When one speaks of limiting the size of the large cities, two important qualifications have to be borne in mind. First, such an attempt could have the effect of depressing the rate of economic growth since the cities represent important growth centres. Second, the only certain way of discouraging rural-urban migration is through drastic authoritarian measures which are unlikely to be politically acceptable. Following from his critical examination of the Delhi Master Plan, the author recommends a two-tier urban policy. At the national level, urban policy must assess not only the costs but also the benefits of urbanisation. Urban development policy tools need to be evaluated in terms of their effectiveness in optimising the relationship between costs and benefits. At the metropolitan level, emphasis should shift from discouraging growth to devising policies for accommodating and fully exploiting the certain growth that is taking place. The Master Plan for Delhi has detailed figures on the cost of development of the scheme selected, but one looks in vain for comparable figures on the benefits of development. An urban development plan should be more than just a physical development plan. The heavy British bias of Indian town planning has largely ignored social and fiscal policies as planning tools. American planners have only recently, in the wake of urban disruption in the US, begun to use these policies.