Smart Cities and Urban Planning: Where we stand

With a lot said and heard about ‘smart cities’ and urbanization these days, there comes immense need of realizing this sold dream.

Unfortunately, historical facts, historically progressive data, current data and current ground realities all are against the wave and hence ask for very detailed analysis, thorough ground check and well systematized implementation/upgrade and running of system. The responsibility lies with both government and citizens.

What are Smart cities and Urban Planning?

Though there is no concrete answer to how smart cities will look like. Buzzing contexts include creative, cyber digital, e-governed, entrepreneurial, wired, massive infrastructures, etc. But above all this, there are very basic feature these urban areas must include and that is smart city should be people centric. These cities should work for the people. It should provide basic amenities like drinking water, electricity, sanitation etc. to all its residents and migratory people. It should understand that all citizens have right to migrate, be they poor or not. Hence, it should be able to grow inclusively in future. Its growth should be commensurate with growth of nearby areas. The notion of smart city is process rather than a goal.

Urban planning is way to realize the notion of urban area by creating appropriate plan, upgrading existing plan, implementing it and running for certain time period till again a planning is needed to accommodate the prevailing situations. It must be recognized that urban planning cannot be divorced from urban governance.

Why it’s in news?

Finance Minister on July 10, 2014 made budgetry allocation of Rs. 7060 Crore for smart cities.

Currently India has 31% of people staying in urban location which contributes to more than 67% of GDP. People living in urban areas is expected to grow and contribute 75% to GDP by 2021.

Main reason behind growth of urban population is migration of people from rural areas to urban areas. Currently, agriculture sector contributes 14% in GDP while employs 53% of people. It’s evident that there will be more people moving out of agriculture sector and moving to services and industries sector and eventually major portion landing in urban areas for job.

This might have raised the need of more cities to accommodate increasing urban population. A planned city will be definitely a good idea.

Government activities in Urban Planning post independence in relation with Five year plans.

Urban Planning is not a new concept; it started as early as in 1^st Five year plan in 1951. In 1^st and 2^nd (1951-56-61) five year plan various organization like NBO and DDA were created. 3^rd Five year plan (1961-66) made it clear that the preparation of master plan is responsibility of state and local governments. 4^th and 5^th five year plan (1969-74-79) continued on similar agenda. Hence, important organizations like MMRDA for Mumbai development and HUDCO to fund projects of Urban Local Bodies (ULB) were created. Legislations like Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 were enacted to improve urban legislation. 6^th five year plan stressed development on development of small and medium sized towns (< 1 Lakhs population). Hence, IDMST was launched in 1979.

7^th five year plan (1985-90) saw landmark initiatives. National Commission on Urbanization submitted its report in 1988 and 65^th constitutional Amendment Act (CAA) was introduced but failed to be passed in Rajya Sabha. However with some revision it passed as 74^th CAA (The Municipalities) in 1972 and came into force in 1993.

During 8^th Five Year Plan (1992-97) – Mega Cities Scheme was introduced (1993-94) covering 5 Mega Cities – Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai, Bangalore and Hyderabad. IDMST was revamped to boost employment generation in small cities and town to curtail migration

9^th Five Year Plan (1997-2002) emphasized on decentralization and financial autonomy of ULBs. New programs were created and old were merged.

Eventually, it was identified that funding for small and medium towns were too low and didn’t covered all towns as well. E.g.: IDSMT scheme covered 904 towns till end of 8^th five year plan but central assistance released so far was Rs. 283.96 Crores. Also, there were 4500 urban centre which could qualify for small and medium towns (< 3 Lakhs) but only 1/5^th were covered.

10^th Five Year Plan (2002-07) recognized the fact that urbanization played a key role in accelerating economic growth in 1980s and 1990s as a result of economic liberalization. These were due to procedural issues and limited budgetary allocations. It stressed that without strengthening the democratic structure and institutional building of ULB, the goal of urban development cannot be achieved.

11^th five year plan (2007-12) focused on Strengthening ULBs through capacity buildings and better financial managements, deregulation and development of land, dismantling public sector monopoly over urban infrastructure, establishing autonomous regulatory framework to oversee functioning of public and Private sector, reducing incidence of poverty and using innovation and technology in big way. Major emphasis on skill development, self help group and micro finance for self employment.

In crux, it was too lately identified that we have done many wrongs and a strong bid to rectify things started in 11^th five year plan. Till then, it had already led to many problems.

Firstly, enormous money spent and no one is accountable yet. Unfortunately, even after that there is no clear picture of how planning will go ahead.

Secondly, many cities and towns established with improper planning. This has led to missing basic amenities even in mega cities like Mumbai and Bangalore. Creation of slums and non-inclusion on need of poor are other major issues.

Thirdly, this has led to wide gap between urban cities and nearby areas. The main reason behind is lack of integrated planning.

Analysis of currently running programs – JNNURM (Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission) and RAY (Rajiv Awas Yojana)

Centre launched JNNURM in December 2005. Its emphasis was on basic services to urban poor including housing, water supply, sanitation, road network, urban transport, inner/older city areas development. Earlier programmes like Mega City, IDSMT, NSDP and VAMBAY were merged with it.

 JNNURM made mandatory for each city (which fell under it) to formulate its City Development Plan (CDP) and bring out long term vision for city. It included repealment of land ceiling Act, 1976, empowerment of ULBs, PPP, leverage private sector, capacity building and improvement in municipal accounting.

12^th 5 year plan consolidated JNNURM by adding Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) to it for creating slum free India.

JNNURM hope was to harness potential of cities as growth engine. It required huge funds but also there was need to develop CDPs.

Eventually JNNURM landed into multiple issues.

Firstly, CDPs didn’t plan for informal sector. Example: areas under slums are not included as they are considered illegal. This is flaw as informal sector provides majority of jobs. Hence it leads to another issue as CDP hence involves only formal economies. This now led to flawed assumptions of economic factors while planning.

 Secondly, pressing need of CDP led weak ULBs to outsource plan preparation to external consultants. The plans had little buy-in as it usually didn’t involved local people. Hence, there is often mismatch between DP and ‘Lived’ City.

Thirdly, the outsourced plan had parallel planning process that had neither relation with DP nor each other nor legal backing. Moreover, they remained an exercise to get funds which were usually invested on large infrastructure projects and hence deviating from prime need of basic amenities facilitation.

Fourthly, there is little space to intervene during creation of plan. Hence, citizens and political network have challenged DPs resulting in long conflicts.

Lastly, non clear policing and unknown accountability helped states and cities which responded tactically revealing resistance, subversion, negotiation and compliance where it suited their political and financial interests.

Rajiv Awas Yojna (RAY) was created to solve slum issues in the context of land availabilities in cities for Mission, tenability of slum, eligibility of slum dwellers and their affordability.

Lack of land availability and difference in perceptions of definitions of tenability has made RAY a non-starter in many cities. Vested interests while land identification and resistance of land owners (whose land has been encroached upon) to use slum lands for rehabilitation has caused issues.

Land availability and tenability is supply side problem while issues of determining eligibility of house hold and theory affordability is demand side problem

There is problem of defining who will have title of house. Problem with assigning title to individual is people can sell the property for some money either due to their needs or when forced upon by unethical groups and again start living in slums. Another problem is how to give housing to those who doesn’t have any identity proof yet.

Issue with affordability is concerning too. Deepak Parekh committee decided on Rs. 3000 for per month as loan repayment for housing but the problem is whether slum dwellers would be able to pay taking into account that many households in urban areas still live with Rs 5000 (approx) per month income. Thus the amount suggested is simply exclusion of neediest. There is need of more subsidies as such.

RAY provides for in-situ upgradation, redevelopment or resettlement options. Upgradation and resettlement have their issues with land availability and tenability while resettlement opens other aspects. In many cases related to resettlement, slum people deny to occupy houses as new settlement is often in out skirts of city. High transportation cost makes them skeptic of moving out. Also, resettlement often breaks their current social network.

Hence, the programme is not well documented and well thought over ground realities.

Current Situations

Current situation is worrying. Though India has been able to transform people in urban style of living but basic necessities for urban settlement is yet not present and these are due to multiple factors.

Firstly, the implementation of 74^th CAA remains half hearted as state governments have not fully empowered ULBs to carry out tasks as per provisions.

Secondly, although urban development is in state list, states couldn’t think of integrated urban development strategy and planning.

Thirdly, 74^th amendment didn’t mentioned proper devolution of financial autonomy. There is huge degree of financial control of state government over local governments which is evident from fact that Rajasthan and Haryana government abolished property tax without consulting local bodies. But then again, local bodies also failed to utilize adequately those taxes and fee power which are vested with them.

Fourthly, India’s Planning process has been top down and sector based. Additionally, communication gap between planners at national level and city level has caused more issues. NHSH and other reports tell that urban planning in India is plagued with fragmentation, centralization and outdated focus of planning.

Fourthly, urban areas are constantly stressed for civic amenities like access to electricity, drinking water, sanitation, LPG, etc. Road congestion, traffic, air/water pollution, waste management and disposal, law and other areas are also there

Fifthly, urban bodies lack power and resources for creating Development Plans. Hence, parastatal bodies like Urban Development Authority have virtually taken over city promoting real estate and infrastructure.

Sixthly, there is constant issue with limited use of public transport system. Bigger and ever expanding cities are one of the reasons, which have caused more transportation time. Also, disperse population led to absence of last mile connectivity. Hence, people prefer of their own vehicle.

Seventhly, there is huge shortfall of planners in India. As per Institute of Town Planners of India (ITPI) there are only 1.32 planners per lakh population while in U.K its 37.63 planners per lakh population. Again for implementing and running the plan, there is need of management specialists. The problem exaggerates when many of planners are employed by corporate institutions like real estate management companies. Cash strapped ULBs are not able to afford them. Hence, situation is worse.

Eighthly, planning violations has resulted in poor realization of plan. The illegalities not only benefit slum dwellers but middle and upper class also through informal plotting and sale of layout against laws. Planning by deregulation is one cause of this which means “calculated informality” where state government deliberately withdraws regulatory powers. E.g.: in case if Solapur where planning authorities can reserve land for public amenities. This has led to unethical build up at many such places either in form of slum or commercial buildings. Officials pocket money in lieu of neglect. Furthermore, these have opened a playground for politicians during election and wield power after election as well.

Ninthly, rehabilitation of slums is one major area to be worked on. Rajiv Awas Yojna (RAY) was created to achieve this but the programme is not very successful.

Tenthly, there are actually villages in the city which come into geographical area due to city expansion. People from these places hence lost their land in the name of development or in the hands of land sharks. These people started working in small and midsize industry and have income to place them above poverty line but if we account factors like number of people sharing single room, sanitation, drinking water, type of roof etc. there household profile is still diminishing.

How to tackle issues

At present dearth of situation particularly in cases of smaller towns and cities where planning has gone astonishingly worse, it’s not easy to tackle issues. It would need concrete participation of both administration and civil bodies to work with planning and morality to uplift the city. There are a few important points though which can help existing urban bodies in renaissance and setting up new cities. Many of them are even re-iterated in Five Year Plans but not fully implemented.

Firstly, E-Governance is need of hour. Harnessing power of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) for proper implementation would ensure transparency, accountability, proper issue management

Secondly, measures should be Proactive rather than reactive. Planning ahead is smart idea. It needs to factor in future population growth, rural to urban migration to ensure proper sustainability of cities by delivering basic amenities and prevention of any further slum creation.

Thirdly, urban policies cannot ignore rural development. New members of urban areas are strongly connected and influenced by rural areas. Even overall urban population is affected by happenings in rural areas.

Fourthly, planning should be participatory and decentralized. Planning should be based on actual experience not merely technical expertise and local people/formal sections/informal sections of society should be involved in every stage of planning. There is immediate need for restructuring the institutional structure for planning and bringing the responsibility of planning to lowest level of elected govt. Reading market signals while re-planning is very important factor to consider.

Fifthly, to accommodate people migrating from agriculture area or people coming under urban area by expansion of cities, there is a need to create more jobs and also ensure that migrating population is skilled. Failure to these will lead to transformation of rural poor to urban poor.

Sixthly, there is need for local government to generate internal revenues. Internal revenue generation of municipality is a reflection of quality of its governance, transparency and accountability of administration. 12^th Finance commission indicates that total revenue of Indian Municipal sector in 2001-2001 was 0.67 % of GDP where municipalities own revenue constituted merely 0.38 %. It’s quite low if compared to Brazil where municipalities own revenue is 2.6% of GDP. Internal revenues can be elevated by implementing good property tax system on the basis of – identification, inventory management, assessment, collection and enforcement mechanism

Seventhly, market financing need to be generated for bigger project implementation as and when required. Municipalities revenues need to be in good health so that municipal bonds issued can be traded on low interest rates. Even before that, municipalities have to demonstrate that it is capable of generating stock of fund on an on-going basis to repay the maturity amount. In case of smaller cities ‘Pooled Financing’ can be an option where number of cities come together to avail benefits of scale and credit. In this, number of small cities come together to prove their worthiness. There is need to market making institutions also which can help in providing guarantees, investing in lower rated bonds, underwriting and providing subordinate debts

Eighthly, new cities need to make sure that environmental and social costs are quite high as in case of Gurgaon and poorer sections are not completely ignored as in case of Jamshedpur.

Ninthly, there is need to promote more urban planners and urban mangers, associate more planners with state, market and civil society, educate civil society people in planning, balance generalist and specialist planners, expand scope of planners from physical to integrated planning

Tenthly, it’s very important to provide detailed outline in existing or any new governmental programs. One of the major areas of maximum focus should be on non-ambiguity in policy. A well articulated vision and objectives, phased goals, associated deadline and accountability will definitely help.

Conclusion

Urbanization in real sense is real change. Important feature of urbanization influencing politics and policies is: It undermines old form of political mobilization based on caste and religious identities and favors local issues to be resolved. Hence, it not only provides opportunity to curb social issues but provides a way to attain ‘Growth for all and Growth of all’ policy.

But there are challenging issues and limited resources at the moment. A very detailed planning along with proactive help from society can only help, assuming that all other factors pertaining to unknown external conditions fall in place.

This article is based on Yojana Magazine Sep 2014.

An analysis on Justice Lodha statement - Independence of judiciary is non-negotiable

Understandably, a very outright notion but yet it establishes the whole crux of sustaining a “rightful” democracy in the opportunistic times. And restating such statement shows the anxiety of CJI Lodha that how much worried an eminent man is per se his knowledge of judicial misuse in past and experience of current situation which might give rise to similar situation again and let me clearly state his worry is fore on Judicial Appointments Commission Bill.

Let’s start with little history on what is meant by judicial independence and how it was breached and then eventually rectified. And when it was all well then why again we fell into same cycle?

What is meant by Judicial Independence? Example of IlBert Bill

Though there could be many earlier stances but let me detail on Ilbert Bill (1883) which can help us understand what is meant by judicial independence. This bill was introduced by Viceroy Ripon and was a controversial one in early British India times due to its proposal to allow Indian Judges the jurisdiction to try British offenders. 

There were different philosophies at that time supporting and rejecting the bill but let’s focus on one prospect which was most prominent. British tea and indigo owners were much concerned that Indian judges won’t overlook their mistreatment of Indian workers and thus were worried that criminal cases might go against them. So, the whole idea of appealing against such bill was to ensure that judge should support certain section of society despite they work against the ambit of laws. Henceforth, this law had to undergo amendments to allow 50% of European judges as jury. And hence I see it as classic example of dent in independence of judiciary.

How Constitution protects judicial independence? Aspects in constitution

Keeping such examples in mind the founders of Indian Constitution ensured that Judiciary should be independent. They put most effort to keep judiciary out of periphery of executive and legislatures and clearly remarked in Article 50 which directs state to separate judiciary from executive in public services. 

Though article 50 is Directive Principle to state and not very binding, constitution also provides other mechanism to ensure independence of judiciary through security of Tenure, fixed service conditions, restricting discussion on conduct of judges in Parliament or state Legislature and many more. But the most controversial is mode of appointment. Though this is regarded to ensure independence of judiciary but most misused and led to grave situations in post independent India.

What does Constitution say in Appointment of Judges?

It says the judges are appointed by the President after consultation of Chief Justice and other judges of Supreme Court and High Court as he deems necessary and consultation of Chief Justice is obligatory in appointment of other judges but not binding in all cases. For Chief Justice, there is no additional definition for appointment but till 1973, it was practice to appoint senior most judge onto this post.

What happened when everything was alright? Cases after 1973

Not long before but in 1973 such compromises with judiciary started. Then Prime Minister Mrs. Indira Gandhi was troubled with interventions of Supreme Court in Government policies particularly with Bank Nationalization case and Privy Purse case. Hence, she wanted to ensure an appointment of CJI who can work in favor of Government. The opportunity arrived with judgment on Kesavananda Bharati case (1973). The very next day of judgment, Chief Justice Sikri retired and President V.V. Giri on suggestion of Prime Minister appointment 4^th Senior most Judge Justice A.N. Ray as CJI. 

Reason of overruling top three judges was simple as they were part of bench which decided against the wishes of government. The outcome was simple too as new judge quickly waned judgments in favor of government. Notably Justice Ray was also part of the bench but voted in against of judgment. The government saw the opportunity in the wordings of Constitution which doesn’t made advise of current CJI binding on the President to appoint the next CJI. Hence, with favorable President, government was able to appoint CJI of its own choice.  Rightly, it was also termed as “the 

Blackest day in Indian History”.

Similar case happened in 1977, when M U Beg was appointed CJI superseding then senior most judge Justice Khanna whose judgement of upholding Right to Life even during Emergency in 1976 was not liked by the government.

Then the case of partisanship appeared when the verdict against Sanjay Gandhi was conveyed by District Judge in 1979 in case of ‘Kissa Kursi Ka’ but later overturned.

How was it be rectified? Genesis of Collegium System.

Eventually, judiciary itself stepped in to overcome the problem.

Firstly, in Minerva Mills case (1980), the apex court invalidated provisions of 42^nd Constitutional Amendment which prevent any constitutional amendment from being "called in question in any Court on any ground". Hence, the Court established the judicial review as basic feature of Constitution and hence cannot be taken away.

And then, the collection of three cases, collectively known as Three Judges Cases established a collegium system to prevent the whims of government in appointment of judges.

The second Judge Case (1993), ruled both on appointment of judges and appointment of CJI. In case of appointment of judges, the apex court ruled that the advice tendered by CJI would be binding on the President but CJI should advice after consultation with two of its senior most judges. And in case of appointment of CJI, it ruled that senior most judge should be the CJI. These steps definitely curtailed the government wings of appointing judges and CJI of its own choices and hence hindering the independence of Judiciary.

Furthermore, the Third Judge Case (1998), expanded the collegium system as a step of self improvement  by establishing the doctrine of ‘Consultation of Plurality of Judges’ where number of judges required for consultation for advising the President on appointments of judges was increased to four where majority on opinion was mandatory.

Why issues reappeared? Corruption and lack of transparency at the root

The issues of corruption came to limelight when noted Supreme Court Lawyer Prashant Bhusan stated that, “out of last 16 to 17 Chief Justices, half have been corrupt”. But, the serious allegations came into picture from people of collegium itself particularly from former CJI Justice Verma and former Supreme Court Justice Ruma Pal. Justice Verma declared that he wanted to probe in allegations on judges in certain cases  (particularly in case of Justice Punchhi) but political executive refused to allow this. Justice Ruma Pal went ahead by slamming higher judiciary and listed seven sins in the system which included grave issues like Hypocrisy and Nepotism.

In 2011, impeachment of Soumtra Sen (Judge at Kolkata High Court) for misappropriation of funds was huge dent in character of Judiciary.

Most recently in 2014, Justice Katju (again a former judge of Supreme Court), wrote extensively on improper compromises in the Collegium System of appointing judges which raised the question of accountability and lack of transparency.

What government is thinking to do now? Introduction of Judicial Appointments Commission Bill (NJAC)

In Aug 2013, then minister of Law and Justice, Mr. Kapil Sibal introduced Judicial Appointments Commission Bill for the composition, functions and procedure of the National Judicial Appointments Commission (NJAC). The commission hence established would have functions related to appointment, transfer and quality of candidates. Recommendations would be in appointment of CJI, other judges in Supreme Court, Chief Justice of High Court and other judges of High Court and transfer of Chief justice of High Courts and other judges of high courts.

Eventually, The Constitution (99th) Amendment Bill, 2014 and National Judicial Appointment Commission Act, 2014 is enabled to meet the objectives.

99^th Amendment inserts new Articles 124A, 124B, 124C and changes many others to accomplish its objective to provide meaningful role to judiciary.

Currently, 99^th Amendment bill has to be ratified by half of states and then assent of the President is required (though binding but yet a process) to come into force. Once this Bill becomes Act, it will abolish collegium system.

How NJAC can disturb the independence of judiciary?

Under Article 124A, the NJAC has six members of whom three are judges – CJI and two senior most judges. Other members are Union Law Minister and two eminent persons to be appointed by Prime Minister, Leader of Opposition and CJI.

In my opinion, there could be four issues here.

Firstly, inclusion of legislature and eminent person nominated by dominant legislature can result into deadlock in decisions when there is politically motivated agenda.

Secondly, infamous practices of Parliament might creep into the Commission as introduction of legislative in appointment and transfer process can lead to more corruption as legislative might start practice of buying commission members in order to secure votes.

Thirdly, there is question on selection of eminent persons. How good is to appoint people who could have less knowledge and wisdom (than to be appointed/transferred judge himself) to sit in process of transfer and appointment of judges. Reason of this assertion is there is no requirement that eminent persons on commission should have any knowledge of Law.

Fourthly, Article 124C enables Parliament to empower commission to make regulations for selecting judges and for other matters. Hence, it gives huge power to commission in a way.

My conclusive views

One right aspect could be from concerned sides that looking onto the opportunity of common enemy ‘Judiciary’ in troubled waters, thanks to its own people, the politicians have ganged and quickly (rightly used adjective when the passage of Bill is looked upon) clipped the wings of judiciary to try to infect the system.

But the change is inevitable.

I agree that collegium system was introduced to safeguard judiciary independence from whim of government but I would like to assert that that was quite a case of responsive act to what happened in 1970’s. Even earlier to that Judiciary had produced such a fine Judges and they have led to impressive judgement particularly in case of Kesavananda where Supreme Court established doctrine of ‘Basic Features’.  

But when collegium system has itself landed in allegations, then similar a reactionary step was bound to happen and this would always be same circle.

When we talk about the justification of NJAC, then it’s certainly not utterly non-sense. It has given equal provisions to Judges and other persons in commission. It has also tried to make the process transparent, commission responsible by introducing 3 non Judge members. It may lack to certain intricacies but important thing would be figure out those points and raise a concern and put pressure on government to fix them.

Even if we consider the situation globally, successful judiciaries in countries like the U.K., Canada, Australia judicial appointments committees have mix of executives and eminent people.

Another concerned side would be questioning the need of reinventing the wheel and horror remembrance of legislative involvement in judicial matter. The impression is to settle the issue with subtle changes in existing system and minimize the legislative involvement. One solution may be through, Venkatachaliah Committee suggestion of a five-member body consisting of three senior most Supreme Court judges, the Union Minister and one eminent person.

The petitions are already in Supreme Court to declare the commission illegal. Even if the judgement goes in favour of petitions but the court have to think on increasing demand of transparency and participation in judiciary system keeping it in balance with judiciary independence.  

Don’t miss the bandwagon

Recently published CSO data showed Bihar growth above 10%, way above national average and it hits the top of the list. This is overwhelming but we cannot deny the fact that we are growing out of oblivion and hence higher rate of growth is expected even when a fraction of good work is done. Stating this no one can undermine the work of state government but portray a simple fact that there is lot to be done on each and every front.

What is Bandwagon?

Recent change in Centre has established BJP rule (though NDA but BJP suits most). The government looks growth focused and transparency oriented. It could be either due to there minimal expertise in corruption in fed matters or they really want the change or they want to deep root their mandate for every next elections. Whatever the cause, we care less till governance is upbeat.

How we are missing it

Firstly, the partition between JDU and BJP has caused immense harm. They divided on their own version of ‘Love Jihad’ but in this case all community is in loss. There was hope of Bihar government riding with Centre. A togetherness of two governments could have ‘Big Bang’ in Bihar development with uniqueness of Moderate Socialistic Democracy.

Secondly, recent development in Bihar where we are still involved in political fights of joining and breaking and untimely by polls have definitely shifted focus of Bihar government into more electoral gains rather than focusing on growth and governance.

What’s next?

It’s always been my firm belief – “What India is to World, Bihar is to India” - both underrated, having great potential and under performing. Hence, it won’t be mistaken if Bihar Government works on similar lines of Centre policies of development. One benefit of such approach will be getting good help in form of planning, expertise and resources from Centre.

It’s been good tenure of Bihar Government in establishing itself as socialist but we can’t proceed further being hard core socialist only and an amalgam is needed now. To start with, firstly, there is need of quantum rise of morality of people. This lies in the core of all requirement and need to be taken care if state wants it’s every next effort being successful. I don’t see any way other than educational campaigns or enforcement of strict laws. Historically, latter has been more persuasive.

Secondly, aggressive work is required in infrastructure building for households, industries and then apt skill training too. To start with, we can focus on certain selected area and build them as hub to attract industries and investments. Then provide them with skilled labor from our own pool.

Thirdly, engagement with Foreign states directly and benefit from Centre’s policy of attracting investment. This would boost revenue generation, standardization from global practices and modernization as well.

Finally and most importantly, work with “variety” of top class industries and research labs to setup resources in Bihar. This measure can help in capsizing the migration of talent to some extent on its own.

The beauty is, all of these can go in parallel, mutually exclusive working and reap benefit from each other’s positive outcomes.

Conclusion

There is lot more to it like promoting trade, agriculture on scientific methods, etc. but basic idea is to achieve conducive environment for healthy life and ‘Welfare State’ as Directive Principles in our Constitution aims and bring back the immense talent which Bihar has given to India and to world.

Interestingly, majority of current requirements matches with Central government policies and initiatives and hence, there is expectancy that state government will not let ideological difference come in between and work hand in hand with Centre to ensure full cooperation.

Its ripe time and we must ensure we harvest.