 We now have four views of the future and the way forward for Mumbai, beginning with Cyrus Kuzhuda, the chairman and manager of the AFL group. Ladies and gentlemen, I have ten minutes, so I better get cracking. The authors of these two quotations are separated by three centuries. But each of them contains something of the spirit that underlies our great city. And those is somewhat more philosophical. She talks about how the city draws in people, but once in its embrace they could be devoured and become casualties. Jonathan Swift also plays on success and failure, but he's a bit harsher in his attitude of man's behavior towards man. He sees energy and creativity, but he also sees crassness and self-seeking. Well, I've been asked as a businessman, but more a concerned citizen, to give my views on a great variety of things. What works, what doesn't work, a vision for Bombay, ten years, twenty years, what would I do if I became the planner? So you'll have to forgive me if my remarks seem rather superficial, and I'd be happy to engage in all the arithmetic once the debate begins. So let's look at what's great about Bombay. We know most of this. We know that scale helps, and we have great scale here. The city is wealthy and can be tapped. It has a large workforce which makes it easy for people to set up business across a whole range of skills. The geographic location of India by the sea is an asset. Five out of the six cities of China that give China one-fifth of its GDP are coastal cities, and sixty percent of Americans live within fifty kilometers of the coast. Bombay is the most cosmopolitan of all cities. It's easier to find work. Cast barriers are minimized. It's a lively place. Telecom, infrastructure, availability of power, rail, bus, all of these work better than in most other Indian cities. We lead the country in so many things, services, entertainment, jewelry, export shipping, banking. So we're a great city. In fact, economists might even say, because we're a rather unproductive city, there's a lot of upside as we improve our productivity. So why do we need to have this debate? But as Charles Currier famously said, Bombay is a great city, but a terrible place. So what's terrible about Bombay? First of all, barring a small elite class, and we must remember that any of us who goes to work in a car, and we don't spend more than forty-five minutes commuting to work, we are only five percent of the population of Bombay. So I'm going to take a look at this from the point of view of the ninety-five percent, and as a businessman I'm entitled to do that because we employ people, and they comprise the ninety-five percent. Well, decent housing is unaffordable. That's sixty thousand hutmans at Bombay Airport, with almost a third of a million people living effectively outside the country because they're frankly within the airport's bonded area. Commuting time and discomfort are close to intolerable, and we know that the transport system is severely stressed. This to quality schools in the neighborhood is almost impossible. So children also have to commute long distances. Open spaces and playgrounds for children to play and for adults to walk in are vanishing. Against an international norm of four acres per thousand, we have less than 0.03. This is the official statistic, which by the way includes restricted lands in private clubs like the Willingdon Club, traffic islands, fountains and other such things. Some resettlement programs benefit only a small fraction of slum dwellers. We need to talk about the slum redevelopment authority later on, which has created a great moral hazard and is greatly distorting expectations of the poor in the city. Piped water and sanitation, as we know, reaches only a small minority of homes and supply exists for only a couple of hours a day. Here is a main water line that comes from the lakes in the mainland to the city in the south, which shantytowns built all around, but none of these have water connections. Tap water throughout the city, as we know, is not fit to drink, and municipal services are not provided equally, efficiently or free of corruption to all. So by the above simple standards, affordable housing, proximity to work, availability of clean drinking water, minimal open spaces, supportive friendly delivery of civic services, the quality of life in the city is poor and is getting worse by the day. So why is there such a comprehensive failure? I think there's been an abdication by government on three fronts. Urban planning has been effectively dismantled. The presence of the slum dwellers in the city, they're not necessarily poor, but they have substantial family incomes, but we didn't deliver land, housing, finance or title to them. So we ignore their existence and their contribution to the city's well-being. And city governance, apart from the provision of basic services, has all but collapsed. We can ask three questions to test these propositions. The first is who runs the city? The second is who plans comprehensively for the city's future? And the third is how did half the city's residents or more come to live in non-legal housing in rooms averaging 10 by 20 with our direct access to water and sanitation? Let's take the question of who runs the city. Earlier on we saw a slide of how London government, New York government and others are structured. You would have expected that we had elected cooperators and a mayor who pass a budget and they have a municipal commissioner to support them. But in actual fact, the city is not run by the elected representatives of the city. The municipal commissioner, who can veto anything the corporation does with his budget, is appointed by the Ministry of Urban Development, who, as you know, is chosen by the chief minister, who is often the minister of development himself. The chief minister is not elected from Bombay. He and the Ministry of Urban Development wield the authority to take policy and planning decisions that gravely impact the future of the city, but they are not accountable to its citizens. Ergo, I think its citizens have a right to expect that the people who plan their future are answerable to those who elect them. No wonder Sheila Dixit said, we need city states. I think this was a question of reflecting on the need for political reform. Let's turn to planning, who plans comprehensively. Now I think the starting point for the collapse of planning was the last development plan, which was dead in the water before it even came to print, because the population estimates, budgets and immunity estimates were so woefully underplanned and therefore under-budgeted. And consequently, everyone was overwhelmed by the actual population increases. Yet, yet in the last decade, the government has practised what we in NGOs refer to as salami planning. They have taken slices of the plan away by gradually introducing notifications of one kind or the other, which have actually devastated and undermined the overall planning of the city. Open spaces have been dereserved in large swathes. We talked about the SRA scheme for a moment. We've had a 37-fold increase in cars with the road network less than doubled. And the FSI, in the suburbs, amenities were planned for FSI 1. Now we have FSI 2. So amenities will serve only half the population they were designed to serve. SEST building regulations are licensed to destroy two-thirds of all the buildings that were brought under the heritage list. A large part of open spaces in Perel has been dereserved. So we need to see, when Perel is finally developed, what would be the deficiency of open spaces. And building approvals are given without reference to the traffic that has to access them or what to supply. And the crowning achievement is Dharavi. And we won't go into this now, but if you just see the last line, it says that from the plans that have been put into the public domain, Dharavi would be more congested than any locality in Bombay. In Seaward, we have 115,000 people per square kilometre. We saw earlier that Shanghai had about 5,000 in its densest localities. And so when Dharavi is finally built to this plan, because the figures don't add up, either it'll have no open spaces, roads or amenities, or there will be in fact no commercial development or maybe 100,000 people in the plan will not actually be rehoused. So it's also a question of governance. And I'd just like to suggest that if you have good governance, you can maximize the city's potential. But if you had bad governance, it diminishes expectations, accomplishments, and leads to hunger, injury, even death. We heard about rioting from Mr. Pasricha just now. So governance in my opinion comprises at least seven things, security, the rule of law, the right to participate in public processes, healthcare, school and educational instruction, the arteries of commerce, banking, transport, communications, drinking, water, air and open spaces. So we're going to do just a simple scoring of Bombay on say a scale of one to ten. If we excluded security, which is on the whole fairly good, and some of the arteries of commerce, I'd say we'd barely score three to three and a half percent on a score of ten. And so we need a governance scorecard also to be set up by citizens, which will rate the delivery of services, shame local bodies into superior performance, and hopefully embolden civil society to push for more reform. Well, Mumbai, ten years on. Briefly, all I can say about planning is that I think the 20-year strategic plan suffers from two basic infirmities. No expert or group of experts can reliably foresee what a city is going to be like 20 years from now. And the traditional land use plan with its accompanying development control rules and zoning regulations is too rigid a mechanism with which to plan the city long term. And so we need to move away from the rigid 20-year plan to a set of processes which allow you, first of all, to set up some basic principles, which I'll finally close with, but also to work out objectives on what you want the city to be, what jobs do you see, where will they grow, how will you house people in relation to those jobs, build transport systems and so on. And when you frame those broad objectives, you need a long time-consuming, difficult process of consultation with the people who live in the city. So let me close by referring to the ten guiding principles that I feel. If we asked ourselves these questions, and these ten are not mutually contradictory, and any planning objective that we now set for ourselves should meet one or all of these ten. And if they don't, that objective should be scrapped. We would agree that we should make Mumbai an attractive place to live in and work in for all its citizens. If it sees us to be attractive, citizens leave the city. We want to encourage job locations in the city that are consistent with minimizing infrastructure costs, maximizing the quality of life. We know on the whole from an old ratio that one job in Bombay brings in at least 14, if not 20 people, together with it. And we have to decide, when we create jobs, how many services people are going to come to follow, and we accordingly plan transportation and housing to go with that. We have to provide municipal services to all income groups in the city, and the public interest can only be secured by listening to a plurality of voices. We should also encourage the development of rental housing to facilitate whole ownership for the poor. Today, no low income group person can get a housing loan because there is no mechanism to recover property in the event of a default. We need to reform the law to recover property for every one poor, tragic case where property is recovered, 99 people might well get a loan for a house they couldn't afford. We must encourage the preservation of the character of the city. Indeed, we must enhance it. We have a location by the sea. We should be thinking about planning for climatic change, but also for enhancing the quality of our built fabric. Public transport must have priority over private transport. There's a wonderful anecdote from Philip Rod in the papers this morning, which says that the 800-crore scheme, which will no doubt be a 1200-crore bridge from Worley to Bandra, built essentially for fast-moving traffic and private cars. Remember, 5% of the commuting population will carry as much traffic over that bridge in one hour as just two trains that enter and leave Churchgate Station in five minutes. And so we need to think about whether we should not be allocating finances to transport in relationship to the people who use them. We need to expand green spaces. There should be no free housing for anyone. We'll have to debate this later on. It creates a moral hazard. The poor can afford to build their homes. They need land and finance to be delivered. And the government's policies towards land ownership should give priority to the public interest. When the government's land is involved, they should not look at that land as if they were a private owner, but they should look at it from the point of view of the welfare of the city. And finally, the previous speaker made a mention of the Eastern Doc Lands. I hope we'll have a chance to talk about this. It's the last available opportunity in the island city to do a major intervention that brings back public spaces and has a chance for us to integrally plan jobs, houses, transport, and open spaces. So let me close by saying, if we want to plan for a new vision of the city, we need reform on three fronts, as I've discussed, political, governance, and planning. As Rakesh Mohan never tires of telling us, if you think we've seen spectacular urbanization in the last 50 years, you ain't seen nothing yet. And so actually, we need to talk not only about projects and outcomes, but about institutions and reform.