Realising the rural-urban continuum – The Hindu

Image for representation.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

This century is supposed to be India’s urban century due not only to massive demographic shifts, with the country soon becoming more urban than rural, but also to the demand for the infrastructure required to support these large shifts. These demographic changes are occurring in Tier II and Tier III cities, as well as the peripheries of major urban centres and urban agglomerations. India addresses challenges by viewing them as either rural or urban; it needs to instead look at them as part of an urban-rural continuum.

OPINION | Reimagining the urban-rural dichotomy

Current policy framework

There has been an over-centralisation of finances in recent times. Financial decentralisation, which provides autonomy to local bodies, has been compromised. The 13th Finance Commission pointed out this issue by mentioning how local bodies were getting “asphyxiated”.

Some of these financial constraints arise from the tied nature of grants linked to centrally sponsored schemes and even financial devolution. For example, the rise in property tax in cities should be commensurate with the rise in the State Goods and Services Tax. If there is no linkage, most towns are at risk of losing tied money grants, which have increased relative to untied grants over the years.

OPINION | A new sense of urbanisation that is dominating

Flagship programmes such as the Swachh Bharat Mission and the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), launched by successive National Democratic Alliance governments at the Centre, miss the urban-rural continuum. As far as urban infrastructure for liquid waste management is concerned, funding is proposed under AMRUT, which initially covered 500 cities but has now been extended to all statutory towns. However, these towns account for only a portion of the urban population. Many people live in census towns (with a minomum population of 5,000) and in the more than 23,000 urban villages. These areas are contiguous, with census towns adjoining statutory towns, and urban villages accommodating large numbers of migrant and informal workers. When urban infrastructure for liquid waste, such as sewage treatment plants, is designed, and funding is sought under AMRUT, these contiguous areas do not qualify for funding. The waste flow in cities and peri-urban areas does not adhere to urban-rural nomenclature, yet the planning process is obsessed with it. This issue has been a challenge for many States, particularly Kerala. NITI Aayog has pointed out that 90% of Kerala is urban. In such a situation, AMRUT grants cannot be utilised to create infrastructure.

AMRUT also does not support solid waste management infrastructure in urban areas. This falls under the Swachh Bharat Mission, which is now Swachh Bharat Mission 2.0. The goals of the Mission are twofold. For Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban, the aim is to go beyond being open defecation-free to focusing on making urban India garbage-free and proposing sustainable solutions and practices for waste management. Similarly, Swachh Bharat Mission-Rural focuses on maintaining the open defecation-free status, managing solid and liquid waste in rural India, and constructing household toilets. It also addresses liquid waste management, which Swachh Bharat Mission-Urban does; however, treatment plants cannot be built jointly.

Both these programmes, run by the Government of India, aim for nearly the same outcomes, so realising these through imaginative practices could yield better results. Solid waste management plants in peri-urban and urban areas could be designed collaboratively at the district or regional levels. Such liberty and autonomy will pave the way for better urban governance, rather than implementing programmes and projects from a centralised perspective.

OPINION | Turn off the tap of urban bias in rural development

Governance models

In this context, the the framework established by the 73rd and 74th Constitution Amendments needs to be revisited and strengthened. It appears that three decades ago, there was more imaginative thinking in addressing such challenges than there is now. Under this framework, District Planning Committees comprising the Zila Panchayats and urban local bodies need to be strengthened and mobilised. While the intended governance model envisioned the district bureaucracy being subordinate to the District Planning Committees, at present, in most States, the District Planning Committees have become appendages of the district bureaucracy. Stronger District Planning Committees can help address the challenge of a urban-rural continuum.

During a conversation with the Minister for Local Self-Governments in Kerala, I learned that a proposed solid waste landfill site in the periphery of a town had to be withdrawn due to public pressure. This was possible only because both rural and urban local bodies fall under the same Ministry. In other States, this would have taken much longer.

Thus, the urban and rural continuum in rapidly expanding urban areas needs urgent interventions at both the infrastructure and governance levels. The previous models of separate urban and rural local bodies need to be updated in today’s India, which is fast becoming urban. We need to question why finances and resources are provided in such a compartmentalised manner to urban and rural India, when the lines between the two are blurred. There must at least be some liberty in imaginatively designing plans in a joint manner.

Tikender Singh Panwar Former deputy mayor, Shimla, and Member, Kerala Urban Commission.