What cities want

Census data shows that India is urbanising sharply,and now almost a third of India lives in its cities. The edges between rural and urban are blurring. Yet,political parties have been slow to respond to the citys needs,for a variety of reasons. First,it is more difficult for citizens demands to travel upwards,given that urban decentralisation has been an afterthought,and much less successful than rural self-government. The representation ratio between citizens and leaders is about ten times larger in cities on average,making the state that much more distant. Ward committees and corporations do not reflect the desires of most citizens. While Delhi is an exception,being a pampered city-state,other metropolises are much worse off. With Mumbai and Bangalore,for example,governance rests with state governments who view them mainly as a site of extraction. There are multiple criss-crossing agencies without accountability,and the states political executive is not particularly invested in the citys welfare,because there arent enough MLAs to press its case. While both the Congress and the BJP have benefited,nationally,from the urban upsurge,they have not given cities priority attention.

Kejriwals success lies in a clear appreciation of the fact that city voters,whether poor or middle class,are aspirational voters. Material questions of infrastructure,education,healthcare,efficient delivery of civic services,matter greatly to them,quite apart from the old pulls of caste and religion. It is not enough to roll out Central schemes like the JNNURM parties must be seen to be agile on these fronts. It is interesting that many of the AAPs core promises involve water and power,more schools and quality healthcare,and an assurance to citizens that civic decisions will involve their participation. In whatever shape these commitments are kept,there will be valuable lessons for urban politics.