Is Delhi Metro Profitable

Mega City Delhi (History - Development - Perspectives)

Table of Contents

1 Introduction

2. Causes and course of megapolitical growth
2.1. Historical background
2.2. Delhi and the British
2.3. Population explosion and territory
2.4. Facts and Figures - Delhi in 2000/2001

3. The relationship between city and state
3.1. The administrative state
3.2. Delhi and the administration - problems of a capital

4. Consequences of megapolitical growth in Delhi
4.1. Responses of the administrative state - authorities and decisions .. p
4.2. Social consequences of growth and migration
4.3. Digression - Religion and Castes
4.4. Growth and infrastructure

5. Conclusion


I. List of figures and tables

II. List of sources

III. bibliography

1 Introduction

With the increasing growth of cities, new definitions of urban agglomeration were coined. In Germany we call cities with more than 100,000 inhabitants a metropolis. Cities with more than 1,000,000 inhabitants are commonly referred to as megacities. The most important quantitative criterion for the definition and designation of large cities was the number of inhabitants. Another quantitative feature was the spatial extent of a city. Cities that are large in area and populated by more than five million people are referred to as megacities.1 The term exponentiates the quantitative characteristics of population and area to a multiple in order to make the size clear. However, qualitative features also come to the fore when creating a concept for a city. In order to depict the importance of a city, be it on a regional, state or international level, both its cultural and economic importance play a role. Centers of economy, culture, politics and administration are called metropolises, because the agglomeration of various institutions gives the city a special meaning. The importance of such centers on an international level is represented by the term cosmopolitan city.2 In Germany, for example, numerous large cities with fewer than one million inhabitants are referred to as metropolises. Essen as a metropolis in the Ruhr, Dresden as a Saxon or Stuttgart as a Swabian metropolis. Despite the importance of these cities for their region, it would not occur to anyone to refer to these cities as world cities.

The great urban growth began in the western hemisphere with the beginning of industrialization. The rural exodus was an expression of the change in occupation from agriculture to industry in the emerging conurbations. The motivation of the migrants was the prospect of better prospects for the future and the solution from the traditional, and in agriculture at that time still common, manorial dependency relationships. The term “city air makes you free”, which emerged in the High Middle Ages as part of occidental urban development, gained new importance during industrialization. The will for self-fulfillment and the striving for a higher standard of living make cities still attractive magnets today.3 Especially in the developing and emerging countries of the southern hemisphere, since the middle of the 20th century, in addition to increasing industrialization, a dynamic urbanization process characterized by the sudden increase in population also and especially in the cities has been observed. While population growth stagnated in the European industrial nations, it exploded in developing and emerging countries with all the consequences for the development of urban living spaces. While in 1900 five of the ten largest cities in the world belonged to Europe, in 1990 there was no longer any European city among the “top ten” according to population figures. In particular, the metropolises of Asia and Latin America recorded and continue to record the highest growth rates.4 Since the early 1990s, the term globalization has been gaining weight in literature as a qualitative aspect for a new definition of internationally important cities. Globalization essentially describes the worldwide and rapid exchange of capital, goods and data flows. The end of the Cold War and the development of new information and transport technologies accelerated the process towards a networked planet that shrank to a “global village” due to high-performance data and goods transfer capacities. The economy in particular made use of these opportunities in a world that has become smaller. Economic activities increasingly make use of the global basis and production processes are being fragmented around the world in order to profitably exploit the wage gap. The powerful centers of this global assembly line ”, whose financial brokers, analysts and stock exchanges increasingly decide on the welfare of entire national economies, are known as“ global cities ”. Cities like New York, Tokyo and London operate "less and less in a nation-state context" and "instead function as centers of control and management of the world economy."5

By definition, Delhi is certainly not a global city. The capital of the world's largest democracy is more of a political center than a financial center. In India, Bombay (Mumbai) assumes this role, even if the view of SASSEN (1996), which is very much caught up in the thinking of the economy and thus possibly incomplete6 does not occur at all or only marginally; or as from FELDBAUER / PARNREITER (1997)7 the entire region is even referred to as the “periphery”. But Delhi is certainly a mega city. Not only because of the fact that it has well over five million inhabitants; its qualitative characteristics as a center of politics, administration and culture make Delhi an Asian metropolis with world class. In addition, Delhi is one of the largest educational centers in South Asia with its two universities and numerous institutes.8 Delhi is the capital of nearly 1/6 of the total world population. This illustrates the role of the city as the center of an important Asian regulatory power and its attraction for migrants. The focus of this work is the problems and the development of the rapid urban growth, which was increasingly driven by the decolonization of the British colonial rulers in 1947/48.

2. Causes and course of megapolitical growth

2.1. Historical background

Greater Delhi, on the Yamuna River, has been in existence since around 2000 BC. Colonized in different forms. In 1206, Qutb-du-din-Aibak established the Sultanate of Delhi, establishing Muslim supremacy on the subcontinent for more than 600 years. The Portuguese navigator Vasco da Gama landed on the west coast of India in 1498 and ushered in the age of colonial rule. The British East India Company was founded as early as 1600. The plans of the Mughal Shâh Jahân of the years 1628 - 1658 provided for the construction of a new capital for the Muslim state and he founded Shâhjahânâbâd - later Old Delhi. In 1644 construction began on the Jama Masjid - the largest mosque in India and one of 79 houses of prayer in Old Delhi. In 1803 the British East India Company reached Delhi and gained control of the city after defeating the Marathas. Old Delhi had about 130,000 inhabitants on an area of ​​6.5 km². It is estimated that another 150,000 people lived outside the city walls.9 The years 1803-1857 are known as the period of coexistence, when the British and Indians lived in close contact. During this time the British built the "Civil lines", an administrative city in the north of the old town. In 1857 there was an uprising against British rule for the first time. Delhi became the center of resistance. The rule of the Mughals came to an end and the religion of Hinduism regained importance. The uprising was put down by the British in 1858. On August 2nd, the “Government of India Act” made the British government's monarch sovereign of India. On November 1st, Queen Victoria declared all residents of British India to be her subjects. In 1868 a wave of plague struck northern India and Delhi. Safety aspects, an increased sense of hygiene on the part of the colonial rulers (sanitation syndrome) and disease prevention caused the beginning of segregation between the British and Indians.10

2.2. Delhi and the British

In 1911 the British decided to move the administrative headquarters of British India from Calcutta to Delhi. The new building of an imperial administrative city was planned for this. In addition to Canberra, Ankara and Brasilia, New Delhi was also a fundamental capital city planning of the 20th century on the drawing board. When building New Delhi, the architect Edwin Lutyens and the Town Planning Committee based themselves on the urban planning ideas of Christopher Wren to rebuild London after the devastating fire of 1666. The American capital Washington also served as a model for New Delhi. The conception of an imperial administrative city and ostensibly aesthetic reasons were decisive for the planning and construction of New Delhi. In addition to generous park and green areas, the planners placed great importance on a clear separation of the hierarchical levels between British and Indian when designing the residential quarters. The construction of New Delhi not only manifested in itself the separation of British and Indians in urban planning. The three-beam axis system of the Magistralen in the basic hexagonal pattern of New Delhi, known from European urban planning, primarily connects itself with one another. In contrast, no new transport links were created between Old Delhi and New Delhi, only visual ones. This urban misconstruction of New Delhi cemented the segregation between British and Indians and prevented modern urban planning, especially in Old Delhi, up to the present day. The old town of Old Delhi was now completely cut off. In the north and west of the railway lines, in the east by the river and in the south by New Delhi, to which there is - even today - almost no connection. New Delhi hardly follows the spatial aspects of urban planning. There was no room for work in the newly created, representative and administrative imperial administrative city. There was just as little thought of commercial or industrial areas as of connecting traffic areas. MANN (1998) comes to the conclusion that “strictly viewed” “New Delhi only follows the aesthetic aspects of an architect, hardly [but] the spatial aspects of urban planning”.11

After Delhi became the capital of India in 1912, the successive relocation of the British colonial rulers, their officials, servants and families from Calcutta to the new capital until the mid-1920s was responsible for the majority of the population growth.12

In 1931 New Delhi was completed on an area of ​​78 km² and the district was officially inaugurated as the new seat of the British colonial administration. With the abandonment of their colonial empire on the Indian subcontinent, the British ensured radical changes in the entire region in 1947 and thus also for the further development of Delhi. On August 15, 1947, India gained independence from the British Empire. British India was separated because of the religious affiliations of Hindus and Muslims in India and Pakistan.

East Bengal was also separated because of the Muslim majority of the population and became East Pakistan.13 The religious and politically motivated separation of 1947 caused bitter hostility and has consequences for the region and the world to this day. The bitter struggle for the province of Kashmir or the nuclear arms race of India and Pakistan should be remembered here.

Due to the division, there was a radical change in the population structures of Delhi from 1947/48. The predominantly Muslim population of Old Delhi recorded a veritable exodus of Islamic residents who fled to Pakistan. Hindus, on the other hand, whose proportion was already the same as that of Muslims in the mid-19th century, fled especially from the Pakistani part of Punjab to the formerly Muslim quarters of Old Delhi. By 1951, 329,000 Muslims had left Delhi. During the same period, 495,000 people immigrated from the Punjab. In addition, Delhi had to cope with the “normal” migration that brought another 206,000 people to the city. Delhi's population doubled within four years. It is estimated that 370,000 to 500,000 refugees and migrants will be accepted by 1951.14 Delhi's rapid growth began, which permanently changed the existing structures. The practically complete replacement of the population of Delhi's old town in just a few years caused profound changes. The Muslim population decreased drastically and from 1947 at the latest it played almost no role in the development of the city. The upheavals not only resulted in a fundamental change in ownership structures, but also began political and social discrimination against Muslims. The proportion of the Muslim population, most of which emigrated to Pakistan because they believed there would be better prospects for the future, decimated enormously. Only the Muslim lower class stayed in Delhi. The proportion of Muslims in 1993 was around 12% of the population.15 At the national level, it was 11.4%, making India home to the world's second largest Muslim population after Indonesia.16

2.3. Population explosion and territory

When the British gave up their rule and India gained independence, the country was home to nearly 360 million people. In 2000, according to official estimates, India's population exceeded the one billion mark.17 Not only is India the most populous country in the world after China; the state's population has almost tripled in just 50 years. Such a population explosion is of course also reflected in the growth of cities. In the same period of time, the population of Delhi has grown by about six to seven times and thus recorded a growth rate slightly more than twice as high as the national average.

Figure not included in this excerpt

Figure 1: INDIA

Due to the enormous nationwide increase in population, it can be assumed that the population increase in Delhi's over the same period can not only be explained by migration, but that a considerable part of the growth is due to internal reproduction. In fact, the table below shows that half of the growth in the decade 1961-1971 was generated by migrants and the other half by natural growth.

Figure not included in this excerpt

Figure 2: Immigration / internal reproduction

According to NAGPAUL (1988) around a third of the population was born outside of Delhi in 1981.18 Every year the population of Delhi increases by approx. 300,000, half of which is made up of migration and half of internal growth, according to MANN (1998).19 The majority of the migrants in Delhi came from the neighboring states of Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and also from Rajasthan. 55% of the immigrants came from rural areas, the rest from other cities. The proportion of immigrants from neighboring Uttar Pradesh was 51%, that from Haryana was 12.9%.20

Even if there are four exponents of rampant urbanization in India with the megacities of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, the urban-rural ratio ranks last in an international comparison with an urbanization rate of only approx. 25%, albeit the number of Metropolises from 1981 to 1991 increased from twelve to 23.21 The cities are growing faster than the national average (see above).

The steady growth of the city required space to expand. The toll for the expansion was and is the conversion of rural areas to urban areas. The Indian census divides the area of ​​Delhi into a rural and an urban part. In 1981 the urban part with 5,768,200 inhabitants made up 93% of the total population. The rural part only 7% with 452,206 residents.22 The total area of ​​Delhi is approximately 1485 km²23 and is thus somewhat smaller than the united Berlin.

From 1911 to 1990, 357 villages from the rural part of the urban area became part of urban Delhi. JAIN (1990) predicts that another 53 villages will be incorporated into the urban agglomeration by 2001.24

Table 2: Really urban area of ​​Delhi

Figure not included in this excerpt

The table on the left shows the space requirements for urban growth in Delhi. From the old days, the urban area is likely to expand to around 800 km². Around 13 million people will then live together in an area the size of Hamburg. As a result of the expansion of Delhi, the village settlements in the rural peripheral region came more and more into the urban environment of the city.Between 1950 and 1960 alone, this settlement area grew by 60%; sometimes up to 40,000 people lived in these “villages”.25 The result was a hodgepodge of "urban villages"26, a mixture of many settlements with rural and at the same time urban character around the core area of ​​the city. However, the villages were not leveled in order to create new parts of the city from the drawing board. Rather, these places were simply urbanized by the fact that new residents settled there. In response to this expansion, the urban villages were incorporated; part of the land bought up.27

The boundaries of the “Union Territory” of Delhi have hardly changed since 1915, so that the entire population growth has taken place in the urban and formerly rural part of the city area.28

2.4. Facts and Figures - Delhi in 2000/2001

Delhi (Dilli) is the capital of India. To Mumbai / Bombay (approx. 18.2 million inhabitants29 ) and Calcutta (approx. 14 million inhabitants30 ) is Delhi (approx. 11.731 and 13.1, respectively32 Million inhabitants) the third largest city in the country in terms of population. The main districts are Old and New Delhi. The total area of ​​the urban and rural urban area is approximately 1,485 km². Delhi has a tropical climate with typical seasons. From February to May it is hot and dry (in 1994 temperatures in Delhi reached almost 50 ° C); from May to October is the monsoon season; and the cool season lasts from October to February. The main languages ​​are Hindi, Punjabi and English. The illiteracy rate is 24.7%33. If one believes the information from the private provider of maps about India, Compare Infobase Private Limited, New Delhi / India, which provides current geographical, demographic and other information about India on its website, the population of Delhi has according to the information from April 5th 2001 exceeded the 13 million mark and is 13,040,000 inhabitants.34

Delhi's outstanding geographic location makes it the center of northwest India. Within a radius of 200 miles in densely populated India, apart from Agra and Jaipur, there are no major cities to speak of.35


1 Feldbauer, Peter; Parnreiter, Christof: "Introduction: Megastadts - Weltstädte - Global Cities," in: Feldbauer, Peter; Husa, Karl; Pilz, Erich; Stacher, Irene (Ed.): Mega-Cities. The metropolises of the south between globalization and fragmentation. Frankfurt am Main 1997, pp. 67 - 94 (= historical social studies 12), p. 9.

2 Compare among others: Bronger, Dirk: “Megastädte - Global Cities. 5 theses ”, in: ibid., P. 52 f.

3 At least some cities. The exodus of the population from the Ruhr area cities at the moment would certainly not be a suitable example.

4 See Figure 6 on page 37.

5 Feldbauer, Peter; Parnreiter, Christof: “Introduction: Megacities - World Cities - Global Cities”, p. 10.

6 Sassen, Saskia: “Metropolises of the world market. The new role of global cities. ”Frankfurt / Main 1996.

7 Feldbauer, Peter; Parnreiter, Christof: "Introduction: Megacities - World Cities - Global Cities", pp. 9-19.

8 Nagpaul, Hans: “Delhi”, in: Dogan, Mattei; Kasarda, John D. (Eds.): “Mega-Cities.” New Delhi 1988 (= The Metropolis Era, Vol. 2), p. 194 f.

9 Sealey, Neil E .: “Planed Cities of India: A Study of Jaipur, New Delhi and Chandigarh”, in: Costa, Frank J .; Dutt, Ashok K .; Ma, Laurence J. C .; Noble, Allen G. (Eds.): “Asian Urbanization - Problems and Processes.” Berlin / Stuttgart 1988 (= Urbanization of the Earth- Urbanisierung der Erde 5), p. 30.

10 Mann, Michael: "New Delhi: Imperial Residence and Capital of the Indian Union (1911 - 1991)." Hagen 1998 (= Urbanization and Urban Life in Asia, course unit 5, published by the Department of Education, Social Sciences and Humanities of the FernUniversität- Comprehensive University of Hagen), p. 22; For the history of India see: Bronger, Dirk: "India - the largest democracy in the world between caste system and poverty." Gotha 1996 (= Perthes country profiles - geographic structures, developments, problems); For the history of Old Delhi see inter alia: Ehlers, Eckart; Krafft, Thomas: “Shâhjahânâbâd / Old Delhi - Tradition and Colonial Change.” Stuttgart 1993 (= geographic knowledge series, issue 111).

11 For the history of architecture and planning, in particular New Delhis see inter alia. more detailed in: Mann, Michael: "New Delhi: Imperial Residence and Capital of the Indian Union (1911 - 1991)", p. 28 ff.

12 Ibid., P. 28.

13 After independence from Pakistan, the state of Bangladesh was established in 1972 with Indian help.

14 Krafft, Thomas: "Contemporary Old Delhi: Transformation of an Historical Place", in: Ehlers, Eckart; Ders. (Eds.): “Shâhjahânâbâd / Old Delhi - Tradition and Colonial Change.” Stuttgart 1993 (= Geographic Knowledge Series, Book 111), p. 67.

15 The facts and figures include: extensively documented in: Ibid., pp. 65-91.

16 Bronger, Dirk: "India - Largest democracy in the world between caste and poverty", p. 34.

17 See evidence: from April 05, 2001. 8

18 Nagpaul, Hans: “Delhi”, p. 185.

19 Mann, Michael: "New Delhi: Imperial Residence and Capital of the Indian Union (1911-1991)", p. 60.

20 The figures are probably from a year before 1997. See: Strobel, Renate: “Bombay, Delhi, Bangalore - three Indian metropolises under the sign of economic liberalization”, in: Feldbauer, Peter; Husa, Karl; Pilz, Erich; Stacher, Irene (Ed.): Mega-Cities. The metropolises of the south between globalization and fragmentation. Frankfurt am Main 1997 (= historical social studies 12), p. 84.

21 Ibid., P. 72.

22 Nagpaul, Hans: “Delhi”, p. 185.

23 The area data vary in the literature between 1483 and 1486 km².

24 Jain, A. K .: “The Making of a Metropolis. Planning and Growth of Delhi. " New Delhi 1990, p. 179.

25 Mann, Michael: "New Delhi: Imperial Residence and Capital of the Indian Union (1911-1991)", p. 51.

26 The term “urban villages” was first coined in the Delhi Master Plan of 1962; see also: Jain, A. K .: “The Making of a Metropolis. Planning and Growth of Delhi ”, p. 179.

27 The complex of “urban villages” is explained in detail in: Mann, Michael: “New Delhi: Imperial Residence and Capital of the Indian Union (1911 - 1991)”, p. 51 f.

28 Nagpaul, Hans: “Delhi”, p. 185.

29 According to estimates by the UN in 1996, in: Strobel, Renate: "Bombay, Delhi, Bangalore - three Indian metropolises under the sign of economic liberalization", p. 73.

30 According to estimates by the UN in 1996, in: Ibid ..

31 According to estimates by the UN in 1996, in: Ibid ..

32 See, last accessed on April 5, 2001.

33 Source:, last accessed on April 5, 2001.

34 See, last accessed on April 5, 2001.

35 Sundaram, K. V .: “Delhi - The National Capital”, in: Misra, R. P. (Ed.): “Million Cities of India.” New Delhi 1978, p. 106.

End of the excerpt from 41 pages