Why India cannot plan its cities: informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization

This is my summary and reflection on the article: Roy, A., 2009. Why India cannot plan its cities: Informality, insurgence and the idiom of urbanization. Planning theory, 8(1), pp.76-87.

Central focus

The central focus of this piece revolves around India’s rapid urban growth, which has engendered a multifaceted urban crisis characterized by deficient infrastructure, inadequate growth management, and profound social disparities. The article delves into the intricate framework of urban informality in India, delineating three primary causes for this planning debacle:

  1. A momentous surge in urban expansion.
  2. Underestimation of the imperative for future urban infrastructure.
  3. The consolidation of private sector dominance in infrastructure construction and management due to ineffective planning.

Termed as “deregulation,” the author explicates informality as the linchpin of India’s urban landscape, a facet stemming from a distinct interpretation of planning. This interpretation fuels the existence of the Indian city, albeit generating a paradoxical conundrum, entailing challenges pertaining to governance, justice, and development. Informality, in India, takes root within the urbanization process, manifesting through two primary dimensions. First, legal distinctions between formal and informal aspects of urbanization emerge, labeling informality as a nuisance and its inhabitants as second-class citizens, thereby constituting a core axis of urban inequality. Second, the state itself engages in various forms of urban and industrial development, often transgressing its own restrictions against such transformations. This unearths the deeply informal nature of the state.

To encapsulate, the article links India’s urban crisis to a specific interpretation of “informality,” asserting that the quandary doesn’t solely stem from flaws in urban planning practices. Consequently, the resolution of this crisis extends beyond improved planning, as planning itself is implicated in fostering the crisis.

Methodologies

This qualitative secondary text expounds upon the manifestation of informality within Indian urban contexts. It functions as a descriptive narrative, aimed at elucidating that while informality is frequently equated with poverty, India’s planning framework is itself steeped in informality.

Principal recommendations

The article aims to counter the prevalent viewpoint that construes informality as an isolated and bounded domain. Instead, it posits informality as an extralegal realm, advocating for policy interventions that seamlessly integrate informal elements into the legal, formal, and planned sectors of the political economy. This stance gives rise to four key propositions aimed at clarifying the structural essence of informality:

  1. Urban fragmentation doesn’t solely emerge from the schism between formality and informality. Instead, it thrives within the informal spatial production.
  2. Informality’s essence lies in its “deregulated” nature rather than mere absence of regulation. Deregulation entails purposeful action and planning, whereby relinquishing regulatory authority spawns resource allocation, accumulation, and authority dynamics.
  3. Informality mustn’t be perceived solely as a grassroots phenomenon; it is entwined with power structures.
  4. The intricate relationship between insurgency, informality, and planning defies simplistic expectations of engendering a just urban landscape through insurgent movements.

Reflection

The author’s elucidation of the second form of informality’s manifestation within India’s urban planning landscape captures my interest. This aspect often eludes media discourse, ensconced within governmental control and officials’ purview. This nuanced interpretation of informality remains largely unexplored, given governmental aversion to being perceived as “informal entities.” Recognizing this secondary dimension of informality could potentially lead societies toward transformative change and an elevation of informal settlements, contingent on government adherence to existing laws.

A pivotal statement in the article resonates with me: “The planning of Indian cities cannot be understood as the forecasting and management of growth. Instead, urban planning in India has to be understood as managing resources, particularly land, through dynamic processes of informality.” This assertion emphasizes the need to contextualize fundamental concepts such as informality. This resonates with the core issue of underestimating contextual knowledge, a widespread cause of planning and development failures globally. While the focus is on India, the duality of informality’s expression resonates across various countries in the Global South, aligning with the author’s perspective.