India’s smart cities can only work against its true aspirations kritika sha

India’s Smart Cities can only work against its true aspirations K. Sha MSc Student, Faculty of Architecture & Built Environment, TU Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT: India has recently embarked on an ambitious scheme of developing 100 smart cities, aiming to support its ever growing urbanisation. These cities are to become the image of development, which the government wants to present to the world. Although, the intent behind the need for such an ambitious project is justified, several questions have been raised about its planning process. One of its main criticisms is that the program will increase the existing crevasse between different strata of a very complex social structure. This is based on several aspects of the program - its over-reliance on smart infrastructure, not considering the sociocultural backdrop and ignoring the strong economic reliance on informality. The project in its current form, serving a limited clientele cannot serve the aspirations of the people as a whole, which means that it should be overhauled to ‘include’ rather than ‘exclude’ the people of India.

This program will have large social repercussions, which need to explored and debated, before embarking upon it.

1 INTRODUCTION 1.1The Premise Urbanisation has rapidly increased over the last century, at a rate which was beyond anticipation. The population in cities has boomed in the world, where in 1950, only 86 cities had a population of over 1 million, to in 2002 where this number is over 400 (World Urbanisation Prospects, 2002), and is increasing at an exponential rate. The 2014 revision of the World Urbanization Prospects by UN DESA’s Population Division notes that the largest urban growth will take place in India, China and Nigeria. These three countries will account for 37% of the projected growth of the world’s urban population between 2014 and 2050 (United Nations, 2014).

Part of India’s response to cope with this urbanisation is a massive national-level program proposing 100 ‘smart cities’, which was presented by the newly elected government in 2014.

This mega-project is also marketed as an opportunity for ‘image’ improvement, and is often seen as a method to catch up with the ‘free-world’ in terms of technology, resources and sophistication. The intended purpose of this project is often imagined to usher India into a model of sustainable and inclusive development.

This paper aims to debate upon the current approach in the smart-city program, highlighting in particular how it fails to incorporate the complex socio-cultural issues present in India, within its planning processes. This could lead to an increase of the existing crevasse between different strata of its very complex society. I will present this argument based on the key policy documents of the program which outlines its direction and media reports on its current status, thus helping me understand the implications of this program in its present form.

2 UNDERSTANDING THE PROJECT 2.1Defining the smart city Accepting that there cannot be a single definition for smart cities, the policy documents broadly defines a wish list and definitional boundaries to guide 100 selected cities into one mission. It specifies: “In the imagination of any city dweller in India, the picture of a smart city contains a wish list of infrastructure and services that describes his or her level of aspiration. To provide for the aspirations and needs of the citizens, urban planners ideally aim at developing the entire urban eco-system, which is represented by the four pillars of comprehensive developmentinstitutional, physical, social and economic infrastructure” (Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2015).

2.2The lack of coherence in approach These pillars, as stated are essential to the well-rounded development of any city. The approach by the government, in reality, however, has been predominantly focused on a ‘smart infrastructure’ (Fig.1) based development (Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2015).

This has been partially based on other international models of Masdar city, UAE and Songdo, South Korea in content, to other cities like Dubai, London, etc.in image, and is being marketed quite intensively. This is not new as similar instances have taken place by various state governments promising the transformation of Indian cities into the image of western global cities like London (The Deccan Herald, 2011). This plan of making Indian cities in the image of a “utopian” version of western and middle-eastern cities can have serious repercussions in its social strata, which the smart city program has not anticipated. There is a stark difference in what is marketed and what is perceived of the project by the various parties involved. This is more evident in the people who are responsible for the execution of this project - Bureaucrats, city planners, politicians, who are not on the same page or understanding, leading to an uncoordinated approach towards different perceived visions. The local citizens and bodies that have been included in the planning process represent a wider range of desires and a certain amount of distrust in the process and scale of implementation. These citizen bodies, unfortunately, only represent a privileged fraction of the population. For a new, smart city to fulfil its ambition of comprehensive development (Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2015), a wider spectrum must be considered. This would lead to a more nuanced project, incorporating the needs and voices of all and not just a select few.

Therefore, a coherent vision, understood and comprehended by all in the same vein, is necessary for a project of this magnitude, as a misinterpretation has repercussions not only in the physical environment, but also on the social environment. This ‘one vision’, currently absent from the program, has led to confusion at an early stage, which would only be compounded as it progresses in a country of over a billion voices.

Figure 1. India’s focus on smart infrastructure in the new cities

3CONTENT BEFORE CONTEXT 3.1The problems with ‘smart infrastructure’ A major part of the smart city paradigm derives from the concept of ‘smart infrastructure’, where the goal is to make existing infrastructure work in a more integrated way, whether it is waste, habitation or transport connectivity, with a heavy reliance on ICT services.

Many European and middle-eastern cities are fore-runners in the inevitable energy transition and smart techology. They see the linking up of infrastructures, technologies and services in key urban sectors (transport, buildings, energy, ICT) as a smart way to improve the competitiveness and sustainability in the built environment along with the quality of life. This has translated to a varied degree of success in promoting the successful use of technology to solve issues pertaining to essential services. Several companies, such as JICA, Japan have already invested in several ventures related to developing smart infrastruc6ture and logistics in urban environments in proposed smart cites of Ponneri, Krishnapatnam and Tumkur (Make in India, 2015).

A project of this nature requires a comprehensive scaling-up of concepts and design models that may not be suitable for developing countries such as India. A reliance on western planning models has seen developing countries struggle to cope with the expansion of their cities. The proposed high-scale models would be a struggle for most cities to implement. For example in a mid-sized city of Bilaspur - population 453,946 in 2011 (National Census, Govt. of India, 2011), the smart city project calls for a city-wide digital operating system, which will have electricity, water, healthcare, birth-death, credit card data, traffic licensing, penalties, etc. embedded in one system. This requires a large investment from technological companies, which has drawn criticism from the locals (The Guardian, 2016). The majority of the criticism stems from distrust in the actual realisation of the project in a system, which has failed to provide basic services of running water, electricity etc., to a large section of the population (World Bank Group, 2016). This leads to disbelief in a system which promises a ‘perfect city’, but has consistently failed to provide even the basic services to the poorest of its citizens.

3.2The small-scale model The over-reliance on these models of development has already resulted in the failure to manage the growth of cities in low and middle income countries, which are now combatting unplanned informal expansion. However, there are several examples of projects that offer a combination of innovation and ingenuity, while keeping in mind the backdrop and context. Projects such as the ‘destratifying cable cars’ of Caracas - which successfully illustrated that a communityaimed, bottom up approach can go a long way in unifying the favelas with the city (Urban Think-Tank, 2015) and Nairobi’s ‘digital matatus’- using mobile routing applications to create a new transit map to help the citizens navigate the informal public transport sector (Digital Matatus, 2015) prove that developing countries are now responsible for a long list of both technical and social processes that rival anything the developed world has to offer for ingenuity and practical utility (Fig. 2 & 3). Although, the planning processes of these projects were not simple to execute and had their share of challenges, the successful and inclusive nature of their result is undeniable.

Figure 2. The destratifying cable cars in Caracas, Venezuela

Figure 3. Digital Matatus – a new transit map, Nairobi, Kenya

3.3The current approach But, this is not the face of urban innovation that India wants to share with the world – as it could be possible that small-scale projects or the simple methods of the poor simply are not grand enough to convey the magnitude of increasing national ambition. We hear, instead, of schemes like Palava City, a futuristic vision of digital technology intertwined into everyday urban life (The Lodha Group, 2016) and Lavasa City - embodying an image of the European city (Lavasa Corporation, 2014). The overwhelming evidence is that this ‘aped urban policy’ has failed to secure social, or spatial, justice. Cities such as Lavasa (India’s first city built from scratch by a private enterprise with state support) have become ghost towns, with very few people choosing to settle there. Invoking the imagery of a classical Italian Riviera interspersed with the odd American diner, it is clear that the planners are trying to create Lavasa as far as possible from the current model of Indian Cities. The marketing tagline for such cities could easily be ‘Escape India’ (The Guardian, 2015). Lavasa has been widely reported as an unsuccessful venture, mainly because the planners failed to incorporate the aspirations of their clientele, i.e., the local population (Fig. 4).

Figure 4. Lavasa city, India – made as different as possible from typical Indian city

3.4The current approach On the other hand, India boasts of a unique ingenuity and an impressive informal economy (Fig. 5). Its self-grown cities are uniquely culturally diverse which forms the base of several successful ventures, rising from adapting and embracing informality. Informal markets (Fig. 5), informal industries amongst others often form the base for growth and development of large section of the society. Scholars such has De Soto (1990) often laud the need for informality in developing nations from Latin America to Asia, as they form a crucial part of the country’s economy (De Soto, H. 1990). Instead of India turning its back it, the smart city program should

be a tool to incorporate this informality into its future, bringing it out from the fringes. Currently being formed in the mould of cities like Lavasa and Palava, which have proven to be unsuccessful in India, the new smart city program instead provides a platform to embrace the sociocultural diversity of the country in a more integrated manner. Perhaps instead of the ambitious scheme of complete transformation, smaller and locally oriented projects (Illustrated by the success in Caracas and Nairobi) should form the base of the smart city program. Including local informality in the smaller schemes would ensure the participation of the poorest section of the society, ensuring a more resilient and inclusive urban transformation.

Figure 5. Informality in a typical Indian city: an essential part of urban areas, now excluded in the new vision

4 THE EXCLUSIVE NATURE OF THE PROJECT A very important point which needs to be addressed is the impact of such a massive project on the social structure of both existing as well as new towns. As per the official mission statement: The smart city project aims to improve the ‘quality of life’ of the people by enabling local area development and harnessing technology, especially technology that leads to smart outcomes (Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2015). It also talks about improving the liveability of the whole city and creating inclusive living areas.

This ambitious project, does have its intensions in the right place. It does strive for a better future for its citizens by providing them infrastructure, better homes, etc. However, it largely ignores the social behaviour of the biggest component of these cities: the people. It instead focuses on technology to improve the quality of life. It is important to note that technology can only improve upon the ‘standard of life’, whereas improving the ‘quality of life’ cannot be achieved through technological innovations only. For India’s true progress, both the ‘standard of life’ and ‘quality of life’ should be given equal importance. Only improving the ‘standard of

life’ will be a hollow version of the success that India desires, excluding the people who cannot afford a share in this new technologically dependant world.

The project describes a world where all the city’s residents, from the homeless to the slum residents to the occupants of penthouses, could use services online – where service connections such as water and electric power were easy to get, and all kinds of payments could be made by a smart phone or tablet (The Guardian, 2016). A world of blissful information technology, starkly devoid of human involvement. The smart city program is, therefore, nudging India towards information technology, instead of furthering local government and utilizing the power of its over 1 billion people.

To most, the project does sound like the answer to most of the problems that India is facing.

However, the country’s problems run deeper, and would not be solved by a superficial at-tempt.

Proposals for developing city wide technological grids (ISGF, 2016), controlled by a digital operating system should not be implemented in in a country where 300 million people live without electricity and almost double without access to toilets. These new proposed cities are relying heavily on automated systems like intelligent traffic management, automated garbage disposal systems and transport connected to smartphones (The Guardian, 2015), to keep them running. This would surely turn the cities into isolated islands for the privileged people. This emphasis on high-end infrastructure and superlative quality of life in this project hints at a discomfiting answer to the question: who the intended inhabitants of smart cities are likely to be?

The harsh truthful answer to this question is that it would only serve the upper-middle class and the wealthy, turning a blind eye to a majority of the population. Cities built on this model, like Lavasa (Fig. 4) are clearly gated communities, serving to a privileged few. Such an intricate system of infrastructure would require a huge investment to maintain and run smoothly. In sequence, these spaces can only be occupied with people able to afford them. Therefore, these spaces would mostly use prohibitive prices and harsh policing, to stop people from using the privilege of such infrastructure, so as not to override the government’s ability to maintain them.

This is not in line with the government’s ambition of an inclusive city. A total separation between the different strata of society in terms of money is inevitable in these smart cities. These will become cities highlighting borders and divisions, instead of the blurring them. In a country where a large portion of the population still struggles to receive basic necessities, providing such an elaborate establishment to a chosen few can only remind the rest of what they can’t have. Although, there is a large disparity already existing in Indian cities, this new program would only encourage it, rather than reduce it. This new form of increased division is fragile and cannot last forever, leading one to wonder when the inevitable collapse would occur.

For a truly inclusive smart city, the focus needs to move away from implementing high-end technology which would alienate a large section of the society. Instead, it needs to focus on an approach which can make basic services available to the majority of the population. Unless this gap in the ‘quality of life’ between different sections of society is bridged, any implementation of high maintenance ICT will only serve to increase this gap. The program in its current form would work best, if all sections of the population were at a median level of development. However, this basic prerequisite is not met in India and the architects of the program needs to therefore need to take it into consideration. A headstrong approach of matching developed nations as soon as possible should be therefore, re-paced.

5 IGNORING CIRCULAR URBANISM As mentioned earlier, the smart city program in part a response the rapid urbanisation of Indian cities. This is based on the need to upgrade existing cities to accommodate the increasing pressure of people migrating from the hinterlands. This phenomenon is not exclusive to India, however, India’s model of urbanisation and migration is different from other developing economies, which needs a different response than just simply upgrading cities.

The western model of planning is radically different from India’s with its strong focus of urbanization, as almost 85% of EU’s GDP is generated in cities, and they are central to delivering on key challenges for Europe’s society and economy (European Commission, 2015). India’s base is in the hinterlands, with 70% of the population living outside the cities and agriculture being a large source of its GDP (IBEF, 2016). The current government feels that it is time for India to take a bigger role in the world’s economy. Therefore a long-standing argument is being presented in India that no economy can grow on the basis of agriculture, and so it is inevitable that people would move to cities. This further extends to the belief that innovations with new technology emerge and belong only in cities. This leads to a lopsided development concentrated only in high-density clusters (already be-coming apparent in China), which can become detrimental. In their present form, several smart cities can essentially be relabelled as Special Economic Zones (SEZs). They are characterized as neo-liberal business-friendly zones, which receive big tax exemptions, with lax labour laws. They are also influenced by ‘privatized governance’, which renders local provincial government powerless against the larger corporations.

The cracks have already begun to show. China is now struggling to cope with its overloaded cities, especially in the metropolitan region of Beijing, with cities such as Tianjin, Tangshan and Suzhou expanding beyond their origins as ‘Special Economic Zones’. Till now China has been able to strictly regulate its workers between district boundaries so that migration to cities is kept in check (Migration Policy Institute, 2015). India, on the other hand, has a more fluid network and connection between urban and rural area, with workers regularly going back seasonally to till their farmlands. India’s process of “circular urbanism” differs from the standard model of dominating megacities and an empty hinterland. Its networked lifestyles are not quite suburban or simple rural either, as dual households remain profitable and socially important (Gidwani, V. & Sivaramakrishnan, K., 2003). One worker keeps shifting from being a farmer to a security guard, grocery shop owner to labourer, blurring boundaries between cities and their surrounding area (Fig. 6). Even then, cities remain key nodes in ever expanding economy of India. Neglecting either will not work. Therefore there is a pressing need to define the level of connectivity between these rural and urban areas and celebrate the existing contrast.

The smart city program current focusses solely on the development of urban areas, neglecting the crucial hinterland, without which the unique circular economy system collapses. In fact, it would make better sense for policies to forsake the rural and urban lines of directing investment, and recognize that India’s potential lies with the network of connections between these polarized areas. India is more networked than we care to acknowledge. A shift in perspective will help evolve a set of categories and suitable projects that do greater justice to the emerging urban landscape in India.

Figure 6. Migrating farmers at Jhansi, India as a part of circulatory urbanism

6 CONCLUSION India now stands at a crucial junction, where its actions would determine its future for the next century. The ‘100 Smart Cities’ program may work well on paper and propaganda, but the country’s harsh realities should not be swept under a rug. India’s complex and layered society should be perceived as a strength and not be discarded if it does not fit into a preconceived program. Sacrificing social stability for the utopian vision of development, can only lead to fragmented future in India’s path to development.

As illustrated, the exclusive nature of the smart city program, neglects the crucial social element at several levels. It offers hope of a developed India, but only to a select fraction of its population. The project, in its current form and serving a limited clientele cannot serve the aspirations of the people as a whole, which means that it should be overhauled to ‘include’ rather than ‘exclude’ the people of India.

7REFERENCES De Soto, H., 1990. The Other Path: The invisible revolution in the third world, New York.

Digital Matatus, 2015.

The Digital Matatus Project.

[Online] Available at: <http://www.digitalmatatus.com/about.html> [Accessed 22 July 2016] European Commission, 2015.

Urban Development Policy.

[Online] Available at: <http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/policy/themes/urban-development/ > [Accessed 23 July 2016] Gidwani, V. and Sivaramakrishnan, K., 2003. Circular migration and rural cosmopolitanism in India.

Contributions to Indian Sociology, 37(1-2), pp.339-367.

IBEF, 2016. Indian Agriculture Industry – An Overview. [Online] Available at: <http://www.ibef.org/industry/agriculture-india.aspx> [Accessed 14 August 2016] ISGF, 2016. Smart City Gyan. [Online] Available at: <http://www.indiasmartgrid.org/smartgridgyan.php> [Accessed 23 July 2016]

Lavasa Corporation, 2014. The Lavasa Life. [Online] Available at: <http://www.lavasa.com/> [Accessed 20 August 2016] Make in India, 2015. Smart Cities. [Online] Available at: <http://www.makeinindia.com/article//v/internet-of-things> [Accessed 20 August 2016] Migration Policy Institute, 2015. Destination China – The country adjusts to its new migration reality.

[Online] Available at: <http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/destination-china-country-adjusts-itsnew-migration-reality> [Accessed 14 August 2016] Ministry of Urban Development, Government of India, 2015. Smart Cities, Mission Statement and Guidelines. [pdf] Available at: < http://smartcities.gov.in/writereaddata/smartcityguidelines.pdf> [Accessed 21 August 2016] National Census, Govt. of India, 2011. Bilaspur City Census Data. [Online] Available at: < http://www.census2011.co.in/census/city/276-bilaspur.html> [Accessed 19 August 2016] The Deccan Herald, 2011. Kolkata will be London, Darjeeling another Switzerland: says Mamta.

[Online] Available at: <http://www.deccanherald.com/content/170759/kolkata-london-darjeelinganother-switzerland.html> [Accessed 21 August 2016] The Guardian, 2015. Inside Lavasa, India’s first entirely private city built from scratch. Available at: < http://www.palava.in/overview/visionofpalava> [Accessed 05 August 2016].

The Guardian, 2016. We don’t need IT here – the inside story of India’s smart city gold rush. Available at: <https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/jan/22/inside-story-india-smart-city-gold-rush-it> [Accessed 10 July 2016].

The Lodha Group, 2016.

Pallava City – Overview.

Available at: <http://www.palava.in/overview/visionofpalava> [Accessed 29 July 2016].

United Nations 2014. World’s population increasingly urban with more than half living in urban areas [online] Available at: <http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/news/population/world-urbanizationprospects-2014.html> [Accessed 21 August 2016].

Urban Think-tank, 2015. Fabrica de Cultura BAQ. [Online] Available at: <http://u-tt.com/project/fabricade-cultura-barranquilla/> [Accessed 22 July 2016].

World Bank Group, 2016. Inadequate Sanitation Costs India the Equivalent of 6.4 Percent of GDP. [Online] Available at: <http://water.worldbank.org/news/inadequate-sanitation-costs-india-equivalent64-percent-gdp> [Accessed 26 August 2016]