The Japanese, so a story on the tech-circuit goes, will never be able to create a software product like Windows. Their quest for perfection, and the countless bugs in the software, will prevent them from ever reaching a stage where they can release the product. That story may not be kind to either the Japanese or Microsoft, but fact is, release-and-debug is the software industry's preferred launch-strategy. India's expertise in software services, the argument goes, comes, at least in part, from the quintessential Indian survival tactic of mending things on the fly.

Governance is another issue. Today, the core business of Indian governments-Central and state-is politics, not administration. Ergo, when a government wants to be seen to be addressing an issue but doesn't really care whether it makes a difference or not, it institutes a committee headed by a retired bureaucrat or an in-office CEO. The committees themselves do stellar work, often exceeding their brief, but their recommendations, usually collated in the form of a report are rarely heeded.

Circa 2000, some 30 per cent of India's population lived in its 3,700 biggest cities and towns. By 2010, this figure is likely to be around 35 per cent. Yet, none of India's largest cities, with the possible exception of Bangalore (see The Future Of Indian Cities Is Here), seems to be working with an eye on the future. Reports abound. Mumbai has had the best in the business study its problems. In 1993, then Chief Minister Sharad Pawar commissioned McKinsey & Co. to find out how the city could be projected as the best business destination India. In 1994, urban planners W.S. Atkins submitted a report on urban transport solutions for Mumbai and Coopers & Lybrand, one on waste management. In 1997, it was TCS' turn to present its findings on urban transport. In 2001, Crisil suggested how Mumbai could be made a global financial capital. And in 2003, McKinsey & Co. and Bombay First are working on a report on turning the city into a "world class" one by 2013.

Delhi, being Delhi, has eschewed external expertise in favour of home-grown talent. Thus, the bulk of its current city-centric efforts revolve around two task forces headed by the state's Transport Minister Ajay Maken and its Health Minister A.K. Walia. And the Kolkata Corporation has four committees to show for its efforts: One on sewage and water treatment, the second on women's employment, the third on environment, and the fourth, headed by Mayor Subrata Mukherjee himself, on evolving a "mega city plan".

While it doesn't take rocket-science to figure out the problems that ail our cities-traffic gridlocks, water scarcity, brown outs, unplanned development, inefficient waste management-most reports do come up with innovative and pragmatic solutions for these. Pity, then, that such reports rarely see the light of day.

Indian businesses know how it feels. All through the nineties they worked to transform themselves into competitive entities, fighting entrenched self-interest groups such as unions, technology-phobes, tree-hugging middle managers, and change-averse executives. To address the issues facing India's cities, local administrations and governments need an effective change management process.

That requires a champion, preferably someone who has the political locus standi to get most people to listen. It needs heroes, bureaucrats willing to run the gauntlet and effect change. It calls for participation from companies and professionals willing to put their money and time where their mouths are. And citizen-involvement is imperative. The reports, the ideas, and the expertise come later.

This changes the traditional government-as-service-provider model on its head. Corporates and individuals can no longer afford to say, "We pay our taxes, and business, not governance, is our core competence." That model just doesn't work. Nor does criticism. Enough has been said about the inefficiency and corruption that are rife in India's administrative superstructure.

Bangalore has demonstrated that the new model can work. And why shouldn't it? After all, if our elected representatives can't do something on their own, we probably have to help them, or do it ourselves. Call that free-market democracy if you will.