Nandan Nilekani (yes, THE man) argues on his blog about providing more self-governance to the cities in India:
In a crisis, the city was thus left helpless, its institutions frozen in place. The power of city administrations has in fact, been deliberately hollowed out since independence, as state governments superseded city authority and co-opted its power. The decline of the Indian city took a decisive turn after the battle over Bombay in the 1950s, when states were being formed according to linguistic boundaries. Bombay presented a puzzle to the Indian government – while it lay in the heart of Maharashtra, it had Gujarati as well as Marathi residents, and vast numbers of other language communities. Nehru proposed at a point that Bombay become a separate, bilingual area, but the rioting and protests that ensued forced him to back down, and the city became an unequivocal part of Maharashtra. Since then, our cities have been passive and subordinate to the state governments. The bulk of city taxes are collected by the state and central governments and administration is dominated by state run agencies. And with local authorities powerless and unaccountable to citizens, city infrastructure has neared collapse.
Link found via: Atanu Dey.
Linked by sudipta. Join Blogbharti facebook group.

I think it’s a question of holding the govt more accountable. It’s a simple 80-20 rule in any sphere of life 80% of the state’s economy will be driven by 20% and those will be your major metros and cities. If the metros are generating all your money then it is the responsibility of the govt to ensure that more money is pumped in to improve the infrastructure. After all you cant pluck all the feathers off the golden goose, can you?