The Divided City

Ideological and Policy Contestations in Contemporary Urban India

Binti Singh, Mahendra Sethi

• Publisher: WSPC
• Year: 2018
• eBook ISBN: 9789813226999
• Topic: Politique et relations internationales
• Subtopic: Politique asiatique

-->

The Divided City contributes to the growing body of scholarly work on cities of the global South. Cities in developing countries, particularly emerging economies, are undergoing rapid urbanization and social transition. Empirically grounded to the contemporary urban situation in India, The Divided City is set in an opportune moment to assess how cities fare up to the challenge of inclusive urbanization. It highlights how the urban pathway of contemporary India departs from the goal of inclusion in multiple ways — access to energy, public services, architecture, land, infrastructure, commons, and cultural and civic spaces. It simultaneously interrogates both policy and theory with intermingling issues like informality, privatization, political economy and gender divide in the contemporary Indian city. The book argues for greater urban inclusion (social, economic and environmental) acknowledged in principle, in national and international urban policy frameworks.

--> Sample Chapter(s)
Foreword --> Contents:

• Ideological and Policy Contestations in Contemporary Urban India
• Trajectory of Spatial and Social Segregation in Urban India
• Erosion of Public Space
• Equitable Access and Political Economy of Basic Urban Services
• Divided Activisms and Civic Spaces
• Urbanscapes: The Traditional–Modern Divide and Its Contemporary Implications
• Cities as Hubs of Regional and Global Climate Inequities
• Conclusion and Way Forward

-->
--> Readership: Researchers and students specializing in urban sociology, urban geography, urban planning, policy and governance or those investigating the urban situation in the South Asia and anyone who is interested in deeper understanding of the contemporary city from socio-economic equity and inclusion perspective. -->
Policy vs Practice;Divided Activism;Urban/Civic Space;Ideological Conflict;Architectural Divide;Environmental Inequities;Urban Equity Index;Rights vs Responsibilities;Urban theory;Global South;Inclusion0 Key Features:

• The Divided City focuses on inequities that are mostly stark though sometimes subtle and manifest themselves spatially as well as ideationally in the form of conflicting aspirations, interests and activisms in contemporary cities in India that stand divided in multiple ways — accessibility, representation in city governance, and serviceability

Chapter 1

Ideological and Policy Contestations in Contemporary Urban India

1.Introduction

India is urbanizing at an exceptional rate. For the first time since independence, the absolute increase in population is more in urban areas than in rural areas (Census of India, 2011). With a total urban population of 377 million in India, urbanization increased from 27.81% in 2001 to 31.16% in 2011 (Ministry of Urban Development, MoUD, 2011). The variation may seem marginal, but urban India is actually adding almost four times the Australian population every decade. The urban population is increasing at 2.76% annual exponential growth rate, while the rural population is increasing at 1.15%. Moreover, the absolute increase in population is more in urban areas than in rural areas largely on account of net rural urban classification and migration (56%) against natural increase (44%).

As per assessment by the Town and Country Planning Organisation (TCPO), there are 7935 towns (4031 statutory towns and 3894 census towns¹) in India (TCPO, 2012). In 2001, the figures were 5161 towns (3799 statutory towns and 1362 census towns). The statutory towns have increased by 6.37% and the census towns by 185%, signifying that a number of rural areas have attained urban characteristics and been designated as census towns. Out of 7935 towns in India, 468 are Class-I (population more than 0.1 million) and 53 are million-plus cities. Almost four out of every five Class-I towns have a population of 0.1–0.5 million (TCPO, 2012). The average size of towns and cities in India has grown from 33,624 in 1961 to about 61,159 in 2011, thus clearly indicating that urbanization in India is evident both in geographical spread and sheer volume (TCPO, 2012). It has been observed that the growth in big metros is gradually stabilizing, while the newer and smaller cities are growing faster. While it took nearly 40 years (1971–2011) for India’s urban population to rise to 270 million, in future it may take half the time to add the same number. According to various estimates, by 2030, India’s urban population will be 590 million (Mckinsey, 2010) to 600 million (MoUD, 2011) — that is, about 40% of the total and break-even with the rural population by 2039.

The Divided City attempts to capture the myriad patterns evident in cities that are currently experiencing major urbanization set in motion by a series of interventions post-1990s brought about by adopting the policy of economic liberalization, privatization and globalization (collectively acronymed as LPG), the decentralization and good governance discourse and a new urban regime first under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM, www.jnnurm.nic.in) in 2005 and the current Smart Cities Mission (SCM) in 2015. Given the recent spate of urban policies from 2015 onwards, namely, Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Swachh Bharat Mission (SBM), National Heritage City Development and Augmentation Yojana (HRIDAY), for the first time cities in India are being subjected to rigorous attempts of transformation. This deliberation helps define the ideological and policy dimensions that the research aims to draw upon to evaluate and contest the past and existing practices that have crucially and constantly been divisive in the urban sphere, dividing its people, their economic opportunities, amenities and services, public spaces, the cityscape and many other urban attributes. The research also emphasizes how this analysis academically aligns with the evolving international and regional discourse on equity, justice, rights particularly with regard to the narratives on gender, urban poor, spatial/environmental and socially marginalized.

India is undergoing rapid transition as never before with a spate of policy initiatives at the centre and local government levels, spatial reconfigurations driven either by sporadic growth of unplanned settlements or new infrastructure projects and real estate housing. This volume is descriptive and sociologically anchored to the theme of spatial and social segregation and how these divisions get reinforced in our contemporary cities. While doing so, the research traces how settlements in India have always been spatially and socio-economically divisive along fault lines of politics, economy, caste, religion and gender. British colonial rule introduced the modern principles of planning with attendant ideas of division exemplified as civil lines, native town and cantonment areas. Post-independence, cities were shaped by newly constituted industrial estates, steel towns, power station towns, development authorities and improvement trusts largely drawing from Western (read American) concepts of town planning — low-rise greenfield development, suburbanization, segregation of land use and greater dependency on personal modes of motorized transport. This effectively promoted exclusion and divisions based on socio-economic, cultural affinities and blatantly marginalized migrants and urban poor. It conflicted with the idiom of social and cultural heterogeneity, the value of unity in diversity based on the principles of equality and justice, as enshrined in the constitution of newly independent India.

As the story of urbanization unfolded, divisions in Indian cities further began to magnify and sharpen with neoliberal reforms during the last decade of the 20th century. This calls for a serious and systematic academic investigation and reflection. The inequities are mostly stark though sometimes subtle and manifest themselves spatially as well as ideationally in the form of conflicting aspirations, visions and interests. The contemporary city in India therefore stands divided in multiple ways — access to water supply, electricity, household toilets, built form, public spaces, representation in city governance and serviceability. The breadth and depth of the problem and issues therein cannot be undermined at the expense of overall economic development and prosperity at the state or national level.

2.Framing the Contemporary Indian City in the Changed Context Post-1990s

The contemporary city in India is situated in a context shaped by the interplay of three parallel and interlinked forces that originated in the 1990s. These three forces are, first, policies of economic liberalization set in motion in 1991; second, the good governance discourse advocated by international agencies (namely, the World Bank, WB, and the International Monetary Fund, IMF) and the goals of democratic decentralization envisaged in the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act (CAA), 1992; and third, infrastructure development programmes of the Government of India (GoI) initiated first by the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), escalated further under the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) regime. These programmes are exemplified by large-scale infrastructure development like highways, flyovers, expressways, townships, greenfield urban development like industrial parks and townships on city fringes (examples include Sri City near Chennai, Manesar Integrated Model Township near Delhi, and Hitec City/Cyberabad on Hyderabad’s western edge), Special Economic Zones (SEZs), National Investment and Manufacturing Zones (NIMZs) and Smart cities (examples include Dholera, Amravati and Gujarat International and Finance Tech City, GIFT). These developments resonate the neoliberal turn in the urban situation in India influenced by global capitalism already established (Banerjee, 2010; Nijman, 2007; Harvey, 1989). In the arena of urban governance, this is reflected in urban missions like the JNNURM, launched in 2005. Box 1 briefly describes the terms Neoliberalism and Structural Adjustment Programme. A string of policies launched 2014 onwards by the newly elected NDA regime popularized under the Smart Cities paradigm carry forward the changes already set in motion in the 1990s. The ensuing discussion analyses each of these forces and how they have shaped the contemporary city in India.

Box 1: Neoliberalism and Structural Adjustment Programme

The term “neoliberalism” is often understood and used in scholarly works to mean a multifaceted and multiscalar socio-economicpolitical framework characterized by universal backtracking of the welfare state, dismantling of institutional constraints upon marketization, increased commodification, shrinking of organized jobs, increased informalization of work, privatization of state-owned and state-provided services, new forms of state interventions often described as entrepreneuralism (Harvey, 1989), new forms of governance adapted to a market-driven globalizing economy (Brenner and Theodore, 2002). From the late 1980s, neoliberal frameworks influenced policy making, but the ways in which neoliberal policies entered and work in different countries vary substantially. Neoliberal policies are closely related to the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs) of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank together known as the Bretton Woods Institutions. SAPs were medium- to long-term economic devices (over 3–5 years) involving three kinds of measures: expenditure reduction, aimed at improving a country‘s balance of trade position by reducing demand, decreasing imports and increasing exports — accomplished via credit and wage restrictions, contractions in the money supply, and reductions in public spending and institutional reforms centred on market liberalization and privatization, in the belief that markets allocate resources efficiently (Peet, 2005: 56). For urban governance, neoliberal policies mean increasing constraints in planning and the political capacity of elected municipal governments, withdrawal of the state from urban development, privatization of basic services, public–private partnerships for urban infrastructure, increasing gentrification to expand space for elitist consumption and a growing exposure to global competition reflecting the power of a disciplinary finance regime and a hegemonic cultural framework (Banerjee, 2009). For instance, in the urban housing sector, Sengupta and Shaw (2017) argue that earlier in many Asian cities, housing was part of public policy with the state acting as provider of housing acquiring land, building housing units and selling to the public at affordable prices. In this model, low-income housing and housing for the poor were particular concerns, they argue. Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, the sector witnessed a neoliberal shift from the state-directed development strategies to market-driven strategies which have involved a switch from reliance on state to non-state actors and a focus on the private sector, nongovernment organizations, and civil society.

First, new economic policies introduced in 1991 through liberalization of the economy (with attendant needs to attract foreign investment especially for physical infrastructure in urban centres) brought about a deregulation of the economy with direct impact on urban governance. These impacts are especially visible in the ways in which urban policies and practices have shaped up since then. Entry of private players in large-scale infrastructure development like highways, flyovers, expressways, townships, greenfield urban development like industrial parks and townships, SEZs, NIMZs and Smart cities, entry of private players in the provision of basic services; new modes of revenue generation like the introduction of pay and use services (toilets, garbage collection), capital market borrowing and increased water charges to cope with rising infrastructure costs; new institutional arrangements like public– private partnerships, divestment, community-based projects and special purpose vehicles (SPVs) and the ability of urban local bodies (ULBs) to raise funds on the bond market or enter into loan agreements for infrastructure development, environmental improvement and administrative reform with foreign funders (Singh, 2014; Zerah, 2009; Chaplin, 2007; Benjamin, 2000). In the wake of introduction of the economic reforms and decentralized governance heavily championed by international agencies like the World Bank, planners and policymakers in India have made a strong case to make parastatal agencies and ULBs depend increasingly on their internal resources and institutional finance with the objective of bringing in efficiency and accountability.

Second, this vision of decentralized, people-centric governance resonates with those that have similarly happened globally as corroborated in several studies (Kearns and Paddison, 2000; Pierre, 1999; Rhodes, 1997; Jessop, 1999). Elander (2002) specifically locates the emergence of the concept of decentralized urban governance in the 1990s following the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio and the 1996 Habitat II Conference in Istanbul, when actors representing central governments, local governments and non-government organizations (NGOs) were brought together for concerted action directed towards environmentally and socially sustainable development. This was the time when local government faced a movement towards fragmentation and more differentiated forms of governance: local government became urban governance (Elander, 2002: 191). The impetus for such changes came from financial restrictions on lower levels of government, especially in European countries. Local governments, in turn, responded by contracting out services to private producers, devolving responsibilities to the voluntary sector and developing bases of internal competition directed more towards the efficient use of restricted financial resources. Globally, the United Kingdom (UK), New Zealand and Australia are forerunners in adopting new forms of decentralized local urban governance.

In India, the 74th CAA, 1992 conferred constitutional status on ULBs such as municipalities, which were provided with elected councils and constituted the third tier of government, the other two being the central government and the government of each state of the union. (The Constitution of India is available at http://india.gov.in/govt/constitutions_india.php, along with the amendments.) Article 243Q of the 74th CAA has stipulated the criteria for three types of ULBs. They are (1) municipal corporation for a larger urban area, (2) municipal councils for a smaller urban area and (3) nagar panchayat (town council) for an area in transition from rural to urban. It lists five criteria for constituting ULBs, namely, the population of the area, the density of the population therein, the revenue generated for local administration, the percentage of employment in non-agricultural activities and the economic importance. For the first time, thus more comprehensive parametres were laid down for declaration of municipal areas.

Though decentralization in India is provided within the constitutional framework, the urbanization processes in contemporary India are largely shaped by the visions and funding of central government regimes. This leads us to the crucial third force that urban development is a state subject according to the Constitution of India.² Therefore, the central government can issue directives or frame policies on urban matters, but it does not have the power to legislate or implement projects. State legislatures have the exclusive power to legislate on any matter enumerated in List II (State List) of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution. Despite urban development being a state subject, it is the Centre that has initiated and supported most of the urban development programmes, especially under the Five-Year Plans. The JNNURM was a flagship mission of the central government launched in 2005 to accomplish a set of schemes and reforms related to governance, infrastructure and basic services to the urban poor. The JNNURM reaffirmed many of the existing urban reforms with financial conditionality on ULBs and state governments across the country. The JNNURM aimed to make ULBs in India financially sustainable for undertaking new programmes with the charter of reforms. There were several reforms related to land, finances and administration and basic services for the urban poor.³ Recent urban development initiatives like the current Smart Cities programme (Box 2) are typically handed out by the Central government and often backed by corporate and private business interests.

Box 2: Smart Cities Mission: Provisions and Features

The Government of India launched the Smart Cities Mission (SCM) on 25 June 2015. The mission acknowledges that cities are engines of growth for the economy of every nation, including India. The SCM accepts that there is no univ...

Table of contents

• Cover Page
• Title
• Copyright
• Foreword
• Preface
• About the Authors
• Contents
• List of Figures
• List of Tables
• List of Boxes
• List of Abbreviations
• Prologue
• Chapter 1 Ideological and Policy Contestations in Contemporary Urban India
• Chapter 2 Trajectory of Spatial and Social Segregation in Urban India
• Chapter 3 Erosion of Public Space
• Chapter 4 Equitable Access and Political Economy of Basic Urban Services
• Chapter 5 Divided Activisms and Civic Spaces
• Chapter 6 Urbanscapes: The Traditional–Modern Divide and Its Contemporary Implication
• Chapter 7 Cities as Hubs of Regional and Global Climate Inequities
• Chapter 8 Conclusion and Way Forward
• Index