In the past two decades, the Indian government has prioritised infrastructure-led development through various means like substantial investments in rail, road and metro projects, Special Economic Zones (SEZ), National Investment Manufacturing Zones (NIMZ) and industrial parks across the country. A critical strategy has been the establishment of industrial corridors connecting major states, aimed at generating employment opportunities and boosting economic growth. This marks the first time that economic and urban planning are being explicitly linked together, where industrial corridors are being used as tools to facilitate urbanisation and drive economic development.
Modelled after Japan’s successful Tokyo-Fukuoka Corridor, the Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor (DMIC) became the first corridor project implemented in India in 2009. The Chennai Bengaluru Industrial Corridor (CBIC) followed suit, spanning the southern states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. Currently, the National Industrial Corridor Development Corporation (NICDC) oversees 11 industrial corridors in various stages of development.
These industrial corridors have far-reaching implications on how urbanisation is unfolding in settlements along them, many of which are small towns identified as nodes for accelerated development. These settlements shed light on a range of issues like governance, planning, environment, employment and livelihoods, largely stemming from infrastructure development. This essay examines how urban and economic development is unfolding in Karnataka in context of the CBIC.
The CBIC is emblematic of the synergy between large-scale industrial development and urbanisation in southern India, particularly in Karnataka. It encompasses rapidly growing cities like Bengaluru and Chennai, alongside their peripheral towns, all impacted by corridor development. The project’s implementation amidst institutional disjuncts in economic and urban development raises critical questions and addressing these is crucial for a smoother implementation of the mega project.
Industrial corridors in India
The industrial corridors project has been an ambitious one, involving large-scale planning and implementation with several stakeholders, government and private partners as well as national and international funding agencies. The DMIC was the first such project, announced in 2009 by the government, spanning the states of Uttar Pradesh, Haryana, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra. This $100-billion project with 23 industrial hubs along its 1,500-kilometre length, is estimated to create 25 million jobs across various industrial estates. Yet, its manifestation on the ground has been fraught with ambiguity. Fifteen years since its announcement, several proposed projects on the corridor are yet to materialise, raising concerns about land acquisition, environmental implications, and livelihoods.
The CBIC is one of the three industrial corridors passing through Karnataka, alongside the Bengaluru-Mumbai Economic Corridor and the Hyderabad-Bengaluru Industrial Corridor. The 560-km CBIC, spanning states of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu, is a joint venture between the governments of India and Japan, with the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) providing financial and technical support.
Mega-infrastructure projects envisaged along the corridor include the Tumakuru Machine Tools Park, Food Park, and a Japanese Township – all currently under development. The Tumkaru Industrial Township alone has been allotted 8,384 acres of land to be developed in three phases. Phase A alone is expected to attract investments of around Rs 7,000 crore in the next five to six years, generating employment for an estimated 88,000 people. Aligned with the government’s ‘Make in India, Make for the World’, vision, the township promises to contribute to India’s futuristic and inclusive growth. The recent Karnataka state budget 2024 announcement of developing integrated townships near Tumakuru’s Vasanthnarsapura highlights the CBIC’s growing importance in Karnataka’s economic and urban planning strategy.
Karnataka’s economic and urban development
Karnataka is one of the highly industrialised states in India, with its industrial sector currently contributing 25% of the state’s GDP. Historically, Karnataka’s economy has focused on agriculture, micro, small and medium enterprises (MSMEs) and information technology. Former policies used ‘economic backwardness’ and ‘location’ as indicators to channel funds towards specific areas to rectify regional imbalances. The 2020-2025 industrial policy shifts this focus towards mega-infrastructure projects, in line with the Union government’s vision to promote manufacturing across the nation. In particular, it leverages the CBIC to ground the vision of the policy and as a key infrastructure tool to strategise future industrial growth. For example, the new industrial policy proposes MSME clusters in the influence zone of the corridor, an important shift for urban development in Karnataka.
While the CBIC is critical in shaping urban development in the state, it has severe implications for the state’s future urbanisation, particularly in small towns and peri-urban areas along the corridor. Many of these towns, such as Tumakuru, on the outskirts of Bengaluru, have experienced rapid growth in the last two decades with the emergence of several large-scale manufacturing units and industrial townships. However, these towns grapple with several administrative, governance and environmental challenges, and lack capacities to accommodate such rapid transition.
Navigating governance, environmental and socio-economic challenges
This transition presents challenges across multiple aspects, including planning, governance, institutional capacities, and environment, among others. Firstly, urban planning primarily relies on spatial methods such as master planning exercises, which often overlook governance and institutional challenges. In the context of industrial corridors, the reality is that economic and industrial planning is divorced from urban planning praxis.
Secondly, despite the corridor’s main objective of advancing industrialisation and urbanisation simultaneously, there seems to be significant fragmentation and a lack of coordination between departments. This results in urban planning exercises not considering the upcoming industrial developments, rendering them inadequate in meeting future requirements.
For instance, the CBIC industrial estate near Tumakuru is governed by the Tumakuru Industrial Township Limited, a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) that operates independently of the local panchayats, municipal corporation, Smart City agency or the town planning department of the city. SPVs, which are legal entities, or a company established to oversee the implementation of time-specific projects, have now become critical in the implementation of large-scale infrastructure projects across the country. With the state investing in the integrated township in the region, the absence of clear demarcation of jurisdiction or responsibilities between the involved institutions could lead to disjointed urban and economic planning. Often, there is a suspension of local governing structures by newer governing bodies such as SPVs and private players.
A third interconnected issue is the lack of state support in enabling effective rural-to-urban or small-to-large urban transformations. The lack of capacity and training among staff to manage the upcoming urban transformation makes it challenging to plan for the foreseeable demand for infrastructure, housing and resource utilisation. The burden of addressing this gap becomes the sole responsibility of local institutions, which lacks the financial backing or technical expertise to do so.
Finally, stemming from this disconnect is the lack of preparedness for the impact of these developments on local natural resources. While industrial projects are mandated to conduct an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) before project implementation, these studies are often carried out in isolation, overlooking the impact on local communities, environment and livelihoods. Tumakuru, for instance, is a water-scarce district, already in the ‘over exploited’ category for groundwater. Hosting a 5000-acre project in a district that is dependent on schemes like the Yettinahole Drinking Water project for basic necessities exposes the project’s vulnerability to water security issues. The current planning seems short-sighted by neglecting climate change and sustainability considerations. Considering that these infrastructures are meant to last for decades, rectifying this shortfall later could prove expensive and ineffective.
Collaborative approach, the way forward
Urban transitions predominantly occur in small towns and peri-urban areas of metropolitan cities, many of which fall within the influence zone of these industrial corridors. While, these transitions as well as challenges, vary from rural to urban and small to larger urban settings, the involvement of local authorities in the planning processes is crucial to address site-specific challenges.
To enable efficient urban transitions, governments must effectively integrate urban and economic development across the state. This requires coordinated efforts across multiple state and non-state actors, including state and local institutions, SPVs and industrial stakeholders. For example, entities like the Karnataka Industrial Area Development Board, Karnataka Water Resources Department, Tumakuru Industrial Township Limited and other related departments need to integrate their planning strategies.
Karnataka is one of the few states which is in the process of implementing a robust framework around Integrated Water Resources Management to enable better water management and economic development. Further, planning around the new industrial township on the CBIC must involve rural and urban authorities to facilitate smooth transition. Developing an urbanisation policy is crucial for envisioning future urban settlements, allowing institutions to prepare accordingly.
Tanvi Bhatikar and Prajna Beleyur are researchers at Indian Institute for Human Settlements, Bengaluru.
This article was completed with support from the PEAK Urban programme, funded by UKRI’s Global Challenge Research Fund.
