A Dharmic Approach To Urban Planning And Technology

Modern cities, shaped by colonial-industrial models, prioritize growth over ecological and cultural well-being. Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) offer an alternative—rooted in Dharma, Vastu Shastra, and Nāgarī Dharma—where urban spaces align with nature, community needs, and sustainability.

Ancient Indian cities like Varanasi and Jaipur exemplified walkability, water conservation, and decentralized living, ensuring resilience and harmony. Decolonizing urban planning means moving from exploitative, tech-driven expansion to regenerative, Dharmic models where technology restores ecosystems, revives traditional water systems, and fosters vibrant, self-sustaining communities.

In this interview, Shri Anugrah Nagaich, a scholar of Urban Planning, says by integrating IKS, we can reimagine cities as living entities—where innovation serves both people and nature rather than disrupting them.

In your social media, you have been active in the cultural and temple space. As an urban planner how do you think we can make our sacred spaces more attractive in terms of infrastructure, conservation and tourism?

To make our sacred spaces more attractive in terms of infrastructure, conservation, and tourism, we need a holistic and integrated approach that balances the Sanatana ethos, dharmic, shastric/agama and ritualistic considerations, cultural preservation, modern accessibility, and last but not the least, self-sufficiency. This will also imply better infrastructural amenities, improved conservation and restoration efforts, and a perpetual  आत्मनिर्भर economic model that allows temples to thrive again as the prominent centers of culture, learning, economy and Sanatana traditions. Some detailed measures that can be thought of vis a vis such an approach is briefly described as follows:

1. Infrastructure Development: Enhancing Accessibility and Experience

1. Smart Planning & Urban Integration: Temples should be seamlessly integrated into urban plans of the settlement/region with an emphasis on improved mobility of devotees and citizens alike: this can include better road connectivity, public transport access, and pedestrian-friendly designs.

2. Incorporating Bharatiya/Eco-Friendly Design Principles for Amenities and Services: Sustainable solutions like rainwater harvesting, innovative waste recycle/management systems, solar lighting, green design principles etc. can greatly enhance the experience of the devotees by actively integrating environmental elements for enriching these spaces.

3. Improving Visitor Experience: Striking a perfect balance of high-quality and adequate amenities such as clean restrooms, shaded walkways, open and sitting spaces with universally designed with technologically efficient and effective solutions like digital information kiosks, proper queuing and crowd management strategies, real time information systems and emergency evacuation plans will ensure a better experience for all the devotees across every type/section of population regardless of their age/disability etc.

4. Dedicated Cultural Zones & Heritage Walks: Envisaging the temple precincts as vibrant living cultural hubs will help us to think of and propose various measures like heritage walks, museums, and interpretive centers. These can not only increase the overall experience of the sacred spaces, but will also impart awareness and education about the temple's history, traditions, culture and overall dharmic perspective.

2. Conservation of the Living Proofs of Bharatiya Knowledge System: Preserving the Architectural, Cultural, Engineering and Historical Legacy

• * Restoration with Traditional Techniques: Leveraging Bharatiya Knowledge Systems, or even indigenous approaches of restoration using local artisans and traditional materials will not only ensure that the restoration measures remain authentic while preserving their aesthetic and structural integrity, but will also go a long way in preserving, propagating and restoring these Knowledge Systems which aren’t currently mainstreamed in the academia/practice.
•  *Using Technological Paradigms for Digital Documentation and Recreation: State of the art technologies like 3D LiDAR scanning, Augmented Reality will not only be of immense help to document the intricate designs and inscriptions thereby ensuring their preservation for future generations, but will also help people to experience and realize these spaces in their full glory (i.e., how they were originally, before their destruction/desecration.
• * Reviving Cultural Attributes: Many temples had a tradition of hosting the cultural attributes with respect to literature, music and performing arts. Reviving these aspects will not only conserve the tangible heritage but will also conserve and restore the intangible cultural heritage.

3.  A Perpetual आत्मनिर्भर Economic Model: Creating Self-Sufficiency

• Promoting a Multi-Dimensional Experiential/Exploration Journey: Instead of promoting merely the ‘temple tourism’ approach, the religious/spiritual visit should seek to provide a deeply experiential/exploration journey to the devotees/visitors through the constant multi-dimensional activities taking place in those spaces. These constantly occurring activities, like spiritual discourses, cultural workshops etc. should be carefully designed and planned by the Guru’s/Aacharya’s presiding at those spaces; will really go a long way to not only attract a broader audience (thus generating surplus revenue required for governing those spaces), but will also profoundly propagate the dharmic expression/message to the world.
• Comprehensive Integration with the Local and Regional Economy: We need to remember that temples were not just places of worship but very dynamic and vibrant socio-economic and cultural hubs in Bharatiya civilization. They very successfully served multiple purposes like prominent centers of learnings, economic hubs and cultural & scientific landmarks; and thus impacted not just locally but also regionally. By seeking to reclaim these functions which the temples served in the past, and thus to strive to regain this lost essence for establishing temples as truly आत्मनिर्भर institutions, we will be able to ensure that they start to flourish and thrive from the present times while duly maintaining their dharmic, spiritual, historical and cultural significance.
• Global Outreach & Branding: Just as a food for thought, as Sanatana dharma will continue to influence the global population through the solutions it offers against the challenges of the contemporary society/world, our temples and sacred spaces will also need better global outreach through measures like digital marketing, VR experiences, and cultural diplomacy.

Additionally, I would also like to highlight a very important concern related to the question which you have asked, i.e., about freeing our Temples and Sacred Spaces. I really believe that it is one extremely important question that we should ask ourselves and seek to address now, before we go on to deliberate upon how to develop our sacred spaces further. It’s indeed an irony that not many people (more so from the Hindu samaaj) are actually aware of this biased approach and its profound impact (administratively, financially, culturally) on our sacred spaces, even more so when the religious spaces of other communities are allowed to be self-governed. The Hindu temples should be ‘self-governed’ and managed by the vrihad Hindu samaaj rather than the state, so as to:

1.Ensure better financial autonomy, transparency in fund utilization and most importantly protection of dharmic traditions/customs/rituals

2. Avoid any mismanagement, lack of proper upkeep, underutilization/misutilization of funds, adharmic activities/incidents etc.

How did your interest in IKS start and how would you connect Urban planning, Tech and Dharma?

My interest in Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) began at a very early age, largely influenced by my father, who is a devout Sanatani and an ardent scholar of dharmic scriptures and ancient texts. Growing up, I was immersed in an environment where Sanskrit, Hindi, and English texts on dharma, shastras, puranas and ancient wisdom were a daily presence. Despite being enrolled in an English-medium school with minimal focus on IKS, my father’s dedication to reading, writing, and discussing these texts and its interpretations naturally nurtured my inclination toward IKS and dharmic perspectives.

Beyond textual knowledge, my exposure to IKS was also deeply experiential. My father, being a Civil Engineer with a passion for travel, ensured that we visited temples, forts, and historical sites across the various cities we lived in due to his transferable job. During these visits, he would explain the intricate details of the structures, their design principles, and their significance. This first hand exposure to the physical manifestations and living proofs of our ancient wisdom made me realize the robustness and relevance of IKS in contemporary times.

As I pursued my graduation in Physical/Spatial Planning from MANIT Bhopal, I developed a deeper understanding of settlement planning, architecture, and design. However, I observed a significant gap- while the magnificent physical structures we came across the length and breadth of our country bore the essence of ancient wisdom, our formal education largely overlooked the IKS dimensions of planning, architecture, and engineering. This realization further strengthened my interest in bridging this gap, particularly in understanding how IKS can enrich contemporary urban planning and design.

Furthering my academic journey, I pursued a post-graduation in Geoinformatics and Natural Resources Engineering from IIT Bombay, which was an interdisciplinary shift (and a bit unconventional for somebody coming from the planning and architecture background) but proved to be instrumental in expanding my perspective. This field introduced me to cutting-edge technological tools, spatial analysis, and geospatial intelligence, demonstrating how modern technology can be leveraged for interdisciplinary research and applications. My brief stint in the corporate sector before my post-graduation reinforced my decision to transition into academia, where I could actively pursue the subjects I am passionate about: planning, technology, IKS and their intersections.

When we look at Urban Planning, Technology, and Dharma together, they are not separate entities but deeply interconnected and interwoven aspects of human civilization, especially within the Bharatiya context:

• 1. Urban Planning as a Reflection of Dharma: Bharatiya concepts of urbanism have historically been rooted in and guided by the dharmic principles, which, in this context, signifies efficient harmony (between humans and environment), synchronized order (between living and non-living entities), and holistic sustainability (not for humans alone, but for everyone in the world). And there have been numerous examples validating the same. The ancient texts on town planning, such as Vastu Shastra, Shilpa Shastra, Mayamatam, and the Arthashastra, provide frameworks for designing settlements that balance human needs with natural forces, ensuring long-term sustainability. The remnants of Saraswati River civilization are examples of some extremely well-planned urban centers (much advanced that the settlements of civilizations that came a millennia later) that followed principles of zoning, water management, street layouts, public spaces, sacred geometry, and drainage network. In fact, the whole premise of an ideal settlement was that a city should not just be a collection of buildings but a living entity that supports social, economic, and spiritual well-being of its citizens. Unfortunately, much of modern urban planning today has been heavily influenced from the post-industrialization western approaches of urban development; and has detached itself from these paradigms of our past, often prioritizing short-term development over holistic sustainability.
• 2. Technology as a Powerful Tool to Reintegrate Ancient Wisdom: While urban planning provides the vision, technology can very effectively and efficiently act as a bridge that allows us to envisage, analyze, document, and apply the IKS principles in contemporary contexts. For example, geoinformatics, GIS, and remote sensing can help in mapping and understanding the IKS-driven planning strategies. Likewise, computational Design and AI can be used to revive and adapt traditional/indigenous architectural forms, materials, and construction techniques to suit modern needs while retaining sustainability. Smart Cities & Digital Twins can incorporate ancient climate-responsive design strategies, such as courtyards, stepwells, wind tunnels, and passive cooling techniques, to create energy-efficient and resilient urban spaces.
• 3. Dharma as an Underlying Ethical and Sustainable Framework: Dharma, in its oversimplified essence, is about harmony and balance: between humans, nature, and the built environment. Urban planning and technology should align with dharmic principles to create sustainable, resilient, and human-centric spaces that respect cultural, environmental, and social equilibrium. Thus, a city aligned with dharmic principles will be the one that:
• 1.Respects natural ecosystems rather than overpowering them (e.g., riverfronts and forests are protected, rather than destroyed for development).
• 2. Ensures equitable access to resources, upholding principles of justice and inclusivity.
• 3. Encourages community-centric planning, where public spaces, temples, and gathering areas serve as hubs of knowledge exchange, cultural preservation, and social interaction.
• 4. Promotes sustainable and self-reliant urban models, drawing inspiration from ancient water conservation systems (e.g., baolis, stepwells, temple tanks) and decentralized planning approaches seen in historical towns and temple cities.

Thus, my journey: from an early immersion in dharmic knowledge, to formal training in urban planning, to technological exposure; has shaped my understanding of how these domains are not only complementary but essential for holistic, sustainable, and culturally rooted development. Through my work, I aspire to integrate these perspectives: Urban Planning (space and structure), Technology (tools and implementation), and Dharma (ethics and sustainability), ensuring that the wisdom of IKS informs modern urbanism and technological advancements for a future that is both progressive and deeply connected to its roots- perhaps how our ancient planners envisioned.

As you ask in an interview with Shri Sanjeev Sanyal Ji, could I pose the same question to you? Why is India so low in several global indices? What impact does urban planning and management have on several of these indices? Also are these agencies funded by Western think tanks a true indicator of progress?

First and foremost, I would like to express my gratitude to Sanjeev Sanyal Ji for bringing this critical issue of ‘agenda driven’ global ranking/perception indices into mainstream discourse. His relentless efforts: through working papers, editorials, public talks, and social media engagement- have been instrumental in exposing the major challenges and deep biases embedded within these indices. Without his persistent advocacy, the significant tangible and intangible impact of these indices on our nation's development might have remained overlooked. Now, I would address the questions asked to me one by one:

1. Why is India ranked low in several global indices?

Bharat's extremely lower rankings in various global indices can be attributed to several factors:​

• Methodological Issues: Many global indices rely heavily on perception-based assessments, which often involve a limited group of unidentified experts. This lack of transparency in expert selection can introduce biases and may not accurately represent the on-ground realities of large as well as diverse nations like our Bharat.​
• Subjectivity in Indicators: The questions and indicators used in these indices are often subjective and may not be universally applicable. For instance, the V-Dem Index includes a "Direct Popular Vote" sub-index, which measures the extent of direct popular voting. Countries like Bharat and the U.S., where direct referendums are not feasible due to their size, score zero on this indicator. Quite ironically, a smaller country like Afghanistan score higher than zero in this sub-index, highlighting the arbitrariness of such questions.​
• Omission of Relevant Questions: Certain pertinent questions are excluded from these indices. For example, the absence of questions like "Is the head of state democratically elected?" can skew the results, especially when comparing democracies with constitutional monarchies like Sweden, Norway, UK, Denmark, Belgium, and Netherlands.​
• Inconsistent & Arbitrary Benchmarks: Some global indices apply blanket standards that do not account for country-specific contexts. For instance, applying a universal childhood growth standard resulted in an overestimation of malnutrition in Bharat, while using flawed assumptions about women's labor force participation led to an underestimation of Bharat's female workforce (Source: EAC-PM/WP/14/2023).
• Potential Biases: Some indices may have inherent biases due to their origin or the perspectives of their creators. Also, the objectivity of global ranking agencies can be influenced by their funding sources. Agencies funded by specific think tanks or interest groups may consciously or unconsciously reflect the biases of their benefactors; we can imagine how the results would turn out for Bharat if some agency ranking was funded by the ‘Open Society Foundations’! This potential conflict of interest raises questions about the impartiality of these rankings. This can lead to rankings that do not fully capture the progress or unique challenges of countries like Bharat.​ And worse, they can be used to defame/malign/hold back the country’s growth discourse and set up a narrative.

2. Are agencies funded by Western think tanks true indicators of progress?

The credibility of indices funded by Western think tanks has always been a topic of great concern as well as introspection, akin to the credibility of the translations carried out of our scriptures by the western Indologists:​

• Transparency and Objectivity: While many Western think tanks can claim to strive for keywords like democracy, justice, objectivity and the likes, their actual cultural, political, religious or ideological biases can heavily influence the design and interpretation of indices. This may not always provide consideration with the developmental contexts or challenges/limitations of ‘Non-Western’ countries.​
• Representation: The perceptions, perspectives and priorities of Western think tanks may not fully encompass the enormously large and diverse experiences of countries like Bharat. This can result in indices that overlook or undervalue progress made in areas significant to these nations.​
• Influence on Policy and Perception: Despite potential biases as elaborately described previously in this answer, these indices often influence international organizations and their perceptions as well as policy decisions. Since these indices are often used to shape global perceptions, trade policies, and sovereign credit ratings, inaccurate rankings can lead to negative consequences for Bharat's economy and policymaking. For example, the World Governance Indicators (WGI), which influence sovereign ratings, are partly based on subjective indices like the Freedom in the World Index-despite the fact that these indices rank Bharat lower than even politically unstable regions. In fact, the working paper released by the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister explicitly quoted in the conclusion that “since (many of) these indices are inputs into the World Governance Indicators, Government of India should request World Bank to demand greater transparency and accountability from these institutions” (Source: EAC-PM/WP/06/2022). It therefore becomes extremely crucial for stakeholders, which is Bharat in some cases, to critically assess, evaluate and expose the dubious methodologies and inherent biases of such indices before using them as benchmarks for progress.​

What impact does urban planning and management have on these indices?

Urban planning and management can play a pivotal role in determining a country's performance on various indices. Effective urban planning can lead to sustainable cities, improved quality of life, and better environmental outcomes, all of which are factors considered in global rankings. Cities that excel in urban planning and management also perform better on indices related to environmental performance, quality of life, and sustainability, reflecting the importance of thoughtful urban development. Cities with robust urban planning strategies will always rank higher as they would ensure holistic development as described follows:

• Quality of Life: Effective urban planning leads to improved infrastructure, housing, and public services, enhancing residents' quality of life. This positively affects indices measuring livability and human development.​
• Economic Growth: Well-planned cities attract investments, boost economic activities, and create employment opportunities, improving rankings in economic indices.​
• Environmental Sustainability: Sustainable urban management practices, such as green spaces and efficient waste management, contribute to better environmental performance scores.​
• Social Inclusion: Inclusive urban policies ensure equitable access to resources and opportunities, positively impacting social development indicators.​

In conclusion, I would like to say that recognizing the significant impact of urban planning and management on the ranking indices underscores the need for countries to invest in sustainable and inclusive urban development strategies.

How do you think that imposition of external norms like ESG will impact Indian Urban policies. Are there IKS alternatives to these kinds of norms?

 I would like to once again express my gratitude to Sanyal Ji, whose insights were instrumental in raising awareness: both for myself and others; about the challenges inherent in the current ESG paradigms. As an urbanist, his perspective greatly enriched my understanding of their implications on urban planning, particularly through our numerous discussions on the subject I had with him. Before delving into the impact of ESG norms on urban policies, it is essential to first establish a clear understanding of what these frameworks entail.

The term ESG first emerged in 2004 in a United Nations report titled ‘Who Cares Wins’ (Source: http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=4219857). Instead of clearly defining and explaining how they should be implemented, this document just mentioned that such norms should just exist. Eventually, by the next decade, certain think tanks: exclusively based in North America and Europe (and as Sanyal Ji points specifically: North Atlantic, i.e., located only in the north atlantic region) began defining these norms in ways that were self-serving without any global conference, broad consultation process, or any meaningful input from the Global South, including Bharat. Now that the question of how the norms have been/are set, the next question arrives: who exactly set these standards? And the answer is: a very small circle of aforementioned think tanks, many of which are funded by the same organizations/entities which are already famous for a lot of activities, like:

• George Soros’s Open Society Foundations
• The Ford Foundation
• The Rockefeller Foundation
• Certain EU agencies

The way that they do it is, they fund smaller think tanks, which in turn fund even more, creating a layered structure that mirrors the process of ideology laundering. And as a result, we have a set of norms that nobody outside this elite western group had a say in, but which are now readily and hurriedly being imposed on the entire world thanks to the economic might of power-players in this globalised world. For example, agencies in countries with high ESG portfolios have often ranked emerging economies poorly; like RobecoSAM, a Switzerland-based investment company, placed Bharat at the 116th spot in its 2021 ESG chart of 150 countries (top five spots were secured by European nations).

The imposition of external Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) norms on Bharat, its economic constituents and its urban policies presents significant challenges, primarily due to the dominance of Western agencies in defining and implementing these standards. While the western ESG principles seemingly claim to promote sustainability and ethical governance, their application without considering Bharat’s unique developmental and economic conditions raises concerns about fairness, sovereignty, and economic viability. Since the urban areas account for approximately 70% of Bharat's GDP, I believe that the external/western ESG Norms impact the Bharatiya urban policies in the following manner:

1. 1.Western-Centric Standards and Their Unilateral Imposition
   1. 1. The ESG framework, as it stands today, has been largely shaped by western think tanks, consultancies, and academia, without any meaningful consultation with emerging economies like Bharat, which have very unique socio-economic and cultural contexts. These standards often fail to consider Bharat’s specific needs, growth trajectory, socio-economic realities, energy requirements etc.
   2. 2. The European Union has imposed ESG-related restrictions on companies exporting to the EU, such as its "green steel" definition, which mandates the use of patented technologies owned by European firms. Such definitions create forced economic dependencies and act as indirect trade barriers, adversely impacting our economic growth. [Refer: https://business.columbia.edu/insights/climate/insight-3-world-needs-consensus-definition-green-steel-and-green-iron , https://www.careedgeesg.com/upload/CareEdge-ESG-insights-on-India-Taxonomy-on-Green-Steel.pdf]
   3. 3. Western ESG norms have also been critiqued for serving as disguised gatekeeping mechanisms, benefiting established players in developed economies while putting emerging markets at a disadvantageous position.
2. 2. Financial and Economic Implications
   1. 1. Bharatiya urban policies would need substantial financial investment to align with externally imposed ESG norms. The requirement for infrastructure modifications, compliance certification, and green technology investments could severely strain the already scarce municipal budgets of the urban local bodies and the private-sector players who wish to assist in the urban development through the PPP (public private partnership) route.
   2. 2. ESG ratings given by Western agencies can also significantly impact the flow of foreign investments into Bharat. Since these ratings often overlook the developmental context of Bharat, many firms will surely receive low scores, reducing their attractiveness to global investors thus affecting the broader urban economy (through employment, socio-economic development of urban population etc.).
   3. 3. The lack of a fixed as well as transparent global ESG framework allows rating agencies to arbitrarily assign scores, often prioritizing geopolitical interests over objective assessments.
3. 3. Sovereignty and Autonomy Concerns
   1. 1. The unilateral control of ESG norms by Western entities is a form of neo-colonialism, wherein the developed nations dictate compliance requirements without considering the local realities. This can severely hamper our country’s sovereignty in policy-making suiting to our urgent requirements for both the urban as well as regional areas.
   2. 2. Bharatiya businesses, including major groups, have suffered or can suffer globally due to the biased ESG ratings that do not account for our nation’s developmental priorities.
   3. 3. As Sanyal Ji rightly argues, these ESG compliance enforced by the Western agencies, can also be viewed as a rent-seeking mechanism (or a form of Jaziya Tax) where Bharatiya firms must pay for certifications granted by entities with zero transparency as well as no local representation.

Recognizing these challenges, Bharat must establish its own ESG norms and framework that aligns with its developmental aspirations while maintaining holistic sustainability inspired from its dharmic framework, i.e., while considering ‘वसुधैव कुटुम्बकम’. And here is how the IKS can offer some really holistic and robust alternatives to the western norms/frameworks:

1. 1. Implementing Traditional Urban Planning Principles

• The rich repository of ancient Bharatiya planning and architecture texts like Samarāṅgaṇa-sūtradhāra, Mānasāra, Viśvakarmavāstuśāstra, Brihat Samhita, Shilparatna, Mayamatam, Āgamaśāstra etc. emphasizes harmony with nature, climate-responsive and resource-efficient design, community well-being while minimizing environmental impact while ensuring sustainability. Integrating these principles can lead to sustainable urban environments that resonate with local cultural values.
• Analysing and documenting indigenous resource management practices from across the country (particularly in the rural areas), like community-managed water systems (like stepwells, tank irrigation, Johads/earthen dams etc. found in different states of Bharat) will help in their revival for the contemporary urban planning paradigms. A very good book which I would strongly like to recommend everyone to go through is, which is available free of cost in almost all the Bharatiya languages, is one by late Anupam Mishra called आज भी खरे हैं तालाब. You can download it in the language of your choice at https://www.indiawaterportal.org/governance-and-policy/governance/aaj-bhi-khare-hain-talaab

2. 2. A Bharatiya Approach to ESG Ratings
   • Bharat needs an ESG rating system that factors in its unique contest and local developmental realities, rather than blindly applying standards developed for/by Western economies.
   • Establishing an independent ESG rating agency backed by Bharatiya financial institutions, government bodies, and think tanks would provide a more balanced assessment of Bharatiya companies. It is a matter of pride that a Bharatiya ratings company CareEdge is coming up with a methodology for credit ratings at the government’s nudge,but the domain of ESG ratings still remains to be explored.
3. 3. Encouraging sustainable industrial practices in the urban areas, which are rooted in Bharatiya traditions
   • Ayurveda & sustainable urban landscapes: Integrating medicinal plants and biodiversity into urban green spaces can enhance air quality and community well-being.
   • Self-reliance in green technology: Bharat should heavily invest in research and development for indigenous green technologies rather than relying on imported patented solutions from the West.

Apart from thinking about the IKS inspired measures, I would also like to take this opportunity to share some views for broadly countering the dominance of Western ESG norms and ensure fairer, contextually relevant policies for the nation as a whole. For doing the same, our nation and its leadership should:

1. 1. Heavily Push Back Against Unilateral ESG Standards
   • Actively represent themselves and participate in global ESG standard-setting bodies to ensure that emerging economies like ours have a significant say in defining these norms.
   • Collaborate with other nations to resist monopolistic ESG frameworks and push for equitable, multi-stakeholder-driven standards.
2. 2. Develop a Sovereign ESG Framework
   • Bharat should formulate its own ESG framework, incorporating principles from IKS and traditional/indigenous sustainability practices.
   • The government should also incentivize businesses that adopt indigenous ESG practices suited to the national context, rather than forcing compliance with external standards.
3. 3. Enhance Data Accuracy and Transparency in ESG Ratings
   • Bharat must build a robust data infrastructure to measure environmental and social impact accurately, preventing Western agencies from overestimating emissions and risks.
   • Public-private partnerships should be encouraged to develop reliable, Bharat-centric ESG benchmarks that offer fair ratings for businesses.

What is the state of Urban planning in India today as per academia?

Urban planning in Bharat today stands at a critical juncture, wherein it is being shaped by rapid rate of urbanization, urban governance challenges, local as well as global environmental concerns, and constantly evolving policy frameworks. Bharat is the second-largest urban system in the world, with almost 11% of the total global urban population living in Bharatiya cities.The urban areas in Bharat occupy just 3% of the land but contribute to ~60% of the GDP. Even though the contribution of urban areas are critically pivotal for realizing our honorable Prime Minister's vision of Viksit Bharat 2047, the urban settlements observingly face a lot of challenges across the length and breadth of the nation. The good part is, academicians and practitioners from across the multiple disciplines: from urban planning to artificial intelligence to public policy; are extensively researching about the strengths, weaknesses, and necessary reforms required for upgrading Bharat’s urban planning landscape. Currently, their analysis reveals that while Bharat has made substantial progress in several urban development initiatives, significant gaps still persist in the larger planning, governance, and execution frameworks. I will try to summarize sectoral perspectives on the current state of urban planning in Bharat, and some tentative solutions for improving them.

1. Legacy of Outdated Urban Planning Frameworks

First and foremost, I would like to mention one of the most significant critiques of Bharat’s urban planning framework: it still relies on colonial-era legislation, particularly the British Town Planning Act of 1947; which focuses primarily on rigid land-use zoning rather than a more holistic and integrated approach to spatial planning which is the need of the era today. It is evident that British approaches to planning, administering, and developing Bharat- including its settlements and infrastructure- were primarily driven by a singular motive: the efficient extraction and exploitation of India's abundant resources. The British Government did this for ensuring strict administration and enforcement of laws, to exercise absolute control over the resources as well as their ‘subjects’ aka the Bharatiya population. Much as Britain's industrial advancement was achieved through the deliberate deindustrialization of Bharat, their urban planning framework systematically dismantled the indigenous decentralized planning approaches continuously existing in Bharat since the era of highly planned settlements of Indus/Saraswati Valley Civilization. These traditional systems had long empowered local communities (hence the use of the term ‘decentralized planning’) to sustainably manage, develop, and conserve their urban resources and amenities. Consequently, numerous historical Bharatiya settlements located across the length and breadth of the country, originally abundant in water bodies, witnessed significant shifts as traditional water conservation structures gradually vanished, replaced by modern overhead tanks which were significantly constructed by the Britishers. This transition not only disrupted community-led resource management but also marked a tangible loss in ecological and cultural heritage across the country.

Unfortunately, the influence of colonial-era approach and its terminology persists prominently in the planning paradigms of Bharat, whether consciously acknowledged or not, even 75 years after independence. A striking example of this is found in the nomenclature of the department responsible for carrying out planning functions, i.e., the ‘Department of Town and Country Planning’. Since planning is the function of the state government, this Department of Town and Country Planning exists by the same name in almost all the state governments of the country while continuing to use the British-era term "country" in its title, where "country" is intended to refer to rural areas (and even the hindi name of these Departments are written as नगर तथा ग्राम निवेश संचालनालय/विभाग). What makes this particularly ironic is that while the term "countryside" remains an integral part of British planning terminology even today, it is not used anywhere in Bharat's legal or administrative framework- except, curiously, in the title of this department which is responsible for all the planning related functions in the state. This also reflects how certain colonial legacies have endured, even in areas where their relevance has long since faded.

The consequences of this rigid land-use zoning rather than a more holistic and integrated approach to spatial planning includes:

• Fragmented urban growth: Cities expand without a coordinated approach, leading to disjointed infrastructure and inefficient land uses.
• Inflexibility in development: Modern needs like mixed-use development and transit-oriented planning are not adequately integrated.
• Rigidness in planning: Decision-making is often centralized, leaving little room for local adaptation and flexibility.

Academicians across the globe, and also in Britain (pun intended) today suggest that urban planning should evolve from the rigid, outdated frameworks to a more adaptive, dynamic, integrated, and inclusive multi-dimensional planning system, ensuring that the urban spaces are developed with a long-term vision in mind.

2. Deficiencies in Master Planning

Even though many urbanists and urban thinkers, including Shri Sanyal Ji and myself, argue that the long term rigid Master-Planning approach is not the most efficient way to address the challenges of Bharatiya urban areas, but many rapidly growing cities of Bharat even don’t have the Master Plan at the first place! Again quite ironically and unfortunately, Bhopal- the city where I reside, is growing without a Master Plan since 2005-07. Such an absence of a Master Plan means that these growing urban areas don’t have anything to direct/regulate their growth, and most of the changes that are taking place on the ground are totally organic. Regardless of how effective the Master Plan approach is, urban planning at least requires comprehensive master plans that can guide proposals related to land use, infrastructure, transportation, and environment as the bare minimum. The following points make this issue even more alarming:

• Nearly 50% of statutory towns in Bharat are expanding without a master plan, leading to haphazard, unregulated growth.
• Many existing master plans lack proper enforcement mechanisms and are often outdated by the time they are implemented.
• Cities like Mumbai, Delhi, and Bengaluru face severe congestion and overpopulation issues due to poor foresight in planning.

Academia and research today emphasizes the need for having a multi-tiered urban planning framework in place for a rapidly urbanizing country like Bharat, where national, state, and local urban plans are aligned to ensure coordinated development.

3. Urbanization and Slum Proliferation

Bharat is also witnessing one of the fastest rates of urbanization, with its urban population expected to surpass 50% by 2045 (implying that more than 50 out of 100 Bharatiya will reside in the urban areas). While these urban centers contribute significantly to the nation’s GDP, the uneven nature/distribution of urbanization spatially over the length and breadth of our nation is a key concern, presenting us challenges like:

• States like Bihar and Odisha lag behind in urban development, while Karnataka and Maharashtra experience concentrated urban growth.
• Slum proliferation is on the rise, with one-in-three poor people living in urban areas (Ministry of Finance, 2021), and nearly 17.3% of Bharat’s urban population currently residing in slums due to a lack of affordable housing (Census 2011).
• Unregulated expansion of peri-urban areas (areas on the outskirts of cities) leads to severe infrastructure and environmental stress.

In this regard, it is argued that for ensuring sustainable and inclusive urbanization so as to achieve the target of Vikshit Bharat 2047, a synchronized balance between economic growth, infrastructure development, and social equity will be highly desirable. For the same, integrated urban expansion policies that promote affordable housing, slum redevelopment, and spatial equity are recommended by the academia.

4. Weak Local Governance and Administrative Bottlenecks

Fortunately or unfortunately, the responsibility of urban planning in Bharat is largely divided into two parts: the task of preparing the plans belongs to the domain of a different agency/department (Town & Country Planning), and the implementation of the plan is to be ensured by a different body (Urban Local Bodies aka the ULBs like the Municipality/Municipal Corporation, or the Development Authorities). In addition, there is a tendency in our country to treat urban planning as a non-specialized field, resulting in gaps in expertise and execution at local levels. This multiplicity of agencies/bodies often imply lack of:

• 1. Financial autonomy: Most ULBs rely heavily on state and central government funds, limiting their ability to execute long-term urban development projects.
• 2. Disconnected decision-making: The 74th Constitutional Amendment, 1992 aimed to empower local governance on the city level, but its inconsistent implementation across states has weakened its impact.
• 3. Absence of adequate plan implementation & its monitoring: Even where urban development plans are made, their lack of implementation on the ground or poor monitoring of the plan implementation result in ineffective planning exercise.
• 4. Lack of citizen participation: It’s a reality that hardly a very small section of a city’s population (only the Govt. Officials from the Planning Body/ULB, real estate developers, architects/planners and the likes) are aware of the Master Plan, a document which affects their lives so prominently.

For tackling this, following measures are recommended:

• 1. Strengthening of ULBs by ensuring financial devolution and greater autonomy.
• 2. Encouraging innovative Public-Private Partnership modes for infrastructure development and resource mobilization.
• 3. Ensuring the effective and efficient inter-agency/body synchronization across all the three steps of urban development process, namely plan formulation, implementation and monitoring
• 4. More participatory planning and governance, where citizens are actively involved in decision-making for their cities. The digital platforms can be easily leverged to crowdsource ideas and feedback from citizens.

5. Environmental and Infrastructure Challenges

This aspect is most evident to all of us. The rapid urbanization witnessed in the last 3 decades has led to environmental degradation, including air and water pollution, and infrastructural deficits such as inadequate public transportation and housing shortages. It's clearly evident that the Bharatiya cities today are facing increasing environmental stress due to unplanned urbanization. Some of the key challenges as observed by all of us are:

• 1. Water scarcity: Cities like Bengaluru are approaching "Day Zero" (i.e., the critical point at which a city's water supply is predicted to be nearly completely depleted, leaving taps dry and communities in crisis) conditions due to mismanagement of water resources.
• 2. Urban flooding: Poor drainage systems and over construction lead to frequent urban flooding, as seen in Mumbai and Chennai.
• 3. Air pollution: Cities like Delhi experience hazardous air quality levels due to unregulated urban expansion and vehicular pollution.
• 4. Unplanned transportation networks: Traffic congestion in most of the metro cities leads to increased pollution and reduced productivity.

Academicians across the world today are stressing the need for utilizing climate-sensitive urban planning practices, which call for proactively developing and incorporating initiatives like:

• 1. Green infrastructure (such as urban forests, rainwater harvesting systems etc.) in our planning proposals.
• 2. Energy and resource efficient buildings for reducing the environmental footprint and increasing the liveability through architectural design.
• 3. Sustainable transportation systems (efficient multi-modal public transportation systems, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure etc.) for addressing the challenges related to urban mobility and air pollution.
• 4. Resilient city planning approaches for effective risk reduction against urban issues or extreme climatic events like heat islands, urban floods etc.

6. Gaps in Technological Integration

Contemporary planning paradigms across the globe are relying heavily today on the state-of-the-art technologies like advanced GIS mapping, satellite-based remote sensing, and AI-driven big data analytics for enhanced urban development. However, Bharat still lags substantially in adopting these technologies for its almost chaotic urban landscapes, as highlighted follows:

• 1. Lack of real-time urban data collection and analysis: Most of the administrative decision-making by the urban agencies is often based on outdated statistics rather than live/real time urban analytics.
• 2. Minimal use of AI and automation: Countries like Singapore and the Netherlands are readily using AI for efficient traffic and zoning management, but Bharat is still in the early stages of adopting such technology. Barring a few Command and Control Centers established under the central govt. 's Smart Cities Mission, most of the overcrowded urban areas lack any such measure which can prove to be highly effective (as evident in the same technology’s adoption for managing the recently concluded Prayagraj Mahakumbh 2025).
• 3. Bureaucratic resistance: In many instances, the administrative inertia also results in a sluggish adoption of these contemporary technologies.

Academicians and researchers today are actively advocating for the wider adoption of digital tools and technologies for enhanced urban planning, management and development through measures like:

• 1. Integration of GIS, AI, and remote sensing in urban planning.
• 2. Utilization of real time big data analytics & monitoring for predictive urban development and effective infrastructure management.
• 3. Smart infrastructure monitoring to improve urban service delivery.

What were the main takeaways of the meta retreat for you?

The Meta Retreat on the theme "Tech for Dharma, Tech with Dharma" was a profoundly enriching experience for me. It provided me with the opportunity to engage with a cohort of distinguished individuals well rooted with a robust civilizational consciousness: academicians, practitioners, professionals, entrepreneurs, researchers and most importantly, genuine sadhakas; who are also deeply invested in the intersection of technology and Dharma. I strongly feel that it was a great blessing bestowed upon me by Shri Arunachaleshwar, to have had the privilege of meeting, interacting with, and learning from such remarkable individuals over two transformative days under His divine ambit. The retreat fostered some really thought-provoking discussions, immersive deliberations, and visionary explorations, all aimed at shaping a Dharmic technology future.

At the heart of all our discussions/deliberations/explorations was the recognition that our civilizational success hinges on how we shape the trajectory of technology- not merely as a tool for (industrial/economic) progress but as an instrument that aligns with Dharma. This alignment can only ensure that technology serves as a force for harmony, sustainability, and Dharmic evolution rather than disruption and dissonance. And all the discourses undertaken in the Retreat enormously helped me to ponder upon the ways through which technology can be leveraged for perhaps initiating a national renaissance, while also delving into the structural transformation needed to embed Dharmic sensitivities into technology itself.

One of the most illuminating aspects of the retreat was the range of perspectives shared by participants: their diverse experiences and perspectives on how modern technology interacts with Dharma, raising critical concerns about consumerism, ethical dilemmas, algorithmic biases, the alienation of traditional knowledge systems and other similar issues- issues that I had not previously considered in such depth. Subsequently, a thorough examination of the current technological landscape exposed both overt and subtle influences shaping Bharatiya society, culture, and Dharmic values, often in ways that are not immediately apparent.

A particularly striking revelation during one of the sessions was the potential for smartphone applications to function as bioweapons- a topic that was both alarming and eye-opening. The biases embedded within these applications, coupled with their tremendous capabilities for shaping global narratives, underscored the urgent need for technological sovereignty and ethical innovation. This insight has since prompted me to delve deeper into the subject, further reinforcing the necessity of approaching digital technologies with a heightened awareness of their implications.

For me, this Meta Retreat was not just an academic or intellectual exercise- it was a clarion call for action. It reaffirmed the pressing need for a conscious, civilization-driven approach to technology, one that safeguards cultural ethos, spiritual wisdom, and ethical innovation.

As an academician and technology enthusiast, I found this Retreat to be a critical step toward reclaiming our narrative in the digital era. And all the formal as well as informal discussions I’ve had only reinforced my conviction that technology must be an enabler of higher human aspirations, rather than being merely a tool for material progress; that the synergy between Dharma and technological advancement is not just desirable- it is absolutely imperative for a truly sustainable and dharmic future.