Cities in India are known to be in perpetual crisis; facing numerous crises in terms of; crisis of rational growth, crisis of orderly and planned development; crisis of effective and efficient urban management; crisis of making provision of basic infrastructure and services; crisis of climate change; crisis of global warming; crisis of poverty, pollution and population and crisis of making human living and prevailing environment qualitative. These urban crises have genesis in the fact that cities in India, lack ownership, command, authority and lack of willingness to run and manage cities professionally and objectively. In majority of cases, cities in India are run by proxy. In terms of physical growth and development; large cities are marked by multiplicity of agencies claiming right/ownership of development over the urban areas, whereas smaller cities face absence of such ownership and are made to run, operate and function like orphans

1. Random thoughts-2- 26-3-2024
Managing Cities in India -Issues and Options
*Jit Kumar Gupta
** jit.kumar1944@gmail.com
Cities in India are known to be in perpetual crisis; facing numerous crises in
terms of; crisis of rational growth, crisis of orderly and planned development;
crisis of effective and efficient urban management; crisis of making provision
of basic infrastructure and services; crisis of climate change; crisis of global
warming; crisis of poverty, pollution and population and crisis of making
human living and prevailing environment qualitative. These urban crises
have genesis in the fact that cities in India, lack ownership, command,
authority and lack of willingness to run and manage cities professionally and
objectively. In majority of cases, cities in India are run by proxy. In terms of
physical growth and development; large cities are marked by multiplicity of
agencies claiming right/ownership of development over the urban areas,
whereas smaller cities face absence of such ownership and are made to
run, operate and function like orphans
Following the national agenda of making urban local bodies owners of the
cities, these agencies remain marginalized, muted and diluted, so far as the
rational development of cities are concerned. In majority of cases, urban
local bodies, despite having history spanning over more than 347 years,
have little willingness to make cities better places to live. Despite enacting
74th
Constitutional Amendment Act, by the Indian Parliament 32 years back
in the year 1992, providing for making urban local bodies as third tier of
government, in their own right at local level, these local bodies suffer from
the malaise of competency, capacity, capability, willingness, power,
authorities, role, functions and resources to act and perform like a
government. Urban local bodies, in majority of cases are treated as the
annexure of the State government and are being run as a line department,
subjected to all the whims, fancies and controls of state politics and
bureaucracy. Accordingly, these local bodies neither perform nor inform of
what they are doing for city, communities and citizens.
Development Authorities and Improvement Trusts created at local level,
have taken over the planning and development functions of the cities and

2. siphoned off large resources generated through urban development. Even
the external development charges, collected from the developers have also
gone into the coffers of these Development Authorities. Having no
accountability and responsibility to urban local bodies, these authorities
follow their own agenda of growth and development without consulting and
taking into loop the ULBs and without caring for the city and communities.
Master Plans for the cities are prepared by the Urban Development
Authorities/Town Planning Department, which operate separately and are
attached to different state departments. Accordingly, Master Plans for the
cities are prepared without involving the ULBs , who are ultimately given the
task of implementing these long term and short term plans. Accordingly, role
of ULBs in the domain of urban planning and development remains diluted
and marginalized.
Political and bureaucratic system managing ULBs also have little knowledge
and understanding of the urban planning, development and management
and accordingly cities continue to suffer from the malaise of unplanned, sun-
standard and haphazard development.
Looking at the entire context, if the cities are to run and managed on
professional lines and cities are to act and operate as engines of economic
growth and promoters of quality of life , then cities must have a dedicated
and well-defined exclusive ownership made responsible for its planning,
development, management and governance. In case ownership has to be
given to ULBs , then all planning and development agencies must be
integrated at local level and made integral and essential part of the ULBs.
Issue of professionally managing the cities must stem from the state level.
At state level , Departments of ULBs and Housing and Urban Development
must be merged and placed under one Administrative Secretary and same
Minister, so that existing dichotomy in the planning and development is
eliminated. Town Planning Department should be mandated to undertake
planning of cities and preparation of Master Plans/Development Plans , in
consultation/ active involvement of ULBs. Municipal laws must be amended
to include preparation of Master Plans etc., in the domain of ULBs, gto make
it a distinct reality.
All Development Authorities’ and Improvement Trusts , created and
operating at local level, should be merged with the ULBs to act as technical

3. arms of the ULBs and peri-urban areas. ULBs functional domain should be
divided into two distinct parts, Governance and Development. While
Governance issues should be dealt by the elected representatives, whereas
all Planning and Development functions should be discharged by the
technical arm comprising of Development Authorities/ Improvement Trusts.
However, ULBs, in majority of cases, have quality of manpower which does
not allow it to function and operate as Government , in its own right. Municipal
cadres accordingly, needs to be reviewed, revised and redefined, with the
induction of appropriately skilled and trained professionals having adequate
experience of planning, development, financing and management of urban
areas. Cities need to develop a culture of management and accountability,
with role, function, duties and responsibilities of all
stakeholders/functionaries/employees well defined. If cities are required to
generate resources, it will also be critical to rationalize the expenditure by
the ULBs, where majority of resources are wasted and spent irrationally.
Executive officers appointed to run the city must be drawn from professional
cadres of Architecture, Planning and Engineering rather than generalists, if
the cities are to be managed professionally. Qualification of the EO must be
revised to make the cadre professional. In the Indian Administrative
Services, a specialised and dedicated cadre for Urban Development must
be developed and only those officers who have knowledge, skill and
experience must be posted as Commissioners in the Municipal Corporations.
In addition, post of Commissioners should also be allowed to be managed
by renowned Architects, Planners and Engineers working in the state cadres.
Urban development must be included as integral part of training curriculum
of IAS/PCS services for creating required level of competency to
manage/run/operate cities in a rational and realistic manner.
State Government must set up an expert group to look into the operation
and function of the ULBs and suggest framework/options to make it more
rational, effective and efficient. Unless ULBs are made to work/operate in a
professional manner, cities will continue to grow in haphazard and unplanned
manner creating numerous challenges of climate change, global warming,
poverty and pollution, for people, communities, state and nation in the years
to come.