Why Smart Cities Mission Struggled in India: A State-Wise Overview
India’s ambitious Smart Cities Mission (SCM), launched in 2015 to modernize urban infrastructure and governance across 100 cities, has faced several challenges, leading to uneven implementation and underwhelming outcomes. Here’s a detailed analysis of its struggles, state-wise insights, and systemic issues.
Key Challenges1. Lack of Clear Objectives
The definition of a “smart city” was not standardized, leading to inconsistent project scopes and priorities. Some cities focused on technological upgrades, while others prioritized basic infrastructure, resulting in fragmented efforts.
2. Funding Shortfalls
Cities struggled to raise funds. Public-private partnerships (PPPs), expected to fund 21% of projects, contributed only 6%. Many smaller cities, especially in the Northeast, lacked resources or capacity to secure loans.
3.Governance and Coordination Issues
Frequent changes in project leadership and lack of fixed tenures for city CEOs hampered continuity. State-level advisory forums often failed to meet regularly, further stalling decision-making.
4. Thnological and Monitoring Gaps
Tools like the Geospatial Management Information System (GMIS) were underutilized, leading to poor real-time project tracking. Local challenges such as land acquisition delays and COVID-19 disruptions further slowed progress.
5. Execution Disparities
While cities like Varanasi and Agra achieved 90% of project completion, others such as Shillong, Gangtok, and Faridabad reported less than 10% completion. Many projects focused on low-value, quick-to-complete initiatives to inflate success rates.
State-Wise Highlighting
– Uttar Pradesh (Varanasi, Agra): Near-complete implementation of major projects like multi-modal transport hubs and public space rejuvenation.
– Northeast (Shillong, Imphal): Faced severe delays due to lack of resources and inadequate local governance support
– Gujarat (Ahmedabad, Surat): Leveraged technological solutions but struggled with interdepartmental coordination.
– Southern States (Kochi, Bengaluru): Kochi focused on mobility projects, but Bengaluru faced criticism for insufficient stakeholder engagement.
– Union Territories (Chandigarh): Investments were concentrated in specific areas (e.g., Sector 43), leaving most of the city unaffected.
Lessons Learned and Recommendation
1. Tailored Strategies: Smaller cities require separate frameworks with enhanced central support and simplified approval processes.
2. Enhanced Monitoring: Use robust geospatial and IoT systems for transparent project tracking and stakeholder involvement.
3. Defined Goals: Adopt international best practices to clearly define “smart city” benchmarks, ensuring measurable outcomes.
4. Capacity Building: Strengthen local governance and technical expertise, particularly in underdeveloped regions.
5. Focus on Basics: Address core urban issues like affordable housing and public transport before emphasizing advanced technologies.
The Smart Cities Mission demonstrates the potential for transformative urban development but also highlights the need for cohesive planning, adequate funding, and local empowerment to ensure success across diverse regions.
“At Brutnow media we tell you stories of change and those who dared to go the road less taken. Brutnow is a digital platform for your daily bite on what’s going on in your socio-economic landscape. We give you glimpses of the entrepreneurial world and highlight young thinkers and builders who may be the next big thing. We also analysis political, economical, technological header for the current scenarios. Our stories feature conversations ,helpful resources and insights from the industry that could be the motivation and push you’re looking for the company and your growth. We have interviewed and analyzed over 50+ entrepreneurs and counting , documenting their journey and struggles and their take on the future. An ecosystem of entrepreneurs”
