India will evolve into a confederation of city-states
FOR CONNOISSEURS of mutinies—of the noble, peaceful and yet defiant kind—very few can be as satisfying as India’s grand mutiny against British colonial rule. What began as a plea for equal treatment evolved into a full fledged mutiny demanding complete independence. Thanks to Mahatma Gandhi and other enlightened leaders the mutiny became a work in progress, attaining many dimensions.
From being just a revolt against a distant monarch and his local representatives, it took on various local entities and issues. It culminated in our independence, with Indians taking back political power, inheriting structures and institutions of democracy, rule of law and other practical tools of civilised governance. Yet we still engage with our past ruler, the British, in cordial and hopeful ways. We are enthusiastic members of global organisations even where they have a far greater say than us.
Many may be surprised, even rattled, to hear that this mutiny of our forefathers is still a work in progress. And it is progressing defiantly though not always nobly and peacefully. Everyday headlines document the modern day mutinies raging across the land, ranging from demand for complete secession, to resisting abuse of the notion of public good, to keeping local control over who should clear the garbage. History is bound to repeat.It is ironic that after 60 years of independence, the basic nature of this mutiny has not changed much. It is still a revolt against distant monarchs—albeit democratically elected— in New Delhi and our states’ capitals and their local unelected representatives. Equally ironic is that it took us almost 50 years after independence, to pass the 74th amendment to the Constitution, acknowledging, in words if not in deeds, that decentralisation and local governance is important after all. Shamefully tardy recognition in the land of the Mahatma, champion de-centraliser and anticentraliser.
Most of our disputes, festering for ages, are the result of persistent inability of locals and their democratically elected local representatives, if any at all, to deal with them promptly and effectively. In practical terms, the system places locals at the mercy of distant rulers for most solutions. Since these rulers—state and central ministers for example—have a million and one things to do, and because even a small state has hundreds of cities, towns, villages and a myriad of issues to deal with, even the most energetic man cannot minister his flock promptly, resulting in festering wounds and growing resentments on the body politic.
Recently, Chennai Metropolitan Development Authority (CMDA) organised a public workshop to seek advice on its draft master plan. An earlier version of the plan, long on data and clichés and short on analysis and planning, elicited howls of criticism and protest from local activists and concerned citizens. To CMDA’s credit, the workshop was an open affair and the officials seemed genuinely eager to receive help.
Yet the problems of our overly centralised society were very much obvious. The workshop was inaugurated by a State minister who was also the Chairman of the CMDA. The keynote was by the Chief Secretary for the State of Tamil Nadu. All of the representatives of the government who spoke—laying out problems, solutions and plans, trading questions and answers—were unelected bureaucrats appointed by the State government. Chennai is one of the fastest growing cities in the country, yet not one of its city councillors or the Mayor was to be seen or heard.
Now this could mean two things. Either such plans are never going to see the light of day. Which begs the question: if the city planning agency does not make plans, then who does? The state and central governments? Or the plan is indeed important and it is pre-decided that state government appointed technocrats will run the show, not the local representatives. The calibre of most of technocrats was visibly high, but not relevant, since they can never be punished or rewarded democratically, only be shunted around bureaucratically.
Take any modern city like New York, Paris or London that people flock to. It is the Mayor who is visible and accountable. It is he (or she) who loses his job when the snow is not removed on time; race riots break out; crime increases. It is his fortune that rises when city’s living condition improves. Technocrats answer to these democratically elected leaders who have their ears to the political ground. The most competent politician, who runs the most complicated city the best, gets the promotion to Chief Minister, Prime Minister or President. Many have heard of Teddy Roosevelt, Ehud Olmert and Jacques Chirac but can anyone name the chief technocrat who served under them?
India is urbanising fast. Tamil Nadu, for instance, is already around 50 percent urban. Stories of increasing urbanisation and villages without humans are globally true today. For decades locals have been kept impotent at addressing local problems promptly with adequate resources. This has created untenable villages, at a faster rate than what would have happened naturally, thereby causing mass migration of the worst kind: distress migration.
Instead of local empowerment, the rulers’ response has been to create a myriad of ministries at the centre and the states, resulting in piles of bloated departments and their ever increasing appetite for tax payers’ wealth.
Absence of rapid devolution of power to local governments will result in more of the unliveable, violent and ungovernable mega-slums that pass off as cities. Centrifugal forces in action in India, despite ideological, ethnic or religious veneers, are the result of over centralisation of power, resources and accountability. Centralisation has sucked away power and responsibility, leaving behind local vacuums for trouble makers to fill, who end up representing the genuinely resentful.
Co-option of these mutinies by the forces of good, as in the case of our independence mutiny, is a must and urgent. Resulting noble and peaceful mutinies must result in a liberal democratic framework, freeing the locals and their governments to pursue locally directed development and interests.
In practical terms this means implementing far more than what the 74th amendment envisions, in letter and in spirit. Devolution of power and decentralisation of responsibility will weigh down trouble makers and forces of good with mundane duties of local governance and leave very little energy and reason to point fingers at the centre and the state.
Wishful predictions are in order. Our coming mutinies will be noble and peaceful and they will succeed. India will evolve into a confederation of ‘city-states’, whose members recognise the benefits of collective security and common foreign policy. City-states left alone to evolve their respective culture and economy while the central authority, strong but limited in scope and size, douses conflicts among members and prevents barriers to free flow of ideas, people and commerce. A day may come when cities of our neighbours will be tempted to join this union. Lahore, the past Paris of the east, for example, may find it beneficial to join and rediscover its lost liberal glory, rather than be bound eternally to perennial lawless and illiberal lands. That may not be repetition, but a welcome reversal of history.
