A change of guard at the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation 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 genuine expectation that political leadership with a delivery record can transform the city.
Yet despite a record ₹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 is not incidental. It 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. Mumbai’s future will be judged not by announcements, but by the courage to reform a system that has long resisted reform.
The Budget Anomaly
60% on infrastructure. 10% on health - basic civic services get neither visibility nor priority!
Nearly 60% of the BMC’s budget goes to capital expenditure and mega projects (≈ ₹43,000 crore) and about 10% (≈ ₹7,380 crore) to health. Meanwhile, core civic services—solid waste management, dust and pollution control, local road repairs, footpaths, greening, and ward drainage—rarely feature as headline priorities.
Infrastructure is necessary. But 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 result: Mumbai looks like a city under perpetual construction, but without commensurate maintenance.
The Myth of the Mayor and the Corporator
Public discourse pins hope on the Mayor and corporators—blaming or expecting them to solve garbage, potholes, flooding, and encroachments. The strong-mayor model is often touted, but Mumbai follows a weak mayor–strong commissioner system.
The Mayor’s role is largely ceremonial, with no executive control over departments, budgets, or staff. Combined with an infrastructure bias, everyday civic services inevitably suffer.
Yet the BMC election battle was fought less over civic reform and more over political dominance—over who would control a ₹75,000-crore war chest by installing their own Mayor.
So while the Mayor may be ceremonial on paper, the party that installs the Mayor typically controls the General Body and Standing Committee—shaping spending priorities, tenders, and policy direction.
In practice, it is not the Mayor, but the party that installs the Mayor, that controls the BMC.
Corporators are elected representatives with no executive authority. They raise local issues and use discretionary funds but have no control over staff, contracts, or implementation. Many function as political messengers. Some women corporators act as proxies for politically active husbands.
Corporators are accountable to citizens. Municipal officers answer upward.
227 corporators account for barely 0.3% of a ₹75,000-crore budget.
Those who win control of the BMC are largely powerless operationally.
Where the Real Power Lies
Real power lies with the executive wing of the BMC, headed by the Municipal Commissioner (appointed by the state).
The Commissioner controls departments, executes the budget, awards contracts, supervises personnel, and reports upward.
This creates a democratic mismatch:
Responsibility without authority at the local level.
Authority without accountability to citizens.
That is the paradox at the heart of Mumbai’s civic failure.
So, what’s the Alternative? Fix the Structure. Change the System.
Mumbai’s failures are structural and operational. They require radical redesign, not incremental tinkering.
Smaller municipal corporations like Indore and NDMC deliver better outcomes because they are system-driven, technology-enabled, outcome-focused, and tightly monitored.
There is no reason why the richest municipal body should lag behind.
1. Restructure the BMC and Corporatise City Services
Split municipal services, health/education, and big infrastructure into separate units.
Shift mega infrastructure to dedicated metropolitan or state agencies.
Make everyday municipal services the BMC’s core mandate.
Corporatise and professionalise the BMC with CXO-level hires.
Outsource key functions via performance-linked contracts with transparent KPIs.
Restructure oversized wards into smaller, manageable units.
2. Modernise Solid Waste Management and Use Technology as an Enabler
Rubble-removal vans
Mechanical sweepers and dust-suction machines
GPS-tracked garbage vehicles
Real-time cleanliness dashboards
Ward-level air-quality monitoring
Expanded, professionalised SWM manpower
Command-and-control centres
Clear service benchmarks
Annual third-party audits
3. Learn from What has successfully worked in other states.
Indore Municipal Corporation:
End-to-end waste processing, technology use, strict monitoring, outsourcing, citizen participation,
NDMC:
Mechanised cleaning, environmental monitoring, professional outsourcing. Technology + professional management deliver outcomes.
4. Bifurcate Road Building
Under BMC:
Internal roads, ward roads, footpaths, resurfacing, potholes, drainage-linked works.
Outside BMC:
Arterial roads, bridges, ring roads—shifted to PWD or a dedicated infra agency.
5. Ring-Fence Ward Budgets
A fixed portion of the municipal budget must be earmarked for each ward and insulated from diversion into mega projects.
Without ring-fencing, local issues remain unresolved and officers are not answerable.
6. Citizen Engagement as Enforcement
Mumbai lacks not citizen voice, but institutionalised channels to convert voice into action.
Indore shows ward-level engagement backed by technology, accountability, and ring-fenced budgets works.
Conclusion
Mumbai’s civic crisis is not about intent, money, slogans, or even big-ticket projects.
It is about the unglamorous backend work:
structure, accountability, and execution capacity.
The real choice is not between infrastructure and civic services.
It is between optics and outcomes.
Jyoti Shiralee
Member, Rotary Club of Bombay, Powai
& Founder Director, Chrysalis Consulting
Email: jyoti@chrysalisconsulting.co.in
