Page 86 - EW February 2026

Books

Urban planning URBANIZATION IN POST- In effect, the State mo-
nopolized development
paralysis INDEPENDENCE INDIA: PLANNING rights and made the rich
FOR INDIA'S URBANIZATION
Vidyadhar K. Phatak subsidize housing for the
poor — ironically driving
n this book, author CEPT UNIVERSITY PRESS up urban real estate prices
Vidyadhar Phatak, Rs.1,500 Pages 278 even further.
Ipacks a lifetime of wis- The vexed task of land
dom on the beleaguered assembly — without which
status of urbanization in no planning is possible
post-independence India. — continued under the
Most of these learned live in one-room dwelling Despite much hand- State’s effort to control
essays focus on Bombay/ units — twice the national wringing about Mumbai’s destiny. Phatak
Mumbai, and two broad average. About 54 percent migration to large refers to this as “admin-
themes emerge. The first live in slums, but only metropolises, the istrative polycentricity”.
is the nature of the state half of those residents fall process has continued Planning agencies prolifer-
and urban planning in below the poverty line. In unabated. Willy-nilly, ated, reports multiplied,
independent India. In the other words, Mumbai’s the big metropolis and, if anything, the
pioneering work of the slums are manifestation Bombay/Mumbai has verbosity of the postcolo-
late Jim Masselos and the of a parallel, grey housing remained the model of nial state outdid that of its
monographs of Mariam market. The paradox is the post-colonial city colonial predecessor.
Dossal and Prashant Kid- striking — though Mum- From chapter 16, the
ambi, we see how colonial bai’s per capita income is reviewer has compiled an
Bombay’s municipality, higher than the national property was reduced to a arbitrary list of Mumbai’s
and later the Bombay Im- urban average, it fares mere legal right. While the planning agencies, plans
provement Trust (1898), worse on basic housing Centre repealed ULCRA in (some with World Bank
created new spaces in the indicators. 1999 after liberalization, support), and Acts: the
city. The primary concern How did this come to a few states (like Maha- Municipal Corporation of
was the control of epi- be? Phatak argues that rashtra) did not follow Greater Mumbai (MCGM);
demics, and the colonial ideology plays a central suit. Instead, Maharashtra Bombay Building Repairs
state forcibly intervened, role. The patrimonial relaxed provisions of the and Reconstruction Board
regulated, and took over colonial state was replaced old Act to raise revenue. (1969); Maharashtra
property through eminent by post-War socialism, Further, conservative Slum Improvement Board
domain — justified as with inherent contempt thresholds for Floor Space (1973), later renamed
‘welfare’. The results were for the market. Driven by Index (FSI) were main- Maharashtra Housing
mixed but left a power- nationalist purpose, the tained to ensure equitable and Area Development
ful legacy which Phatak postcolonial state sought land distribution. This Authority (1976); the
explores. to do good by the people. effectively froze property Development Plan (1964);
The second and related As Phatak notes, prescrib- turnover and prevented Maharashtra Regional and
issue emerging from this ing population densities regeneration of building Town Planning Act (1966);
book is the nature of and determining land use stock, even as population Bombay Metropolitan
postcolonial urbanization. became favourite pastimes and household incomes Regional Planning Board
Despite much agonizing for state planners — even rose. Coastal wetland con- (MMRDA, 1967), which
and hand-wringing about though these outcomes are servation made land even completed the Regional
congestion and migration typically shaped by com- scarcer. Plan in 1970, adopted in
to large metropolises, the plex market forces. Most land in Mumbai 1973 and proposed a new
process has continued un- The intransigent Rent was privately owned, but city across the harbour;
abated. Willy-nilly, the big Act of 1947 was allowed rather than relax FSI, the City and Industrial De-
metropolis — especially to continue, discouraging State introduced TDR — velopment Corporation
Bombay/Mumbai — has investment in rental hous- Transferable Development of Maharashtra (CIDCO),
remained the model for ing. In 1976, the draco- Rights. Under this system, which oversaw Navi
the postcolonial city. nian Urban Land Ceiling if an owner handed over Mumbai’s development
Phatak offers sober- Regulation Act (ULCRA) land without compensa- plan (sanctioned in 1979);
ing facts: 65 percent of was enacted, and in 1978, tion, development rights Metropolitan Planning
Mumbai’s households the fundamental right to were offered elsewhere. Committee (MPC, 2002);

86 EDUCATIONWORLD FEBRUARY 2026