Download as PDF [10.6 MB]

015 Issue # 11/11 : PublIc Issues
Public as strategy
In mid 2003, leading Mumbai newspapers carried articles stating that the government had
allotted a piece of land in Bandra (a suburb of Mumbai) to certain developers. The news-
papers also mentioned that the developers intended to develop commercial and residential
real-estate on the site (fig. 7). This land was marked as a recreational ground in the
Development Plan (the Master Plan) of the city and belonged to the Housing Authority. Due
to its location, this piece of land was prime property and was valued at Rs. 200 Crores
in the year 2003. Disturbed by the news, the Residents' Association of the neighboring
apartments decided to approach the Bombay High Court with a plea for maintaining the use
of this land as a recreational ground. The members of the Association were inspired by
the case of Oval Maidan (another recreational ground in South Mumbai). The Oval Residents'
Association had fought a court case, where they argued that the Maidan (large open space)
was under severe threat of abuse and misuse as the Municipal Corporation was unable to
maintain it. They also insisted that the responsibility of maintaining it should be handed
over to the Oval Residents' Association. The Mumbai High Court had instructed the Resident's
Association to prove their capacity in a pilot period of one year to organise
resources and improve the Maidan. Subsequently the Residents' Association, with the help
of several private groups, upgraded the open space. They made several small interventions:
the area was fenced, the open space was levelled for efficient drainage, areas for
different purposes were demarcated and several private agencies were appointed to use and
maintain the area. Following the success of the first year, the court asked the Municipal
Corporation to hand over the maintenance of the Maidan to the Oval Residents' Association.
The Residents' Association from Bandra approached an urban research group to help them
with their intentions. They asked the research group to prepare a two-part document – the
first part containing arguments for the court case towards keeping the space open and not
allowing the government to hand it over to a private developer; the second part comprised
designs for the improvement of the open space and (organizational and financial) plans
for its maintainance. This document was not only prepared for the court, but it was also
for the private parties who were to invest in the development of the area as well as
for the various state and private institutions whose blessings were required for the deve-
lopment of the space. The Residents' Association wanted to prepare itself to take over
the open space like the case of Oval Maidan.
The research group strategized the first part containing arguments for the court case
around the ideas of public space. It made a detailed report, empirically proving the
shortage of public open space in the area and the need to keep this place open for public
use. So far this was simple. However things became complicated in the second part. The
research group started the project with a detailed survey of the space and the community
that was going to use it. They found that a part of the space was being occupied by a
small informal settlement. Also, the open space was used by the dwellers of this settlement
as well as other informal settlements in the neighborhood. There were also other
users of the open space like occasional hawkers who sold their wares around the open space.
Part of the open space was rented for exhibitions and other community activities like
marriages. On the other hand, interviews with the members of the Residents' Association
of the apartments indicated that they wanted to enjoy the benefits of open space for
environmental reasons (ecological balance, ventilation, and breathing space) and also for
cultural ones (recreational purposes, social and cultural gatherings). They were specifically
concerned about the elderly and the children. A number of them did not have a
problem with the land being developed into congruent activities like a Gymnasium, Sports
Centre, Exhibition hall, Community Hall, Library, Swimming Pool, Theatre, etc. The entire
group, however, was unanimous about its dislikes: it did not like the slum-dwellers and
hawkers using the open space and felt that parcelling the land for other activities
like exhibition and marriages was a public nuisance. The Residents' Association insisted
that the space be developed as a public space and that non-congruent activities (like
informal settlements, hawking, community activities, etc.) should not be allowed. They
wanted the research group to develop the project with all these demands.
The research group found itself in a dilemma – while it was the research group itself that
had produced the idea of the public as a strategy to save the open space from predatory
developers, the idea of the public was highjacked and reproduced by the Residents' Associa-
tion to evict the informal settlers from the open space. The idea of the public was
produced as a strategy, but it was double edged: while it was useful against appropriation,
it was also problematic when used as an intolerant and indiscriminate instrument (fig. 8).
While we have identified a few ways in which the idea of the public is produced, there may
be many more ways in which this production must be taking place. We have not aimed to list
all the ways in which the public is produced – there cannot be such an exhaustive list. In-
stead, we have first sought to explore the idea of the public as being the result of a pro-
cess of production; and secondly, we have operationalised this idea by tracing some of the
conceptual trajectories in which the production of the public takes place in urban Mumbai.