The socio-technicities of campaigning as a form of planning: lessons from the Hamara Shehar Mumbai Abhiyaan in Mumbai and the Main Bhi Dilli campaign in Delhi
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online October, 2025
The socio-technicities of campaigning as a form of planning: lessons from the Hamara Shehar Mumbai Abhiyaan in Mumbai and the Main Bhi Dilli campaign in Delhi
Urban planning in Southern cities is generally a technocratic exercise, often detached from the realities of informal settlements, workers and marginalized groups. It can reinforce socio-spatial inequalities by prioritizing globalized visions over inclusive, people-centred plans. This paper reflects on two civil society organizations (CSO)-led campaigns: Hamara Shehar Mumbai (2011–2016) for Mumbai’s Development Plan 2014–2034 and Main Bhi Dilli (2018–2021) for Delhi’s Master Plan 2021–2041. Drawing from first-hand engagement, it explores how these initiatives sought to democratize planning through socio-technical strategies. Operating within rigid state-led frameworks, they expanded participation by leveraging both formal and informal modes. Their approaches – co-producing knowledge, engaging with maps and innovating participatory tactics – enabled limited but meaningful influence. Despite constraints, they created spaces for community-led engagement. Positioned as ‘limited insurgencies’, these campaigns highlight the potential of coalitions to outlive formal timelines and seed long-term ‘socio-technical infrastructures’ for counter-planning rooted in lived experience, resisting exclusionary, top-down planning in Indian and Southern cities.
AhrarS (2020), “Top-down planning approaches and urban reality: the case of Delhi, India”, Proceedings of the EAAE-ARCC International Conference & 2nd VIBRArch: The Architect and the City, SSRN, pages 356–363. available at https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5089631.
2.
BaitschTBhardwajRHoullier-BinderS (2022), “Mumbai Development Plan 2014–2034: unfolding controversies, actors and arenas”, in PattaroniLBhideALutringerC (editors), Politics of Urban Planning: The Making and Unmaking of the Mumbai Development Plan 2014–2034, Springer, Singapore, pages 19–54.
3.
BhanG (2009). “‘This is no longer the city I once knew’. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi”, Environment & UrbanizationVol 21, No 1, pages 127–142.
4.
BhanG (2013), “Planned illegalities: housing and the ‘failure’ of planning in Delhi: 1947–2010”, Economic and Political WeeklyVol 48, No 24, pages 58–70.
DupontV (2008), “Slum demolitions in Delhi since the 1990s: an appraisal”, Economic and Political WeeklyVol 43, No 28, pages 79–87.
8.
DupontV (2011), “The dream of Delhi as a global city”, International Journal of Urban and Regional ResearchVol 35, No 3, pages 533–554.
9.
DupontVGowdaM M S (2019), “Slum-free city planning versus durable slums: insights from Delhi, India”, International Journal of Urban Sustainable DevelopmentVol 12, No 1, pages 34–51.
LallRMehraRNarayanM (2024), “Co-producing knowledge in action: reflecting from the Main Bhi Dilli campaign for equitable planning in Delhi”, Planning TheoryVol 23, No 4, pages 356–376.
19.
LefebvreH (1996), “The right to the city”, in KofmanELebasE (editors and translators), Writings on Cities, Blackwell, Oxford, pages 63–181.
20.
MahadeviaDJoshiR (2009), “Subversive urban development in India: implications on planning education”, paper presented at the 10th Congress of the Association of Planning Schools of Asia (APSA), Ahmedabad, India. Centre for Urban Equity, CEPT University.
OrtizC (2022), “Cultivating urban storytellers: a radical co-creation to enact cognitive justice for/in self-built neighbourhoods”, Urban PlanningVol 7, No 3, pages 405–417.
28.
PattaroniLBhideALutringerC (2022), “Introduction: on politics of urban planning”, in PattaroniLBhideALutringerC (editors), Politics of Urban Planning: Exploring Urban Change in South Asia, Springer, Cham.
29.
PetheANallathigaRGandhiSTandelV (2014), “Re-thinking urban planning in India: learning from the wedge between the de jure and de facto development in Mumbai”, CitiesVol 39, pages 120–132.
30.
RandolphR (2017), “Subverting the present, planning the future: proposing a counter-planning”, in Proceedings of the Annual Congress of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP), 11–14 July, Lisbon.
SeldinC (2024), “(In)Subordinate planning: a decolonial tool for marginalized urban areas”, Nuevo Mundo Mundos Nuevos, available at https://doi.org/10.4000/nuevomundo.95315.
