<p>Urban governance is now most needed in district-level cities in Karnataka. Karnataka is the only state in the country where even IT and ITES have spread to the districts and attract national attention. It is also true that even before the spread of IT and ITES, district cities such as Mysuru, Davangere and Gulbarga had come to be known as educational hubs. Dharwad in north Karnataka has for long been a cultural capital of not only Karnataka but of the entire country. Many district cities in Karnataka such as Bellary — being close to Hospet — and Mysuru are also tourist hotspots. <br /><br />Given this prominence of the district cities, why is their governance so poor? The question is not specific to Karnataka but applies to cities all over the country.<br />The governance of these cities is supposed to be done by urban local bodies as per the 74th Amendment to the Constitution. Their planning is supposed to be done by District Planning Committees. The DPCs, according to the statute, have to plan for both urban and rural areas together in a coordinated manner. Unfortunately, however, this does not happen as stipulated.<br /><br />Today, the governance of these cities is conducted by a small section of officers in the Deputy Commissioner’s office. And the DPC plays little role in the planning and governance of their urban growth and development. This problem needs urgent attention.<br /><br />District cities also attract migrants from rural areas, students from villages, and are home to the local poor. In the chain of migration, they are first stops for urban migrants. These are mostly also trading towns and commercial centres for villages and rural areas around them. For all these reasons, the significance of governance of these cities can hardly be overstated.<br /><br />In this scenario, it is sad that governance at this level suffers from three types of maladies: a) bureaucratic overreach over elected representatives; b) civic apathy; and, c) a neo-liberal trend in whatever policies are introduced to govern, with user charges being imposed on all public and private goods.<br /><br />Bureaucratic overreach in urban governance at the district level is conspicuous. Elected representatives play little role in taking major decisions, the district level bureaucracy dominates. That the urban governance section is housed in the District Commissioner’s office is a clear indicator of this.<br /><br />Secondly, these cities also suffer from civic apathy. Mittel Klass (sorry, middle class!) apathy towards anything public is well-known in this country. Civic apathy and increasing civic privatism are the credo of the upper and middle classes. Often, the middle class behaviour towards the marginalised within the same city can only be described as ‘thick-skinned’.<br /><br />The third issue, however, is municipal neo-liberalism. By this, we mean that the delivery of public goods, which is the responsibility of public institutions, is increasingly priced and privatised. In this model, the rich of the city get away by paying for services the same amount as the poor, who can’t afford to pay but still have to. These three issues need to be corrected at the earliest if Karnataka’s cities are to flourish.<br /><br />A word needs to be said about civic apathy and privatism of the urban middle class. Indeed, this is the section of society that is most vocal and can highlight the problems of the cities. However, often, it is concerned about its own locality, colony or residents’ welfare association.<br /><br />Consequently, urban citizenship suffers. It is true that big cities provide anonymity and impersonality for people from all sections, and this can be liberating, but when that turns into civic apathy and privatism and it infects even district-level cities, the result is lack of concerted collective action on issues concerning the common realm. Needless to say, urban citizenship in India is weak.<br /><br />Why bother at all about district-level cities? Because they are the future of urban India. Metros such as Bengaluru and Hyderabad can’t anymore take the governance stress. Already, the problems of these cities appear severely daunting. Hence, it is imperative that the focus shift towards more decentralised and self-governing district-level cities.<br /><br />Karnataka has always been known for progressive reforms in local governance. The same progressive, self-government reforms must now be applied to district-level urban governance, before it is too late. This should be done irrespective of the party in power. For, urban governance at this level has far too long been neglected.<br /><br />(The writer is Associate Professor, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)</p>
<p>Urban governance is now most needed in district-level cities in Karnataka. Karnataka is the only state in the country where even IT and ITES have spread to the districts and attract national attention. It is also true that even before the spread of IT and ITES, district cities such as Mysuru, Davangere and Gulbarga had come to be known as educational hubs. Dharwad in north Karnataka has for long been a cultural capital of not only Karnataka but of the entire country. Many district cities in Karnataka such as Bellary — being close to Hospet — and Mysuru are also tourist hotspots. <br /><br />Given this prominence of the district cities, why is their governance so poor? The question is not specific to Karnataka but applies to cities all over the country.<br />The governance of these cities is supposed to be done by urban local bodies as per the 74th Amendment to the Constitution. Their planning is supposed to be done by District Planning Committees. The DPCs, according to the statute, have to plan for both urban and rural areas together in a coordinated manner. Unfortunately, however, this does not happen as stipulated.<br /><br />Today, the governance of these cities is conducted by a small section of officers in the Deputy Commissioner’s office. And the DPC plays little role in the planning and governance of their urban growth and development. This problem needs urgent attention.<br /><br />District cities also attract migrants from rural areas, students from villages, and are home to the local poor. In the chain of migration, they are first stops for urban migrants. These are mostly also trading towns and commercial centres for villages and rural areas around them. For all these reasons, the significance of governance of these cities can hardly be overstated.<br /><br />In this scenario, it is sad that governance at this level suffers from three types of maladies: a) bureaucratic overreach over elected representatives; b) civic apathy; and, c) a neo-liberal trend in whatever policies are introduced to govern, with user charges being imposed on all public and private goods.<br /><br />Bureaucratic overreach in urban governance at the district level is conspicuous. Elected representatives play little role in taking major decisions, the district level bureaucracy dominates. That the urban governance section is housed in the District Commissioner’s office is a clear indicator of this.<br /><br />Secondly, these cities also suffer from civic apathy. Mittel Klass (sorry, middle class!) apathy towards anything public is well-known in this country. Civic apathy and increasing civic privatism are the credo of the upper and middle classes. Often, the middle class behaviour towards the marginalised within the same city can only be described as ‘thick-skinned’.<br /><br />The third issue, however, is municipal neo-liberalism. By this, we mean that the delivery of public goods, which is the responsibility of public institutions, is increasingly priced and privatised. In this model, the rich of the city get away by paying for services the same amount as the poor, who can’t afford to pay but still have to. These three issues need to be corrected at the earliest if Karnataka’s cities are to flourish.<br /><br />A word needs to be said about civic apathy and privatism of the urban middle class. Indeed, this is the section of society that is most vocal and can highlight the problems of the cities. However, often, it is concerned about its own locality, colony or residents’ welfare association.<br /><br />Consequently, urban citizenship suffers. It is true that big cities provide anonymity and impersonality for people from all sections, and this can be liberating, but when that turns into civic apathy and privatism and it infects even district-level cities, the result is lack of concerted collective action on issues concerning the common realm. Needless to say, urban citizenship in India is weak.<br /><br />Why bother at all about district-level cities? Because they are the future of urban India. Metros such as Bengaluru and Hyderabad can’t anymore take the governance stress. Already, the problems of these cities appear severely daunting. Hence, it is imperative that the focus shift towards more decentralised and self-governing district-level cities.<br /><br />Karnataka has always been known for progressive reforms in local governance. The same progressive, self-government reforms must now be applied to district-level urban governance, before it is too late. This should be done irrespective of the party in power. For, urban governance at this level has far too long been neglected.<br /><br />(The writer is Associate Professor, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Bengaluru)</p>
