, more public-private partnerships, more contracts, more consultancies, more scams, and many many more creative reinterpretations of urban reality.

But how has this happened, you ask? Did JNNURM Mark One get where it was supposed to go? Did we not hear that it was facing criticism from several quarters, not just from chronic dissenters like the activist brigade? Did we not see respectable-looking middle-class citizens in some cities rubbing shoulders with scruffy activists and working-class types in street protests against some of the “reforms”? Wasn't there a notice in the papers inviting tenders from individual experts for carrying out the mid-term review of the programme? And wasn't there a rumour that some cheeky citizens were actually mounting their own home-made review? What happened to all of that?

Good questions. And there are plenty of answers. There's just one problem - the answers don't add up.

Let's do a flashback to the Prime Minister's speech at the star-studded JNNURM launch in 2005. “Our urban economy has become an important driver of economic growth” said the PM. “It is also the bridge between the domestic economy and the global economy. It is a bridge we must strengthen. The latent creativity and vitality of our cities and the people who live in them must be tapped to facilitate higher economic growth.”

JNNURM was unveiled as the miracle makeover that would enable 64 of our cities to become candidates in the global swayamvara where corporate investors prowl in search of the perfect marriage between their capital and the “creativity and vitality” of cities. This makeover was to be accomplished in a mere seven years, through a simple but brilliant strategy – polishing up and enhancing the physical infrastructure to bring it up to global standards, and simultaneously getting rid of the ugly evidence of the disorderly and less-than-perfect processes of urbanisation of the past.

JNNURM cities, we were told, would be clean, green and beautiful – cleansed of the shanty-towns and unauthorised housing colonies, the noisy pavement markets, the primitive rickshaws and polluting phat-phattis, the street vendors selling unstandardised products at ridiculously low prices, the higgledy-piggledy old neighbourhoods, the stinking landfills, the junkyards, the unhygienic dhabas. In their place would be multilane highways and toll roads, low-floor buses and elevated metros, gleaming malls and food courts, huge airports, high-rise housing, parks and promenades....in short everything gratifyingly like “phoren”.

Of course a lot of the rules would need to be rewritten – after all, it would not be appropriate to leave the management of these new global cities in the hands of the old guard, especially when the World Bank and the ADB were telling us how much better market forces were at running cities than anyone else. And no doubt it was entirely in the rightness of things to turn to these same old friends, ever ready with a loan, to underwrite the programme that would put their advice into practice. Needless to say, everything would be done in accordance with the best principles of good governance – online consultations, young professionals and corporations bringing in energy and initiative to design efficient services for the poor, the brightest and best bureaucrats given a free hand and a generous kitty to get things moving, and an impressive brains trust of experts and luminaries from the NGO world to provide technical advice and inject the civil society perspective into implementation.

Of course there were critics and prophets of doom (those self-important activists again). The Urban Development Ministry did not waste any time in responding to irritating questions from this known bunch of World Bank-baiters. The scheme was rolled out in grand style – of the total kitty of Rs. 50,000 crores, 463 projects worth Rs. 49743.46 crore were approved in three years and Rs. 8253 crore was released from the Centre to the States.

Cut to the present

3 June 2009. Speaking to a reporter from the Wall Street Journal, some officials of the Ministry of Urban Development (who refuse to be named) come out with an alarming statistic - only 32 of the 463 sanctioned projects have been completed in the three years since the scheme was launched. In case anyone should think of using this statistic as a stick to beat the Ministry or the scheme itself, the informant hurries to add that this dismal performance is entirely the fault of the States, which had been far too slow and clumsy in acquiring land, shifting existing structures and populations and acquiring the professional competence to handle large projects[1].

Surely, you say, regardless of who is responsible, this qualifies as a big-time fiasco? Apparently not. Speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a meeting on 10 June, the Secretary Urban Development was quoted as saying just the opposite. "There is definitely good progress made under the mission. Many of the projects (like drainage and sewerage) would not have been taken up otherwise," said Dr. Ramachandran.[2]

Dr.Ramachandran is not alone in his complacence. Vinayak Chatterjee, chairman of the National Infrastructure Council of the Confederation of Indian Industry and chairman of consultancy firm Feedback Ventures, is quoted in the same piece as saying "It is a very well crafted intelligent innovative programme. The pity is that the states and city administrators have not been proactive in pulling more funds out of the mission."

All of 32 projects in 64 cities in three years, and they manage to attract so much praise? Why are we not impressed?!

Strangely, and most unusually, this is one instance where the statistics shared by the unnamed Ministry source are actually endorsed by the folks on the other side of the fence. A Citizens' Review of the JNNURM, undertaken in 16 cities by a coalition of community groups – grassroot activists, workers' organisations, NGOs working in informal settlements – found yawning gaps between the issues prioritised in the City Development Plans and sanctioned projects, and between the sanctioned projects and the real situation on the ground. In the overwhelming majority of cities and locations, there was absolutely no physical evidence of any kind of developmental activity – not even a signboard to mark the fact that this was a JNNURM project site.

But Mr.Ramachandran is unfazed. The judgements of mere citizens regarding the success or failure of the programme are neither here nor there if the people who count are happy. On 29 June, the Ministry of Urban Development announced that a follow-up phase of JNNURM was under serious consideration. According to the Ministry spokesperson, more investment was required to reach the targeted levels of infrastructural growth. The proposed JNNURM Mark II will have a seven-year lifespan, a kitty of Rs.100,000 crores – twice the size of the present JNNURM. The new scheme will replace the present one, and will expand its reach all the way down to the level of mofussil towns with populations of 500,000, in addition to providing “top-up funds” to ongoing projects. The scheme has already been forwarded to the Finance Ministry, and the Ministry of Urban Development is hopeful of seeing it incorporated as one of the highlights of the Budget 2009-10. The World Bank, it appears, has already given its nod to the proposal.

Of course there is the small matter of the mandatory mid-term review before the World Bank signs on the dotted line and shells out the promised Rs.50,000 crores. Somewhere along the way, the tender for the consultants seems to have been dropped off the agenda. We can only speculate on the reasons. Maybe it was considered too risky? After all, even the best consultants have been known to sometimes bite the hands that feed them!

But the Ministry has found the perfect solution – a review by the Prime Minister, no less, assisted by a National Review Committee comprising that tried and trusted band of experts, the JNNURM Technical Advisory Group. In order to bring it up to speed for this onerous task, the TAG has been beefed up with the addition of three new members: Professor Amitava Kundu of JNU (whose credentials as an urban theorist are impeccable); Nandan Nilekani (whose persuasively imagined idea of India is completely in tune with the JNNURM ethos); and Roopa Purushottaman, described in her official bio as “the chief economist and strategist at the Future Group, India’s leading business group that caters to the entire Indian consumption space”. In case you are wondering about Ms.Purushottaman's qualifications for reviewing an urban development programme, we should point out that the Future Group is the corporate umbrella for a retail empire that includes Big Bazaar, Home Town, Capital and Food Bazaar.

We can all rest assured that the review process is in safe hands and will surely result in a well-argued case for JNNURM-II.

Buoyed up by the assurance of continued largesse in a era where everyone else is cutting down on spending, the corporate sector is regaining its faltering enthusiasm for urban renewal. Experts and visionaries are emerging from unexpected quarters, enthusiastically taking the lead in articulating a vision for the future of our cities.

Take a look, for instance, at the blurb for a conference organised by CII in Delhi on 18 June. “Commonwealth Games 2010 is round the corner and the capital is in the midst of a make-over as the city prepares for the biggest sporting event in its history. Will Delhi seize the chances offered by Commonwealth Games 2010 to boost its economic, social and cultural development. The time is ripe for the city to be transformed into a “World Class City” - what is required is a vision” says the CII.

Apart from the usual smattering of ministers and bureaucrats, there were several distinguished experts on various panels: Mr. Navin Raheja of Raheja Developers and Mr. Sudhir Vohra of Sudhir Vohra Consultants in the panel on the Delhi Master Plan; Mr. Sanjay Sharma of Coca Cola in the panel on water supply; Mr. Arjun Walia of Walsons Security Services in the session on public safety and Mr.Ajay Jadeja, sports personality in the session on “action planning for a better tomorrow”.

As for the rest of us, we can hold our tongues and wait for that better tomorrow

KALYANI MENON-SEN

New Delhi

---

[1] Rahul Chandran. 3 June 2009. JNNURM projects lag over land, utilities and personnel problems. Livemint.com,

[2] Vandana Gombar. 10 June 2009. Government may double size of JNNURM. Business Standard.

Indian middle class affected by Urban reforms?

The opposition to the impact of reforms seems to be spreading like an epidemic from Surat to Guwahati and from Bangalore to Hyderbad, Mysore and Mumbai to Delhi. One of the crucial concerns of the middle class land owner is how to pay the increasing property taxes. The Unit area method introduced as an urban reform by the MoUD, GoI under JNNURM is causing the biggest difficulty for the urban middle classes since the rates of tax are now indexed with the land rates which have appreciated hugely compared to when they bought the plot / land. So in turn, now even with some depreciation the plot-owner ends up paying a huge property tax plus vacant land tax.

First Lok Sabha Post-JNNURM election

15th Lok SABHA MP's must debate JNNURM

1. In 2005 before the JNNURM launch, OUR MP's never debated the mandatory and optional conditions which were part of reforms package.
2. Since these conditions were thrust upon the states who needed to enter a tripartite MoU with the Union, State and City governments being signatories, there is a need to debate the conditions of the reforms.
3. These reforms were essentially a sop to the lobbies of Finance, Insurance and Real Estate (FIRE) who had been demanding the same for a long time and still continue to do after 5 years of huge profits.
4. The 15th Lok Sabha MP's must undertake a wide ranging public consultation process on the success/ failure of JNNURM !
5. Urban areas have been developed in extremely inequitous manner.
6. Costly and expensive Facilities are being provided to rich and elite people who get massive tax concessions (www.cbgaindia.org) in excess of Rs 300,000 crores / year for the last 4 years 2004-08.
7. Projects must be prepared on priority to fulfil the essential needs services of the masses, the urban poor and the lower middle class.
8. Funding for the same should also be provided adequately.
9. Property taxes must not be escrowed to give an opportunity to payback investors THIS IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. They must be invested in basic needs of the electorate such as drinking water, proper roads, air quality maintenance and pollution control.
10. Social Audit and monitoring that the funds must not be misused is to be introduced as a peoples initiative.
11. The GoI's 11th Plan document pushes back the date for achieving the urban drinking water targets to 2012. This needs to be relooked at and targets must be fulfilled earlier.
12. Development cannot happen for the rich only leaving the poor behind.

Development needs in Urban India

How is it possible for successive ruling Indian Union Govts to continue to spend large sums of money every year without fulfilling the goal of providing basic amenities to all?
It is because there are various advocates who want a priority allocation of funds and who want to ensure that funds are diverted to INFRASTRUCTURE.
Does this really boil down to a fight for funds between essential services and subsidies for the cement, steel, sand, concrete and construction industry?
Will a poor citizen not get the basic needs like food and drinking water if he cannot afford it? Can a policy which is formulated like this be constitutionally correct even if it violates fundamental rights?

The right to food and right to water should be the main first priority for all who vote and also all who are elected.