In this book, Vidyadhar, packs a lifetime of wisdom on the beleaguered status of urbanization in post-Independence India.
Most of these learned essays focus on Bombay/Mumbai, and two broad themes emerge. The first is the nature of the state and urban planning in independent India. In the pioneering work of the late Jim Masselos and the monographs of Mariam Dossal and Prashant Kidambi, we see how colonial Bombay’s Municipality, and later the Bombay Improvement Trust (1898), created new spaces in the city. The primary concern was the control of epidemics, and the colonial state forcibly intervened, regulated, and took over property through eminent domain—justified as ‘welfare’. The results were mixed but left a powerful legacy which Phatak explores.
The second and related issue emerging from Phatak’s book concerns the nature of postcolonial urbanization. Despite much agonizing and hand-wringing about congestion and migration to large metropolises, the process has continued unabated. Willy-nilly, the big metropolis—especially Bombay/Mumbai—has remained the model for the postcolonial city.
One enduring concern for modern planners has been housing. Gillian Tindall in City of Gold (1982) amusingly recounts her first impressions of Bombay. On her way from the airport, she was struck by the clusters of multi-storeyed buildings, which she mistook for slums—only to be told that they were middle-class housing! Yet ‘slums’ are a defining reality of present-day Mumbai. Neighbourhoods are mixed; upper-class tower blocks rise out of a sea of lower-middle and working-class housing.
Phatak offers sobering facts: 65% of Mumbai’s households live in one-room dwelling units—twice the national average. About 54% live in slums, but only half of those residents fall below the poverty line. In other words, slums in Mumbai are a manifestation of a parallel, grey housing market. The paradox is striking—though Mumbai’s per capita income is higher than the national urban average, it fares worse on basic housing indicators.
How did this come to be? Phatak argues that ideology plays a central role. The patrimonial colonial state was replaced by post-War socialism, with its inherent contempt for the market. Driven by a nationalist purpose, the postcolonial state sought to do good by the people. As Phatak notes, prescribing population densities and determining land use became favourite pastimes for state planners—even though these outcomes are typically shaped by complex market forces.
The intransigent Rent Act of 1947 was allowed to continue, discouraging investment in rental housing. In 1976, the draconian Urban Land Ceiling Regulation Act (ULCRA) was enacted, and in 1978, the fundamental right to property was reduced to a mere legal right. While the Centre repealed ULCRA in 1999 after liberalization, a few States (like Maharashtra) did not follow suit. Instead, Maharashtra relaxed provisions of the old Act at a premium to raise revenue.
Further, conservative thresholds for Floor Space Index (FSI) were maintained to ensure equitable land distribution. This effectively froze property turnover and prevented the regeneration of building stock, even as population and household incomes rose. Coastal wetland conservation made land even scarcer. Most land in Mumbai was privately owned, but rather than relax FSI, the State introduced TDR—Transferable Development Rights. Under this system, if an owner handed over land without compensation, development rights were offered elsewhere. In effect, the State monopolized development rights and made the rich subsidize housing for the poor—ironically driving up urban real estate prices even further.
The vexed task of land assembly—without which no planning is possible—continued under the State’s effort to control Mumbai’s destiny. Phatak refers to this as ‘administrative polycentricity’. Planning agencies proliferated, reports multiplied, and, if anything, the verbosity of the postcolonial state outdid that of its colonial predecessor.
From chapter 16, the reviewer has compiled an arbitrary list of Mumbai’s planning agencies, plans (some with World Bank support), and acts: the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM); Bombay Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (1969); Maharashtra Slum Improvement Board (1973), later renamed Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (1976); the Development Plan (1964); Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (1966); Bombay Metropolitan Regional Planning Board (MMRDA, 1967), which completed the Regional Plan in 1970, adopted in 1973 and proposed a new city across the harbour; City and Industrial Development Corporation of Maharashtra (CIDCO), which oversaw Navi Mumbai’s development plan (sanctioned in 1979); Metropolitan Planning Committee (MPC, 2002); Vision Mumbai Plan (2003); Citizens Action Group (CAG); Bombay Urban Development Project (BUDP, 1985–1994), which turned a swamp into the Bandra-Kurla Complex; Mumbai Metro Rail Corporation Ltd (MMRCL); Maharashtra Railway Vikas Corporation (MRVC); Special Planning Authority for the New Airport Influence Notified Area (NAINA); Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (MIDC); and Greater Mumbai Development Plan (MCGM, 2015). Whew!
Phatak observes that there has been little horizontal dialogue between agencies. There was much talk about ‘integration’, few admitted that it was not working. An over-dependence on exclusive spatial planning tools—like land use, FSI, and zoning—to manage population growth has persisted.
Phatak comments insightfully and gently points to the persistence of conservative attitudes in planning. In the post-Independence decades, metropolises were denounced as parasitic creatures of imperialism. The concentration of wealth in cities was seen as depriving less-privileged regions—when, in fact, concentrated economic activity often created opportunities in distant places.
Long-term plans have largely failed; they did not anticipate trends like Mumbai’s increasing congestion. What was needed was a combination of long-term spatial planning with medium-term investment strategies and rationalized FSI. Integrated sectoral plans, Phatak argues, could open up areas along transit routes and ease pressure on the urban mainland.
A word of caution: these essays are not for the uninitiated. They contain dense, technical discussion from the field of urban planning. It took the reviewer time to wrap his head around terms like Land Capture Value (LCF) and Value Capture Financing (VCF), which stem from 19th-century utilitarian ideas of taxing ‘rent’ and debates on the confiscatory nature of state taxation. For the layperson, there is just one accessible essay—‘Walking in Mumbai’—which is both insightful and a delight to read. It advocates for the much-neglected pedestrian. Four out of ten Mumbaikars walk to work; the rest must walk to the bus stop or train station.
A word about CEPT University Press—it has done sterling work in publishing thoughtful books and monographs on architecture and planning. Phatak’s book would have benefited from proper copyediting. There is no glossary to explain the many acronyms that dominate planning discourse. And in a book of this scope, the absence of an index is inexcusable. In today’s age, generating a proper index is just a click away.
Partho Datta teaches at Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi.