GS Paper 1 10 marks · 150w 9 min Medium
How does smart city in India, address the issues of urban poverty and distributive justice?
Subtopic: Indian Society · urbanization, poverty and distributive justice
How to structure your answer
Introduction (Smart Cities Mission design: ABD plus pan-city) → Pro-poor delivery: basic services, housing, mobility, livelihoods → Governance gains: ICCC, grievance redressal, crisis response → Justice deficits: enclave development, evictions, SPV model, digital divide → Conclusion (scale the gains city-wide)
Detailed model answer
218 words · target 150 words · 9 min
Introduction
The Smart Cities Mission (2015) sought to make 100 cities liveable through area-based development (ABD) and pan-city digital solutions. Whether it serves the urban poor depends on how far 'smartness' translates into basic services and fair distribution.
How it addresses urban poverty and distributive justice
- Basic services in ABD zones: piped water, sewerage, toilets and street lighting in retrofitted and redeveloped areas, including slum clusters.
- Housing: convergence with PMAY-Urban for affordable housing and in-situ slum redevelopment.
- Inclusive mobility: footpaths, non-motorised transport corridors and e-buses chiefly benefit low-income commuters.
- Livelihood infrastructure: designated street-vending zones, skill centres and market redevelopment, converging with DAY-NULM.
- Governance: Integrated Command and Control Centres improved grievance redressal, women's safety and crisis delivery — many served as COVID-19 war rooms.
Limitations from a justice lens
- Enclave development: ABD investments covered only small fractions of city area, creating islands of quality infrastructure amid underserved peripheries.
- Beautification-led evictions of vendors and slum dwellers at some sites displaced the very poor the mission should serve.
- SPV-led governance sidelined elected municipal bodies, diluting the 74th Amendment's promise of accountable local democracy, while the digital divide limits the poor's access to app-based services.
Conclusion
Smart cities have delivered real but geographically concentrated gains. Distributive justice now demands scaling them city-wide through participatory planning, secure tenure and universal basic services — a smart city measured by its poorest resident.
What an examiner expects to see
- The Mission's design — area-based development plus pan-city solutions across 100 cities via SPVs — frames both its gains and its limits.
- Pro-poor gains: water, sanitation and lighting in ABD zones; PMAY-U and DAY-NULM convergence; vending zones; NMT and e-buses.
- Integrated Command and Control Centres improved grievance redressal, safety and crisis response, notably during COVID-19.
- Justice critique: ABD enclaves covered small fractions of city area — investment islands amid underserved peripheries.
- Beautification-led evictions of vendors and slum dwellers ran counter to distributive justice.
- SPV governance sidelined elected urban local bodies (74th Amendment concern), and the digital divide limits access to smart services.
Concrete cases, schemes and judgments
- Integrated Command and Control Centres repurposed as COVID-19 war rooms
- PMAY-Urban convergence for affordable and in-situ slum housing
- Street-vending zones and market redevelopment under city SCM plans
- Indore's SCM-linked sanitation and mobility works alongside its Swachh Survekshan record
Terminology to weave into the answer
area-based developmentSPV governancedistributive justicegentrification74th Constitutional Amendmentinclusive smart city