Speaker
Description
Rapid urbanization has transformed cities into vibrant yet unequal spaces, often escalating socio-spatial inequalities through commercialization, marginalization, and gentrification (Raymond et al., 2021). Marginalized communities tend to seek refuge in informal settlements like slums, squatter settlements, and urban villages, wherein exclusion manifests spatially (McCartney and Krishnamurthy, 2018). Urban villages, formerly rural settlements engulfed by expanding cities due to urban expansion and migration, stand out as distinct spaces within the urban landscape. However, today, urban villages have become a major challenge in rapidly developing nations such as China, India, and Indonesia (Banerjee, 2021). Despite their critical role in integrating rural migrants and supporting the local economy, urban villages are viewed as urban blight. High-density, mixed-use development, unorganized land use, inadequate infrastructure, substandard rental housing typifies these areas, while their exclusion from urban planning frameworks exacerbates the socio-spatial divide (Al, 2014, Zhang et al., 2003, Thinh et al., 2024).
It can be argued that urban villages become marginalized entities due to biases in centralized planning, which prioritizes economic gains over community needs. Their exclusion from the policy landscape increased the potential of gentrification, displacing both indigenous villagers and rural migrants while intensifying socio-economic disparities. To confirm this hypothesis, this study undertakes a qualitative analysis of zoning and planning policies in Delhi’s National Capital Territory (NCT), India, with a focus on Hauz Khas and Zamrudpur urban villages. Through a case study approach, the study examines how centralized planning has accelerated Zamrudpur’s marginalization and fuelled gentrification in Hauz Khas. To better understand the policies surrounding urban villages, data was sourced from publicly available policy and planning documents like master plans, government committee reports, and survey reports.
A fundamental planning gap in Delhi’s urban villages is the lack of legal documentation and fuzzy land ownership records, which impedes efficient planning and policymaking. The British-era land management system, introduced in 1908, which separated agrarian land from village habitation by a “lal dora” (red-tape boundary), has left urban villages in a governance vacuum. On the institutional front, numerous bodies, including the Central Government, State, and Municipality, with overlapping duties hinders decision-making. Further, the study reveals that the failure to integrate urban villages into formal city planning leaves them either vulnerable to marginalization or gentrification.
The findings in Hauz Khas corroborate the concept that gentrification is driven by centralized planning that prioritizes economic returns and infrastructure upgrades. In 1962, Hauz Khas was designated as an "urban village" by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), exempting it from municipal by-laws and zoning regulations. This exemption enabled for new residential, industrial, and retail development, converting rural land into high-density commercial spaces with restaurants and boutiques (Ramesh et al., 2023). This process altered the socio-economic fabric of Hauz Khas, driving long-term residents, especially rural migrants, to the periphery. Furthermore, minimal monitoring and irregular development contributed to building congestion, accentuating the socio-economic disparity (Ramesh et al., 2023).
Zamrudpur, on the contrary, has become increasingly marginalized due to a lack of focused policies. Here, urban planning has failed to accommodate critical infrastructure improvements, resulting in prolonged socio-spatial and economic hardship. The lack of sufficient public services, insufficient housing, and limited access to opportunities has made Zamrudpur vulnerable, inhibiting their integration into the larger urban fabric and escalating existing social inequalities.
Overall, the findings highlight how a lack of effective and inadequate planning regulations contributes to uneven and unequal development, with villages like Hauz Khas experiencing gentrification and Zamrudpur remaining overlooked. This reinforces the need for more inclusive, context-sensitive participatory planning policies that promote both socially cohesive urban development and community preservation.
References
Al, S. (2014) Villages in the city: A Guide to South China’s Informal Settlements. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University Press.
Banerjee, B. (2021) Planning for the Urban Mosaic of a Megacity: The Case of Urban Villages in Delhi. In: Mohan, A. K., Pellissery, S. & Gómez Aristizábal, J. (eds.) Theorising Urban Development from the Global South. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
McCartney, S. and Krishnamurthy, S. (2018) Neglected? Strengthening the Morphological Study of Informal Settlements. SAGE Open, 8(1), pp. 1-11. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244018760375.
Ramesh, S., Pareek, D., Tom, A. and Vasileva, K. (2023) Explicitly ‘Indian’ yet simultaneously ‘Global’ -Hauz Khas. [online] Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371044861_Explicitly_.
Raymond, C.M., Manzo, L.C., Williams, D.R., Di Masso, A. & von Wirth, T. (2021) Changing Senses of Place. Cambridge University Press.
Thinh, N.K., Kamalipour, H. and Peimani, N. (2024) Morphogenesis of forgotten places: A typology of villages-in-the-city in the Global South. Habitat International, 153, pp. 1-15. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.habitatint.2024.103184.
Zhang, L., Zhao, S.X.B. and Tian, J.P. (2003) Self-help in housing and chengzhongcun in China’s urbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 27(4), pp.912–937. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0309-1317.2003.00491.x.
| Keywords | Social Inclusion; Socio-spatial disparities; Urban villages; Centralized planning; Policy gaps |
|---|---|
| Best Congress Paper Award | Yes |
