True leaders lead by action: A welcome change among the politicians!

True leaders lead by action: A welcome change among the politicians (that 'practice what you preach' comes back in political fashion) 

- Ahmedabad mayor Gautam Shah has decided to take the BRTS to his office once a month. Last Monday, he initiated his resolve by commuting to his office via BRTS instead of his official car and he used the public transport throughout the day.

- A municipal corporater from Asarawa has resolved to cycle to the municipal corporation once a month. We hear the same news about a Member of Parliament who cycles to the Parliament everyday.

- Similarly, the Delhi government has decided to put in place the odd-even car use restrictions. The cabinet of Delhi lead the citizens by their own actions. Manish Sisodia, the deputy chief minister, has been cycling to office. Chief minister Arvind Kejariwal is car-pooling.

This is a welcome trend among the politicians across party lines. They are leading by actions. ‘Practice what you preach’ went out of political fashion in last two-three decades. But let us hope it is slowly coming back to public life and public discourse.This is a great trend nationally because the politicians are giving us an important message – individual actions actions matter.

One can be cynical and say that how much do these individual actions matter in the global picture of environmental protection. One trip less by car is not going to protect the environment. Well, it all starts with whether or not you believe in small actions and their power of transforming the world.

Unfortunately, the environmental discourse in India has not become about individual choices. The environmental discourse is more distant from one’s own self in India, where it is ‘some one else’ who is going to protect the environment, not ‘you’!

Some people also believe in ‘my right to pollute’ because we are a developing country. There is an assumption that we will have to pollute our way to prosperity. India as a country might take a bit longer to adopt to fully eco-friendly energy resources.That does not mean that we, as individuals will use that as an excuse not to change our polluting choices. We should not be comfortable with ‘right to pollute’ without exploring the alternatives. Environmental protection or more specifically, pollution-free cities is all about the individual choices that we make in our daily life.

Using a cycle to reach the office or taking public transport once in a while, will help us get out of the routine and try something new. Environmentally-friendly choices are also health friendly. The politicians have already shown us a way and now it is for the citizens do their bit. For politicians will go where we would like them to go. Do we want them to ‘practice what they preach’? Then we will also have to do the same – walk on the righteous path we expect others to walk. Finally, it is for us to decide if we want to make our individual actions matter. 

(21st December, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=76333&boxid=3005&ed_date=2016-1-04&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5

A dynamic city deserves a charismatic and inspiring mayor!

A dynamic city deserves a charismatic and inspiring mayor! (Will we ever get one?)

Can you name the last three mayors of your city? Do you know their achievements during their tenure? Did we even get to ask them what they have achieved? Have you come across the interview of your mayor in the local media? We hardly know the mayors of our cities and what they set out to achieve. However, the mayors of various cities across the world are reaching new heights on their charismatic leadership and leading the urban development initiative in their cities. This is for them to elevate to national-level politics after becoming the mayor of an important city. But, quite an opposite turn is taking place in India’s urban politics. The last ten mayors in the city – whether from BJP or Congress – did not make to state-level politics or held an important public office after their tenure as a mayor. The position of mayor in our cities is a ceremonial position in our cities without any real political power.

Many cities have the Mayor-in-Council kind of system where the Mayor has full authority and ultimate political and financial autonomy in his city. In India, we do not have such a system. Our cities are indirectly governed by state governments and do not enjoy full political or financial autonomy even after the 74th constitutional amendment act. Most urban projects would have to pass through the scrutiny of the state officials and politicians. But it is still possible for a mayor to have a decisive role and vision and forge a partnership for development with the municipal commissioner and the standing committee chairman. The successful mayors around the world are punching above their own weights. Cities like New York and London have famous mayors like Michael Bloomberg and Boris Johnson respectively, who managed to implement many successful and people-centric projects in their city. For successful politicians, it is always ‘people first’ and not ‘friends first’.

In many developing cities, a positive turn in urban politics is being lead by their mayors. Tri Rishmaharini is the first female mayor of Surabaya in Indonesia. She is a trained architect with a masters’ degree in urban management and with a work experience of 20 years in government agencies. She decided to make the most of public open spaces and empty lands. In a short time span of three-four years, she managed to develop 11 parks with full WiFi access, libraries, fitness and sports facilities. Similarly, Enrique Penelosa who was recently re-elected in Bogota, Colombia had a track record of developing a new public transport system, building public libraries, giving space to the street-hawkers and building sidewalks. Similarly, Lee Myung-bak was the mayor of Seoul before he became the president of South Korea between 2008 and 2013. 

From Bogota to Surabaya, the city-level politicians have turned adversities into advantages for their cities. Our cities have their own dynamism of local culture and businesses, and are bustling with indigenous entrepreneurs. The results of the local body elections are due in Gujarat and it is the right time to hope for a dynamic mayor in your town!

(30th November, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=74800&boxid=5019&ed_date=2015-11-30&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5

In the local body elections this year, I feel cheated as a voter!

Do you know what BJP has promised for your city if it is re-elected to power? And, any clue what Congress has promised for you if given a chance to emerge? BJP declared its city-level manifesto 48 hours before the deadline to end the campaigning for civic body elections. Congress declared its manifesto for the polls a day before that. Interestingly, both parties subtly and directly hinted that the other party has copied their ideas.It does not matter ‘who copied from whom’ but this entire episode conveys only one thing: there is no fundamental difference between the promises made by these parties respectively. We will have to choose between either of these Tweeddledees or Tweeddledums.

Politics in Gujarat has for long been political jugglery between two parties, hence, the lack of an alternative is not a new thing. Seriously, the citizens never got a chance to deliberate on the local urban development agenda of either of the parties. Did we get to discuss the traffic problems, water supply irregularities, solid waste mess created in the city? Did we get to discuss what is the future of the riverfront project or the BRTS? We did not even get a week to look at the manifestos and to deliberate them in detail. We also didn’t get to evaluate the ruling party’s performance in state in the last five years of municipal corporation. We didn’t get time to evaluate the role of opposition party in making the ruling party more accountable. Somewhere, both political parties are going to be happy if there is no demand of accountability or transparency in their decision- making process.

It is true that there is a lot of rush in a build up to this election. But the political parties and the election commission knew that the elections are due, yet they were never prepared for it. It was the High Court’s order, which pushed the administration to conduct the elections in due time. Why would the court intervene if people do their job well? The complacency of not taking the municipal elections seriously flows from the election commission to political parties to local volunteers to the voters. Voters’ turnout is going to be much lesser this time and we can hardly blame the voters for this. One political party might lose the election but as voters and as citizens, we are going to be the ultimate losers. As citizens, we will be giving one political party the right of ruling us for five years without knowing their development agenda. There are no local agendas or promises of changing things in our surroundings. State-level politics of caste, religion and class has crept into these local elections.

I had no rational parameters to choose between two parties. I feel cheated by the system – the election commission, political parties and their candidates. I feel defeated as a voter who wants to see positive changes in my municipal ward. This election translates into losing an opportunity of making democracy work at the local level.

PS: As I claim in the article, the voter turnout was very poor in Ahmedabad (about 27% till 4 pm) but it dramatically increased by 20% in last one hour!

(23rd November, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=74495&boxid=3374&ed_date=2015-11-23&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=2

Corporator, we should meet often and work together for our ward

Dear Corporator, 

you might not remember me but I remember seeing you in a marriage function in the neighborhood last year. I have not seen you ever since. I appreciate the fact that you have attended all the marriages, openings of shops and other social functions in the neighbourhood. Five years back, when you came to my building to ask for our votes, you promised that we will be in touch. I never realised that ‘being in touch’ means you will be attending all the social events in the area, or occasionally we will see your face on the posters and hoardings wishing us for various festivals.

I thought we will have a dialogue about the developmental issues in our municipal ward. But we never got a chance to do that. Now, it is again time for the municipal elections and I am likely to see you again. I hope, you are not relying on an assumption that I will be voting for a particular party based on national or state politics. This time, I have decided to vote for a local candidate who works locally and not based on the party lines. Because the state level or national level politicians are not going to hear my pleas about the garbage collection or footpaths in my ward.

I guess you have put some benches here and there with your name on it. I am not sure if you have done anything else apart from putting these benches. Isn’t it too ad hoc! I don’t even know how much budget you had for the development works. How did you spend it? How did you decide the priorities? When you get elected for five years, shouldn’t you, along with other corporators, decide a roadmap for spending the budget in a planned manner?

Let me make a quick list of the problems in the ward. The door-to-door garbage collection is working alright, but the sweeping of streets and the garbage collections from the streets is not at all efficient. The street garbage is openly burnt which is a health hazard. There are many unsafe spots on the roads in our ward. It is dangerous for anyone to cross the roads – especially so for senior citizens. There are no footpaths to walk on, or safe pedestrian crossings. Every time we raise this issue, we are told that we don’t make footpaths because they will be encroached! Isn’t it absurd! Some areas in the ward are suffering from unhygienic conditions and irregular water supply. Some of the street lights do not work. Are there any plans for more planting trees in our ward? How do we tackle these issues? There are many more in my list.

I will probably not receive any answers to these questions, but that doesn’t mean that I will stop asking. You probably don’t like the ‘concerned citizen’ types like me. Let’s put the personal likes and dislikes aside to try and make a deliberative democracy work at the local level. Shouldn’t we have monthly meetings at the neighborhood level and a large one annually at the area level to discuss your budget and the priorities? Please involve us, discuss things with us, make us participate in your plans for the ward.

Thanks for patience.

Sincerely,
a concerned citizen from your ward – our ward (though you know me as a voter).

(2nd November, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=73613&boxid=2522&ed_date=2015-11-02&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5

Welfare of sanitary workers is the first step towards 'Clean India'!

Welfare of sanitary workers is the first step towards 'Clean India'. (સફાઈ કર્મચારીઓના કલ્યાણ વગર 'સ્વચ્છ ભારત' શક્ય નથી.)

Is it only me, or did everyone miss the great spectacle on October 2 of netas, babus, celebrities and wanna-be-celebrities posing with brooms in their hands? In 2014, this time of the year, the media was buzzing with photos and videos of celebrity cleaning acts. Some naïve people like me thought the dirty days are over. Indian cities will be clean. But we live in times where the photo-ops are more important than the cause.

There are two severe bottlenecks in the governing system of garbage in our cities. One, the workers, who collect garbage and clean our streets, are not much cared for. And the organisations who hire these workers – the municipalities – have their own problems of financial health and political autonomy. Who is looking into these aspects of ‘clean India’?

Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation has started a remarkable pilot project of segregating garbage at the household level into dry and food waste. Households, which segregate the waste, will get 5 percent discount on property tax bills as incentives. This is a great way to make waste collection environment-friendly.But the garbage collection, in itself, is a major challenge in most cities in Gujarat. Apparently, Gujarat state has reported that they have 120 towns out of 195, which collect and transport 100 percent of the garbage produced. Only the citizens of those 120 towns can verify these claims. My experience of towns in Gujarat is quite the opposite. Streets remain filthy, and garbage is not collected for days, unless there is an official visit of some sort. Probably, I have only experienced those 75 towns, which do not claim to collect 100 percent garbage.

So, what kind of garbage collection systems do our municipal towns have? How frequently are the streets cleaned? How is the collected garbage disposed of? What percent of garbage is burnt openly? How are they paying for the cost of their staff and equipment? How much is paid to municipal sanitary staff and sweepers?

It is important to recognise the foot soldiers in the battle against filth in our cities. They are the sanitary workers and sweepers, who are the least-paid in the municipal hierarchy. The sanitary workers are paid lower than even the prevalent minimum wages in the state. And then, we expect these workers to perform their duties all seven days a week, whether during festivals or after violent clashes.

Oxford University professor Barbara Harriss-White has studied India’s waste economy in great detail. She says that the dignity and social condition of workers involved in waste management figures right at the bottom of the political agenda. Unlike many countries, India’s sanitation sector is highly caste-based. Many ‘dalit’ workers continue to clean our cities with little or no possibility of moving out of their occupations. Unless the ‘Clean India’ mission addresses such fundamental issues of welfare of workers who are actually cleaning India, our country is unlikely to be either be filth-free or be able to develop an egalitarian society.

Unless the financial health and administrative capacities of municipal towns are improved, they will not have any wherewithal to work toward the welfare of their sanitary staff. Clean India will need explicit policies of empowering the sanitary workers and municipalities.

(12th October, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=72604&boxid=2823&ed_date=2015-10-12&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5

Lack of good political institutions, not resources, make countries poor!

'Lack of good political institutions, not resources, make countries poor (AKA who will make local actions plans for global development goals?)

World leaders representing 150 countries gathered in New York City last week and agreed to work towards 17 global development goals. More than three years of brainstorming and negotiations took place in every corner of the world to build consensus over them. They are designed to provide a roadmap for countries to finance and shape government policies over the next 15 years. Out of these 17 global development goals, three are highlighted here – end extreme poverty, fight inequalities or injustices, and fix climate change. These three are truly the biggest challenges faced by the world today.

Now comes the hard part. Only time will tell if these goals will remain empty rhetoric or whether they will be instrumental in changing people’s lives for better. Without adequate financing, evidence-based planning and the political will to implement the goals, 2030 will not deliver the transformative agenda desired. It is obvious that the global goals cannot remain completely top-down. Conventionally, all the decisions, plans and finances flow from the top (national level) to the bottom (city level). The real challenge is to translate these goals from national level to the city level and from the city level to the local level. Global goals require local actions. Nothing will change unless you and I see changes in our own neighbourhoods and be part of these changes. But do we have mechanisms in our cities to take the global goals to local levels?

Who will take the ownership of these local action plans based on the global goals? So who is in-charge of our local area - the neighbourhoods we live in? If there are issues like the lack of proper footpaths, problems with water supply or filthy streets then whom should we contact? Do we even know our municipal ward corporator? In fact, we do not have any occasions, which bring the local voters and their representatives together – except the elections held once in five years. Unless we put such mechanisms in place where the local corporators have to take people along, nothing much is going to change. Local communities are in the best position to ask for better infrastructure and public places or support an increase in the green cover. Pune city experimented with ‘participatory budgeting’ where the citizens of particular local areas participated in deciding what is required the most in their areas. 

Urban local bodies are the key local institutions to further any developmental agenda and yet they are the weakest links in the hierarchy of governance. There are a number of peculiarly disjointed efforts, which are far from good governance practices. We have city level plans without budgets and municipal budgets without proper plans. . We have the development plan of the city being prepared for 10 or 20 years but they are not linked with city level budgets. Again, city level plans are not sensitive to local issues.

American political scientist Francis Fukuyama says that ‘institutions matter’- poor countries are poor not because they lack resources, but because they lack effective political institutions. For the local institutions to be effective, they need their own roadmaps – short-term action plans linked with municipal budgets emerging out of various local areas in a city.

21st September, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=72012&boxid=2949&ed_date=2015-09-28&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5

If blanket internet ban means peace, then silence means consent!

Cartoon by Xavier Bonilla 'Bonil'

Now it all looks like routine life but just a few days ago, the city was burning. One political agitation was mishandled and as a result, public properties were vandalised and the city was on the brink of total collapse of public life for a long time. Just in a couple of days, we saw misplaced agitations, governmental apathy and policy brutalities. The administration called the para-military forces swiftly and the city life did not take much time to normalise. As part of these events, there was a blanket ban on mobile internet – apparently, with an excuse of curtailing rumour mongering. And it is still puzzling, why was there a blanket ban on the mobile internet? 

There is a difference between temporary de-activation of social media sites and a blanket internet ban for a week. It might be advisable, if at all in some cases, to ban the social media temporarily at the times of riots in the city. But a blanket internet ban affects all internet operations, which are becoming common amongst all the user groups. Now a days, a lot of important transactions take place on the mobile internet like banking, tickets booking, searching for important information and even the state-supported ration shops use the mobile application based on internet. The blanket ban was extended for a week, making it impossible for the mobile internet users to do any transactions. 

But the excuse of curtailing rumour mongering or inflammatory new items, does not stand a close scrutiny. Social media sites were not the only sources of inflammatory contents and rumour mongering. Many more inflammatory stories were being broadcasted on some of the local TV channels. A word of caution to them would have been advisable. But instead the mobile internet ban was operationalised imagining it as a sole mode of spreading inflammatory material. There was not internet in 1984 or 2002 but still this country saw its worst riots. It was probably first time, a blanket ban on mobile internet was enforced. Surprisingly, the blanket ban on internet was not well-covered in the national media. And many local media stories made it only about how the youngsters are missing the social media instead of understanding the wider repercussions of the blanket internet ban. 

Do we even realize how the government has become used to intrude in the citizen’s life and how they have become used to censorship? A blanket ban on mobile internet amounts to internet censorship. Internet censorship is just another form of bullying and it is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime.Internet censorship in Gujarat reflected the lack of confidence of the state administration in itself. There is a real danger of the government getting used to internet censorship every now and then. During those days of the blanket internet ban, Gujarat has unfortunately joined some countries like China, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

In many ways, internet is an anti-thesis to censorship. The internet users always find new ways of subverting the censorship authority’s orders. It is extremely important for a democratic society to protect this very nature of internet.

(7th September, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 3)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=71051&boxid=4275&ed_date=2015-09-07&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=3

Is there anything 'compulsory' that the government needs to do?

It is compulsory for the citizens to vote in the local body elections in Gujarat. If you don’t vote, you will be fined and asked for an explanation. Citizens are often blamed by the government and its representatives these days for not keeping the streets cleaned, for not paying enough taxes and now, for not making the democracy work. So the government steps in and makes voting compulsory. Some of us have been voting for many years and some of us have not been – mainly because the politics of the day never excited us to go out and vote. Not having witnessed any changes in the day-to-day situations, cynicism creeps in and voting does not seem like a fruitful exercise. Politicians do not realise that it is their job to ensure that voting remains relevant in our democracy and political contests remain alive. But it is always too much to expect anything from the politicians.

Very well, we will all vote then, without engaging in the conceptual confusion of whether voting is our right or duty or both! But there is a fundamental question about the relationship between the government and the people – should there be mandatory and legally binding accountability on either side when it comes to fulfilling fundamental duties? The relationship between citizens and government is always give and take. As citizens, we may not mind converting our political right as a compulsory duty. In return, we should also make a few things compulsory for the government to do. We should ask the government to mandatorily eliminate child malnourishment or child labour. The government should mandatorily and in legally binding manner, ensure clean water to all or education to all. If they fail to do so, the citizens can crowd-source funds and sue the government!

We do not sue the government because we understand that developmental issues are complex and it is not practical to demand such accountability on mandatory basis. Suing government officials and politicians randomly will neither help in achieving developmental goals nor will it ensure any accountability. Similarly, compulsory voting does not improve the accountability of voters. Compulsory voting will also not ensure smarter policies or smarter politicians. Anything that is compulsory is done half-heartedly. Half-hearted efforts cannot fix the larger problems of democracy.

There is a political promise of ‘minimum government and maximum governance’, which was very well received by the voters. Traditionally in India, we do not know what ‘minimum government’ means and the government has always assumed a large role without worrying about the delivery of any promises. Minimum government essentially means minimum interferences in our private life and respecting our choices. Maximum governance is about high accountability and transparency. Compulsory voting in its very spirit goes against not only this political promise of ‘minimum government’ but also the article 21 of the Constitution about protection of personal liberty. Paraphrasing David Brin, ‘when it comes to privacy and accountability, politicians always demand the former for themselves and the latter for everyone else’. Political accountability strengthens democracy more than compulsory voting.

(10th August, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

http://epaper.dnaindia.com/story.aspx?id=69932&boxid=3577&ed_date=2015-08-10&ed_code=1310009&ed_page=5

At crossroads – deliberative democracy and accountable governance

Few days back in a workshop, a government official (should I dare say servant) remarked that, "too much of democracy is the root of all problems". The context was some communities living in informal settlements refusing to give their 'data' to the officials who had decided to implement 24x7 water supply. These communities were never consulted while planning this scheme and they saw it as a ploy to extract more money from them in the name of services charges for the new scheme. Even the political wing (technically the people’s representative) were also not fully on board. But the officials expected the community to abide by their order (co-operate) and facilitate the implementation of the scheme. This is a classic case of the mutual mis-trust and breakdown in communication stalling the project. A lot could be inferred from this episode but let’s keep our focus on this remark.

Incidentally, it is the 40th anniversary of the declaration of emergency in India when all civil liberties were curtailed for two years, between 1975-77. The years under emergency reflected the attitude that ‘democracy doesn't work, we know what is best for the people and we need free hand to implement those good things’.  While it might seem unfair to connect casual remarks about the imperfections of democracy with the coercive act of subverting democracy at the national level, but both attitudes are born out of the same germs. People who do not like democratic processes are the ones who want to enjoy power without any accountability and govern on whims and fancies. Yes, democratic processes are messy and they take time but they are the fairest ways of dealing with public resources and discourses. More democracy is often answer to complicated public life problems rather less democracy. More democracy means developing projects and their budgets with people and making them part of the decision-making process – especially for the local issues which affect their life directly.

Good governance requires both the preparedness for the last minute and long-term planning for mitigation and adaptation. For example, water-logging and cave-ins in monsoon, heat stress in summer and Swine Flu in winter – how are these events dealt with? Many government officials will admit privately that they have a little time for long-term planning and new ideas. They are either in celebratory mode by managing events or they are chasing the last minute preparedness. And after achieving short-term goals, they come into self-congratulatory mode quickly. There is hardly any long-term planning directed towards mitigation or adaptation. Perpetual adhocism and last minute decisions work best with ‘command and control’ kind of attitudes and democratic processes seems as hindrances. 

In such situation, the only possible relationship between the people and the official is that of a petitioner and a lord. The officials have lost their ability to engage with the citizens on any issue. And the citizens have also lost patience in being part of any deliberative process set up by the government. Yes, we are often not too kind in our criticism of the government. And they are not too kind in dealing with rising expectations. Do we have a fix to this mutually developed fissure in the relationship? Yes, but the fix is not a quick one - more accountability, more deliberations, more engagement on both sides, probably. 

(29th June, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)

Technologies don’t make cities smart; accountable govts, clean streets do

After waiting for a year, Union Cabinet finally approves two urban programs - Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (aka AMRUT) for 500 cities and Smart Cities Mission for 100 cities. There will central allocation of about one lakh crores rupees in next five years. On prima facie, it seems that AMRUT is the second phase of the good ol' JnNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission), which has partly financed the bus rapid transit, flyovers, water-sanitation, waste management projects in Ahmedabad and in other cities. 

AMRUT is a continuation of the past policies but the ‘Smart Cities’ has captured the imagination of many people. It is a powerful political slogan and like all political slogans, 'Smart cities' make big promises without really telling you what they are. And debates are raging in the country about what are 'Smart cities'. Some news items claim that smart cities are all about information technology, automations, remote-controls, sensors, CCTV cameras, access controls and what not. But what if these so-called smart cities end up being private townships like colonial times when there were beautiful enclaves for the Whites and dusty-dirty towns for the rest of us. Is this the new smart cities mission going to subsidize and promote these ‘white enclaves’? Lets hope not. 

Keeping our anxieties and excitement aside, let us understand what makes a person smart? Often we are misguided by the appearances but the real smartness is in using optimum resources, being fair and balanced, finding negotiated solutions, being progressive, being responsible for your actions, and being open to feedbacks. Smartness cannot be imposed as it comes from within. Smartness prospers when there is good education, health and good exposure to the world. Smartness prospers when there are ideas in abundance and choices in everything. 

If we go by this definition of smartness then what kind of cities are we aspiring to - surely, the cities with accountable governments, as they will love the feedbacks from the citizens. The smart city government will consult the citizens before spending their money. The technology in smart cities will be used to optimize resources and not for the surveillance the citizens or for useless automations. So what is a smart city - If there is a shelter over every head, clean water and toilet in every house, clean streets and ample number of buses on every road; the city with government that listens to people, which will have political and financial autonomy to run the city - that is a smart city.

A smart phone in hand doesn’t make a person smart. The smart of use of the smart features might make someone smart. A promise of technology is not a promise of smartness. While discussing smart cities, let us not confuse the ends and the means. Technologies are important means but the ends will have to be cities that take care of us, inspire us and encourage us to take a stroll and to roll on two non-polluting pedals!

(4th May, 2015: DNA Ahmedabad edition, Cities Supplement, Page 5)