A panel of urban planners, academics and grassroots practitioners has warned that India’s urban crisis is increasingly becoming “a crisis of dignity,” driven by deepening inequality, ecological destruction and the growing marginalisation of the urban poor, according to a discussion hosted by the Balwant Sheth School of Architecture, NMIMS University.
The eighth edition of the Unmute podcast, titled “Cities in Crisis: Land, Housing and Climate Futures,” brought together architect and activist P.K. Das, academic Shriya Bhatia, and climate justice practitioner Dulari Parmar as panelists, alongside civil society leaders. The central question framing the discussion was “who owns, who occupies, and who decides cities’ futures,” with speakers arguing that climate change, land politics and housing cannot be addressed in isolation.
Opening the session, which was co-hosted by civil society leaders Gagan Sethi and Minar Pimple, moderator Dhanashri Savant noted that “flooding, extreme heat, housing shortages are no longer future risks. They are everyday urban realities,” underscoring how inequality and climate stress are reshaping Indian cities.
P.K. Das set the tone by highlighting what he described as two alarming trends: “people are being constantly pushed to the margins” and “natural areas are being constantly destroyed.” He cited examples such as the planned removal of “45,000 mangroves in the Malad Creek… to build a flyover” and threats to the Aravalli hills, calling these developments “very scary events.” According to Das, urban development is “systematically ripping apart” the fabric of cities by disrupting the “interdependent relationships between people and… nature.”
He characterised the current trajectory as a “phenomenon of segregation,” arguing that it is “exclusionary, illiberal… and promoting what I call is the disempowerment of people.” As a result, cities today are “in a state of inclusionary deficit,” where the majority are rendered “least consequential” in shaping urban futures.
Shriya Bhatia traced these outcomes to a structural shift in governance, noting that “government used to be the provider” of housing, particularly for lower-income groups, but “right now the role is limited to a facilitator.” She said that market forces now determine “what gets built… in response to what the investors want,” fundamentally reshaping cities. This shift, she argued, requires stronger regulatory frameworks to ensure that cities remain “livable, resilient, inclusive and… built for people.”
Dulari Parmar, speaking from her experience working with informal settlements, emphasised that climate change is intensifying existing inequalities. She said her organisation works not from a relief perspective but toward “building people’s agency,” which is now “completely getting deteriorated and further vanished due to impacts of climate change.” Parmar stressed that land lies at the heart of urban power dynamics, noting that “every inch of land is millions of rupees,” making access deeply contested.
A recurring theme in the discussion was the declining role of the state and the rise of market-led urbanisation. Das argued that “governments are no more… doing planning for cities,” and that under “privatization thrust and neoliberal ideas… it’s the market that carries out development.” He warned that cities are becoming “privatized,” with even entire “chartered cities” being “privately developed, regulated and controlled.”
This market-driven model, speakers said, has led to exclusionary urban forms such as gated communities and fragmented cityscapes, undermining the idea of cities as spaces of “liberation” and “freedom.”
The panel also highlighted institutional weaknesses in planning. Bhatia pointed out that planning bodies often lack environmental expertise, with responsibilities increasingly “outsourced to consultants.” She described a disconnect between top-down planning frameworks and on-ground realities, noting that climate considerations are frequently sidelined.
Parmar added that even in climate action planning, marginalised communities are largely invisible. In many city plans, she said, informal settlements are reduced to “a map of slums… tokenistic representation,” with little substantive engagement. “People living on the margins are living in climate realities every day,” she said, warning that their exclusion from planning poses a “big threat.”
The discussion also challenged prevailing narratives around housing shortages. Das called the “land shortage story… an outright bluff,” arguing that sufficient land exists but is inequitably distributed. He contended that redevelopment projects often serve as “land appropriation policy,” displacing communities under the guise of rehabilitation.
Participants criticised slum redevelopment models that replace informal settlements with high-rise apartments. Bhatia described informal settlements as both “a failure and a solution,” noting that they emerge because “government failed” to provide housing. She warned that redevelopment risks creating “vertical slums,” disconnecting residents from livelihoods and social networks.
Das further argued that such projects are “forced displacement and rehabilitation,” driven by “profit-oriented market-controlled agencies.” He warned that these models exacerbate climate risks and health problems, citing evidence of rising disease in dense rehabilitation housing.
The intersection of climate change and urban inequality emerged as a critical concern. Das noted that “the largest victims of climate… crisis are the poor people… and of that women are the largest population.” He stressed that current development practices are intensifying environmental vulnerabilities rather than mitigating them.
On solutions, the panel emphasised the need to “build with nature, not over nature.” Das argued that natural ecosystems such as mangroves act as “a defense mechanism… 24 hours, 365 days,” providing essential services that are often ignored. He advocated participatory mapping of natural and social assets as a first step toward sustainable planning.
Bhatia highlighted the importance of rethinking infrastructure priorities, questioning investments in highways and elite transport systems while neglecting mass transit. She also stressed affordability concerns, noting that housing priced at tens of lakhs is inaccessible to households earning modest incomes.
Parmar called for a redefinition of climate action itself, arguing that “building resilient housing” should be central. She pointed out that “60% of infrastructure for the future is yet to be built,” particularly in Asia, presenting both a challenge and an opportunity to create climate-resilient cities.
The panel concluded that meaningful change requires participatory processes, stronger public accountability and a reassertion of land as a common resource. Das argued that “land must be considered a common property resource… its utilization must be equity-based,” warning that current trajectories risk deepening inequality and ecological collapse.
Throughout the discussion, speakers returned to the idea that the urban crisis is not merely technical but fundamentally political and ethical. As Parmar put it, the demand from marginalised communities is simple yet profound: “give us visibility.”
Comments