Rural-Urban Continuum (GS Paper 1, Indian Society)
Context
- India is undergoing rapid urbanisation, which is reshaping its demographic and economic landscape.
- This shift is evident not only in major metropolitan areas but also in Tier II and Tier III cities and their surrounding peri-urban zones.
- However, India’s governance and financial frameworks still operate under a rigid rural-urban dichotomy, failing to account for the interconnected nature of these areas.
- This approach hampers effective development and sustainable planning.
India’s Urban Century and the Urban-Rural Continuum
Demographic Shifts:
- India’s transition from a predominantly rural to an increasingly urban society is accelerating.
- Urbanisation is not confined to large cities but extends to smaller towns and peri-urban regions, which are becoming integral parts of the urban landscape.
Challenges of Dichotomous Approach:
- The current governance and financial systems treat rural and urban issues separately, overlooking the reality of the urban-rural continuum.
- This separation fails to address the interconnectedness of urban and peri-urban areas, leading to gaps in infrastructure and services.
Over-Centralisation and Financial Constraints
Impact of Centralisation:
- Recent trends in over-centralisation have undermined the autonomy of local governments.
- The 13th Finance Commission highlighted the financial constraints faced by local bodies due to the tied nature of central grants, which are often linked to specific schemes and lack flexibility.
Example of Financial Misalignment:
- A notable issue is the interaction between property taxes in cities and the State Goods and Services Tax.
- Misalignment between these can lead to a loss of untied financial grants for towns, further straining local finances.
Urban Programmes Missing the Continuum
Swachh Bharat Mission and AMRUT:
- Flagship programmes like the Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) and the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) do not fully address the urban-rural continuum.
- AMRUT initially targeted liquid waste management in 500 cities but has since expanded to statutory towns, leaving many urban villages and census towns without adequate infrastructure support.
Exclusion of Peri-Urban Regions:
- Peri-urban regions and urban villages, which often host large populations of migrants and informal workers, are frequently excluded from urban infrastructure planning despite their proximity to urban areas.
- This exclusion reflects a rigid categorisation that fails to account for the interconnected nature of waste management and infrastructure needs.
Fragmentation in Waste Management Programmes
Separate Management Systems:
- The Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) and AMRUT address different aspects of waste management—solid waste and liquid waste, respectively.
- However, they operate independently, lacking collaborative infrastructure.
- This separation undermines the effectiveness of waste management efforts, especially in contiguous rural and urban regions.
Need for Integrated Systems:
- A collaborative approach to waste management, combining efforts across rural and urban areas, could improve outcomes.
- Greater autonomy for local governments to integrate these systems at the district or regional level is essential for better governance and project success.
Revisiting Governance Models
Current Governance Framework:
- The 73rd and 74th Constitutional Amendments established a framework that integrates Zila Panchayats and urban local bodies.
- However, this framework often falls short in practice, with district planning committees losing their intended central role in decision-making.
Strengthening Local Governance:
- Revisiting and strengthening these governance structures could enhance the ability of local governments to address the urban-rural continuum.
- Empowering District Planning Committees to play a more significant role in planning and implementation is crucial for addressing the interconnected challenges of urbanisation.
Kerala’s Example of Integrated Governance
Kerala’s Approach:
- Kerala offers a successful model of integrated governance with both urban and rural local bodies operating under the Ministry of Local Self-Governments.
- This integration facilitates coordinated decision-making and rapid response to issues, such as the withdrawal of a proposed landfill site due to public pressure.
Comparison with Other States:
- In contrast, other states often face delays and inefficiencies due to the separation of urban and rural governance frameworks.
- Kerala’s approach highlights the benefits of a unified governance structure in addressing urban-rural challenges effectively.
Conclusion
- To address the challenges of rapid urbanisation, India must move beyond outdated models of separate urban and rural governance.
- Integrating infrastructure and governance planning to reflect the urban-rural continuum is essential for sustainable development.
- Adopting collaborative and flexible approaches will better align with India’s evolving demographic and urban landscape, ensuring more effective and inclusive development strategies.
