One of India's topmost urban experts, Dr Isher Judge Ahluwalia, has taken strong exception to the Government of India's decision to go ahead with building 100 smart cities, as separate greenfield entities, as isolated islands away the existing towns and cities, without any notion about what they should look like. Ahluwalia, who was closely associated with the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), one of previous UPA government's flagship programmes, and continues to advise the Narendra Modi government on urban issues, insisted that there is lack of clarity on the concept of smart city in the Government of India.
Delivering the Pravin Visaria Memorial Lecture, organised by the Gujarat Institute of Development Research (GIDR), Ahmedabad, at the Ahmedabad Management Association, Ahluwalia said, “I have been asking India's urban development officials to provide at least one document which tells us what a smart city in their view should look like. However, they do not have any.” She added, “They have assured me that the document would be ready soon.”
Ahluwalia is currently member of the recently constituted Urban Institute of India which has been set up by the Government of India. Associated with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and is considered by scholars as a strong advocate of the neo-liberal school, she wanted the existing urban towns and cities to inclusively acquire a "smart" character by providing them with a e-technology space, urban market reforms, capacity building, and enabling a decentralised financial mechanism to the urban local bodies.
Answering a question what she thought of two of Modi's dream projects being sold as possible early bird smart cities – the Gujarat International Finance Tec-city (GIFT) and Dholera Special Investment Region (SIR), in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar districts, respectively -- Ahluwalia appeared sarcastic. She said, they sounded nice. It was always good to dream big. However, her concept of a smart city was very different – they must satisfy the aspirations of responsive citizens of the existing urban areas in an inclusive way. She hoped best luck to GIFT and Dholera City.
One of the senior-most economists, Ahluwalia, who is also wife of former Planning Commission vice-chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, said, the best definition of smart city she ever got was from the deputy Prime Minister of Singapore. The Singaporean dignitary told her that a smart city should be able to articulate the needs of its citizens, who should be fully involved in its development and provision of basic facilities like roads, water, sanitation, transport, and so on.
Wanting Indian cities not depend on the whims of the political class, who want tax cuts ahead of a poll, she disagreed with those who insist on public-private partnership as the way to reform . According to her, in such a scenario, the corporate bodies would be interested in eliciting returns for their investment, and the urban bodies would have to act according their wishes. However, there was lack of political will to do it.
Pointing towards how the political class is not interested in catering to the needs of urbanization, Ahluwalia said, the number of Census towns in 2001 were 1,362, and they have increased to 3,894 now, a quantum leap. A Census town is big village which has acquired urban characteristics -- its population exceeds 5,000, has at least 75% of male working population is employed outside of the agriculture, and a minimum population density of 400 persons per km.
Disagreeing with those who still believe in the dictum that “India lives in villages” and economic development depended on the development of villages, Ahluwalia said, the world had changed considerably ever since Mahatma Gandhi pointed this out. If India were to grow at a faster pace of development, which is the requirement of the economy, its economy should be urban-based, and not agriculture-based.
Answering a question what she thought of two of Modi's dream projects being sold as possible early bird smart cities – the Gujarat International Finance Tec-city (GIFT) and Dholera Special Investment Region (SIR), in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar districts, respectively -- Ahluwalia appeared sarcastic. She said, they sounded nice. It was always good to dream big. However, her concept of a smart city was very different – they must satisfy the aspirations of responsive citizens of the existing urban areas in an inclusive way. She hoped best luck to GIFT and Dholera City.
One of the senior-most economists, Ahluwalia, who is also wife of former Planning Commission vice-chairman Montek Singh Ahluwalia, said, the best definition of smart city she ever got was from the deputy Prime Minister of Singapore. The Singaporean dignitary told her that a smart city should be able to articulate the needs of its citizens, who should be fully involved in its development and provision of basic facilities like roads, water, sanitation, transport, and so on.
Wanting Indian cities not depend on the whims of the political class, who want tax cuts ahead of a poll, she disagreed with those who insist on public-private partnership as the way to reform . According to her, in such a scenario, the corporate bodies would be interested in eliciting returns for their investment, and the urban bodies would have to act according their wishes. However, there was lack of political will to do it.
Pointing towards how the political class is not interested in catering to the needs of urbanization, Ahluwalia said, the number of Census towns in 2001 were 1,362, and they have increased to 3,894 now, a quantum leap. A Census town is big village which has acquired urban characteristics -- its population exceeds 5,000, has at least 75% of male working population is employed outside of the agriculture, and a minimum population density of 400 persons per km.
Disagreeing with those who still believe in the dictum that “India lives in villages” and economic development depended on the development of villages, Ahluwalia said, the world had changed considerably ever since Mahatma Gandhi pointed this out. If India were to grow at a faster pace of development, which is the requirement of the economy, its economy should be urban-based, and not agriculture-based.
Giving the example of Punjab, which depended its development model on agriculture, Ahluwalia said, its per capita income has slipped behind several other states which have developed industrially. Once Punjab had the highest per capita income, but currently it had the sixth position. “An agriculture-based economy can grow at the most at 4 or 4.5 per cent rate of growth, while we want the Indian economy to grow by at least eight per cent”, she said.
Pointing out that urban India, accounted for two-thirds of the total GDP of India, Ahluwalia -- who currently heads Delhi-based think-tank Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, she said, despite this, even today just 31 per cent people lived in urban areas, which was much lower than many third world countries in the world, including China, Indonesia and Brazil.
Pointing out that urban India, accounted for two-thirds of the total GDP of India, Ahluwalia -- who currently heads Delhi-based think-tank Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations, she said, despite this, even today just 31 per cent people lived in urban areas, which was much lower than many third world countries in the world, including China, Indonesia and Brazil.
Comments
I continue to be a serious follower of Prof. I.J. Ahluwalia's academic and other writings ever since my college days (mid 1980s) and have my strong reservations against some of the points you have made in the news item. You seem to have misquoted Prof. Isher Ahluwalia and I feel that she wasn't "sarcastic" (the way you observed) when she took on the question on the 'smart cities' (GIFT city and the Dholera SIR).
of Dr. Ahluwalia. I was surprised to go through the content discourse
of the article which deviated on many counts from the presentation
made by her. Her opinions on couple of issues have been misinterpreted
and presented in the article in a indistinct manner. I would
appreciate if reports/columns of such academic events are put in the
original state so people comprehend the facts.
Considering that your portal has a wide readership, it is expected that you would maintain a rational stand and remain unbiased in your perceptions and expressions.
Firstly, regarding the heading - I strongly disagree which what it conveys, about the smart city initiative, she expressed the importance of our definition of smart city - appreciating the definition of the deputy prime minister of Singapore - she expressed her interest to know what does the government defines it as. Quoting the response from the ministry about the definition she said - they have told me that the booklet regarding smart cities will be out soon which will have the required information. No where did she mention the lack of clarity of government.
Secondly - when a question was posed to her by audience regarding her opinion on Dholera and Gift city, she replied by saying, anything which we achieve beyond the minimum standards is always good and wished best for those projects.
Thirdly - As the first para states that "she took a strong exception to the Government of India's decision to go ahead with building 100 smart cities as separate greenfield entities, as isolated islands away the existing towns and cities" - This is also not true. Answering the question regarding retrofitting the exiting cities as smart cities - she said retrofitting existing is a huge challenge, where a combination of both can move forward.
I am sure the reporter can do the following corrections and make sure that just the facts which are stated are reported and not what his perceptions are or what he wishes to hear from a person. I am sure so many students like me who follow Dr Ahluwalia wont desire such a twisted reporting from media.
In reference to the article published at counterview.net, dated Feb 12 covering Pravin Visarias's memorial lecture delivered by Dr. Isher Judge Ahluwalia. I think what has been reported in the article is deviating from what was actually conveyed. Firstly the heading itself shows a misinterpretation by the reporter as the entire lecture was devoid of any reservation against smart cities. I wonder how her response to a question on GIFT city and Dholera SIR is taken as sarcastic .She rather wished best for these projects and said that anything above the minimum standards is always better.The report has been articulated in a manner which doesn't gives a correct description of the event.
To start with there isn's any proposal to create a 100 greenfield cities and so neither was a mention of so in the talk. Moreover she emphasized on the need to realize the proper character and definition of the smart cities for India on an account of its diverse character soico economic and demographic character.
The Low GDP levels of Punjab and Haryana were talked of to support the fact that an agrarian economy can never provide with very high returns. For obtaining higher growht rates industrialization and a higer share of manufacturing jobs are essential and what that would need is skilled labour and so she touched upon the large chuck of working population and the future projections of so and the smart cities as the absorbents.
Talking of the illegalities and loopholes, yes theres no disagreement here that its been all across and thriving irrespective of the ruling party and has been the barrier to succesful implementation of development projects and for obtaining undeserved gains and theres an absolute need to curb it.
And sarcastic! No there was hardly any sarcams involved and yes we all need to get a little more optimistic at this point and get over the preconcieved notion and smart cities are meant for the corporate classes and ruin the marginalised ones. All it needs to take care of the "INCLUSIVE" part in the upcoming policy document.
Dr. Ahluwalia is a respected person, both as a professional and as a person. She beautifully handled the questiones raised and evoked the crowd beautifully. A mis interpreted negative version of her talk makes no sense at all.
apoorva
I am sure you would appreciate our anguish and act fast on this.
As a participant at the public lecture, I can say this very clearly: That the expert stated in clearcut terms that GoI does not have any notion of a smart city though it is in power for the last so many months. Let them prepare a concept. Does anyone one have any? No!!! Its all in Venkaiah Naidu's head!!!!
As for the second point, I think, the expert was totally confused and did not know what to say. She did not know whether to support the idea of having Greenfield cities like Dholera or GIFT City. Even while quoting the deputy PM of Singapore, she did not enunciate her views with clarity.
In fact, it seems the writer of this article did not highlight how confused Dr Ahluwalia was. I would say, she wanted to oppose the idea of green field cities, but refused to do it in so many words because she must now support the Modi government! The Counterview news item should have highlighted such green field cities have never succeeded. As and when they happen, they only mean indiscriminate land acquisition and turn people into paupers. The proposed Andhra capital will be one such green field project, and see the havoc it has created.
As for the comments, they seem to be orchestrated by someone from the organization which organized the lecture, so they are not serious. In fact, the authors of the comments seem to be more confused than expert herself.
This is in response to your comment that the above comments on the news item are orchestrated. Did you make a check on people and could you find that they could be influenced to write something if they don’t believe in it. Looks like that you wish your comments to be taken seriously and don’t want to respect others’ views. The main lecture by Dr Ahluwalia was focussed on how to improve infrastructure in existing urban areas and how to strengthen local bodies and she did full justice to it.
By the way, I also commented on this article. I think it was rather mild on Dr Ahluwalia, who is an elite, confused person, at least this is what she appeared to me and many of my friends who attended the lecture. She talked of infrastructure, refused to focus on urban poor, except in passing, in reply to a question...
Does it mean that I should be accused by the writer of this article I am not "respecting the viewpoint" of the article writer? What a logic... Great!
It appears like the author forgot the prelude to the article that set the tone of integrity that Prof. Visaria personified and rightly, Dr. Ahluwalia and Prof. Kundu demonstrated. All other detailed points are elaborated in many of the posts earlier that possibly the readers will see if they happen to read this article. The author of the article can also correct herself/himself by responding to some of the posts and agreeing to correct her/his article. That would possibly be a rich tribute Prof. Visaria on whose memory this lecture series was organised.
And let me also tell you -- neither Ahluwalia, nor Ambani, nor the Gujarat CM -- have ever thought of the space for the urban poor in these so-called smart cities. How will they build them? By acquiring farmers' lands, as in Dholera? By turning a proposed finance city (GIFT) into a real estate haven where likes of Amitabh Bacchan would come and stay (he has already bought land in the vicinity)? Handing over precious agricultural land to big corporates, as in Sanand and beyond up to Bhechaji-Mandal? So, slums can stay in Ahmedabad, and richie rich can live in these smart cities, is that so? Or, like in old days, the manual scavengers would go, clean up these smart cities, and would be moved out later so that they don't look dirty? Did Dr Ahluwalia touch upon any of these issues? Certainly not. What's smart in her definition, can you tell me? Just e-governance? The reporter unfortunately failed to point towards all this.
All of us individually have our share of critique against a whole range of things that take place around us in the name of development. We must stand by them too. But mixing up “what we wish to hear” with “what we hear”, to say the least, is violation of basic journalistic ethics.
I have already requested for the transcript of Dr Ahluwalia's speech. I was told through an email that it could not be provided because of the "negative" (sic!) report. Is this "academic ethics"?