Blog Archives

Political journalism in India is clearly divided into two camps, at least the way my eye sees it. There is the neo-liberal camp that at present has Modi as its poster boy. And there is the socialist camp that has defeated communists at one extreme and liberals floating around in it without a particular form of organisation. Intertwined within this dichotomy are the strains of religious communalism, identity politics (region, caste, class) and nationalism, that both camps use in their own way to justify their stands.

My specific interest in all of this has been the status of the urban poor, a community I’ve had the opportunity to work with and that I respect for their tenacity and street-smartness (that often contrasts with a certain surprising innocence). That political battles are increasingly being played out in urban geographies in our country is apparent.

This morning, I read a very interesting post by George Ciccariello-Maher, who is an assistant professor of political science at Drexel University in Philadelphia, on the intersection of politics and urban geography in Caracas. In tracing the history of the rich and poor settlements in the city, the author sheds light on some the mutual mistrust between the elite and the urban poor over time. Many of the phenomena the highlights are visible in cities like Delhi and Mumbai, in the past and in the present.

Synthesizing Ciccariello-Maher’s piece: Exclusion, segregation and the enduring nature of class conflict

1- Deliberate forms of exclusion: Gated communities, militarised exclusion and the creation of municipalities within the city to further enhance inequalities and ensure resources for the elite were some ways the rich separated themselves from the poor at a time when the barrios sprang up everywhere. Ciccariello-Maher’s points out, of course, that this was a reaction of fear of the poor (add to that the element of racism) who had risen in rebellion in ’80s (pre-Chavez) and had to be controlled per force!

2- Discomfort with the new-found voice of the poor: Social housing appeared as a key ingredient in Chavez’ socialism, in multiple forms. Not just new housing units built by the State, but also more recently, a strong demand for the granting of title for the poor so that they can live in self-managed housing. Ciccariello-Maher speaks about how the strengthening of housing for the poor is something the elite fear very much, inducing out-migration of the educated young from Caracas. To me, its interesting that his discourse is still focused on segregation and suggests that decades of socialism have not given the poor a leg-up or eased the social segregation in any significant way. If true, it does support my hypothesis that housing security is vital for larger social transformations.

The poor in urban India: Do we fear them? Hell, no!

What does this mean for India where the voices of the poor are still not loud enough, where the elite have an enormous sense of entitlement and security (they don’t foresee a rebellion) and where the government continues to refrain from taking bold decisions on providing housing security to those who do not have any? If one assumes that the rebellion is a long time coming, it only means inclusion still remains a distant dream. As long as professionals and practitioners like us, who belong to the elite but empathize with the poor, continue to remain apolitical, its not likely the status quo will change. Is that case for renewed activism? Or a case for a change in profession for people like me!

Posted in Politics & Citizenship, Urban Planning & Policy

12 Comments

Tags: barrios, elite, housing security, inclusiveness, India, mistrust, segregation, slums, social inclusion, urban poor, venezuela, violence

If idealism were to die, what would we live for? #inclusiveness #politics #Indian youth

Aug 30

Posted by ramblinginthecity

Harish Khare’s editorial in The Hindu titled This perverse rage against the poor today really struck a chord. He writes about the inherent class bias in a situation when the media blames the falling Sensex on the passing of the Food Security Bill, he writes about the irrationality of the rage against the poor and the belief that the poor are weighing the nation down when in fact India needs to distance itself from the needy and focus on economic development. I am aware that many people I know would regard Khare’s views as biased ‘Congressi’, ‘pseudo-secular’ rants, but I do think they merit some introspection.

An irresponsible media has made it easier still for an already isolated middle class and elite population to shrug off concerns about equity and inclusiveness. Yesterday, I was struck by a few conversations with fellow teachers as well as students as I was teaching a research seminar at SPA (School of Planning and Architecture, New Delhi) of which I am an alumnus.

As one teacher worked with his group, advocating the democratic use of common resources in the context of sustainability, another called him a socialist and exclaimed, “But capitalism works, doesn’t it?”. The students looked on, quite confused and even alarmed about the sudden turn of debate away from architecture and design to politics!

A short while later, as my group hotly debated the place of the urban poor in slums in a futuristic ‘smart’ city, one of them lamented in the most heartfelt manner: “Why is everything in India always a problem with no solutions, except idealistic impossible ones?”

The conversation went something like this: You can start with any development related issue in India and the discussion would boil to your belief system- whether it agrees with what the nation’s Constitution started out with, a socialist welfare State, placing our collective political believe firmly left off center. Or whether it veers to the right or further left. In the 67 years of being independent, India has naturally meandered along, testing this belief system, challenging it, twisting it, etc. Young people across the country, however, are unable to contribute meaningfully to national growth, frustrated by inefficiencies of the State and driven to cynicism by the apparent unwillingness of the political and bureaucratic class to really put their weight behind this belief system. The pursuit of material goals solely for personal gain, the perception of oneself as the productive worker and nothing more, not only makes the citizen feel useful but also absolved her of the responsibility of doing more, and even thinking more!

My students are highly idealistic. I can see it in their eyes. The need to dream and believe in a better collective future. I also see the skepticism and much of the angst is about resolving these two conflicting emotions and figuring out how they could play a role. I still feel the same. So do many of us. We refuse to let our dreams die, but are steadily reminded of the futility of these idealistic notions.

If idealism were to die, then what would be living for?

I, for one, would find it quite hard. And so I persevere. To instill in young people an empathy towards those who did not get a head-start in life like we did, is a starting point. To address the rage we feel about the world around us, to deconstruct its origins and emerge with a better understanding of how to address it, is another step in the right direction. To remind ourselves everyday that we have a right to dream and no one can take that from us. And to train ourselves to listen to the other point of view, for even those who speak in a very different voice may in fact be saying the same thing!