It's time to change the SOP of how India builds

In India, we are grappling with authoritarian measures to build the Central Vista project in Delhi, and now the redevelopment plans for the Lakshadweep Islands. Both projects are facing opposition for the manner in which they are being facilitated. However, the reality is that projects as large as these have always been facilitated this way.

In Karnataka, too, there is little to no questioning of how we do things. The current structural framework allows and almost enables projects to be undertaken with little or no engagement with local stakeholders and no public participation at all. The Lakshadweep redevelopment plan has been cropping up every now and then for the last two decades. As the country grows richer, infrastructure projects of this scale are planned across the country. That is not a bad thing. However, all of these projects occur within a very limited and opaque framework, with token environmental and social safeguards; and with a few companies, of a certain size, winning the tenders. Much of this process is defined by standard operating procedures (SOP) in place.

Contemporary urban planning dynamics are theoretically based on negotiation and contractual relations. It should be about the active involvement and empowerment of the community. A truly consultative process would start well in advance of the redevelopment process, elicit discussions from all stakeholders, facilitate design competitions, conduct stakeholder meetings, create an open and level playing field for all firms to engage in the competition, shortlist and chose a firm based on the competition and make it mandatory that the winning firm facilitate a public participatory and consultative process throughout the redevelopment process so that the process is open and the design and development truly reflective of stakeholders. There are technical frameworks for meaningful consultative processes that can be used. These processes take time and effort but are well worth the engagement.

It is gratifying that people (more than the usual environmental and social activists) are questioning these projects today. Perhaps it needed a pandemic to bring the issue to the fore. It is important to contest the Central Vista and the Lakshadweep projects, but it is critically important to question the standards and procedures in place for (re)development projects across the country. Infrastructure development is boring, no doubt, but neglecting it as the problem of the State is exactly why we are in the situation we are in today.

Currently, large urban infrastructure projects follow a standard process. Due to the lack of ‘capacity’ within government, project statements are written by private parties close to political parties in power. The mission/vision usually has to be ratified by the state legislature. This is not complicated when the legislature is dominated by a ruling party. Also, legislators understand that these projects mean large amounts of monies in contracts further down the line. Invariably, infrastructure projects face little resistance in Parliament and pass with little debate. Once passed, the path of the project is smooth. Monies are allocated and the tendering process is facilitated.

Contractors known to the agencies involved in the ‘design/development’ of the project are shortlisted. Firms that bid have to have a minimum financial size and have to have undertaken similar projects over the last few years. Typically, in India, most firms are too small to bid for projects of this size and have little experience in large (re)development projects and so they join hands with large international firms.

With changes in laws (i.e., the land acquisition law of 2013 and the 74th Constitutional Amendment), public consultation has been written into the ‘development’ process. Unfortunately, this is still an academic exercise in most cases. People are usually the last to know, typically once construction has started (e.g., Smart City construction in Bengaluru). The process ‘informs’ the public of the project, states how the project is in the interest of the public, and provides the contact details of the local contractor, in case of grievances. In reality, the contractor has little power in resolving grievances and often out of frustration people give up complaining and accept the inevitable.

The current top-down structure devalues the participatory process and creates an atmosphere for more (re)development projects such as the Central Vista project — projects that are lacking in true public participation and environmental mitigation.

If we want a truly participatory process, the central, state and local governments need to wake up and redesign the SOPs used in infrastructure development. Devolution of powers and finance to the local level, as mandated by the 74th Amendment is also critical. Only once power is devolved to the local urban government/ward level will decisions about urban (re)development be truly driven by the community.

(The writer is a Bengaluru-based urban planner)