Why We Need To Actively Involve Indian Citizens In Urban Planning

            Over the years, governance structures in most Indian cities have followed a simple and traditional top-down approach with little or no room for citizen engagement. People rely on the good intentions of the mayor or the municipal corporation, who they trust will take decisions in the overall interest of its citizens. This system has worked fairly smoothly in most Indian cities as the focus of urban local bodies has essentially been on the provision of basic services. And while expectations may have remained low, in the situation that the unofficial trust code is broken and the citizenry are disenchanted with the local administration, there's not much recourse available to remedy the situation in the short term, and the status quo prevails.

No real framework exists within local government structures to ensure participation of the citizens in developing a city's agenda or plan.

However, this status quo in Indian cities is now being challenged by two key developments. The first is that cities are now confronted with newer challenges that were either irrelevant or considered unimportant in the past. Today, cities need to have plans in place to deal with climate change and its effects, develop resilient infrastructure systems, build and secure data network processes, ensure social cohesion etc.

The second and more important development is that India is getting younger by the day. Now, 761 million aspirational Indians are between the ages of 15-64. With estimates of 462 million now having some access to the internet and another 140 million to be added to the middle-class by 2025, there is a real chance to capitalise on the quickly changing demographic situation. In light of these changes, the idea of participative governance may well begin to be seen as the norm rather than the exception.

The challenge, though, is that no real framework exists within local government structures to ensure participation of the citizens in developing a city's agenda or plan. Involving citizens is merely seen as just one of many boxes to be checked in the whole planning process. Till a decade ago, the easiest way to tick this box was to organise an essay-writing and painting competition calling for proposals and ideas. In the present day, some amount of money is invested in developing a website, an Android app or a Facebook page through which citizens can respond by providing their suggestions or uploading pictures of potholes and suchlike.

More recently, as part of the Smart Cities Competition, several cities sought to seek inputs from the citizens in order to be graded highly and make the final cut. However, as various reports have now emerged, most decisions with respect to the design and planning were already in place and these events were merely a façade to promote what had already been decided.

The current approach is far from participative. Cities hire international consultants like McKinsey, PwC, E&T etc. who then seek out technology vendors such as Cisco, Siemens, Tata, L&T, Microsoft that offer solutions like intelligent traffic management systems, smart street lighting solutions and a bouquet of IoT services. These projects are then incorporated into the overall plan. Some effort is made to show that the projects were a culmination of extensive consultation with the citizens and the community, which is far from the truth.

Some effort is made to show that projects were a culmination of extensive consultation with the citizens and the community, which is far from the truth.

When confronted about this phenomenon recently, an IAS officer was quick to point out to me that while having utopian notions of ensuring inclusivity in the planning process makes for great prose and intellectual debate, it was easier said than done in a complex and densely populated country like India. The top-down approach is so deeply embedded within our governance systems that the overall economic, political and social cost of charting a new pathway might in fact be counterproductive, particularly in the short term. Although cynical, it was a valid reservation. There's potentially more to lose if citizen engagement only delays the planning process, owing to little or no organisational capacity within urban local bodies or the lack of interest among other stakeholders, including the citizenry

In the current paradigm, it's become all about getting the ball rolling on the ground in the shortest possible time. The situation in our cities is already so bad that rapid prototyping and deployment of different technology solutions is seen as the only way out in the existing ecosystem. In this process filled with uncertainty, some projects may succeed and these may be scaled and implemented elsewhere. This method of constant trial and error is synonymous with a view held by noted American urban planner Robert Moses:

"You can draw any kind of pictures you like on a clean slate and indulge your every whim in the wilderness in laying out a New Delhi, Canberra and Brasilia, but when you operate in an overbuilt metropolis you have to hack your way with a meat axe."

The top-down approach is so embedded... that the economic, political and social cost of charting a new pathway might in fact be counterproductive, particularly in the short term...

As we reimagine what our cities and public spaces could look like in the 21st century, there is an immediate need to support cultural pluralism while incorporating a spectrum of voices and histories that promote participation and engagement. In principle, the Union Minister for Urban Development, Venkaiah Naidu ranks citizen engagement very high on his priority list. While it is still left to be seen if this translates to an institutionalised change in mindset, several micro-initiatives championed by the local community and civil society are now taking shape independently in a number of cities. The government apparatus must assume an ethical obligation to work in a collaborative fashion to gather the voices of community members. It must advocate for this diversity of voices on their behalf as well as provide the necessary impetus to pilot, scale and institutionalise successful initiatives.

If done right, technology can play its part in citizen engagement. For example, the city of Nagpur has identified a 6-kilometre "smart strip" to be equipped with a range of state-of-the-art ICT interventions such as smart transport, solid waste management, smart lighting etc. As citizens go about their lives around this 6km strip, the government will be able to gauge the degree of success of each service through constant feedback gathered from users. Big data also can potentially reveal patterns, economic trends, and associations relating to human interaction with technology.

Small data, a concept pioneered by author Martin Lindtsrom, will also be critical. In the framework of the city, small data would refer to planners and designers relying on a mix of keen observations of small samples and applied intuition by spending time with real people in their own environments and understanding how they interact with the city. Both big and small data are equally vital and one cannot possibly work without the other. In the words of Lindstrom, if we want to glean real insights, big data and small data would have to be "partners in dance."

[Republished with due permission of the Author. Originally published here]

About The Author:

Nandan Sharalaya is a German Chancellor Fellow and is sponsored by the Alexander von Humboldt Stiftung and the Institute for Industrial Organisation at WHU, Otto Beisheim School of Management. He is also the Founder & Editor of The Decent Neta.

Read more »

Demon-itization & Terror Financing: Are we there yet?

In what is being labelled a Surgical Strike against black money, the government, without the slightest of hints, has demonetised a large portion of the Indian currency.  This swift manoeuvre was targeted at a diverse stratum of defaulters, which includes everybody from politicians to the Seth Ji next door. However, this initiative is being lauded primarily for the big gash it would leave on terrorism in India. Eminent people including the Defence Minister has showered heavy praise on this move calling it a strike on the “Core of terror funding.” In this regard, the article aims to study the various modes of terror financing and the effect of the demonetization scheme on them.
Terrorism holds a major stake in the flourishing counterfeiting racket. Reports suggest that Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the ISI, has access to templates of Indian currency. This, along with the fact that India and Pakistan, both, buy the similar ink and silver lining, makes it extremely easy for state and non-state actors across the border to accurately counterfeit Indian currency.

Hordes of fake notes are discharged into the Indian economy, after manufacturing, either by infiltrating insurgents or through the hawala system, which is another important source of income for the terror organisations. This modus operandi came to light through the arrest of many terror operatives, the most famous being David Coleman Headley, the primary scout during the 26/11 attacks on Mumbai. Interrogation revealed that the entire Mumbai expedition was financed through high quality fake notes.Instances like the above and scores others have led investigators to believe, that the primary source of terror financing in India is counterfeiting currency.

Therefore, what the Centre has essentially done with the demonetisation scheme is rob the terrorists of their primary source of funding.  In its essence, the initiative renders the huge caches of fake Indian currency with terror outfits, worthless. It leaves insurgents with little to  no money to carry out missions or even survive in India.

Secondly, the initiative also tightens the noose around arms dealers and the drug trafficking mafia. India’s gun markets have been the go-to places for terrorist sleeper cells or recruits from within the country to procure weapons. Infamous markets like the Munger gun market in Uttar Pradesh run entirely on black money. From the manufacturers to transporters and the customers, which range from small time criminals to terrorists, everybody with a stake in these underground markets operate on black money. Therefore, demonetisation would lead to the immediate collapse of such markets and create a huge supply gap in the illegal arms trade. It can be concluded that, along with losing sources of income, terrorist now have been left with absolutely no place to stock inventory and buy weapons and explosives to carry out their objectives.

Further, like the arms industry, narcotics dealing also runs on stock piles of black money. Capitalising on this, terrorist organisations profit considerably from transporting opium from Afghanistan and smuggling it into Indian territories, majorly, Rajasthan and Punjab. Like anything that runs on non-taxable money, the drug industry would also collapse days after the implementation of the move. With this, the government can celebrate the delivery of yet another blow to terror financing in the country.

So far, I have commented on the various effects of the demonetisation of notes, with respect to the terror financing in the country. However, I would like to add that despite of various adverse effects the initiative might deal with, it is sadly not a strategy that deals a 360-degree blow. To prove my point further, I have listed a few points that have been overlooked by the  policy makers.

Firstly, a major drawback with the design of the new currency is that there are no significant differences from the older notes. The changed graphics, colour and denominations may seem enough to prevent duplicating, but sadly are not. The new notes use ink and lining from the same vendor as before, and, the fact that the security features remain same is concerning. It is only a matter of time that the counterfeiting industry figures out a way to bypass the meagre changes induced by the government. Therefore, it would be justified to say that the policy makers did not opt for a very far sighted approach but stuck to a one that would avail short term results.

To affirm long lasting results, India must make a strong effort directed at the international community to stop the vending of ink and other raw materials, to unofficial buyers. It must also make diplomatic parleys with the government of Pakistan to ensure material doesn’t end up with terror organisations and pressure it to beef up security. Additionally, the international community through the U.N. must be persuaded to pass resolutions that ban and lay down strong deterrent measures to curb counterfeiting of currency. To achieve the deterrent effect internally, a suggested way would be to bring counterfeiting under the anti-terrorism laws of the country and pronounce strict punishments.

Further, though gun markets in India will face the brunt, markets outside the country will be unaffected. It must be noted that a major part of terrorism is carried out by insurgents infiltrating the border. These operatives, seldom carry weapons that originate in India and function solely on weapons manufactured beyond Indian borders and paid for in foreign currency. Hence, the shutting down of indigenous gun markets will prove to be a precision shot for your local don but a mere flesh wound for terrorist organisations. The only way supply to terrorists can be stopped is to physically crack down and put an end to internal gun markets as well as tighten security at the borders to prevent supply from abroad.

To conclude, I would like to reiterate a view opted by many experts, stating that terrorism is like not a single headed demon but multi headed monster. It is a self-sustaining movement that has umpteen ways to finance itself, some of which are listed above. The demonetisation of Rupees 500 and 1000 notes will indeed hinder terror operations in the country, but in my view, only for a short time. Though the Prime Minister’s effort can be lauded, it must be understood that this initiative must be complemented by several more, such as strengthening legislation, surgical strikes and others. It’s high time that terrorism is cornered and initiatives drawn to strike all its heads at once. Hence, the monster shall be slain.

About the Author:

Nazeer if a fifth year law student from the Faculty of Law IFHE. He is an avid reader of war history politics and law. He has high interest for foreign policy and the legality of armed conflict. He is also a staunch pacifist.

Read more »

Do Your Bit- Indian Nobel Laureate Kailash Satyarthi launches Youth Campaign

Every 6 minutes, a child goes missing in India. Every hour 2 children are sexually abused in our country. While education and technology area reaching great heights, 168 million children still toil as labourers. While children never create war, over 63 million children in conflict affected areas like Syria and others, are out-of- school.

Children – the future of humanity - are being exploited, despite mankind’s great advancements. Till when will this go on? This crisis calls for a concerted and compassionate effort, with utmost urgency.

To put an end to violence against children, the first Indian-born Nobel Peace Laureate Kailash Satyarthi is launching the ‘100 Million for 100 Million’campaign. It’s a youth campaign that will have young people from all across the word take onus of making the world child-friendly. Through the campaign, 100 million youth will stand up to be the voices of the voiceless 100 million children and youth.

The campaign is being launched from the Rashtrapati Bhavan on December 11, where the President along with Nobel Laureates and Leaders will flag it off. These Nobel Laureates and world leaders are coming together for the first time for the cause of children to join the Laureates and Leaders For Children Summit by Kailash Satyarthi.

As law students, we can utilize our strength and knowledge, to become the marshalls of this noble campaign. To join the launch of the campaign:

1. Join your voice for children

Be a part of an extraordinary moment, when the youth will come together to stand up and act for millions of left-out children of the world. Speak in one voice, one message for our children.

What you can do? Sign up on Thunderclap on the link via your social media handles on Facebook and/or Twitter. It will be launched at 1330h IST on 11th December 2016.

2. Let your friends know

Facebook is creating a special filter for the “100 Million for 100 Million” Campaign. Let your friends and family know that you will do your bit for children.
What you can do?Change your Facebook profile picture to pledge your support at 1530h IST on 11th December 2016. The frame would go LIVE at 1500h IST at www.facebook.com/KSCFIndia. 

3. Fist Bump for Freedom

A fist bump signifies friendship, equality and partnership. To show that you are a part of a campaign promotes equal participation of children, do a fist bump with a child and record it.
What you can do? Do a “fist bump boomerang” with a child to pledge your support for the campaign. Alternately, you can record a 4-second-long video. We ask that you do not undertake this activity with a child in a situation of exploitation i.e. children working at dhabas, begging on street etc. Kindly respect their dignity.

“I will do my bit for children. (Tag/Nominate a friend) #DoYourBit. Join @k_satyarthi for 100millionfor100million.org” – Suggested Twitter/Facebook Post

This campaign will harness the energy, enthusiasm and idealism of 100 million young people.It is Kailash Satyarthi’s belief that every young person is a changemaker, a champion and a leader. 

In his opinion we, as lawyers and law students have a particularly important to play in this Campaign in not only standing up for vulnerable children, but also bringing about a positive change in their lives. Thus, Kailash Satyarthi Children’s Foundation and Bachpan Bachao Andolan (BBA), the grassroots organisation run by Mr. Satyarthi, is reaching out to you to support the Campaign. Do your bit in help to build a better tomorrow for all.

Log on to http://100millionfor100million.org/ to become a part of this historic Campaign. Use the #DoYourBit to show your support.

Read more »

Key To Thoughtful Legislation: Creation of a Consultative Council

Sachin Tendulkar’s ostensible disregard for his attendance at the Council of States, to which he was appointed by the President in 2012, highlights a crucial problem with the nominees elevated to the Rajya Sabha, which is their apparent disinterest in parliamentary proceedings. Article 80(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution highlights that twelve members shall be nominated by the President to the Council of States. The nomination of the retired cricketer Mr. Navjot Singh Sidhu, among others, reflects upon the urgency to rethink about the stated clause and introduce a permanent body that is competent enough to aid the Parliament in law making.

An alternative to Clause (a) of Article 80 was suggested by Prof. K.T. Shah in the Constituent Assembly Debates in 1949. His speech termed legislative drafting as a ‘fine art’ and a task too complicated for majority of the people’s representatives, whom he thought of as “laymen”. He advised the framing of what he termed as the ‘Consultative Council’, which in his opinion, must be a permanent body established by a constitutional mandate to aid the Parliament in drafting legislations.

Inspired by Lord Hewett’s concept of New Despotism, which is a theory to arm the civil services with wide discretionary powers including quasi-judicial decision making, Professor Shah recommended the formation of a body that includes experts from the fields of agriculture, industry, commerce, mining, forestry, engineering, public utilities, social service and economics to advise the Parliament and the Council of Ministers in matters concerning their respective fields. He asserted that these members would not be lawmakers in the true sense of the word, as they will not be burdened with any administrative or executive functions like the other members, and their sole objective would be to concentrate on building sound legislations.

 He then went on to submit that the Council should only be selected on merit. Training and experience in the said fields must be the sole criterion for inclusion in the body. He further suggested that these members should be paid handsomely and be given due respect for their contribution to the Parliament and influence on the Council of Ministers.

The said proposition was submitted before the assembly vide Amendment No. 1377 to Article 80. However, it was criticised by a few members. R.K. Sidwa opposed the proposition on the ground that the number of members proposed by Professor Shah to each committee was not agreeable. He contended that the government on previous occasions had consulted experts in matters of importance and there was no need for a constitutional provision for such a committee when it can be constituted under an Act passed by the Parliament. In his opinion, giving the committee a constitutional status will result in giving them undue privilege.

The list of critics also included Dr. Ambedkar, who, like Sidwa, argued that the government indeed consults experts before passing a Bill. His substantive argument, favouring his own amendment, was firstly, that the twelve nominated members by the President, were sufficient as expert opinion, and secondly, he proposed to later move an amendment that allowed the President to nominate three additional members, whenever the President felt necessary to do so. He submitted that these experts must continue to be members of the House, till the bill requiring their assistance is disposed of, but stated that they should not be allowed to vote.

Certainly, the proposal of Professor Shah was noted on valid grounds in the light of circumstances prevailing post-independence, when members possessed plenty of verve towards the construction of legislations. However, contemporary nominees are not as dedicated as their predecessors and they remain persistent in carrying on with their former occupations or venture into new ones and disregard their parliamentary obligations. Another argument against nomination under current circumstances is that twelve expert nominees is not an appropriate number to persuade two hundred and thirty-eight other members with their expertise.

Professor Shah additionally recommended that the clause needed to be more comprehensive. The author is of the opinion that Professor Shah’s recommendation has an edge over the existing clause, as in addition to the current fields from where nomination of persons should be done, namely, arts, literature, science, and social service, it provides for categories that are less ambiguous, legislation centric and are branches of governance that have the largest impact on people. Lastly, although it is true that the government does form expert committees to aid in legislation making, it is also a well-known fact that the constitution and functioning of these committees is rather cumbersome.

Thus, this suggestion proposing a permanent body with high expertise is the need of the hour; however, it must be restructured to include areas of lawmaking that have evolved due to growing security concerns, changing geopolitical motives, technological expansions, booming businesses and climate change. The success of this idea is essential to set out thoughtful legislation and a higher benchmark for law making bodies worldwide.

About the Author:

Nazeer U. Khan, is a 5th year BBA.LLB. student from the Faculty of Law, IFHE. He is holds high interest for the legality of armed conflict and is a staunch pacifist.

Read more »