Representative image of urbanisation.
Credit: Pixabay Photo
Over the last few years in this country, everything has been big and grand. Cities are big, infrastructure is big, and development is big. And yet, amidst all this progress, so much seems to be falling by the wayside. The reality is that, despite the extensive urbanisation, over 60% of our population still resides in rural areas and may actually prefer their rural lives, provided they have improved living conditions. Despite the immense push for infrastructural development, there are adverse consequences, particularly for the larger, often overlooked, rural populations and the country’s ecology. Take, for instance, the increasing number of accidents resulting from overpopulation, climate change, and extensive infrastructure development in the Himalayas. Experts now suggest that the region might have been more environmentally sustainable with smaller, community-driven infrastructure projects.
Infrastructure projects fall into three categories: small, major, and ‘mega’. The government’s megaprojects consume a disproportionate share of the infrastructure budget. However, it is the smaller projects in areas like communications, energy, floods, transport, and utilities that make up the vast majority across the country. Unfortunately, as citizens, we tend to overlook these projects, have little time to engage with or monitor them, and, as a result, they often suffer from poor quality and fail. Currently, issues like low quality, low operating efficiency, inadequate maintenance, and a lack of attention to the users’ needs hinder the development impact of our infrastructure.
In contrast, in China, while the country invests in large infrastructure like the Three Gorges Dam, the Beijing Olympics, the Shanghai Expo, and the high-speed rail system, it also focuses on rural roadways, telecommunications, and infrastructure that reaches remote, poor areas. Through local roads, farmers become connected to larger markets. As they diversify their family incomes and emerge from poverty, they demand better clothing, improved housing, and even basic consumer goods. This leads to gradual, trickle-up growth rather than a “trickle-down” approach. With increased income, communities invest in rural roads and small-scale projects related to electricity, water, and sanitation. These immediately translate into improved well-being and productivity. As rural residents prosper, they tend to remain in their local communities, closer to their friends, relatives, and broader social networks. This approach helps strike a balance between rural development and urbanisation, relieving pressure on migrant-clogged cities.
India needs infrastructure, but the issue is that policymakers often prioritise large and impressive projects that often benefit only those directly connected to the larger economy. India does have schemes like the Rajiv Gandhi Grameen Vidyutikaran Yojna (RGGVY), which aims to provide electricity connections to all un-electrified villages and to provide free electricity to all households below the poverty line (BPL), covering more than 360,000 villages. The Pradhan Mantri Gram Sadak Yojana (PMGSY) focuses on rural road construction, having completed networks for 125,000 habitations by 2016. The Universal Service Obligation Fund (USOF) has erected over 7,353 cellular towers for multi-village clusters. To address the challenges posed by rapid and mass urbanisation, policymakers must shift their focus to organic rural development that involves farmers and local communities. Small, bottom-up infrastructure development should take precedence over top-down approaches. It is these smaller projects that may, in the long term, help reduce poverty.
Development has brought a new set of vulnerabilities to rural areas. Land acquisition is primarily directed at urbanisation, real estate development, industrialization, mining, roads, and other infrastructural projects. Even in some of the world’s last pristine wilderness areas, roads are being constructed, despite evidence that they lead to activities that directly impact land use, forest cover, and particular species and contribute to large-scale environmental degradation. This degradation disproportionately affects impoverished communities with minimal infrastructure and services. Focusing on small, low-cost, community-centred approaches to increased and sustained mobility such as footbridges, trail bridges, and pedestrian bridges as critical rural infrastructure may address the complexity associated between political frameworks, ecological experts, and infrastructure planners and effectively manage the trade-offs. Additionally, in many countries, smaller infrastructure has enabled gender mainstreaming, especially in areas where female vehicle ownership is not socially and culturally acceptable.
A more micro-oriented approach to infrastructure development forgoes the ‘big infrastructure’ advice given by development agencies and governments. It means more farm-to-market roads, fewer super highways, more basic irrigation, fewer mega dams, and less big infrastructure. It may be less impressive but demonstrates more participatory and longer-term impacts based on inclusive growth.
(The writer is an urban planner based in Bengaluru)