The Politics of Community-making in New Urban India 9780367517960, 9708367537231, 9781003083061

Citation preview

TlflE POLllrl CS OF COMMUNllil-MAKI NG I N NEW WRBAN I ND IA ILLIBERAL SPACES, ltllBERAL CITIES Ritanjan Das and Nilotpal Kumar

,1 1 111u;1=1:: l 1: �=

·! :H II

.

1.

--- ·-

·

:

i I lii1 I - •:

l'lll j

ill l

•

l Jn:. "

!II

The Politics of Community-making in New Urban India

This hook explores the relationship between the production of new urban spaces and illiheral community-making in contemporary India. It is based on an ethnographic study in Noida, a rity at the eastern fr ing, thereby transforming the image and functions of c1ues from celllres of mass production and work to attractive places for local and global in\'estment. (Harvey 1989, 2003). Entrepreneurial cities sought to . . cut clown on the state's prior welfarist commitments and found m novauvc ways to become cost-effective and reliant on own-source re\'enues, namcl} property-tax, which in turn made them dependent on those that creale value, i .e. the private real estate market (Weber 2002). What stands oul here is the post-1970s city as a product, as something to be sold, promoted and marketed (Ashworth and Voogd 1990; Philo and Kearns 1993). The neo-Marxist approach of analysing the urban as a historically pro­ duced assemblage has increasingly interfusccl with liheral sociological the­ ories since the 1980s (Zukin 1980; Bo1ja and Cas1ells 1997; Sasscn 1999; Soja 2000; Wacquant 2008; Low 2017). The Anglo-American sociolog?' of the 1960s and 1970s focused on explaining the micro-urban orgam­ saLion of 'urban problems' including poverty, ethnic segregation and crime (Sennell 1970; Sibley 1995; Sa\'age and Warde 1993). However, more recent works have made widespread use of the overlapping analytics of

�,.,.. ,• ..,,,.,u:, l.omm1m1ty-111akmg a11d Illiberal Politics

gl obal_isati on a nd the �o stmodern urban t� th e orise hybrid configura tions of social cl asses, etl uuc groups and a ssociated forms of cul tural politics. �as��n (201 �: x.v), f o� instance, h a s theorised the contempora ry city as a pa 1 llcula r site 1 n wluch gl ob al processes take pla ce'. Using a specific cate. gor y of gl oba l c1tr as a method ol ogical co ncept and a so cial form, Sassen suggests t hat cer tain selected cities now anchor new command functions production and 111arkct-i>ascd roles f or leading economic sectors in a hicr� archy of functions pla yed by ot her cities wit hin the pla netary capitalistic S}'Slem. Contempora ry gl obal cities restructure rela tions between cla sses regi ons a nd nations by loc,il ising flo ws of ca pita l a nd labour, and h er work seeks to combine a sociolo gical a pproach to the city with the neo-Marxist f ocus o� spatialisati 011 of economic pro cesses. Departing from Sassen's . e!nphas1s o n emcrg111g economic systems, oth er so ciologists ha\'e theo ­ rised co1_1 temporar y cities a s 'postmodern' i n cri tica l-cultural a nd pol itical ­ cco1101111c_ scnses e\·en as t hey disa greed on what constitute the predomi­ . nafll empmcal ma rkers for th e term. For instan ce, Zukin (1992) privi l eges . new con s�unpuo n styles of the el ite vi a gentrification and 'Disneyfica tion', uncle� wl uch older (and �1ewer) parts of a city undergo re\•a l uation th rough . new 1m•estments m residenti al , commercial and recreational activi ties. Others th i n k that more than new consumption sty les, it is i nnovations i n class and ethnici t y-b ased control a nd segrega tion of space, as evident i n the ph enomenon of f ortified or ga ted communities of the cl i tes tha t define both post-m a na gerial cities and t hei r citizenship norms (Amin 1994). l T hese inte rfuscd discussions on glob alisation h a\·e increa singlr co n­ . ve :ged w1tl � tl10�e on neol!be�a l urba nisati on . Ne oliberalism is commonly . seen to rauonahse gloi>ahsauon , refcrnng to a political-economi c ideol ­ o g� involving acti\'C creati on of competi tive m a rkets, m a rket-friend}}' insti­ tutions a nd mobi l ity of ca pital by a n accounta ble sta te (Peck a nd Tickel l 2002; Harvey 2005; Purcell 2008; Sheppa rd el al 2015, etc.). I t is a l so com­ monl y a greed tha t insofar a s th e ideology has radi a ted from glo bal (west­ �rn) urba n ,c_cmres i n the 1990s, i t aims at a teleological urba n 'rernl ution from a bove III order to promote entrepreneurial urban poli cies across the �vorld (Sheppa rd et al 2015: 2). Accordingl y, urba n govern a nce has increa s­ : n gl y .bcen, rescaled arou nd sub-nation al units to promote 'autonomy' a nd efficiency (Purcell 2008; C rossa 2009). Howe"er, there arc disagreements about_ (a) t he manner i n which this totalising ideology unravels across post­ colo '.11al an� pos�-�ommunist i'.1s�ituti onal con texts and (b) th e relation ship between tl11s poht1cal-econo1111c ideol ogy a nd it.s soci o -cultural markers. In contrast to the universalistic th eories of glo ba l neol ibera l urban isa tion, such a s th � restor,uion of power of ca pi tal and el ites o\·er urba n-state appa­ ra tt1s or widespread expro pri ation of la ncl-resources by th e state (a s Han'ey or Sassen !1ropos�) , oth ers ha ve emphasised on recognising open-ended, ' '.mlleable mte_r.icuons of neol iberal economic rational ity in diverse institu­ tio nal a nd socao cuhural contexts in the US, Europe and Asia (Brenner a nd The odore 2002; Ong 2006).

Urban SJmce, Com1mmily-111alcing and Illiberal Politir.s 21

These o\•erlapping discussions between the two approaches have also of ur ba n space resonatcd i n their stance o n t he contemporary politics . • • Keit11 and Pile 1997; ayer e al 199•1; M 016). An unpor tat�t tI1esas 111 ssey (Ma � � . . the 1980s and 1990s was th at of the polan_sau�n of ur�an space by so.cm) class , understood h ere as strn_ctu_ra l lo cation m re!auons �f pr�duct•�:1 . Specificall y, many reported a nse m � n_d con cc1� t ral101� o f ela te p'.1v�te sc_c111 specific urba n ,1rc.1s th .it tor pro1r.,cs sionals' m anagers and adnumstrators . · .� 2�00· (M�ssc�• 1991,. SoJ, asses l c rkmg o w e h t of se o h t from e t separa -were '. Savage and Warde 1993}. A differelll f orm of pola nsauon, but 1h1s t1111c · · · 111 reIa t· on s around intersectio ns of cl ass, race, eth nic �nd scxua1 ·1�Icnuues, '. _ of consumption of urban resources (ho usmg, educat1�n ��d _ health caac) had al so been reported by Man uel Ca stel ls (19�3)._ Wlule 1 t as 1mport_;11�l to define the meani n g, form and ex tan t of pola nsauon as a process d1stmct from con centratio n (Sava ge a nd Warde 1993: 87), recent researches l_1ave also reported sharpened class segregatio ns across the Anglo-American urban (Graham and Marvin 2001; Davis 2004; Alsayyad and Roy 2006). But tJiers have underli ned the need to interconnect a class-based appro.ich �o understand conflicts wi t h important racial, gender and ethnicity-based structural divisions i n urba n forms (Wacquan t 2008). The need to balance objective and subjective views of cl ass while unravelling its e n 1 an gl cments wilh other so cia l divisions and cultural forms has also bee n f orcefully underlined ( Bounlieu 1984). This exegesis of th e two t heoretical frameworks, th us, suggests tha1 political-economic concept,; of_ h istori�al producti� n _of space, urban restructuri n g and entrepreneurial neoltberal globa l tsauon must he �011nected with a quo tidian politics of space in which sociol ogical concepl1m1s ofidentity, cultural differences and community i nteractions arc vital. Such a politics of urba n space can be framed alon g arenas and Jnvct�fses. One arena is th e ordinary politics of urba n life, i n voh•ing the question of how individuals aggregate t hemselves as social groups and control proximale spaces i n particul.ir ways a s thei r 'turfs'. Traditio nal ly, groups l a:;ed o'.1 '. primary social ties - kinsh ip, race, e tc. - and l ocality ha\'e bce�t d1ffere'.1 �1ated from tho se based on organ ised political-econ omic, spaual a nd c1,• 1c interests (Leftwich 2004). A rela ted arena of spatial poli tics responding to the globalised urban is that of organised contestations by 'new socia� move­ ments' (Castel ls 1983). Castells argued th at such new tllO\'Clllcnts mvol vc goals of redressing group-specific 'marginalitics' on th ree speci � c axes: (a) access to in-place goods and services i n cl uding afforda ble housmg and publ i c spaces; (b) expression of pla ce-bo und cultura l idellli t_ies; �ncl (c) the function ing of local govern ments. Drawing on the de nse 1dcnuty-11et­ works and interest-ba sed organisatio ns i n cluding trade unions, ethno rel i­ gious institution s and miclclle-cla ss l ifcstyle-oriett led associ a tions, Ca stells interrogated ot her neo-Ma rxist works f or their exclusive atte� 1tion t� cl_ass as a single source of group-making, dismissal of th� � late _11� med1at111g urban politics and for underval uation of the urba n c1v1c ac11v1sm. Se\'eral

....

v,umt ->pacr, l,011111m111IJ-maki11g and Illibeml Politics re�cm_ works a�s suggest I.h a t for the poor ? , ethnic and r ace-based groups obJecuve condumns and subiecti\•e exper • ience :1 s of urba n-spec1· ri1c marg·m-' . · a r'.IIes h a"e m fact ccentua ted in the la st few decades (Wacquam 2008; , . r er al 2016 � ). '? "'en welfare restrnctu rings in u rba n �la}e forms, a wave of mterconnecled socia l movements and l'iole nt group actions h ave ensued as well (Marer et al 2016). We acknowl�dgc aml use those concepts that intersect the sociological _ a nd neo-Marx1st the o 1 c s a s ou tlined auove. Yet, the concrete histo _: rical fon �1s ?f Southern crues, and in particu lar the 'palimpsc stic' conditions (Alljan a and Mc_Farla ne 201 1 : 6) of postco l onial urbanism, require th a t we use th em refl cx1vel y, l n a long-standing appr _ _ oach th at critica lly assesses both libe r al � nd Ma rxist ethnocent rism, postcolonial theories _ the third me1�-thc or�11cal approach - h ave suggested the ways in which colonial pro­ �lu_cuon of c1 �y-� ess delinea ted colonised spaces a nd enab led their national 1 suc appropn auons and su bsequent ve rn acul ar isation under a dem _ . ocratic stat� (.Ashcroft rt 2003; Ch a tterjee 2004 ; K:n-iraj 2015; Sheppard el al 20b ). In Appadura1 s (199 5) criticism · of such tl1 eor1·es, Iie tr ams · our fiocus on I•m� a _ new cuhu ral e onomy of glob al isation, a ided br constant _ � flows of _me�l '. a images, migra tion a nd techno l ogy, creates conflictua l hete roge ­ neity. 1 her� _ a rc contim'. itics between the postcolonial theories and the _ So11the1 n cn1e s perspectn·e, a s the latte r perspecti\'e approaches cities of the global Somh as connected to the glob a l economics •aI1 (I SOCle · ty ·In more . • , . ' • .e 10111 < I"ncrs r 1 s than 1s assumed h}' both the neo·1Mar•x 1s · t ancI socm · Iog1ca · 1 . · s (SI tI1 eonc , 1 atk11 1 2007; Robinson "013 Ro" : '>014 · . ) Tl1c nat u re a nd roIe • . ?f 1_I1e !Jostcoloma l state, formation of social and civic grou ps and local msutuuona l system,; are seen to v•a r) in _ tli e sOUti1crn comexts I· ll their ' • · . engagement wi th d11nc ns1ons of global is ation (Sha tkin 2007 ; De Nev e and D�nncr 2006). Contributors to these pe rspecth·es argue that such gen­ e r.11 �oncepts � s urban pl r� ning, (in)form _ al it)' a nd go\'ernancc c ncou � n­ tei c�iffe rent kmd_s of empincal rea lities in the cities of the gl obal South rel auve to those Ill the de\'elopecl worl .' d (Onoo- 2006•· Rov . 2009). I n tius work, \,e ' 'auen_v

uroa11 �/mce, Go111mw1ity- maki11g aml Illiberal Politics

wide-ranging usage of the term illiberal - especially in western media and think tanks-albeit in a rather nonnative tone that tends to portray illiberal as a deviation from a brand of liberal values that is highly synonymous with pro-US foreign policy, rarely dis tinguishing between political, cultural and economic liberalism (Lamelle 2022). Prior to Zakaria's intervention, the �dca of illi_beralism wa_s _sporadically used in academic scholarship pertain­ m g to regunc types, nsmg out of the debates around the 'failure' of liber­ alism a� a defining political epoch i n the 20th cemury, first i n the contexti, of the Russian revolution and then more decisively so in the rise of Nazism (Dip_rose el al 2019). Originally proposed in the 1960s by German soci­ olog1s_t Ralf _Dah_rendo�f {1967), the idea was adopted and refined by the A_mencan l11stonan Fntz _Stern (1972) as a cultural style embodying ob e­ dience, th� uneasy adulauon of alll hority and a faith i n the supreme value of the nauon-state Ua rausch 1983). Building on Stern's observations, sev­ eral other scholars explained illiberali sm during 1970s and 1980s in tenns of the economic and social forces that emerged out of the social disloca­ tions specific to Germany's 19th-century industrial t r.msformation. There has been some limited usage in non-European contexts too, such as those focusing on democratisation attempL� in East Asia (Bell et al 1995) and the_ M�ddle Ea_st (Hamid 2014). Howe,·er, by the 1990s, a st rongly shared optunism was Ill place among western liberal commentators, as liberalism in the f�nu of liberal democracies was often claimed to be unstoppable i n the rachcally altered world order in the post-Cold War era, with debates around !lli (>eralism conside��cl as mauers of historiography. Such compla­ cent optumsm was, unsurpn smgly, rather short-lived in the face of an 'illib­ �ral connter-re,·olution throughout the post-communist world and beyond' m the 21st century (KrJs tev and Holmes 2019: 6). Concomitantly, the rela­ tionship between liberalism and democracy has been subject to renewed and frequem schola rly attention in the past two decades, often giving way to a 'sense of urgency and impending doom' (Kanth and King 2021: 367). Par�doxical �y, tl_1is renewed attention has also contributed to the fluidity of t� 1e idea, as 1t tnes t_? �tay co�nnittcd to the 20th-century scholarship on regime types by dcscnbmg a wide array of contemporary developments as primarily symptomatic of deepening democratic deficits. In other words, m ore recent writings on illiberali sm, despite their va ried contextual emphasis, remain mostly attentive to a pro/anti-democratic state and its governance systems. Arguments thus emanating have advanced a pleth­ ora of conceptual categories, for example, 'competitive authoritarianism' (Le\'itsky and Way 2002), ' hybrid regimes' (LeviL�ky and Way 2010), 'demo­ cratic backsliding' (Bermeo 2016), 'de-democratisation' (Bogaa rd s 2018), 'autocralisation' (Kalberer 2021), 'popnlism'/'populist authoritarianism' (Sadurski 2019), etc.!! Interesti ngly, as mentioned i n the Prologue, V-Dem categorised India (alongside Brazil, Hungary , Poland, Serbia and Turkey) as an 'electoral autocracy' in its Democracy Report 2022,� noting that there has been significant decline i n democratic freedoms in the country during

Urban SJ,ace, Co11m11mity-maki,ig and Jllibeml Politics 31

the post-2014 BJP regime. Yet, as L'lruellc (2�22: 5� argu�s,_ all th� se categ� . of1lhbcrahsm for t\\O nes remain somewhat problematic for the d1scuss10n . . 'fi rst because the}• limit their understanchng of u •111 ·11>era1" to pracls . o1 eas r• . . . .. . . . lookmg at the 1cI coI og1caI uces of power and instuuuonal reahues without ... 1· 1 " . l1 ..un(I emocraf1c." content, •alid s econd because they conflate 11 1 leraI wit • norms bu1 Th , describe practices of power that diverge from dcmocrauc ma;\ack the ideological component needed to qualify for illibcralism'. 1t �· s therefore important to acknowledge another recent strand of schol arsIup that purposefully mm•es away from descriptions of illiberal tenden· · one of tI 1e ci• es · a democracy to a more ideological conceptua1 1sat1011. (2021). mos n otable works in this literalll re is .that of. Ka11L11 and King's .. . which identifies two conceptual categones of 11 l 1' bera1 ·ism: d1srupt 1, e . �ncl ideological. Disrupti\·c illiheralism, the}' contend, rep�csems an oppo su1_0'.� _ s to procedural democratic norms (much along the Imes of the Zakana . ' · · · formulation of illiberal democracy), hilt 1deolog1ca I 1" _J l 1 bera 1 ism ts I>asecl . . to on a logic of exclusion of some groups from the c1uzenry·, adhermg . .. sa an ·underlying hierarchical concept of humanity that casts . . . mmonue � standing outside the bounda ries of rights 10 lihert_Y and equal treatment . . (IbllI ... 369) • . . Their work remains significant, havmg demonstrated how . ·some elements of illiheralism attack democracy while others attack hberaI principles, a distinction that is critical for th� present_ work a s w�II._ Sever�� authors ha\'e snbsequentl}' demonstrated this cxdus1onary logic 111 11101c detail. For example, Hennig and Weiher-Salzmann (2021_) ha\'e sh_o�,·n how religious forces can be instrumental in pro'.noting ilhheral pohucs ; Drin6czi and Bicn-Kacalai (2020) and de Sa c Silva (2022) have �emon­ strated instances of 'illiberal illegality', i . e. judicial systems operaung o'. 1 _ exclusionary principles and arguments; Waller (2021 ) has explored 11_1'it 1 _ tutional illihera lism where loyalty to the regime is a notable char�cte1_·1st1c among institutions and figureheads; B: rczin (202 � ) sh� ws the tntncatc . relationship between illihcralism, idenuty and nauonahsm; _Hac� -Abc!ou {2021 ) examines instances of illiheralism in co'.1tempor�r� 11nm1gra �10n policy and so on. Howe,·er, the most comprchcns1ve descnpuon of the 1cle­ ological under pinnings of illiheralism has been pill forwa rd by Larnelle (2022: 6-7) in the form of a 'pilot definition', where she contends:

:°

•

• •

•

Illiherali sm is a new ideological universe that, even if doctrinally fluid and context bas ed, is to some degree coherent. It represents a backlash against today's libe�l �sm in �I � its_ \'ariecl . scripts-political, economic, cultural, geopohucal, _c1n� 1zauonal often in the name of democratic principles and by wmmng popular support. . It proposes solutions that arc majorita rian, nation-cemnc or s� ,·creigntist, farnuring traditional hierarchies and cultural homoge11�1ty ,­ I t calls for a shift from politics to culture and is post-postmodern 111 its claims of rootedness i n an age of globalisation.

..,puw, vommumly makmg a11d Illiberal Politics _I n her frami1�g of illibcra lism, La ruclle build s on politica l theorist Michael Freedcn ·s i.dea of a 'th in ideology', one that h as ·a restricted core at�ach c� to a narrower range of politica l concepts' (Frceden 199 , 6: 750 }. Ilhbera hsm s status a s a thi n id eology - i.e. lack of a un ified doc trinal coherence - ste, s from , she argues, the inherent ideolog � ical fluid ity of a postm?d�rn society, 'sha ped hr me d ia immediacy, e conom ic and cultural �lobahsat1 on, a fragme n ted world of competing and contra sting ide ntities' (Laruellc 2022: 8). Th reatened by, and i n re sponse to suc h rclat i\·ist va lues a_bo ut_ c?smo�olitan ism, a bolition of bounda ries and identity d ccon struc­ t'.o'.1, 1 lhbcra hs111 off �rs ar� 'a ppea li ng. . . ca ll for a "return" to modern ity' (ibid .). ,�t the _s�me tune, ll ha s to remai n mallea ble to coun ter th e pos t­ nod � r ms t flu 1ch ty, thereby ma � king claims a bout mora li t y, cul t ure a nd d � nut y _on the -�ne hand, and e cono • mic an d ge opolitical on the other . Ilhb�rahs'.n,s ab�hty to be fit such shifti ng ideological-political terr _ a i n s ena­ b_les l l to fu ncuo n 111 a postmodern world where immediac y a n d ec lect i­ cism arc the n or m, w h ich makes it £it the d efi n ition of a post-postmodern hen ome n on' (ibid .). O� h cr sch � ola rs have a lluded to th is app!.!a l by point­ ng ut ho w 110n11ahm f _i t h as bec ome into everyday c ulture an d pol � itics ,,cro� s s the globe. As SaJ o et al (2021 a : xxi ) observe: ... wu,.

Illibcra lism refers lo a se t of soc ia l, political, cultura l, legal, a nd men tal phen omena associated with the w an ing o f in d ivid ua l liberty (personal freed_om) a s a n e vc11:day e�p rie . � n ce. Illiberalism is n ot a n ideology or � regune type. fhe nse of 1lhberalism is not a lwa ys violent. At times it 15 not even unpleasa nt. Nor is it sy n onymous with totalitarianism or a uto crac y. It is comp atible with th e politi cal rituals of a competit ive democracy. It results from politica l, socia l, and econo mic practices th at unduly con centrate po wers in the executh-e bra nch or from t he lirnil ations on so cial d iversit y or ' political plura lism.

These la rgely ana logo us concep tualisa tion s poin t to severa l cru c ia l ele­ mc1_1 ts. We have a lread y pointed to th e d isa sso cia tion from a sole focus on ·'. eg u�1 e _t ypes or libera l de mo cra tic prin ciples a s an argument a tive stance � n tl11s litera ture. Th e se cond aspect to note is the scope a tt ributed t o th e idea: an 'ideologica l un iverse ' in La ruelle's definition , 'socia l, politica l, c ultu ral, lega l a nd me n tal phe no mena ' i n Saj6 et al's (2021 a ) word s, and b,�sc �I on an 'unde rlying h ie rarc hica l con ce pt of h uman it}" in Ka _ uth a nd Km g � formula tion . Such fram ings natura lly go beyond a spec ts of clem­ ucra t 1 c gove�nance and in stitutio n al moda litie s, d rawing our a tten tion to e\•eryc! ay h ved realities a s illib era l sites instead. Ac cord ingly, t h e th ird cle�nent •� the portrayal of illib cra lism as n ot an in fringement of c on sti­ tut ion a l h�)erty a one, but a s a soc ia l menta lit y or cultura lly ent � re nched pat tern (h._ra use �01 9), or a wor ld view charac te rised by 'th e abse nce of th stenu c and mterrela ted co mpo nents of libera lism' �? (Saj6 and Uitz 202 1. 976). Some o f th e not a ble fea tures of this wo rld view in clude

Urban Space, Co11nnwtily•111aking w1d Illiberal Politir.s 33

(a) a rejection of multic ulturalism and min ority righ t_s in favour of a�or� � vie w . · n ism (b) a t rad itiona l vision of gender relation s and (c) ,l itaria ' . . . . km g rr�m of the na tion that h olds national sov�re1gnty as supreme, ta · alism the d ivision be tween ge111e111.sdwft a nd gesellsdmft and seemg �::�:ter only a s a produc t of the former ( Laruclle 202�)_- Th�r� i f � -� course a debate about the ex ac t cultural fac tors t h at fac1I 1 tatc 1 lhbe 1 ,ii · I solution s i n differe nt socie t ies, and wh ile there's a mple research on so cia · n lo ·m� 111·1 grat1011 · (I·Ia·1era h �m - as briefly discus sed above - our conceptualisation 05 wha t con stnu_te� t lh ber�I practices is inform ed by the fol l owin g: (a) we do 1�1 con flate_ t l hberal '.vtth undem ocratic or anti-democratic, a nd refrain 1 ft om _ex pl oru�g O\'Crt_ m stances of the l atte r, e specia l l y those that tend to get wide mecl '.a tra �l l on a ny ways; (b) a n exclusionary pol itics that has a con_iple � rel au �n sln p_ with liberal mines, not necessarily positin g itsel f as a n t1 thet1c :1 l 10_ h �>ernh sm but denouncin g it for hav in g 'fai led to achieve its dem ocratic m �ss,on . . . thus com pcling with liberalism usin g its o wn concep­ tu a_l l �n g,_iag: (Larn �l l e 2022: 31 1); (c) a dom inant pol itical an d cultural m �ontanan_1s m prechca ted upon clai m s of a n imagined nationa l homo­ . ?eneny c? '.1s1stently trumpin g al l other sources of me mber ship a nd creat­ m g con �hll ?n s of '11 11 �qual citizenship' (Kauth and Kin g 2021: 378); and (d) � r�Jecllon of 'rational disco urse , in stead prom oting intolera n ce, fear of ch fference, the cu l t of force, discipline, an d moral authority' (Saj6 et al 2021b: xxii). 1.4.2 Illiberafism, Neofiberafism a11d Urba11 Developme11t

One i1�1 port :i n t a�pect of illibcral ism rem ain s som ewhat muted in the prr ech n g d1sr1 1 ss1011 , tha t o� its econ omic dimen sion . The rel ation ship beni_e�n contt>mporary (nc ohbe ra l ) economic order a nd il l iberalism is a corn_phc�lled o_ne, coun terintuitive i n sofar as the latter's rej ection of l ib­ �raltsm '.n a ll Hs varied scripL� is concerned. Albeit rhe torical ly denounc­ m g 11 �01_rbe ral orthodoxy and promoti n g protectionism at the n ation -state !e,·el, 11. 1_s n ot 1 1 1 1comm o11 to se e a n il liberal political regime implement­ m g neol_1 beral reforms , or at l ea st 'presen•i n g or de epenin g their particu­ la ,_· neohberal wplu�-ins" to the gl obal economy' ( Hend rikse 2021: 68). In tl1 1s rega rd, there 1s som ethi n g to be said about the rise of il l ibera l ism in Cemral a n �I Ea st�rn Europe, '/1recisely because the region e xpe rimen ted with the most ch sr_1 1 puv e _fea� u res of ne ol ibe ralism in a radical way at the end of the com mumst penocl (Laruel l e 2022: 312; emJ>hasis i11 origi11al). In fact, �s som argue, c�n temporary de,:elopme �•� in co untries such as Hun gary, � oland a nd Russia arc not 1 1n clo111 g but tl h beralisin g the ne oliberal pro­ je ct ( �lulcler 2019). In Western Europe or North America, 'no right win g po pul ist l �a s yet com e to power. . .witho ut the collaboration of establ ished ron servauvc el it.es' ( Mu el le r 2019), reverse en gine eri n g il l ibe ral politics

Urban Space, Co11wm11ity-111aki11g and Illiberal Politics 35

and policie s lon g familiar else where (Hendrikse 2021). E�en in �ountr!es SUCh as France and Italy, il libera l n ation alism arose alongside thei r ne ohhBcrezin (2009) cIe scr"b 1 cs as · ·• 11 ·1tlcra I eraI makeovers, givin g rise to what . , . . 11 � 110 • '.1 s •1 �nag1 n e oliberal tim e s'. And m th e cons e rvauve co n slc s in litic undergirdin g n col iberal ism in the US, 'frec-ma r�et cap'.tahsm ts n ot . laced but anchored ever m ore dee ply in conservauve fa nu ly structurt's drsp . · pos·�- ·t, act, ·' ' 1s and a gr oup ide n tity (Slobodia n a nd Plehwe :019: 105). I n " . ble 10 argue that n eol iberal ism 's 11 n democra11c natu_re long remam e�I cl 1 sise d unde r cele bration s of freedom , fear of tcrron sm a nd rnountam s or rebt (Stre eck 2014), a nd while the fi nancia_l crisi� of 2008 disp_e rsed_ n eo­ , Jiberalism 's self-e vide n t aura, western n eohberahsm has re1_n amed m l�r­ digitated with brazen il libera l politics (Rachma n 2019). A� A1yar argues m . hIS com mentary on il l iberal practices in India (much prior to the ad \'en l · · 1. s IlCller of the BJP regim e in 2014), 'what is often �ai led ncot 1J_1era1 ism e ra l ism' (Ai a r 201 1). A detai l ed thcor e ucal asses sm en t of n e o -illib called y pm e nts i s hcro n d th e scope of this w o rk (s e c He n clrikse 202 1 ), dev elo these but the key issue of note is the appropriation of ill ihe':'I discourses by c_oa­ lition s of ne ol ibe ral pol iticians a n d ma instream m echa, there by ensunng that no ide ol ogica l 'backlash' funclamemal ly chal len ges ne olibe ral capital ­ ism. I n stead, these actors typical l y el e vate cultural issues like iden � ity; for e.xampl e, discus sion s around freedom of moveme nt lend to be rcstnctcd to limiting the moveme nt of imm igra n ts, an d is less about limiting goods ? ml services (ibid.). I n adopting such position s, the radical isin g centre-r_,ght supplem en ts its 'subtl e' libe ral racism w� tl� explicit illibe ra l _exprcss1o_ns (Mondon and Win te r 2020), revea l in g a w1 1 l m gne ss to f�rsakc l ls e rsn� l11 l'.· adhere nce to 'progressh·c ne ol ihe ra l ism' (Frao;er 2017), 1.c. the s et of md1vidual rights allache d to the com·cntion al cen trist neolibera l packa?c. _ I t is possibl e to fore groun d the discussions on neolibe ral urba111 sa t1 on against this conceptual backdrop, especial ly in:�ofar a s the l a_ue r ch� l len ges the l ibe ral conce ptual isa tion of the urha n via thr ee specific clanns: (a) the city a s a sel f-gove rn in g entity; (h) as a civilised space for foundin_g ;�ml expressin g vai-iecl associational in tere sts; a nd (c) as a space_ for cla 111111�g equal citizen ship rights a nd re sou rces (i. e. to property, l 1 01 1 sm g, to pt_'hhc _ space, etc.). To br iefly elaborate, fi r st, many liberal 11 rh�ms1s ha ve e xpla m�d how urban l ocal sclf-go\'ernmen t is desirable and possible for a democra tic polity. Jacobs, for in sta nce, in sisted on appr oaching city neighhourh�ods as 'munda ne organs of sel f-governa nce' Uacobs 1961/1992:114). Rclau vely recentlr, Fu n g a n d Wright (2003) e mpha sised the empowerin g role oflocal institution s for deliberative sel f-governa nce a nd autonomy to tackl e spe ­ cific state failu res and ur ban in equal ities. Thesmdoo ;008; Gooptu 2011; Ba\'iskar 2020). While traditional in�licators of 1_ncome or material consmnption have often struggled to sufficiently clescnbc the ·· , ·•�., newness · Ioo 9008) hegemony of this class (Deshpande 2006; Arabmc . , characterised instead by a no\·el ci\lic, aesthetic and d1scurs1\'e profile. ;: is through actual and discursive practices '1s a sizeable cl�mography of . nsumers that this class i-; seen to have acqmrcd hegemony Ill the last few �:cades (Fernandes 2006). One expression_ of th_is h� ger_n�ny _is evident i� 1 the unfolding of an Indian variant of genlnficauon m ctt1es hke Mumbai, Delhi, Chennai and Kolkata. Across these cities, the presence of poor and working classes, both in large residential concentration (�.g- shuns) and in the dispersed/contiguous forms (e.g. pavement pccldhng), ha � been sought to be cleared to cle\'elop exclusive and 'pure' forn� of class-lifestyle spaces, be it in forms of gated residential complexes or � e•s�trc spaces (e :g. Fernandes 2006; Ghertner 2014}. ·1 his attempt at valonsau�n of �xcl11s1\'• ity in space has in\'Olvecl strategies for mobilisation a'.1cl arucu_lauon of _a new middle-class interest at various urban sc,1les, parucularly via strategic participation of residential associations i n ncoliheral participatory govern­ ance programmes'� (a la the Bhagidari scheme in Delhi," Gh�rtner 201�1). This literature underlines the analytical relevance of clonunant social classes and their cultural politico; in producing urban spaces in alliance with the state. It also demonstrates how the new Indian middle class - the propertied consumer-citizen - has grown less tolerant towards the habitats of poor and working classes in their midst. . While the discursive profile of this class frequently finds expression through efforL,; to enforce spatial control (gentrification, eviction of squ_at­ ters, controlling movements, etc.), we find it analytically relevant to pomt to the illiberal nature of the 'classificatory practices' (Uourdieu 1984) that undergird its hegemony. Predicated 011 lifesttle and consumptioi'. _ choices the new middle class can also be conceptualised as a status group engage:( i n a 'classificatory stru?�le' to est:1blisl1 symbol ic �oun�laries _ between iL,;elf and other commmuues occupy111g chfferenL locauons 111 the class structure (ibid .). The modalities of this 'distinction' naturally draws from everyday temporalitics, politics and well-entrenched societal norms, discourses and historical processes, endowing the new middle class by virtue of their economic, social and political capital - with almost a

--· ···J ..........� u111i 1111oerat rotztics

moral authority as the 'rightful owner' of the city-space, and by extension . tl�c ,'rig�1Lful �itizen'. Th is is its true source of hegemony, as i t mai ntains � d1suncuon \\_1 th the poor and marginal communiti es that get portrayed ar a 'threat' to •t� riglnful citi 1.enship. Evocative of Smith's (1996) notion of" rc,,mch i sm.'·1 such hegemonic tcndcncic1t usually find expression i n three different wars (Gooptu 2011). First, a 'moral pa n ic' (Cohen 1972) against the poor _who arc seen as illegally clinging to urban spaces - where thq �ta11(: 11_0 ,�gltt lo belong - as squatters anc� encroachcrs, and thus creating mcom:c'.11e�1ce and even danger for the rightful occupants. Th is supposed_ complicity 111 one respect turns the poor to be lawless i n every respect, and hence shun clearances and c,, ictions command the support of this class who see it as restoring the space to its rightful claimants/citi 1.ens. Second the poor arc held responsible for using their supposed collective ' vot� ba n k' politics to demand unreasonable benefits that arc detrimental to an orderly state. Any state action against the poor therefore has a symbolic ,·alue for concretising the scmimcm of rc,·engc against their political asser­ . llon (Goopt1_1 201 I )_. _Third, any political mobilisation of the poor is seen as a dcstrncuve poht1cal mil itancy inimical to the middle class's economic efficien cy and productivity. I n many Indian cities, political protests and demon strations arc not permitted in the vicinity of administratiYe areas a_nd spec'.al lmsi 1ess/commercial zones, reminiscent of colonial prohibi'. 11?1 1 s_ aga1_n �t. nationalist demonstrations in central areas and gm·ernment chstncts (1b1d.). We conceptualise such practices as illiberal owing to two reaso1'.s: (a) the �1 1 odalities of maintaining these distinctions permeate an . excl11s1ona�• p�hu_cs �hat draws signilicantly from dominalll political and C1'.lt1 1 rnl 11��1 o_ntana1 1 1s1_1 1; and (b) they hold the state responsible for the failure of Its l1heral pro cct to produce an 'orderly' country, the conceptu­ J alisa�ion ?1: 'order' ha\'ing much to do with an imagined nation al homo• genc11.y. l 11 1 s docs not. mean that a strong sense of national identit}' i n and of it�clf is 'inherent!}' illiberal, bm national identity that stems from needs for recog nition a nd dominance can be' (Gronfcldt et al 2021: 666). At the same time, 'prioritising ingroup image O\'er concern for civil lihcrties democracy a n d citizens' well-being has implications for the decisions mad� by rn_t:rs' (ibid.: 661), and contributes to the illiberal image of specific com1111 1 1uues - de� ncd as a homogen ons cnt.ity representing ' the people' - as a morally supcnor subset of the population (S:tio and Uitz 2021). Finally, th� dim�nsion of identity politics. In the 20th century, questions of _ pe�·sonal 1 dc11uty (,�nchorccl i n g roup identity) ha\'e brought a major sl11ft m \��stcn� a'.ll� mdced global politics (S,,jo 2021). Group-idcntity­ based politics - ms1sung on mi rror-like representation in deliberative bod­ ies - results i n a new understanding of representation i n a democracy. This undermines the interest in liberty (beyond the freedom to manifest one's '.nclh•'.dual ide1�tity) in the name of creating room for the public display of stt�ubased 011 the achie\'ements of the ancient •mg 1at s that one can be a member of this 'sacred nation-space' by ha, .I e . · · 1 I I 1 been born inside this territory, or if his blo?�-re au�es c ,_c ' JU�s"1 cit 1e� . case one's 'holy land', i.e. the land of the on�m of Ins rehg1on, · must be t his territory (Deshpande 1995: 3222). This third criterion plays on the . ambiguity of Hinduism as a cultural ensemble and a �ect anan syste1� t� . _ (a) exclude members of all non-Indic sects from consututm_g � he nauon _ d (b) 10 naturalise the idea that I ndia's public culture 1s mev1tably a �indu culture' (Fuller and Benei 2009: 212). The ideology of Hi11duhia began to be advanced systematicall )' with the formation of the RashtriJa Swayamsevalc Sangh (RSS) in 1925 but it rcmai �ed un�er tl�e shadows �� .' , a secular - if an elitist - concepuon of the Inchan nauonahsm Cong ress (Corbridge and Harriss 2000). Since 1991, Hindu nationalism has wit­ nessed a substantial mainstreaming from the top through successful electoral campaigns of the BJP (which is the political front of the RSS; Kaviraj 2015; Anderson and jaffrelot 2018). There i � a large lite �a� ure th � t investigates this process of mainstreaming b)' focusmg on polansmg poln­ ical campaigns that the Hindu nationalist organisations ha\'e launched to redeem 'Hindu inferiority' since 1989 (Corbridge and Harriss 2000: 187), the ground-clearing imaginaries of Hindu nation hood that _mass-media _ of the ]990s made available (ihid.) and the new middle-class mterest. that couldn't be served by a dirigiste polity ( Kavir�j 2015). Altogether, the con­ clusion here is thal the post-1991 right-wing turn of the Indian polity cl raws on g rowing conservatism of the higher and middle-ranking castes that seek to check democratic enfranchisemcnl of both Hindu subaltern castes and the Muslims. A constant 'sacralising of space' offers an ambiguous modality to the new middle class to mobilise it�elf as a class and/or as a religious fraternity (Deshpande 1995). These grand analyses, howe\'er, do not often focus on exactly how political Hinduism intersects with quotidian 'Hindu culture' i n specific

't't u,van .:!!pace, Com11um1ty- 111akitig and llltberol Politics

territorial units (though an emerging literature on nco-Hindutva sheds some light on this: sec Anderson 2015; Anderson and Longkumcr 2018; Das et al 2021). Among some ethnographic studies that do so, one is about the reconstruction of a walled neighbourhood i n the Kutch district in Gujarat after tl_1e 2002 eanh_quake (Simpson 2006). Simpson shows that the upper and rmddle caste l·hndus saw the process of rehabilitation as a 'ritualistic reconstruction of their neighbourhood' that restored the historically sacred boundaries ofa Hindu 'region' within a Hindu 'nation' (ibid.: 215, 218-222). In another instance, for the residents of a slum in Chcnnai with a heterogeneous caste, class and religious composition, it was a utilitarian urge to enhance their 'neighbourhood reputation' for economic and social reasons that pushed them to organise Hindu spectacles in public and pri­ vate spaces, and to gravitate towards a larger Hindu identity (Sanso 2006: 183). Echoing some of Simpson's arguments, Fernandes demonstrated how the new middle classes i n Mumbai find the 'spatial purification of their neighbourhoods' vital to distinguishing their 'lifcstylc'-bascd identity. Her claim is that while the immediate objective of such 'spatial purification' is lo 'cleanse' neighbourhood spaces 'of poor and working class' (Fernandes 2006: 139), i t can readily fit imo the wider I lindu nationalist discourse of 'Muslim invasion ' (ibid.: 171) insofar as such poor may be Muslim migrants from other parts of India. In effect, then, the common point across these cases is that the politics of an exclusive Hindu identity is as much about commanding particular p laces for local secular reasons as it is about a sense of belonging lo a sacred Hindu nation. The majoritarianism on dis­ �lay in numerous such instances throughout the country, an accompany­ mg zealous ardour that disregards rational discourse and promotes a fear of difference, and a commensurate challenge to liberal values of secular­ ism a1_1d egalitarianism all combine lo produce conditions of unequal citi­ zcnslup on an everyday basis that arc fundamentally illiberal .

1.5 Conclusion

The contemporary urban moment in India appe ars to be a moment of 'spa­ tial upheaval' (Massey 1994: 157), in which urba n centres have emerged as kcy_sit�s for effecting socio-cultural and economic rcengincering under glo­ . bahsallon smcc the 1980s.H> As we will see in the Chapter 2, new towns and cities in India arc e.>,.emplars of an emrcprcnc urial city that is transformed from being a state produced, planned and dema nd-dri\'cn industrial s ace p to a market-led, supply side space for new midd le-class consumers and cor­ porate entities. Ironically, a non-market based - i.e. coerced - acquisition of rural land has undergirded this whole trans ition. Thus, once adjusted f?r � ndia's postcolonial c nditions, the emph asis in the geographical mate­ ? r_1ahst approach on t caung the nature and forms of urban space produc­ � tion as a key dctcrmmant of social relations, as pionecringly suggested by Lefebvre (Hl74 /1!}9 1), is of paramount impo rtance in our analrsis.

Urban SJ,ace, Commtt1tity-111akit1g a11d Illiberal Politir.s 45

The contemporary urban moment in India is also � spa�ial uphea�al , , the related sense that urban spaces are the new conJ1mcttons of social in wer and resistance. We argue that the new middle-class hegemon>: JU"� enabled through a market state and subsequently through the social oduction of a distinctive lifcsLyle aesthetics that sacra1 ·1ses scgrcgapr � non (Bourdicu 198•1) - is variably resisted in e\'cryday life and through social movements taking shape among the middle and lower-middle ::ses in other socio-spatial forms (su�h as ur�an � illag�� and slums) .. l :• understanding this new geography of mtersecung 1dcnut1cs of class hfc· styJes as well as other cultural markers· that arc suffusec1 w1l11 aspects of · I I . · I · to msutuuons a urban resources, unequal access !1c 1c co og1es, we use tl1 c heterodox neo-Marxist a re pproaches champ 1011cd by Castells, Harvey :.� Massey in ou r analysis. It is also in respecl to ou_r_expl?rations o_f these themes that we continually invoke and follow the cnucal liberal social the­ orists, from Simmcl to Sennett, Sassen and Bourcl!�u. In a sense, t�1�rc. 1r J.Ore• this work self-consciously aspires 10 follow a cnucal cultural pohucal . · we aI�o mtceconomic approach Lo theorisation (Sayer 2001). In so domg, , grate analytical threads from the mutually cot�vcrgcnt p�s�colomal a'.1d poststructuralist rea�ings of c�� tcmporary h_1chan _urban. I he e _tl em t '. � �� ical stances are particularly cnucal I II our chscusston of how \·CJ nacul,11 categories and practices of com1mmity-making in new cities embody 'spe­ cific historical differences of the Indian lifework! • (Kavir.tj 2017: 10), inter­ fused with civic-political categories and practices of belonging. Authors such as Kaviraj, Chatterjee and Nandy ha,·e cloquentlr laid out a rationale for analysing the categories of 'urban', 'community', 'space', 'state' or 'pol­ itics' i n India in ways that capture their historical, sociological and cul­ tural mutations as substantively different from the European milieu, while also exploring their subsequent localised appropriation (e.g. Kaviraj 2015). Jn our discussion of community-making in urban villages in Chapter 4, for instance, we will sec that the villagers' claim for spatial justice also accommodates the idea of a Hindu nation, speaking to institutions of the state in communita.-ian idioms of the sacred authenticity of the rural/ traditional India. Yet, as Harriss and Fuller (2009) observe, I.he postcolonial argument about recognising ,•ernacular mutations may at times unclcrcstimalc the extent to which there has been an explosion in identities and claims amongst India's most marginal social groups that appeal to the key lih­ eral tenets enshrined in India's constitution. It is in this context that we take the normative poliLical ideal of civic city life and liberal polity to he theoretically crucial in this work. At the same time, we purposefully stay away from a discussion of constitutional liberty and matters of the regime, focusing on the everyday lived realities in our conceptualisation of illiber­ alism instead. While the two arc certainly not antithetical, illiberal trends can coalesce within liberal traditions, sometimes using the same concep­ tual language, and in ways that may escape attention if solely focused on

f°.....

'lO

urva11 :JJmu, 018·' Bickerton and Accelli 2018), and converse ly, 1 l hhcral 1110\'c­ lllibcr.11ism also doc� s tli at ..:re not populist (Robi nson and Milne. 2017), mente ,, . • . not a�•t.omatical ly require a cha1·isma1ic leader, winch 1s o,tcn see n a., a nccess,111 d and unlike populism, illibcralism is not for po1mlism (P·1pp,L � 2019) 111on · · con ' · 1· L�cIf as an e )'f ' posit 1 1st pro(I11cti o11 anti-in tel lectual and can, on 1he contmry, (Laniell e 2022). , . ' - --_- ,\11tocr.1ti1 See 'D emocracy . ..ation Changmg Nat urc , v-o' cm I 11st1 ' Report '>0"''· • ' I I -''" 1\111!\ 1 s1 • '>0'>2.p(If·, acccsscc tute, h1tps://\'-dem.nct/ mecha/p1 1bhc.it101 1s/cI r__ 0 2022• Sue1I de ,r.m ed • tlicsc c-•m encotnJl;Lo;s a di\'ersc arr.1y of organisati onal forms, · (�t " cCaI,c i· g from homeowners' associ.itions with mandatory mc m hcrsIup ��, ;. ,o te nant a.,;,mci,,tions, crime watch gro�1ps and issuc.�ha.�cd \'ol11ntar.· ne1·ghbonrh oocl coalitions (Log-.111 and R.abn!IIO\'IC 1990) . . For dISCUS5 _ ions pcr1aining primari ly to the US on such urban a.-;soc1a11011s, sec ' p ·, > Logan and Rabrcnovic 1990; Gittell and Vidal I 9?8; 11111.1111 '�000; Stal11I c "000 Portner and Berry 2007; Mr.Cabe, 201 _I; M�Kenz1c 199·.• •. 2�1 1 . . . , See "Bhopal, Surat, Udaipur to l�e lnc�1a � f�rst Smart C11 1cs • . Tl,� &01111111'.c �1111es, >· hll(J'i://cconomict1rne,;.111diat1mcs. com/ 11ews/111cha/bhop,1 l•s11 1 .11 9(1'>' --, 4 Ma}, udaipu r-to•be-i n•h�t-of-7 smart•citie,; / articIes I10w/9 1 29"388 !J. .c1m.' f10 · 111- mdr·, accessed 1 1 •h August 2022. _ . . . . 11 :, b�". . Census towns are agglomcr.itions wuh urban charactcnsucs, popul .1110 '. re than 75% of male workforce engaged in non-agricu ltmal act1,·111cs, 5'000 d •��imum popular ion densit, of · IO0 per sq.km, hut without an urban loral =�m�nistr,uh·e body; seeJain and Korzhcnc\'ych (2020). . See Batr.i (2009) for an excellent re\'iew of post•l�1dcpcmlcncc III h,1111:111 Ill . Rm· 2002· Ba,·iska1 200:-i; Cha11e1J e c 20tH; rna n des 200 1, I 1gsidc 1a, a o, F e n I d , • , 9; \\'c1nstc ·m ll00IJ· · • ·tncr 2006; Gandy 2008; Artjaria 2009; Bane1JCC•Guha .!00 - • , GI ,c, "0 l 0 '>0 l l · Srh,1sta,·a 2015; Cowan 2018. . in a ;t�d)' �n Ri o De Janeiro. Veloso (20 HI) clesci ihcs similar sp.ilial forma11om as 'compulsor,· closeness'. . cmlcncc . As Meade (202 1 ) points out, there is much acaclcnur lo su g st ti� •• � � .� the routinised discrediting of specified places and spaces, aml those "h h": ? within them, i s a more generalised, e\'en glob,11 phenomenon (l�cs "' nl �Ol(i, Ki mari 2018; Smets and K11se11b,1ch 2020; Butlcr•Warkc �021 ; l\t rk an ;. iver llindo:i and the sister city of Gre . c;. o n do11 m the south (see ,gure -·. ' ers Ya1111ma and Hi11 riv the of ce lan d of 81 erstwlule confluen - '316 hectares ' the. ' covers a tota1 area of 90 cit} · . • pro­ """ to be Gl'19- •381 uon . sus estimated Noicla's popnla J _"e tlages. Th e 201 1 Cen 1). vt 203 11 9 5 tnill ion. by 2031 (Master Plan 2, when the UP-state jeeted t o reac 197 to k bac ed trac be can da • o fNOI -· The developmen pressut•e on Delhi . t ton lhe incre asing populat of e not g k e govern •t lr n/111 region as the 'Yamnna­ � ;� �n:;es i n the Mecnll-B 11/aml.t declare er the provisions of the UP �• Bor ct")

- -0

0

0 C'I

--: CN 00 •

o0

"-:' tO

eri > Ii era·"1 ""-�1 .tge l l· s· The tota . 1 · n residin ' l popu I atm • g within lhe entire noti"ficd a,·c,t. wa s ll ms 18 1 003 . Il cl", , en 19 9 1 and 2 001, t he populalion ofNoida . � increas ed b , abom 1' 08% to �0:, , 058, and the pop­ u lation of lhe villages in the r�st of t ic notified area m crca s cd by 172%. In other words Noida's popuI atmn • • was touch·mg lJ I C max imu ' m limi t s eL by the firs t fJlan - mud· , :, . /1Immed 0r 1·1 1101· llla urba11 g ro wflt bllI. bewuse of growirur • uilfa,,,.,..s - even as tl1 e townsIup . contmu • cd to sprcacI Olll\\. . ' ,-� ards by not1.fym g ·-i. new villages (s ee Table 2.3).

or

i

.

2.2.2 Noida Master Pla11s: 2011, 202 1 a11d 203]1

4 Sine� the 1 980s, other satellite citie s in NCR Il�\.� ' also bee • n rapi. dly tmns­ forming. The growth of cities lik e GI • t az1,1 . ·. b·.icI I-.1ndabad, Rohtak , , etc., .and ' Table 2.J Pop ulation Gro\I·ti 1 .111 U1·t''111• . Rural Noida and Overall Notified

1981-2001

}';,ar

1981 199/

2001

Urba11

Noidn

H6,5 1 '1 305,058

Pup11latio11 Noida R11ra/

36,972 3•l,.J89 93,390

Source: Noida Mas1er Plan, 2031

Noida Noli.fie,/ 36,!.172 1 8 1 ,003 398,·148

Arca

Growth %

Uroa,1

Rural

Tolal

108 .21

-7.'14 1 72.89

388.85 120.'16

'

Produci11g a New Urban Space: City makittg in Nmda

73

meant that a the attendant need to improve the region's infrastructure, Planning complete overhaul of the existing plans was necessary. The NCR NCR Two purpose this . :Board (NCRPB) was constitut ed in 1 985 for 16 Ycrsions 15 21 0 2 the and 2001 in particular - the Resional Plans (RP) 1 RP bad significant implicat ions for the development of Noida. The 200 a with town (OMA) Arca Metropolitan Delhi a of gave Noicla CT the s tatus csti­ these revised further RP 21 0 2 The . s lakh 5.50 of proj ected population 17 Dlates to 12 lakhs and accorded Noida the status ofan NCR city. By 2003, st be prepared it was als o mandated that Master Plans for all NCR cities mu the NCRPB by approved and RP ponding s corre the in confonnity with s for the implication reaching far had that factor Another (GAG 2021). t iguous con a on Noida Greater of development the s wa growth of Noida 111 with a proposed expressway 1, 99 1 since Hi11do11 river the territory east of linking the two cities. Gh·cn thes e developments, the Aulhority decided to prepare a revis ed Mas ter Plan for 2011, entrusting the res ponsibility to the School of Planning and Architecture (SPA) in New Delhi. The plan, h owever, remains untraceable apart from a single page map, which shows a considerable increas e in the size of the city (Figure 2.5). During the course of thes e revisions, as t he 2021 Master Plan notes, unplanned development was feared to lake place all along the length of the expres sway connecting Noida and Greater Noida, thus prompting t he Au thority to update the 1 plan again, thi s time up to 20 21. 1' Under this new plan, the nrbani sablc area was extended to more than 90% of t he total notified area of 14,964 hectares (s ec Table 2.1) for a proj ected population or 1 2 lakhs (as per the 2021 RP). The plan als o estimated the overall density of the city lo reach 80 PPI-1 by 2021. Howe,·cr, before the 2021 Master Plan was pu blished, the NCRPB suggested density est imates to be revised to 150 -200 PPH in tan­ dem with t he 2021 RP, thus necessit ating ano ther round of rc,·isions, this time for the prospective year or 2031. Thus formulated, the 2031 Master Plan:t0 est imates the city's population to reach 25 lakhs by 2031. To accom­ modate t his growth, the total proposed area to be brought under nrh;rni­ sation by 20 31 was about 15,280 hect ares (s ec Table 2.1). Taken together, the 2021 and 2031 Master Plans present a comprehen­ sive picture of pres ent-day Noicla. Indu strial and residential zones occu py the central and northern paw; of the city, while agricultural fields lay inter­ spersed with rural s ettlements in the s outhern parts .� 1 The city is divided into 1 63 s ectors (numbered I to 1 68, but Sectors 13, 1 0 3, IOU, 1 1 1 and 1 14 do not exis t).n Of the two most distinctive types of land-us e patterns, the first is the planned industrial part developed over three phases. In the first phas e, spanning from 1!)80 s unLil earl)' 199 0s, 393 hectares of land ,spread m·er Seeton, 1-11 was developed for smalhcalc industries. In the second and third phases (1990 s to early 2000), 465 hectares of land in the cemral, eastern, and north-eastern parts of the city - across Sectors 57-60, 8 0, 81, 83-85, 87 and 90 - was developed for small-medium indus• tries, a large export-processing zone and s everal information technology

- --·· ~r-�- ......)-'"'""11g l1l 1V0tda

(IT) companies. I n addition, Sec tors 63-65, 67, 68, 88, 89 and 138-140 have also been exclusi_vely planne d for industrial usage and are in the pro. cess of development. A special eco nomic zone (SEZ) is spread m•cr Sectors 1��5-147, 155-1 57 and 164-166. Br 2010, a total of 1 ,267 hectares of indus., l1ial area h ad already been develo ped, with a proposed expansion lo 2,806 � 1ectare_s by 2?31. Overall, Noida currently h as aro und 8,9 5 _ 6 fun ctio nin mdust � 1.I u mts v1 h a gr ss ann ual t11rnover of approximately � � � ? . Rs. 7,oJ crorcs.·· Th e ex1st111g um ts h a,•e an invcstmelll of Rs. 1 9,340 cro res and employ over 1.1 million people (2031 Master Plan) _ Then, there arc the city's reside ntial parts, spread over 5,334 hectares (by 2021) an � pro osed to be expanded to 5,772 h ectares p by 203 1. On average, a es1denual sector nea � sures about 55 hectares and is � pro pos ed. to h ave a 1mxed form o h o11s1 ng (a� originally envisaged in the � 1976-1992 �faster Plan). The entire res1_ dent1al area con sists ma inly of the follow mg t hrcc scu !emcn typ s: (1) ­ village abadi and extension are � � _ as, (2) low­ med111 m-dcns1ty res1dcnllal are as and (3) high-density residen tial areas. Ou t �f the proposed 5,722 hec tares of residential quarters, 1,23 2.82 hec­ tares 1s cm·cre� br the first categor y. 3,514.38 hectares is propos ed for the low- and mednun-clensity resi dential sectors, most of wh ich h a,•e already been developed (for example, Sectors 1 5, 21, 26, 29, 36, 40, etc.). Some of t hese arc among the most upm arket parts of the city, where plo ts have been all�t�ed to defence personnel, retired judges, h igh-ran kin g civi l servants, p�hucal leaders and s o . In some sectors, plot,; were allotted � � _ particu1 �1 ly to coopcratl\ e soc1et1e (suc h as Sectors 36 and 40)_ The rem : � _ ain ing lugh-denstt y area 1s predommantly occupi ed by group h ousing projects.?◄ On average, mos� of the already developed residential sectors arc proposed to have a population density belo w 500 PPH. However, a number of new and um�er-clcv�lopmcnt sectors hav e becn _ carmarked solely for gro _ up housing � roJects with a much lugher population density (ini tial ly 700 PPH, th en increased to 1, 650 in 2008), for example, Sectors 74-79, 8 6, 93, 9698, 100, 107, 1 08, 1 1 2-1 22, 135, 137, 143, 144 , 151 , 158, 1 62 and 1 68.25 By 2019, allot­ mcms h ad been made for 4,75 6 commercial proper _ ties, 1,130 institutional r per ucs , , 91 3 indust_rial uni ts, 23,874 ind ivid � �� ual residential properties, 3Ul44 housmg properties and 1 2,2 54 group housing projects.26 Among oth er land use types, commercial area is the th ird ma in cate­ gory, with several major comme rcial h ubs (such as Sector 1 8) and i ndivid11 �1 sector-level shopping centres . By 201 0, about 1 02 hectares of land i n different parts of the city was alre ady bei ng used for commercia l acti,•ities, �lt!1ough much less than wh at successi\'e Master Plans had env isag ed. The -0�1 Master Pl� n also ack1 owledg es that many of these shopping � centres ia,c om c u m 11no�ga111sed and unauthorised � � _ � ways, converting small­ sca� � � ndusrnal plot,; into comme _ rcial establishments. Next, inst itutional fac1ht1es (schools/colleges, h osp itals, religious sites, offices, etc .) h ave been developed both at sector and city levels over 813 hectares of lan d allotted

Prod1tci11g a Nao Urban S/mcc: City-111aki11g in Noi,la

75

2010. Public/semi-public spaces, recreational facilities, transportation by tw ne orks and water bodies make up th e rest of the city. overall , the successive Master Plans of Noida portray a smooth and of one d or erly lirban development process that has- led 10 the emergence · · · £ NCR's premier urban destinations - and mdeed Ill entir� nortI1 I t�c1ia • ? ust o,•er four decades. On its website, the Authority describes the city as: tnj ... a Ptanned, integrated, modern industrial city. . . an enviable 11101111- tIle worI(l - m ment of the concept of integrated industrial townsl up •·: One of th e largest industrial townships of Asia, not very fa r from D�llu _ }•et away from the dirt, grime and pollution, part of thc Nau�nal Capua! _ · Regio11 • Noida is the industrial fairy land of the nauon . . . 1t best sym. . . • :i; _ b olises harmony between human habitat and mdustnal enterprise.

'In ide the high walls of the Amhority premises, Noida is indc�d a JaiT)•la,ul 0/the nation. In our many conversations with Authority officia �s, we were always treated to a detailed preamble al>0u � its numerous ach1c\'cme�1 �s, from installing vertical gardens on fl}•over p1 �l;'. rs to woncl �ful murals 111 � . _ different parts of the city. Any mention of c1v1c irre�ulanues or d1sc?n· ' brushed aside tent amongst the (poor) citizenry was almost immediate!} . . as temporary and minor aberrations that were bcmg 'I ook·ccl 111 �0•. _0 ' '. r request for past city planning documents were constantly n�et w11h s1 �1� . stalling tec h niques and we were shown reports and press h1_1cfings pr,11s­ in the Authority's work instead. Howc,·er, beyond the ordcrly world of _ th: Master Plans and the Authority-championed l,ar111011J, Nmda re�·cals a very different ch aracter. Over time, th e city has hecom� a commochficd ace of built. forms exemplifying the post-war 'rupture' m urha n restruc­ _ _ ne l as !nng in advanced eco omics (Lefebvre 1991), gradually repos111 � � n _ 'brand' \'ia an autonomous governance structure and an mtegrauon mto �e global division of labour and consumptio�1 choices, prioritising �nan­ cial sectors, networked infrastructure and !ugh \'aluc real-estate g1 owt h _ (Goldman 2011; Gooplu 201 1)- Like nume �ous othe: examples across ��t­ _ ies in th e global South, Noida today exlubtts a paru�ula: form of sp� u,1I organisation that fa\'ours the middle class�s and margmahses l he poo1_ ••�ul dispossessed, producing a city space t h at ts fundamentally unequal. Wlnle _ these latter issues are complex themes in themsel\'eS th,lt are explored 1 11 Chapters 3-5. two aspects in the city's de\'elopmenl merit further elal��ra­ tion. First, the changes in planning imperatives that led to the trans1uon of Noida from an industrial township into a gentrified urban space; sec· ond, the political priorities and systemic irregularities �hat �ha �·acte_ri�e this process. Taken together, these aspects provide � umque ms!ght 1 n10 . the specific variant of postcolonial urbanism in Imha, from t.hc 1mab'1n,1tion of an integrated and equitable city-space 10 th e uneven landscape of neoliberal intenrentions.

--·· vr•n�. \,,ll)"•rflakmg Ill No,da 2.3 Flex!hle Urban Planning and the Makmg of a Gentrified City

Producing a New Urban SJ,ar.e: City-makirlg 111 Noida

The development of Noida i s · , . · • 1ex Lnca bly hnkcd ,�iLh Saajay Gandhi28 lhe Nation,1 1 Emergcn C}' i ;np�;C{ l Oil l lI C coumry• I I 19r o I>}' I nc I'i ra Gand • c Min ister, 196 ( [> nm hi 6-1977 1984). I n mm.c geaI red towards la rgc-scalc �_ .• s,milisat ion of city s�•a ces Sa•1�ia y Gandh i is known lo hm·e wan · • ted lo 'clean IIJ>' Old DCII 1 1. I J}' s· Il lfu. ng 10,0 00-12,000 s mall-mecrnun-sca . . s to . • le mdustne outside IL� bounda ries :N On l I . • of the then UP i c s11gges1 1011 · Chief Minis•Mr. Nara}•an Dutt T'1 1\.tl . .. .l· (known lo be •'l doSC · . ,ll( . 1e Orsa 1uar . Gandhi) and Mr. J agmohan Malho tra (ex. ·ma11, ODA), the land vie c �I ia11 on the casr,;. crn side of ri,·er Yam1111� - a I owlym g flood prone I ancI Wit ' . II 1 I· m.l led agn. culture a nd inhabited most ! ' ' . . . b} C".I� � 'n_11_111u _es c�1gaged in ani otaJ husbandry - was chosen a s th� � � t p l , 11 I e I, ,n lJL ll on sue. What followed � � was a bizarre turn on e,·en ts. In � :::. � l 1 o1 els of ,1 semor town pla nner closely associated with the process:

ana

~

Sa itiay Gandhi wa s known fio1. Ills · unpromptu decision-ma king. He instructed X.fr Gu pta ,Ja gmoha n and the chief tow n and cmmtr y· planner of the. 'u1�-go,·crnmcm �Ir . Bl ar • . ga1.,1, . lo imm ediately draw up a plan. Completed in · ust on�r lh� � . next few day s, the pla n wa s replete with . weaknesses• l,t1 l •' '·11�· Ca , 11cd mdustnal plots, the Au1hontr was even struggling to pay salaries to · �mploye�s. Tl�e residential t�1rn of t_he city, however, gave a way out of� impasse. furmng away from 111clustn al plots, the Authority now focused building �WS and LIG plots, for which housing loans were available froC: tl 1e Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) . Tripath , _ g1v�s an account of financial self-sustainability of the city, an innovauv! business model of the time:

HUDCO used lo give 90 % and 8!i% loans for EWS and LIG homes res_pe� tively. So, we stopped developing industrial plots, and started lnulchng EWS and LIG homes. We al,;o floated a scheme for EWS­ pcople to build their own hutments, with us pro\•iding basic infrastruc­ lll �C - These schemes �uddcnly increased the demand among the lower m1ddle-class populallon. The JOO-rupee forms (a lot of money i n those da�•s} that we launched for these schemes sold far beyond our expec1a1.10�s, around 36,000 for EWS and 15,000 for LIG homes. So, for th e _ fi rst lime, the city started making money. I n fact, by the end of 1979 not only �iad infrastructural development finally started to pay off, bu' the housmg schemes also ensured that the Authority was raising its own revenue. We were paying the existing loans back, and also man­ aged t? secure further loans from the Industrial Development Bank of India (_I DBI) 1 ? builcl physical infrastructure. This was a completely _ 1'.cw and mnovauve busmess model, and realising its lucrative poten­ tial, �h_e UP go,·ernment �l\'e me a free hand to develop Noicla as I saw fit. No1da was fast bcconung a self-sustaining city, an idea unheard o£ in the 1970s. �

Several other steps were taken by the Authority to increase demand in the area. Though EWS and LIG housings were in demand, MIG and BIG plots w�re hardly so. But i n a move that proved decisive, Tripathy managed to co1w1nce the Army Welfare Housing Association (AWi-iA) to set up a sm�IJ scul�ment.si; Sectors 28, 29 and 37 were gi\'Cll to the AWHA and they quickly bmlt a �ound 8,000 dwelling units, schools, clubs and community centres. Followmg the army, the navy and air force also agreed to set up similar settlements in Sectors 21 and 25. These armed forces' settlements ensured quick development in and around these sectors, and the first mini township started emerging in Noida by mid-1980s. Another form of res­ idential �le\'elo�m �nt i n the early days was cooperative housing. Several cooperauve soc �eucs had bought land in the area in the pre-Authority �a7s, most of wluch had been acquired during the first phase ofland acqui­ siuon. Post-1977, many of these societies filed cases against the Authority,

Prod11ci 11g a New Urba11 Space: City-111aki11g in Naida

79

which were largely settled outside court by giving thcm _developcd plots in ''6 , 55• 56 and a few_ others. Plots were also g1\'cn to se,·cral wellSectors 34-::, _ . _ 1cnown schools and pubhc msutuu�ns. . . _ _wJ nO\\•e,•et·• despite some increase 111 housmg demand m• the 1980s, ma1· · · nal industrial growth meant that Noida was bccommg a cI01:m1tory town' gt · accommodauon for those of De11u· - 1.e . source of comparath•ely cheaper . . · worki.ng 1n Delhi but u nable to afford housmg there - mstcad of a scl,.,. sufficient residen �ial cemr� for local industrial �\'Ork�rs (�aII aml Sur'·. The )999-)• The situauon, prechctahly, started changmg 111 . the 1990s. . • g Ill I tm stcadil residential units had hee1 · incrcasmg, rcsu for and m � � de _ Gl\·en the mflux of funds post-hbcr­ ,nore and more land being acquired. . . . ' . II} fi01 al.153tion' the demand for industrial land hacl a Iso piek·ccI up,. espcc1a ,rr, banking and othc � servic� s�ct�r i ndustries, tI 111s prornptmg tI1c scc01�cI and third phases of mdustnahsauon. Tl�c key cha ngc tl'.al ha�pet�ed 111 _ _ this period, however, was in urban plannmg obJccrn·cs, d1scermble I ll the contrasting rhetoric of the 1976-Hl92 and 2031 :\faster Plans: The basic idea behind . . . Noida . . .is to enable the Authority and �he people alike to \'Cnture into planning and bui �cling a sclf-supporu�•e '. self-contained, sociall}' balanced and wcll-clcs1gnccl new com1m1111t} for people. . . Therefore,the new town community 1�111sl b� socia�ly _bal­ ;mced, economically feasible, infrastrucwrally sell-contamccl, l � tmted · size conducive to the development of the hinterland, and mstru1n ' . men1al in fostering unity and growth by establishing the dcsli'ed urIJan rural continuum. (1976-1992 Master Plan: 16) To capitalise on the area's high growth potcmial due 10 its pro� imity to the metropolitan city of Delhi and public in\'estment expcnd,turc not only i n the area hut also the environs. w • • •• (2021 Master Plan: 3; 2031 Master Plan: :>; Ol�cct1ve 11.)

Quite clearly, urban planning focus in Noida had shifted fron� cn-;urin� , comprchcnsi\'e socio-economic development to fully c�plo1un � NCRs post-liberalisation growth potential. Professor J.I-1. Ansa n - a scmor town planner from SPA who was in charge of d�\·c!oping the 201 1 and 2021 Master Plans - gives an insightful account of tl11s change: The decision to update the 2011 Ma'itcr Plan into the 2021 version \\a'I taken due to the new expressway linking Noida with Greater Noida, _ the area ac�joining which, if left unplanned woul�l lead to ser10� s '. encroachment and land speculation. Accordmgly, 111 the draft 20- 1 plan, we aligned the expressway along the ri\'cr to minimise spccu _ lation and cause least disruption to the city. But 10 our surprise, the

··-··-,, - • •�w V I VI-HI

�puu:: 1..,1ry-mak111g fo Noida

At� thority sent u s a revised version of t he map with the expr essway slufted to the centre of the city, and we were aske d to ad;ust the res t: of r.he pla n. When we refused to a ccept such a major change, the _ At1t ho rity changed the pla n itself, and asked me tojust sign the changed versio I was cal led to the � EO' offi c , and w as informed that the n:al _ � � obj: _ t1 ve was o make No1 da Ilk� Silicon Va lley or Hong Kong. The � express; war passing through the middle of the ci t y wou ld increas e comm crcia) opport unities manifold. (emphasis added)S?

� n -our co� versa tions ,� ith senior and retire � bu reaucrats of the Au thority, e _ se,e ral relcrences wc1 e mad e to the rral objective behind Noida to be • pa r with foreign cities'. For instanc e, .Ms . Rekha Dewani (qu o ted earlic: who had been tra nsferred to the Greate r Noida Aut hority in the early 1990s , lam�nted the limitations of Noida in this rega rd in compa rison to Grea ter No1 da: Whe n we s tarted working on Gre ate r Noida, our obiective from . . the � vei·y begm nmg was to ensure that it res emb les a western city in all as�ects . Eve r>•thing wa s planned, from road s igns to waste collection. Jr. 1s no less than a ny foreign city. N oida, unf ortunately, had a much ha�haza rd �nd unregulated develop ment . The planning vi sion with wluch we bml t Grea ter Noida was n o t kno wn in the 1970s and 1980s."8

The urban de,·clopm ent tr�j e ctory in Noida in the first two decades s ince iL� incepti on is therefore reminisc e nt of the reorientatio n in attitudes to urba r� governance in advanced cap italis t countries , a s hift tha t Harvey desc�J �lcd as the 'm a na gerial' app roach of the 1960s (concerned witJi pr�vrsi?n of local public services) givi ng war to 'entrepreneuria l' fo1 ms · of: :•cuo n 111_ th� 1970s a1_1d l!l80s ( Han·cy 1989b). This en trepreneu rial tu m • n 11rbamsat1on 1 1 1 No1da, eviden t in its initial ques t for self-su fficienc y andi . bseq1 1ently pu rsued thr su ough recons truction of the ur ban bu ih envi ron• mcn t and creating necessa r y condi tions for attrac ting mob _ ile capital, fol• lowed the predJCtable reim aginatio n of the ci t y as a brand, some thin g to l�e sold, promoted and marketed (Ashworth and Voogd 1990; Philo and Kearns 1993). Fu sed wi th the tele ol ogical ima ginary of ne oliberalis m, the e ven�u al footho!d of t he g! obal city discou rse (Sas sen 2001) is eqt1cing give n time to look at the outcomes. This trend escalated during the BSP regime, ancl continued unabated under the next SP governmcnl.n

Among the political heneficiaries of these changes, one of the most prom i• nent names was that of M ayawati's brother and her current depuLy, Ana nd Kumar. Kuma r had joined the Aut hority as a clerk in the 1990 s, l>m soon ,1fter Mayawa ti became the chief minister in 2007, he floated clos e to 50 com p.mies and was party to allo tting lands to builders in Noida and G_reater Noida. He h,1s l>een embroile d in severa l controversies since then 111s skyrocketin assets : worth Rs. 1,300 crores and 'al>norm ? al profits' rising up to 18,000 % m seven yea rs, fo·e of which ch1ring MayawaLi's tenure.54 In July 2019, Kuma r was again in the news, as the income-ta x depa rtme nt attached a Rs. 400 crores worth be1U m1i property (property acquired und er a false name) to his assets. 5'' Stor ies can be hea rd till date a bout how Kum ar bccamc the prima ry recipien t of the ' ten percent fee', instructing the Authon_ ty to allocate premium plots to his chosen developers. How ever, beyond Neera Yad av and Anand Kum ar, the cycle of corruption and l>rib ­ ery allegations bet vce1 the SP and BSP govern ments kept repeating itself. � � S_a mple_ the f ollowmg: 111 2009, May awa ti suspended 16 Authority officials (mclmhng the Authority CEO, add itional CEO and Chairman) in con ­ ncc �ion with a �,;. 4,000 crol'es hot el land scam that allegedly took plac e durmg the previous Mulayam Sing h regime.:.G In 201 2, once SP retu rned lo power the Congress Party br ought an allegation against the pre : viou s lay a w a u go\'crn ment over Lhe allolmem � of 162 hecta res of prime land to Ionty Chadha - a reJl-cstate develop er, one of the la rgest liquor barons in UP and allegedly close to Mayawa ti - that had apparently caused a net a

P rod 11ci11g a New Urban Space: City-making i11 Noida

85

7 toss Of Rs• ,10'000 crorcs• � Allegations were also brought against Lhe allot• tive farmhouse plots Lo 150 people close to ',v·I ayawau· an fior s aI •c at cun.cm ma rket rates (sec Cl aptcr t :.,r:). �e survey that the plan quotes was cond ucted i n ' 2 9 • 1 i c 1 s i l zone, a Il · ::: � ��::::� : ;�;;,; �:e: �;.:�:i� � �). �l:erefore, !���;��:� the daun t hat there are . ' about 1 1 ,600 l111 tment•s in iNoi cI a ·is lt k ·el}' to be ·a gros·s und errcprcsenta� • lion. Da s and Wal ton (20] 5'. 551) 1ime . . questione d the res ults of this survey,

:�t�::/;:�0

Table 2.; jlmggiJhopdi Sur\'cy: 2008-200!)

Serio,·

.,5., 8

8

8 9 8

9

9 JO

Total

Namillt1tecl Block A

n C n E F

G H-1 1-1-2 l[.3

J

Total No. ofJlmggis

69

,121 535

33,t

1 ,252

1 ,700

2,331

797 1,.i,17

1,710

1 ,0 1 7

I 1,6 13

Soun:c: h11ps://M11v.noidaauthon1,·onl 1nc.com/S1 11,·q•. h1111I

Producing a New Urban Space: City-making i11 Noida

95

n the obser vi n g that 'the numbe r o f jhuggis iden tified wer e far fewer th a s in jhuggi 525 ned o i nt me website nce, he ta t s existi n gjhuggi s. . . for in actua l this in lone a r e t clus ne o in jlmggis 830 Sector 5 wherea s our census showed there arc a bout 2,000 j/111ggis in sector'. Our own field est im ates show thal a Sector 17 cluster a lon e. Today, a significant proportion of Noicl a's residents l i ve in the jlmgg,s. s to be quoted i n the Yet, apart from the 1995 SPA study (tha l continue vey, no realistic estim ates ' sur 2008-2009 s Master Plans) and the Authority offjh11ggi population arc available. This, h owever, is hardly s urpri sing. Tlw j/mggis are by definition i llegal - hm' i ng been built on public l a nd - thus di s­ barel y meri ti ng acknowledgem ent i n contemporary nrban governa nce s i­ re jl111ggi the is ls a that offici hority t Au ong m a cou rse. The usual opi nion town he t f o one ishra, l l\. r M ions: t di n co wn dents arc responsible for their o at ically s tates: planners i n th e Authority, emph

It i s all il l egal , al l irregular. The problem is, they wm,t /11 /foe like that, because it i s cheap. The Aut hority has bui l t alternati ve accommoda­ tion, but they refus e to relo cate. Al l sorts of cr im i nal acth-itics go on inside these jl1 11ggis. They give 011r rity a bml name. We arc pl anning to c/ea11 ujJ thes e spaces, but truth be told, wh at can we do, there ar c just so m any of them. The cmironmem is dirty, un healthy a nd unhygienic, but they Jmfer that.il

The brazenness of th e 'poor arc responsible for thei r own condition' argument is unm issa ble here. In additi on, the assertion on 'our city' and 'cleani ng up' is a gain dcmon,;t rative of an entrepreneur i al mhan pl anning vision, a nything not befitti ng th at vision considered a 'threat' to the city's planned nature. The bla nket al legation of criminal i ty helps in further s us­ taining such a n im age. W h il e their cssentia lity can not he ignored, thejl1 11g gis are i l legal spaces i n a n urban th at model s itself on the im agi ned 'globa l', thereby best kept hidden from si ght i n the shadows of gl i tter and affluencr. Howe\'er, life i n the jlmggiJ is extremely complex. There a rc mul tiple l ay­ ers of political rent-seeking, ethni c and rdigiouc; connicts , cas te-dyna mics, sporad i c col lecti\'c act ion, distorted n ationali sti c narrative,; and above al l the e\'eryclay struggles for resources, secur i ty and lcgi timic;ation. W h ile we explore these d}• nam ics in detai l in Ch a pter 5, the l ast point is wor th elabora ti n g. The jlwggis arc unaut h orised colonies , hut in co n,;ta nt pursuit o f s ome form al recognition. As Das (201 1 ) a rgues, such a s ta le of affair is besl described as a form of 'temporary permanence•'. Ma ny residcnLc; h a\'c lived in these ar eas for cl o se to 40 vears , Intl conti nue to s truggle for som e assurance of perma nence, a n effor t m i red i n ins ti t11 tion�1l obfusca­ tion. The 1980s had seen various H i gh Court decis ions in Mum hai, Del hi and Gt9arat uph olding the o bligati on of the state to provide the means for pur suing liveliho ods, a nd th at people who could show residence for

- • --··�"'6 •• ... '""' vwall .)pace: Lity-makmg in Noida a s ufficiently lo n g time in one I·ac e could ot be removed wi tho ut vision of alternative hous ing 1 n t�Y: howe ve t he_ courts have hedged s ome of the e arlier d;cisi:�� :��� tfiicau ons an l � nelf admi n i strative proclamat ions arc simp l a;������ icr o n es lcadtn&:"to � rcgt�latory maze (Chaue1:ji 2005). Das �201 1) i1 • . . e ou that en t1r 1l 11gg1 clusters in Noicla have been de moli she ct� 1���:� l�st �O ye ars OQe '. ch s putahlc grounds or have bec11 raz . . ecI lo t I1 c gr ound b}, • une . xp1atn ed• fit rcs. S11n ilarl}', es calating conflicts '1•1' ti1 propert Y dc,•elo pcrs or • Iaw , oreIe r pr oblems ofte n re sult i n in discrirn . i1nt ' e porice act1on , promptin man y res ide nts to flee thei r ho mes·73 g There 11a,· • e been, l1owever• peri...A:_ ••ittempts. to umo . ms . . e t he res ide nts (ibid .) . Tl . · s t union dates b 1 e e ar1te VUJC . ck to t he 1980 s, wI t en a i cg1. s tercd s ocie ty .. under the ti tle of ll · . aryau Mmd a ur Saugliarsl, Sabha was formed . Thc soci. ety bccame def unct it 2 . 00 1 i b " was iollow cd umnediat • • Ut . cly by t he Jlmggi j/wj,di W�:11r.a� A sson.alro u . Th is one . was also s hort-lived but r e -reg1s terecl once agam Ill 200 6 a nd has • been . lc to se cur e mbr oiled in a le,. • g,11 b,1u e alternati\'e hous ing 1• . r or I , 140 resa, cIcu t s c, cr s in ce T · 0 c ri 1 , t_ ;'�: s! i1� ctb;�: :•�:� ��;:�;::. �;;:� �; tt;:�•� �i�; j gg JJwpri Nagrtlc Kaf;-m1 Mahasabha - the Alla habad ffig I' C ourt ordered rehabilitation o f the dwellers . · 1 . to ev1. ct1. n . I ? n re spo n se, the Authori ty claimed that a rchabilitati o�•t, c 1cm was 1 1 the c 1 works and a n ew sur ve y w-1 s ne cde cI t .009 . -�. ' d u e I dcm� , grossly misreprese ntin; gro�,\\'re:senred m rlus section are from the 1976- 1992 and 2001 Master Plans. 1 acre 0.'105 hectares (apprmcimatc l) } � .. � .J I h e pl,111 was prohably appro,·ed b ' the Ul' g•m· emmem soon t hercafrer, though n o e�_act apprm·al date is ;n.iilablc'. 1 0 Sec Flb'Ure 2.2 for the land use pla . • n of tI ie urIJants able area, anrl Figure 2.3 for a map of the emire notified area 1 1 Of which 153 hectares was loca ted outside the p rop�scd urbanisab le limit,, Hence, the land-use plan covered an an:a of ·3 , I:-:, I l 1ect,1res. 1 2 I lakh = 0 . 1 mi l lion 13 No approml date for the 9001 . Ian i a . 1 exists as a 'dr.ift' \'e1-sion, s;; it is :ossih; t• a_blc eithe r. Inte rc.�tingly, the plan e t lat it \V-Js ne,·er formallr approved . J .I All the data presen ted in this sectio n are from t he 2021 and 2031 Master Plans � un l�s.� specified othcnvise. 1:, A" 1 lahle at. http ://rgplan .com /ncr/NCR-FIRSf-PLAN- 1988.pr1r:� ,, accessed. 1 3 , August 201!J . 16 A,-ai lahle at hups;//ncr Jb nic . / -;.'1 �1•onalpla n2021.h t m l#:-: teict-The%20 Region al%20Pla n %2D202 I� 9Qfior, oor o Ourban%20areas%20through%2 0an; acces.�ed 1 3"' August 2019 . 1 7 Oth er NCR towns as per the Draf t Re i n I '>0'> Plan were Ghaziabad - Loni, Greater Noida, Gurgaon Farid·1b'ad � � - - ! 18 This territory had becom� a ho;b � ;:iac urgar t and K'.mdl!. ed f st.tl': speculatmn smce the 1 980s. To curl> t hese trends, the UP Gm·ern nte nt c ccided in 1991 to acqu ire about 70,000

Dr.

l

t':

Protluci11g a Nau Urban Space: City-maki11g in Noi,la

99

hectares of land for planned urban development, creating the Greater Noida JndU5trial Development Authority (GNIDA). Greater Noida was to be dc\'cl­ by 2001 . The current population oped as a new city, with a populat ion of300,000 estimate for the city is 12 Jakhs (by 202 1 ) . conversations with Authoril)' officials and SPA consultan ts, we 1,rather 'Jg From our that although SPA i n itially started working on a 201 1 plan , the process was never plan for 2021, formalised. I nstead, they were instrncted to submit a revised which possibly explai ns why on ly a single-page map is a\'ailable i n 1he name of govern­ the 2011 plan . Though the 2021 Master Plan \\'aS appro\·ed by the UP ment in August 2006, it \\'aS never appron:d hy the NCRPB, and hence remains unpublished. to the 2031 Ma�ler !'Ian 111 Septem­ 20 The UP governme nt issued a no-ol�ection has not yet been received, NCRPB from approml formal Howe\'er, . 1 201 •ber is no corresponding RI' for but 'assumed' by the Authority. Furthermore, there P P 2051 , and preparing a Master Plan without a R goes agai nst NCR B guideli nes as well as the directi\·es of the Supreme Court and the Allahabad High Com t (CAG 2021: 14). example, one such relat ively large pocket exists i n the north of the Su//ati111cs.co m/inc�ia/N ). Sot1::��llJ>s:/ /tim csoli11dia. i11di . ?ml Septembcr -0 1 . 56 be l -c,7-•l .c1�1s, acccs.scc. · officcrs/articlcshow/•I8 '" .• • • r •s--4{).{)(Jlk1 ·-sca1 1 1· cs111cg · idusnntnncs.com/111 e/ar ,c�cs ntation-rcndcrs-11rban-v1llagc.w,1h1 5,1a Scp1cmbcr 2019. M

i

I l l

69 These villages were Nayabaris, Haro/a, Ragl111nat!,p11r, Glrat1ra Sadatpur, G,j� Mamum, iWorna, Su/tl,ari, Clil,a/era Ba11ge,; Agha/111,; Baro/a, llosl1ya,p11r, S/,arfaba4, Sada,p11rand K/1011da. 70 Afo11::::a corresponds 10 a specific land area within which there ma)" be one or more settlements, ,;till used in India (and also i11 other parts of the subcollij. nent) for land revenue administration. 71 This SPA study was possibly a part of the '.?O 1 1 Maste1 Plan prepar.itol)' work, but has not been published separately. 72 Inter\"i ew with authors; 7 June 2019, Noida Authority Office, Sector 6. 73 More recently, the entire aft ermath of th e Ma!,ag,m episode is also demonstr.1ti\'c of the 'punishment' meted out to the ;lmgg, residents. Sec Chapter 3. References Ananth, V. K. (201 1). bulia si11a lndeJ>eride11u: Maki11g Se,w: of flldia11 Poltlics. Nt'tll Delhi; Pearson. Arabindoo, P. G. (2008) L\bse11t societies: Co11touri11g 11rva11 citiumship i11 Jrostcolorual Cl11m11ai. PhD thesis, London School of Economics and Political Science. http:// ctheses.lse.ac.uk/2177/ Ashworth, G.J., and Voogd, H. ( 1990). Sr/li11g the City: Marheti11g 1\pJ1roar/res i,1 Pl.lbhc Sr.rtor Urva11 Pla1111i11g. London: Belhaven Press. Calhoun, C. J. ( 1978). 'Histor)', Anthro1mlogy and the Study of Communities: Some Problems in Macfarlane's Proposal', S(ICial llistory 3(3), 363-373. Chattc1ji, R. (2005). 'Plans, Habitation and Slum De\·elopment', Co11tribullons u, lmlia11 Sociology 39(2), 197-218. Comptroller and Auditor Ge neral of India (GAG). (2021). Perforn1a11u Awht 1111 La11d 1\cquisilio11 aml Allottme11t of Properties iII New Ohhla l11d11strial Dr:11elopment 1\111/writy (NOID,\). Report No. 6 , Go\·ernment of Uttar Pradesh. https://saiindia. gov.in/agl/111tar-pradesh/en/m1dit-report/details/l l'1909 Das, V. (201 1). 'State, Citizenship, a nd the Urhan Poor', Cillumsl1ip St11dies 15(3- 4), 319-333. Das, V., and Walton, 1\1. (2015). 'Political Leadership and the Urban Poor: Local Histories', C11mmt ,\11thtt1/1ology 56( 1 1), 5•M-55'1. Frankel, F. R. (2005). llldia's Politiml Ero11r1111y: The Gmdual Rroofutio11 (1947-2004� New Delhi: Oxford University Press. Goldman, M. (201 1). 'Speculati\'e Urbanism and the Making of the Next World City', /11ter11atio11aljo11mal of Urba11 a11d Regio11al Resellrrlt 35(3), 555-581 . Gooptu, N. (201 1). 'Economic Liberalization, Urban Politics and the Poor', in Ruparelia, S., Reddy, S., Harriss, J., and Corbridge, S. (eds.). U11dtl"3ta11d1ng btd1a's New Pof1t1caf Eco110111y: A Gm1t Tm11sfim11atin11? London and New York, NY; Routledge, 35-•18. Gururani, S. (2013). 'J:lexible Planning: The Making of lmlia's 'Millennium City,' Gurgaon', in Rademache r, A., a nd Sivaramakrishnan, K. (eels.). Ecologies of' U1barus111 i11 lt1y its Cl\'IC, a '. es •p ost-lib class t� . s thi of . "I cs a ticl a attitu de towa rds 1he poor ,uul . ' chist ' i·evan theuc., c1·isc u rst\'C pro. 11 ·' \\'I . · · 11·1 c tl1 c las margtn a I con mu.1111tes. • t ·•ts11ec t h as been. cxt cns1\ ej), a , l snncla ·ts • rcl real es tate in I n dia' s a e1 y 1 on r p . · . and l�tat ; �o ·da will pl ace the i n du str ious city of Noicla Oil � he _m a _"'1 I n;t,.aq . Such descriptions ensu re th at these 'pn,·a1 1 1.ccr o£ lu xu ry m . ' e• consnmpti on , le isu re, a nd · encIosecl , a nd mon itorccl spaces Iiot. residenc . . . work' constan tly reproduce a c� rt� m flaccs . o t n ean t to m c c rc a y e th gian . ch ts II� ol_h er l ocalities of wlu clopmcn t p rojec ' cxpc dc\ and l a the gic o l to temo th e) nught. not share epis acru m, though ratcl}' ul c im lih s c d c a ar e b g, tI1esc complexes . II} . l f,oundations . - Through. n a mm 1ca g olo m ste r1enua epi de ma arc s . ces o pr t lac-cd. anWII.).

Vl!J(ltl

1..,01/llllltllltles 11t Noida

(limited en try control, villagers accessing parks a nd roads inside the 3ec. tors, etc.). Concomita n tly, t he fonr preliminary dimensions of segregated. communities noted i n the gated enclaves (commoditisecl n ature of space, symbolic construction of a lived experience, ritualised and pure places) and the rcsultanl middle-class gr..sr.11.sdiaft solidarity a re quite varied acr05.1 these sectors, from a heighten ed discourse i n the higher category ones to somewhat subdued i n the rest. The 'otheri n g', displayed so sharply in the gated en clm·es, is also similarly varied. What complicates this further is that u n like the gated en claves or the h igher category sectors, some of the lower category ones can ha,·e a sizeable number of erstwhile villagen who have relocated to these sectors having recei\'ed ploL� in compensation, tl111s diffusi ng the cle,lr insider-outsider distinctions elsewhere. Wh ile such imerspersion does not necessa rily attenu a te social sepa rations across com­ mu n ities, the distinction i s less dependen t on the spatial a rrangements here. In a similar vein, the most 0\'ert illibera l dispositions in these sectors do not only coalesce a rou nd territorial stigm a tisation of a pl ace oulsiM (at lea st not as sharply as in the gated cncla,•es and higher category secto1:3) but arc more predicated on cultural practices and the struggles or re­ rooting identities and belonging i11tidr.. We examine these aspects do� in the rest of the c hapter. A crucia l cavea t is necessa ry be fore mo\'ing further. These prcliminaq• observation.1c •� c•� o s o? e sparse literature a,·a1la th d, stea n I y). nsit inte al tern f\n . d1(Jlens1on, o • ,•ism of RWAs around urban. g0\• s· acti I1c n1 1CI cIle·clas t on stly mo 1 ec s u ena et nf foc . .· . . - 7·• Gh e rtncr 201 1 ; Sri\'astava 2015. ; M•a hacl . •. fi1ca nt. nee (sec I·la 1 • iss ?00 ' em; Ho vc,·er wh ile acknowledging such activism (wlucIl ts s1g� _ oc'. s i CIVI o� 201 ) es typ c _tipl mul t e od� � r �ities that usually accomm as un jike .:ldc a1c the pn . • clc RWAs i n cities hkc Nmda, these I a s a kd,rop ety ��;: �;;�::, 1: 11 go,·crn;ncc), we keep i t largelydoinso,thewehactra,, on ,mar}' ,l To s. RWA e the of groups insid , . and tracc tlic form•ation anc y quit pin ro p · I a spau , • • •1t1es . . en RWA fonnat1on/a cuv e : betw ns o i I a re the l affi�1 1t1es xisting, place-bound cast e and c1�lt'.11,l . the de :o • mcn t of pre-e e rall\e unp ts It e. renc e diff e. 1i!c new cla ims of comm unit y and t ing, that ma_kc_up t lC of i n t ercsts, often con flic . lQ un::�s:a,.1d the nml titudc hese assoc1auons. t of 'CJ'Sc uni\ nal tutio insti e th · (T comnnu1 ·1t 1cs inln· bitino

�::f

t

io,is (AOAs) ;,. Gated Enclaves J.J. 1 The Apartme11t Ow11ers Afsociat e between two types -�f neigh:101�r­ cr i al distinction needs to he mad A �•:ssoci� lions t hat exis t in Noida (and in most Ind ia n c1t1es): RWAs m urhood associ�tions a r �ott���•� e:��• �fo�n� of t raditional neighbo � , and some tnnes mu up e J s c, the non-enclave sectors of the city resting phenom�n�n t I1 a_l '�� sIta II found withi n the sa me sector, an inte e ren t typ e of assoc1at1on exists m the retu 1 t o htcr However a vc11· diff Association of Apartme nt • e�' commo�ly referred to as the ate� cncl�v ely. Firs t and forem ost, g eds to be examined separat . Owners (,\Ot-\s) • wh ich ne . tneut pass • ed the , the UP go,ern . tenance) there is. •a l egislative dislincti on. In 2010 Mam ction • Ownershi. p and . . UP Apartment (Promot·10n of Constru a rt_n��• l ership of an rnd1v1dua1 ap own the � ct 2, i n order to • . . .provide for hucs f�o cl n a s a A i n the common are in � building of an undivided i n tere st a nd mtcrcst ke such apa 1_uncnt . . . • nt to such apartmen t a ncl to m a• appur tena �• • cicIen­ h �w1t ters con nected tl�cr � � heritable a nd t ransferable and for mat apply t? 'all bmkhng� �,·1t t o: ar or ta.1 the reto'.�·, The provisions of the Act dings I ll any a rea cles1gnatec �s a more ap.,l rt11lc11ts · · ·or two or more buil · 1e 1 · 9) -: . I t ,.· s apphca­ ents, ('\ rue . cI • h containi n g two or more apartm block• eac " c e trans1cn rwis rtment ·is s.oId or othe apa any m who to • rson e p n.• ble to 'eve . • 1 r. 1) , •a ncl cnu•tles every apartment O\\, ner with •a 'per.centage to• (A1.uc1e .>. -, · • {'\rude 5· 9· s aml (ac1Tiucs of undivided interest in the common area

i!

_ _ __...,_,.ov..,,,

e the worst •iffec tcd in the cou lllry. 11 There 1s, therefore, a serious �rust deficit between th e builders and hom e . . • from the ve ry combuyers , •and i t i s com mon for buyers to rcm .am v1g1lant . _ 1 N 1 lly a Facebook grou p 1s sc menc ment of : _ • ���•�::;;�:;::::i��r ���� :�e ji�st 'ti m e. With ti me this up, bn� ngmg a �:�.�.��: • r,or ,.I network of buyers st a rt taking shape Jo ng gro up evolve �m1 a�. 1 I� :� \ thci r fl ats. The few tha t i n i tiate this pr��css

ra

••

:�·:F;t:��'ir.::���g;::�·::�0

�!:. :� . c th gr;ey·:::;. � \la _ e

rou

1

:::;�; :::;:::�;:·::::�

a e o

hoard member of Mahagu n Moderne (thc sllc • _ 1:; c��s:�\te��n the Prolog,!c), �ne of the l,ugcst and prem mm quality grou p-housing projects in the city.�.

:r��:�:�::

·11 '>010 There were a 101 a 1 • ( . � 1 1 ����� :;\�c :ntllde ;. wot�lc a rh�t ra ril��r;:;;�: ;: �i:l t� ;r!::1 � change the layollls a nd increase thc• pr!cc �vith t 1 • : . I t was J ust th ree or fo11 r of us at the bcg111111ng. ��� :�::;� t;� :�: :,;�; , . . soc1al Illc