Launched with great enthusiasm in 2015, the 100 Smart Cities Mission was envisioned as a transformative project to modernize India’s urban landscape. With a lofty goal to improve the quality of life, infrastructure, and sustainability of cities, the mission has indeed led to significant achievements—but as it reached its deadline on March 31, 2025, it’s crucial to reflect on its shortcomings to draw valuable lessons for future initiatives.
Missed Deadlines and Uneven Implementation
Perhaps the most glaring shortcoming of the Smart Cities Mission has been the inability of many cities to meet their project deadlines. By the mission’s conclusion, only 18 out of 100 cities had successfully implemented all their proposed projects, leaving substantial work incomplete in the majority. Approximately 7% of the total planned projects remained unfinished, indicating gaps in project management, execution, and oversight.
While cities like Surat, Pune, Varanasi, and Vadodara emerged as success stories, cities in states such as Bihar, Andhra Pradesh, and Haryana significantly lagged behind, highlighting the uneven nature of implementation. This disparity underscores deeper structural problems, including inadequate administrative capacity, regional inequalities, and insufficient support mechanisms at the local government level.
Resource Allocation and Funding Bottlenecks
Another critical issue has been the uneven allocation and utilization of funds. While the mission’s total outlay was ambitious—over ₹164,000 crores—the effective utilization of these resources was inconsistent across states and municipalities. Poor fund management and bottlenecks in fund disbursal hindered timely completion, especially in regions lacking robust institutional frameworks.
Additionally, the focus on high-profile, resource-intensive projects sometimes diverted attention from basic urban needs like sanitation, affordable housing, and inclusive public transport. This imbalance raised questions about the equitable distribution of resources, suggesting that smarter cities should first address fundamental urban challenges.
Overemphasis on Technology, Underemphasis on Sustainability
The Smart Cities Mission emphasized technological integration as a primary solution for urban challenges, incorporating digital technologies such as smart meters, automated traffic systems, and surveillance infrastructure. However, critics argue that there was an over-reliance on technology-driven solutions without sufficient consideration for local contexts, sustainability, or inclusive growth.
For instance, cities focused heavily on “smart” interventions like CCTV surveillance or high-tech command centers, often at the expense of initiatives related to environmental sustainability, climate resilience, and social equity. The mission’s approach sometimes resulted in superficial technological upgrades without adequately addressing deeper issues of urban sustainability.
Weak Citizen Participation
A foundational principle of any successful urban mission is active citizen engagement. Unfortunately, the Smart Cities Mission fell short in consistently involving local communities in planning, execution, and oversight. Despite efforts toward citizen-centric planning, many projects were perceived as top-down initiatives, disconnected from the real needs and aspirations of local residents.
This lack of genuine participation often led to resistance or limited adoption by communities, undermining the long-term sustainability and acceptability of projects. Future initiatives must ensure robust citizen participation from the outset, creating projects that communities truly own and sustain.
Administrative and Institutional Challenges
Finally, administrative complexities and coordination issues significantly impeded progress. Delays due to bureaucratic hurdles, land acquisition problems, and conflicts between multiple government agencies became common, slowing project momentum. Limited technical capacity among local administrative bodies also emerged as a substantial barrier, suggesting a critical need for institutional capacity-building.
Conclusion: Lessons for the Future
Despite its achievements, the shortcomings of India’s 100 Smart Cities Mission provide important lessons for future urban development initiatives. To avoid repeating these pitfalls, India needs:
- Enhanced institutional capacity and streamlined governance mechanisms.
- A balanced approach that combines technological innovation with fundamental infrastructure and sustainability goals.
- Equitable and transparent resource allocation, prioritizing the most pressing urban needs.
- Robust citizen participation mechanisms to ensure alignment with community needs and aspirations.
As India continues its urban transformation journey, integrating these insights will be crucial for creating genuinely sustainable, inclusive, and resilient cities for the future.
Leave a Reply