Development is only a layer of concrete deep

A new building, painted in governmental yellow, stands erected a few steps away from a bridge over the Tawi River. The structure hosts the office for the Indian Institute of Public Administration's regional Branch in Jammu.

I had only seen the structure in passing until I came across a public invite for an event that the institute had organized. It was an event organized in collaboration with the Smart City Development ad hoc agency "Jammu Smart City Ltd".

It was my debut active participation in engagement as a citizen with the Government. I don't consider voting in elections as active participation in public discourse unless followed by holding the positions of power accountable for their actions. It is easily said than done, for such mechanisms are somewhat obscured. It is something I have observed on that occasion.

So, what is it that gets my goat? It is the constitution of the ad hoc agencies like Jammu Smart City Ltd. The Government introduced these agencies under the smart city project as Special Purpose Vehicles (SPV) dedicated solely to the smart development of the City. The word Smart itself is contentious, for I have found it to be a misnomer. Before getting to the scope of "Smart", I'll elaborate on the constitution of the SPV.

The SPV is created under the Company Act 2013 and thus fundamentally behaves as a Company with all its features. It permits the division of stakes in the form of distributive shareholding capacity. The shares could be divided between the State Government, Urban Local Governments and Private Investors. However, the equity holding is capped for all the parties. The SPV comprises members nominated by the State Government, the Union Government and the Urban Local Bodies. These members together form the board of directors, led by the CEO, who is an officer of Indian Administrative Services. Although nominated by appropriate levels of Government, all the members on the table are permanent executives, answerable to either state governments or the union governments. The local urban bodies that work at the grassroots that are in direct contac with the community do not have a say in the development projects undertaken by the SPV. They only get a notional representation, for the appointment of permanent executives comes from the state government level.

At the event, a KAS executive presented the projects undertaken. It was an elaborate 200 slides ppt filled with jargon unfathomable to the general public. The audience at the event comprised retired citizens of Jammu City. What was more shocking was not to find the youth of Jammu participating in this event. I would not want to conclude that the youth of Jammu is not interested in the development of the City, for it would be extrapolation way beyond the availability of data. However, I'd add that we must make more such observations to realize the actual scenario concerning youth participation in public discourse—more on it in another blog.

After a deep dive into the banal set of slides delivered with an unenthusiastic and languid presentation, I found the selection of projects to be arbitrary and distant from the needs of the public. Moreover, the scope of Jammu Smart City Limited is unencumbered by its name. It encompasses motley developments that previously fell under the ambit of the Jammu Development Authority and other state departments.

With their notional representation, the local bodies cannot decide on the choice of project. The local urban body, which is Jammu Municipality works at the grass root levels and is more aware of the needs of the public. However, the state government sidelines this local capacity, and private actors in the form of consultants play a significant role in project engagement. The SPV hires consultants that offer services, including ideation to delivery of a project. But in this process, the voice of the public goes unheard. Some developments made are redundant and some unnecessary. The Government never met the actual demands of the people since SPV never received their input. The whole process of making the City smart has its central stakeholder missing, i.e. the public. It points at decision-making by the powerful elite to the detriment of the general public's voice. It also goes against the spirit of Urban Governance.

While Government in spirit and on paper favours decentralization, it is not observed in its actions on a daily basis. The Smart City Project aims to improve the City's infrastructure, but the choice of projects signifies a somewhat different goal of cosmetic treatment of the City. Most projects intend to beautify the City without adding real utility. For instance, the beautification of the Tawi River Front. The reason for this project is to attract tourists to Jammu City, which I believe to be a hoax, for there is no empirical evidence that suggests that artificial beautification causes an increase in the influx of tourists. After all, Jammu is not comparable with Dubai, which can flex this ability.

The Smart City Project does not target the real troubles in the belly of the City but goes on to put ointments on the skin. Development is only a layer of concrete deep.

If we want to create a truly development-oriented Smart City Project, the SPV must hear the public's voice. It should inculcate procedures that allow for public discourse. It could be in any form, such as starting a website that captures the requirements of the citizens or an engagement through media, public events etc. It is imperative to keep the process transparent while creating mechanisms to keep the chairs accountable. Most importantly, the local urban body that is municipality, should have decision-making powers and a seat at the table. The seat could be made accessible to the representative of the public, that is mayor. For a healthy democracy, it is imperative to increase participation. And this paragraph suggests both direct and indirect participation of the public in the development process.

For now, I would want to conclude the blog by saying this;

The role played by smart City SPVs is that of hegemonic urban development bodies, which is not just antithetical to the democratic process but also reflective of regressive centralizing tendencies of the union and the state governments. It is also a departure from the spirit of good governance. This lacunae in governance perpetuate a more regressive spirit in public that discourages participation, be it in the form of civil societies or public interest groups or resident associations. The transformation a city needs must be a function of the demands of the public. It should not be a product of what the leaders see from the top. At the grassroots is where the answers lie.