INDIA’S SMART CITIES MISSION SMART FOR WHOM? CITIES FOR WHOM? UPDATE 2018 HOUSING AND LAND RIGHTS NETWORK Housing and Land Rights Network, India 1 GREEN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT GREEN PUBLIC PROCUREMENT: Policy and Practice within the European Union and India Authors: Ms Barbara Morton, Mr Rajan Gandhi Reviewed by: Mr Wandert Benthem and Dr Johan Bentinck (Euroconsult Mott MacDonald) Copy Editing by: Mr Surit Das Refer to the document on the project website (http://www.apsfenvironment.in/) for the hyperlinked version. Further information Euroconsult Mott MacDonald: www.euroconsult.mottmac.nl, www.mottmac.com Information about the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (www.europa.eu) and the website of the Delegation of the European Union to India Suggested(http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/india/index_en.htm). Citation: India’s Smart Cities Mission: Smart for Whom? Cities for Whom? [Update 2018], HousingLegal notices: and Land Rights Network, New Delhi, 2018 European Union LeadThis publicationContributors: has Shivani been producedChaudhry, with Swapnil the assistance Saxena, and of Deepakthe European Kumar Union. The content of Additionalthis publication Inputs: is theAishwarya sole responsibility Ayushmaan of the Technical Assistance Team and Mott MacDonald in Researchconsortium Assistance: with DHI and Madhulika can in no Masih way be and taken Salman to reflect Khan the views of the European Union or the Delegation of the European Union to India. Published by: HousingMott MacDonald and Land Rights Network G-18/1This document Nizamuddin is issued West for the party which commissioned it and for specific purposes connected with the captioned project only. It should not be relied upon by any other party or used for any other New Delhi – 110013 purpose. INDIA +91-11-4054-1680We accept no responsibility for the consequences of this document being relied upon by any other [email protected], or being used for any other purpose, or containing any error or omission which is due to an error www.hlrn.org.inor omission in data supplied to us by other parties. NewCopyright Delhi, notice June 2018 Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. ISBN: 978-81-935672-1-0 Printed in India. This report is printed on CyclusPrint based on 100% recycled fibres This report is printed on CyclusPrint based on 100% recycled fibres ii Design and Printing: Aspire Design, New Delhi Cover Photograph: Emmanuel DYAN / flickr 2 India’s Smart Cities Mission: Smart for Whom? Cities for Whom? INDIA’S SMART CITIES MISSION SMART FOR WHOM? CITIES FOR WHOM? UPDATE 2018 Housing and Land Rights Network, India iii Preface Most cities in India are characterized by stark dichotomies: social, spatial, and economic. The imagination of the cityscape, however, continues to shift towards a more exclusionary one, either oblivious to or exacerbating the multiple contradictions that have come to define our cities. Acts of commission and omission by state and non-state actors are contributing to growing segregation, ghettoization, and invisibilization and peripheralization of the poor. A rise in forced evictions, homelessness, inequality, and impoverishment are some of the consequences of this dominant urbanization paradigm, which accepts the ‘inevitability of urbanization’ as an indisputable reality without addressing its structural causes or impacts on the global ecosystem. State and policy interventions, instead, continue to be symptomatic rather than durable and holistic. An initiative that seems to strengthen this exclusionary vision, with policy directives, is India’s Smart Cities Mission. Initiated in June 2015, with the ostensible goal of creating 100 ‘smart cities’ in the country, the Mission completes three years on 25 June 2018. Since its launch, it has been enveloped in hope and skepticism, uncertainty and optimism, with as much space devoted to deliberating its potential as its challenges. On the second anniversary of the Mission, in June 2017, Housing and Land Rights Network, India (HLRN), undertook a comprehensive review of the first 60 selected Smart City Proposals with the purpose of understanding what the Mission is about and what it aims to deliver for the most marginalized among India’s urban population. The study by HLRN noted the absence of a human rights approach and—despite the Mission’s rhetoric of inclusion—a neglect of the urban poor and other marginalized constituencies in its proposals and practice. Our analysis had questioned whether the pursuit of a ‘smart city’ is the right strategic decision for India, given its low socio-economic indicators and large rural-urban divide. A year later, with 99 cities in India set to become ‘smart’ and investments worth Rs 2.04 lakh crore (2,039 billion) being planned in ‘smart city’ projects, the question we seek to ask is the same, but also different. Has the Smart Cities Mission helped in reducing inequality and promoting inclusive development in the cities where it is being implemented? And a year later, do our conclusions derived in June 2017, still hold true or not? With this objective in mind, HLRN used a human rights lens to analyse all 99 selected Smart City Proposals in order to assess their focus on marginalized groups, their vision for urban India, and their provisions for housing for low-income groups. Our study also examined media and government reports related to implementation of the Mission. This report presents the findings of our analysis as well as a set of recommendations for the government and other involved actors. As the Mission is in an over-drive mode to achieve targets that have been inordinately delayed, it is important to reflect on its journey so far, with the aim of improving the course of its future trajectory. While some ‘smart city’ projects could bring about positive achievements, the critical question is whether the gains are worth the costs – financial, ecological, and human, as well as the opportunity loss of not adopting an alternative approach. With one in six urban Indians still living without adequate housing and access to essential services, and high rates of violence and crime being reported against women, children, minorities, and Dalits in urban areas, a ‘smart city’ cannot just be about installing seamless digital connectivity, or making physical infrastructure more efficient and reliable. It has to be as much about investing in social infrastructure, about making iv India’s Smart Cities Mission: Smart for Whom? Cities for Whom? the city more ‘liveable’ for every resident – rich or poor, privileged or under-privileged. It is about secure housing; clean air and water; safe public and private spaces; and realizing the highest attainable standard of health. It is about inclusion; about every child being able to access quality education; and, the sense of safety that women, children, and minorities can rely on. It has to be about every resident—irrespective of income, religion, caste, gender, geographical location, political affiliation, and sexual orientation—having equal opportunities and being able to live with peace and security. The Smart Cities Mission (which is essentially a ‘smart enclaves’ scheme) should reinvent itself as the Sustainable Cities Mission, a shift required to bring about a substantial and sustained improvement in the lives and livelihoods of not only the eight per cent of India’s population covered by the Mission’s proposed ‘area-based development’ – but for every inhabitant of this country. Unless the Mission seeks to address structural inequalities and inadequacies in Indian cities, its piece- meal, project-based interventions will not work. It requires a fundamental re-envisioning exercise that places people, not technology and profit at the centre. A more concerted effort to include and focus on discriminated and excluded groups could help redeem the floundering Mission. Its lessons could help ensure the adoption and pursuit of a more balanced and equitable development paradigm while mitigating its contribution to the polarization and gentrification of urban spaces. The prevalent sphere of discordant urban realities and myopic interventions intensifies the exigency for the incorporation of a human rights and social justice approach, which is firmly grounded in the principles of non-discrimination, gender equality, participation, transparency, accountability, environmental sustainability, and democracy. Housing and Land Rights Network hopes that this report will help foster greater discussion on these important issues with the aim of promoting alternatives to restrictive and exclusionary ideologies of development. We call upon all involved actors to reflect on the proposed recommendations in order to support the creation of ‘human rights habitats’ in which the right of all inhabitants, in urban and rural areas, to live with equality and dignity is guaranteed. Let us focus on making our cities pro-people first; ‘smart cities’ are not necessarily pro-people. Shivani Chaudhry Executive Director, Housing and Land Rights Network New Delhi, June 2018 Housing and Land Rights Network, India v Contents Preface iv List of Acronyms viii Executive Summary ix I. Background 1 II. India’s Smart Cities Mission: An Overview 3 1. Smart Cities Selection Process and Timeline 3 2. Financing of the Smart Cities Mission 11 3. Convergence with Related Policies 13 4. Mechanism for Implementation of the Smart Cities Mission 13 5. Mechanism for Monitoring the Smart Cities Mission 13 III. A Human Rights Analysis of the Selected Smart City Proposals 15 1. Selected Smart Cities 15 2. Focus Areas of Smart City Proposals 16 3. Housing Provisions for Marginalized Groups in the Smart City Proposals 20 IV. Human Rights Concerns Related to the Smart Cities Mission 25 1. Failure to Adopt an Inclusionary and Sustainable Approach to Development 25 2. Absence of a Human Rights Approach to Planning and Implementation 29 3. Inadequate Participation and Information 31 4. Lack of a Gender Equality and Non-discrimination Approach 33 5. Forced Evictions, Forced Land Acquisition, and Displacement 35 6.