A Liberated Mumbai

Ever since the creation of Maharashtra State in 1960, there has been a lot of argument and heartburn over the status of Mumbai city. The chief minister of the recently defunct Bombay state, Morarji Desai, wanted Mumbai (then Bombay) to be part of the state of Gujarat, on account of the large Gujarati-speaking population there. Over the years, several residents of Mumbai have argued for the creation of a separate State/Union Territory of Mumbai. Maharashtrians, however react angrily to what they see as an attempt to dismember their state. Creating a separate political entity because of a change in the demographics due to immigration by outsiders is never a terribly popular idea.

After the recent floods in Mumbai, the idea of Mumbai as a separate political unit has gained currency. The failure of the state administration to properly deal with the flooding is perceived as Maharshtra failing its capital city. There is a sense that Maharashtra is looting Mumbai, that the current political situation benefits only Maharashtra to the detriment of Mumbai. Just separate Mumbai from Maharashtra, some Mumbaikars say, and all our problems will be solved. Gaurav Sabnis writes about such demands:

One such "cause" that is supported fashionably is the matter of making Mumbai a union territory. Instinctively it seems great, doesn't it? Here is Mumbai, contributing a chunk of the country's taxes. And yet it is let down by these politicians who come from Latur, Nagar, Konkan, Baramati. Yes, instinctively we feel that making Bombay a UT or even a separate state will solve most of its problems because then the leaders of Bombay will be answerable to Bombayites.

However, is their criticism of Maharashtrians mooching of Mumbai justified? Is the rest of Maharashtra making merry at Mumbai's expense. Gaurav writes:

Even today, Mumbai's infrastructure is far better than Pune or Nagpur. Mumbai has over 60 fly-overs, two wide arterial roads, an efficient bus transport service and a creaking-but-functional suburban rail system. Pune and Nagpur combined have barely half a dozen flyovers. They have no public transport to speak of, and the roads, at least in Pune, are no great shakes. The roads in Nagpur are superb, thanks to an efficient commissioner in their Civic Corporation, and not because of mooching off Mumbai.

That is, of course not to speak of the power situation. Mumbai enjoyed, in the peak of summer, an uninterrupted 24-hour electricity supply, invariably genrated in Maharashtra. The rest of Maharashtra had to deal with daily power cuts of five hours in the city, and an unbelievable nine hours in the countryside. This sorry situation almost caused riots in the summer months in many areas of Maharshtra who felt like they had got a raw deal. For Mumbaikars to now claim that they are being looted by Maharashtra seems like incredible hubris to those Maharshtrians who sat out the better part of the summer in darkness.

There is another aspect to this issue. Many Maharashtrians (and not just right wing nutjobs like this guy) feel that their state is being taken over by non-Maharashtrian immigrants. This feeling is prevelant even in predominantly Marathi-speaking cities like Pune and Kolhapur. In light of this, support to the idea of a separate Mumbai will be political suicide for any Maharashtrian politician. Not only that, but the idea is likely to cause a lot of bad feeling, and even violence.

So, what then is the solution? Shekhar Gupta, in an article supporting a separate Mumbai, mentions a possible solution:

Free the city from the clutches of the state’s politicians, make it autonomous, give it a mayor with the powers of a Giuliani or Bloomberg.

I don't know about the rest of India, but in Maharshtra, mayors, and indeed entire city corporations are toothless tigers. Mayors are elected every year in a city council with a life of five years. Furthermore, a policy of reserving the mayoralty for certain community in certain years means that the only person who can be mayor for more than a year at a time is a woman from the scheduled castes. This causes a power vacuum at the top of the municipal corporation that is filled by the Municipal Commissioner, who is an appointed bureaucrat. This means that, in effect, the people of a city have no power to choose their leader. The administrators of our largest cities are chosen, incredibly, by the seniority system of the IAS!

So here, then, is my solution. Give Mumbai, and indeed all large cities, powerful Municipal Corporations that actually have the power to run their cities, without running to the state government for help or permission to do the smallest things. And give the Municipal Corporation a strong, directly elected mayor who is actually answerable to the people, like any decent American or European city. I realise, of course, that this is not the panacea to all of Mumbai's (and other cities') problems. It is, however, a start, and will end the unaccountability that characterises our current model of civic administration. It will also answer most of the grievances of the proponents of a separate Mumbai, without antagonising its oponents. And best of all, this is a solution that can be applied to all cities. Don't just liberate Mumbai, liberate all our cities!

Posted in Politics and Economics.