Opinion Ahmedabad should take its own U20 recommendations

Second, Ahmedabad is also a case study in exclusionary and catastrophic socio-legal urban governance. The city is one of the most communally segregated urban areas in the country. Scholarship has shown that parts of the city that are homogeneously occupied by minorities and underprivileged caste communities — areas such as Dani Limda, Juhapura, etc. — are neglected by the government.

While this is the case with most cities in India, Ahmedabad and other cities of Gujarat stand out because laws such as the Disturbed Areas Act, a legislation that is unique to Gujarat and restricts the inter-communal exchange of property in neighbourhoods that are deemed to be “disturbed”, legitimise communal segregation. As recently as June 2023, the Gujarat High Court intervened to stay the closure of a hospital run by a Muslim trust in Surat after it was challenged by a circle officer’s notice for not having followed the procedures of the Disturbed Areas Act. The city authorities wanted to shut the hospital down when residents of the neighbourhood objected to a Muslim-run hospital in their locality.

These two opposing realities — the former being celebrated, and the latter being denied — constitute the city of Ahmedabad. This is also representative of other urban centres in India. This writer has written about how the phenomenon of legalised segregation is taking its early steps in several other states of India (‘How Hindutva works to create an urbanity of hate’, June 11, 2021). The fact that Indian cities are socio-politically stressed has also been observed by the scholarship from the Fragile Cities Project conducted by the United Nations University and the Igarape Institute.

Let us now come to the Communique that the Summit has published as a recommendation for the upcoming G20 meet. It gives a promising six-point message — encouraging environmentally responsible behaviours, ensuring water security, accelerating climate finance, championing local culture and economy, re-inventing frameworks for urban governance and planning, and catalysing digital urban futures.

While being heavy on the agenda of climate change and climate justice, the Communique also argues for equality and justice in urban development. On the first page, the document states its vision statement: “…to ensure a resilient and inclusive urban future”. Again, on page 5, it urges member nations “…to address structural inequalities, promote social and territorial cohesion…” The recommendations to strive for urban equity and social justice are repeated throughout the document, and at several places, advocacy for urban development policies that “…leave no one behind” is prominent.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the document reads like music to liberal ears until one realises that the Mayors Summit’s conversations failed to address the biggest elephant in the room — Gujarat’s unique Disturbed Areas Act and the politics of urban exclusion and forced segregation along religio-ethnic lines. Moreover, current trends around criminalisation of people praying on the roads in some cities of Uttar Pradesh and communal tensions that have followed several festival processions over the last two years are also in contrast with point number four of the communique that argues for “…equitable operation of public spaces, local events and festivals”.

Nevertheless, the Summit was attended by mayors from member countries such as Argentina and the USA — both of which are highly urbanised and have shown how urban development can be efficient and equitable. With this optimistic participation, the message and the sentiment of the U20’s Communique must be welcomed and promoted. It is not for the member countries to criticise the failures of India’s urban story. It is on India to learn from fellow member countries and take the recommendations given by them (under Delhi’s chairship) seriously.

The upcoming G20 meet for which the U20 has given its recommendations is a good opportunity to reflect upon and judge India’s own urban governance and politics against the vision of the U20 Communique. Over the last two decades, India has shown enthusiasm towards planned urban development, which is much needed and commendable. However, communal narratives and segregation have made urban development increasingly exclusionary. This has distributed the costs and benefits of development unequally with communal identity acting as the marker of this distribution.

The Communique published by the U20 meet in Ahmedabad should not fail in its agenda of inclusive urban growth. If it does, the U20 Summit will become a mere lip service to the G20 motto — “One Earth, One Family, One Future”. The upcoming G20 meeting should not ignore the reality of urban exclusion which is the most pronounced in the very city that chaired the U20. For India to keep its U20 promise would require repealing laws such as the Disturbed Areas Act and abandoning the politics of urban exclusion.

The writer is an independent scholar and researcher of Architecture and City Studies