Indian Cities: From Colonial Divides to Inclusive Neighbourhoods

What India’s planning history—and South America’s experience of upgrading informal

settlements—can teach us about building fairer, more liveable cities.

A shaded avenue, an overcrowded lane and a gated apartment complex can exist

within walking distance of one another in an Indian city. Each represents a different relationship with land, infrastructure and opportunity.

Understanding these contrasts requires looking beyond population growth. Colonial planning established enduring inequalities; post-independence decisions reshaped them; today’s housing, governance and climate pressures intensify them. South America’s experience offers useful lessons for improving established neighbourhoods while protecting the people whose lives depend on them.

1. Early colonial planning: cities organised around power

India had sophisticated urban traditions long before European rule. Colonialism introduced a different organising priority: cities serving imperial trade, administration and military control.

From the seventeenth century, European trading settlements helped reshape coastal centres including Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. Forts, ports, warehouses and commercial districts anchored expansion. In Madras and Calcutta, distinctions between “White Town” and “Black Town”

expressed racial hierarchy through urban space, although commerce and labour continually connected these areas.

As British authority expanded, civil lines and cantonments reinforced separation. European residential districts commonly received spacious plots, greenery and better infrastructure, while many Indian neighbourhoods remained crowded and poorly serviced. Colonial investment created lasting assets, but access to their benefits was unequal.

Later, New Delhi’s ceremonial avenues, administrative buildings and bungalow compounds gave imperial authority a monumental setting. Its landscape remains valuable heritage, yet its generous allocation of central land also raises enduring questions about access and privilege.

The legacy survives through streets, property boundaries and uneven infrastructure. Areas receiving early investment often retained advantages long after independence. That inheritance helps explain present inequalities, without accounting for every subsequent planning failure.

2. After independence: nation-building meets urban pressure

Independence brought the challenge of adapting inherited cities to democratic aspirations. Partition, industrialisation, migration and population growth created urgent demands for housing, employment and public services.

Planned capitals, industrial townships and master plans expressed confidence in modernisation. However, formal development frequently struggled to accommodate the incomes, occupations and incremental building practices of ordinary households.

Separating hazardous industry from housing served an essential purpose. Rigid separation of otherwise compatible homes, shops and workplaces could make daily life harder.

Where serviced land and affordable housing were inaccessible, informal development offered a practical route into the city.

These pressures produced different settlement types. Unauthorised colonies may involve purchased plots developed without required permissions. Settlements described as slums may have inadequate housing and services, with varying forms of recognition and tenure. Neither label alone establishes ownership, safety or residents’ circumstances.

Clearance and peripheral resettlement could compound disadvantage. A replacement apartment might improve the building while increasing commuting costs, disrupting schooling or removing space for a home-based business. Housing policy therefore needs to assess household livelihoods alongside physical accommodation.

3. Today’s challenge: connecting growth with everyday liveability

Indian cities now face overlapping pressures: expensive housing, unreliable services, congestion, air pollution, flooding and extreme heat. Their effects vary sharply between neighbourhoods and households.

The investment challenge is substantial. A 2022 World Bank assessment estimated that India would require US$840 billion in urban infrastructure investment over fifteen years, through 2036. This is a dated projection, but it illustrates the scale of the task.

Delivery is also fragmented. Municipalities, development authorities, utilities and transport agencies often control different pieces of the same neighbourhood. Housing can arrive before drainage; transport investment can proceed without safe pedestrian access. Funding construction without adequately funding operations leaves services vulnerable to deterioration.

Climate resilience must shape ordinary planning decisions. Protecting drainage corridors, improving ventilation, expanding shade and providing dependable water are especially important where households have limited resources to cope with disruption.

Density itself is not the enemy. Many older neighbourhoods place homes, shops and employment close together. The planning task is to combine this proximity with sanitation, fire safety, accessible streets and public space. Additional development near transit should be matched by infrastructure and affordable housing.

4. Lessons from South America: improving the city people already inhabit

Brazil’s favelas and Colombia’s informal hillside neighbourhoods demonstrate both the potential and limitations of neighbourhood upgrading. Their terrain, institutions and housing systems differ from India’s, so transferable principles matter more than copying individual projects.

Rio de Janeiro’s Favela-Bairro programme, launched in the 1990s, approached established settlements as neighbourhoods to connect to the wider city. Its second phase combined water, sanitation, drainage, roads and lighting with childcare, youth support and employment programmes. Community participation formed part of the delivery approach. The Inter-American Development Bank’s programme description illustrates this integration of physical and social investment.

Medellín similarly linked transport improvements, including Metrocable, with investment in public spaces and neighbourhood facilities. The lesson is coordinated access: residents benefit when transport connects them affordably and safely to work, education and services. Cable cars suit particular hillside conditions; an Indian neighbourhood may need feeder buses, safer crossings or better access to suburban rail.

These experiences suggest five priorities for India.

Upgrade in place where feasible. Assess drainage, structural safety, sanitation and access before deciding on wholesale relocation. Selective rebuilding may address local problems while preserving community networks. Where hazards cannot reasonably be reduced, relocation should provide safe housing and practical access to livelihoods.

Protect livelihoods and include tenants. Survey residents, rental arrangements, businesses and employment routes before designing redevelopment. Women, migrants and home-based workers need meaningful participation. A scheme focused only on recognised structure owners can overlook others who depend on the neighbourhood.

Address security and affordability together. Improving services can increase land values and rents. Depending on local law, recognised occupancy, leases or ownership arrangements may strengthen security. Project design must also consider whether tenants and lower-income households can afford to remain after improvements.

Fund maintenance from the beginning. Every drain, toilet, light and public space needs an accountable operator, realistic budget and accessible repair process. Resident organisations can identify failures and monitor delivery, while public agencies retain responsibility for dependable services.

Measure outcomes over time. Track water reliability, housing and transport costs, access to work and whether original households remain or return. Attractive buildings and completed contracts provide an incomplete picture of success.

India also has its own experience to build upon. Odisha’s Jaga Mission connects land rights, settlement upgrading and resident participation. World Habitat’s case study highlights the role of slum dwellers’ associations and learning between cities. Such approaches deserve continued evaluation and adaptation to local circumstances.

As an urban planner, I see the central test as whether investment improves everyday life for the people already making the city work. That requires recognising communities, coordinating infrastructure and protecting access to opportunity. An improved neighbourhood succeeds when its residents can still call it home—and its services continue to work years later.