'What exactly is a Smart City?' - No one really knows, but Delhi MUST become smarter

My article 'What exactly is a Smart City?' - No one really knows, but Delhi MUST become smarter appeared in The Daily Mail/Mail Today

Here is the link...

Several months ago, during an interaction with a group of senior (serving and retired) civil servants, the discussion turned to one of Prime Minister Narendra Modi's flagship schemes, 'Smart Cities'.
After some time, one of the participants asked: 'But what is a smart city?'

Questions
One 'smart' officer answered that it is an important scheme through which the Prime Minister hopes to change India.
Someone else pointed out that this does not really explain what a 'smart city' is.
How could this change the lives of city dwellers, particularly in places like Delhi, where traffic and pollution are increasing by the day?
A better-connected person admitted that a few weeks earlier, he had phoned one of his colleagues, serving in a senior position in the urban development ministry and asked the latter the same question.
The answer was: 'We are not sure as yet, but we are working on it'. There was no doubt in anybody's mind that there is an urgency for Delhi to become smarter; otherwise, millions could soon suffocate with the increase in pollution, the dysfunctional transportation system and the degradation of the quality of life in general.
Since that discussion, the government and particularly the 'Smart Cities Mission' have done some homework.
The website of the ministry confesses that there is no universally accepted definition for a smart city; it could mean different things to different people.
Ultimately, a smart city 'contains a wish list of infrastructure and services that describes his or her level of aspiration'.
The idea is to provide for the aspirations and needs of the citizens: 'Urban planners ideally aim at developing the entire urban ecosystem, which is represented by the four pillars of comprehensive development - institutional, physical, social and economic infrastructure.'
The objectives of the present scheme are to provide a decent quality of life to the citizens - a clean and sustainable environment by using 'smart solutions': 'The focus is on sustainable and inclusive development.'
Ultimately, a smart city 'contains a wish list of infrastructure and services that describes his or her level of aspiration'
Another objective is to 'create a replicable model which will act like a lighthouse to other aspiring cities.'
After a recent visit to Bhutan, I realised that an important factor has been left out - happiness. Should not citizens be happy in their smart city?
It seems quite obvious, except for the 'planners'! The concept of 'happiness', perhaps, places the bar too high. But should not the well-being of the body and the mind be at least included in the objectives of 'smart cities'?
Even if technology can go a long way to help achieve these objectives, the human aspect should remain the main focus.

Experiment
It is important to recall the experiment of Chandigarh in the 1950s. Inaugurating a new university, Jawaharlal Nehru put it in perspective: 'I do not like every building in Chandigarh, I like some of them very much, I like the general conception of the township very much but what I like, above all, is this creative approach, not being tied down to what has been done by our forefathers and the like, but thinking of it in new terms and trying to think in terms of light and air and ground and water and human beings.'
Human beings should be at the centre of preoccupation of the planners when they dream of achieving smartness.
As Nehru put it: 'The main thing is the approach to it, the design, the conception, the wide conception embracing every aspect of the human life.'
Unfortunately, the 'expert' builders took over the new city and the human approach of the model city remained only words. 'Smart City' is today a fashionable slogan, particularly for foreign investors, but how many town planners are ready to follow in the steps of Le Corbusier?
It is true that there is no easy solution. One way out could be the delocalisation of some of the Indian ministries, all located in Delhi.
Why can't the urban development ministry give the example and shift to a 'smart' new place and become an example for others to follow.

Delocalisation
Let us not forget that new technologies, IT in particular, are to be the engine of the 'smart revolution'. With the advent of video-conferencing, emails and other means of communications, the shifting of a few ministries should not impact the efficiency of the babus and their political masters.
Take Shastri Bhavan, which hosts a score of different ministries.
One often reads in the press about fire in Shastri Bhavan. It is one of the most 'un-smart' buildings in Lyutens' Delhi. Why can't some of these ministries be relocated in other parts of India?
Why not in the Northeast or in the south, for example? It will certainly release the pressure on the national Capital and bring new energies to the 'provinces'.
Delocalisation would be a smart move. It would help make India not uniquely a Delhi-centric country, but also help having smarter, more sustainable governance.
Not only ministries, several government undertakings could also be shifted outside Delhi (I am thinking particularly about think tanks and many educational institutions).
Gurugram could have been a great experiment, had it not been uniquely based on economic short-term profits on immovable properties. It has become an example not to be followed.
Another modern tragedy is the migration of populations from the frontiers, particularly the borders with China in Ladakh, Uttarakhand and Arunachal Pradesh.
Delhi works at snail's speed to create a semblance of infrastructure in these areas, resulting in migration towards the 'big cities'. This too is not at all smart.

The Fate of Planet Earth

As torrential rains forces the authorities to close Chennai Airport, as Beijing chokes under a thick, brown smog and air pollution reaches 20 times what the World Health Organization considers to be safe and as Delhi become the ‘Most Polluted City in the World’, leaders from 147 nations addressed the opening session of the 2015 UN Climate Change Conference held in Paris between November 30 to December 11.
One of the objectives of the COP21 (it is the 21st yearly session of the Conference of Parties), is to review the implementation of the 1992 Rio Convention. In Brazil, world leaders had agreed on a UN Framework on Climate Change (UNFCCC), aimed at stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases and avoiding ‘dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system’.
The UNFCCC has now 195 parties/members.
During the COP3 in Japan, the Kyoto Protocol was adopted; then the COP11 in Canada agreed to the Montreal Action Plan, while the COP15 in Copenhagen could only acknowledge that the Kyoto Protocol targets had not been achieved; this perhaps triggered the creation of a Green Climate Fund during the COP17 in Durban.
This time, the aim is to find an effective and equitable agreement to limit global temperature rise to 2 degrees Celsius.
Will it succeed?
Probably not: simply because the interests of the different players are too divergent. However one should look at the COP21 in another perspective.
Never in the history of mankind, have so many heads of State and Governments congregated in a single place. For months, the world’s chancelleries put tremendous efforts to enable a consensus during the Meet.
France, as the host of the COP21, says that “it is committed to the role of an impartial facilitator for forging an ambitious agreement.”
Laurent Fabius, the French Minister of Foreign Affairs and COP21 Chairperson has been criss-crossing the world for months. After his visit to Delhi on November 20, he rushed to South Africa, Brazil and Canada to look for possible solutions and this, despite the disparate interests.
Each and every capital has done some homework. Take Beijing, it recently released its latest scientific assessment, a 900-page document called ‘Third National Climate Change Assessment Report’; some 550 scientists have participated to sum up the present knowledge and environmental consequences of rising greenhouse gas levels for China.
They found that average temperatures across the Middle Kingdom have been rising faster than the global average, and that te trend is likely to continue.
If you multiply these efforts by more than 100 nations who have taken the issue seriously, the COP21 is already a success.
The human race has realized that its fate is in the balance.
Of course, the West and Asia do not see eye to eye.
Steffen Böhm, a professor in Management and Sustainability at the University of Essex is one of the few Westerners who understand the less-developed nations’ point of view; he wrote: “Stop blaming India and China for the West’s 300 years of destroying the environment”
Böhm believes that the COP21 will be failure: “The basic reason is that the unequal distribution of carbon emissions is not even on its agenda. The historical responsibility of the West is not on the table, nor is a method of national carbon accounting that looks at how the emissions a country consumes rather than produces.”
The Indian Prime Minister, while addressing the opening session, expressed similar views: “Over the next few days, we will decide the fate of this planet. …the consequences of the industrial age powered by fossil fuel are evident, especially on the lives of the poor. The prosperous still have a strong carbon footprint. And, the world's billions at the bottom of the development ladder are seeking space to grow. So, the choices are not easy. But, we have awareness and technology.”
A western journalist wrote in La Libre Belgique: “India claims the right to pollute”. She represents the view of many in the West, but this type of attitude can lead nowhere.
President Obama was more diplomatic; he urged negotiators to deliver a meaningful deal, because the ‘next generation is watching’; he added: “Climate change could define the contours of this century more than any other challenge.”
The urgency of the situation is the only consensus right now.
There are however several positive initiatives.
Narendra Modi along with French President Francois Hollande launched the International Solar Alliance. It will be hosted in the premises of the National Institute of Solar Energy in Gurgaon and India will provide land and contribute about US$ 30 million to build the Secretariat: "This day is the sunrise of new hope –- not just for clean energy, but for villages and homes still in darkness; and for our mornings and evenings filled with a clear view of the glory of the sun," said Modi. Let us hope.
The world event in France will see the participation of the ‘civil society’, the green NGOs, ‘stakeholders’ of every hue and of course the climatosceptics, who do not believe in climate change, but only see it as a conspiracy of the rich nations.
Probably a crucial concept will be forgotten, that is Sustainable Consumption which means that humanity has to start consuming less, if it wants to survive. Humans need to realize that the resources of the planet are limited and need to be shared by all. But who should start acting first, the rich or the poor?

Calling a spade a spade in dealing with China

Recent PLA's maneuvers in Tibet (April 3)

A friend recently asked me: "In your opinion, how should the new government deal with China?"
I answered that first of all, I do not know who will be the next Prime Minister and then, perhaps more importantly, who will the PM's choice to look after Defence and External Affairs.
It will be indeed crucial choices and the relations with China (and the rest of the world) will depend on this choice.
But something came to me, whoever 'deals' with China will have to be frank and transparent. The person should not be scared to 'hurt China's sensitivities'.  
In this context, an interesting article was published by Xinhua yesterday.
It is a commentary on US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel's visit to China.
Xinhua says that Hagel "may well feel after wrapping up his four-day visit to China on Thursday that Beijing has become more frank with Washington and less hesitant to voice its dissatisfaction with some US moves."
It was indeed the case as several encounters were reported to have been quite 'tough'.
The Chinese Communist Party news agency explains: "By inviting Hagel to tour the 'Liaoning', China's sole aircraft carrier, and being honest about its grievances, China showed that it has nothing to hide."
Then it quotes Fan Changlong, the powerful vice chairman of China's Central Military Commission who "denounced Hagel's recent remarks to ASEAN defense ministers and Japanese politicians over their territorial disputes with China as tough and biased."
It is something that the Indian diplomats and politicians have always difficulty to do: to call a spade a spade. Remember Depsang Plains a year ago.
General Fan Changlong told Hagel in front of the press that the Chinese people, including himself, were dissatisfied with such remarks in Japan.
Xinhua adds: "The unusual harsh tone delivers a clear message: Beijing is resolved to defend its core interests, particularly territorial sovereignty, and will not allow any country to make waves."
Frankness should not be confined to the rooms of Zhongnanhai or South Block, but should be shared with the press and the public. It is something Delhi should definitely learn.
For once, I agree with a comment form Xinhua: "The frankness is expected to reduce the possibility of miscalculation by other countries when they gauge China's red lines, and consequently reduce rashness in their China policy-making."
The new Indian government if it wants to deal on an equal footing with China will have to be frank, straightforward and transparent ...and be able to draw 'red lines'.
If the Chinese news agencies can say: "As a responsible player in regional and global affairs, China expects the United States to respect its core interests, but has been repeatedly disappointed by the latter's double-faced tactics", why can't India does the same to China.
To take a concrete example, why can't Delhi tell Beijing openly, "if you are sincere in finding a solution for the border dispute, why can't you put the maps of your perceived LACs on the table. We are ready to put ours."
Or else, "please explain what are your ownership rights on the Depsang Plains or on Chumur in Ladakh? Why have your perceived LAC moved so much since 1959?" Many such questions should be asked frankly and publicly.
Xinhua says: "Regardless of disagreements in various fields, both Beijing and Washington clearly know they are friends, not enemies, and a healthy US-China relationship is a sine qua non for world peace and stability."
The same thing applies to India and China, but before being real friends, the differences should be openly displayed, discussed and known to the public.
It would be the best way to dismiss unsustainable claims.
Xinhua concludes: "If hard-nosed politicians in Washington can understand Beijing's frankness and resolve better, China-US ties will be more stable and the Asia-Pacific region will be more peaceful."
The 'hard-nosed' leaders in Beijing will understand better India if the next Foreign and Defence Ministers can speak in a straightforward and transparent manner.
The Indian public, which is mature enough, should always be taken into confidence.