State Coercion IN
the Creation of Housing in
Contemporary Mumbai
introduction
This paper provides an experimental research proposal for an in-depth study of the global housing crisis in contemporary Mumbai. The underlying research question is: What is the role of state coercion in the creation and restructuring of housing in neoliberal Mumbai? The focus is on state violence in the form of small, local, everyday evictions in the informal settlements. These evictions will be examined by means of the Maharashtra State Government and its Mumbai-based Slum Rehabilitation Agency’s Slum Rehabilitation Schemes of 1995 and onward. The research will investigate the state logic and mechanisms behind the evictions and the facilitation of land and property relations. This paper presents an introduction to the historical, geographical and policy context of the crisis in the city and a case study of the informal settlement Shivaji Nagar in the M East Ward as an existing urban formation that is alternative, participatory, and bottom-up. In this paper, I argue that the Indian state is developing Mumbai as a world class city through the use of heavy state coercion in the form of everyday evictions on the working class and urban poor. The evictions are not only inflicting violence on this population but also making them all-together invisible.
Keywords Mumbai, Urban India, Slums, Slum rehabilitation, State violence, Eviction, Displacement
Keywords Mumbai, Urban India, Slums, Slum rehabilitation, State violence, Eviction, Displacement
|
(current) research questions
1. What is the role of and motivation behind state coercion in the creation and restructuring of housing in contemporary Mumbai? What are the different processes and mechanisms? What is the connection between demolitions and the complex networks that comprise urban governance in India?
2. How does the Indian government employ this violence at different scales? At the scale of the state? City? Informal settlement? Who are the facilitators, and how are they involved?
3. What are the prevalence, causes, and consequences of small-scale, everyday evictions?
4. Are there alternative forms of political violence? How and where do they operate? Are they made invisible or silent?
2. How does the Indian government employ this violence at different scales? At the scale of the state? City? Informal settlement? Who are the facilitators, and how are they involved?
3. What are the prevalence, causes, and consequences of small-scale, everyday evictions?
4. Are there alternative forms of political violence? How and where do they operate? Are they made invisible or silent?
research methods
The plan is to conduct Mixed Methods Research with both qualitative and quantitative research methodologies and use different data sources. Qualitative methods will be used for both data collection and data analysis. These methods include interviews with state and local stakeholders and ethnographic inquiries of the evicted population, and civil society institutions involved. In addition, I conduct analysis of archival materials, court records and existing literature on Mumbai slums. The quantitative methods will be used in data analysis to comprehend the magnitude and frequency of eviction in areas designated as slums, identify disparities, and systematize consequences of displacement. Moreover, they will function as statistical checks for my observations and measures of reliability, validity, and generalizability of the research to the larger slum-dwelling population in the city.
the global housing crisis in neoliberal mumbai
One way of understanding state coercion in housing is through the history of land rights in Mumbai. Identified as India’s most modern city, Mumbai was the first Indian town to undergo economic, technological and social transformation on account of capitalism. Mumbai consists of comparatively proficient transport and communication systems, and its greatest successes are the manufacturing, finance and service centers. However, there are obvious shortcomings in the “actual content of Bombay’s ‘modernity’ ” and thus that of contemporary Indian society. The problem lies in the fact that although the city’s land area is restricted to six-hundred odd square kilometers[1] it supports a density of 30,900 persons per square kilometer as of 2012.[2] Hence, where to place human bodies with increased urbanized landscapes becomes a complicated, unjust political endeavor.
Although Mumbai became a major city in the second half of the 19th century, its housing problems have existed for over 150 years. There have always been shortages and poor quality of available housing. The statement “The houses of Bombay are far too few in number to afford proper accommodation for its inhabitants” in the 1873 census has been reiterated in every census to this day.[3] The crisis is exacerbated when one realizes that there is enough land in the city for distribution and that the real obstacle is the concentration of land and housing in the hands of government bodies and private developers. In 1985 of the 43,000 hectares of land available, 12,000 were occupied by private residential housing and another 10,000 were empty and owned by governmental bodies, mostly the Bombay Port Trust. At that time slum-dwellers inhabited only 2,000 hectares, which is only about five percent.[4] It has been almost a decade since then. The slum population now surpasses 50% of the entire population of over 12 million people, and yet they live on a mere 12% of the land. It is estimated that of the total slum population approximately one million people reside in jopad-pattis, which are temporary, ad hoc shelters along main streets, 55% reside in more permanent slums and 82% reside in overall substandard housing.[5] Though the housing crisis affects all, it specifically targets the vulnerable population of the working class and urban poor. It hinders their ability to invest in a safe and secure livelihood in the city.
Despite the fact that the “Challenge of the Slums” is a worldwide issue as specified by the 2003 UN-Habitat Report, it has been a pertinent, urgent matter in Mumbai for a while.[6] To start “slums” are areas that 1) are proclaimed as slums by state governments, 2) are newly notified regions and 3) hold 60 to 70 households or 300 people living in kuccha structures, which use materials such as tin sheets, bricks, gunny bags and plastic, in risky, substandard environments.[7] Conditions of tenure and basic amenities vary amongst the 2,335 settlements. Currently, there does not exist a central government policy directly intended to address urban slums. All policy is made at the state and municipal level.[8] With that said, slums are made almost-invisible in official data sets and development plans of the city. Not only are they not recognized and accounted for in the plan, but several areas have development plan reservations even though they came before the plans. Thereby, the constructed invisibility of the informal settlements furthers the inhabitants’ vulnerability to multiple visible and invisible forms of state coercion such as demolitions and evictions. The constant dispossession and displacement precludes them from existing and contributing to the city as equal citizens in their own city. Instead, they are consistently represented as second-rate, unwelcome people who live off of the city’s resources.[9] This calculated and violent conceptualization of the population by the state is then used as justification for their consistent displacement and removal from the geography.
Although Mumbai became a major city in the second half of the 19th century, its housing problems have existed for over 150 years. There have always been shortages and poor quality of available housing. The statement “The houses of Bombay are far too few in number to afford proper accommodation for its inhabitants” in the 1873 census has been reiterated in every census to this day.[3] The crisis is exacerbated when one realizes that there is enough land in the city for distribution and that the real obstacle is the concentration of land and housing in the hands of government bodies and private developers. In 1985 of the 43,000 hectares of land available, 12,000 were occupied by private residential housing and another 10,000 were empty and owned by governmental bodies, mostly the Bombay Port Trust. At that time slum-dwellers inhabited only 2,000 hectares, which is only about five percent.[4] It has been almost a decade since then. The slum population now surpasses 50% of the entire population of over 12 million people, and yet they live on a mere 12% of the land. It is estimated that of the total slum population approximately one million people reside in jopad-pattis, which are temporary, ad hoc shelters along main streets, 55% reside in more permanent slums and 82% reside in overall substandard housing.[5] Though the housing crisis affects all, it specifically targets the vulnerable population of the working class and urban poor. It hinders their ability to invest in a safe and secure livelihood in the city.
Despite the fact that the “Challenge of the Slums” is a worldwide issue as specified by the 2003 UN-Habitat Report, it has been a pertinent, urgent matter in Mumbai for a while.[6] To start “slums” are areas that 1) are proclaimed as slums by state governments, 2) are newly notified regions and 3) hold 60 to 70 households or 300 people living in kuccha structures, which use materials such as tin sheets, bricks, gunny bags and plastic, in risky, substandard environments.[7] Conditions of tenure and basic amenities vary amongst the 2,335 settlements. Currently, there does not exist a central government policy directly intended to address urban slums. All policy is made at the state and municipal level.[8] With that said, slums are made almost-invisible in official data sets and development plans of the city. Not only are they not recognized and accounted for in the plan, but several areas have development plan reservations even though they came before the plans. Thereby, the constructed invisibility of the informal settlements furthers the inhabitants’ vulnerability to multiple visible and invisible forms of state coercion such as demolitions and evictions. The constant dispossession and displacement precludes them from existing and contributing to the city as equal citizens in their own city. Instead, they are consistently represented as second-rate, unwelcome people who live off of the city’s resources.[9] This calculated and violent conceptualization of the population by the state is then used as justification for their consistent displacement and removal from the geography.
critical urban theory on the right to land and housing
Another way of understanding the crisis is through the lens of critical urban theory and political economy. These theories include the neoliberal ideology, the right to the city through the right to housing, and the question of land. First, the concept and forces of neoliberalism explain why displacement occurs. Since the current conditions of neoliberal globalization prioritize private property and profits over all other conceptions of nonnegotiable rights, we must take into account how neoliberalism affects evictions and displacement. Over the past thirty years, society has been controlled by the accumulation of capital through the market economy. As a result, there have been major alterations in how the state governs.[10] According to Oberlander, in Mumbai neoliberalism affects slum policies in three significant ways. First, the major revisions of the national economic strategy of the mid-1980s asserted that the free market would be better than regular government interventions for state planning. This reordering prompted the creation and development of Mumbai’s land and real estate and private banking markets, which make up the problematic setting in which current slum rehabilitation schemes take place. Second, non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have stepped in to fill in the void left by urban governance. But NGOs are problematic because they speed up the rate at which the state withdraws from its responsibility to its citizens, lack accountability to the wider public, and are intrinsically undemocratic in structure and organization. Third, local urban governments are being coerced into competing for global capital to sustain their economies and public subsidizes. Therefore, they begin to listen only to the interests of the national and international elites.[11]
Having said that, one is still able to exercise her right to the city in Mumbai through right to adequate housing. The right to housing is guaranteed under both national and international law.[12] Adequate housing allows the working class and urban poor the right to “change [the city] after [their] heart’s desire...and to re-make [themselves] in a different image.”[13] The change here is their safe, secure existence in the city through affordable land and appropriate shelter, and the image is their contribution to the city as equal citizens who can take part in active democratic participation. As asserted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, adequate housing is a fundamental right of all human beings.[14]
While the right to housing is mandated by law, theorists argue that land is a public interest. Because land is an essential constituent in human settlements, it is important to be critical of how its role is theorized in housing the urban poor. Land as a location is the point of departure for all development. It is where the human activities of “production, consumption and exchange” take place; it is where we live our lives.[15] So it makes sense that the difficulties and barriers the urban poor face when trying to house themselves are contingent on policies regarding land allocation, use and management. Consequently, land cannot be regarded as any other asset in the sense that it cannot be dominated by individuals and the market. It performs too vital of a role. Instead, the methods of land use should be in alignment with the right to the city framework and thus decided by the long-term needs and interests of the community.[16]
Having said that, one is still able to exercise her right to the city in Mumbai through right to adequate housing. The right to housing is guaranteed under both national and international law.[12] Adequate housing allows the working class and urban poor the right to “change [the city] after [their] heart’s desire...and to re-make [themselves] in a different image.”[13] The change here is their safe, secure existence in the city through affordable land and appropriate shelter, and the image is their contribution to the city as equal citizens who can take part in active democratic participation. As asserted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, adequate housing is a fundamental right of all human beings.[14]
While the right to housing is mandated by law, theorists argue that land is a public interest. Because land is an essential constituent in human settlements, it is important to be critical of how its role is theorized in housing the urban poor. Land as a location is the point of departure for all development. It is where the human activities of “production, consumption and exchange” take place; it is where we live our lives.[15] So it makes sense that the difficulties and barriers the urban poor face when trying to house themselves are contingent on policies regarding land allocation, use and management. Consequently, land cannot be regarded as any other asset in the sense that it cannot be dominated by individuals and the market. It performs too vital of a role. Instead, the methods of land use should be in alignment with the right to the city framework and thus decided by the long-term needs and interests of the community.[16]
changing policy environments on "slums" and informal settlements
These theoretical concerns manifest through slum policy in Mumbai. In the 60 years since independence, slum policies have undergone considerably different ideologies and phases. The present schemes are connected directly with neoliberal principles of transforming Mumbai into a world class city like Shanghai. The policy discourse can be classified into three periods: 1) the “phase of negation” around 1956, 2) the “phase of tolerance” about 1972 and 3) the “phase of acceptance,” or more accurately the make-believe acceptance, in the 1980s and onwards. The varying stages map the increasing significance of the crisis in terms of intensity and numbers involved and imitation of development from negation to acceptance. They set the stage for the actual, on-the-ground displacements that occur on an everyday basis. With regards to the phase of negation, the programs involved emphasized redevelopment and rehabilitation. The Slum Clearance Programme of 1956 asserted that slums were unsuitable housing overrun with crime and thus have to be demolished and replaced with decent housing. The scheme conferred on the government with the necessary authority to acquire slum settlements and demolish them. Yet redevelopment could not keep up with the rate of demolitions or growth of informal settlements, and so resources were quickly exhausted.[17]
Accordingly, this period was exchanged for some recognition of the reality of slums. The phase of tolerance is marked by the Central Scheme of Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums of 1972. The plan of action provided improvements to living conditions through the supplying of “tap water, sewer and storm water drains, community baths and latrines, paved roads and streetlights.” This legislation went hand-in-hand with special grants given to Members of the Parliament and the State legislature to allocate resources for development work for their own constituencies.[18]
The phase of acceptance, or supposed acceptance, started in the 1980s when internal-level attention began to be placed on the issue of slums and housing. The upgrading projects communicated an acceptance of slum settlements as housing options for the poor. The urban Basic Services Programme of 1985 put forward provisions of social services, incentives for people to improve their housing over time and tenure security to slum communities. Likewise, the National Slum Development Programme of 1996 to 1997 and the Draft National Slum Policy of 2002 carried forth this impression of acceptance. In spite of these declarations by the state, in reality state violence and displacement continued. In fact, the evictions were made inconspicuous through a whole range of complex, convoluted institutions and mechanisms.[19] The rationalization behind this deception is that the state did not want to detract the flow of capital into the city. They wanted global investors to continue to believe that the city is hospitable to the mechanisms and forces of capitalism. The transition of Mumbai’s industrial and commercial activities to match those of the modern global powers is orchestrated through the use of state coercion, specifically coercion on the urban poor. As a result, the slum population are forced into a traumatic process in which their right to the city is contested for land conversion and through state-led urban violence at the scale of informal settlements.
Accordingly, this period was exchanged for some recognition of the reality of slums. The phase of tolerance is marked by the Central Scheme of Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums of 1972. The plan of action provided improvements to living conditions through the supplying of “tap water, sewer and storm water drains, community baths and latrines, paved roads and streetlights.” This legislation went hand-in-hand with special grants given to Members of the Parliament and the State legislature to allocate resources for development work for their own constituencies.[18]
The phase of acceptance, or supposed acceptance, started in the 1980s when internal-level attention began to be placed on the issue of slums and housing. The upgrading projects communicated an acceptance of slum settlements as housing options for the poor. The urban Basic Services Programme of 1985 put forward provisions of social services, incentives for people to improve their housing over time and tenure security to slum communities. Likewise, the National Slum Development Programme of 1996 to 1997 and the Draft National Slum Policy of 2002 carried forth this impression of acceptance. In spite of these declarations by the state, in reality state violence and displacement continued. In fact, the evictions were made inconspicuous through a whole range of complex, convoluted institutions and mechanisms.[19] The rationalization behind this deception is that the state did not want to detract the flow of capital into the city. They wanted global investors to continue to believe that the city is hospitable to the mechanisms and forces of capitalism. The transition of Mumbai’s industrial and commercial activities to match those of the modern global powers is orchestrated through the use of state coercion, specifically coercion on the urban poor. As a result, the slum population are forced into a traumatic process in which their right to the city is contested for land conversion and through state-led urban violence at the scale of informal settlements.
the policy in force today and evictions
These processes of traumatization are exceptionally evidence in today’s policy. The present-day policy is the Slum Rehabilitation Schemes (SRS) initiated in 1995. The schemes provide the market with full authority over slum rehabilitation and essentially move the city’s slum-dwellers into new high-rise apartment blocks.[20] Coercion by the Indian state and its “monopoly on the legitimate use of physical force” is an integral part of how the state organizes this operation.[21] The displacement takes multiple, elaborate forms, but the attention here is on large scale demolitions and, even more importantly, small, local, everyday evictions. While evictions have always been a regular feature and threat of life in the city for the slum-dwellers, they have acquired an unprecedented brutal nature since the late 1990s. This nature is evident in the scale, occurrence and form and that so little is known about the process that affects the lives of the working class and urban poor.[22]
The SRS are executed by the Maharashtra State Government and its Mumbai-based government agency Slum Rehabilitation Agency (SRA). The plan announces that all slums built before January 1, 1995, the cutoff date, are eligible for legalization and protection from demolition.[23] With 70% of the community’s consent, the population will then be housed at no cost, theoretically, in high-rise apartments built by private developers who will be rewarded with city land by the state government without charge. The idea is that private developers, and the market, will address the issue of housing for the urban poor with free apartments and be able to sell houses at a profit to higher income groups.[24] Not surprisingly, this plan has been a failure for a number of reasons: 1) The scheme has not brought about the rehabilitation of an adequate number of people; 2) The private developers still make slum-dwellers pay to make more profit, and 3) Developers often induce the slum-dwellers to sell back their homes so that the developer can put it on sale on the market.
Even if it is unclear when the Indian state decides to resort to physical force, inconsistent slum clearance campaigns and large-scale demolitions are fundamental aspects of the governance of Indian cities. In post-independent India, there have been three periods of intense demolitions: 1) in the mid-1950s during the emergence of the independent state, 2) in the mid-1970s during the time of citywide authoritative rule known as the Emergency and 3) in the mid-2000s when Maharashtra’s Chief Minister launched the world class city campaign and subsequently a series of infrastructure development projects in the last ten years.[25] This is a six and a half billion dollar campaign that incorporates all types of proposals that threaten the existence of slum-dwellers.[26] An example of a fairly recent wave of demolitions took place in December 2004 when the Chief Minister directed the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish houses in informal settlements that did not meet the cutoff date. Not only did the demolition squad not check for tenure, more than 400,000 people from over 21 different communities were evicted from their homes in just two months. According to Miloon Kothari, who is a rapporteur for the UN Commission on Human Rights, it was the “most brutal demolition drive in recent times.”[27] Other examples of comprehensive, citywide demolitions are the evictions in Sanjay Gandhi National Park of 85,000 people from 1999 to 2001 and Daulat Nagar and Bhabrekar Nagar. It is believed that as of now about 200,000 slum households have been displaced as a result of these projects.[28] These demolitions are grand gestures aimed at the urban elites, local business community and international investors. They are meant to show that the Indian state acknowledges slum proliferation as an impediment and is able to eliminate it as a problem.
And here is the focal point of the ensuing research, small, local, everyday evictions that are a recurrent aspect of life for millions of people who live and work informally on pavements and open areas in Mumbai and other Indian cities. While large-scale demolitions have more or less ceased, small-scale evictions happen on an every basis to make a reality the state’s extravagant aspirations for the city. What different in this case is that the evictions are now made invisible to the wider public because of the past push-back. The state is more implicit in its use of coercion in these campaigns. It assumes a different logic and thereby changed and distinct mechanisms and processes. I argue that these forms of state coercion are almost more important to study because they have continued through all phases of slum policies, are much more common and proceed to increase in frequency and go unnoticed and regulated. These campaigns are more sustained, imply various degrees of force and impose long-lasting wounds on the bodies and consciousness of those evicted.[29]
The SRS are executed by the Maharashtra State Government and its Mumbai-based government agency Slum Rehabilitation Agency (SRA). The plan announces that all slums built before January 1, 1995, the cutoff date, are eligible for legalization and protection from demolition.[23] With 70% of the community’s consent, the population will then be housed at no cost, theoretically, in high-rise apartments built by private developers who will be rewarded with city land by the state government without charge. The idea is that private developers, and the market, will address the issue of housing for the urban poor with free apartments and be able to sell houses at a profit to higher income groups.[24] Not surprisingly, this plan has been a failure for a number of reasons: 1) The scheme has not brought about the rehabilitation of an adequate number of people; 2) The private developers still make slum-dwellers pay to make more profit, and 3) Developers often induce the slum-dwellers to sell back their homes so that the developer can put it on sale on the market.
Even if it is unclear when the Indian state decides to resort to physical force, inconsistent slum clearance campaigns and large-scale demolitions are fundamental aspects of the governance of Indian cities. In post-independent India, there have been three periods of intense demolitions: 1) in the mid-1950s during the emergence of the independent state, 2) in the mid-1970s during the time of citywide authoritative rule known as the Emergency and 3) in the mid-2000s when Maharashtra’s Chief Minister launched the world class city campaign and subsequently a series of infrastructure development projects in the last ten years.[25] This is a six and a half billion dollar campaign that incorporates all types of proposals that threaten the existence of slum-dwellers.[26] An example of a fairly recent wave of demolitions took place in December 2004 when the Chief Minister directed the Bombay Municipal Corporation (BMC) to demolish houses in informal settlements that did not meet the cutoff date. Not only did the demolition squad not check for tenure, more than 400,000 people from over 21 different communities were evicted from their homes in just two months. According to Miloon Kothari, who is a rapporteur for the UN Commission on Human Rights, it was the “most brutal demolition drive in recent times.”[27] Other examples of comprehensive, citywide demolitions are the evictions in Sanjay Gandhi National Park of 85,000 people from 1999 to 2001 and Daulat Nagar and Bhabrekar Nagar. It is believed that as of now about 200,000 slum households have been displaced as a result of these projects.[28] These demolitions are grand gestures aimed at the urban elites, local business community and international investors. They are meant to show that the Indian state acknowledges slum proliferation as an impediment and is able to eliminate it as a problem.
And here is the focal point of the ensuing research, small, local, everyday evictions that are a recurrent aspect of life for millions of people who live and work informally on pavements and open areas in Mumbai and other Indian cities. While large-scale demolitions have more or less ceased, small-scale evictions happen on an every basis to make a reality the state’s extravagant aspirations for the city. What different in this case is that the evictions are now made invisible to the wider public because of the past push-back. The state is more implicit in its use of coercion in these campaigns. It assumes a different logic and thereby changed and distinct mechanisms and processes. I argue that these forms of state coercion are almost more important to study because they have continued through all phases of slum policies, are much more common and proceed to increase in frequency and go unnoticed and regulated. These campaigns are more sustained, imply various degrees of force and impose long-lasting wounds on the bodies and consciousness of those evicted.[29]
the knowns and unknowns about state coercion
In this context, housing becomes an essential issue for organizing the millions of the struggling urban poor against state persecution by means of increasing collective violence and criminalization of the masses.[30] Although there is some insight on this violence, there is much left to be studied. In terms of what is known, the following is apparent: 1) The government’s response to slums is rooted in shifting economic conditions. These conditions conspicuously follow the neoliberal ideology. 2) The state has been invoking its control over the use of physical force. This force currently takes the form of large-scale demolitions and small-scale evictions. Though alternative manifestations may, and most likely, exist at different scales. 3) Evictions are on the rise. According to the Housing and Land Rights Network, forced evictions are growing in frequency and magnitude in both rural and urban areas in India.[31] 4) The right to adequate housing is assured in both the national and international law. In particular, the Indian constitution and the judgements of the Indian Supreme Court are especially relevant in the campaign for housing. The constitution details that the state has an obligation to protect the lives and welfare of all its constituents and guarantee them with rights to acceptable and shelter regardless of class and caste. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has issued both judgements and non-judgements that reinterpret this necessary constitutional condition.[32] The judgements, such as the 1985 Olga Tellis vs. BMC and the 1990 Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation vs. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan cases, preserve the right to housing and elaborate on the constitutional right to life to include the right to housing. Still, non-judgements, such as the 2000 Almitra Patel vs. Union of India case, have ignored the right to housing and shelter and authorized the eviction of slum-dwellers as part of other classes of residents’ right to the city.[33]
In contrast, much is undisclosed and unexplored about the issue of everyday evictions. Civil society groups roughly calculate that since Indian independence in 1947 at least 60 to 70 million people have been evicted and displaced as a result of city development. But the predicament is that 1) there is no central policy that takes on the crisis, and 2) the government of India does not have any official data on forced evictions and displacement.[34] There is a monumental void in this area of research, and so all affiliated policy that does exist is ill-informed and unjust. Similar to what Matthew Desmond argues for in urban America in his book Evicted, there needs to be a “new sociology of displacement that documents the prevalence, causes and consequences of eviction.”[35] Only with those tools can the struggle for housing be seen as a social movement that is foundational to the growth of every individual and made part of the broader struggle for democracy and democratic participation.[36]
In contrast, much is undisclosed and unexplored about the issue of everyday evictions. Civil society groups roughly calculate that since Indian independence in 1947 at least 60 to 70 million people have been evicted and displaced as a result of city development. But the predicament is that 1) there is no central policy that takes on the crisis, and 2) the government of India does not have any official data on forced evictions and displacement.[34] There is a monumental void in this area of research, and so all affiliated policy that does exist is ill-informed and unjust. Similar to what Matthew Desmond argues for in urban America in his book Evicted, there needs to be a “new sociology of displacement that documents the prevalence, causes and consequences of eviction.”[35] Only with those tools can the struggle for housing be seen as a social movement that is foundational to the growth of every individual and made part of the broader struggle for democracy and democratic participation.[36]
m east ward case study: shivaji nagar
Having described the problem and appropriate critical theory and context, I argue that there exists an alternative urban formation within and outside neoliberal forces that make the urban poor invisible through everyday evictions. These formations are participatory and bottom-up ways to exist in the city. They defend the right to the city through fundamental rights to land and proper housing for all, especially for the working class and urban poor. I make this argument through a case study on Shivaji Nagar, which is an informal settlement in the M East Ward of Mumbai. Although the day-to-day living in the settlement is difficult without support from the state through the provision of basic amenities, the residents’ livelihood and very being in the settlement serve as a station of dissent and empowerment. They refuse to be reduced to their hardships and instead collectively organize, whether intentionally or not, for the “quiet encroachment of the ordinary.”[37]
Shivaji Nagar is a neighborhood in the M East Ward of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Area in the eastern part of the city. The area covers about 135 hectares. To its south is the main road Jeejabai Bhosle Marg and its north the Deonar Dumping Ground, which is one of India’s oldest and largest dumping grounds. In the 1980s, the area was presented to the city’s resettlement project. Accordingly, slum-dwellers from Matunga Labour Camp were relocated there in 1968. The informal settlement exhibits a high population density with migrant workers from other states like Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, and Gujarat and greater Maharashtra. There is a large Muslim population and over 80 mosques in the area. The average monthly income of males is 7,000 Indian Rupee (INR) and 1,500 for females.[38] Even though the neighborhood is better off than many other settlements around the city, it manifests difficult living conditions. These circumstances have to do with issues of space, high population density, weak soil profile, housing, water and sewage infrastructure, the dumping ground, lack of public spaces, local corrupt politics and bureaucracy as it relates to tenure and demolitions, and the second phase of the city’s metro project that is proposed to run nearby the settlement.[39] Even with these problems, the residents are successfully lifting themselves up and out of poverty by way of economic and social incremental growth in the past thirty years.
The economic and social incremental growth is visible in the thriving local economy, construction market and cooperative society. The everyday people challenge systems created by those with property and thus power through “silent, largely atomized actions” that enable their existence and incremental growth. It is these quiet actions that challenge the state prerogatives such as the “meaning of order,” “the control of public space” and “access to public and private goods.”[40] Over the past thirty years, numerous shops, educational institutions and religious buildings have developed in Shivaji Nagar. Several parts of the settlement is now full of commercial activity. These activities include rag picking, embroidery, tailoring, carpentry, construction, and other small-scale industrial world. Further, the dynamic construction market is vital to the neighborhood’s economic life. Every year repairing and reconstruction of the nearly 50,000 structures on site are maintained by the 300 local contractors and 43 construction material shops. Most of the houses are two floors high and cost from one and a half to six lakhs INR. The local contractors and highly-abled workers, who are contractors, masons, plumbers, electricians, and carpenters, possess valuable regional knowledge of what building practices and materials work in the area. The informal settlement developed incrementally with the help of these local artisans with little or no support from the state. Lastly, though many have occupancy rights, the residents have initiated co-operative housing societies to negotiate with local bureaucracy and politicians for recognition of those rights.[41]
Shivaji Nagar is a neighborhood in the M East Ward of the Brihanmumbai Municipal Area in the eastern part of the city. The area covers about 135 hectares. To its south is the main road Jeejabai Bhosle Marg and its north the Deonar Dumping Ground, which is one of India’s oldest and largest dumping grounds. In the 1980s, the area was presented to the city’s resettlement project. Accordingly, slum-dwellers from Matunga Labour Camp were relocated there in 1968. The informal settlement exhibits a high population density with migrant workers from other states like Uttar Pradesh, Bengal, and Gujarat and greater Maharashtra. There is a large Muslim population and over 80 mosques in the area. The average monthly income of males is 7,000 Indian Rupee (INR) and 1,500 for females.[38] Even though the neighborhood is better off than many other settlements around the city, it manifests difficult living conditions. These circumstances have to do with issues of space, high population density, weak soil profile, housing, water and sewage infrastructure, the dumping ground, lack of public spaces, local corrupt politics and bureaucracy as it relates to tenure and demolitions, and the second phase of the city’s metro project that is proposed to run nearby the settlement.[39] Even with these problems, the residents are successfully lifting themselves up and out of poverty by way of economic and social incremental growth in the past thirty years.
The economic and social incremental growth is visible in the thriving local economy, construction market and cooperative society. The everyday people challenge systems created by those with property and thus power through “silent, largely atomized actions” that enable their existence and incremental growth. It is these quiet actions that challenge the state prerogatives such as the “meaning of order,” “the control of public space” and “access to public and private goods.”[40] Over the past thirty years, numerous shops, educational institutions and religious buildings have developed in Shivaji Nagar. Several parts of the settlement is now full of commercial activity. These activities include rag picking, embroidery, tailoring, carpentry, construction, and other small-scale industrial world. Further, the dynamic construction market is vital to the neighborhood’s economic life. Every year repairing and reconstruction of the nearly 50,000 structures on site are maintained by the 300 local contractors and 43 construction material shops. Most of the houses are two floors high and cost from one and a half to six lakhs INR. The local contractors and highly-abled workers, who are contractors, masons, plumbers, electricians, and carpenters, possess valuable regional knowledge of what building practices and materials work in the area. The informal settlement developed incrementally with the help of these local artisans with little or no support from the state. Lastly, though many have occupancy rights, the residents have initiated co-operative housing societies to negotiate with local bureaucracy and politicians for recognition of those rights.[41]
FINAL THOUGHTS
"The home is the center of life...wellspring of personhood...encompasses not just shelter but warmth, safety, family --- the womb."[42]
"Nation but a patchwork of cities and towns; cities and towns a patchwork of neighborhoods; and neighborhoods a patchwork of homes." [43]
"Eviction is a cause, not just a condition, of poverty." [44]
"Nation but a patchwork of cities and towns; cities and towns a patchwork of neighborhoods; and neighborhoods a patchwork of homes." [43]
"Eviction is a cause, not just a condition, of poverty." [44]
CITATIONS
[1] Sujata Patel and Alice Thorner, ed., Bombay: Metaphor for Modern India (Bombay: Oxford University Press, 1995), xii.
[2] "World Urban Areas Population and Density: A 2012 Update," New Geography, last modified May 3, 2012, http://www.newgeography.com/content/002808-world-urban-areas-population-and-density-a-2012-update.
[3] Jan Nijman, "Against the odds: Slum rehabilitation in neoliberal Mumbai," Cities 25 (2008): 74-75.
[4] Patel and Thorner, Bombay, xxiv.
[5] Nijman, "Against the odds," 76.
[6] Ibid, 73.
[7] Amita Bhide, "Shifting terrains of communities and community organization: reflections on organizing for housing rights in Mumbai," Community Development Journal (2009): 3.
[8] Nijman, "Against the odds," 75.
[9] Bhide, "Shifting terrains," 5.
[10] David Harvey, "Debates and Developments: The Right to the City," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research Vol. 27.4 (2003): 940.
[11] Nijman, "Against the odds," 74.
[12] Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN), comp., How to Respond to Forced Evictions: A Handbook for India (New Delhi: Habitat International Coalition -- South Asia, 2014), 92.
[13] Harvey, "Debates," 939 and 941.
[14] HLRN, Forced Evictions, 10-11.
Expanded on by the United Nations (UN) Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), adequate housing must fulfill a minimum of seven core requirements: 1) Legal security of tenure, 2) Availability of services crucial for health, security, comfort and nutrition, 3) Affordability, 4) Habitability with respect to space and protection, 5) Accessibility, 6) Location that make possible the obtaining of social services, and 7) Cultural adequacy and expression of cultural identity and diversity.
[15] H. Peter Oberlander, Land: The Central Human Settlement Issue (London: University of Minnesota Press, 2014), ix.
[16] Ibid, 1
[17] Bhide, "Shifting terrains," 4.
[18] Ibid, 4.
[19] Ibid, 4.
[20] Nijman, "Against the odds," 77.
[21] Liza Weinstein, "Demolition and Dispossession: Toward an Understanding of State Violence in Millennial Mumbai," Studies in Comparative International Development (2013): 285.
[22] Bhide, "Shifting terrains," 8.
[23] Nijman, "Against the odds," 77.
[24] Greg O'Hare and Dina Abbott, "A review of slum housing policies in Mumbai," Cities Vol. 15 (1998): 280.
[25] Weinstein, "Demolition," 285.
[26] Bhide, "Shifting terrains," 8.
[27] Weinstein, "Demolition," 300 and 302.
[28] Bhide, "Shifting terrains," 8 and 13.
[29] Weinstein, "Demolition," 286.
[30] Patel and Thorner, Bombay, 182.
[31] HLRN, Forced Evictions, 92.
[32] David Harvey, Rebel Cities: From the Right to the City to the Urban Revolution (New York: Verso, 2012), 18.
[33] Simpreet Singh, "Right to Housing in Contemporary India: Why it remains a mirage?" (presented at the National Workshop on 'Right to Housing,' NALSAR University of Law, Hyderabad, India, August 8, 2014).
[34] HLRN, Forced Evictions, 3.
[35] Matthew Desmond, Evicted: Poverty and Profit in the American City (New York: Crown Publishers, 2016), 333.
[36] Patel and Thorner, Bombay, 182.
[37] Ananya Roy and Nezar AlSayyad, Urban Informality: Transnational Perspectives from the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia (New York: Lexington Books, 2004), 17.
[38] "Shivaji Nagar: URBZ Work 2012-2014," URBZ, accessed May 17, 2016, https://www.flickr.com/photos/urbzoo/albums/72157647472728917.
[39] "Affordable Housing for Mumbai? Within Reach," Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava, accessed May 16, 2016, http://www.ndtv.com/opinion/affordable-housing-for-mumbai-within-reach-706021.
[40] Roy and AlSayyad, Urban Informality, 17-18.
[41] "Shivaji Nagar, M-Ward, Mumbai," Matias Echanove, last modified February 26, 2014, http://urbz.net/shivaji-nagar-m-ward-mumbai/.
[42] Desmond, Evicted, 293.
[43] Desmond, Evicted, 294.
[44] Desmond, Evicted, 299.
IMAGE CREDITS
All the images are from my Fall 2015 trip to Mumbai, India.
All the images are from my Fall 2015 trip to Mumbai, India.
VIDEO CREDIT
URBZ, "A House We Built Bigger (Sept 2015)," YouTube video, 3:38, Posted [October 2015], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Fwz3XdUlg.
URBZ, "A House We Built Bigger (Sept 2015)," YouTube video, 3:38, Posted [October 2015], https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-Fwz3XdUlg.