5 August 2013
Our
second day of fieldwork with the Slum Rehabilitation Society consisted
of discussion time in the office, travel, and consecutive visits to
Dharavi and Chembur. In doing so we were able to observe healthcare
practice, educational programming, and spatial realities of both
rehabilitated (vertical structure) homes and horizontal slum
communities. It has been interesting to go from the headquarters in
posh Bandra West to the various communities in which the Slum
Rehabilitation Society is involved, as it provides sharp experience of
what Shaban (2008) describes as the “spatiality of neoliberalism” (p.
69). The contrast of spatiality between the rich and the poor is
glaringly apparent. To carry the idea of the spatiality of
neoliberalism a bit further, it also seems as though vertical building
projects for slum rehabilitation are the product and function of the
continuing neoliberal reality. For, under the current Slum
Rehabilitation Scheme with the SRA, rehabilitation is largely for the
purpose of freeing up land for private development sui causis
as well as for making Mumbai more attractive to global economic
players. The privileging of vertical, “secure” housing also seems to
fit into a discursive framework built upon dominant tendencies toward
the building up of walls, compartmentalization of space, and
prioritization of area.
On
the former point, Bannerjee-Guha (2009) notes that since the 1990s the
elites of Mumbai have been striving to turn it into “the country’s
future international financial and service center” as part of an overall
Indian mission to turn Indian cities into world class cities(p. 101).
The slum rehabilitation project, especially since 1995, is a clear
example of the urban development favored by such a mission.
Gentrification of poor areas is happening for public and private
purposes, and the SRA program only benefits the “established
poor”--those who can prove residency prior to 1995. The result is
increasing spatial marginalization and land-area minimization for the
poor, and maximization for the wealthy. As Shaban made clear in his
lecture on 7 August 2013, this marginalization concurrently and
con-causally happens at various dimensions of space--psychological,
social, chronological, and physical. I cannot help but think of
parallels to projects of “urban renewal” and gentrification in Chicago.
The Woodlawn neighborhood is a good example, as it sits on the edge of
the gentrification project. As the University of Chicago and associated
industries seek to expand, property values and taxes increase. Poorer
residents are then unable to maintain their residences and have to sell.
The result is economically coerced displacement. There are obvious
differences between the examples, including architectural and
policy-wise, but the similarities in mission, ideology, and coercion are
remarkable.
On
the second point, vertical structure rehabilitation seems to represent
well the neoliberal discursive framework. The attraction is secure
housing and often an increase in floor space per home. Thus, individual
families perhaps gain privacy and clearly delineated space, both of
which seem to be more fluid in horizontal communities based on limited
observation. Walls are built up, and area is seen as the highest ideal.
Further, the building of vertical structures changes the lifescape and
landscape of a community. “Home” and “work” spaces become clearly
delineated, as do spaces for learning, play, waste disposal, and
sanitation processes. While such compartmentalization is not
problematic in and of itself, it is built upon dominant ideals of space
rather than upon the community capital that already exists. Further,
these realities improve the prospects of the neoliberal city project in
that they simultaneously maximize land area for development by putting
poor residences on top of each other, put people’s lives behind walls,
and hide much of the sensorily available evidence of failed state
responses to poverty.
6 August 2013
Our
third day of fieldwork involved visiting Marol and Khar (West). Marol
is a community in which builders illegally constructed homes on top of
other homes and sold them on the private market, creating a situation in
which the poorer residents want rehabilitation while the wealthier
residents on top do not. The necessary concensus, therefore, cannot be
reached. The 60-family community in Khar (West) unanimously wants
rehabilitation, but the area is too small and unattractive for a private
builder to take up under the SRA. Both are cases in which the goal of
betterment for the poor is unattainable because of failed and faulty
public-private response (intentional and unintentional).
Rudolph
and Rudolph (1987) write, "The 'state for itself'--as interested actor,
reproducing itself--appropriates public powers and resources to
partisan and private interest," in discussing the relationship between
the state and society in India (p. 14). This seems to be what has
happened largely at the municipal level here in Mumbai. As such it is
the local government rather than the nation state, though it might be
indicative of the nation state as well. While talking with employees at
the Slum Rehabilitation Project we hear over and over again about how
the Slum Rehabilitation Authority is nothing more than a corrupt body
that is only looking out for individual profit and the profit of
developers. This is surely a far cry from the original intent of the
SRA and Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (even though the Society would claim
it was fundamentally flawed from the start). Yet, based on observing
huge disparities in the quality of buildings for rehabilitated slum
residents and those for resale, the Society's view makes sense. There
are also multiple "rehabilitation" projects that have been frozen
because of developer greed in breaking regulations. The result is a
seemingly haphazard system that takes forever and, though perhaps
increasing the floor space of one's dwelling, is entirely unjust upon
completion.
12 August 2013
Our
fieldwork today consisted of traveling to Murgan Chawl, a 60-year old
chawl settlement in Santa Cruz West. Prior to leaving, the staff
described Murgan Chawls as a “very backward place” with lots of drug use
and prostitution. In the words of the annual report, “This is one of
the most backward areas in the Western Suburb, and conditions of the
people are pathetic” (SRS Annual Report 2011-2012). While the Slum
Rehabilitation Society’s tone is quite moralizing, the descriptors
themselves are not inapt based upon observation. The 100-family
settlement is in disrepair, there is very little airflow and sunlight,
passageways are the smallest I have yet seen, children over the age of
12 have stopped attending school, and men are sitting around high
outside. Standing tall in the middle of the front of the settlement is
an SRA building that was started 16 years ago and never finished.
Seeing this reality compels me to reiterate Harvey’s (2007) question:
“In whose particular interests is it that the state take a neoliberal
stance, and in what ways have those interests used neoliberalism to
benefit themselves rather than, as is claimed, everyone, everywhere?”
(p. 24).
Anand
and Rademacher (2011) problematize the use of Harvey’s conception of
neoliberalism in reference to the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme and
resulting Slum Rehabilitation Authority in Mumbai by arguing that it has
come from a combination of political, private, NGO, and grassroots
interests rather than simply that of the corporate sector. Further,
they argue that the program has been “unexpectedly popular” among
settlement residents (pp. 1760-1761). So, the SRA came about in part
because of activism by settlement residents, and settlement residents
continue to actively favor and participate in the SRA process. Their
argument, then, is that rather than a hegemonic neoliberal project, the
SRA is multiply conceived and multiply participated in, including by
those whose lives are most affected.
Anand
and Rademacher do a good job of marking the failures that have occurred
since the institution of the SRA, and they should be lauded for
ensuring that the voice of the settlement residents not be left out of
any discourse on their own realities, nor their active involvement in
processes that have occurred. Yet, their argument seems to be lacking
in its overall critique neoliberalism as a discursive framework through
which to view slum rehabilitation. Murgan Chawl provides a good
example. As the authors suggest, the community actively sought out a
builder and anticipated the fruit of participating in the program.
After construction began, though, the builder decided that it would not
in the end be as profitable as had been hoped. According to the SRA
guidelines, it was entirely the builder’s prerogative to stop
mid-project. The state favored private enterprise and thus had no
regulations on project completion, and the private actor had all the
decision-making authority. When market forces made the endeavor
unprofitable, the private actor abruptly ended development. So, even
though the marginalized community had a voice in getting the project
started--and conceivably in getting the Scheme authorized--they had no
ultimate power in ensuring project completion. In my mind, this process
matches Harvey’s description of neoliberalism aptly and begs his
question of favored interests.
The reality seems to be that the only cases in which the wishes of the marginalized are met are those
for which corporate profit aligns with a community’s demand for
rehabilitation. In other words, if the geographical and regulatory
landscapes will maximize capital accumulation, then the private actor
will enter the scene. In this case the interest of the marginalized is
collateral to the interest of the private actor desiring the same
outcome. The result, then, seems to be haphazard rehabilitation in
those parts of the city that benefit private actors. A systematic
program of rehabilitation that targets areas of need would align with
the idea of “interest of the marginalized,” but the rehabilitation
pattern that has emerged indicates something entirely different. Seeing
this pattern in Mumbai makes me wonder about Chicago’s recent
redevelopment schemes, in which mixed housing has replaced project
housing. The most famous of these is the Cabrini-Green area. The
former housing project is conveniently nestled between Gold Coast and
Lincoln Park. I am currently suspicious as to whose interests were
being served in this redevelopment and in others across the city.
In conclusion, the visit to Murgan Chawl was an eye-opening one. The visible results of the level of poverty are seen as behavioral issues by the Slum Rehabilitation Society, but they remarkably resemble those of urban poverty in the United States. What are the larger systemic processes and realities at work here?