Opinion is always divided when it comes to developing a new city. Nonetheless, there is no dispute on the increasingly uninhabitable condition of our cities because of migration, pollution and unplanned expansion. Hyderabad is one such city whose development has been skyrocketing along with its problems. With growth heavily skewed towards the west, the city seems close to bursting at the seams. Given this backdrop, Chief Minister Revanth Reddy’s brainchild of building Bharat Future City to the south is sound in its conception.
Envisioned as a city with net zero carbon footprint, it’s proposed to be spread over 30,000 acres, half of which is reserve forest. The government intends to develop 11 zones, including hubs for AI, life sciences, electronics and manufacturing, and a university to train youth for industry-driven careers. The Future City Development Authority, whose administrative building was recently inaugurated, has its work cut out in sorting land allotments and legal tangles. The previous BRS government, which had envisioned it a decade ago as a pharma city, had acquired the land that is being repurposed. The earlier idea had run into rough weather with locals opposing it fearing pollution and loss of farm lands. Several farmers had moved the high court which, in one instance, had scrapped the acquisition. Even today, several farmers have not received compensation and several others are unwilling to part with their land. Cases pertaining to land acquisition are still pending in court. The final masterplan has not yet taken shape. It would be advisable to address these issues before proceeding. Reports of officials cutting off power supply and levelling land despite not having paid compensation must be taken seriously. After all, the Congress had promised the farmers justice.
The other dimension is political. The BRS has already declared it would discard the project when it returns to power. This is a narrow political view that, as we have seen in neighbouring Andhra Pradesh, caused trouble in Amaravati. Parties may differ on policies, but opposing a project where investments have been sunk in and substantial public expenditure incurred is not in the state’s interest. Instead, it ought to stand by the farmers and highlight their objections, if any. Continuity is important for mega projects, and parties must not see them through the short-term lens of politics.