Opinion: Rethinking Urban Governance — districts, not cities, must be the focus
India’s urban future lies not in isolated city master plans but in integrated district-level development. A district-based approach to urban governance reflects how people live, economies actually function, and development unfolds
By Dr Tarun Arora, Dr Reetika Syal
As urbanisation speeds up in India and the Global South, the traditional view of cities as isolated islands of governance is becoming outdated. Policies, plans, and institutions are still designed on the assumption that a ‘city’ is a self-contained, uniform unit that can be managed through top-down systems.
However, this assumption is no longer valid. Cities are not just cities anymore; they are deeply interconnected with and reliant on the surrounding peri-urban and rural areas. The future of urban governance lies not in cities, but in districts. By expanding our administrative gaze to the district as the primary unit, we can design governance structures that reflect the real, lived geographies of people today. And if you need a simple, vivid image to explain why this matters, picture a sunny-side-up egg.
Sunny-Side-Up Fallacy
Imagine a sunny-side-up egg. The yolk represents the formal city, governed by municipal corporations and equipped with infrastructure. The whites symbolise the peri-urban and rural areas, which are rapidly growing and informally linked to the city yet often overlooked by planning authorities.
Urban governance today is guilty of what we might call the ‘sunny-side-up fallacy’: it focuses almost exclusively on the yolk. This is where money flows, master plans are developed, and state institutions are most active. However, without the whites, the surrounding areas where a significant portion of working-class populations live, commute from, or depend on, the yolk is incomplete. A governance model that ignores these areas cannot effectively address issues related to infrastructure, mobility, housing, or environmental resilience.
Treating cities as isolated administrative units leads to dysfunctional development, fragmented service delivery, and increasing inequality. The sunny-side-up metaphor is not just culinary; it serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of neglecting the complete picture.
The City is not a Coherent Unit Anymore
India’s urban growth has not followed a clean, planned pattern. It has been messy, hybrid, and overlapping. Most urban expansion is occurring in peri-urban belts, areas that are technically rural but functionally urban. Yet our governance frameworks have not caught up. The constitutional division between urban local bodies (ULBs) and rural panchayats, and the institutional silos that reinforce them, are now standing in the way of effective governance.
Municipal corporations continue to operate under outdated boundaries, while the adjacent gram panchayats are left to fend for themselves with limited capacity and shrinking relevance. Infrastructure projects stop at municipal borders. Water, waste, and mobility systems are unable to operate holistically. The result is administrative chaos, and worse, a governance vacuum. This overly centralised and city-centric model also alienates citizens.
Kerala offers a compelling model of modern governance — streamlining administration, aligning planning, and empowering districts to navigate the complex geographies of today’s development
Urban local bodies, especially in large cities, are too distant — geographically, bureaucratically, and socially — from the communities they are supposed to serve. Meanwhile, neighbourhood-level issues get buried under standardised solutions that do not account for local variations.
In the absence of a coordinated district-level authority, responsibilities are fragmented across multiple agencies. Roads are handled by one body, sewers by another, and policing by a third. Citizens are left without clarity or recourse. This fragmentation is not just inefficient, it’s undemocratic. It erodes accountability and diminishes the role of local institutions.
District as Functional Unit
Unlike cities, districts represent a more grounded and flexible governance unit. They span both urban and rural areas. They are already recognised for administrative purposes: police, courts, education, and health systems are all typically organised at the district level. Most importantly, districts reflect the reality of how people live and move.
A district-centric governance model can integrate planning across urban and rural areas. It can ensure that development does not end at arbitrary municipal borders. And it allows for localised, participatory decision-making that responds to the specific needs of different areas within the district.
Constitutional Support: The Role of the DPC
The Indian Constitution already anticipates this integration. Article 243ZD mandates the creation of a District Planning Committee (DPC) to consolidate the plans prepared by panchayats and municipalities and to prepare a draft development plan for the entire district. In theory, this should be the nerve centre of integrated planning. But reality paints a more sobering picture.
According to Janaagraha’s ASICS 2023 report, based on a performance audit by the Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), DPCs have been constituted in only 9 out of 13 States assessed. Worse still, district development plans have been prepared in only four. The very mechanism meant to bridge the rural-urban divide is barely functioning.
The Second Administrative Reforms Commission (ARC) took note of this failure. It recognised that in a decentralised regime, there is a need for a district-level body that can coordinate across local governments, urban and rural, and also take on governance responsibilities that individual local bodies cannot manage effectively. The ARC recommended the creation of a District Council with representation from both urban and rural areas, with the DPC acting as its advisory arm. This recommendation is more relevant today than ever before.
Kerala’s Model: Integration in Practice
Fortunately, some States are beginning to take action. Kerala has recently made significant progress by restructuring its Local Self-Government Department (LSGD). In a move that departs from the traditional separation of rural and urban administration, the State has unified five major departments into a single governance service.
The new structure is led by a Principal Director and consists of two wings: LSGD (Urban) and LSGD (Rural). These wings are not separate entities, but rather integrated sectors formed by merging the Urban Affairs Directorate, the Panchayat Directorate, and the Rural Development Commissionerate. This bold reform is motivated by a clear understanding: rural and urban areas are no longer distinct spheres. They are interdependent, overlapping, and increasingly indistinguishable. Effective governance requires a coordinated, district-wide approach rather than parallel bureaucracies competing for relevance.
Kerala’s model serves as a compelling example for other States. By streamlining administrative structures, aligning planning processes, and empowering the district as a functional unit, the State demonstrates how governance can adapt to the complex geographies of contemporary development.
Building an Integrated Future
Transitioning to district-centric governance requires both legal reform and institutional innovation. States must enhance the role of District Planning Committees (DPCs) or move towards more empowered District Councils that have real planning and financial authority. Urban and rural departments should be integrated, as demonstrated by Kerala, to eliminate redundancy and promote better coordination. Planning laws should shift from focusing solely on city master plans to developing district-wide strategies that encompass the entire settlement ecosystem.
Above all, we must move away from an overly optimistic view. The city is not the only focal point; the surrounding areas matter just as much. If we are serious about achieving inclusive, resilient, and democratic urban governance, we need to consider the entire picture and plan accordingly.
To conclude, India is at a pivotal moment in its urban transition. The question is no longer whether cities will grow; they will. The real question is whether our institutions can grow with them. A district-based approach to urban governance is a necessity. It reflects how people live, how economies actually function, and how development unfolds.
The yolk alone is not enough. It’s time to serve the whole egg.
(Dr Tarun Arora is Associate Professor and Associate Dean, Jindal School of Government and Public Policy, OP Jindal Global University, Haryana. Dr Reetika Syal is Assistant Professor, Department of International Studies, Political Science and History, CHRIST University, Bengaluru)
