We gratefully acknowledge the support of the Heidelberg Center for the Environment at Heidelberg University, Germany, for funding this research through the project “Environment and Health in Arid Regions.”
We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their valuable and constructive comments, which helped us considerably improve this paper. We are thankful to Natasha Cornea and Anna Zimmer for giving us important comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Julia Poerting, Aditya Ghosh and Ravi Baghel (Heidelberg University) helped edit the final manuscript.

1Urban modifications have considerably altered the appearance of Leh, a district capital in the Indian Transhimalaya, over the last few years. The beautification project in Leh is concentrated at and around the main bazaar and currently is the most visible and powerful instrument shaping the urban space. It is a subproject under the national “Urban Infrastructure Development Scheme for Small & Medium Towns” (UIDSSMT, Ministry of Urban Development 2009) and started in December 2013. Construction works block central streets, conveying an insistent sense of efforts to change the town’s design to the passer-by. Perceptions on the characteristics of a “beautiful” town differ, as do opinions on the recent metamorphosis of the town, especially of the most important commercial street with historical importance: Leh’s main bazaar.

2Leh, like other Indian cities, is subject to high urbanization rates that create new challenges for infrastructures, urban design, and housing, as well as the urban ecology (Nagendra et al. 2013; Swerts, Pumain and Denis 2014; Vira and Vira 2005). Leh district, homonymous with its capital, is located in the Ladakh region, which is part of the state of Jammu and Kashmir (J&K). Geographically, Ladakh is separated from the Indian subcontinent by the Great Himalayan Range and shut in by the Karakoram Range towards the north. Following Shaw’s definition (2013:37), the mountain town represents a small town in the Indian context with less than 100,000 inhabitants. Most of the research on urban studies situated in the Global South focuses on megacities (e.g. Kraas 2007; Kraas et al. 2014) or on peri-urban fringes (Simon 2008) and neglects smaller or medium sized towns, whereas those are the cities with exponential growth that need more consideration in research (e.g. Fahmi et al. 2014; Montgomery 2008; Cohen 2006). The population growth rates of Indian megacities decreased between 2001 and 2011, whereas the rates of smaller towns have steadily grown (Gooptu 2016:217–19). This absence of research is especially acute when it comes to agglomerations in the mountain regions (Mathieu 2003).

3We build on previous discussions about urban spaces in India in which “city beautification” projects form an emerging field of research. Those studies deal with different urban terrains, such as the Yamuna riverfront in Delhi (Follmann 2014; 2015) or the development of Delhi as a “world-class city” (Ghertner 2011; 2015), but also in a broader sense with improvement of air quality in Delhi (Véron 2006) or the beautification of Chennai to gain global recognition and capital inflow (Coelho and Raman 2013). In this context, different authors emphasize the increasing influence of emerging Indian middle classes on the creation of urban spaces (Baviskar 2003; Fernandes 2004; Follmann 2014:123; Gandy 2008; Harriss 2007; Rademacher and Sivaramakrishnan 2013:23–24; Zimmer 2015:597).

4Yet smaller or medium sized cities in India are significantly underrepresented in the studies of Urban Political Ecology (Zimmer 2015:599) and urban beautification in particular (for an exception see Zimmer, Cornea and Véron 2016). In discussing the example of Leh’s beautification, we wish to fill this gap and show how beautification has become part of the urban development of a rapidly growing Himalayan town. In this context, we highlight similarities and differences between the processes of beautification in Leh and in larger agglomerations in India. The politics of beautification lead to questions about who gains and who suffers in this process of change and how concepts such as “modern” and “beautiful” are realized in the context of city planning. Unlike in bigger metropolises, the social divide in the case of Leh is less drastic. Nevertheless, imaginaries of financially-strong, local and non-local middle classes largely influence the ongoing transformations.

5Our research is based on 20 in-depth interviews conducted between 2014 and 2016 with officials from relevant government departments at the district level, staff of local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and employees in the field of tourism, such as tour operators, shopkeepers and restaurant owners. In the context of a broader research project, the interviews focused on urban growth in Leh, its environmental and social implications, urban renewal programmes and beautification. This was supplemented by informal interviews with the residents of different wards of Leh, with divergent socio-economic characteristics. Findings from household questionnaires conducted for the first author’s doctoral research have also been included. In addition, official statistics, policy documents, NGO reports and local press articles as well as secondary sources were analysed.

6This paper begins with an introduction to the theoretical background and the presentation of socioeconomic change in the study area from a historical perspective. Following that, we present the ongoing UIDSSMT project and introduce the web of actors involved in the development and modernization processes. The final part of the paper discusses the contested terrain of urban beautification in Leh.

Urban Political Ecology and urban beautification

7Assuming that beautifying a city involves dealing with and reorganizing environmental components essential to urban residents, our analysis builds on Urban Political Ecology (UPE) scholarship, which aims to overcome nature-society dualisms (Swyngedouw and Heynen 2010:80; Zimmer 2010:348). A city’s phenotype is deeply entangled with its ecologies, be it water supply, waste management or recreational areas. This becomes even more obvious in the context of Leh’s location in the arid Transhimalaya at an altitude of above 3,500 m.

Due to the rain shadow effect of the Himalayan Range (Nüsser, Schmidt and Dame 2012:52), the town experiences arid conditions with prevailing seasonality of water availability.

8UPE understands cities as socio-ecological hybrids, with Swyngedouw (2004:28) describing these as characterized by “… processes that are simultaneously material, discursive, and symbolic.” Also Latour (1993:3–11) uses the term hybrid to label mixtures of prevalent dichotomies, such as nature and culture. A major research interest is to detect power structures that form discourses on urban hybrids and to point out which social groups are disadvantaged in certain processes of hybridization (Swyngedouw 2004). In our analysis, we understand urban transformations and particularly beautification measures as processes of hybridizations and materializations of powerful discourses on urban development and modernity. There are certain “ecological imaginaries” (Gandy 2006a) that are framed in urban contexts about what nature means and therefore play a crucial role in the process of shaping urban design (Gandy 2006a:66).

9The integration of post-structural and postcolonial approaches during the “second wave” (Heynen 2014:4) of UPE (Lawhon, Ernstson and Silver 2014; Ranganathan 2015:1301–02; Zimmer 2015) offers possibilities to embed current power structures in historical and political contexts and thus to reveal continuities and breaks in power distributions. A postcolonial UPE helps to identify prominent discourses on development and modernity in the urban arena. Robinson (2006) elaborates that discourses in urban studies, informed by uncritical understandings of development and modernity, have long been characterized by placing cities into categories such as “Western” or “Third World.” In her view, this can be traced back to colonial rule in the early 20^th century when the construction of cultural difference was used to reassure the Western self regarding its priority in contrast to the other. She claims that development and modernity are categories that persist in urban theory to this day (Robinson 2006:3–5).

10Edensor and Jayne (2012:10) argue that colonial “developmentalist discourses” emphasize alleged deficits, e.g. in terms of infrastructure or governance, of cities in the Global South. This gives momentum to urban elites asserting their modernity through various ways of shaping urban spaces as sites of progress. Indian middle classes, which have grown exponentially since the 1980s because of economic liberalization, are understood as leaning towards western, capitalist lifestyles (Brosius 2010:10–11; Mawdsley 2004:84–87). This supports the claim that colonial ideas of urban development and modernization still remain present not only in “Western” theory, but also influence India’s urban planning (Edensor and Jayne 2012:10; Gandy 2008). Examples are given by Gandy (2008) who traces the discourses on urban modernity in terms of water infrastructures in Mumbai back to colonial rule and shows how these ideas were revived in the post-independence periods and still persist today. Gidwani (2013) shows how middle-class imaginations of modernity form mechanisms of waste management in Delhi that are transformed from informality to private, corporative management.

11Concepts such as modernity and development moreover materialize as socio-ecological processes that are highly influenced by urban elites: “… urban political ecology more explicitly recognizes that the material conditions that comprise urban environments are controlled, manipulated and serve the interests of the elite …” (Heynen, Kaika and Swyngedouw 2006:6).

12Beautification is based on aesthetic aspects of urban renewal (Carlino and Saiz 2008:1). It has been a worldwide phenomenon and is also a widely used term in present Indian urban planning. Ideas on beautification in India are inspired by conceptions of city planning that began during the 19^th century in Europe and the United States (Carlino and Saiz 2008:1; Monclús 2000:57). These ideologies began being implemented during the post-independence modernist urban development period under Nehru (Tiwari et al. 2015:69–70).

13Beautification in Indian cities is characterized by the “practice of ‘sanitized’ and ‘deodorized’ urban planning” (Tiwari et al. 2015:69) and is influenced by imaginations of middle classes (Fernandes 2004; Gooptu 2016:220). For a long time, beautification schemes were limited to large cities like Delhi, e.g. to enhance its role as a world-class city (Ghertner 2011; 2015). Only recently have small (but emblematic) towns like Gangtok in Sikkim or Leh in Ladakh become targets of such strategies.

Transmontane trade history and Leh’s development as the district capital

14Contemporary attempts to redefine the appearance of Leh can only be understood against the background of historical and socioeconomic change. Despite its frequent characterization as “Little Tibet” to this day, Ladakh was probably only part of the Tibetan Empire from the 7^th or early 8^th century until the year 842 AD (Luczantis 2005:66; Petech 1977:9–10). Following this period, Ladakh was an independent kingdom, which expanded into what is now Western Tibet, until it was finally reduced to the size of the latter-day region, and the terrain of Spiti. In the 15^th century, Leh was raised to the region’s capital and gained political and economic importance. The kingdom of Ladakh prospered due to the trade in Pashmina wool between Tibet and Kashmir (Rizvi 2012:110) which is symbolized by the construction of a new king’s palace in the 17^th century, overlooking the old town of Leh that still stands today (Rizvi 1996:69).

15The kingdom collapsed in 1834, when Ladakh was invaded by the Dogra under Raja Gulab Singh of Jammu, and lost its independence in 1842. The region was incorporated into the Princely State of Jammu and Kashmir and came under indirect rule of the British colonial power in 1846. During the 19^th and early 20^th century, Leh became an important crossroads of the Transkarakoram and Transhimalayan trade of luxury goods (e.g. spices, cotton and silk cloths, turquoise and jewellery) on one of the main routes linking the South Asian subcontinent with Central Asia (Rizvi 1999). At the end of the 19^th century, Leh had a population of some 2,500 inhabitants, which increased heavily during the summer because of the influx of merchants. Due to Leh’s rising importance as a trade town, the wazir [administrative officer] of Ladakh at that time ordered the construction of a bazaar in 1846 (Dollfus 1997:150–51). It hosted 130 shops in 1888 (Gazetteer of Kashmír and Ladák 1890:563) and has been the main commercial centre ever since. Despite the wealth that trade brought to the region, the majority of Ladakhis remained poor. Their livelihood sources were combined mountain agriculture consisting of crop agriculture and animal husbandry, or the involvement in intraregional trade and barter activities (Dollfus 1997:148; Dame 2015). A few privileged families had an advantage as they maintained family ties with almost all the home regions of the traders (Rizvi 1999:75–76; Ghani Sheik 2010; Fewkes 2009:89–93).

18Leh thus still functions as a central exchange hub for merchants and travellers of different origins: nowadays they are mainly tourists from around the world, traders from Kashmir and other parts of India, as well as local merchants. The main bazaar, as a centre of this exchange, is an L-shaped street located in Leh’s old town and is characterized by strong seasonality.

During the winter months, the roads connecting the Indian lowlands and Leh are closed, a limited amount of goods reaches the town by plane and only a few tourists visit Ladakh, which leads to reduced commercial activities in the bazaar. During the summer season, one can find anything that suits the needs of travellers and fits into the image of Ladakh as displayed in travel books and magazines: jewellery, shawls, antiques, fabrics, prayer flags or trekking equipment. Visitors walk along the historic bazaar and take photos of the old royal palace that overlooks the town. Somewhere between tourists, traders and the local population passing by, women sitting at the edge of the pedestrian walk find their space to sell homegrown vegetables. In the backstreets, Ladakhis buy household goods, bread in the bakery street or go to one of the Muslim butchers. The main bazaar is thus a vibrant and busy street and at the same time represents the most visible space of current urban change in Leh. Its historical entrance gate was destroyed when the bazaar was opened for cars in the 1970s (Rizvi 1996:79) and many new buildings with shops and restaurants have continued to emerge up to this day, parallel to the increasing number of incoming tourists.

19Commercial, tourist and road developments have not only modified the bazaar area, but also the whole townscape in the last decades. Those who can afford it have left the densely inhabited old town with its infrastructure deficits and moved into the sections of Leh where agriculture is still practiced (Alexander and Catanese 2014:348). Earlier, because of its key importance for the food supply, agricultural land could not be turned into commercial plots. However, since tourism has replaced agriculture as the main source of income, hotels or guesthouses have been built in the once-agricultural fields or they are widely left fallow. The functional centrality of Leh has encouraged many villagers to move to the urban centre, at least for a major part of the year (Goodall 2004). To accommodate the (seasonal) migrants and to manage the rapid urban expansion, new wards have been established since the 1990s, such as Ibex or Housing colony. This rapid urban development creates new challenges for urban planning and is the starting point for debates on the town’s restructuring.

Modernizing Leh or conserving cultural traditions?—Contested urban change

20In 2005, a committee consisting of actors from the district-level “Ladakh Autonomous Hill Development Council” (LAHDC/Hill Council), NGOs and local societal and political elite in Ladakh formulated the “Ladakh Vision 2025” document as a basis for future development in the region. With regard to Leh it stresses the need for urban change: “To provide the growing population of Leh town with modern civic amenities, while focusing on restricting the ever-increasing numbers dependent on it (especially by discouraging the rural-urban migration pattern), and also addressing its ecological and environment related concerns” (LAHDC 2005:31).

21Pointing out the challenges of urban growth, the document expresses a need for restructuring the town. Yet, for the most part, the proposed actions have not been carried out by the regional government (Rigzin 2016).

22The following section sheds light on the UIDSSMT scheme, which is currently the most extensive programme with the aim of reducing the mentioned shortcomings. Subsequently, the different actor groups, which play a role for reshaping the urban centre, are introduced.

Dynamics of shaping urban design and the JNNURM mission

23The reconstruction of the main bazaar has been at the centre of political debates in recent years. The regional Hill Council government decided to “… revive and facelift the historical Leh town, and to save it from further degradation from the present chaotic state” (Reach Ladakh 2011a). Renewing historic Leh would mean to include “traditional and contemporary characters” in the façade of a building (Reach Ladakh 2011a).

25Beautification of the main bazaar is a part of the UIDSSMT scheme that the semi-autonomous Hill Council applied for.

The sketched outlay planned to turn the main commercial street into a pedestrian zone. By the beginning of 2016, traffic had been banned, old trees at the main bazaar felled and several old buildings demolished for the construction of new ones.

… the old town historic area has gross infrastructure deficiencies and poor housing conditions as a result of which it is in a slum-like condition, despite being historic in nature on the lines of religious towns in other parts of India. (MC and LAHDC 2012:12)

27Another typical element of beautification is to create green spaces in the city (Fernandes 2004; Zimmer, Cornea and Véron 2016)—a process that can also be observed most recently in Leh. The first “Eco-Municipal Park” (Reach Ladakh 2015) was inaugurated at one end of the main bazaar in June 2015 and is designed for the recreation of elderly people on the one hand and as a tourist attraction on the other. The park displays an ensemble of benches around a water fountain and lawns.

Leh as an arena of negotiations on urban development: introducing the web of actors

31Some NGOs are involved in the preservation of the old town and its heritage. Among them, the international NGO Tibet Heritage Fund (THF) and its local counterpart LOTI deal with the conservation of the historic old town of Leh by rehabilitating and preserving its vernacular architecture—an ensemble of some 200 houses considered important heritage of “Tibeto-Himalayan urban architecture” (Alexander and Catanese 2014:348). In 2006, THF and the Hill Council signed a Memorandum of Understanding to cooperate in preserving Leh’s old town (Alexander and Catanese 2014). Apart from THF, LAMO has been involved in a social initiative on the development of the old town through various initiatives such as the “Neighbourhood Project-Old Town Leh” since 2010. LAMO restored the old Munshi [king’s secretaries] house below the palace of Leh and uses the space for exhibitions and workshops.

33Tourists represent another important group of actors whose expectations have an impact on urban development. Here, a shift has been visible in the recent years. Travellers often have a romantic vision regarding cultural associations and touristic highlights (e.g. Buddhist monasteries) of the former crossroads of trade and its historical heritage, which is also often labelled “Little Tibet.” Today, demands of domestic tourists dominate the discourses on urban restructuration, as they are increasingly stimulating to the local economy. Ladakh has found a place in the public awareness and is no longer only perceived as “dangerous” due to its location in a disputed border region. Today, Leh, and especially its main bazaar, serves as a place of leisure, shopping and recreation.

The contested terrain of beautification processes

34The UIDSSMT project in Leh is a visible discursive manifestation and representation of power. Various actors (re)create a multitude of discourses that materialize as a hybrid urban nature. The web of actors encompasses different, interdependent spatial scales and they are characterized by varying degrees of power. Issues of urban change are debated both in private and public spaces such as households, tea stalls, on the street, in political meetings and other social spaces.

35India as a nation state exercises strong political influence through development schemes, which follow ideas of modernity and economic growth and are, in most cases, characterized by technocratic solutions (Gandy 2008:116). During the inauguration of the UIDSSMT project in December 2013, the District Commissioner (DC) Simrandeep Singh, the highest ranking officer from J&K state in the district, praised the project as “… incomparable in the history of Leh” (Reach Ladakh 2013). This supports Roy’s (2014:141) observation, which calls the JNNURM scheme “a new type of postcolonial government” that focuses on urban infrastructure development to further liberalize the economy and thus create Indian “world-class cities” (Follmann 2014; Ghertner 2011, 2015).

36A pursuit of economic growth is also visible in the Hill Council’s approach to urban development. Members mention the increasing population and growing numbers of visitors to Leh as reasons for the need of the UIDSSMT scheme. This is also apparent from the council’s initial application document for the scheme, which states that Leh is to be further developed as a tourist destination. A government official specifically argues for the beautification of the bazaar:

• 18 Roads and Buildings Department, interview by Judith Müller, Leh, March 13, 2015.

… tourists also come lots in number. They don’t have a place where they can have a relaxed moment. And the third one is because the Leh bazaar … was an ancient trade centre. So our aim is to make this bazaar traffic free, also with this trade centre. And also we will have some place there to have cultural activities …18

38The RAY scheme is another example of an urban development project (Roy 2014:142). Here, slums are not destroyed nor are slum-dwellers resettled, like in other cases (Anand and Rademacher 2013; Baviskar 2003; Follmann 2014; Ghertner 2015:11–15). They are instead transformed into “governable entities” (Gandy 2006b:385) with potential for further economic development. In the case of Leh, the so-called slums are different from most informal settlements in Indian metropolises. The Government of India and UN habitat define slums as often informally-built settlements, which are characterized mainly by degraded housing and living conditions, insufficient access to water as well as health risks (Nijman 2010:11). The living conditions in Leh’s designated slum areas differ from this description. Infrastructures are widely deficient, but in general, basic housing, water, and health requirements are met (Alexander and Catanese 2014:352). In this context, it is important to highlight that these areas, even though defined as “slum-like” by local entities, are not perceived as “slums” by the citizens of Leh. Under RAY, vernacular architecture in Leh has been demolished and replaced by new buildings, street lights have been installed, and sanitation has been enhanced. These interventions, intending to improve the living conditions of the local inhabitants and enhancing tourist development, are in conflict with the efforts of LOTI, which focus on preserving vernacular architecture in the old town. RAY is in its initial phase; it remains to be seen whether preservation attempts and state-led policies remain in conflict or can be compatible.

• 25 Resident of Leh, interview by Judith Müller, Leh, March 26, 2015.

We want Leh town, want to see the beauty of this city. This is our main city, isn’t it? Many tourists are coming and going and they get the facilities. Good facilities in our town, you know. There are many tourist attractions.25

Leh bazaar is now more beautiful and clean. It has many more shops and is lined with concrete buildings. But is has lost much of its old charm and glory. Poplar trees are no more. Under their shadow, people took rest in summer. No cultural or social activities are held in the bazaar, only the movement of traffic is seen day and night. (Ghani Sheikh 2014:30)

43Beautification projects in Leh have not been stand-alone programmes, but have been realized as part of the large JNURRM urban renewal programme, which originally aimed at the improvement of water infrastructures, waste management and road networks. While beautification in large cities is often steered by local middle classes and their urban imaginaries (Mawdsley 2004:81–84), the social system in Ladakh differs historically from other parts of India and does not display a drastically divided urban society (e.g. Gururani 2013). However, economic stratification has intensified with the shift from subsistence-oriented livelihoods to a market economy. The current boom in the tourism sector is a major manifestation of socioeconomic change and has a direct impact on Leh’s phenotype. Especially non-local middle class groups that come as tourists to the region become more important within the current renegotiation of aesthetic visions of urban space in Leh. At the same time, a growing local middle class is gaining greater influence on urban transformations through private investments such as hotels, restaurants or shops. Moreover, the government policies align with the interests of certain groups, especially the economically well-off more influential private businessmen who are interested in maximizing their profits from tourism and at the same time are evolving as an increasingly powerful middle class.

44Comparing Leh’s beautification with similar processes observed in larger Indian cities, one can see that motivations for and effects of such projects differ widely. Whereas in Indian metropolises, mega projects and aspirations of making cities “world-class”-like often drive beautification processes, in Leh the main reason is to improve the town’s quality as a tourist destination. Cases from Delhi and other large agglomerations show that urban middle classes have substantial influence on urban renewal (Baviskar 2003; Gandy 2008; Follmann 2014). Nuisance, environmental concerns and health issues are often given as causes for the demolishing or the resettlement of slums (Ghertner 2015): “The result is a form of spatial purification, named beautification, and cleaning to purge the city of the poor” (Rademacher and Sivaramakrishnan 2013:24). In Leh, a section of the old town was declared as a slum, but nevertheless, socio-ecological and spatial differences are not as extreme as in larger Indian cities. The influence of Leh’s local middle classes on urban restructuring has increased, but is currently still less important than the perceived expectations of non-local middle classes visiting Ladakh.

Conclusion

45Various actors are involved in the beautification process, with beautification carrying different meanings for all of them. The beautification of the main bazaar, and its perceived contribution to Leh’s touristic and economic development, lie at the core of the regional Hill Council’s efforts to implement an urban renewal scheme of the central government. It is assumed that tourists mainly expect relaxation and consumption spaces. This has motivated private businessmen to build new shops, restaurants and hotels, thereby restructuring the town. NGOs and cultural heritage preservationists seem to be less powerful or influential.

46We have shown that the ideas involved in the creation of urban nature are grounded in powerful imaginaries. First, Leh’s historic function as a trade centre is part of the discourse, mainly emanating from NGOs, historians and politicians. Second, the definition of aesthetics and design is influenced by the case of another mountain town of perceived cultural and religious similarity: The vision of Leh bazaar’s appearance grows out of not only historical reference, but also of the example of Gangtok, Sikkim.

47Processes of beautification in the case of Leh are embedded in wider discussions of urban development and modernity (Robinson 2006). Leh is a small town located at the periphery of the Indian nation state, perceived as a remote and backward area that seemingly needs to be developed. Further research is required to analyse the relation between the nation state and other areas of local (urban) governance, in order to gain deeper insights into the postcolonial urban politics of the Indian state (Roy 2014).

48The findings from this case can contribute to the ongoing debate on UPE in the South (Zimmer 2015). Furthermore, the study adds empirical evidence to theoretical perspectives on state-led, neoliberal urban developments in small towns in India (e.g. Zimmer, Cornea and Véron 2016). Leh is an example of the socionatural (re-)production of urban space in high mountain regions with their specific sociocultural and environmental conditions.

49We concentrated on the diverse actors involved in urban restructuration and on the aspects of the imaginaries of urban middle classes. The case study highlights the need to consider local particularities when assessing the beautification of cities, as others have argued (e.g. Holifield and Schuelke 2015; Lawhon, Ernstson and Silver 2014; Zimmer, Cornea and Véron 2016; see introduction to this special issue). By highlighting the multifaceted processes of urban renewal and the actors behind it, this articles aims to enrich the field of research on beautification in cities of the Global South. More studies on this topic can surely be undertaken in other—small or large—cities in South Asia.

50As the beautification project in Leh is ongoing, it remains to be seen how the local population will perceive it as it proceeds and profit from the changes. A further discussion on beautification in Leh would definitely contribute to interdisciplinary research, including insights from fields like architecture, urban planning or history.