Dr Kundu Delves into the Triumphs and Turmoil of Urban India

This 21st Century is being hailed as the Asian Century, specifically belonging to India and China—two of the most populous countries in the world. As our overall population continues to swell, so does the number of people living in our cities, currently standing at approximately 35 per cent. So is the demand for affordable housing, better civic services, employment opportunities, etc. Our cities are facing several other pressures stemming from climate change, inequality and haphazard development. Can India, the fifth largest and ‘fastest-growing economy’, effectively meet the mounting demands within its cities?

In this edition of one-on-one, Abhishek Pandey, Editor Urban Update, speaks to Dr Amitabh Kundu, a distinguished Fellow at Research and Information Systems for Developing Countries. Dr Kundu is a revered authority in the realm of urban affairs, owing to his extensive background and expertise in social sciences, economics, urban development, and housing. The objective of the conversation is to know Indian urbanisation patterns, problems and possible solutions. He has also held prominent positions such as Chair of the Committee to assess the well-being of Minorities in the Post Sachar period, Professor, and Dean of the School of Social Sciences at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Director of National Institute of Urban Affairs, and member of the National Statistical Commission. Excerpts from the interview…

Let me start with India’s urban journey. How has this journey unfolded in the past 75 years? When we juxtapose India’s urbanization trajectory with that of Asia, as well as developed and developing nations elsewhere, what distinct differences do you observe?

Firstly, thank you for the slightly inflated introduction. It’s an honour and privilege for me to be a part of this one-on-one series of Urban Update. Now, if you look at the global data set brought out by United Nations, that is World Urbanisation Prospect, you would see that in India, right from 1950 onwards to 2011, the growth rate of urban population has been very low, even among the South Asian countries. The only country which had a similar or a slower growth rate is Sri Lanka. Bangladesh and Pakistan also have a much higher rate of urban growth, although it is nothing compared to Latin America.

Latin American countries in 1940 had the same level of urbanisation, with 20- 30 per cent of people living in urban areas. But within five decades, they have come to 75 – 85 per cent, whereas Asian countries including India have moved from 18 per cent to 32 per cent, in some countries to 40 per cent. So certainly, Asian urbanisation has been on the conservative side.Also, identification of new census towns has been very stringy and identification of the peripheral areas, to be brought in within the urban limits, has also been restrictive. These factors tell us that the growth rate of the urban population in many Asian countries, particularly India, is on the lower side.

Our economy opened up after 1991, but our urbanisation growth rate, which was at its highest between 1971 and 1981, declined and then became stagnant. What is your point of view on this? And why did our growth rate accelerate between 1971 and 1981?

First of all, the 1971 census was slightly on the conservative side, so the base was slightly low that’s why the growth rate becomes higher. But then the growth rate came down and there was economic stagnation as well. But the 2011 census shows a growth rate of 2.75-2.76, more or less the same as 1991-2001. Growth rate of the urban population has been more or less stable between 1991 and 2011, because the 2011 census identified 2,800 new census towns, which is exceptional. Earlier we always had less than 300-400 new towns coming up; for example, 2001 census had 500 new towns. But suddenly you add 2,700 new towns, so the growth rate also came up. If there were same number of new towns coming up, our growth rate would have been much low.

So, I think there is some element of census activism that they should identify a few more towns and that is likely to continue. Many of the villages that have already acquired urban characteristics, like density, percentage of workers outside agriculture, and size, will now be identified as urban in the 2021 and 2031 censuses. And that’s why I believe the UN has projected that the growth rate of urban population will speed up and by 2050 India with 54 per cent of people living in urban areas. NITI Aayog and Government of India’s projection is about 8-10 per cent less than that. I am quite sure that the reality will lie between that and India will be touching 50 per cent urbanisation by 2050.

As you have taught economics and social sciences in different universities, how do you look at urbanisation in India from an economic point of view?

The rate of economic growth certainly affects the pace of urbanisation. It is also about what kind of strategy we have. If our growth strategy is only to take advantage of the global market, then you need the big cities and you need to link up with the global capital market and that has a problem.

Danny Rodrik, who talks about premature deindustrialisation, says that the developing countries that are dependent on external market through the large cities are experiencing premature deindustrialisation because the global uncertainties get imported into the developing countries. As you said economic growth impacts urbanisation, its impact will be much more significant if the cities are networking with the small and medium towns and taking advantage of the local demand as has been envisaged by Goal 11 of Sustainable Development Goals. Your heavy dependence on the global capital market and global city system is certainly going to be a risk factor. It may get you into the trap of premature deindustrialisation and your urban growth rate would suffer. That’s why I think the present strategy of the government of India is to have more spatially balanced urbanisation, which can be sustainable.

People come to cities in search of opportunities because they are considered ‘engines of growth’ – a cliché statement used time and again. But in a state like Kerala, where the line between urban and rural is blurry because medical and educational facilities are available in rural areas also, why do people still come to cities? Will better living conditions remain a factor in the coming decades?

I can’t agree with you more. All the empirical evidence being quoted to defend that kind of postulate is that a large percentage of the GDP of the country is coming from a few cities. But that is not development; that is simply showing concentration. Being the engine of growth means they should be leading. They should be able to carry the passenger and the goods traffic. They should be able to really take the whole regional system along with them.

There are many radical scholars who believe that cities are not centres of growth but they are centres of surplus generation and exploitation. Most of the colonial cities did that, it generated surplus and siphoned it to the metropolis. Even today in many of the less developed countries, the cities are performing that role of taking the resources out of the country. So, cities should be engines of growth by linking up with the regional settlement. Also, it is extremely important to tap the local demand because global demand is subject to fluctuation.

But then of course in modern times, you have to depend on the global technology market, for investment. But if you can balance local and global demand then your urbanisation model could be sustainable.

When cities are deciding for themselves, they listen to their citizens. For example, when Smart Cities Mission was developed and SPVs were asked to implement it, they took the point of view of citizens. Do you think that the 74th Amendment brought these kinds of changes where citizens are engaged in decision-making?

To some extent, you are right. Participation of the local population certainly has increased and you do find that the city governments are trying to address the needs of the local people who are going to vote for them. For example, in the smaller states which have large cities that account for much of the total output, there is a huge subsidy culture. That is a problem for the national development process. There are implications for cost recovery in the other sectors.

You find during the COVID-19 period, a large number of states (I have analysed 14 states particularly) including Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and even Madhya Pradesh passed resolutions or ordinances and proposed that the migrants from other states don’t get the jobs at the lower level. Even for the private sector, many of the states have said, we would like you to employ the local people, which to some extent I can understand for a backward state, but that certainly disintegrates or fractures the labour market in the country. It restricts migration from large cities. I understand that they have to cater to their needs, but many of the cities don’t care about their peripheries. There is a degenerated peripheralisation because the cities don’t want to include the peripheral areas within their boundaries, and they are the people who have high infant mortality rates, poor health conditions, and poor educational conditions; that too, right on the periphery of the large cities which have a much higher quality of life.

So, I have a feeling that regional planning content has to be there and while cities should have the liberty and the responsibility of catering to their population, the regional responsibility cannot be given up.

In one of your articles ‘Urbanisation and Urban Governance: Search for a perspective beyond Neo-liberalism’, you said, “The process of urbanisation has also become exclusionary in nature, as only a few large cities with a strong economic base are able to raise resources for development, leaving out small and medium towns.” Can you elaborate on this?

You see, this neoliberalism in a way allowed the large cities, in fact, all the cities, to be independent, mobilized resources on their own, and to some extent, give some freedom in terms of taxation. Now, we know for sure that the large cities (I’m talking about million-plus cities and also one lakh-plus cities) which are class one cities, have a stronger economic base that they can tax. As far as small towns are concerned, there is not much of an industry to address, not much of a service sector, and also people’s average income is less, number one.

Number two, small towns are not able to attract private capital, because it is not profitable for private investors to come to the small towns. Also mobilizing the capital market through bonds, and debentures is much easier for the large cities. They can construct and create Special Purpose Vehicles and get that money. The smaller towns are not getting it. This new liberalism, certainly by giving that kind of liberty to an extent, has allowed the large cities to corner much of the capital market and also pressurize the government to have programs with them. I think that the government should think about smart villages, smart small towns, which are efficient.

I think the thrust has to be, and to an extent, (as far as I can read the NITI Aayog’s different documents) is towards more spatially balanced and inclusive development, which needs to be promoted in order to accelerate the growth rate of urban population.

Our census is delayed. It is going to affect municipal access to finance. After all, based on the finance commission recommendations, it depends on the number of people living in the city. What strategy do you suggest to municipalities so that they can access these funds?

I think this is a very important concern. If you don’t have the population figures, then many of your programmes are being prepared in a suboptimal manner. The decade 2011-2021 has been a disaster for health. It has also been a disaster for the economy at least for two years and for the data system as well because we are not able to have even proper NSS rounds. We don’t know what the poverty level is from the official government system.

I was an advisor to the Sri Lankan government and what we did there was that we estimated the population of different cities through satellite images. You get the built-up area in different colours which reflects different densities and based on the different categories of built-up areas you classify them into 15-20 categories. For each category of built-up area, you have density figures estimated from the past data or through surveys. So, you get a satellite image of the built-up area in and around the city and then you take the density figure and multiply it by the built-up area, so you have some reasonable estimates. The census, then, can further strengthen that.

Talking about the governance issues of cities, at present, what do you think are the major challenges our cities are facing right now? Because there is the challenge of climate change disasters and there is also climate-induced migration.

Within urban areas, I find the major challenge is that of inequality, in access to employment, access to basic amenities, and drinking water facilities, particularly in middle-level towns. Smaller towns have a very high deficiency. Inequality in access to education, access to employment, access to health facilities and basic services is something that needs to be addressed and the present system of governance is not able to do that.

I’ll tell you, you know, there is a demand that ward levels should also have the right to organise water supplies, sanitation and other local needs. Big cities on the other hand think that why should the affluent areas take the burden of the poorer areas? I think that would be a very wrong thing, to divide a big city into five parts and depending on the affordability, this smaller size should provide the facilities.

There has to be some minimum norm for the urban centres and if you do find that certain localities, certain areas, where the people are poor and are not able to pay for the minimum cost of the services, the government has to come in because the health hazard that you talked about may emanate in the slum areas, but the entire city population gets affected.

So, the responsibility of ensuring the minimum level of water supply and sanitation facility should be that of the overall city government and not the ward committees. Dividing the city into four or five parts, and then justifying the unequal access in terms of the paying capacity of the people is certainly not desirable.