Cities are the centres of economic and social life where people of diverse backgrounds come together to live and work. Cities are not only home to a large number of people, but they also host various economic activities. They can become sites of wealth creation but they can also be the breeding ground for social and economic inequalities. The importance of the city as a microcosm of the political economy of a nation can be understood from the attention it has received from the state through carefully planned and implemented urban planning.

Historically, the planning of the city in the Indian subcontinent goes back to the Harappan civilization. The Harappan cities had a well-functioning urban plan with baked brick houses which were equidistant from each other, elaborate drainage and water supply systems and separation between residential and non-residential structures. In the modern period, the planning of a city emerged as a dominant method of governing and decision-making for nations across the world during the 20th century. Unlike an organic way of development and expansion of a city, a planned city entails the creation from scratch. It involves careful discussions around the objectives to be fulfilled by the city, and expert handling of architectural and economic designs which are first envisaged on paper and then implemented for the physical creation of the city. Examples from across the world of planned cities include Brasilia (Brazil), Canberra (Australia), and Putrajaya (Malaysia). Most of the planned cities in the twentieth century have been the capital cities, the seats of political and economic power. Unlike an unplanned or organic city, the process of planning is able to control and manage the preferences and interests of the planners which includes government, technological experts and wealthy individuals. This enables the perpetuation of social and economic inequalities.

In India, Chandigarh and Jaipur are two distinct examples of planned cities that can illustrate the impact of planning on social and economic inequalities. Chandigarh is a modern city that has been planned based on the approach of functionalism. Jaipur on the other hand has been traditionally planned based on the principles of Vaastu shastra (an ancient Indian system of architecture). The planning of a city is a powerful tool that can shape the social, economic and political growth of the residents. In this paper, we will examine how the segregation of people with regard to the distribution of income is inbuilt into the planning process of cities with a focus on Chandigarh and its modern planning in contrast to Jaipur’s traditional planning. We will further look at the implications of such segregation for the treatment of justice and its impact on the economy.

Chandigarh is considered to be the first modern planned city in India. It was designed as a symbol of India's independence from colonialism; its creation was a key project for India's first Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru. The city was chosen as the common capital of both the states of Punjab and Haryana following the partition of India in 1947 and its location was strategically chosen to be near the border of India and Pakistan. Le Corbusier, a Swiss-French architect, was chosen to lead the planning process for Chandigarh. Le Corbusier’s vision was to create a modern city with a futuristic outlook in which the principles of functionalism and modernism were to be reflected in the design.

The city is divided into various sectors each with its own distinct functionality, for example, sector 17 is the commercial centre of the city, sector 8 is a residential area for government officials etc. The planned city of Chandigarh promoted segregation economically with a focus less on inclusivity and more on homogeneity in mind. Such planning has led to the creation of distinct socio-economic zones in the city with the economically advantaged living in posh localities, and the poor in slums. The idea at the time of independence was, full of hope and potential, that fifty years later the country would not be struggling with poverty and unemployment as it did then. Unfortunately, the dreams could not be fully achieved with time. Thus, the planning process ended up prioritising the interests of the wealthy and powerful leading to the creation of exclusive neighbourhoods or gated communities that were inaccessible to those with lower incomes; the latter were driven to ghettos in the outskirts of the city. Such cases led to a lack of proper distribution of resources. This led to wealthy residents and their areas having better education, healthcare, and other public services, whereas impoverished areas had the inadequate basic infrastructure and fewer chances for advancement.

The city was planned to have distinct sectors for different purposes, which led to the creation of socio-economic zones that discouraged the mixing of people from different economic backgrounds. The city has strict building codes and zoning regulations, which limit the type and style of buildings and businesses that can exist in certain areas. All of this has negative implications for small businesses and entrepreneurs. The regulations imposed under the ‘Master Plan’ developed by Le Corbusier make it challenging for small businesses to start and operate as they may not have the resources to comply with the city’s stringent requirements. The master plan failed these small businesses that included street peddlers, rehri-wallas etc. instead of incorporating and encouraging these services. They are seen as a threat to the city’s jealously-guarded homogeneous environment even though they could help in the overall growth of the city if the administration were to accept them. Ultimately, the city's economy began to be dominated by large corporations, which further perpetuated socio-economic inequality. Such economic segregation and disparity in a modern planned city have not succeeded on the perimeter of justice and its basic components including equality.

On the other hand, Jaipur also known as the “Pink City” is a traditionally planned city, which has followed the ancient system of architecture which has evolved and developed over centuries. The layout of the city reflects the unique cultural and historical influences that have shaped it. The new city was inaugurated in 1727 and was a precisely planned urban environment that emphasised fostering cultural development. Though Jaipur is a fortified city, it was built keeping in mind permeability within the city walls. The urban architecture was designed in a way that catered to all the citizens of the city instead of focusing on segregation and the definition of areas. Jaipur's ruler Sawai Jai Singh made it evident by fusing Mughal and Rajasthani design elements when the city's construction began, reflecting that Jaipur won’t be a place that would cater to any kind of discrimination. Hence, unlike modern planned cities, the traditional part of Jaipur doesn't have distinct socio-economic zones which enables people of different economic backgrounds and social status to be in close proximity to each other.

Jaipur’s traditional planning doesn’t encourage segregation in the living standards. The city has been planned meticulously to actively encourage cultural, social and economic inclusivity. There are several features to provide support to this statement. Firstly, the mixed-use development, where commercial, residential and recreational spaces are integrated into a single area, allows people from economically diverse backgrounds to come together and work in the same area, promoting social inclusivity. Secondly, community participation through the means of associations and unions where local communities are involved in the decision-making processes was encouraged. This ensures that the needs of all communities are taken into account. Thirdly, the city’s bazaars and markets are a mix of shops owned by economically diverse people, which leads to a vibrant and diverse economy. In a single commercial area of Jaipur, one could find stores from small shops selling essential commodities to high-end retail showrooms. This allows daily interaction and meetings between people from all economic backgrounds. It discourages the unequal distribution of resources and basic infrastructure. The lack of segregation in Jaipur leads to more social cohesion and community engagement which can help improve the overall quality of life in the city. These features promote the integration of people from different social and economic backgrounds and actively create a more diverse and culturally rich society.

In conclusion, the two distinct examples of planned cities of Chandigarh and Jaipur highlight the crucial role of city planning in shaping the social and economic future of the people and the nation. Modern planned cities like Chandigarh can become sites that discourage diversity and perpetuate socio-economic segregation while traditionally planned cities like Jaipur could possibly promote social and economic inclusivity. Ultimately, cities belong to the citizens who live in them. The same citizens that give these cities life and keep their culture alive. It is the citizens that make their cities run and as cities continue to grow and evolve, policymakers and planners must consider the social and economic implications of their decisions to ensure that cities are inclusive, equitable and just.