A change of guard at the BMC inevitably raises public expectations. After years marked by allegations of corruption, bureaucratic inertia, and visible decline in everyday civic services, there is hope
that new political stewardship can restore credibility and efficiency— especially given its track record on big-ticket infrastructure.
But hope alone will not clean Mumbai’s streets, fix its footpaths, or unclog its drains. The reality is that the BMC’s problems are not merely about who holds power, but how power itself is structured and exercised. Mumbai is among the hardest cities in the world to administer, given its density, land scarcity, encroachments, and the weight of being India’s financial capital. In recent years, it has seen an unprecedented push on mega infrastructure—coastal roads, metros, bridges. There is a genuine expectation that political leadership with a delivery record can transform the city.
Yet despite a record Rs 74,500+ crore BMC budget, everyday civic outcomes remain weak: garbage on streets, construction rubble, broken footpaths, dust pollution, waterlogging, inconsistent road maintenance, and inadequate greening. This contradiction flows from a deep structural flaw in Mumbai’s municipal governance model. It is time for radical reform, not incrementalism—by redefining what the BMC does, how it is held accountable, and who is answerable.
The budget anomaly
Nearly 60% of the BMC’s budget goes to capital expenditure and mega projects (over Rs43,000 crore) and about 10% (over Rs7,380 crore) to health. Core civic services—solid waste management, dust and pollution control, local road repairs, footpaths, greening, and ward drainage—rarely feature as headline priorities. Municipal corporations exist first to deliver everyday civic services—the services that determine livability, public health, and environmental quality. When a municipal body behaves like a mega-infrastructure agency, civic governance gets crowded out.
The myth
Mumbai follows a weak mayor–strong commissioner system. The Mayor’s role is largely ceremonial, with no executive control over departments, budgets, or staff. Corporators have no executive authority and account for barely 0.3% of the budget. Real power lies with the executive wing, headed by the Municipal Commissioner (appointed by the state). This creates a democratic mismatch: responsibility without authority at the local level; authority without accountability to citizens.
Fix the structure
Mumbai’s failures are structural and operational. Smaller municipal corporations like Indore and NDMC deliver better outcomes through system-driven, technology-enabled, outcome-focused models.
Key Reforms
Restructure the BMC: Shift mega infrastructure to dedicated agencies; make everyday services the core mandate. Corporatise with CXO-level hires, outsource via performance-linked contracts, and create smaller wards.
Modernise SWM: Use rubble-removal vans, mechanical sweepers, GPS-tracked vehicles, real-time dashboards, ward-level monitoring, command centres, benchmarks, and third-party audits.
Learn from Indore: End-to-end processing, mechanised cleaning, outsourcing, citizen participation, and professional management.
Bifurcate Road Building: Keep internal roads, footpaths, and drainage under BMC; shift arterial roads and bridges to PWD or dedicated agencies.
Ring-Fence ward budgets: Earmark fixed portions insulated from mega-project diversion. Citizen engagement: Create channels backed by technology, accountability, and ring-fenced funds.
Conclusion
Mumbai’s civic crisis is not about intent, money, or bigticket projects. It is about structure, accountability, and execution capacity. The real choice is between optics and outcomes.
The writer is a member of Rotary Club of Bombay, Powai & Founder Director, Chrysalis Consulting Email: jyoti@chrysalisconsulting.co.in
