What does the elimination of cantonments mean for urban local governments?

With the announcement for the closure of Yol Cantonment in Himachal Pradesh, the Ministry of Defence took a key step towards disbanding cantonments throughout India. This action is part of a bigger plan to convert military regions into exclusive military bases while integrating civilian areas with neighbouring urban local bodies (ULBs).

Historical Background

  • The 62 cantonments scattered around the country are regarded archaic colonial remnants left over from the East India Company’s victory at Plassey.
  • These cantonments were originally established to house troops, but over time, civilian populations moved in to provide support services.
  • Cantonment boards, which serve as considered municipalities and fulfil civic functions comparable to ULBs, currently administer cantonments.
  • Military Advantages Focus on Core Responsibilities: Military commanders would be relieved of non-military obligations if civilian areas were separated from military bases. This would allow them to focus more on their core responsibilities, such as training troops and ensuring combat readiness.

Elimination of Political Involvement:

  • In certain cases, army officers have been active in local politics within cantonments despite a lack of background and training in this field. The consolidation of civilian regions into ULBs would diminish the army’s influence in local politics.
  • Homogenous Management: The merger would allow for the uniform and homogenous management of military stations under the sole control of the army. This would allow for more efficient decision-making and operational efficiency within military establishments.
  • Enhanced Security: With civilian areas away from military bases, security procedures may be improved. Military locations can employ tighter security measures without having to worry about civilian populations living nearby.
  • Increased Flexibility: Without the responsibility of overseeing civilian functions, the military may respond to changing security needs more flexibly and deploy resources more effectively. This adaptability can improve the armed forces’ overall operational capabilities and readiness.

Civilian Residents’ Benefits

  • Property Policies: Relief from restrictive property regulations, allowing residents to transfer, mutate, and develop properties with less restrictions.
  • Reduced Inconvenience: Mitigation of road closures within cantonments, resulting in less inconvenient movement and transportation for civilian residents.
  • Access to Welfare Schemes: Integration with ULBs provides civilians with access to government-provided social welfare schemes that were previously unavailable due to the cantonment’s non-plan sector status.
  • Economic prospects: The elimination of constraining limitations on construction and economic activity stimulates growth and urbanisation in amalgamated areas, potentially increasing employment and economic prospects for citizens.
  • Municipal Laws: Residents are subject to the jurisdiction of ULBs, which ensures that municipal laws and services apply to them, resulting in better governance and the provision of vital services such as water supply, sanitation, education, and street lighting.

Potential Issues

  • Uncontrolled Construction: The integration of cantonment areas into ULBs has the potential to lead to uncontrolled construction and commercialization, particularly in hill station cantonments. This could result in the loss of these locations’ charm and environmental integrity.
  • Inadequate Services: ULBs may find it difficult to deliver quality services and governance to the amalgamated areas. Existing cities already suffer service delivery issues, and the addition of new areas with insufficient revenue may place additional strain on ULB capacity, potentially resulting in inadequate infrastructure, healthcare, and other necessary services.
  • Environmental Impact: Lifting constraints on development and commercial activity may have negative environmental repercussions such as increased pollution, strain on natural resources, and encroachment on environmentally sensitive areas. To mitigate these potential effects, proper environmental safeguards should be in place.
  • Financial Restriction: The inclusion of merged areas with insufficient revenue may worsen ULBs’ financial limits. States and the federal government must offer appropriate financial support to ULBs in order for them to address the demands of the combined areas while maintaining a sustainable level of service delivery.
  • Resistance to Resource Allocation: Existing councillors and political constituencies may resist diverting funds from their own areas to support the merged areas. This resistance could impede the equitable distribution of resources and hinder the development and provision of essential services in the merged areas.

Challenges for ULBs

  • Insufficient Resources: ULBs already face financial constraints in providing adequate services to their existing areas. The addition of merged cantonment areas may further strain their limited resources, making it challenging to meet the increased demands for infrastructure, healthcare, education, and other essential services.
  • Capacity Constraints: ULBs may struggle to rule and manage the merged territories due to a lack of people, technological experience, and administrative capacity. The unexpected inclusion of new areas may overburden the existing administrative structure, limiting their ability to deliver effective and responsive governance.
  • Revenue Generation: Because merged cantonment areas may have limited revenue-generating capacity, ULBs may face difficulties in raising adequate finances to continue and improve services. ULBs’ present revenue streams may need to be re-evaluated, and new revenue generation techniques may need to be established to support the merged regions.
  • Existing Councillors May Oppose Allocation of Resources: Allocating resources from existing political constituencies to the merged districts may face opposition from current councillors who may prioritise their own areas above the newly merged ones. This opposition may impede the equitable distribution of resources and result in discrepancies in service delivery.
  • Service Delivery and Governance: ULBs may struggle to offer quality services to the merged areas, such as water supply, sanitation, healthcare, and infrastructure development. In the amalgamated areas, a lack of proper resources, infrastructure, and governance capacity may result in subpar service delivery and governance difficulties.

The way forward

  • Extensive Urban Planning: To promote orderly and sustainable growth in the amalgamated areas, the government should conduct extensive urban planning activities.
  • ULB Strengthening: The government should give enough financial resources, technical support, and capacity-building programmes to address the issues that ULBs face.
  • Public Participation: It is critical to involve the public and stakeholders in the planning and decision-making processes. Consultations, public hearings, and feedback channels can help achieve this.
  • Monitoring and Evaluation: Mechanisms for regular monitoring and evaluation should be created to analyse the merger’s progress and impact. This would aid in identifying any flaws or issues and allowing for the prompt implementation of corrective actions.
  • Collaboration is required between the federal and state governments, ULBs, and other relevant parties. A unified strategy will allow successful decision-making, resource allocation, and policy and programme execution.
  • Long-term View: The merger should be examined in the long term, taking into account the social, economic, and environmental ramifications. It is critical to establish a balance between development goals and the preservation of the amalgamated territories’ cultural and environmental legacy.
And get notified everytime we publish a new blog post.