Lost in Transport

Mumbai’s grand transport infrastructure is undermined by potholes, Poor discipline and a last-mile gaps that keeps it crawling Mumbai: It is morning time, and Pawan Khandelwal is all set to leave for work. A creative lead at an ad agency in Malad, Mumbai, Khandelwal should take 12 to 15 minutes to reach the office, but that rarely happens because of the traffic, poor road quality and lack of civic sense among co-drivers on the road. He mostly ends up reaching the office in 30 to 40 minutes....

min read

Mumbai’s grand transport infrastructure is undermined by potholes, Poor discipline and a last-mile gaps that keeps it crawling Mumbai: It is morning time, and Pawan Khandelwal is all set to leave for work. A creative lead at an ad agency in Malad, Mumbai, Khandelwal should take 12 to 15 minutes to reach the office, but that rarely happens because of the traffic, poor road quality and lack of civic sense among co-drivers on the road. He mostly ends up reaching the office in 30 to 40 minutes. Khandelwal firmly believes that road construction is not a major issue for traffic. “The road under construction is not a big issue because they usually don’t take very long to repair the roads. But even after their work is done, it is not done perfectly. At times when they are digging up the road for other purposes, they often leave a bump or a pothole,” he said. He gives an example, “One can see it on the western express highway. There are so many bumps. We call it a highway, but we can’t even drive at 15 km/h because it is not fixed properly.” He also blames people for not following traffic rules, which adds to the problem. Traffic Woes Although there are coastal roads and metros available, the traffic still seems to be a problem for many residents. A media professional and a daily commuter, Charlene Flanagan has been travelling in Mumbai for many years now. There is not much difference in her experience of the traffic congestion. From her experience, she believes the coastal roads and metros have not completely accomplished the mission of curbing traffic congestion. She says, “As a resident of Mumbai and as a person with a valid driver’s licence, I would say the traf f ic hasn’t really changed. It is still as congested, and whether the coastal roads have helped depends on the time of the day you leave and whether you are going against the traffic or along with the traffic.” The pedestrians also face problems. Saloni Mehta, a theatre artiste, says, “I prefer walking to my destinations. For example, I live in Versova, and if I want to see a play in the Prithvi Theatre, I will take a half-hour walk. However, this one time, I could not reach the venue, not just because of the traffic but also because there were no pavements left to walk on. The roads are dug up, and every road is just half a road.” Mumbai’s average speed covered is 5.2 km per 15 minutes. During the peak traffic hours in the morning, when most people travel to their workplace, the average speed is 18.5 km/h. It is important to understand the issue and address it with a solution. Sudhir Badami, an author of the book ‘Matter of Equitability - Making Commuting in Mumbai Enviable’, explains why people still prefer to use cars over metros, “The metro line 3 has definitely taken away some car users. But it has not taken away sufficient numbers of car users to make a difference in the state of road congestion. The reason behind this is essentially the last-mile connectivity in areas where the Aqua Line or Line 7 operates, especially in suburban areas. In the city area, it is supported by good BEST services on the one hand, and taxis being available near the metro stations on the other hand. But most car users still opt for using their cars, as public transport currently does provide assured exclusivity, comfort and good frequency, not forgetting last mile connectivity. The Coastal Road sees very few cars compared to the number of cars on Mumbai’s Roads. Badami, as a transportation analyst, says, “Mumbai has approximately 16 Lakhs motor cars, out of which only about 55,000 seem to be using coastal roads. It is such a minuscule proportion for whom so much has been spent. This is largely because in the city, people don’t go from one end of the city to the other end. They normally start from in between and go somewhere in between. If there is not much time saving for the shorter stretches, then people are not likely to take it, and there will be continued congestion on city roads.” “In general, the necessity of the last-mile connectivity is an important part, but the greater part will be how to get car users onto the public transport,” says Badami. Public transport must provide near exclusivity, comfort and safety to a car-using commuter for migration to take place. This is where the importance of last-mile connectivity is felt. Air Pollution The slow-moving traffic also adds to the air pollution in the city several times more than when they are moving at optimum speeds, he says. Joint Commissioner of Police (Traffic), Mumbai, Anil Kumbhare, denies that there is much traffic congestion in Mumbai as compared to five years back. He credits the coastal roads for curbing the traffic. He says, “Earlier, there used to be bumper-to bumper traffic near Haji Ali. That has come down drastically. As coastal roads shape, the traffic will go down.” He also adds that there is traffic congestion in the morning hours as people are travelling for work. But there is no traffic jam. Although coastal roads have helped, there are still pockets of the city that face traffic congestion every day. This can be solved with careful planning and execution.

Idealism to Pragmatism: India’s Assertive Diplomatic Rebirth

Kiran D. Tare
Oct 26, 2024
3 min read

In 1949, when India became one of the first non-Communist nations to recognize the People’s Republic of China, it marked the beginning of a policy trajectory defined by a heady idealism and a belief in non-alignment. Jawaharlal Nehru’s foreign policy, shaped by a deep conviction in moral diplomacy, was largely conducted in an insular manner, with decisions confined to a select few—Nehru himself, his confidant V.K. Krishna Menon, and a handful of close advisers. The result was often a rigid and centralized decision-making apparatus, ill-equipped to foresee the complexities of global realpolitik. Today, India’s diplomacy has transformed into a pragmatic and assertive machine, markedly different from its formative years.

The recent ‘resolution’ of a four-year military standoff with China, announced by Indian External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar, underscores this new face of Indian diplomacy. The disengagement at the contentious border, negotiated after years of high-altitude tensions, reflects how Indian diplomacy has evolved from post-colonial idealism to strategic pragmatism. Nehru’s rush to recognize Communist China in 1949, spurred by a mix of Asian solidarity and anti-colonial zeal, stands in stark contrast to today’s careful calibration of Sino-Indian relations.

The roots of this transformation can be traced back to the 1962 Sino-Indian war. India’s humiliating defeat punctured Nehruvian idealism, exposing the perils of relying on personal diplomacy and moral posturing in a world driven by hard interests. A.S. Bhasin, in his meticulously documented book, ‘Nehru, China and Tibet’ (2021) has shown how Nehru’s policy toward China was irresponsible and marked by miscalculation—a product of both misplaced trust and an overestimation of India’s diplomatic leverage. The post-Nehru era witnessed a gradual but decisive shift toward pragmatism, a trend accelerated by successive governments’ recognition of the need for a multipolar world.

Indira Gandhi, although inheriting Nehru’s non-aligned legacy, departed from his methods. The 1971 Bangladesh Liberation War was a watershed moment for Indian diplomacy. Rather than relying on high-minded appeals to international morality, India under Indira forged a tactical alliance with the Soviet Union to counterbalance Pakistan’s US-backed military regime. Her administration demonstrated that Indian diplomacy could be both strategic and assertive, shaping events rather than being shaped by them. The nuclear tests of 1974, despite global outcry, further underscored India’s growing willingness to act in its perceived national interest, regardless of external pressures.

This pragmatism continued under Prime Ministers such as Atal Bihari Vajpayee, who in 1998 ordered a series of nuclear tests that declared India’s arrival as a nuclear power. India’s nuclear diplomacy, while defiant, was carefully managed to prevent isolation, with New Delhi swiftly engaging in talks with the United States to avoid sanctions.

The 21st century has seen an even greater shift in India’s foreign policy machinery. India’s diplomacy under the Modi government today is more institutionalized, involving a wide array of actors—from career diplomats to military strategists and economic policymakers. In S. Jaishankar, the Ministry of External Affairs (MEA) has transformed into a dynamic force capable of robust negotiations with great powers like the US and China but also with countries in the European Union, Canada and smaller nations in Africa, Latin America, and Southeast Asia. India’s approach to China has matured, moving from a reactive stance to one that seeks to manage competition through calibrated engagements, while securing India’s interests in multilateral forums such as BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

Nowhere is India’s assertiveness more visible than in its stance on the Indo-Pacific. Unlike Nehru’s aloofness to the idea of military alliances, today’s India is an enthusiastic participant in the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), alongside the US, Japan, and Australia. This marks a radical departure from the cautious diplomacy of the Cold War era. This assertiveness has become a cornerstone of India’s foreign policy, positioning it as a key player in regional security.

The 2020 Galwan clash—where 20 Indian soldiers lost their lives in brutal hand-to-hand combat—was a stark reminder of the unresolved tensions that linger along the Sino-Indian border. But India responded by strengthening military ties with the United States and deepening strategic relations with Australia, Japan, and Vietnam. As seen in the ongoing border talks with China, Indian diplomacy now balances confrontation with engagement, no longer constrained by the Nehruvian dogma of ‘Hindi-Chini bhai-bhai.’

Today, the ‘Jaishankar doctrine’ emphasizes transactional diplomacy — India’s ties with the US are driven by technological and defense cooperation, while its relationship with Russia is framed by energy security and geopolitical convenience. New Delhi’s stance in recent negotiations at the World Trade Organization, as well as its firm position in rejecting the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), demonstrate a willingness to protect its interests even at the risk of alienating powerful trading partners like China.

Indian diplomacy has evolved from the inward-looking, idealistic policies of Nehru’s era to a more outward-facing, pragmatic, and assertive approach. This transformation is emblematic of a country that has grown confident in its global role, no longer bound by the insecurities of its early post-colonial years.

1 Comment

M D Malve

Nov 07, 2024

This shift wasn't sudden. It gradually developed to find its resolute and assertive expression in S.J. Quite insightful retrospect on changing tenor of India's foreign policy.