A budget for cities without people

The 2024–25 budget contains provisions envisioned for cities teeming with 'technology' and 'innovation', but bereft of their people, feels Evita Das. 

—

DO you recall how, as children, our drawings would inevitably feature four mountains, a sun, a river stream, and perhaps a house with some grass if we were feeling particularly artistic?

In a way, the Union Budget 2024–25 focusing on cities seems like those simple drawings, a vision of developed cities without their people. Urban development is one of the nine themes 'prioritised' in the budget. However, reading the components related to urban development feels like a hastily written school assignment.

Typically, when a budget is announced, practitioners immediately respond by evaluating the allocation— whether there has been an increase or decrease, or what components might have been overlooked.

Yet, a more significant issue lies in the framework and perspective of the budget itself. As practitioners, we can discuss 'liveable' cities, 'climate-resilient' cities and 'sustainable' cities, adding various descriptors to 'city'.

But what about the existing framework of the budget on which promises and claims were based? What kind of economic future is the budget envisioning? This article aims to raise questions about the current statements made in the budget and is a reminder on why reporters should keep these questions central to their opinion.

Statement 1

"Implementation of schemes meant for supporting economic activities by craftsmen; artisans; self-help groups; Scheduled Caste, Schedule Tribe and women entrepreneurs; and street vendors, such as PM Vishwakarma, PM SVANidhi, National Livelihood Missions and Stand-Up India will be stepped up."

This statement gives a direction on which schemes will be prioritised and their target groups. While this provision has been welcomed by practitioners and reporters, a closer examination is warranted.

The Union government launched the PM Street Vendors AtmaNirbhar Nidhi (PM SVANidhi) loan on June 1, 2020, five months after the first case of Covid was reported.

Also read: Union budget 2024–25: Of the, for the and by the organised sector

The scheme's purpose was to provide affordable working capital loans to street vendors to resume their livelihoods that have been adversely affected by the Covid lockdowns. It offered collateral-free working capital loans up to ₹10,000 for one year, with subsequent loans of ₹20,000 and ₹50,000 introduced in April 2021 and June 2022, respectively. The approval of the scheme followed numerous efforts by civil society organisations and movement-based groups.

The ongoing discussion about the budget looks at the reduction of ₹141.68 crore for 2024–25. Ignoring the broader issue of the 'trap economy', where a loan-based system is promoted without considering the rights of street vendors.

The Street Vendors Act of 2014 has completed a decade, yet street vendors across the country continue to face eviction and inadequate surveys. Even with legal documentation provided by the Act, vendors remain unprotected from mistreatment. During the pandemic, reports indicated that police frequently beat and abused vendors on the streets.

Even after the lockdown was lifted and vendors were permitted to set up shops, many continued to experience harassment and violence from police.

Public hearings in Delhi revealed severe issues. Of the 90 depositions made, 56 vendors (62 percent) had been evicted at least once since the pandemic began. Additionally, 40 vendors (44.4 percent) reported that their goods were either seized or discarded.

The physical harassment by officials often led vendors to end up in hospitals, further adding to their distress with additional medical expenses. Moreover, officials demanded bribes from vendors to allow them to set up their businesses, with refusal resulting in further obstacles to operating.

The hearings also uncovered that 86 out of 90 vendors (95.6 percent) experienced a drastic decline in earnings due to the pandemic, and 75 out of 90 vendors (83.34 percent) saw their income reduced by 50 percent. Vendors from Scheduled Castes (SC) faced an even more severe reduction of 75 percent. This economic hardship was not solely due to the pandemic but was also the result of deliberate misgovernance and harsh lockdown measures, coupled with abusive policing.

In summary, the budget screams of an encroaching feudalism, where citizens are merely beneficiaries. A mechanism to further entrench a cycle of debt, offering loans rather than addressing the fundamental right to livelihood. The budget overlooks the ongoing repercussions of the pandemic and fails to acknowledge the continued suffering of citizens.

Statement 2

"Building on the success of the PM SVANidhi Scheme in transforming the lives of street vendors, our government envisions a scheme to support the development of 100 weekly 'haats' or street food hubs in select cities each year over the next five years."

This statement appears to use the success of the PM SVANidhi Scheme as a pretext to promote street food hubs, which are largely managed by corporates or private entities. Street vendors, who are often displaced without violating any regulatory norms, are frequently replaced by these hubs.

Also read: Does the interim budget for 2024–25 offer anything beyond an election pitch?

A similar pattern can be observed with the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) (PMAY-U). Review the following statements:

• "Three crore additional houses under the PM Awas Yojana in rural and urban areas have been announced, with necessary allocations being made."
• "Under PM Awas Yojana Urban 2.0, housing needs of one crore urban poor and middle-class families will be addressed with an investment of ₹10 lakh crore, including central assistance of ₹2.2 lakh crore over the next five years. The scheme also includes provisions for interest subsidies to facilitate affordable loans."

The PMAY Urban's promise of Housing for All by 2022 was planned under PMAY, 2015. The scheme witnessed an extension of two years, that is, from August 2022 to December 2024, to complete the sanctioned houses mentioned on March 31, 2022.

A key component of the PMAY-U is In-Situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR), which has been a major focus for garnering electoral support. However, according to an article in The Hindu published in 2024 and a press release in 2023 by the Union ministry of housing and urban affairs on ISSR, only 2,10,552 houses were sanctioned to eligible beneficiaries and it has been able to address just about 25.5 percent of the housing shortage.

This suggests that the core issues of ISSR remain unresolved, while the emphasis is placed on credit subsidies. Despite increased allocations and a higher number of sanctioned houses, these measures do not effectively address the needs of the urban poor.

The State's approach appears to perpetuate a cycle of debt rather than providing meaningful security. Recent data shows a significant rise in evictions, with 2.78 lakh people evicted in Delhi alone between 2022 and 2023.

Remember, this is the number only for one state. It can only be imagined by the courageous what the number will be for the whole country. ISSR's sanctioned numbers are disproportionately low compared to the scale of evictions. It is clear that these schemes, although ostensibly designed to address the needs of the urban poor and historically oppressed communities, are not intended for them.

Instead, the inclusion of provisions for the middle class in PMAY reveals that these claims serve more as a cover for broader demographic interests rather than focusing on those most in need.

Statement 3

Another statement from the budget discusses the "creative brownfield redevelopment of existing cities" with the goal of formulating a framework for enabling policies, market-based mechanisms and regulations.

Brownfield sites are undeveloped parcels of land typically found in urban areas or on the outskirts of towns. They often have characteristics such as being abandoned or underutilised. They may also be environmentally contaminated, whether the contamination is real or perceived.

Historically, both brownfield and greenfield developments aimed for planned and equitable urban growth. However, the shift towards extreme privatisation and reliance on market-based solutions can be traced back to the Third Five-Year Plan and beyond.

For instance, the dismantling of the public sector's monopoly on urban infrastructure, the acquisition of land and rezoning of master plans for private sector convenience, and provision of cheap, unserviced land to the private sector have all been part of this trend.

Also read: The complexities of tax residency certificates in 2024

These measures have long determined the trajectory of urban development, resulting in a pattern of inequality in city planning.

When public goods are increasingly managed by the private sector under the guise of transformation, the role of urban local governance becomes largely ceremonial, with powers of real governance remaining only on paper. This trend is also reflected in other statements:

• "In partnership with state governments and multilateral development banks, we will promote water supply, sewage treatment and solid waste management projects and services for 100 large cities through bankable projects. These projects will also include the use of treated water for irrigation and filling nearby tanks."
• "In the services sector, I propose the development of DPI applications at a population scale to enhance productivity, business opportunities, and innovation by the private sector. These applications will cover areas such as credit, e-commerce, education, health, law and justice, logistics, MSMEs, service delivery, and urban governance."

These statements illustrate a broader shift towards private sector solutions and market mechanisms, often at the expense of public welfare and equitable urban governance.

Overall, without a framework grounded in social justice, any vision for cities— whether it be climate justice, liveability or sustainability— will remain unfulfilled. These aspirations are often reduced to superficial statements, with allocations and increases in budgets amounting to little more than a repetitive cycle of analysis.

Lastly, people come to cities primarily for the freedom to grow, not just to survive. Providing social security is the State's responsibility and a crucial aspect of ensuring livelihoods in the absence of living wages.

It is a fundamental commitment of the Indian welfare State to create a level playing field for historically oppressed communities and the poor. Therefore, when the budget refers to cities as growth hubs, it must be remembered that cities are built by their people. Without addressing their growth and well-being, there can be no democratic Indian State, only a benevolent Indian tyranny.