Urban Planning

Directions: Which sentence is different in meaning from the others? (l) While megacities are renowned for pollution, they often generate a lot of money. (II) Estimates made during the past two decades suggested that most megacities would continue to increase at an alarming rate. (III) But contrary to expectations, more people are now leaving many of the world's (argest urban areas than are moving in. (IV) For example, the population of Sao Paulo was expected to reach 24 million by the year 2000, but fewer than 13 million live there now. (V) There is a similar situation in cities such as Calcutta, Buenos Aires and Beijing.

The author quotes from John Lennon's song and calls it 'an apt metaphor for urbanization in India.' What exactly is being referred to?

Directions: Answer the given question based on the following passage:

The famous line by John Lennon from a song in his last album, “Life is what happens to you while you’re making other plans,” is an apt metaphor for urbanization in India. 
In September, a UN report, ‘State of the World’s Cities’, noted that Delhi had joined an exclusive league of ‘metacities’—massive conurbations of more than 20 million people. It now outstrips even Shanghai and similar behemoths to rank as the world’s second largest urban agglomeration behind Tokyo, a position it is likely to retain till 2025.
As with much of policy-making in the country, the pattern is one of being reactive not proactive, of forever playing catch-up, in this case trying to provide housing, water, transport and other services to a burgeoning urban population. To attribute purposiveness behind India’s urbanisation is to give our planners and policymakers credit (or blame) where it is not due!
Obviously a mega city has pros and cons - economies of scale that make possible good museums, hospitals and universities (agglomeration economies) have to be balanced against congestion, crime, pollution and administrative challenges (agglomeration diseconomies). In the ultimate analysis, one size-does-not-fit-all and there is space under the sun for cities of all sizes.
That said, three features of India’s urbanisation portend the future. First, till recently and contrary to popular belief, India on the whole urbanised slowly. In 1950 India was more urban than China, but the latter overtook us soon(45% urban compared to our 31%).
Second, in contrast to Europe and Africa, urban Indians tend to live in bigger cities — about 50% of them lived in cities of 5 lakh or more and 42% lived in cities of over a million.
Finally, and more worryingly, urban sprawl is increasing in India — we are urbanising wastefully in terms of land with all its attendant consequences for service delivery.
As Indian cities nibble away at their rural fringe (gobble-up would be a more appropriate description) they also corrode the nation’s moral fiber — the worst instances of corruption and scams are to be found in land deals and rural-urban conversion. Land transactions fuel the black economy and windfall gains of nouveau riche with scant regard for values.
The question then is not one of size since it alone does not make a Delhi or a Mumbai into Shanghai which are indeed bigger or of the same size. It is sensible (compact and dense) urban form, efficient service delivery and accountable and responsive city governments that would make our mega-dysfunctional-cities into Shanghai.