Crosscurrents: State-Level Politicians’ Conflicting Views of Urban India

Part of the Exploring Urban Change in South Asia book series (EUCS)


Senior politicians at the state-level in India’s federal system—Chief Ministers and their close associates—have a potent impact on urban centres within their states. These leaders have too much power to be marginalised or ignored, as they often are in analyses of urban themes and of development more generally. This chapter seeks to provide a context for discussions of policy processes by explaining how senior politicians tend (with inevitable variations) to perceive and address cities within their states. They are pulled in different directions by competing perceptions of cities and competing political imperatives. They see cities as sources of revenues, economic growth, and illicit “fund raising”. But cities are also potential sites of disorder, and leaders who favour cities risk alienating rural voters who decide election outcomes. So politicians are caught in crosscurrents. What, therefore, emerges is not a tidy picture, but confused and conflicted sets of perspectives. This adds up to a far less well-ordered basis for policy-making than technocrats prefer, but it is a reality that one must understand.


Corruption Political leaders Revenue Urban Urbanisation 


  1. Census of India. 2011. Rural urban distribution of population (Provisional population tables). New Delhi: Registrar General and Population Commissioner, Government of India.Google Scholar
  2. Desai, Sonalde B., Amaresh Dubey, Brij Lal Joshi, Mitali Sen, Abusaleh Shariff, and Reeve Vanneman. 2010. Human development in India: Challenges for a society in transition. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Jenkins, R., and J. Manor. 2017. Politics and the right to work: India’s Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. New Delhi: Orient Blackswan.Google Scholar
  4. Manor, J. 1993. Power, poverty and poison: Disaster and response in an Indian city. New Delhi: Sage Publications India.Google Scholar
  5. Manor, J. 1996. “Ethnicity” and politics in India. International affairs 72 (3): 459–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Manor, J. 2004. Congress defeat in Madhya Pradesh. Seminar February: 18–23.Google Scholar
  7. Manor, J. 2005. In part a myth: The BJP’s organisational strength. In Coalition politics and Hindu nationalism, ed. K. Adeney and L. Saez, 55–74. New Delhi and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Manor, J. 2007. Four cases from two Indian states: Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. In Commonwealth and comparative politics, vol. 45, 425–451 (Special number on “Successful Governance Reforms in Brazil, India and Uganda”, ed. by M. Robinson).Google Scholar
  9. Manor, J. 2016a. India’s states: The struggle to govern. Studies in Indian politics 4 (1): 1–14.Google Scholar
  10. Manor, J. 2016b. Opinion surveys at and between elections. Seminar, no. 684, August.Google Scholar
  11. Reserve Bank of India. n.d. Direct and indirect tax revenues of central and state governments. Accessed August 15, 2013.
  12. Varshney, A. 2002. Ethnic conflict and civic life: Hindus and Muslims in India. New Haven, CT, London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Indian Institute of Advanced Study, Shimla 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Advanced Study, Institute of Commonwealth StudiesUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations