Cities Delhi1

8/12/2019 Cities Delhi1

1/7

DelhiAbhijit DattaProfessor of Urban Administration and Developmentand sundial Finance, Indian institute of PublicAdminis~ati~, New Delhi

The Union Territory of Delhi consists ofthe twin cities of Delhi-New Delhi, amilita~ station and large tracts of ruralareas. The Territo~ is dist~buted amongthree local authorities: the MunicipalCorporation of Delhi MCD) consisting ofboth urban and rural areas; and two otherurban local bodies, the New DelhiMunicipal Commi~ee ND~C) and theCantonment Board, Delhi. The areas andpopulations of these local authorities areshown in Table 1. Figure 1 shows theDelhi metropolitan area.

Of the three local authorities in Delhi theNDMC has experienced a netdepopulation, but the MCD and theCantonment Board, Delhi have eachregistered an annual growth rate of about6 , including the rural areas. On theother hand, the spread of urbanization inrural Delhi has been phenomenal duringthe last decade, claiming about 40 of thetotal Territory area in 1981 compared toabout 30 in 197t. Among the factorsaffecting the urban growth of Delhi since195 1, migration has been the mostimportant (Table 2).

Among the 12 cities in India withpopulations greater than one million,Delhi ranks third after Calcutta andBombay; however, in terms of the annualpopulation growth rate Delhi hasconceded the first place to Bangalore(Table 3).

Urban Morphology. Delhi has often beendescribed -as aVVconglomeration of anumber of settlements, each having itsdistinctive character. Thus the old walledcity is juxtaposed between the colonialsettlements of civil lines, New Delhi andthe cantonment flanked by slum settle-ments in the trans-Yamuna area. Inaddition, there are planned settlements inthe southern and western areas, isolatedurban growth within the rural zone andthe purely rural habitations in traditionalclusters. Historically, Delhi has twocentral business districts - one in the oldcity and the other in New Delhi - andsubstantial commercial developmentshave also taken place in Karol Bagh, awestern suburb. Accordingly, Delhi todaypresents a bewildering variety of urbangrowth and density patterns. Table 4presents the variations in populationdensity in Delhi.The fi rst plan. After the partition of Indiain 1947 Delhi was flooded by about500 000 refugees and later by about1.50 000 immi~ants a year in search ofwork and employment, resulting in acuteshortage of accommodation and strainedcivic services. Inevitably, this led to large-scale encroachment and squatting onpublic Iands and resultant blight, squalorand epidemics.

In order to develop a long-term policyfor Delhi, the Indian government took aseries of steps to develop Delhi according

0264~2751/83/01~~7~.~ 0 1983 Butterworth & Co (Publish) Ltd


2/7

to plan. The first master plan of Delhi,covering a 20-year period from 1961 to198 1, was prepared and approved in 1962.The plan was conceived in a regional (2)context, with the city seen as the nucleusof a larger metropolitan region with aradius of 25 square miles from its urbancore. The principles on which the plan wasbased were:(1) Functional balance: provision of (3)

residential accommodation and com-munity facilities near employmentcentres.Decongestion of the old cit y:separation of the residential com-ponent from other incompatible usesby shifting industries to other areas,accommodating petty trades in urbanvillages, and redensification of theother low-density urban areas.Preservat ion of Delhi s functional

r

Metropolitan area boundaryUnmnerritory boundaryStandard urban area 1971)Urban agglomerat~on~l9711Local bodies boundaryRing oW5RaIlwayineMajor roadsmver

TL7i__r___--_0

-

Figure 1. Delhi metropolitan areaTable 1. Area and populat ion within the Union Terrftory of Delhi, 1981.Local bodies Area (km) Populatiin (10) Growth Density (knl~)rate ( )1971 1981 1971 1981 1971-81 1971 1981Municipal corporationof Delh i 1399.3 1399.3 3707 5634 57.38 2649 4169(a) Urban 360.6 508.1 3268 5390 lx.93 6471 10606

(26 ) (36 )(b) Rural 1038.7 691.2 419 444 5.97 470 496(74 ) (64 )New Delhi Municipal Committee 42.7 42.7 302 272 -9.93 7072 6370Cantonment Board, Delhi 43.0 43.0 57 91 59.64 1325 2116

Union Territory total 1485.0 1465.0 4066 6197 52.41 2736 4173Union Territory urban total 446.3 593.8 3647 5753 57.75 6142 9666

(30 ) (40 ) (90 ) (93 )Source: Delhi Administration (Bureau of Economics and Statistlcs). De/h/ Statfstfcal Handbook : 1981. Delhi. 1961.

4 CITIES Auaust 1983


3/7

the planning process isdevoid of any systematicpolicy analysis

(4)

character as the nati onal capital :limited and selective industrializationto support the citys existing role as amajor centre of public employmentand commerce.Development of neighbour i ng areas:development of seven ring townsaround urban Delhi to relieve the cityof the strains of increasing numbers ofimmigrants.

The urban limit permissible up to the year1981 was to be contained by an inviolablegreen belt and planned for a population of4.6 million in 1981 out of a projectedpopulation of 5.6 million, the balance of0.9 million population to be deflected tothe seven ring towns around Delhi. Tofulfil these objectives, it was recom-mended that the entire area of urbanizableland within the Union Territory beacquired for public control.The second plan. The first plan having

outlived its projected 20-year period, theplanning authority is now poised to takestock of the policies and programmes forthe Capital City so as to adjust and projectthestatutorvulanforthevear2001A.D..1 E.F.N. Ribeiro. TheThe object& so far identified are:1)

2)

3)

Provi sion of adequate infr astructure on Delhi - Past Presenthousing and t ranspon: enlargement and Future InstituteofPlanners India. NewDelhi, 1982, p il.f urbanizable limits, reorganizationof the present developed areas tomaximize the use of the existinginfrastructure, promotion of energy-saving means of transport such asbicycles, development of a masstransit system.St rengt heni ng t he spati al aspects of theeconomy: provision for the informalsector, dispersal of economicactivities at city and regional levels,flexibility in enforcing the land usepattern.Proj ection of t he image of t he city asthe national capital: provision of asatisfying environment, improvementof the visual impact of the city.

Evaluat ion of t he plans. Owing to thephysical orientation in Delhis plans, theplanning process is devoid of any system-atic policy analysis involving alternative

Table 2. Cumponents of urban populstii growth in Delhi, 1951-71.

emerging scen&io forDelhi-2001 . Souvenir

Components Population increase (103)1961 over 1971 over1951 1961

Natural increase 35.5 61.5Increase of urban area 25.4 3.1Migration 31.3 62.5Total 92.2 127.1

1971 overI 1 196138.51 48.3827.51 2.4133.96 49.21

100.00 100.00Source: Town and Country Planning Organisation, New Delhi, quoted by K.V. Sundaram. Delhi: the national capital, inR.P. Misra, ed, Million Citiesofhdia, Vikas, New Delhi, 1978, p 107, Table 1.

Table 3. Growth of large Indian cfttes nd hintstlsnds.

Cii/UrbsnAgglomerationCalcuttaBombayDelhiMadrasBangaloreHyderabad

Populatfun (107) Annual Growth Rate ( )CityAJA Hintsrtand CW1981 1981 1951-81 1961-719165 1377 2.26 2.058277 1273 3.42 3.705713 2673 5.08 4.454276 972 2.33 5.012913 1127 4.42 3.272528 642 1.03 3.71

1971-812.693.264.593.045.823.42

Hintsrtand1971-813.045.095.832.933.405

Source: Rakesh Mohan and Chandrashekhar Pant, Morphology of urbanisation in India:some results from the 1981 census,Economic and Political Weekly, 18 and 25 September 1982, Table 6.

CITIES August 1983 5


4/7

courses of action based on a realisticassessment of implementation capabilities,identification of specific target groups,installation of a feedback mechanism toreview objectives and so on. Because theplan period is too long, it is essential tobuild into it specific action programmes,with concrete targets and matchingresources. While the conventional masterplan period of 20 years may be relevant forgoal setting, it is essential to work outalternative scenarios of development,taking account of varying assumptionsregarding the various parameters of theplan.

There does not seem to be ny corporateplanning exercise on the part of theimplementation agencies to match theoverall planning objectives. The plan doesnot include any positive reference.to theactivities of the private sector and does notcontain measures to stimulate andencourage private investment for planimplementation; instead, the entireemphasis is on public action through (1)measures to decongest urban growth,(2) measures to equalize civic serviceswithin the various parts of the territory,and (3) measures on urban land policy.Public participation in Delhis planningseems to be limited to representation ofelected elements in the planning body andlegal requirements relating toconsideration of public objections tospecific plan proposals.

Finally, the emphasis of the plan isalmost exclusively limited to the end userequirements of a statutorily rigid masterplan, where the economic and socialaspects of development appear as by-products of urban aesthetics. All thesedeficiencies are perhaps germane to thelimitations of a master plan approach tourban development: what is criticallyimportant in Delhis context is that theconcept of autonomous developmentinherent in such a plan is tenuously relatedto the national planning process coveringpublic resource allocation and policysupport.

Even a cursory comparison between thefirst and second plans for Delhi would

Table 4. Density of population in Delhi.

AlBflSOld CityCity extensionCivil LinesNew DelhiShahdaraSouth DelhiWest DelhiWest Yamuna Canal Area

ensityper acre)1961 1971443 497139 19674 11262 60

6 565 50

10 59_ 21

Source: Town and Country Planning Organisatlon, quotedby K.V. Sundaram, Delhi: the national capital, in R.P. Misra,ed, Million Cities of India, Vtkas, New Delhi, 1978, p 119.Table 5.show that the plan objectives hang some-what loosely without being related to anyone overriding goal. However, such a goalhas to be inferred - even at the risk ofoversimplification - if there is to be anyconsistency and connection between thevarious objectives spelled out in the plans.The objectives of the first plan have somehomogeneity, which seems to be lackingin the second plan; this may be due to thetentative nature of the second plan and toa large extent it may also be due to the factthat many of its proposals are correctivesor additions to the first plan. However.the overriding goal in both the plans seemsto be protection of the character of NewDelhi as a national capital this is at the

the planners obsession withthe image of the nationalcapital betrays a lack of anyreal concern for the citysurban poorroot of the plan proposals for urbandecongestion and public control of urban-izable land in Delhi. This impliesredensification of New Delhi in order todecongest the old city, particularly whenNew Delhi has been experiencing depopu-lation. There is no evidence of anyconcern by the framers of the second planabout this apparent contradiction; on thecontrary, the planners obsession with theimage of the national capital betrays notonly a lack of any real concern for thecitys urban poor. but also underlines their

CITIES August 1983


5/7

adherence to the overriding goal of treat-ing New Delhi as a sacred cow.Planning policies. As already indicated,three sets of policy measures were implicitin the Delhi plan: (1) urban decongestion,(2) equalization of urban services and (3)urban land policy. The components ofthese policies are indicated below.

(1) Urban deconcentration. Delhis planwas conceived in its regional context;although it did not contain detailedproposals for regional development as ameans of deflecting the Territorys popu-lation to the larger region, the ring townsconceived in the master plan formed partof the delineated metropolitan area forDelhi. Later, as a result of a review of thefirst master plan, a three-tier structure ofDelhis spatial planning was recognized:the central city, the metropolitan area andthe master plan carried with ita bias in favour of an excesscapacity of urban services inthe newly developed areasthe national capital region (NCR),2 andsteps were taken to prepare a plan basedon this structure. Altogether 18 countermagnets within a radius of 100 miles ofDelhi were identified in an interstateregional plan covering an area of about30 292 square kilometres with an esti-mated population of 14 million (1971).

However, the feasibility of a substantialdeflection of Delhis population to itsregion is open to doubt. For instance, if itis desired to reduce the rate of growth ofDelhi from 4.6 a year to 3.6 then therate of growth of population in surround-ing towns would have to be increased,from 5.8 per year to about 8.5 : clearlya tall order.3

(2) Equali zat ion of urban serv ices. Thedegree of spatial disparities in urbanservices in the Union Territory is theresult both of variations in populationdensities among settlements and of thestrategy of developing new colonies awayfrom the urban core. The master plan

CITIESAugust 983

policy of dispersal of development carriedwith it a bias in favour of an excesscapacity of various urban services in thenewly developed areas, rather thanequalization of these facilities in thecongested city. Similarly, the locationalpolicies for various projects for citybeautification, recreation and sports haveaccentuated the existing spatial disparitiesand varying accessibility to urban serviceswithin the various parts of the UnionTerritory.

(3) Ur ban l and poli cy. The land policyobjectives indicated in the plan aroseprimarily because of the policy decision toconcentrate all development initiatives ina designated authority and to endow itwith sufficient resources outside thenational plan allocations.

The avowed objectives mentioned inthe master plan document and a subse-quent official report on the subjectinclude: first, reduction of land values,and second, supply of cheap land to thelow income population.4 It is not clearhow these two objectives led to thedecision for wholesale nationalization ofall urbanizable land in Delhi. The policydocuments on the subject make animpassioned plea for a reduction in landprices, elimination of land speculation,mopping up of unearned increments inland values, control over land use througha leasehold system, control of haphazarddevelopment of peripheral land and so on- the term used in official parlance issocialization of urban land. Nowhere,however, has this policy been examinedeither in an economy-wide context or interms of the available alternatives. If theprimary objective was to ensure land forsheltering the poor, specific schemes forslum improvement and sites and servicescould have been prepared, as has beendone in other major cities in India withoutthe adoption of a nationalization strategy.The fact of the matter is that throughcompulsory acquisition of virgin land at apredetermined price and its subsequentdisposal through auction, the develop-ment authority could reap enormousprofits to finance its various projects in the

Town and CountryPlanning Organisation,Review of the MasterPlan for Delhi, NewDelhi, 1973, p 3,mimeo).Vlakesh Mohan andChandrashekhar Pant,Morphology ofurbanization in India:some results from the1981 census,Economic and PoliticalWeekly, 18 and 25September 1982.Gee, India Ministry ofWorks and Housing),Report of theCommittee of Expertson the Assessment ofthe Working of DelhiDevelopment Authority,1974-75, New Delhi,1979, Chapter II,mimeo).

7


6/7

5G.K. Misra andK.S.R.N. Sarma,Distribution andDifferential Location ofPublic Utilities n UrbanDelhi IIPA, New Delhi,1979.

6Gangadhar Jha,Growing under theMaster Plan, NagarlokVol X, No 3 July-September 1978.

Delhi DevelopmentAuthority. Resettlementcolonies - review of theproblems, New Delhi,1977, mimeo).

newly developed areas. The inevitableconsequence of such a policy is to tacklethe problems of the urban poor as aresidual exercise, depending on theamount of surplus after land transactions.In other wor_ds, the development authorityin Delhi effectively substituted itself forthe private land developers and assumedthe role of a monopolist in urban land.Plan implementation. It will be useful todiscuss the implementation of Delhis firstmaster plan in terms of the three planobjectives: (1) urban deconcentration, (2)equalization of urban services and (3)distribution of developed land.

(1) Urban deconcentration. Large-scaleredevelopment of the old city was ruledout because of fear of adverse publicreaction; instead, the plan proposeddemolishing dilapidated structures, shift-ing noxious industries and stoppingconversion of residences into commercialuses. No effective action was taken withany of these proposals.

The plan proposed the creation of 16district commercial centres of which onlytwo were developed, with the result thatthe problem of long-distance commutingpersisted. Similarly, the plan envisagedsetting up a number of flatted factories toaccommodate non-conforming smallindustries; so far not a single flattedfactory has come into being.

Redensification of New Delhi was noteven seriously considered as it mightdestroy the visual character of the nationalcapital; instead high-rise development isbeing allowed around the city centre in anincremental and ad hoc manner.Development of the new colonies tookplace without any links with any decon-gestion plan of the old city.

Implementation of the NCR plan hasbeen tardy: of 18 towns only five could beselected for development, but the level ofinvestment has been too small to have anyrecognizable impact in terms of eitherdispersal of employment opportunities ordeflection of population from Delhi.

(2) Equalization of urban services.Reliable data on the distribution of

various civic services in Delhi amongvarious localities and income groups isalmost non-existent, especially historicaldata. However, available data indicatesconsiderable variations in the availabilityof water supply, electricity distributionand public bus transport. The plannedresidential localities with a high averageincome are privileged in terms of publicutilities in Delhi.5 However, the extent ofany change in the spatial distribution ofurban services as a result of the masterplan implementation is uncertain.

(3) Distribution of developed land.Implementation of the progressive landpolicy in Delhi has been bedevilled by theslow pace of land acquisition, inadequatedevelopment of the acquired land and theskewed manner of distribution of suchland among the various income groups.6Obviously, this was against the spirit ofthe so-called progressive land policy,which suggested reservation of a suitablepercentage of the developed landacquired under a compulsory purchasescheme for the low- and middle-incomegroups. Furthermore, control of increases

substantial improvement hasbeen brought about in 7urban villagesin land prices in Delhi implied release ofsufficient quantity of developed land tothe public; but in actuality, only a limitednumber of plots were released for the low-and middle-income groups, thus escalat-ing the price of buildable land in the city.

Development of land for various uses inDelhi until 1977/78 indicates a substantialshortfall from the plans proposals(Table 5). In fact, the shortfall would begreater than that shown in Table 5, sinceout of the total land developed for therelocation of squatters, about 839 acres ofland was located in the green belt whichwas supposed to be inviolable.Positive achievements. On the positive

8 CITIES August 1983


7/7

side of Delhis development, mentionmust be made of the setting up of anumber of new residential colonies,industrial estates and relocation coloniesfor the squatters - about a million people.Also, substantial improvement has beenbrought about in 71 urban villages. Theold city has been decongested somewhatby shifting the wholesale vegetablemarket, bicycle mart and stray cattle tonew sites - thus eliminating the worsttraffic congestion there. A new self-contained township called Rohini hasbeen planned on the western perimeter ofthe Union Territory, which willaccommodate about a million people.This town will comprise housing,workplaces, recreational facilities andother civic amenities.6 There have alsobeen distinct improvements in the visualappeal of the national capital as a result ofthe constant vigil exercised by Delhisurban arts commission, recently set up topreserve and develop the aesthetic qualityof the urban environment.Issues for the future. On the basis ofcurrent population estimates for 2001,Delhi would have a total population ofbetween 14 to 15 million by the turn of thecentury. In view of the constraints onwater, power and transportation it isestimated that the holding capacity of theUnion Territory, after compromises instandards for services, could be an urbanpopulation of about 12 million. The needto preserve the image of the city wouldforce policies which attempt to restrictDelhis urban growth to the limits of its

Table 5. Development of land for various uses in Delhi,1977-78 (areas in acres).Use PrOpOsed Actually Shortfallin the VS?lOp?d W)Delhi planResidential 30 Ooo 13 412 55.30Industrial 4800 2 350 51.90Commercial 1 900 330 82.60Source: India (Ministry of Works and Housing), Report ofCommittee of Experts on the Working of Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, 1974-75, New Delhi, Chapter II, (mimeo).

holding capacity of 12 million people by2001. 9 The strategy for the NCR has beenviewed in this context. As noted already,the available i@-uments for controllingcity size have proved to be totallyinadequate in the past and are likely to beso in the foreseeable future in view of thestronger pull of employment and incomeopportunities. Given this fact, it isperhaps more realistic to plan for a popu-lation of 15 million rather than 12 million;in the process, the core concept of theimage of the capital city may have to besubjected to closer scrutiny.

Currently, the development authority isbusy conducting various studies to pre-pare a second master plan for 1981-2001.However, in a city characterized by thefluidity of the planning environment - ie aphenomenal growth of urban population,low income level of the majority of urbanresidents, deficiencies in civic facilitiesand services, inadequate allocation ofnational funds for urban developmentand, most important of all, the generalfailure of the available regulatory instru-ments to stem the tide of immigration - itis doubtful whether the second masterplan will ever be finalized.

Abhijit Datta andGangadhar Jha, Delhi:two decades of planimplementation, inThomas L. Blair, ed,Problem Cities inSearch of Solut ionsPlenum, London, forth-coming 1933.QDAs projectedpopulation for Delhi in2001 of 15 million isperhaps an over-estimate, as it is quitetypical for cities to slowtheir growth after theyreach the 10 millionmark; however, this willnot happen as result ofDDAs urban deconcen-tration policies.

CITIES August 1983 9

Documents

Cities Delhi1