LG has again used his Republic Day address to make
Delhi Master Plan - rather land policy liberalization
- announcements. I have written the following.
----
Prof Jordar
Head of Department of Physical Planning
School of Planning and Architecture
New Delhi ? 110002
Sub: LG's Republic Day address remark about modern
principles of city development ? clarification apropos
the Principles of Planning course that I am teaching
in your department this semester
Dear Prof Jordar,
LG in his Republic Day address has reportedly declared
that the 'new' Master Plan for Delhi will be published
in the first week of October, reiterating his view
since 1999 that the same is 'aimed at' ending DDA's
monopoly on land in a development process based on
'modern principles of city development'. Since I am
teaching this semester the Principles of Planning
course in your department, I need to clarify my
position, on record. Please bear with this long
letter.
As far as I know, modern principles of city
development originate from the view of city planning
as a linear sequence involving Geddes's
survey-analysis-plan, forming basis of the
rational-comprehensive planning paradigm. There has
been critique (by advocacy planning theorists from
early '60s and by reformist and radical-Marxist
theorists later) of, especially, the solitary public
interest and apolitical role of the planner premises
of this view, leading, especially, to blueprint v/s
process and functional v/s normative debates. In
response, the rational-comprehensive paradigm has
evolved to expand 'blueprint' planning based on master
plans in the likeness of spatial design artifacts to
master plans more clearly connected to societal goals
and setting out processes for progressive
implementation ? adding to Geddes's linear sequence
'flow-chart', feedback loops and 'boxes' for goals,
monitoring, etc, so to speak. While this evolution is
by no means complete and the theoretical dualism
within the profession far from reconciled, to the best
of my knowledge the critique of the
rational-comprehensive paradigm has never quite
advocated it substitution with a disjointed
incrementalist one ? till lately, and that only from
perspective of conceptually flawed and empirically
unproven post-modernist ideas, not yet become even
theory, forget principles, of planning.
Delhi Master Plan, I think, affords an excellent
example of reflection of healthy theoretical debate
that characterised city planning in India till not
long ago. Prepared in late 50s on then accepted
survey-analysis-plan principles by our Town and
Country Planning Organisation with Ford Foundation
assistance what was approved in 1962 already
incorporated strands of the advocacy school critique ?
in form of permissive rather than prohibitive zoning,
emphasis on need to view the 'blueprint' as framework,
etc. The revised Plan prepared in the '80s by our
Delhi Development Authority with inputs from experts
from all our premier institutions, in the best
tradition of city planning practice in India, was
based on rigorous survey and analysis and, in equal
measure, on emergent critiques of the master plan
approach. Its pioneering explicit and detailed
provisions for informal sector, housing for the poor,
small industries, mixed land use, monitoring and
review, etc, and a very systematic development code,
undoubtedly make it a landmark document in progressive
legislation, especially for distributive justice given
that Delhi Master Plan has the strongest legal basis
in the country on account of its land policy, besides
its enabling Act that makes it part and parcel of the
Act itself.
That the post-modernist school should have picked for
its critique of city planning Delhi Master Plan is
something I have always viewed with suspicion. I find
it a glaring 'coincidence' that World Bank (in, say,
its 'study' for infrastructure and environmental
imperatives for Delhi 2021) and NGOs that are
extremely vocal on Delhi planning (through propaganda
since 1999, one half of which culminated in a book
lately released by celebrities followed by an 'event'
at World Social Forum) share the same anti-Plan
position. I can easily argue their perspective is
without basis, but they have hijacked the discourse
and, on the heels of a drift in planning practice, we
now look in the face legislation that erodes
principled planning. As you are probably aware, the
Statehood Bill and draft Education Bill, the
Cooperative Bill (passed by Delhi Assembly), the Metro
and Electricity Acts, all disregard Delhi Development
Act and Master Plan and 'guidelines' for MPD-2021 were
announced outside the ambit of the Act and are poised
to become 'new' Plan in disregard of due process of
law for Plan revision. All this legislation, besides
what I call backdoor legislation through PIL by
post-modernists, unbundles holistic planning to permit
disjointed projects consistent with what a few of us
call (as in our statement apropos the 'event' at WSF)
the 'endowment paradigm' ? incapable of solutions to
complex planning problems and mindless of distributive
justice imperatives vis-à-vis benefits of development
that do require basis in law that settles
entitlements, basis that only rigorous holistic
planning can provide.
It is in this context that what has been going on in
DDA, SPA, TVB, HUDCO/HSMI, NIUA, NCRPB, MCD, NDMC,
DUAC, etc, in recent years becomes far more serious
than what various inquiries, etc, revealed in 2003. A
critique ? rather just anti-Plan propaganda ? with no
conceptual or empirical basis was not countered by the
mainstream planning profession and academia. Even
efforts to counter it from outside ? such as in my
independent writings and in the engagements of my
clients (citizens groups synergizing on a platform
called Master Plan Implementation Support Group, with
support of a few professionals, NGOs and others,
including in politics and officialdom) ? found no
space in the mainstream, not even in academia. In
2003, when scams were exposed, we were hopeful of
clean up and even wrote in support letters that were
not even acknowledged.
It was with all this behind me that I accepted your
offer to teach the Principles of Planning course at
SPA, while clarifying that what SPA does or does not
do in coming days apropos its inquiry and media
reportage thereof was important to me and that till
SPA took a principled position on that I would not
accept money for teaching in it. This is because SPA
seems to me to have aligned, to immense detriment of
evolution in planning thought, with post-modernists,
even anarchists, in recent years and I am waiting to
see if there are still in it people committed to
rigorous planning of the rational-comprehensive type,
a professional position to which I am deeply and
irrevocably committed.
Having accepted your offer and started to teach it
would be unethical of me to back out. However, it
would also be unethical of me to not place on record
the dilemma I face on account of LG's Republic Day
remark in the context of SPA's implicit position on
it. I am aware LG's ideas of modern principles are
based on, or at least endorsed by, opinion of
'experts', including Prof B Mishra who did the
commissioned study on alternative land policy and has
been teaching Principles of Planning at SPA. In
general I do get from my interaction with students,
besides from the kind of training placements SPA
facilitates for them and numerous para-professional
notices (on its official notice board in the lobby)
offering them money for work in support of
post-modernist critique of principled planning, the
impression that students are being groomed in the
post-modernist school of thought.
I think it in order to inform you formally that in my
considered opinion post-modernist ideas do not
constitute modern principles of planning and are, in
case of Delhi ? which I will be extensively using to
exemplify principles of planning so students can
relate them to the real world around them ? they are
unlawful. I will be teaching modern principles of
planning that have evolved on basis of theoretical
debate over decades and, in India, stand duly
incorporated in planning and development law and will,
in fact, be referring to post-modernist propaganda of
recent vintage to illustrate by comparison with its
flaws the robustness of these principles.
If SPA prefers, as matter of academic policy, to
educate its students in what is euphemistically called
'market-driven' mould, you might wish to reconsider
inviting me to teach. Please do feel absolutely free
to ask me to stop in that case since, as is well known
in SPA, I don't care about formalities. I am quite
comfortable in dissident professional space and wish
only to constructively contribute to our urban
institutions, especially SPA, which is my alma mater
and to which I owe what I am.
Best regards
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner
B.Arch (SPA, gold medalist); M.Planning (SPA, gold
medalist); PG Dip-Research (IHS-Rotterdam, top rank);
Dip-Training (DoPT)
Formerly: Senior Fellow (HUDCO-HSMI), Visiting Faculty
(SPA, TVB SHS), Consultant (DfID, IHSP, Nuffic,
UNICEF, etc)
Currently: Independent planning researcher and writer
and planning consultant to citizens? groups
PS:
I am enclosing the statement issued apropos the
above-mentioned 'event' in World Social Forum.
cc:
Vice-Chairman, DDA (for information of an academic
viewpoint that does exist)
Students Council, SPA (idem)
-------
The statement is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgmedia/message/25
and over half a dozen subsequent messages are about
it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/
Delhi Master Plan - rather land policy liberalization
- announcements. I have written the following.
----
Prof Jordar
Head of Department of Physical Planning
School of Planning and Architecture
New Delhi ? 110002
Sub: LG's Republic Day address remark about modern
principles of city development ? clarification apropos
the Principles of Planning course that I am teaching
in your department this semester
Dear Prof Jordar,
LG in his Republic Day address has reportedly declared
that the 'new' Master Plan for Delhi will be published
in the first week of October, reiterating his view
since 1999 that the same is 'aimed at' ending DDA's
monopoly on land in a development process based on
'modern principles of city development'. Since I am
teaching this semester the Principles of Planning
course in your department, I need to clarify my
position, on record. Please bear with this long
letter.
As far as I know, modern principles of city
development originate from the view of city planning
as a linear sequence involving Geddes's
survey-analysis-plan, forming basis of the
rational-comprehensive planning paradigm. There has
been critique (by advocacy planning theorists from
early '60s and by reformist and radical-Marxist
theorists later) of, especially, the solitary public
interest and apolitical role of the planner premises
of this view, leading, especially, to blueprint v/s
process and functional v/s normative debates. In
response, the rational-comprehensive paradigm has
evolved to expand 'blueprint' planning based on master
plans in the likeness of spatial design artifacts to
master plans more clearly connected to societal goals
and setting out processes for progressive
implementation ? adding to Geddes's linear sequence
'flow-chart', feedback loops and 'boxes' for goals,
monitoring, etc, so to speak. While this evolution is
by no means complete and the theoretical dualism
within the profession far from reconciled, to the best
of my knowledge the critique of the
rational-comprehensive paradigm has never quite
advocated it substitution with a disjointed
incrementalist one ? till lately, and that only from
perspective of conceptually flawed and empirically
unproven post-modernist ideas, not yet become even
theory, forget principles, of planning.
Delhi Master Plan, I think, affords an excellent
example of reflection of healthy theoretical debate
that characterised city planning in India till not
long ago. Prepared in late 50s on then accepted
survey-analysis-plan principles by our Town and
Country Planning Organisation with Ford Foundation
assistance what was approved in 1962 already
incorporated strands of the advocacy school critique ?
in form of permissive rather than prohibitive zoning,
emphasis on need to view the 'blueprint' as framework,
etc. The revised Plan prepared in the '80s by our
Delhi Development Authority with inputs from experts
from all our premier institutions, in the best
tradition of city planning practice in India, was
based on rigorous survey and analysis and, in equal
measure, on emergent critiques of the master plan
approach. Its pioneering explicit and detailed
provisions for informal sector, housing for the poor,
small industries, mixed land use, monitoring and
review, etc, and a very systematic development code,
undoubtedly make it a landmark document in progressive
legislation, especially for distributive justice given
that Delhi Master Plan has the strongest legal basis
in the country on account of its land policy, besides
its enabling Act that makes it part and parcel of the
Act itself.
That the post-modernist school should have picked for
its critique of city planning Delhi Master Plan is
something I have always viewed with suspicion. I find
it a glaring 'coincidence' that World Bank (in, say,
its 'study' for infrastructure and environmental
imperatives for Delhi 2021) and NGOs that are
extremely vocal on Delhi planning (through propaganda
since 1999, one half of which culminated in a book
lately released by celebrities followed by an 'event'
at World Social Forum) share the same anti-Plan
position. I can easily argue their perspective is
without basis, but they have hijacked the discourse
and, on the heels of a drift in planning practice, we
now look in the face legislation that erodes
principled planning. As you are probably aware, the
Statehood Bill and draft Education Bill, the
Cooperative Bill (passed by Delhi Assembly), the Metro
and Electricity Acts, all disregard Delhi Development
Act and Master Plan and 'guidelines' for MPD-2021 were
announced outside the ambit of the Act and are poised
to become 'new' Plan in disregard of due process of
law for Plan revision. All this legislation, besides
what I call backdoor legislation through PIL by
post-modernists, unbundles holistic planning to permit
disjointed projects consistent with what a few of us
call (as in our statement apropos the 'event' at WSF)
the 'endowment paradigm' ? incapable of solutions to
complex planning problems and mindless of distributive
justice imperatives vis-à-vis benefits of development
that do require basis in law that settles
entitlements, basis that only rigorous holistic
planning can provide.
It is in this context that what has been going on in
DDA, SPA, TVB, HUDCO/HSMI, NIUA, NCRPB, MCD, NDMC,
DUAC, etc, in recent years becomes far more serious
than what various inquiries, etc, revealed in 2003. A
critique ? rather just anti-Plan propaganda ? with no
conceptual or empirical basis was not countered by the
mainstream planning profession and academia. Even
efforts to counter it from outside ? such as in my
independent writings and in the engagements of my
clients (citizens groups synergizing on a platform
called Master Plan Implementation Support Group, with
support of a few professionals, NGOs and others,
including in politics and officialdom) ? found no
space in the mainstream, not even in academia. In
2003, when scams were exposed, we were hopeful of
clean up and even wrote in support letters that were
not even acknowledged.
It was with all this behind me that I accepted your
offer to teach the Principles of Planning course at
SPA, while clarifying that what SPA does or does not
do in coming days apropos its inquiry and media
reportage thereof was important to me and that till
SPA took a principled position on that I would not
accept money for teaching in it. This is because SPA
seems to me to have aligned, to immense detriment of
evolution in planning thought, with post-modernists,
even anarchists, in recent years and I am waiting to
see if there are still in it people committed to
rigorous planning of the rational-comprehensive type,
a professional position to which I am deeply and
irrevocably committed.
Having accepted your offer and started to teach it
would be unethical of me to back out. However, it
would also be unethical of me to not place on record
the dilemma I face on account of LG's Republic Day
remark in the context of SPA's implicit position on
it. I am aware LG's ideas of modern principles are
based on, or at least endorsed by, opinion of
'experts', including Prof B Mishra who did the
commissioned study on alternative land policy and has
been teaching Principles of Planning at SPA. In
general I do get from my interaction with students,
besides from the kind of training placements SPA
facilitates for them and numerous para-professional
notices (on its official notice board in the lobby)
offering them money for work in support of
post-modernist critique of principled planning, the
impression that students are being groomed in the
post-modernist school of thought.
I think it in order to inform you formally that in my
considered opinion post-modernist ideas do not
constitute modern principles of planning and are, in
case of Delhi ? which I will be extensively using to
exemplify principles of planning so students can
relate them to the real world around them ? they are
unlawful. I will be teaching modern principles of
planning that have evolved on basis of theoretical
debate over decades and, in India, stand duly
incorporated in planning and development law and will,
in fact, be referring to post-modernist propaganda of
recent vintage to illustrate by comparison with its
flaws the robustness of these principles.
If SPA prefers, as matter of academic policy, to
educate its students in what is euphemistically called
'market-driven' mould, you might wish to reconsider
inviting me to teach. Please do feel absolutely free
to ask me to stop in that case since, as is well known
in SPA, I don't care about formalities. I am quite
comfortable in dissident professional space and wish
only to constructively contribute to our urban
institutions, especially SPA, which is my alma mater
and to which I owe what I am.
Best regards
Gita Dewan Verma / Planner
B.Arch (SPA, gold medalist); M.Planning (SPA, gold
medalist); PG Dip-Research (IHS-Rotterdam, top rank);
Dip-Training (DoPT)
Formerly: Senior Fellow (HUDCO-HSMI), Visiting Faculty
(SPA, TVB SHS), Consultant (DfID, IHSP, Nuffic,
UNICEF, etc)
Currently: Independent planning researcher and writer
and planning consultant to citizens? groups
PS:
I am enclosing the statement issued apropos the
above-mentioned 'event' in World Social Forum.
cc:
Vice-Chairman, DDA (for information of an academic
viewpoint that does exist)
Students Council, SPA (idem)
-------
The statement is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mpisgmedia/message/25
and over half a dozen subsequent messages are about
it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free web site building tool. Try it!
http://webhosting.yahoo.com/ps/sb/