Context-
India is experiencing a massive demographic shift, moving towards becoming more urban than rural. This shift is not limited to the major cities but is also happening in Tier II and Tier III cities, as well as the peripheries of larger urban centres and urban agglomerations. The conventional approach of classifying challenges as either rural or urban is becoming obsolete. India needs to adopt a more holistic perspective and consider these issues as part of an urban-rural continuum.

The Current Policy Framework and Financial Constraints

●     The existing policy framework in India continues to compartmentalise urban and rural areas, which poses significant challenges in addressing infrastructure needs that span both regions. One of the major issues is the over-centralisation of finances. Financial decentralisation, crucial for empowering local bodies, has been compromised, with many local entities struggling due to tied grants linked to centrally sponsored schemes.

●     The 13th Finance Commission highlighted how the autonomy of local bodies was being undermined, leading to a state of financial "asphyxiation." A large portion of grants is tied to specific central schemes, reducing the flexibility of local bodies to address unique challenges in their regions. For instance, the rise in property tax revenue in cities is not necessarily proportional to the growth in the State Goods and Services Tax (SGST). As a result, many towns face the risk of losing tied grants, which have become more common compared to untied grants.

Missing the Urban-Rural Continuum in Flagship Programmes

●     Flagship programmes such as the Swachh Bharat Mission and the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), launched by successive National Democratic Alliance (NDA) governments, have failed to consider the urban-rural continuum.

●     Under AMRUT, funding for urban infrastructure, especially liquid waste management, was initially extended to 500 cities and later to all statutory towns. However, many areas, including census towns and urban villages, remain excluded from this scheme. These areas, home to large populations of migrant and informal workers, are often adjacent to statutory towns, forming contiguous regions. Yet, they do not qualify for the same urban infrastructure funding as their neighboring statutory towns.

●     The waste generated in cities, peri-urban areas, and rural regions does not respect administrative boundaries, yet the planning process is still rigidly divided between rural and urban zones. This is particularly problematic in states like Kerala, where 90% of the population is considered urban, according to NITI Aayog. Despite this, AMRUT funding cannot be used to build critical infrastructure in these areas, highlighting a serious disconnect in how urban and rural infrastructure needs are approached.

Inadequacies in Waste Management Programmes

●     Similarly, AMRUT does not address solid waste management infrastructure in urban areas, leaving this responsibility to the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM). The second phase of the SBM, known as Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0, aims to make urban India garbage-free by proposing sustainable waste management solutions. However, this programme is divided into Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban and Swachh Bharat Mission-Rural, each focusing on different geographical areas, despite having nearly identical objectives.

●     While SBM-Urban focuses on making urban areas garbage-free, SBM-Rural seeks to maintain open defecation-free status and manage solid and liquid waste in rural regions. Unfortunately, these two programmes operate in silos, and the potential for integrated solutions, such as joint solid waste treatment plants for peri-urban and rural areas, is lost due to the compartmentalised nature of the planning process.

●     The rigid separation of these programmes hinders collaboration and creativity in designing solutions that could benefit both urban and rural areas. Granting more autonomy to local bodies to implement projects at the district or regional level, without the constraints of centralised schemes, would lead to better governance and more effective waste management.

Revisiting the Governance Model: Strengthening District Planning Committees

●     To address these challenges, the governance framework established by the 73rd and 74th Constitution Amendments must be revisited and strengthened. These amendments were intended to empower local bodies, yet three decades later, the vision remains unfulfilled. One of the key mechanisms introduced by these amendments, the District Planning Committees (DPCs), which comprise both Zila Panchayats (rural) and urban local bodies, has become largely ineffective.

●     The original intent was for DPCs to oversee planning and development in both rural and urban areas, ensuring an integrated approach to regional development. However, in most states, DPCs have become appendages of the district bureaucracy, with little actual decision-making power. Strengthening DPCs and restoring their intended role could help bridge the rural-urban divide and facilitate more cohesive planning that reflects the reality of India's demographic shifts.

●     In Kerala, for example, the integration of rural and urban local bodies under the same Ministry has proven beneficial. A proposed solid waste landfill site in the periphery of a town was withdrawn due to public pressure, thanks to the cooperation between rural and urban authorities. In most other states, such decisions would have been delayed by the bureaucratic divide between rural and urban governance.

The Need for a Shift in Approach: From Compartmentalisation to Integration

●     The rapid urbanisation of India calls for urgent interventions in both infrastructure development and governance models. The current approach, which treats rural and urban areas as separate entities, is outdated. The lines between urban and rural regions have blurred, and many towns and cities are expanding into formerly rural areas, creating a complex rural-urban continuum that cannot be effectively governed by existing frameworks.

●     Financial and administrative resources are still allocated in a highly compartmentalised manner, limiting the ability of local bodies to develop integrated solutions that address the needs of their entire region. There is a pressing need to grant local governments more autonomy to design and implement projects that cater to both urban and rural populations, without being constrained by rigid central schemes.

Conclusion:

India's future lies in recognising the reality of the rural-urban continuum and developing policies that reflect this integrated approach. The challenges posed by rapid urbanisation cannot be addressed through outdated governance models that compartmentalise rural and urban areas. Strengthening local governance structures, such as District Planning Committees, and allowing for more financial and administrative autonomy will pave the way for more effective infrastructure development and sustainable growth.

The urban-rural divide is no longer a valid framework for addressing the needs of India's population. Instead, by embracing the continuum that exists between these regions and designing flexible, integrated solutions, India can better manage its urbanisation and ensure that both urban and rural areas benefit from the country's growth.

Source- The Hindu