Lahore: A Landed History

By Manaal Ahmed


Lahore is one of the oldest cities in Pakistan. Consequently, it has undergone many conquests, destructions, and reconstructions over the centuries. This project seeks to uncover how Lahore was shaped into the bustling, ever-expanding and often confusing city that it is now. What are the forces behind the urban layout of the city and the implications of that layout for the residents of the city?

Lahore presented a unique opportunity to the colonisers. It had a vibrant walled city with its own socio-political rules and regularities but outside the city lay waste of land, tombs and abandoned barracks (Glover, 2008). Viewing the walled city as native, disorderly and beyond reform, they focused their attention on the suburbs outside the city. These suburbs became the site of the civil lines, railway station, Lawrence gardens, the chiefs (Aitchison) college, Punjab club, Gymkhana, Racecourse, the Church of Mary Magdalene and so forth.

These buildings were seen as “heterotopia”: a setting that is detached and in direct contrast to its surroundings (Talbot, 2017). This was not unintentional. The walled city was seen as a cesspool of disease, vice and disorder and the new colonial city was the direct antithesis of that. It was a city built for the new moral imaginations of the colonisers and the elite class. Spatial segregation created a distinction between the modern and the traditional, moral and immoral, clean and unsanitary, coloniser and colonised, and created that ‘the dual city’ of British India (Glover, 2008). The spatial imagination of the colonists was manifested in the construction of two Lahore’s: one within and one outside its walls.

The focus of the new city was on easily deciphered design as opposed to the winding gullies and the mystery of the Mughal city. Straight lines, right angles, the Indo-Sacronic architectural design and the presence of zoning were key features of the colonised city (Ian, 2017). Suburbs were separated on the basis of religion (Gowal Mandi and Mozang) and class (Model Town) as well as work specialisations. Despite the spatial differentiation between the old and the new, however, the colonial construction of Lahore was invariably a product of elite co-operation with the British. Lahore was divided not into Mughal and British territories but into class territories instead.

The Lahore cantonment was another creation of the British Empire. Due to rising concerns about Cholera, the Indian Army troops were moved from Anarkali to the Mian Mir Cantonment in the late 1800s (Ian, 2017). The cantonment was a perfect specimen of British architectural sensibilities. Its rectilinear roads went off in cardinal directions that made the cantonment easy to navigate, however, the cantonment’s design had many other functions.

The colonial construction of Lahore focused on two main points: control and surveillance (Talbot, 2017). The connection of the Cantt to the Mall Road and to the old city made it easier to dispatch groups on account of any riot in the city (Ian, 2017). The city was built to be legible and to be easily observable to the troops. It was also easy to transport troops from the railway station to the Cantt owing to the mostly straight roads. The cantonment also took pains to conduct massive surveys of the villages surrounding it for the purpose of ensuring cleanliness. However, in reality, it was a method of surveillance and control of the population. The cantonment also showcased a central tenet of the British regime: hierarchy. The space was organised in a way that the most senior troops resided in the centre while others moved further away according to their rank (Ian, 2017). The military hierarchy resulted in a spatial hierarchy of housing as well.

Evidently, the colonial conceptions of architecture influenced the private sphere of Lahore as well as its outward appearance. Houses in the Walled City were narrow, multiple stories high, adjoined and started at the street level with little room for sidewalks (Ian, 2017). By the 1930s, however, the construction of houses in the suburbs of Lahore was completely different. Building material, structure and use all were changed.

By 1919, a committee had been formed in Lahore to consider the planning of Lahore’s growing suburbs. In 1922 the Town Improvement Act was passed in Punjab establishing the legal framework for municipal improvement trusts for the purpose of rehousing Lahore’s Indian residents in a “neat Western-type ‘New Town’ environment” (Anbrine, 2014). Several new suburbs popped up, most notable of which was Model Town.

Established by Barrister Diwan Chem Chand and constructed under the supervision of Ganga Ram, the town was essentially based on Ebenezer Howard’s Garden Town ideal. The purpose of the town was to create a garden town to fulfil all socio-economic needs of its residents (Anbrine, 2017). The new all-encompassing town was a result of colonial spatial imagination that redefined the purpose and function of living space. The new town was a geometrically constructed myriad of public and private spheres. The town was divided into public zones that were reserved for economic activity and public buildings like schools, hospitals, mosques, gurdwaras and temples, while the private space was dominated by neat rows of bungalows.

The bungalow itself was a stark contrast to the earlier construction of houses. Prompted by a focus on the unhygienic conditions of the inner city, Model Town emphasized sanitation. They introduced flush toilets for the first time. The Bungalow, in contrast to the “traditional” houses, were spacious, mostly single-story and surrounded by gardens. The law stated that ⅔ of each house must be reserved for gardens in each Model Town house (Anbrine, 2014). The floor plan also replicated British sensibilities. They had a verandah, a drawing-room, a dining, sitting room, and separate baths.

Though it seems quite ordinary, the new style of building was entirely different from what had been inbuilt earlier. The British placed importance on Facades to determine the social standing of the resident hence, subsequent buildings also placed an importance on facades. This section showcases how the colonial influence constructed Lahore. This influence was not reserved for public spaces, rather it transformed Lahore from within.

Until 1985, the Lahore Improvement Trust and subsequently the Lahore Development Authority was responsible for most of the housing in Lahore (Van der Linden, 1994). It was able to build 97,000 new plots for housing for mostly middle-income residents of Lahore. This was mainly due to the Punjab Land Acquisition act 1973 that allowed the LDA to purchase land at lower rates. However, the act was repealed in 1985 and replaced by the Land Acquisition Act 1985 (Bhatti, 2018). This piece of colonial law made it much harder for the LDA to acquire land at low rates and consequently hampered its ability to provide adequate public housing. Since then, the LDA accounts for only 7% of the urban housing in Lahore, the rest is covered by private housing schemes or slums (Roosli & Tariq, 2019).

Private housing schemes boomed in the 1980s after the inflow of cash due to the Russo-Afghan war. Since then, the LDA has acted as a regulatory body that approves private housing schemes. So far it has given final approval to 73 private housing schemes inside and in the periphery of the Lahore Metropolitan Area (LMA) (Roosli & Tariq, 2019). Private housing schemes have become the primary housing agencies within Lahore but they only exacerbate the problem of spatial segregation.

Private Housing Schemes can also be viewed as ‘fortified enclaves’ that are privatised, enclosed, and monitored spaces for residence, consumption, leisure, and work (Perera, 2011). However, they are also a packaged ideal that has been imported from the global north. On one hand, they are marketed as luxurious spaces to express one’s individuality and on the other hand, they are means of standardisation of tastes. As Peter Sasanka argues, private housing schemes inform you of what is ‘good’ and at the same time marking something else as ‘bad’ (Perera, 2011). The connotations of luxury and class are enough to drive the demand for these schemes that are seen as opposites to the congested, often confusingly laid out central city. The more unsafe the city becomes, the more slums are created, and the more they become covered spaces of residence. Regardless of the fact that the development of these societies is directly responsible for the displacement of the urban poor or the draining of the city’s resources away from these slums, they are seen as havens of Lahore.

This segregation, however, is nothing new. In pre-colonial times, mohallas were divided along caste, religion and ethnicities. The colonial state segregated Lahore in terms of class and race and now the private housing schemes divide Lahore into the landed and the urban poor. For the middle class, there is no other option but to live in these societies because of a lack of public housing. Coupled with the fact that land is an important marker of class and a means to class mobility, the middle class continues to strive to live in these private gated communities, often at the neglect of the historic centres of Lahore (Asif, 2016).

The military has been entwined in the land of and around Lahore for decades now. Mainly it appropriated agricultural land for the purposes of defence however, in the 1980s it began its expansion to urban land as well. The military was empowered by the colonial Land Acquisition Act 1894 that allowed the military to lease land from the provincial government for “defence” purposes, however, the military has now become a private landowner in Lahore with the majority of its schemes having nothing to do with security (Saddiqa, 2004).

Schemes like Bahria and Defense Housing Authority are defined as “private sector operations run by authorities” (Guzdar, 2021). Pakistan’s role in the Afghanistan war meant huge foreign investment pouring into the country. Essentially it means that the military directly controls large areas of land within Lahore. This land is only allocated to military officers and only they are allowed to sell it to civilians creating a massive market for property (Saddiqa, 2007). However, instead of going towards development, it went into the real estate market. It served the army’s interests to have speculative land prices since it gave them high returns. These high returns, however, come at a cost.

Firstly, there are many instances of coercion by the military. The rural and peri-urban surrounding these housing schemes is appropriated, sometimes forcefully (Guzdar, 2021). Second, the speculative land prices mean that the demand for the land is high but given that the price is out of range for most Lahoris, the plots remain empty for years to come. Thirdly, the schemes are run like cantonments themselves where huge chunks of land are given to generals and officers are exempt from paying property tax (Saddiqa, 2007). Fourth, it leads to a concentration of wealth in the hands of a few wealthy military personnel. The military itself accepts that out of its 49 schemes, none are from ordinary officers within the military (Saddiqa, 2007).

All these factors have created a unique political economy of land in Lahore. The military housing schemes are in a sense furthering enclave ideals of the colonial era. They are seen as an oasis of security, amenities and class within the desolate, unplanned structure of Lahore. The enclaves not only operate in institutional isolation from their surroundings – but they also draw upon local natural and public resources in order to make themselves viable. The further the colonial spatial relations within Lahore that were parasitic to the city itself.

Lahore has developed largely in an unplanned manner. This has led to a massive urban sprawl problem. The Lahore metropolitan area has nearly tripled in size in the last 70 years (Bajwa et al, 2021). In 1972 the Master Plan for Lahore was created that planned to curb the urban sprawl and provide planned housing to the city. However, the plan failed spectacularly. The lack of planning, trained technocratic planners, coordination between the LDA and the LMC, no participation from the population and outdated data resulted in an inability to control the unplanned development of Lahore (Bajwa et al, 2021).

Given the situation, private developers began acquiring land at the peripheries of Lahore in the 1980s to build housing societies (Anjum, 2007). Land outside the city was cheaper and the rural population was easy to evict/convince to sell their land. The strict planning rules set by the LDA also didn’t apply in those areas hence it was both cheaper and easier to build. Owing to the rise of congestion in the city, there was more and more demand to move some places quieter. As the transportation networks developed in Lahore, it became easier to commute as well. These peripheral housing societies also came with all basic amenities like schools, hospitals and mosques that reduced the necessity to commute to the city. However, peri-urban development creates a new set of challenges.

Firstly, there is no penalty for delays in construction which means that a majority of these societies are just empty plots. For example, Izmir Town was started in 1990 has only 2.7% of its plots converted into houses (Bajwa et al, 2021). Second, the speculation of prices due to the financialization of the property market means that demand is always high (Bajwa et al, 2021). A majority of plots are owned by businessmen who have no plans to build on the land and are holding it purely for speculative purposes. Third, the land that is razed for these societies is often rural land (Nadeem et al, 2020). Rural land is essential to Pakistan as 60% of the workforce is engaged in the agrarian economy. Productive land is destroyed for the purpose of housing that lays empty for decades after. Fourthly, there are environmental concerns related to peri-urban development as well (Zaman, 2012). Environmental concerns have been the lowest priority for both public and private planning committees. For the Lahore Master Plan, no internationally recognised environmental feasibility study was carried out.

All these factors make peri-urban development considerably alarming. In the case of the Ravi Urban Development Project, all these fears have been raised multiple times with little consequence. This signifies that the concerns of the poor are of little value in the business of city planning. Housing societies are being built at record rates while the majority of Lahore remains landless and homeless.

In Pakistan about half of the urban population, about 27 million people, live in informal settlements (Roosli, 2019). UNHABITAT defines slums as a group of people living under one roof in an urban setting who lack permanent housing, enough livable space, or provision of drinking water and a proper sanitation system (Roosli, 2019). Despite the luxurious private housing societies, a majority of Lahore’s urban poor continue to reside in these slums or katchi abadis.

Katchi abadis lack the basic facilities to survive. In Lahore, both authorised and unauthorised katchi abadis lack sanitation, electricity, gas and proper road networks. Most importantly, the residents don’t have tenure security (Roosli, 2019). The city officials or private developers can force them to evict the settlement at any given time. In fact, that is exactly what is happening at the Gujjar Nala in Karachi right now. Despite these dismal conditions, however, the urban poor continue to live this way. The reason is that informal settlement is their only option. Without adequate housing for the poor, most people cannot afford housing in the city. They move to the city in search of work and settle anywhere that is close to it. For example, DHA is just 10 minutes away from the Qalandarpura slum in Lahore (Roosli, 2019). Katchi abadis are built close to economic centres and often supplement elite housing schemes.

This is not a coincidence. The colonial imagination saw the city in terms of binaries: formal and informal, rich and poor, good and bad. Unfortunately, the same binaries persist today in most cities in the global south because of capitalism. Global capital mandates development, it is necessary for a city to continuously produce more capital. The market-driven financialisation of the property and land means that new housing societies must be built continuously and their prices are purely speculative (Arif, 2015). This development however is entirely one-sided. It is not holistic or for the urban poor rather it results in the violent dispossession, segregation and peripheralization of the poor.

The persistence of katchi abadis can be seen as a failure of planning but in reality, it is the opposite. This is the kind of planning that has been going on for centuries in Lahore. The colonial state was only concerned with surveilling and controlling the urban labour rather than empowering them and the capitalist bourgeoisie state was only concerned with order and extraction of labour. The “world-class city” is just a space where poverty is invisible but it is still the crucial factor in the functioning of the city itself (Arif, 2015). First, the ruling prophesied class pushes the urban poor to the peripheries but then once the appropriate means for transportation have been established, takes control of the peripheries as well. Trapping them in a constant cycle of dispossession and neglect.

The purpose of this project was to understand the determinants of Lahore’s segregated development. By examining the political economy of land in Lahore, it is evident that selective development was not an unfortunate coincidence but a direct consequence of deliberately uneven planning strategies.

The colonial demarcations order and disorder, planned and unplanned, formal and informal, and legal and illegal persist to this day because they were institutionalized by the post-colonial state itself. Postcolonial elites inherited and reinforced the exclusionary geographies of segregated cities whereby the poor were considered a barrier to progress and denied a place in urban life. The segregation then resulted in the creation and perpetuation of katchi abadis and informal settlements that accompanied the luxury gated communities of Lahore.

Going forward, serious measures need to be taken to provide adequate housing, control urban sprawl, combat tenure insecurity and encourage building on empty plots. The first step however is to recognise the root of the problem itself. Without looking at the socio-political aspects that determine land acquisition and the prestige attached to land ownership we cannot hope to construct a solution for Lahore’s planning problems. We must first recognise the bias before attempting to correct it.

Leave a Reply