Recognizing the Unique Needs of Smaller Cities

---

For the first time in nine years, Swachh Survekshan 2024 formally categorized cities into five distinct population groups, moving beyond the binary above/below 1 lakh classification. This shift acknowledges that small and medium cities have unique challenges requiring tailored solutions, not one-size-fits-all policies. The new approach enables proportionate assessment criteria and validates what we also have long believed in: cities aren’t just smaller versions of metros, but distinct ecosystems deserving targeted recognition and interventions.

Source: Niti Aayog

Nāgrika has been following  a terminology and a culture that respects “smaller cities” and “small and medium cities” framework for the last 10 years. As per the 2011 census, these cities house close to 60-70% of India's urban population and are the backbone of inclusive urbanisation. As per Ministry’s data, the cities below the Million plus mark houses almost 65% of the total urban population and 99% of total number of cities. 

It is not a framework that we devised but an internationally recognised terminology. We have consistently used this framework of breaking down cities into more disaggregated categories across multiple reports spanning climate change impacts, mobility challenges, healthcare expansion, and citizen engagement patterns. From highlighting that 109 out of 113 climate-vulnerable coastal cities are small and medium-sized, to documenting how these cities engage more effectively through digital platforms than metros, to analysing mobility solutions beyond metro-centric approaches - Nāgrika’s research has consistently demonstrated that small and medium cities require distinct recognition and tailored policy interventions.

Hence, we were very happy to see a similar approach formally adopted at the national level under the Swachh Sarvekshan Rankings-2024. Such an approach validates the fact that small and medium cities deserve distinct recognition, not just as smaller versions of big cities, but as unique ecosystems with their own potential and challenges. 

This evolution reflects India's evolving understanding and acknowledgement of urban complexity. The Swachh Survekshan 2024-25 rankings were released on 14th July 2025, keeping up this ranking and data creation exercise for almost a decade. For the first time in its 9-year journey, Swachh Survekshan formally classified cities into five distinct population-based categories, including explicit “Small Cities” (20,000-50,000) and “Medium Cities” (50,000-3 lakh) alongside Very Small (under 20,000 population), Big (3-10 lakh), and Million Plus Cities (over 10 lakh).

Image Source: New Swachh Survekshan Toolkit | MoHUA

Earlier while the cities were categorised by population, there was no labeling of these cities to actually recognise their distinct characteristics and needs. This shift from broad population thresholds to specific city size terminology may seem semantic but it’s a lot more. When explicit recognition as “small” and “medium” cities happens, their unique challenges which are different from bigger cities and rural areas are also acknowledged. It can enable targeted policy interventions and the acknowledgement that one-size-fits-all doesn’t work. 

How the 2024 approach enables smaller cities

While the 2023 methodology did include varying sample sizes for validation across population ranges (such as <50,000 and 50,000–1 lakh), the overall assessment framework still largely operated on a binary of cities being either below or above 1 lakh population. Many indicators applied the same criteria across all cities under 1 lakh, regardless of whether they had 15,000 or 95,000 residents. For example, indicator 1.10 on sanitation worker welfare had two fixed templates, one for cities above 1 lakh and one for those below, failing to account for the wide spectrum of capacities within each group.

Similarly, Swachh TULIP (The Urban Learning Internship Program) offered full marks to any city under 1 lakh for inducting even a single intern, with no distinction between very small and mid-sized towns. The framework also overlooked variation within the higher population brackets. So whether a city had a population of 5 lakh (like Ujjain) or 23 lakh (like Bhopal), the assessment under indicator 1.4 on stormwater drains applied identical expectations in terms of infrastructure, maintenance standards, and validation intensity despite vastly different network scales and city population pressures. The design of these indicators in 2023 did not take into account the varying capacity of the city governments or the other agencies that enable this work in the city. 

In 2023, public toilets were assessed under Indicator 3.4, which checked whether public, community, and urinal facilities were clean and user-friendly. While citizen perception and site checks were part of the methodology, sample sizes were not explicitly tied to detailed city-size categories. As a result, city of all sizes were likely held to similar  validation requirements. The 2024 approach has led to more proportionate expectations and validation sampling. A very small city is now required to have just four public toilets assessed, while a million-plus city must undergo verification for 30 toilets. Similarly, in indicators such as cleanliness of tourist spots, stormwater drains, and solid waste processing, sample sizes and compliance benchmarks are explicitly calibrated for each population category. 

This scaling of assessment by city size makes the survey more inclusive, realistic, and implementable for both smaller and larger cities, though the methodology may have become more complex as a result.

If you were to imagine, a simple binary categorisation was like dividing all students for a school’s annual sports day into just two groups: those below Class 6 and those above. Then, for every race whether it’s 100 meters or a relay  it is expected that all students in each group perform at the same level. So a Class 1 child and a Class 5 child run the same race under the same rules. Similarly, Class 7 and Class 12 students are lumped together in the older group. It’s easy to see how this may be unfair. The same rule doesn’t work for everyone and definitely not when you’re measuring outcomes or giving awards.

This is exactly what was happening with Indian cities in the earlier Swachh Survekshan (until 2023). Cities were judged largely based on whether they were above or below 1 lakh in population with little sensitivity to the fact that a town of 10,000 is very different from one with 90,000, just like a city of 5 lakh is vastly different from one with 25 lakh. The new categorisation has created a level playing field for recognition and competition based on the city sizes.

Shift to a City-centric approach

The survey has introduced a more mature, thoughtful approach, recognising that cities like students grow, struggle and evolve at different rates. The introduction of five new categories signifies an evaluation that considers cities within their unique contexts. Hopefully, it will also drive focused resource allocation and tailored solutions for specific contexts, not just in Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM)and other programs as well.

Another change happened with this year’s Swachh rankings - the move away from traditional state rankings to a more city-centric approach. Public Health which consists of waste management is the one function devolved to the local governments (through the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act) in almost all states. Hence, it was apt that the function and the functionaries from that level got rewarded. 

While previous years featured state-level ranks like Best Performing State, 2024-25 focused on “State Level Awards for Promising Clean Cities” rather than ranking states themselves. This is a recognition of the fact that cleanliness is essentially a city/local level function and that (waste) governance can be pinned at city government level, not just at the state level. 

It will be interesting to see what happens to the implementation if some other functions performed (or that are supposed to be performed) by city governments were to have similar awards (and exercise was done to collect these data points). Some dimensions of city functions have been covered in similar tracking exercises in the past. However, some of these indices seem to have been discontinued, such as Ease of Living Index or Municipal Performance Index. There have also been notable efforts like the Urban Governance Index which for the first time, gave a clear view of city functions across all 28 states. However, it is largely at state level with a few cities identified in each state but is not at the scale of SBM to measure functioning of all the cities. 

Are there any continuous/periodic assessments of these functions for a large number of cities which are not state centric? What would it mean to build these tracking systems? For instance, assessing how cities regulate land use and building construction could expose the efficiency or opacity of urban planning systems, from permit approvals to illegal encroachments. Similarly, benchmarking fire services through response time, equipment adequacy, and trained personnel could identify disaster preparedness gaps that often surface only after a crisis.

Other deeply consequential services like the condition and dignity of burial grounds and crematoria, or the functioning of cattle pounds and slaughterhouses remain invisible in public discourse. A city’s approach to street lighting, parking, and bus stops, or its capacity to register births and deaths directly impacts everyday citizen experiences but is rarely tracked.

An index or ranking system modeled on Swachh Survekshan could bring these invisible functions into the mainstream, incentivise performance, and enable cities to compare themselves with peers of similar size and context. It could also reveal how cities are serving or failing the most vulnerable, such as the urban poor, informal workers, and people with disabilities, by tracking access, and basic dignity in service delivery. Just like Swachh Survekshan helped bring toilets and sanitation to the public agenda, a broader city-function performance index could highlight silent service failures or local innovations that shape urban life in profound but often overlooked ways.