Abstract: In this age of ‘hyper’-urbanization, there are solutions suggested to a plethora of issues faced by citizens, in improving their standards of living. Problems are ancillary to proposals that emerge out of the underlying disorders of the urban-scape. These interventions result in the creation of urban policies, to consolidate and optimize, to regularize and to streamline resources. Policy & practice are processes where the politics in policies (Cochrane, 2007) define the way in which urban solutions are prescribed. Social constraints, that formulate the various cycles of order & disorders within the urban realm, are the stigmas for such interventions.
There is often a direct relation of policy to place, no matter how people centric it may seem to be projected. How we live our lives depends on where we live our lives (Cochrane, 2007) – a relative concept of urban problems that varies from city to city. Communal compositions, welfare, crisis, socio-economic balance, need for management are the generic roots for urban policy formulation. However in reality , place wise analyses with respect to the gentry, where bourgeois environmentalism is the preferred criterion, that shapes and defines the values and expanse of such policies. In relation to the psycho-spatial characteristic of urban spheres with respect to the other side of this game, there have been instances, where the associational values have been reshaped by interests. The public domain reclaimed for exclusivity, thus creating fortified neighborhoods. Here, the citizen cumulative is often drifted by proposals that would over time deplete such landscapes of the city. It is the insurgence experienced from the people, that in turn formulates further inward looking enclaves of latent aggression. In recent times, it has been observed that the unbalanced division of power and the implied processes of regulating the weak, stems the rebellion who respond in kits and parts. This is a phenomenon that mimics the guerilla warfare tactics, in order to have systems straightened out, either by manipulations or by force.
This is an attempt at understanding the way in which development proposals are substituted by the state and the civil society and the role that community driven processes undertake to reinstate their right to the city (Lefebvre, 1968). By means of the methodology, citizen groups, the existing milieu that binds the social and economic levers, and the need based mapping of such enclaves in the urban setting has been studied, in order to charter a consolidated pattern of negotiations to counter policies for the larger good. The study has been made to identify the networks catering to the most challenged interests of the people with respect to their habitat as a model to counter the top-down authoritative framework thus reassuring the legitimacy of such settlements in favor of the end users.
