B.PAC : Promoting 'Selection' Democracy?

In a representative democracy like India where elections play a major part in the democratic process and are in fact called 'the dance of democracy' there can be no such thing as 'selection' democracy. Voters have a strong linkage with manifestos of political parties and the parties have to finally decide what represents the people's demands and needs in consultation with the public.

But now in the recent formation of the Bangalore political action committee (B.PAC) we note that there's a deliberate approach towards 'selection' democracy. The elite of the city of Bangalore wax nostalgic for the heady day's of brand Bangalore. Some of them are the same ones who strongly objected to the renaming of the city as Bengaluru.

And that is where their frustration begins. Their frustration is about the lack of infrastructure and the un-governability of the city- because of its messy local politics. And these elite feel that the elected politicians are unaccountable. The elite of the city would like to see governance, and service standards of infrastructure which would suit them whether they lived in New York or London, or Bengaluru.

The B.PAC members believe it is beneath their level to deal with local government officials or elected representatives. It is also too difficult for them as well and so their strong sense of hierarchy forces them to deal with only the state or Union govt. In fact they would like Bengaluru to be a Union territory or a 'city-state' so that the messy local govt politics will become a thing of the past.

based on the USA super PAC's model

The B.PAC model is entirely based on the Super PACs in the US elections of 2012 and earlier. In the US these PACs are mainly corporate lobbies focused on creating specific profitable outcomes in the elections for themselves by supporting candidates. Indian democracy does not allow an important role for individual candidates, instead it depends on parties to select candidates based on political winnability.
 

B.PAC is a reactionary move by frustrated leaders of the corporate sector who feel they are losing control over the saleability of brand Bangalore, and its governance, and would therefore like to see a new law for BBMP and the passage of the Bangalore region governance (BRG) bill even if it is not consistent with constitutional mandates and priniciples. This bill which was promoted by abide during the entire 5 year term of BJP (2008-13) could not be passed due to opposition from the people, local elected reps and other MLAs. The govt could never even introduce this in the state legislative assembly (KLA).

So the b.pac now feels that the MLA's, corporators, councillors, panchayat members and all organisations and common public who opposed the BRG bill conceptually- such as on the proposed centralisation of powers, policy and legislation should be dealt with by possibly supporting and 'selecting' candidates for the Karnataka MLA election in May 2013. These candidates could be from any party - BJP, Congress, LokSatta, JD(S) etc. But they should support the b.pac Bangalore agenda. And they expect the 'aspiring' middle class to join them for the joy ride.

What is a fact is that they support the BRG bill, which these corporates have agreed is suited to their legislative requirements of governance, infrastructure and policy and their display of consensus through b.pac now, means that they have secretly cast their own 'vote' in favour of it (backed by corporate money power) prior to such a legislation even being readied for tabling in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly (KLA). This sort of secret 'voting' is highly anti-democratic and reactionary. Should such a method of remote control, whether it be from money or corporate clout be allowed in the upcoming 'dance of democracy'?

This sort of secret 'voting' by consultants, non-profits or even the 'policy community' is not new. The Fiscal Responsibility Act (FRA) of the Govt of Karnataka (2002) was prepared with the agreement of the World Bank. And it was the brute majority of then ruling Congress party in the state which was utilised to pass this act. This unleashed a process of fiscal responsibility legislation for the entire country. The NDA led Indian government introduced the Fiscal responsibility and budget management act (FRBM) in 2003. Ultimately, in 2004 the UPA govt passed the act. all the states were later forced to adopt the same as a condition of the finance comission.

the impact of these FR Acts on the citizens of states needs to be the subject of another blog ...

In 2008 Karnataka elected the BJP. Can we undo past mistakes?

The mistake of being swayed by a false notion of being correct, by voting for the BJP when the JD(S) 'betrayed' the BJP in 2007 by not handing over or transferring power  to the BJP after the expiry of 20 months. How does the electorate of a state like Karnataka make efforts to set right the mistakes it has made such as the one mentioned above? This mistake has proved very costly because such a decision by the electorate was not weighed fully in the light of available information and knowledge. 

Just how costly - was shown by the Govt in an annual lurching from crisis to crisis. Overall this has resulted in a govt which while voted in with a near majority to rule for five years creating the largest debt burden on the citizens of the state increasing it by additional Rs 70,000 crores in 5 years. This also nearly doubled the state debt to Rs.124,000 crores resulting in an increase in debt from Rs. 5,000 to 10,000/-per capita.

This was done by a BJP  govt which was seen as a source of instability, corruption and lacking governance. This happened in what was a fairly  progressive state where the original Indian rural decentralisation models were brought forward and implemented by political thinkers. Instead the debt financing model of the World Bank and Asian Development bank was pushed forward by the BJP. This was because the inexperienced politicians of the BJP were not in any position to say no, because they really did not know better. Can this continue? the answer is no.

The debt financing model can be brought to a halt with alternatives.These must be identified and the ruling party(ies)must be informed of  how this is possible.

But this will also call a halt to the speed at which the so call world class infrastructure is being developed.

and generate a debate on development vs non-development... but that will be dealt in a seperate blog.

Hurdles in govt’s slum eradication programme

Housing ministry explores funding options

Ajith Athrady & Aditya Raj Das, New Delhi, Dec31, DHNS:

The UPA government’s ambitious scheme of making the country free of slums in the next five years by providing proper houses to slum dwellers faces hurdles with the Planning Commission and Ministry of Finance differing over the pattern of funding the project.

The Planning Commission is for a Public Private Partnership for implementing the project, while the Ministry of Finance is insisting that the Centre and the states should share the cost.

The scheme which is also dubbed as Rajiv Awas Yojana was announced by President Prathiba Patil in her address to the joint session of Parliament earlier this year.

Scheme

Finance Minister Pranab Mukherjee has allotted Rs 1,500 crore for the scheme in the Budget for 2009-10.

The scheme is scheduled to start before the close of the current fiscal ending on March 31, 2010.

As per an estimate a staggering amount of Rs 8 lakh crore to Rs 9 lakh crore is required to make the country free of slums by building around 80 lakh houses.
In the first year the Centre plans to construct one lakh such houses.

Initial draft

As per the initial draft of the scheme prepared by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, the financing pattern should be on the lines of the existing Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, under which the Central government provides 50 per cent funds (up to 90 per cent in case of special category states) and the remaining is matched by the states concerned.

However, officials in the Planning Commission say that if the scheme is implemented based on Central and state sharing basis, the Centre has to struggle to raise the fund as some of the states have already pitched for larger share considering large number of slum dwellers.

As the Centre has been funding several schemes including Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission, this scheme should be developed based on Public Private Partnership mode, the Planning Commission has suggested.
Implementation of the project through Public Private Partnership mode will expedite flow of funds for the scheme, the Plan Panel sources said.

But the Finance ministry fears that civil society and slum dwellers may oppose roping private builders in this type of project as the private builders may hijack the project by denying due share to genuine slum dwellers, sources in the ministry told Deccan Herald.
Panel proposed

Against this back drop, the Housing Ministry is planning to constitute a committee to explore the avenues to fund the scheme, a senior official in the Ministry told this paper.
As the Centre is planning to provide property rights to allottee, it wants the scheme to be implemented without any legal hurdle.

The Housing Ministry has worked out the average price of housing at Rs 2.5 lakh.
The latest statistics says, the number of urban poor has increased between 1993-94 and 2004-05 from 76.34 million to 80.80 million due to migration from rural areas.

Finmin limits WB infra aid to 1 bn

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/finmin-limits-wb-infra-aid-to-1-bn/547146/0#


Kakoly Chatterjee
Posted online: Nov 28, 2009 at 2340 hrs

New Delhi The finance ministry has turned down the urban development ministry’s proposal for a $5-billion World Bank loan for revamping the infrastructure of Indian cities under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM).

Concerned about the country’s external debt position, the ministry has scaled down the multilateral loan component of the mission to $1 billion. North Block’s views were conveyed to the nodal ministry for JNNURM at an inter-ministerial steering committee meeting recently, an official source said.

Urban development ministry wanted $5 billion (Rs 25,000 crore) in order to include more cities and more projects of existing cities. Currently, 65 cities with population of 1 million and above are included in JNNURM. With fresh fund infusion, the urban development ministry was hoping to include 25 cities which have above half a million population according to 2001 census.

“With no new funds being infused in the mission, the fate of the 25 cities is in jeopardy. We cannot include new cities or sanction more projects of cities that have submitted more projects after exhausting their initial funds,” a source in the ministry said.

The World Bank funding is expected to reach India in the 11th Plan Period. “We are expecting a funding of $1 billion (Rs 5,000 crore) to reach us by early 2011,” sources said.

Meanwhile, with World Bank funding coming in, JNNURM implementation has undergone slight modification. “The schemes would run on JNNURM pattern but a couple of related projects would be clubbed together. For instance if it is a water sanitation project then recycling and sewerage would also be included to treat it as a single project. The idea is to have a holistic approach. It would include improved water supply, distribution efficiencies, round the clock access to drinking water, waste recycling, sustainable models of sewerage schemes & tariff mechanism and efficiency parameters for the body handling water supply,” officials said.

Initially, the World Bank had insisted on revamping a city completely than running one project at a time. The ministry, however, suggested that a scheme should run on JNNURM pattern without major modifications. The ministry runs two schemes under the mission that include urban infrastructure and governance (UIG) and urban infrastructure development of small and medium towns (UIDSSMT). Of a total allocation of Rs 31,500 crore, a sum of Rs 9,500 crore has been released under UIG against the commitment of 75% funding.For UIDSSMT, Rs 6,000 crore has been released so far out of a total allocation of Rs 11,400 crore against a commitment of 90% fund.

Transforming Kohima

Transforming Kohima

morungexpress

http://www.morungexpress.com/editorial/32319.html

The Government of India has recently signed the Asian Development Bank loan agreements relating to the North Eastern Region Capital Cities Development Investment Program (NERCCDIP). Under the agreement, ADB will extend $200 million for capital cities of the north east for their development programmes. The first tranche of this project amounts to $30 million. This will be disbursed with the objective to improve quality of life for 1.2 million people and enhance urban productivity in the five capital cities namely Agartala (Tripura), Aizwal (Mizoram), Shillong (Meghalaya), Kohima (Nagaland) and Gangtok (Sikkim). The urban development ministry, through the respective state governments, would be the executing agencies. This is indeed good news for people of Nagaland as its capital Kohima has all the potential to become a world class heritage city for which much work needs to be done. Funds being the constraint, the ADB loan if utilized properly provide a golden opportunity to make Kohima the pride of all the Nagas.
Given that the ADB program will be one of the largest externally-funded infrastructure investments ever seen in the region, the Nagaland State government must ensure outmost transparency and accountability because this is an international project and the prestige and image of the Naga people is at stake. We should demonstrate sincerity, efficiency and cooperation during the period of the program. Nagaland in particular has suffered from a dearth of investment because of its “remote, mountainous location, long distance from markets, high levels of poverty and unemployment and limited private sector interest”, as stated by the ADB in its statement. Hopefully the new investment opportunity will not go for a miss and be properly utilized towards its stated objective. It is of outmost importance to properly plan and develop our urban centers like Dimapur and Kohima. For instance, the urban growth rate of Nagaland is quite alarming which can be gauged from the number of vehicles squeezed on roads build almost a quarter of a century ago.
The main problem we are facing today is that infrastructure has not grown proportionally with the ever increasing population growth so much so that the growing size of our towns beyond their holding capacities is witnessed by the present day overcrowding, lack of adequate housing, encroachment, mushrooming of slums and settlements, lack of civic amenities and not to mention the road congestion and resultant traffic jams and pollution.
Considering the deficit in terms of infrastructure growth, the growing urban population of Nagaland accounting for about 17.74% of the total population of the State, indeed reflects the enormity of challenges that lies ahead. The concerned people in the government as well as the public at large should realize the magnitude of this crisis and do whatever is necessary. Likewise, the municipal bodies in the respective towns will have to play an important leadership role. For the immediate though, the opportunity provided by the ADB loan should be used to create the appropriate infrastructure. And as stated by the ADB besides the physical improvements, strict mechanism must be put in place to ensure good governance, finance and service delivery reforms and a capacity-building programme to support the implementation of NERCCDIP and the urban reform agenda. People of Nagaland particularly Kohima, don’t miss this golden opportunity.

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.