Bureaucrats who worked with Sahib Singh, Delhi's CM in the late 1990s, recount how often they found him wondering how any project, plan or scheme they had proposed would impact the rural population that lived in Outer Delhi, one of the city's seven parliamentary constituencies. This was the constituency Singh had set his eyes on. His party lost the next Assembly election but Singh won from Outer Delhi in general elections and became the labour minister.
Remember. 93 per cent of Delhi's voters live in urban areas. If a CM of a state can ignore such a huge constituency what chance is there for cities that are part of big states. Mumbai sends 34 legislators to the 289 member Maharashtra Assembly. It is a similar story at the central government. Rural development gets a lion's share of the plan funds, urban development a pittance.
There are broadly two economic reasons for this attitude. One, there are other pressing demands on the small kitty at the disposal of finance ministers at the Centre and the state. Two, cities have the potential to generate additional funds.
Certainly, this will remain a potential till someone exploits these capacities. But the risk is that once people begin to pay, they are going to demand their money's worth. They will ask why garbage was not being lifted when they were paying for it.
Politicians dabbling in state and central politics are unlikely to have the time, energy or inclination to undertake the political management this requires because their priorities lie elsewhere. Recent political developments suggest that chief ministers who digress and devote too much attention to the city, stand a better chance of losing, their successes elsewhere notwithstanding. Not surprisingly, disbanding the Bangalore Action Task Force was one of the first things that chief minister Dharm Singh did when he came to power This leaves the cities with only one choice: Having a government whose only mandate is to provide for and improve the city. The funny thing is that the 74th constitutional amendment provided for this more than a decade ago. It made it mandatory for states to hold municipal elections but left empowerment to their discretion.
{{/usCountry}}Politicians dabbling in state and central politics are unlikely to have the time, energy or inclination to undertake the political management this requires because their priorities lie elsewhere. Recent political developments suggest that chief ministers who digress and devote too much attention to the city, stand a better chance of losing, their successes elsewhere notwithstanding. Not surprisingly, disbanding the Bangalore Action Task Force was one of the first things that chief minister Dharm Singh did when he came to power This leaves the cities with only one choice: Having a government whose only mandate is to provide for and improve the city. The funny thing is that the 74th constitutional amendment provided for this more than a decade ago. It made it mandatory for states to hold municipal elections but left empowerment to their discretion.
{{/usCountry}}Several state governments conveniently cite the lack of capacity within the municipal system to argue against any more devolution of powers and responsibilities; others seem prepared to hand over the responsibilities but not the powers to raise revenue. Still another set of states wants the central government to fund the local bodies.
The constitutional amendment had anticipated some of these problems and asked states to constitute finance commissions that would come up with a formula for sharing resources between the state government and the local bodies and suggest the measures to be taken to improve the financial position of the local bodies. Most states did constitute the finance commissions but used them to park retired bureaucrats and other favourites.
Understandably, the eleventh and the twelfth Central Finance Commissions decided against using their reports and asked states to constitute finance commissions with "people of eminence and competence".
Naturally, municipalities in India are perceived to do little more than "clean" the streets. So we have Uttar Pradesh where mayors are directly elected by the city but the distribution of power ensures that the cities will never have their own Mayor Giuliani. The power still wrests with the municipal commissioner or the director local bodies at the state headquarters who has to approve important decisions of municipal bodies. Inevitably, the performance of the municipal body then depends on the municipal commissioner rather than the Mayor. The status quo seems to serve everyone just fine. The chief minister still has the last word and the local politician his excuses.
As the long line of scary figures put together by this survey shows, excuses won't do. India's cities need real political power -- that means a powerful, elected Mayor, not a CM dreaming of villages.