top of page

By:

Bhalchandra Chorghade

11 August 2025 at 1:54:18 pm

Infrastructure moment in MMR

Mumbai: The Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) stands at a critical inflection point as the Mahayuti alliance secured near-complete control over key municipal corporations across the region. With aligned political leadership at the state and civic levels, the long-fragmented governance architecture of India’s most complex urban agglomeration may finally see greater coherence in planning and execution. For a region grappling with mobility stress, water insecurity and uneven urban expansion, the...

Infrastructure moment in MMR

Mumbai: The Mumbai Metropolitan Region (MMR) stands at a critical inflection point as the Mahayuti alliance secured near-complete control over key municipal corporations across the region. With aligned political leadership at the state and civic levels, the long-fragmented governance architecture of India’s most complex urban agglomeration may finally see greater coherence in planning and execution. For a region grappling with mobility stress, water insecurity and uneven urban expansion, the question now is not what to build—but how quickly and seamlessly projects can be delivered. Urban mobility remains the backbone of MMR’s infrastructure agenda. Several metro corridors are at advanced stages, including the Andheri West–Vikhroli Metro Line 6 and extensions of the Colaba–Bandra–SEEPZ Metro Line 3. While construction has progressed steadily, coordination issues with municipal agencies—particularly related to road restoration, utilities shifting and traffic management—have often slowed execution. With elected civic bodies now politically aligned with the state government and agencies like MMRDA and MMRC, these bottlenecks are expected to ease. Decision-making on road closures, permissions for casting yards and last-mile integration with buses and footpaths could see faster turnarounds. Suburban rail projects such as the Panvel–Karjat corridor and additional railway lines on the Central and Western routes are also likely to benefit from smoother land acquisition and rehabilitation approvals, traditionally the most contentious municipal functions. Regional Connectivity MMR’s road infrastructure has expanded rapidly in recent years, but execution has often been uneven across municipal boundaries. Projects such as the Mumbai Coastal Road, the Goregaon–Mulund Link Road, the Thane–Borivali tunnel and the Airoli–Katai connector have regional significance but require constant coordination with local bodies for utilities, encroachments and traffic planning. Under a unified civic dispensation, authorities expect fewer inter-agency delays and greater willingness at the municipal level to prioritise regionally critical projects over hyper-local political considerations. The next phase of the Coastal Road, suburban creek bridges, and arterial road widening projects in fast-growing nodes like Vasai-Virar, Kalyan-Dombivli and Panvel could be streamlined as municipal corporations align their development plans with state transport objectives. Water Security Water supply remains one of the most politically sensitive infrastructure issues in MMR, particularly in peripheral urban zones. Projects such as the Surya Regional Water Supply Scheme and proposed dam developments in the Karjat region are designed to address chronic shortages in Mira-Bhayandar, Vasai-Virar and parts of Navi Mumbai. While these projects are state-driven, municipal cooperation is critical for distribution networks, billing systems and sewerage integration. With elected bodies replacing administrators, local governments are expected to accelerate last-mile pipelines, treatment plants and sewage networks that often lag behind bulk water infrastructure. Unified political control may also reduce resistance to tariff rationalisation and long-delayed sewage treatment upgrades mandated under environmental norms. Housing Integration One area where political alignment could have an outsized impact is redevelopment—particularly slum rehabilitation and transit-oriented development. Many large housing projects have stalled due to disputes between civic officials, state agencies and local political interests. A cohesive governance structure could fast-track approvals for cluster redevelopment near metro corridors, unlocking both housing supply and ridership potential. Municipal corporations are also likely to align their development control regulations more closely with state urban policy, enabling higher density near transport nodes and more predictable redevelopment timelines. This could be transformative for older suburbs and industrial belts awaiting regeneration. The return of elected municipal councils after years of administrative rule introduces political accountability but also sharper alignment with state priorities. Budget approvals, tendering processes and policy decisions that earlier faced delays due to political uncertainty are expected to move faster. Capital expenditure plans could increasingly reflect regional priorities rather than fragmented ward-level demands. However, challenges remain. Faster execution will depend not only on political control but on institutional capacity, contractor performance and financial discipline. Public scrutiny is also likely to intensify as elected representatives seek visible results within fixed tenures.

The Art of the (Middle East) Deal

Though elected on an isolationist promise, President Trump’s Middle East doctrine has alarmed MAGA purists by embracing strength and strategic entanglement.

Within hours of bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan, Trump, with characteristic bombast, declared victory and called for peace, while warning both Iran and Israel to respect his unilateral ceasefire. The so-called ‘12-day war’ ended leaving Trump’s anti-interventionist supporters in ideological freefall.


For a man elected to end forever wars, a careful examination shows that Trump’s Middle East doctrine has proven anything but isolationist. The Iran strikes disappointed the MAGA faithful, sending many of Trump’s supporters into paroxysms of rage.


Trump is willing to engage in short, kinetic bursts of action to secure national interests. His administration has certainly renounced the liberal interventionism that followed the Cold War, which was protracted, expensive and morally freighted, and replaced it with a doctrine of calibrated unilateralism. Each strike is a show of force and each threat a test of nerve in this Trumpian doctrine.


Trump’s Middle East doctrine marks a clear departure from his predecessors. Whereas George W. Bush pursued grand ideological crusades in Iraq and Afghanistan, and Barack Obama sought to recalibrate American influence through diplomacy and multilateralism, Trump has favoured coercive pragmatism.


The clearest example remains Trump’s 2020 assassination of Qasem Soleimani, Iran’s most powerful general and regional powerbroker. Where conventional politicians might have balked at killing a sovereign state's top commander, Trump pressed the button. “To terrorists who harm or intend to harm any American, we will find you; we will eliminate you,” he said, before issuing a warning to Tehran: “We are ready and prepared to take whatever action is necessary.”


Trump has weaponised economic coercion with the same theatrical style. In 2019, when Turkey launched an offensive against America’s Kurdish allies in Syria, Trump responded by threatening to “destroy” the Turkish economy, imposed sanctions on officials, hiked tariffs and dispatched Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo to Ankara. Within two weeks, a ceasefire was brokered. Sanctions were lifted and American forces withdrew.


The same playbook was deployed over the fate of Andrew Brunson, an American pastor imprisoned in Turkey. When President Erdoğan refused to release him despite a diplomatic quid pro quo, Trump imposed Magnitsky sanctions, doubled tariffs on Turkish metals and tanked the lira. Erdoğan eventually yielded.


If coercion is the stick, recognition is the carrot. On a surprise visit to Riyadh in May this year, Trump, to the shock and surprise of many, announced the end of American sanctions on Syria, now under new leadership of Ahmed al-Sharaa, once the commander of Jabhat al-Nusra - al-Qaeda’s Syrian franchise. “It’s their time to shine,” Trump declared.


What binds these episodes together is Trump’s rejection of post-9/11 orthodoxy. In 2017, he declared America would “no longer use military might to construct democracies in faraway lands.” He praised the Gulf states for charting their own course while criticizing erstwhile American regimes for having wasted trillions in Baghdad.


Trump’s message, in this sense, has remained consistent, if not always comfortable for his most ardent backers. His decision not to immediately withdraw from Afghanistan early in his presidency earned him scorn from Breitbart, a longtime cheerleader.


Still, he has largely governed as he promised - not by retreating, but by refusing to remake the world in America’s image.


This doctrine has delivered episodic wins on Trump’s terms but limitations are evident in his struggle to contain more complex conflicts. Despite lofty rhetoric and arm-twisting, Trump has failed to bring either the Gaza war or the Russia-Ukraine conflict to heel. Allies may chafe and MAGA purists may grumble, but for Trump, projecting power remains the proof, and not the contradiction of ‘America First.’

Comments

bottom of page