Pavan K. Varma | The Corrupt Collapse Of India’s ‘World-class’ Cities

What is happening to our cities? To my mind, beyond the glitz of skyscrapers, flashy malls and hype of smart cities, the stark truth is that India’s urban infrastructure is on the verge of collapse, and nobody seems to care. Roads crumble, drains overflow, flooding is common, unauthorised colonies proliferate, pollution kills, power and water supply is uncertain, and manholes and potholes periodically take innocent lives. This is the nightmare an ordinary citizen has to go through daily in a city.

The recent collapse of a five-storey PG hostel building in Delhi’s Satya Niketan is a grim illustration. The building, reportedly around five decades old, collapsed on September 6, killing seven people and injuring others. Preliminary reports establish structural weaknesses, unauthorised alterations, and criminal complicity by supervising authorities. The tragedy is that lakhs of students live in such PGs in Delhi alone. We praise our young, but let them die from neglect. Nor are these failures restricted only to the metropolises. Our second- and third-tier cities are urbanising rapidly, but in the most haphazard manner, without planning institutions, technical personnel or financial resources required to cope with the transformation.

This is our pathetic state when, ironically, India has, compared to international standards, a minimum urban load. According to World Bank data based on UN urbanisation estimates, about 35.7 per cent of India's population lived in urban areas in 2025. China, by comparison, was already at 66.3 per cent. The contrast with developed countries is even more striking: the corresponding figure is around 80 per cent in the United States, 82 per cent in Canada, 78 per cent in Germany, and 85 per cent in the United Kingdom. The basic point is that India is much less urbanised than China and the developed world, but its urban infrastructure even at this level of urbanisation is in shambles.

India is, therefore, confronted with a peculiar challenge. We have a relatively low level of urbanisation, but an enormous absolute urban population. Even at roughly 36 per cent urbanisation, this translates into hundreds of millions of people living in towns and cities. And the proportion will continue to rise. Before the country becomes predominantly urban, we can still build institutions capable of managing the transition. If we fail, today's potholes and overflowing drains will become tomorrow’s systemic crisis.

China provides an instructive contrast. It crossed the 50 per cent urbanisation mark more than a decade ago and is now about two-thirds urban. India has not yet reached that threshold. But China’s experience also demonstrates what happens when urbanisation takes place on an enormous scale: Cities require massive investment in transport, water, sewage, housing, waste management and municipal governance.

Apart from policy neglect, pervasive and persistently unchecked corruption is the root cause of what our cities have become. An entire chain of near institutionalised bribes — extending from municipal officials, the police, contractors and the political class — is a fact of life. Moreover, there is little incentive for policymakers to change things. Under the system of civic apartheid that we have, the powerful live in meticulously pampered conclaves, like Lutyens’ Delhi. Those with money increasingly live in gated communities, luxury apartment complexes and carefully maintained neighbourhoods. They can supplement public infrastructure with private security, generators, water tankers, housekeeping, landscaping and waste management. Essentially, they can purchase protection from municipal failure. It is the vast majority of those outside this privileged circle of power and money who are the real victims. The result is a vicious circle. Those with the power to change the system are insulated from its consequences, while those who suffer have little power to do anything about it.

We often speak of the ‘Smart Cities Mission’, digital governance, artificial intelligence and technology-driven administration. But there is something faintly absurd about calling a city smart when its most elementary civic systems do not work. What is the intelligence of a city where a child has no safe pavement on which to walk to school? What is the sophistication of a city where a citizen can fall into an uncovered manhole? What is the modernity of a city where a building can be altered, overcrowded and structurally compromised until it becomes a death trap?

Technology cannot substitute for municipal competence. A smart city is not one with the largest number of sensors or the most impressive command centre. It is one in which basic services work predictably. It is a city where roads are safe, water is reliable, sewage is properly treated, garbage is collected, buildings are inspected, traffic is manageable, air is breathable and public spaces are accessible.

If we want to make our cities more liveable, we have to start with basic reform. The first reform must be financial. The Reserve Bank of India has documented the financial weakness of municipal corporations, but nothing has been done to remedy this situation. Municipal corporations cannot be expected to provide sophisticated urban services while remaining chronically dependent upon grants and transfers. Municipalities should have greater access to long-term borrowing for infrastructure, subject to stringent fiscal safeguards.

Second, property taxation needs radical modernisation through GIS mapping, transparent valuation and efficient digital collection.

Third, we need clear accountability, with independent municipal audits. Every major municipal asset — a road, bridge, drain, manhole, public building — should have a digital identity. The responsible agency, contractor, engineer, date of construction, maintenance history and inspection schedule should be publicly accessible.

Fourth, there should be system rationalisation. Too many cities remain caught between municipal corporations, development authorities, water boards, transport agencies, state departments and special-purpose bodies. Responsibility is fragmented; accountability is diluted.

Fifth, and most importantly, corruption must be confronted through summary punishment and transparency. Municipal tenders, contracts, completion certificates, inspection reports and maintenance schedules should be available online.

But nothing will change unless the apathy of citizens changes. For too long the system has complacently relied on the assumption that for every outrage there will be some public expression of discontent, and then the crisis will blow over. This callous and corrupt system will only change if citizens organise themselves to demand accountability and say: Enough is enough.