As pollution levels in Delhi continue to rise, the debate over whether the city should remain India's capital is gaining momentum. Congress MP Shashi Tharoor’s pointed question about the city's fitness to serve as the capital has sparked a wide-ranging discussion on social media. Many people are now questioning whether India’s administrative and political center should shift to a city with cleaner air, like Chennai or Hyderabad. These cities are not only known for their better air quality but are also growing hubs of technology, business, and education, potentially offering a healthier alternative to the smog-covered capital.
Delhi's air pollution has become a recurring nightmare, with the winter months bringing a toxic haze that severely affects residents' health. The spike in pollution levels from November to January has become a predictable yet unsolved crisis, largely due to crop residue burning in neighboring states, combined with vehicle emissions, construction dust, and industrial pollutants. Despite various government measures and court directives, Delhi’s air quality remains among the worst in the world. On Tuesday, the Air Quality Index (AQI) hit nearly 490—well into the "severe" category—making it the most polluted city globally. The severity of the situation has made it almost uninhabitable for months, prompting Tharoor’s call for reconsideration of Delhi’s role as the nation's capital.
The proposal to move India’s capital to a cleaner city is not without precedent. In 2022, Indonesia made a bold decision to move its capital from Jakarta—a megacity notorious for its pollution and congestion—to Nusantara, a newly planned city on the island of Borneo. The decision was driven by both environmental concerns and the reality that Jakarta is sinking. Rising sea levels, combined with extensive groundwater extraction, have led to severe land subsidence, with predictions that a third of Jakarta could be underwater by 2050. The Indonesian government has committed $35 billion to develop Nusantara, with plans to relocate 1.9 million people by 2045, emphasizing sustainability with 100% renewable energy and a “forest city” concept that includes 65% reforestation.
Such an enormous undertaking, however, comes with significant challenges. While the new city is designed to be environmentally friendly, the construction and development process have faced scrutiny. Environmentalists warn that building a massive city in Borneo could disrupt sensitive ecosystems, endanger wildlife, and affect local communities. Additionally, the socioeconomic impact on residents left behind in Jakarta, who may not have the resources to move to Nusantara, is a major concern. The relocation highlights the complex balance between urban development, environmental sustainability, and social equity—issues that India, too, would need to navigate if a capital shift were ever seriously considered.
The situation in Delhi has also drawn parallels with other major global cities struggling with pollution. Beijing, once synonymous with smog, implemented stringent measures to improve air quality, such as reducing coal consumption, relocating heavy industries, and imposing strict vehicle emissions standards. Though Beijing still faces air quality challenges, it has seen a significant reduction in hazardous pollution levels over the past decade. Similarly, Mexico City, which faced severe air pollution in the 1990s, launched a series of reforms, including restricting vehicle use, expanding green spaces, and promoting public transportation. These international examples suggest that while pollution can be managed, it requires sustained political will, long-term planning, and public cooperation.
Tharoor’s remarks about Delhi come at a critical juncture, just days before the start of the Winter session of Parliament, which will bring hundreds of politicians from across India to the city. The timing adds urgency to his question, as the health risks associated with Delhi's air extend beyond the residents to the entire political class convening in the city. Some MPs have already raised concerns about the impact of the city's air pollution on their health, with several calling for immediate measures to ensure safer air quality during the session.
The Indian government has implemented numerous pollution control measures over the years, from limiting the use of firecrackers to promoting the adoption of electric vehicles and imposing fines for construction dust. However, these measures have often fallen short of delivering lasting improvements. The Graded Response Action Plan (GRAP), designed to combat severe pollution, has also struggled to keep pace with the growing pollution crisis. Critics argue that piecemeal approaches and lack of stringent enforcement are failing to address the root causes of pollution.
The idea of moving the capital would require a massive, coordinated effort involving not only environmental considerations but also logistical and political challenges. Building a new capital would mean developing infrastructure, housing, and transport networks from scratch, while simultaneously ensuring that the shift does not disrupt the administrative machinery. The potential move could also spark a cultural and economic transformation, affecting how the government interacts with citizens and how political power is distributed across India. A new capital in the south, for instance, could shift the economic focus towards that region, impacting the development trajectories of different parts of the country.
Yet, for many, the idea of abandoning Delhi is unimaginable. The city is not just an administrative center; it is a cultural and historical symbol of India’s identity. From the grandeur of the Rashtrapati Bhavan to the historic Red Fort, Delhi is embedded with the nation's heritage. Relocating the capital would mean more than just moving offices—it would involve shifting a deep-seated legacy, a sense of continuity that dates back centuries, from the Mughal era to the British Raj and beyond. The emotional and historical significance of Delhi is likely to weigh heavily on any decision to move the capital.
The debate, however, highlights the urgent need for a long-term solution to Delhi's pollution crisis. Many experts argue that relocating the capital is not the only option; instead, they advocate for robust, science-based environmental policies to make Delhi livable again. This could include stricter emission controls, better public transportation, enhanced green cover, and tighter industrial regulations. A comprehensive and integrated strategy, similar to those implemented in cities like Beijing and Mexico City, may still hold the key to reversing Delhi’s environmental decline.
As the country grapples with the decision, the government faces pressure to act swiftly. The consequences of inaction are severe—not just for the health of Delhi's residents but for India's image as a modern, progressive nation. Tharoor’s question, whether rhetorical or serious, has brought to the forefront the critical challenges of urban pollution, governance, and sustainability. Whether India decides to move its capital or reinvest in cleaning up Delhi, the choices made in the coming years will have far-reaching implications, shaping the country's future in ways that go beyond environmental health.
