It could be argued, without much exaggeration, that the future of India will be determined by the character of its urbanisation. Yet paradoxically, the there is almost no discourse around urbanisation in India. There are particular set of discourses related to urban problems: traffic, water, power, property taxes, and municipal finance. But the idea of the city as a distinctive space with an identity premised on a delicate set of connections between the built environment and social life, with an organic economy of its own, and the site of new forms of aesthetic imagination have all but disappeared from public discourse.

Indeed in many ways the situation is even worse. Much of what passes as urban planning is premised on a willful disregard of all those elements that make a city a city. None of our master plans have the slightest understanding of the organic sinews of a city’s economy or the delicate capillaries of social life that sustain it. The political economy of land prices has seriously distorted sensible zoning. In a society marked by serious social inequality, the idea of the city as a shared public space was always under stress. Whatever creative adjustments cities had made to become more inclusive are being willfully dismantled. We confuse cities with a series of engineering projects. Indeed, there is some evidence to suggest that there was more of a serious urban discourse in India in the fifties than there is now.

This absence of an urban discourse is at odds with its importance. India’s prospects for inclusive growth will depend crucially upon the capacity of its towns and cities to absorb migration from rural areas. The higher the formal and informal entry barriers for new migrants to participate in an urban life and economy, the less likely we are to succeed in sustaining inclusive growth. Thinking in spatial terms, those regions that do not have livable towns and cities will find it more difficult it to expand opportunities for their populations. There are all kinds of explanations given for the differences between regions that are doing well and those that are stagnant. But one striking difference is the availability of livable cities. Cities drive both growth and an expansion of opportunities for inclusion. It is truly odd that we think of inclusive growth as a rural versus urban issue rather than understanding that the road to inclusion at some point passes through the urban.

... contd.