Introduction

The Smart Cities Mission (SCM) was launched in June 2015 as a flagship program aimed at transforming urban India. Designed to integrate advanced technology and infrastructure, the SCM intended to create urban spaces akin to new Silicon Valleys, featuring sophisticated networks of airports, highways, and communication systems. However, despite its ambitious goals and substantial funding, the mission has faced criticism and challenges, leading to its marginalization in recent political discourse.

Defining Smart Cities

●     The concept of 'smart cities' gained prominence after the 2009 financial crisis, representing urban spaces with high levels of technological integration and efficient infrastructure. These cities were envisioned as hubs of intellectual and economic activity, with seamless connectivity and advanced ICT systems.

●     The SCM, while adopting this global concept, acknowledged the absence of a universal definition for smart cities.

●     It emphasized that the notion of a smart city varies significantly across different regions and contexts, depending on local development levels, willingness to reform, available resources, and residents' aspirations.

●     In India, the interpretation of a smart city was expected to differ from that in Europe or other parts of the world.

Components of the Smart Cities Mission

The SCM focused on two major aspects: area-based development and pan-city solutions.

●     Area-based development included three components: redevelopment (renewing existing cities), retrofitting (improving infrastructure), and greenfield projects (extending city boundaries). These initiatives aimed to enhance urban living through projects related to e-governance, waste management, water management, energy management, urban mobility, and skill development. The mission allocated around ₹2 lakh crore, with a significant portion intended to be driven by public-private partnerships (PPP).

●     The pan-city solutions emphasized using ICT to integrate various urban services, aiming for smarter management of resources and services. These solutions were designed to address the diverse needs of urban residents, making cities more efficient, sustainable, and livable.

Implementation and Governance

●     To facilitate the SCM, a new governance model was introduced, bypassing traditional city governance structures. Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) were created and registered under the Companies Act, led by bureaucrats or representatives from multinational corporations and other major stakeholders. This business-oriented approach aimed to ensure effective implementation but significantly reduced the role of elected municipal councils.

●     The mission's initial timeline targeted completion by 2020, but it has since been extended twice, with the current deadline set for June 2024. Despite these extensions, the SCM has faced considerable hurdles in execution, with many projects lagging behind schedule.

Current Status and Challenges

●     As of April 26, the Urban Ministry's dashboard reported that out of 8,033 sanctioned projects, the total projected outlay had decreased from ₹2 lakh crore to ₹1,67,875 crore, a 16% reduction. Out of these, 5,533 projects worth ₹65,063 crore have been completed, while 921 projects valued at ₹21,000 crore are still ongoing. However, approximately 400 projects in about 10 cities are unlikely to meet the extended deadline.

●     One of the major criticisms of the SCM is its exclusionary nature. The competitive selection of 100 cities overlooked the diverse and dynamic urban realities of India. Instead of addressing the broader urban issues, the mission often focused on small, specific areas. For instance, in Chandigarh, ₹196 crore from the SCM was spent on smart water meters, a Wi-Fi zone, and solid waste management in a single sector, ignoring broader urban needs.

Exclusionary Nature and Urban Realities

●     The SCM's focus on small, well-defined areas within cities led to criticisms of its exclusionary approach. In many cases, not more than 1% of a city’s geographical area was selected for development, neglecting the larger urban populace. This selective development approach often catered to already better-off sections of the city, leaving poorer and more densely populated areas underserved. The scheme failed to address the dynamic and complex urbanization patterns in India, which differ significantly from those in more developed Western countries.

●     A notable example is Chandigarh, which received a substantial initial tranche under the SCM but utilized the funds in a confined area. This piecemeal approach to urban development resulted in projects like smart water meters, Wi-Fi zones, and solid waste management systems being concentrated in one pocket, leaving other parts of the city unaffected. Such strategies highlighted the scheme's disconnect from the comprehensive urban needs of Indian cities.

Financial and Practical Constraints

●     The financial allocations under the SCM were also a point of contention. Reports suggested that to make Indian cities truly livable, a capital expenditure of $1.2 trillion would be required by 2030. In comparison, the ₹1,67,875 crore allocated under the SCM amounts to less than $20 billion over nine years, covering only a fraction of the total urban development needs. This financial shortfall made it difficult for the mission to gain significant traction or achieve its intended impact on urban transformation.

●     Moreover, the PPP model, which was expected to be a major driver of the SCM, contributed less than 5% of the total funding. This lack of private sector investment further hampered the mission's progress, as the envisioned collaborative approach between public and private entities did not materialize as planned.

Governance Issues and Constitutional Concerns

●     The governance model adopted by the SCM, involving SPVs, was another area of criticism.

●     This model effectively sidelined the provisions of the 74th Constitutional Amendment, which aimed to empower local governments and ensure greater decentralization.

●     By establishing SPVs that operated independently of the elected municipal councils, the SCM imposed a top-down governance structure that many cities found objectionable.

●     Critics argued that this approach was incongruent with the local governance needs and dynamics of Indian cities, leading to resistance and implementation challenges.

Impact on Urban Communities

●     The SCM's focus on infrastructure development often resulted in adverse impacts on urban communities, particularly those living in poorer areas.

●     The displacement of residents from informal settlements and the disruption of urban commons were significant issues.

●     For instance, street vendors were frequently displaced, and traditional water channels were altered, leading to problems like urban flooding.

●     Some towns, which had never experienced flooding before, became vulnerable due to poorly planned infrastructure projects under the SCM.

Enhanced Urban Flooding and Environmental Concerns

●     One of the unintended consequences of the SCM was the increase in urban flooding in several cities.

●     Infrastructure projects, such as road expansions and construction of new buildings, often interfered with natural water channels and drainage systems.

●     This led to waterlogging and flooding in areas that had historically never experienced such issues.

●     The disruption of natural contours and water channels highlighted the lack of comprehensive environmental planning in the SCM projects, underscoring the need for more sustainable and ecologically sensitive urban development strategies.

Conclusion

The Smart Cities Mission, while ambitious and well-intentioned, faced significant challenges in its implementation. The mission's exclusionary approach, financial constraints, governance issues, and adverse impacts on urban communities underscored the complexities of urban development in India. Despite substantial investments and extensions, the SCM struggled to achieve its transformative goals. Moving forward, it is essential to address these shortcomings by adopting more inclusive, sustainable, and context-sensitive urban development strategies that align with the diverse realities of Indian cities and the constitutional framework of local governance.