The politics of implementation
that characterizes the smart city are laid bare when the Mission is seen in the
wider context of urban development in India. For example, if the Jawaharlal
Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) for the modernization of cities
was already there, then why the idea of the smart city was coined? What is the
difference between modern and smart cities? This act is symptomatic of wider,
underlying politics that not only influenced the initiation of the smart city
mission (SCM) but influence its implementation until today.
Be it nationwide or citywide,
politics in the implementation of smart cities can be divided into two parts:
pre and post-approval of smart cities. As far as Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC)
is concerned, all the political parties and administration also played a key
role in supporting or opposing the implementation of the smart city project.
However, it was not for the benefit of the city at all, other political goals
and motivations were the main drivers of these political games.
On the 5th of June 2015, Prime
Minister Narendra Modi announced the Smart City Mission. As per the Central
Government's instructions, the State Government of Maharashtra selected ten
Municipal Corporations to be part of the Smart City Mission. The State
Government considered Pune and Pimpri-Chinchwad together for the smart city.
However, both Municipal Corporations (their elected representatives) initially
opposed the idea. Now, there are multiple reasons why they were initially
opposed to the Mission but why they opposed the idea of considering both cities
together is an open secret. You can call it the politics of development. Such
development, they think, can attract vote banks as well as increase the bank
balance.
After four rounds of
competitions, the Central Government selected 98 cities for the Smart City
Mission. Pune was included and came second in the nationwide competition.
However, there was no answer as to why Pimpri Chinchwad was excluded.
Pune city was earlier included in
the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), a large-scale
city modernization scheme launched in 2005. This was then succeeded by AMRUT
(Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation) scheme, which aimed to
provide basic services (e.g., water supply, sewerage, urban transport) to
households and build public amenities in cities, designed to improve the
quality of life for all. It's surprising that in ten short years Pune was
urbanized under JNNURM, it was able to provide all basic services through AMRUT
and now, it was ready to be smart.
Though there was publicly
announced and promoted competition for the selection of cities under the Smart
Cities Mission, evidence suggests that the cities selected under the Mission
were predominantly pre-decided, as well as many decisions regarding the
implementation of the Mission in each city. As far as Pune is concerned, a lack
of transparency and confidentiality, one-sided agreements, conflict of
interests, and the lack of democracy during the implementation, has arguably
adversely affected Pune's future as a Smart City.
Local Political Games
With a BJP-led government coming
into power in the State and Centre in 2014, and an NCP-Indian Congress-led
alliance in power in Pune, the PMC was initially in the dark about the SCM and
its implementation. Due to political rivalry, the support of the ruling elected
representative in the implementation of Smart City PMC was doubtful, and as the
number of seats of the Bharatiya Janata Party in PMC was limited, they put
pressure on PMC from State or Central Government. The role of
Congress-Maharashtra Navnirman Sena (MNS) was opportunistic and Shivsena
representatives were mere spectators at it.
Earlier, Congress, NCP, and MNS
had decided to adjourn the General Body meeting and postpone the approval of
the Pune Smart City Proposal. However, with BJP in power at the State level,
PMC representatives were pressured to approve the proposal for submission under
the SCM competition. Under section 450(A) of the Maharashtra Municipal
Corporation Act, the State Government has powers to issue general instructions
to the Municipal Corporation, as matters of policy to be followed by the
Corporation in respect of its duties and functions, and in particular, it may
issue directions in the larger public interest or for implementation of the
policies of the Central Government or the State Government and the National or
the State level programs, projects, and schemes. Upon the issue of such
instructions or directions, it shall be the duty of the Corporation to give
effect to such instructions or directions. It was through issuing this notice
that the State Government was able to ensure that the PMC complied with and
approved the Smart City proposal in the General Body meeting.
This was nothing but a political
game. It is extremely rare for the State Government to intervene in city
politics in this way, especially for urban development programs. By doing so
the State government was suggesting that elected representatives of PMC were
not serious about the development of the city, in contrast to the BJP who
wanted to bring development for all.
Amendments in contradiction
After receiving this notice, the
smart city proposal was approved in a thirteen-hour-long General Body meeting.
Despite the apparent unanimous approval of the proposal, the General Body
failed to finalize the accountability structures of the Special Purpose Vehicle
(SPV) - a particular point of contestation among the political representatives.
Nevertheless, the proposal was
finally agreed upon after giving five amendments to the original proposal.
These amendments were designed to curb the rights of the SPV and its CEOs, so
as to maintain democratic structures and decision-making in relation to the
Smart City Mission. Firstly, they recommended that the mayor of the city should
become the CEO of SPV, to improve accountability. Secondly, if in the following
two years the SPV fails in its role as implementing body, it would be suspended
and the work would continue under the PMC. Finally, it was decided that the CEO
would not be given the right to pledge any property of the Municipal
Corporation.
The most surprising part of this
meeting was that the then Municipal Commissioner was convincing PMC
representatives to approve the proposal as if it was his personal agenda. Later
on, it was revealed that the processes and proceedings adopted in the race to
emerge winners in the competitive federalism agenda paid scant regard to any
rules and regulations or democratic practices.
For example, initially, the PMC
commissioner had refused to put the Smart City proposal in the public domain or
show it to elected representatives, apparently afraid ULB copy the proposal.
This a strange excuse in light of some of the core tenants of the Mission being
inclusivity and transparency.
To demonstrate that PMC's smart
city proposal was contradictory in nature, one or two examples are sufficient.
In the proposal, the PMC states, 'Capitalizing on Pune's water abundance, one
of the strategic goals will be to ensure at least 150 lpcd of water to 100% of
citizens on a 24x7 basis. However, the equitable distribution of this abundance
is still a matter of question. What is the guarantee that this abundance will
lead to equitable distribution for all sections of society and covers all
geographic areas? Furthermore, where is that abundant water? For many years
now, Pune is facing water shortages for almost six months a year. Furthermore,
the smart city proposal says it would raise Rs. 1000 crores from selling 10
acres of land in the ABB area (i.e., it would fetch 100 crores per acre.) This
remains a distant dream and PSCDCL has not taken the initiative forward. [ready
reckoner reference details to be cited to prove the point]
Furthermore, despite the
contentious approval process, in the end, none of the amendments were
implemented. For example, despite the apparent failure of SPV to implement the
Mission in a timely, effective and transparent way, it has not been suspended.
The rights of the CEO or SPV were not curbed as suggested. And most revealing
of all, instead of selecting the Mayor as CEO to maintain a democratic representation
of the city citizens, a bureaucrat remains in the powerful position.
Corporate influence and
democratic processes
The General Body also failed to
enact proper control over the involvement of companies or organizations in the
SCM. Therefore, companies that had been involved in the preparation of the
proposal remained legible for participating in tendering for projects in the
smart city. That is against tender process guidelines at the national and
international levels.
Doubts were also raised on PMC's
decision to select Aundh, Baner, Balewadi (ABB) for Area Based Development
(ABD) initiatives. This area was already considerably developed under JNNURM
and for the Common Wealth Youth Games (CWYG). It is therefore arguable that the
ABB was selected to achieve maximum visual or aesthetic impact in five years,
to perform an image and feeling of success.
When it came to the appointment
of the project consultant, the process lacked transparency. After only four
days of presentations and consideration, the Standing Committee of Pune
Municipal Corporation (PMC) passed a proposal to appoint McKinsey and Company
as a consultant to prepare the draft smart city plan (SCP). Interestingly,
almost all the cities under SCM have not spent more than 40 lac rupees on a consultant.
However, PMC spent more than 2.40 crore rupees.
It was not the case that McKinsey
and Co's work has always been reliable or successful. This was the company that
had advised the world-famous telephone company, AT&T, that mobile phones
have a future. This was the company whose former director Rajat Gupta was
sentenced two years jail term for insider trading by U.S. District Judge in New
York.
Whilst Standing Committee said
that it was necessary to call tenders from the list finalized by the government,
this was in fact case. The Ministry of Urban Development technically qualified
panel consulting firms and States/UTs were at liberty to draw this
However, the States had also the option of appointing a consulting firm outside
following transparency and procedures. These firms to a selected selection
(LCS) basis. In this case, the proposal among those passed the minimum
technical score. And here lies the trick. The scoring numbers are PMC officials
and of McKinsey got the proposal Committee doesn't speak to any LCS
Inclusivity, transparency, and
Secrecy
Initially, making governance
citizen-friendly was one of the key objectives of smart cities, and
participation was said to be the core tool to achieve However implementation,
instead transparency, 'secrecy' became the buzzword for Smart Cities Mission.
And Pune is arguably at forefront of this mission. From the beginning, the SCM
defied the principles of the amendment to the constitution of India that was
brought to strengthen Local Bodies. 'Secrecy clause' in Smart City Mission
has taken the soul out of Right Information Act
To maintain secrecy around the
activities of smart city projects, they introduced 'code conduct' directors and
management personnel of the company Pune Smart Development Corporation Limited
(PSCDCL) the company formed the Special Purpose (SPV) implementation of smart
city projects in Pune. This code of conduct prevented directors’ senior
management personnel PSCDCL from disclosing anything with any member of the
press media matters connected with the company business unless specifically
permitted Board Directors of the company or the Chairman/Managing Director of
the company
Article association (AoA) PSCDCL
requires every Director, Manager, Secretary, Auditor, Trustee, member committee,
officer, servant, agent, accountant any other person employed business of the
company to sign a declaration pledging to observe strict secrecy respecting
transactions and affairs of the Company with customers and the state the
accounts individuals and matters relating thereto, and by such declaration
pledge not reveal any matters which may come knowledge the discharge his duties
except when required so Directors or by law or by the person to whom such
matters relate and except so far as necessary in order comply with any
provisions in these presents
Further as per AoA, the member is
entitled to visit or inspect any works of the company without the permission of
the directors to require the discovery of any information respecting any
details company's trading, or any matter which is maybe the nature of trade
secret, mystery secret process or any other matter which may relate the conduct
the business the and which in the opinion of the directors, it would
inexpedient the interest the company discloses.
In short, the Smart City Mission
gave the rights to collect taxes, use charges, sell, lease properties, take
loans, and earn profit for shareholders, the company formed confiscated
all the rights conferred upon common citizens Constitution of India.
The then would be Chief Executive
Officer of the SPV and then Municipal Commissioner of PMC had already
encroached upon the General Body's and Standing Committee's rights. Though he
had not revealed any of PMC's correspondence with whom it has signed the so-called
non-financial, non-binding Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), he has gone
further to assure reimbursement of the amount to an institute without knowledge
of a General Body and Standing Committee. It seems that he had assured
reimbursement as CEO of the proposed SPV.
In a letter to the Principal
Director of Symbiosis, the then Municipal Commissioner writes,
"I
welcome our collaboration wherein MBA-IM students from SCMHRD, Symbiosis would
work with us as interns for Smart Cities Mission. This is a path-breaking
partnership that brings together academia with the Government in mission mode
to find solutions for real-life issues faced by the city.
Further,
with reference to your email regarding the budget proposal based on 60 days of
engagement, we convey our agreement with the same. We would, however like you
to undertake the expenditure upfront and thereafter let us reimburse the amount
to you.
We
believe this engagement will go a long way in enabling the transformation of
Pune city under the Smart City Mission."
Interestingly, SCMHRD's name
doesn't appear in the list of PMC's so-called nonbinding, nonfinancial MoUs it
has signed. No one knows how many such agreements he has signed on behalf of
PMC. However, as far as nonbinding nonfinancial MoUs that PMC has signed are
concerned, the Commissioner has categorically said that they will be allowed to
participate in the tendering process of SPV, and therein lies the threat of
manipulating the proposed transparent tendering process.
As described in the letter above,
SCMHRD conducted a public participation initiative required under the Smart
City Mission in collaboration with the SPV and other external partners. The
Standing Committee of PMC then reimbursed the amount without asking any
questions on the legality of awarding that work to SCMHRD.
Keeping pace in a smart city
The pace of project
implementation in Pune is slow due to difficulties with funding allocation and
a lack of efficient communication and decision-making in implementation. Pan
city projects like Smart Street Lighting, E-Buses, Adaptive Traffic Control
Systems, Bus System ITMS, Total Smart Parking Intelligent Road Management as
well as area-based projects like 100 Electric buses, junction and road redesign
for fourteen junctions, non-motorized transport (NMT) and street development,
BRT, e-rickshaws, wastewater recycling, storm-water management, adequate water
supply, rainwater harvesting, smart water metering, river water cleaning, etc.
either haven't started yet or are only partially complete.
When the Pune Municipal
Corporation submitted the proposal for the Smart City Mission, it had given a
detailed plan for the implementation of projects under the smart city. However,
the situation after four years is not only disappointing but raises serious
doubts about the future completion of projects.
A total of forty-one projects
were proposed in the Pune smart city proposal document. Among them will be the
all-around development of river banks in the ABD, LED street lights, rainwater
harvesting, classical disposal of wastes, 100 e-buses, etc. Thirty out of these
forty-one projects should have been completed or begun by December 2018 and the
remaining eleven projects were expected to be completed in 2019 and 2020. The
work has also been hampered as the PSCDCL is yet to receive a total of over Rs.
400 crores from the State and Central governments pertaining to the dues of the
last two consecutive years. Due to this delay, various projects such as the
smart grid project, the riverfront development program of the river Ramnadi in
Baner, and the placemaking project, are facing delays.
'Pune Smart City' - who for
and who decides?
Despite these problems in
implementation, Pune has been awarded several awards by several national
agencies. For example, Business World Digital India Summit & Awards 2018,
the Smart SPV 2018 award, the SKOCH Order-of-Merit Award for Smart Cities, four
National Smart City Awards by the Union Ministry of Housing & Urban
Affairs, and the Best Smart City India Award
Even as the government and its
agencies proceed with inefficient and problematic implementation of smart
cities the stakeholders lie. citizens, civilian planners, architects, and
social workers. academics, people's representatives) are asking the question of
what the smart city exactly means. There is no specific definition of a 'smart
city' and cities have to self-define their understanding of 'smartness'.
Information and communication technologies (ICTS) play a prominent role in the
development of smart cities. Technology is increasingly being used to avail
basic facilities like transport, water supply, etc. However, before applying
ICT, basic infrastructure should be in place.
If the cities have to self-define
their understanding of 'smartness' then it is actually the citizens who have to
define it - they should have a say in what smartness in their city means to
them. However, when politicians in collusion with the administration and
corporate entities make a mockery of public participation then how can citizens
define or decide what they want? And most importantly, do have they any liberty
to decide what they want?
In Pune, more than 40% of people
live in slums. The situation may not be much different in any other city in
India. What would their idea of a smart city be? Has anybody asked them? Forget
about the smart city, has anybody ever asked them what their basic expectations
and needs are? Mere conferring awards for public participation and
implementation of the smart city on urban local Bodies will not help provide
for the needs of people, nor will it lead to the development of a fantasy smart
city.
To provide even the basic
services like water, sanitation, healthcare, education, and healthcare, etc.
for a growing Indian population, which is expected to be around 170+ crore by
2050, the government and its agencies need a better understanding and planning
of the current infrastructure and services. Paying lip service to public
participation will not help understand citizens' problems and will therefore not
lead to inclusive, sustainable development. Without careful, just, and
inclusive citizen engagement, missions like JNNURM, AMRUT, or the SCM will not
help any city become smart and it will forever remain a political game.
Related Stories
Smart Cities to be secret cities, beginning of the end of the transparency era
