By Aman Kumar Singh

The concentration of power in New Delhi was once a necessity. But technological advances have all but done away with the need for physical proximity between the political seat of power and the civil service that administers the country. Yet, we continue to live anachronistically.

In an April article, ‘Capital Flight: Why governments move civil servants out of national capitals’, The Economist magazine discussed the idea of decluttering world capitals and smoothening regional inequalities. Today, the National Capital Region (NCR) supports a population of 2.4 crore people — 11,320 people per sq km — and is bursting at the seams. This is not just about the cost of living skyrocketing, but also congestion on roads and commute time. Also, the fruits of development and overall economic activity tend to stay concentrated, creating major regional disparities.

A possible solution has ranged from moving the capital to a new city, as is being considered by China and Indonesia, and has already been done by Nigeria and Myanmar, to splitting the capital into multiple capitals. South Africa, where Pretoria serves as the administrative capital, Bloemfontein its judiciary capital, and Cape Town its legislative capital, is a prime example of the latter. Bolivia shares this model.

Another more recent option has been keeping the capital as it is, while splitting administration into multiple dispersed units. South Korea moved most of its bureaucrats from Seoul to the new city of Sejong about four years ago. Nearly two decades ago, Malaysia did the same, moving its civil servants from overpopulated Kuala Lumpur to Putrajaya. Norway has made similar moves recently. Mexico’s plan, though, is arguably the most radical. Mexican President López Obrador is in the process of moving government agencies to each of its 30 state capitals.

A concentration of government in one city also exponentially increases the risk of terror attacks and, in the event of a natural disaster, has the potential of crippling an entire nation.

Policymaking in a country of India’s ethnic, cultural, socioeconomic and geographical diversity can be much more effective, and grounded in reality, if the administration is where ‘real people’ reside.

This is not entirely new thinking even in India. The commerce and industry ministry had set up the Tea, Coffee, Spices, Rubber and Tobacco Board offices in the 1940s-50s outside Delhi. Indian Space Research Organisation (Isro) is headquartered in Bengaluru, and the Atomic Energy Regulatory Board has always operated out of Mumbai.

There are enough ministries and departments that have no real need to be in Delhi. Mines, coal or power could be somewhere around the Chota Nagpur area, Ranchi and Raipur possibilities as headquarters. Agriculture could be anywhere in the northern plains. Electronics and IT most certainly should move southwards to Hyderabad or Bengaluru. Why on earth are fisheries and shipping in faraway landlocked Delhi, and not somewhere along the coast? Why are NTPC, Steel Authority of India Ltd (SAIL) and Oil and Natural Gas Corporation (ONGC) headquartered in Delhi?

Of course, all this would come at the cost of much heartburn in the short term for those needing to relocate. But in the long run, the upsides far outweigh the pain. For starters, regional development will become much more balanced. Schools and hospitals in many more cities will rival those in India’s unsustainable metros. Civil job opportunities in large numbers will open up to those who live in the hinterland. GoI would be able to afford people with better capabilities, who, usually in Delhi, get snapped up by MNCs at much higher salaries. The cost of office space is a fraction in India’s smaller cities.

Yes, it will require tremendous gumption and will. But a move in this direction could fix problems from regional unemployment to lopsided urbanisation, from air pollution to terrible traffic.

(The writer is former principal secretary to the government of Chhattisgarh)