disbanded to become a forum for discussions. There are events in a different patterns.

NG: The idea of the dharna, the idea of people being able to talk to the government, to revolt. You cannot do that in a mall. You cannot do that in any private building because you have to get permission.

RK: You need access.

NG: You will not be allowed as such a group. That is what private-public spaces will do they will restrict this sort of conversation and exchange completely. Maybe one day for example, if Pres- tige buys enough property they could seal of parts of the city as completely private.

TN: You have the example of the Brigade gateway. It is a pure gated community with all the pos-
sible equipment that you can find in the city, except for the hospital…

AS: They have a hospital.

TN: That is a city within the city. That shows how we are facing an urban crisis. People are afraid to live together in the city and share spaces. In India the social factor is very strong I agree but that is not the only point. That is a general trend. People refuse to live together and share the same spaces, it is true in Europe and it is true in America and it is true here. One of our mission is to find a way of dealing with this as an architect or an urban planner. This is a real question.

NG: What do you think is the role of the urban planner Thibault now that private is becoming more important than the public – in the sense that the public investment is dwindling and private invest- ment is rising, but you as an urban planner work for the public sector. How do you see your role now shifting this diverse interest into public interest?

TN: What we see in Europe right now is a lot of public private partnership. That is a big trend. The government has less money to spend for the city. The relationship between the public and the pri- vate is much stronger with all the PPP that we can see here in India. In India, for example, the Government in Bangalore, is putting together some plots and give this site to a private developer for a percentage of public equipment and programme. The relationship here is not equal in a way. As soon as a developer has a land he can do whatever he wants. In Europe, that is not the case at all. For example, in Europe the housing market is so hard, that the city can ask a private developer to do 25 units for low income groups in the same building. The influence is different be cause the government position is much more in the regulatory role, they ensure that all the rules are followed by developers and they have the economic argument to enact certain rules. This is a big difference that I see in India. In India, as per my understanding, the relationship is unbal- anced by what the Government is doing and the power of the private developments.

NG: That is also true in New York and London. Is that connected with the real estate market, it possibly has something to do with the fact that the corporate sector and the financial sector are so powerful in these cities.

TN: New York is very specific example even in the US. You are talking about Manhattan.

NG: But even there the public private partnership is failing to a large extent. TN: I agree. In articles sited by you (Naina) by David Harvey and from the newspapers, they are