THE imagery of urban spaces embodies a city’s politics, economic functioning and social hierarchies. Identifiable features that constitute habitations also illustrate the aesthetic and spatial manifestation of power structures, and the hegemonies they uphold. The meaning of a cityscape is not limited to interpreting its lived spaces, but also interrogating the societal role of its open expanses. As historian Upinder Singh observes, people have developed deeply intimate relations with their landscapes over an inter-generational timescale.¹ Even though ecology and topography of an area may not be determining factors, they do contribute towards shaping entire regions, influencing what crops are grown, coalescing people culturally, and formalizing means of resource production and exchange.²

Since the environment is a dynamic actor with multiple constituents, it responds to anthropogenic and climatic changes in unpredictable manners that may produce unintended consequences. As ecologies respond to both natural and anthropogenic changes, the way in which people interact with landscapes also alters.³ The ability of people to reinvent themselves per their varying environment is an important reason for the resilience of many communities and their ways of life.

Cities like Delhi boast of millennia old antiquity and an enduring geopolitical importance within the Indian subcontinent. As dynasties have come and gone, myths and histories of the past have been accumulated in the collective consciousness of communities. These memories often create a mythic idyllic past, including a eulogized imagination of nature.

In recent years, there have been concerted attempts to restore vegetation in Delhi (and neighbouring Gurgaon) to its ‘original state’ through extensive afforestation.⁴ However, representing Delhi’s historical ecology accurately is a difficult endeavour.⁵ To recreate Delhi’s environment, it is important to not only gauge its historical contours from available material, but also analyze how afforestation policies are impacting local communities today.

 

Delhi’s continued historical importance stems from both its strategic positioning in northern India and its own topographical features. India’s capital is placed as a gateway between the Himalayas in the North, the Aravali range in the West with the Thar desert beyond, and the vast Indo-Gangetic plain to its East. Delhi’s geography is primarily shaped by two natural features, the Aravali hills (commonly called ridge, kohi or pahari), and the Yamuna river. The ridge is part of the Mewat branch of the Aravali mountain range that extends over 800 kms from Gujarat, across Rajasthan and culminates in the city. The hills enter Delhi from its southern region contiguous with Haryana,⁶ forming a 5 kilometre wide rocky tableland that extends 35 km into the city. Since the plains of Delhi are bound by the ridge from three sides and the Yamuna river from the fourth, it was favoured for habitation since it provided natural resources, good agricultural land in the flood plain and a natural protective boundary. Delhi’s floral composition is diverse and includes many microhabitats,⁷ with the ridge primarily categorized as semi-arid scrub forest (although the valleys can support dense vegetation).⁸ The foliage in the thorny, secondary forests (rakh) of the hills is sparse, humus content is low, and very few areas can support agriculture. The ridge has uneven terrain, with numerous ravines and rocks interrupted by sandy soil (bhur) typical to desert/ semi-desert regions that support growth of primarily grass, shrubs and stunted trees.⁹

 

The ridge was once crisscrossed by several streams, including six palaeo-channels of the Yamuna that abandoned the hills 4000 years ago.¹⁰ Maheshwari conjectures that the earlier ecology of Delhi may have been different from its current state, and that it gradually retrograded into a thorn scrub forest because of anthropogenic pressures.¹¹ Some purport that Delhi’s original vegetation was composed of subtropical and deciduous trees, which was deforested during the Sultanate period¹² or towards the end of Mughal rule.¹³ While it is difficult to conclusively confirm these claims, Delhi’s forests are admittedly a result of centuries of manipulations, geo-climatic vicissitudes and anthropogenic influences. The changes include not only deforestation, but also significant afforestation measures since British colonization.

The most commonly found native trees are Babul (Acacia nilotica) and Kikar (Acacia arabica), thorny trees typical for dry climates. Other indigenous tree species like Rong (Acacia leucophloea) grow on hills and Dhau (Anogeissus pendula), which are found in some portions of the ridge in neighbouring Gurgaon.¹⁴ Vilayati Kikar (Prosopis juliflora) is a common invasive tree that was first introduced in India in 1877 by the British and has proliferated since then.

 

Stone age settlements from the lower Palaeolithic period (roughly 100,000 years ago) and rich collection of microlithic artefacts have been found across the Aravalis, when the hills may have been steeper, more densely wooded, and with a different floral and faunal composition.¹⁵ Late Harappan sites have been discovered in Delhi; places like Bhorgarh showing continuous habitation from late Harappan time (second millennium BCE) right till medieval times spanning 2,500 years. The ancient history of Delhi is mired in local traditions, mythology, and complicated by political appropriation. The epic Mahabharata, oral traditions, and many people from the medieval era onward hold that the first city of Delhi was Indraprastha, identified with the present site of the Purana Qila. It is possible that orally transmitted histories are legends that have been embellished and woven around actual historical events;¹⁶ note that a village named Indrapat continued to exist in the Purana Qila complex till the late nineteenth century CE.

In the Adi Parva, the first book of the Mahabharata, Indraprastha is described as a city built on the banks of the Yamuna after burning down the Khandava forest, and hunting animals trying to escape the fire. The description of thorns and prickles in the forest suggests xerophytic conditions.¹⁷ A.K. Sharma conjectures that the city of Indraprastha may have been established after monsoon patterns changed, leading to scant vegetation in the area. Excavations at the Purana Qila led to archaeological discoveries from the Harappan time period; however, no structural remains have been found as yet that match the description of the city.

 

The history of Delhi for almost a millennium after the date of Harappan settlements is unclear, although there is evidence of Delhi being continually inhabited.¹⁸ The first recorded rulers in medieval Delhi were the Tomar Rajputs, who constructed forts on the Aravali hills (southern Delhi-Faridabad). Some scholars opine that the location may have been selected because of the ‘bare and barren’ Aravalis’ relative isolation and the security it offered. Some inferences about the vegetation and topography during that period can be drawn from archaeological remains.

 

The rocky hills of Aravalis have many reservoirs that were built during Rajput rule by making embankments or bunds, like Surajkund and Anangpur dam, probably to collect rainwater run-off that did not easily percolate into the ground. Bunds are also found during the following Sultanate rule; the southern side of Tughlaqabad fort (built in 1321 CE atop a rocky hill) was a reservoir made by constructing bunds between the eastern hills.¹⁹ Firoz Shah Tughlaq was fond of hunting and built many hunting lodges like Malcha Mahal, Bhuli Bhatiyari ka Mahal, and Kushk Mahal close to bunds that retained rainwater and could lure game. Numerous references to water catchments indicate extensive run-off because of sparse vegetation and impervious, rocky soil.

Some scholars have suggested that Delhi was thickly forested during Rajput rule, especially in and around the Mehrauli region.²⁰ These forests were reportedly cleared on a large scale by the Khilji and Tughlaq dynasties during the Sultanate period, and replaced with orchards. While forests were being cleared over large areas across northern India,²¹ there are contemporaneous records of Firoz Shah Tughlaq undertaking afforestation measures in the ridge and even fencing some portions.²² Medieval texts do record deforestation having forced rulers to travel to far off forests for hunting.²³ The presence and recorded hunting of animals like the black-buck and chinkara²⁴ that prefer open expanses, suggests that Delhi’s ecology was largely arid, scrub forest during this time period. There are numerous medieval and colonial paintings as well that depict Delhi’s hinterland as open grasslands.²⁵

 

Although it is speculated that Delhi was deforested during the late Mughal period, paintings and textual records suggest that the scenery had been arid scrubland at least from the early medieval period. The ridge area around Mehrauli (southern Delhi) may have had more foliage due to human intervention, since there are references that Mughals built summer homes and exploited the microclimatic coolness that dense foliage offered to escape the heat. It is alleged that although Delhi was deforested, it did not lose its greenery since the forests were replaced with verdant orchards, the fruits being an important source of revenue.²⁶ Whether both afforestation and deforestation were simultaneously undertaken in specific areas for different reasons will need further investigation. However, it can be conclusively said that Delhi and its environs supported wildlife that was rich enough to qualify for royal hunts. The Padshahnamah records Shah Jahan hunting 40 blackbuck in one day in Palam; even tigers were encountered in the ravines along the Yamuna close to Delhi.²⁷

 

The dawn of British rule in Delhi was marked by large-scale afforestation activities.²⁸ British records speak of Delhi being denuded of greenery, and the landscape described as ‘a desolate plain’, ‘a desert’ and a ‘country of stones and dust’.²⁹ The Delhi Gazetteer of 1883-84 also describes the landscape as generally bare and ‘unattractive’, quarried with a few stunted trees.³⁰ The ridge and fallows were covered with Pala or Beri (Zizyphus nummularia), a small thorny bush-weed that was an important source of firewood and fodder for livestock and goats herded by pastoralists like Gujjars predominating the hill villages. Apart from grazing, an important economic use of the rocky hills was the stones and gravel that were extensively quarried by the local population, and the Gazetteer records 24 operative kankar mines yielding 933,000 maunds annually.

 

Despite the sparse and quarried landscape, the Gazetteer describes Delhi teeming with wildlife. Delhi’s fauna included large numbers of wild pigs, foxes, hares, though antelopes and peafowls were ubiquitous. While gazelles were plentiful in the hills, wolves were found in smaller numbers. Leopards frequented outlying villages and the Tughlaqabad area. The banks of the Yamuna were forested, and the Yamuna is described as a river in which hundreds of crocodiles and gharials abound. Similar descriptions of wildlife can be found in the Delhi land settlement report³¹ and other accounts.³² References to British hunting expeditions near Humayun’s tomb, present-day Mongolpuri, and village fields³³ also allude to the presence of abundant wildlife in the region. Delhi’s wildlife had survived hunting by earlier rulers like the Mughals for centuries, but could not endure the massacre unleashed by the British, who not only hunted them recreationally but also marked them as vermin and paid bounty for their heads. The Gazetteer records payments having been made during a 5-year period for killing 10 leopards, 367 wolves and 1,128 snakes.³⁴

 

These colonial records are key since they clearly identify Delhi’s topography as scrub forest that failed to meet the aesthetic standards of beauty for the British. Despite its negative perception, this sparse vegetation supported a rich array of wildlife and was important for Gujjars. British rulers initiated several tree plantation exercises, with municipal records from the time indicating that approximately 3000 Neem (Azadirachta indica) and Babul trees were planted between 1878 and 1879 alone and foreign species like Prosopis juliflora were introduced because of its drought resistant properties. Initially, afforestation was limited to the northern ridge which was close to English settlements. After Delhi was selected as the site for the new capital for imperial India in the early 20th century, afforestation efforts started in earnest in 1912 in present day central ridge. The intention was, ‘forming an area which will be dustless and pleasant to the eye…’ primarily for European settlers.³⁵ Afforestation particularly harmed pastoral communities like Gujjars, who were being systemically pushed towards a sedentary lifestyle by the British.

 

At the time of independence, the northern ridge had become an isolated segment; however, much of the ridge remained broadly contiguous.³⁶ Details of ridge management policies in the following decade are scant, except some information like the soil conservation officer being notified as forest officer in 1958, and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) being charged with ridge management.³⁷ In the next few years, plantations and fencing began at northern and central ridge. In the first master plan for Delhi after independence for the years 1961-81, the ridge was planned to be protected as a forest, and set up as a regional park on the lines of New York’s Central Park. However, no clear guidelines or steps were spelt out. The plan also set out contradictory goals; while the plan proposed that the forest should be retained in an ‘undisturbed’ state, regular weeding and clearing of undergrowth was also recommended.

Ridge administration was also divided amongst several bodies (for example, Central Public Works Department was given charge to maintain the southern ridge to create parks and gardens). In fact, the forest department currently administers only about two ha in the northern ridge as a nursery, while the rest is managed by DDA. And fragmentation of the ridge has continued unabated. A ‘secret’ note from Town and Country Planning Organization in 1982 quoted a study that 40% of the ridge had been destroyed, much of it due to government action.³⁸ Today, five fragments of the former ridge remain: northern ridge (87 ha), central ridge (864 ha), south-central ridge (626 ha), southern ridge (6200 ha), and Nanakapura south-central ridge (7 ha).³⁹ Delhi also has 40 old and new ‘city forests’ planted by the forest department mostly on gaon sabha or village common lands.⁴⁰ Two biodiversity parks have also been set up in Delhi, and one in Gurgaon, with several others in the pipeline.

 

British interests in the expansion of agricultural revenue land had led to open scrub lands preferred by pastoralists being categorized as wasteland, although the fallows were ‘public spaces’ with important economic uses for villagers. British intervention not only led to the extinguishment of many land rights, but also transformed land use and ecology of the region. The carefully balanced agro-pastoral land use shifted heavily towards agriculture, and canals transformed fallows into cultivable land. Shrinking common property resources and increasing livestock numbers led to overgrazing and degradation of the commons.⁴¹

These measures of usurping and fencing village lands were faithfully continued by the post-colonial Indian state.⁴² Of the total 6200 ha of Asola Bhati Wildlife Sanctuary, 4207 ha is ‘surplus uncultivated land’ of various gaon sabhas that was transferred to the forest department. The government fenced the forest to carry out afforestation and set up an eco-task force for its management, restricting grazing rights of villagers. Densification of trees is an important component of the biodiversity parks in Delhi and Gurgaon, and a stated goal of the forest department of Delhi.⁴³ The ecologically harmful invasive Prosopis juliflora having gone rouge over the ridge gives legitimacy to efforts to replant the ‘original’ indigenous trees. Trees are also viewed as a panacea for the city’s noxiously polluted air; the more the merrier.

 

Afforestation measures in the Gurgaon Aravali Biodiversity Park has also been undertaken on former chargah or village common land formerly used for grazing livestock and quarrying. The park has been fenced and plantation of indigenous flora has been carried out in a scientific and methodical manner, involving local companies that sponsor afforestation. Given the open public access to the park for recreational use, the restrictions on livelihood based activities in the park is an interesting example of a public park also partly functioning as a private one.⁴⁴ The historical bareness of Gurgaon⁴⁵ is invoked to contrast the former emptiness of the landscape with the verdant vegetation of new settlements. Shubhra Gururani warns that by declaring Gurgaon to be nothing before settlement, the discourse also wipes out the existence of villages, their inhabitants and way of life. The xerophytic Aravali hills and the linked agro-pastoral economy are being replaced by greenery based on western envisioning of cities. Similar to the British usurpation of public spaces like Qudsia and Roshanara Gardens by restricting access to Indians,⁴⁶ urbanization and urban conservation in peri-urban regions like Gurgaon is functioning through elite capture, restricting access to the commons and causing environmental problems because of land use change.⁴⁷ Loss of employment opportunities, decrease in agricultural land, expansion of built up area and increased use of water have exacerbated problems for local farming and pastoral communities.

 

There have been many incidents where illegal construction on the ridge by the rich has been allowed on grounds of its ‘planning’ and architectural aesthetics, while an unplanned slum cluster has been demolished in the same breath.⁴⁸ Given that most of the construction in Delhi violates some statute, illegality has become a negotiable state that can mutate into legitimacy through leveraging political and economic power.⁴⁹ As land become more contested, conflicts over green spaces too will be negotiated within the existing power matrix of a deeply hierarchical society, and mediated by factors such as class, and caste.⁵⁰

 

This intention to refabricate Delhi’s topography is not merely an ecological or historical exercise, it is a socio-political project that seeks to serve the city’s political and economic elite. Whether Delhi was once a thickly forested tract is not as relevant as acknowledging that it has primarily been a predominantly semi-arid land for centuries. Although without luxuriant vegetation, the landscape performed numerous socio-ecological functions for local communities and supported wildlife endemic to arid areas.

Delhi’s landscape needs to be representative of these historical and ecological truisms. For the just recreation of Delhi’s wilderness, the distinct material and cultural meanings of the ridge for its diverse populace needs to be recognized. Delhi’s reimagined forests have so far embodied an aesthetic manifestation of power and privilege, but for justice to reflect in the greenery, forests should illustrate the varied meanings of nature for its peoples.

 

Footnotes:

1. Upinder Singh, Ancient Delhi. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2006, p. 114.

2. David Ludden, The New Cambridge History of India. IV. An Agrarian History of South Asia. Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 278.

3. Minoti Chakravarty-Kaul, ‘Village Communities and "Publicness" in Northern India: Self-Governance of Commom Property Resources and the Environment, 1803-2008’, in Haruka Yanagisawa (ed.), Community, Commons and Natural Resource Management in Asia. NUS Press, Singapore, 2015, pp. 82-110.

4. Shubhra Gururani, ‘When Nature Goes Green: The Story of Pastures and Parks in India’s Urban Peripheries’, paper presented at the Centre for South Asian Studies, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, November 2012, p. 16.

5. Singh, 2006, op. cit.

6. Ashish Kothari, Aditya Arora, Pallava Bagla, Nandita Hazarika, Ranjit Lal, Subhadra Menon and Ghazala Shahabuddin, The Delhi Ridge Forest: Decline and Conservation. Kalpavriksh, New Delhi, 1991, p. 49.

7. Pradip Krishen, Trees of Delhi: A Field Guide. Dorling Kindersley, 2006, p. 360.

8. J.K. Maheshwari, The Flora of Delhi. Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, New Delhi, 1963, p. 447.

9. Unlike the subsidiary edaphic type of dry, tropical forests of the Aravalis in Rajasthan (sub-type E-6 Anogeissus pendula), Champion (1936) records Delhi with a few pockets of dry, temperate sub-type of Anogeissus. Parker (1920) holds that the natural forest cover of Delhi was primarily a scrubby forest of Anogeissus pendula and Acacia senegal. Since the tree is now only found in certain patches, it may be possible that human exploitation of the tree for wood and livestock feed has reduced the geographical extent of the tree. Maheshwari, 1963, ibid.

10. Singh, 2006, op. cit.

11. Maheshwari, 1963, op. cit.

12. Jaweed Ashraf, ‘Centralized and Decentralized Paradigms of Development: Case Study of Water Management in Medieval and Modern Delhi’, in Studies in Historical Ecology of India. Sunrise Publications, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 201-40.

13. Varsha, ‘Delhi Ridge’, in G.N. Sinha (ed.), An Introduction to the Delhi Ridge. Department of Forests and Wildlife, GNCTD, New Delhi, 2014, p. 28. It may be noted that there are contrary reports as well claiming the ridge was accorded some protection during the later years of the Mughals. G.N. Sinha (ed.), ‘Prologue’, ibid., 2014, p. 9.

14. Kothari, et al., 1991, op. cit.

15. Singh, 2006, op. cit.; Mudit Trivedi, ‘On the Surface Things Appear to Be... (Perspectives on the Archaeology of the Delhi Ridge)’, in Upinder Singh and Nayanjot Lahiri (eds.), Ancient India: New Research. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2009, pp. 39-70.

16. Singh, 2006, op. cit.

17. A.K. Sharma, Prehistoric Delhi and its Neighbourhood. Aryan Books International, New Delhi, 1993, p. 56.

18. Y.D. Sharma, Delhi and its Neighbourhood. Archaeological Survey of India, New Delhi, 1964, p. 128.

19. A.K. Sharma, 1964, op. cit.

20. Jaweed Ashraf, ‘Ecology as Culture’, in Jaweed Ashraf, Studies in Historical Ecology of India. Sunrise Publications, New Delhi, 2004, pp. 1-34.

21. R.C. Jauhri, Medieval India in Transition – Tarikh-i-Firozshahi: A First Hand Account. Sandeep Prakashan, New Delhi, 2001, p. 293.

22. Kothari et al., 1991, op. cit.; Varsha, 2014, op. cit.

23. The Tarikh-i-Firozshahi records, ‘Most of these animals have their habitat at places full of forest, grass and water. Such a location could not be near Delhi because the Sultan had, on account of his affection for the subjects, already populated and ended the desolation of the regions. Only the region near Badaun was left desolate for the purposes of hunt, otherwise that region too could have been deforested and populated. Every year, the Sultan proceeded on hunting expedition from Firozabad to the reserved forests in the neighbourhood of Badaun and hunted innumerable animals.’ Jauhri, 2001, op. cit.

24. Blackbucks (Antilope cervicapra) are antelopes that prefer grasslands and open country. D.P. Mallon, Antilope cervicapra. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T1681A6448761. http://dx.doi.org/10. 2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS.T1681A 6448761.en . Chinkara (Gazella bennettii) are gazelles that primarily inhabit arid areas, dry scrub and light forests. D.P. Mallon, Gazella bennettii. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2008: e.T8978A12945880. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2008.RLTS. T8978A12945880.en. Both downloaded on 14 July, 2016.

25. Delhi’s open landscape is depicted in Mazhar Ali Khan’s (active 1840-55), A Miniature Panorama of Delhi with the Fort in the Distance. Ca. 1845. Watercolour on ivory. Approx. H. 23/8 x 31/8 in. (6x8 cm). The Victoria and Albert Museum, Iso.3563. William Dalrymple and Yuthika Sharma (eds.), Princes and Painters in Mughal Delhi, 1707-1857. Asia Society Museum in association with Yale University Press, New Haven and London, 2012, p. 212. Also see J.P. Losty, Delhi 360o: Mazhar Ali Khan’s View from the Lahore Gate. Lustre Press, Roli Books, Delhi, 2012, p. 92.

26. Jauhri, 2001, op. cit.

27. Mahesh Rangarajan, ‘The Hunt and the Wilderness in Mughal India’, in Mahesh Rangarajan, India’s Wildlife History: An Introduction. Permanent Black, New Delhi, 2001, p. 135.

28. Michael Mann and Samiksha Sehrawat, ‘A City With a View: The Afforestation of the Delhi Ridge, 1883-1913’, Modern Asian Studies 43(2), 2009, pp. 543-70.

29. H.K. Kaul (ed.), ‘Ruins and Landscapes’, in H.K. Kaul, Historic Delhi: An Anthology. Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1985, pp. 10-17; Mann and Sehrawat, 2009, op. cit.

30. Punjab Government, Gazetteer of the Delhi District 1883-84. p. 215. Published as Delhi District Gazetteer, 1883-84, by Gazetteers Organization, Revenue Department, Haryana. Chandigarh, 1999, pp. 20-21.

31. Oswald Wood, General Aspect of the District, in Oswald Wood, R. Maconachie, Final Report on the Settlement of Land Revenue in the Delhi District Carried in 1872-77 by Oswald Wood, Esq. and Completed 1878-80 by R. Maconachie. Esq., C.S., Victoria Press, Lahore, 1882, pp. 2-5.

32. H.K. Kaul (ed.), ‘Flora and Fauna’, in Historic Delhi, pp. 189-99. Kaul quoted from C.F. Gordon Cumming, In the Himalayas and on the Indian Plains. Chatto and Windus, London, 1884, p. 220.

33. Kaul, 1985.

34. Punjab Government, 1884, op. cit.

35. Mann and Sehrawat, 2009, op. cit.

36. Map titled ‘Delhi and Locality’, dated 1950 (third edition). Survey of India, Delhi Archives, Department of Art and Culture, Government of NCT of Delhi.

37. Varsha, 2014, op. cit.

38. Kothari et. al., 1991, op. cit.

39. Varsha, 2014, op. cit.

40. Forest Department, ‘Recorded Forest (Notified Forest Area in Delhi’, Government of NCT of Delhi. Accessed at http://delhi.gov.in/wps/wcm/connect/doit_forest/Forest/Home/Forests+of+Delhi/Recorded+Forest on 14 July 2016. In 1994 all 7,777 ha of the ridge was notified as ‘Reserved Forests’ pursuant to directions from the Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) no. 4677/1985 (MC Mehta vs. UOI & Ors.). This is a temporary arrangement, and a final notification can only be issued after the Forest Settlement Officer has passed all settlement orders determining ownership of forest land. Sinha, 2014, op. cit.

41. Chakravarty-Kaul, 2015, op. cit.

42. Much of Aravali hills in the neighbouring state of Haryana was also village commons that were privatized in the last three decades. Since then, these hills have suffered land fragmentation, change of land use and land grabbing in the neighbouring district. Directorate of Consolidation of Holdings, Haryana, 23 August 2012. Order: De-notification of Village KOT (Hadbast no. 16), District Faridabad.

43. Department of Forests and Wildlife, accessed at http://www.environment.delhigovt. nic.in/ppt/forestppt.pdf on 14 July, 2016.

44. Gururani, 2012, op. cit.

45. Punjab Government, Gazetteer of the Gurgaon District 1883-84. Arya Press, Lahore, 1884, p. 150.

46. Narayani Gupta, Delhi Between Two Empires 1803-1931: Society, Government and Urban Growth. Eastend Printers and Oxford University Press, Calcutta and Delhi, 1981, p. 304.

47. Sumit Vij and Vishal Narain, ‘Land, Water and Power: The Demise of Common Property Resources in Periurban Gurgaon, India’, Land Use Policy 50, 2016, pp. 59-66.

48. D. Asher Ghertner, ‘Rule by Aesthetics: World-Class City Making in Delhi’, in Ananya Roy and Aihwa Ong (eds.), Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford, 2011, pp. 279-306.

49. Shubhra Gururani, ‘Flexible Planning: The Making of India’s "Millennium City", Gurgaon’, in Anne Rademacher and K. Sivaramakrishnan (eds.), Ecologies of Urbanism in India. Hong Kong University Press, Hong Kong, pp. 119-43.

50. Rene Veron, ‘Remaking Urban Environments: The Political Ecology of Air Pollution in Delhi’, Environment and Planning 38, 2006, pp. 2093-2109.

51. Ibid.