The cantonment and the city

Cantonments are a part of the Indian urban ethos and can’t be disbanded purely as a British legacy.

Recently, the Government of India announced plans to abolish the 62 cantonments in the country as they reflect “archaic colonial legacies”. Under the Cantonment Bifurcation Plan, the Ministry of Defence notified the Yol Cantonment in Himachal Pradesh as the first to be bifurcated. Under this plan, the military areas of the cantonments will become exclusive military stations, and the civilian areas will be merged with the local municipalities.

The word cantonment, derived from the French word canton, meaning corner or district, refers to a temporary military or winter encampment. Traditionally, cantonments have been quarters for lodging troops—a permanent military station initially created by the British government in India for the location of military formations away from civilian towns and insulated from Indian nationalist influences. Housing was the core objective. Ironically, while the cantonment is a colonial legacy, cantonments continued to be built post-Independence and are an integral part of many cities across India, such as Pune, Mumbai, Secunderabad, Nasik, and Lucknow.

Also Read | Yol in Himachal Pradesh ceases to be a cantonment

Currently, there are 62 cantonments in the country, notified under the Cantonments Act, 1924 (succeeded by the Cantonments Act, 2006). The municipal administration of notified cantonments is the function of the Cantonment boards, which are democratic bodies. Kanpur Cantonment is the largest cantonment in India, and Barrackpore, started in 1765, is the oldest. Typically, cantonments have offices, military housing, schools, and various other defence-related installations. The reality is that most cantonments are very much an institutional part of the fabric of the modern Indian City. Many cantonments continue across the world in various avatars.

According to supporters of the plan, a significant portion of the defence budget is spent on the development of Civil Areas in Cantt. Also, due to the ever-increasing expansion of Civil Areas in Cantt, there is pressure on defence land. This, according to proponents, is a headache for the military, and they would happily be devolved of the management of the civilian areas. However, contrary reports are available. From an urban planning and environmental perspective, and despite the argument for re-densification, there is a strong case for the maintenance of the cantonment. Due to the rapid growth of cities, many cantonments are in the heart of the city and form the lungs of the city. Civilian residential and commercial enclaves within the cantonment are subject to strict monitoring in terms of expansion and proliferation of land or building construction. Open spaces and green belts are guarded with military precision and perseverance.

Does the devolution of the cantonment truly improve the life of the average man? The wide, well-maintained, and green canopied roads of the cantonment are very much a part of the multi-dimensional culture of many Indian cities, which includes the archaic and the modern, the skyscraper and the haveli. Look at Bengaluru. The Bangalore Cantonment ended in 1881, but a large part of the city is still called the cantonment. Much of this land in the heart of the city forms the lungs of the city. However, with the rapid growth of the city, this land is very much in the sights of a few select developers and politicians. Tension between the city and the military is constant. The developers want to commercially exploit and monetise these land holdings, as the rules in municipal areas are more liberal. Cantonment boards have very strict rules to prevent exploitation and maintain low population densities. Huge commercial areas, office complexes, and malls cannot be built on cantonments and military areas. In cantonments, privileges like the freedom to sell are restricted. This makes properties less remunerative.

Questions need to be asked about the process by which the decision was made. Why was there no public discussion on the issue? Cantonment boards are directly under the MoD, but which members of Parliament were involved in the discussions? Was the Army and Parliament’s Standing Committee for Defence involved? Why was the decision made and simply announced to the population of the country? Should there not have been more public discussion on the issue?

The reality is that every cantonment contends with a different set of issues. Each cantonment board will need to be reviewed separately in a rational manner keeping an ear to the ground realities. Cantonments like Kirkee that house non-operational units staffed mainly with civilians, like stores, and depots, can be considered for derecognition and boundaries redrawn where required. Large cantonments like Delhi and Colaba (Mumbai) will need different models. The special needs of the Navy and Air Force also need to be considered. Sometimes, the security and very purpose of cantonments will also need to be considered. To disband cantonments purely because they were built by the British is simplistic. Each city and cantonment is different and needs to be treated as such.

(The writer is an urban planner based in Bengaluru)