Popularly known as NCR, the National Capital Region is one of a kind in the world. It not only has the largest spatial extent but also brings together under one planning jurisdiction 13 districts of Haryana, seven districts of Uttar Pradesh and two districts of Rajasthan, which covers the entire National Capital Territory of Delhi.
After Partition, Delhi witnessed a decadal growth rate of about 50 per cent in its population of migrants. Delhi is considered a hub of jobs and opportunities that led to the inflow of people from adjacent areas. A recent survey has proved that Delhi is home to one-fourth of jobs created in eight big cities (Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Mumbai, Kolkata, Chennai, Pune and Delhi).
Rapid migration led to a shortage of housing and basic infrastructure accompanied by deteriorating physical environment. As a result, the first step to the planned development of Delhi was taken in 1956 through Town Planning Organisation (TPO) which prepared an interim general plan for Greater Delhi.
The plan suggested that ‘serious consideration should be given for a planned decentralisation to outer areas and even outside the Delhi region’. This indicates that the National Capital Region is not a new entity. In the early 1970s, it was defined in geographic terms encompassing an area of over 30,000 sq km divided into inner core, middle tier and outer ring. This covered Faridabad, Gurgaon, Ghaziabad, Noida, Panipat, Alwar, Meerut and Rohtak.
In this process of planning a spatial development of both the rural hinterland and urban infrastructure, the government of India in concurrence with the states of Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan passed an Act of Parliament in 1985.
This Act brought into being the NCR Planning Board (NCRPB).
In 1989, this board brought into force the Regional Plan of 2021 – a blueprint of various initiatives and policy imperatives needed to decrease the pressure of migration on Delhi. It identified regional centres or ‘priority towns’ in the NCR where the population will be deflected to.
The planning exercise has been continuously decentralised to sub-regional levels (Uttar Pradesh – 1992; Rajasthan – 1994) and functional levels (transport, power, telecommunication). In 2005, the board also notified Regional Plan (RP) – 2021 which is currently in force. RP-2021 attempts to outline future options in tackling the problems of this imbalance in the pattern of growth of Delhi and its surrounding region in the light of new economic realities post 1991.
The concept of the RP-2021 is to develop the entire NCR as a region of global excellence by promoting economic growth and balanced development. We have seen that various areas witness a spurt in the growth after getting included in the NCR.
Being a part of NCR, districts get qualified for financial assistance in the shape of soft loans and grants. It also props up the real sector. For example, Jind and Karnal districts of Haryana were included in the NCR in the year 2015. These districts will now be linked with the proposed Regional Rapid Transit System, a high-speed mass transportation rail network facilitating faster movement of traffic among the regional centres.
To boost the growth, the board provides loans to the state governments for water supply, sewerage, sanitation, drainage, solid waste management, roads and flyovers, transmission, distribution and generation of electricity at an interest rate of 7.5 per cent. However, the population in Delhi has continued to grow at a pace faster than anticipated.
It is estimated that by 2021 the population of the national capital city would be 204 lakh; and 163.5 lakh, 49.38 lakh and 203.5 lakh respectively for the sub-regions of Haryana, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh. Fifty per cent of the total area of NCR has been urbanised and by 2021 no rural space will be left.
Here are three steps that may help solve the crisis.
First, jurisdictions in Delhi and other states have to figure out common priorities. Priorities of states are not in consonance with Delhi’s development policies which has hindered development. Once becoming a part of NCR, states are bound by the regional plan prepared by the NCRPB. This leaves very little room for the state government to use its discretion.
Second, we need enough housing initiatives to control unplanned settlements. Public sector is failing to deliver the requisite housing units in terms of number or cost, and, therefore, the housing problem is accentuating. Slums and squatter settlements are increasing. Private sector should make the best use of affordable housing scheme – Pradhan Mantri Awaaz Yojana – by the government. Also, as recommended by B K Sundar Ray, states can either purchase existing EWS plots and flats available for immediate occupancy or invest in fresh developments of such facilities.
Third, core regional infrastructure like road, rail, telecommunication and power network should be developed ab-initio, so that the private sector continues feeling enthusiastic about investing in industries, wholesale trade, commerce, social infrastructure etc. We are witnessing a remarkable increase in the entry of private real estate developers, but to sustain a planned growth, urban infrastructure and private real estate has to be in sync.
Today, NCR is the largest metropolitan region in India with 34,144 square kilometres. It is also the most populated area. NCR is a unique example of inter-state regional planning and development, bringing together four administratively independent units. It is crucial for the region to develop and keep in mind the objective with which it was established. National Capital Region is a hub of opportunities – for people as well as improvements. We must not let it fail.
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
Steve Ovett, the famous British middle-distance athlete, won the 800-metres gold medal at the Moscow Olympics of 1980. Just a few days later, he was about to win a 5,000-metres race at London’s Crystal Palace. Known for his burst of acceleration on the home stretch, he had supreme confidence in his ability to out-sprint rivals. With the final 100 metres remaining,
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]Ovett waved to the crowd and raised a hand in triumph. But he had celebrated a bit too early. At the finishing line, Ireland’s John Treacy edged past Ovett. For those few moments, Ovett had lost his sense of reality and ignored the possibility of a negative event.
This analogy works well for the India story and our policy failures , including during the ongoing covid pandemic. While we have never been as well prepared or had significant successes in terms of growth stability as Ovett did in his illustrious running career, we tend to celebrate too early. Indeed, we have done so many times before.
It is as if we’re convinced that India is destined for greater heights, come what may, and so we never run through the finish line. Do we and our policymakers suffer from a collective optimism bias, which, as the Nobel Prize winner Daniel Kahneman once wrote, “may well be the most significant of the cognitive biases”? The optimism bias arises from mistaken beliefs which form expectations that are better than the reality. It makes us underestimate chances of a negative outcome and ignore warnings repeatedly.
The Indian economy had a dream run for five years from 2003-04 to 2007-08, with an average annual growth rate of around 9%. Many believed that India was on its way to clocking consistent double-digit growth and comparisons with China were rife. It was conveniently overlooked that this output expansion had come mainly came from a few sectors: automobiles, telecom and business services.
Indians were made to believe that we could sprint without high-quality education, healthcare, infrastructure or banking sectors, which form the backbone of any stable economy. The plan was to build them as we went along, but then in the euphoria of short-term success, it got lost.
India’s exports of goods grew from $20 billion in 1990-91 to over $310 billion in 2019-20. Looking at these absolute figures it would seem as if India has arrived on the world stage. However, India’s share of global trade has moved up only marginally. Even now, the country accounts for less than 2% of the world’s goods exports.
More importantly, hidden behind this performance was the role played by one sector that should have never made it to India’s list of exports—refined petroleum. The share of refined petroleum exports in India’s goods exports increased from 1.4% in 1996-97 to over 18% in 2011-12.
An import-intensive sector with low labour intensity, exports of refined petroleum zoomed because of the then policy regime of a retail price ceiling on petroleum products in the domestic market. While we have done well in the export of services, our share is still less than 4% of world exports.
India seemed to emerge from the 2008 global financial crisis relatively unscathed. But, a temporary demand push had played a role in the revival—the incomes of many households, both rural and urban, had shot up. Fiscal stimulus to the rural economy and implementation of the Sixth Pay Commission scales had led to the salaries of around 20% of organized-sector employees jumping up. We celebrated, but once again, neither did we resolve the crisis brewing elsewhere in India’s banking sector, nor did we improve our capacity for healthcare or quality education.
Employment saw little economy-wide growth in our boom years. Manufacturing jobs, if anything, shrank. But we continued to celebrate. Youth flocked to low-productivity service-sector jobs, such as those in hotels and restaurants, security and other services. The dependence on such jobs on one hand and high-skilled services on the other was bound to make Indian society more unequal.
And then, there is agriculture, an elephant in the room. If and when farm-sector reforms get implemented, celebrations would once again be premature. The vast majority of India’s farmers have small plots of land, and though these farms are at least as productive as larger ones, net absolute incomes from small plots can only be meagre.
A further rise in farm productivity and consequent increase in supply, if not matched by a demand rise, especially with access to export markets, would result in downward pressure on market prices for farm produce and a further decline in the net incomes of small farmers.
We should learn from what John Treacy did right. He didn’t give up, and pushed for the finish line like it was his only chance at winning. Treacy had years of long-distance practice. The same goes for our economy. A long grind is required to build up its base before we can win and celebrate. And Ovett did not blame anyone for his loss. We play the blame game. Everyone else, right from China and the US to ‘greedy corporates’, seems to be responsible for our failures.
We have lowered absolute poverty levels and had technology-based successes like Aadhaar and digital access to public services. But there are no short cuts to good quality and adequate healthcare and education services. We must remain optimistic but stay firmly away from the optimism bias.
In the end, it is not about how we start, but how we finish. The disastrous second wave of covid and our inability to manage it is a ghastly reminder of this fact.