Ironically, in all these examples, the chief ministers who went out of office felt they had done a lot to improve life in urban conglomerates. Naidu, for example, took pride in giving Hyderabad a new face.

So why are urban voters more intolerant of incumbents? Is it because rural societies have a way of accepting reality, view changes with a degree of indifference, and are less impatient with the pace of change? Or is it that elections generate higher excitement in urban pockets, and consequently set higher threshold of expectations and any disappointment soon turns into concerted anger? Urban pockets, in fact, represent a microcosm of voter preferences and they choose to demonstrate their choice in a more pronounced way. Five years is often considered long enough and the urban electorate opts for a change in government and faces associated with the governance process. The asymmetry of rural apathy and urban anger, given migratory patterns from rural societies to urban conglomerates, highlights the inadequacy of planning and implementation to improve the urban quality of life.

It is well known that brisk urbanisation is yet to begin in India. Improving the pace and contribution of the manufacturing sector will inevitably involve relocating workers currently engaged in agricultural activity. An accelerated pace of urbanisation is an inevitable consequence. Urban planning poses multiple challenges. The Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JURM) is a positive but a modest beginning to address India’s urban challenges.

Managing migration in a sensible way involves creating gainful job opportunities in newer urban conglomerates closer to villages. We need a holistic approach to grapple with the broader issue of urbanisation.

... contd.