Politics and the built environment have long been entwined in the processes by which the form, purpose, and use of urban and rural spaces have evolved. In India, this interplay of power and place has reshaped cities, neighbourhoods, and even villages, often profoundly affecting social equity, cultural expression, and the environment. Indeed, colonial, post-independence, and even contemporary political decisions for whatever reason continued to mold the very fabric of urban planning and architecture and the distribution of resources with the effect of creating exclusionary spaces, which should place social needs critically behind political and economic interests.
This article explores how political power has shaped the built environment in India in the past and continues to affect the present. Zeroing in on how old political decisions and contemporary ones create unequal, disconnected, or marginalized spaces, it discusses how current urban development practices in the country must grapple with these legacies within a rapidly urbanizing India and gentrification and environmental issues.
Politics in the Formation of the Built Environment in India: The Historical Background
Politics has had an influence on India’s built environment since colonialism. In the British colonial context, the structure of Indian cities was highly dominated by the notion of ‘imperial assertion control,’ segregation of communities, and the construction of edifices to express colonial power and authority. Cities such as New Delhi were planned to have great monumental spaces like the Rashtrapati Bhavan for the residence of the President and India Gate for it meant the concretization of imperial power. Strategically located, these structures were meant to strengthen British power, relegating the indigenous to the periphery-mostly to overcrowded and unsanitary conditions.
One of the most important decisions of urban planning by the colonial nation was to make New Delhi, in 1911, the new capital of British India. The prime objective of the British was to design a city reflecting their political supremacy, with wide, tree-lined avenues, grand buildings, and imposing government institutions. On the other hand, the older city of Shahjahanabad, which is now Old Delhi, was largely undeveloped, and there was hardly any investment in infrastructure, thus bringing to the fore once more the racial and class divisions that underlay colonial urban policy. The making of New Delhi is a fine example of the political use of architecture and urban planning by the colonizers to exercise dominance while the Indian people had to be confined to areas of limited access and even poor conditions (Koch, 1991).
Post-Independence Urban Development and Political Challenges
So early in 1947, when India finally achieved its independence, the political leadership started building the image of a free nation through architecture in the built environment. Hence, after independence, there were majestic constructions by the government to represent monumental architecture and dreamed urban planning to epitomize the new democratic republic. Modern Indian cities were designed by architects such as Pierre Jeanneret and Charles Correa, who created spaces like those that exemplified national pride as well as the ideologies of freedom.
Chandigarh, the planned city designed by Pierre Jeanneret and Le Corbusier, is another outstanding example of post-independence urban planning. Chandigarh was to represent independent India in all its modernity, rationality, and progress. It represented a new break from colonial precepts about planning and was there to give a new vision to urban spaces. Clean lines, open spaces, and grid-based layouts were all designed to promote social equality, ensuring that the residents could be proud of their city and keep its order intact.
Political decisions behind these projects, however, were not as inclusive as the imposed ambition. Large-scale urbanization projects in post-independence India often overlooked the concerns and needs of rural poverty and migrant heads of households. The rapid urbanization of cities like Mumbai, Kolkata, and Chennai during the mid-20th century has, therefore, resulted in the formation of informal settlements and slums where millions are left to live in overcrowded and unsanitary conditions (Datta, 2014).
On the other hand, there is a lack of involvement of the marginalized communities in political decision-making. In many instances, these projects of urban development led to the forced eviction of poor and working-class communities, thereby creating massive social and spatial divisions. The most glaring examples of this kind are the clearing of slums in cities like Mumbai during the 1970s and 1980s. The focus of the government towards making cities aesthetic beauties and boosting economic growth often saw the eviction of the urban poor from the city, hence never releasing them from their weakened social status (Baviskar, 2003).
Contemporary Urban Development and Political Power
In the contemporary phase, Indian cities continue to change according to the dictates of politics, but the challenges of fast urbanization, gentrification, and environmental degradation have started to manifest more starkly. The transformation of Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru is underway as luxury housing, shopping malls, and commercial centres increasingly displace lower-income populations. These projects have begun to become symptoms of economic progress, but have instead also contributed to fracturing urban spaces and social exclusion.
The phenomena of gentrification in the cities of Delhi and Bengaluru are a testament, through all its dimensions, to how much political power writes the configurative prescripts of the city into its very fabric. Gentrification always tends to happen when affluent residents and property developers invest in poor districts, where prices go shooting up and long-term inhabitants get displaced. These reforms are usually driven by political actions, which are also biased in favour of the rich class. Lenient zoning rules, tax breaks on developers, or free passes become popular decisions. The figure for these reforms is improved economics due to new infrastructures and increased investments, but it also causes unaffordable and inaccessible places for poor populations (Panchamia, 2020).
Another area in which political power influences the built environment is through the expansion of infrastructural projects in urban areas. For example, Delhi and Mumbai have frequently witnessed new highway constructions, metro systems, and airport constructions wherein communities have been displaced and social and cultural spaces have been destroyed. As important as these schemes are for providing shelter for the rapidly increasing urbanizing population and setting off economic growth, they are undertaken with little regard for the social nexus in local communities, leaving the affected people to experience alienation and displacement (Baviskar, 2003).
The primary issue is environmental sustainability reflecting the political dynamics behind forming India’s cities. In such cities increasing in challenges from climate change, air pollution, and water scarcity, political leaders and urban planners must strike a balance between development and careful attention to the environment. The political will is deficient, and short-term economic interests take precedence over long-term environmental concerns. For example, the sprawls of cities like Bengaluru have deteriorated the wetlands and forests, further aggravating the floods and water shortages (Sivaramakrishnan, 2020).
The Mismanagement of the Built Environment in India
Poor management of urban spaces, both historically and in the modern era, normally has resulted in fragmented, disconnected, or unjust spaces. The political decisions that others have preferred over others also bring about undesirable environments in urban areas that do not support the needs of a population. The display of such mismanagement can be seen through informal settlements, lack of proper public services, and spaces that discourage socialization and community development.
Such is the case in Mumbai, where the nonavailability of affordable houses pushes people to arrange alternative places to live, which are known as slums. Millions live in such areas, often with unhygienic necessities such as clean water, sanitation, and treatment of waste. Politically, responses to the issues above lie in short-term solutions to problems, such as evictions or high-rise buildings that don’t solve social and economic problems. Informal settlements, therefore, seem to be continuing their multiplication at the margins of cities and contribute further to the fragmentation of urban spaces (Datta, 2014).
Luxury housing and commercial real estate development projects are increasingly flooding cities like Delhi, but they exclude the poor from enjoying access to public services and opportunities. However, while such projects represent growth and development, they also serve to perpetuate social inequalities by creating places that are inaccessible to most people in the population. These developments often result from political decisions that are taken in the pursuit of economic growth, hence inherently as well as outcome-wise leading to exclusive environments and not inclusive ones (Panchamia, 2020).
A Call for More Inclusive and People-Centered Urban Development
Politics in India and its relationship with the built environment have been historically defined by colonialism, post-independence aspirations, and contemporary political and economic forces. While some of the urban development projects have indeed produced spaces that materialize the ideals of independence and progress, many others ended up displacing marginalized communities and creating unequal, disconnected spaces. Urban development policies in India very often reflect the interests of the elite while the city’s poor and marginalised continue to stay at the periphery of the built environment.
Inclusivity and social equity should be the epitome of India’s urban policies for planning. It requires integration among politicians, urban planners, and architects in the making of access-friendly, affordable, and socially interactive community building spaces. Urban planning should be people-oriented with its spaces embodying diverse needs in the built environment that facilitate equality, sustainability, and expression of culture.
References:
Ahluwalia, I. J., Kanbur, R., & Mohanty, P. K. (2019). Urbanization in India: Challenges, Opportunities and the Way Forward. SAGE Publications.
Anjaria, J. S. (2006). Street Hawkers and Public Space in Mumbai. Economic and Political Weekly, 41(21), 2140-2146.
Baviskar, A. (2003). Cities of Difference: Urban Renewal, Gentrification, and Social Justice in India. Indian Institute of Advanced Study.
Bhan, G. (2013). Planned Illegalities: Housing and the ‘Failure’ of Planning in Delhi: 1947–2010. Economic & Political Weekly, 48(24), 58-70.
Bhide, A. (2015). The Politics of Housing in India. Seminar Magazine.
Boano, C., & Astolfo, G. (2020). Contested Urban Spaces. Routledge.
Chopra, P. (2020). Political Architecture in Modern India: Monuments, Memorials, and Nationalism. Journal of Modern Architecture, 29(4), 321-346.
Correa, C. (1983). The New Architecture in India. Thames & Hudson.
Datta, A. (2014). Understanding the Dynamics of Informal Housing in Indian Cities. Urban Studies, 51(2), 345-365.
Dupont, V. (2013). India’s Urban Development. Oxford University Press.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The Just City. Cornell University Press.
Ghertner, D. A. (2015). Rule by Aesthetics: World-Class City Making in Delhi. Oxford University Press.
Koch, E. (1991). The Architecture of New Delhi: Colonialism and the Built Environment. Cambridge University Press.
Menon, S. (2000). The Political Economy of Housing in India. Routledge.
Nandy, A. (2006). The Romance of the State and the Fate of Dissent in the Tropics. Oxford University Press.
Panchamia, K. (2020). Gentrification and Urban Inequality in India’s Growing Cities. Urban Studies, 57(8), 1630-1646.
Prakash, V. (2002). *Chandigarh’s Le Corbusier: The Struggle for Modernity
Sivaramakrishnan, K. 2020. Urban development and environmental sustainability in India. The Journal of Indian Urban Studies, 11(3), pp. 75-92. (References are cited in APA style based on suggested sources)
Nangia Ashish 2005, New Delhi: A New Capital, https://www.boloji.com/articles/1005/new-delhi-a-new-capital
Bagga, S. (2021). The Chandigarh Sector. Docomomo Journal, (65), 104–107. https://doi.org/10.52200/65.A.YB2MNCH1
Mac, K., & Mac, K. (2022, March 30). Dharavi Mumbai slum? Everything you need to know. The Slumdog Millionaire paradox. NomadicMacs. https://nomadicmacs.com/dharavi-mumbai-slum-slumdog/
