India is undergoing one of the most rapid and expansive phases of urbanization globally, with its urban population projected to reach nearly 600 million by 2030. This demographic shift presents an unprecedented set of opportunities for economic growth and innovation, but also formidable challenges. Indian cities grapple with severe deficits in basic infrastructure such as water supply, sanitation, drainage, transportation, and affordable housing. Additionally, issues of environmental degradation, informal settlements, social inequity, and strained municipal finances further complicate the urban landscape. Recognizing these multifaceted challenges, the Indian government has initiated a series of ambitious urban development programmes designed to address these issues holistically and systematically.

Among the most significant of these interventions are the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), launched in 2005; the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), which commenced in 2015; and the Smart Cities Mission (SCM), also introduced in 2015. These programmes represent an evolving policy paradigm, shifting from a focus on fragmented project-based interventions to more integrated, reform-driven, and technology-enabled approaches. Each mission has distinct objectives, implementation strategies, and has left a unique imprint on India’s urban development trajectory, with varying degrees of success in fostering urban sustainability.

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) (2005-2014)

JNNURM was a flagship programme launched by the Government of India in December 2005, marking a significant departure from previous urban development schemes. It aimed to encourage reforms and fast-track planned development of selected cities, with a focus on efficiency in urban infrastructure, provision of basic services to the urban poor, and governance reforms. The Mission was designed as a reform-driven, performance-based initiative, emphasizing decentralized planning and stronger urban local bodies (ULBs).

Key Features

JNNURM was structured into two sub-missions: the Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) component, which focused on infrastructure projects like water supply, sewerage, stormwater drainage, solid waste management, urban transport, and roads in 65 mission cities; and the Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) component, which aimed to provide housing and basic services (water, sanitation, internal roads, street lights, community toilets) to the urban poor in these cities. A third component, the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP), covered other smaller cities. A critical feature of JNNURM was its strong emphasis on urban governance reforms. States and ULBs were mandated to implement a set of 23 reforms over a seven-year period to access central funds. These reforms included rationalization of property tax, e-governance, repeal of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act (ULCRA), reform of rent control laws, adoption of accrual-based accounting systems, preparation of City Development Plans (CDPs), and ring-fencing of funds for urban services. The programme aimed to leverage private sector participation through Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) and encourage capacity building at the ULB level.

Implementation Strategies

The implementation strategy of JNNURM revolved around a demand-driven approach. Cities were required to prepare detailed City Development Plans (CDPs) outlining their vision, strategy, and project requirements, which served as a basis for central government funding. Funds were released in tranches, conditional upon the achievement of pre-defined reform milestones by states and ULBs. The central government provided substantial financial assistance, typically 35-90% of project costs depending on city size and special category status, with the remainder contributed by state governments and ULBs. States were expected to sign Memorandum of Agreement (MoA) with the central government, committing to the reform agenda. The programme sought to empower ULBs by making them the primary implementing agencies, a significant shift towards decentralization.

Effectiveness and Impact on Urban Sustainability

JNNURM achieved mixed results in addressing urban development challenges and promoting sustainability. On the positive side, it successfully catalyzed significant investment in urban infrastructure, leading to visible improvements in water supply, sewerage networks, and solid waste management in many cities. The programme raised the profile of urban issues on the national agenda and initiated a crucial conversation about urban governance reforms. The requirement for CDPs encouraged a more strategic approach to urban planning, even if their quality varied widely. Some cities demonstrated notable progress in implementing e-governance and property tax reforms.

However, JNNURM faced several significant limitations. The pace of reforms was often slow, with many states struggling to implement the full spectrum of mandatory reforms, particularly those related to land and rent control. Capacity constraints at the ULB level—lack of skilled personnel, financial autonomy, and technical expertise—hampered effective project conceptualization, execution, and monitoring. Land acquisition proved to be a major bottleneck for many infrastructure projects. The focus on capital expenditure often overshadowed the critical need for operations and maintenance (O&M), leading to concerns about the long-term sustainability of created assets. While the programme aimed for decentralization, central control over fund release and reform monitoring sometimes undermined ULB autonomy. Private sector participation remained limited, failing to meet initial expectations. The provision of basic services to the urban poor, especially affordable housing, lagged behind targets, and the quality of housing provided under BSUP was often suboptimal. From a sustainability perspective, while JNNURM focused on basic services, its emphasis on large-scale infrastructure often neglected robust environmental impact assessments and resource efficiency. The reform agenda aimed at creating financially sustainable ULBs, but the actual implementation was patchy, leaving many ULBs still dependent on higher levels of government.

Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) (2015-Present)

Succeeding JNNURM, the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) was launched in June 2015. While retaining some of JNNURM’s core objectives, AMRUT adopted a more focused and targeted approach, learning from the complexities and broad scope of its predecessor. AMRUT’s primary goal was to ensure that every household in 500 selected cities (covering over 60% of the urban population) has access to a tap with assured water supply and a sewerage connection.

Key Features

AMRUT’s core components include:

  1. Water Supply: Augmenting universal coverage of water supply, including water treatment plants, transmission and distribution networks, and smart metering.
  2. Sewerage and Septage Management: Developing robust sewerage and septage networks, including treatment plants, to ensure proper collection, treatment, and disposal of wastewater.
  3. Storm Water Drainage: Reducing flooding by improving drainage systems.
  4. Green Spaces and Parks: Developing and maintaining green spaces and parks to enhance the quality of life and environmental sustainability.
  5. Non-Motorized Urban Transport: Promoting non-motorized transport (e.g., cycling, walking) infrastructure. Unlike JNNURM’s extensive reform agenda, AMRUT adopted a more streamlined set of reforms aimed at improving municipal finance, energy and water audits, and facilitating ease of doing business. The mission placed a greater emphasis on project lifecycle costs, including O&M, and promoting the use of technology like Geographic Information Systems (GIS) for planning and monitoring. State Annual Action Plans (SAAP) became the primary mechanism for project identification and approval.

Implementation Strategies

AMRUT’s implementation strategy prioritizes bottom-up planning through SAAPs, prepared by states based on service level improvement plans (SLIPs) for individual cities. These plans identify specific projects and timelines. The funding pattern is similar to JNNURM, with the central government providing 50% funding for cities with populations up to 10 lakh and one-third for cities with populations above 10 lakh, with the balance borne by states/ULBs. A significant departure from JNNURM was the explicit allocation of 10% of the project cost for reform implementation and capacity building, ensuring funds are available for these critical aspects. AMRUT also encourages convergence with other national missions like Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM) for sanitation and HRIDAY (Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana) for urban heritage preservation, allowing for integrated development. Project monitoring is done through a robust online portal, emphasizing transparency and accountability.

Effectiveness and Impact on Urban Sustainability

AMRUT has shown greater effectiveness in achieving its targeted outcomes compared to JNNURM, primarily due to its narrower and more focused scope. By concentrating on fundamental urban services, it has made tangible progress in expanding water supply and sewerage networks in many cities. The emphasis on universal coverage has helped address basic needs more systematically. The mission’s explicit focus on O&M costs in project planning has contributed to better long-term sustainability of infrastructure assets, a key lesson learned from JNNURM. The streamlined reform agenda, while less ambitious than JNNURM’s, has proven more implementable, leading to some improvements in municipal financial health and service delivery. The use of SAAPs has fostered better state-level ownership and planning.

However, AMRUT still faces challenges. Land acquisition remains a major hurdle for many infrastructure projects. Capacity building at the ULB level, though funded, continues to be an ongoing process, as many ULBs lack the technical and managerial expertise to handle complex projects. Inter-agency coordination within cities and between state and local governments can still be problematic. While progress has been made, achieving universal coverage of water and sewerage services in 500 cities is an enormous task that requires sustained effort beyond the mission’s initial timeframe. From an urban sustainability perspective, AMRUT’s direct contribution is significant. Assured water supply and improved sewerage directly contribute to public health and environmental sanitation, which are foundational elements of social sustainability. The emphasis on green spaces enhances ecological balance and livability. However, the mission’s scope is largely limited to basic services, and it does not directly address broader sustainability challenges like climate change resilience, energy efficiency (beyond water pumping), or integrated urban planning that balances growth with environmental protection.

Smart Cities Mission (SCM) (2015-Present)

The Smart Cities Mission (SCM), launched concurrently with AMRUT in June 2015, represents a distinct and ambitious approach to urban development in India. Its core philosophy is to drive economic growth and improve the quality of life of people by enabling local area development and harnessing technology, especially ‘smart’ solutions, as a means to create better outcomes for citizens. SCM is not about creating entirely new cities but about making existing cities ‘smarter’ by retrofitting and redeveloping specific areas.

Key Features

SCM’s approach is multi-faceted, combining physical infrastructure with digital and social infrastructure. It identifies 100 cities through a competitive “Smart City Challenge” process, encouraging cities to propose innovative solutions. The mission provides flexibility for cities to adopt either an ‘Area-Based Development (ABD)’ strategy or ‘Pan-City Solution’ strategy, or a combination of both.

  1. Area-Based Development (ABD): Focuses on specific identified areas within a city (e.g., retrofitting existing areas, redeveloping dilapidated areas, or creating greenfield developments) to make them smart and then replicate the model across the city.
  2. Pan-City Solutions: Involves the application of smart solutions to existing city-wide infrastructure (e.g., smart waste management, intelligent traffic management, smart grids, e-governance platforms). Key thematic areas for smart solutions include e-governance and citizen services, waste management, water management, urban mobility, energy management, safety and security, health, education, and economic development. A unique feature is the mandatory formation of Special Purpose Vehicles (SPVs) for each Smart City, providing them operational autonomy and flexibility in project implementation and financial management. Citizen participation and engagement throughout the planning and implementation phases are also emphasized.

Implementation Strategies

The selection of Smart Cities was based on a competitive ‘challenge’ process, where cities submitted comprehensive Smart City Proposals (SCPs) outlining their vision, strategies, and projects. This competitive element spurred innovation and strategic planning among cities. Once selected, each Smart City constitutes an SPV, a limited company registered under the Companies Act, 2013, with equal equity contribution from the state government and ULB. This SPV acts as the nodal agency for planning, appraisal, approval, release of funds, and implementation of the Smart City projects. Funding for SCM is a 50:50 matching contribution from the central and state governments, with cities expected to leverage additional resources through PPPs, municipal bonds, and innovative financing mechanisms. Technology plays a crucial role, with the establishment of Integrated Command and Control Centres (ICCCs) envisioned as the brain of smart city operations, integrating data from various smart systems.

Effectiveness and Impact on Urban Sustainability

The Smart Cities Mission has been effective in fostering innovation, promoting the use of technology in urban governance, and raising the global profile of Indian urban development. The challenge method encouraged cities to think creatively and develop integrated plans. The establishment of ICCCs has improved data collection, real-time monitoring of services (like traffic, waste management), and emergency response capabilities in several cities. The mission has spurred greater citizen engagement in urban planning, albeit often in initial stages. Many cities have implemented successful pilot projects demonstrating the potential of smart solutions in improving service delivery and efficiency.

However, SCM has also faced significant implementation challenges and criticisms. The pace of implementation has often been slow, with many projects delayed due to complex procurement processes, land acquisition issues, and coordination challenges between the SPV, ULB, and other line departments. Funding remains a concern, as reliance on PPPs and other innovative financing has not fully materialized, leading to continued dependence on central and state grants. The “area-based development” approach has been criticized for potentially creating “islands of excellence” within cities, exacerbating urban inequalities rather than fostering equitable development across the entire urban fabric. The digital divide and accessibility issues for vulnerable populations remain a concern. Concerns about data privacy and cybersecurity in extensive use of surveillance and data analytics are also pertinent. The high O&M costs associated with technologically intensive smart solutions pose a long-term sustainability challenge for financially constrained ULBs. From a sustainability perspective, SCM has immense potential. Smart grids, smart water management systems, and intelligent transport systems aim to optimize resource use and reduce carbon footprints, contributing to environmental sustainability. The focus on improved governance, citizen safety, and efficient service delivery enhances social sustainability. However, the true impact on sustainability depends on the extent to which these technological solutions are integrated into broader, inclusive urban planning frameworks and address the needs of all citizens, not just those in selected areas. There is also a need to ensure that technology is an enabler of sustainability, not merely a superficial overlay.

Comparative Analysis and Overarching Challenges

JNNURM, AMRUT, and the Smart Cities Mission represent a progressive evolution in India’s urban policy, each learning from the strengths and weaknesses of its predecessors. JNNURM was ambitious in its scope, aiming for comprehensive urban reforms alongside infrastructure development. Its broad reform agenda, while theoretically sound, proved difficult to implement uniformly across diverse ULBs with varying capacities. AMRUT, in response, became more focused, prioritizing the universal provision of fundamental urban services (water, sewerage). This narrower focus allowed for more tangible outcomes and better project management, including a greater emphasis on O&M. SCM then introduced a new dimension by integrating technology and innovation, fostering competition, and promoting citizen engagement, albeit with a focus on selected “smart” interventions.

Despite their individual successes and specific foci, these missions share several common challenges that continue to impede urban development in India. Firstly, financial sustainability remains a critical issue. While all missions involved substantial central government funding, the expectation that ULBs would eventually become self-reliant through enhanced revenue generation (e.g., property tax reforms) and attracting private investment has largely not been met. Many ULBs still lack the financial autonomy and robust revenue streams required to sustain large-scale infrastructure and smart solutions, especially their high O&M costs, beyond the mission period. Secondly, institutional capacity at the ULB level is a persistent bottleneck. Despite various capacity-building initiatives, ULBs often lack adequate human resources, technical expertise, and managerial capabilities to plan, execute, and monitor complex projects effectively. The creation of SPVs under SCM, while providing operational flexibility, sometimes bypasses or further weakens the existing ULB structure, raising questions about long-term institutional strengthening. Thirdly, land acquisition is an omnipresent challenge for any infrastructure project in India, often leading to significant delays and cost overruns across all three missions. Fourthly, inter-agency coordination remains problematic, with multiple government departments (state, central, and local) often working in silos, hindering integrated urban planning and implementation. Finally, while all missions emphasized citizen participation, its quality and depth have varied. Often, it has been limited to consultative processes rather than genuine co-creation or empowerment of local communities in decision-making, which is vital for equitable and sustainable urban development.

These missions have undeniably spurred significant investment and attention towards urban challenges. They have shifted the discourse from merely providing services to considering the holistic development of cities, encompassing governance reforms, financial sustainability, and the integration of technology. However, the true measure of their effectiveness lies in their ability to translate project-level successes into widespread, equitable, and sustainable urban transformation. The lessons from these missions underscore the need for continued investment in ULB capacity, genuine devolution of powers and finances, innovative financing mechanisms, and an inclusive planning process that addresses the needs of all urban residents, particularly the most vulnerable.

These initiatives represent significant milestones in India’s approach to urban development, transitioning from fragmented interventions to more integrated and reform-oriented strategies. The Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission laid the groundwork by emphasizing governance reforms and capacity building alongside infrastructure investment, creating an initial awareness of the systemic issues plaguing Indian cities. While its ambitious reform agenda faced implementation hurdles and capacity deficits, it undeniably injected substantial capital into urban infrastructure and pushed for greater autonomy for Urban Local Bodies.

Building upon JNNURM’s experiences, the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation adopted a more focused approach, prioritizing universal access to basic services like water supply and sewerage. This targeted strategy has resulted in more tangible outcomes in service delivery, with a clearer emphasis on project lifecycle costs and operations and maintenance, addressing a critical weakness of earlier schemes. Concurrently, the Smart Cities Mission introduced an innovative, technology-driven paradigm, fostering competition among cities and promoting the integration of digital solutions for improved governance, resource efficiency, and quality of life. This mission has pushed the boundaries of urban planning by encouraging data-driven decision-making and citizen engagement.

Despite their individual achievements and the evolution they represent, these missions collectively highlight persistent challenges in India’s urbanization journey. Issues such as inadequate financial capacity of Urban Local Bodies, complex land acquisition procedures, persistent skill gaps, and the need for more robust inter-agency coordination continue to impede full realization of their potential. The long-term sustainability of these urban interventions, particularly the operation and maintenance of created assets and the equitable distribution of benefits across all segments of the urban population, remains a crucial area for ongoing policy attention and resource allocation. The ongoing urban transformation demands sustained political commitment, continued reforms, and an unwavering focus on creating inclusive, resilient, and environmentally sound urban spaces for India’s burgeoning population.