Introduction: Post the 1990’s, after the launch of economic neo-liberalization in India, a new elite middle class was formed; which guided state-led policies of spatial re-organization and purification. For a country like India that aspires to join the global network and attain a world-class status, the image of the city becomes crucial to attract capital investment and raise its international profile (Arabindoo, 2011). The state thus, undertakes a number of urban beautification projects in an attempt to promote the city and produce a ‘sanitized vision of the economic benefits of globalization (Fernandes, 2004). Arabindoo in her paper, focuses on the bourgeois imagination of the Marina in Chennai, which is the world’s second-longest beach; and so, naturally important in the discourse around public space in India. She takes into consideration the various cycles of re-imagination of the Marina, right from pre-colonial times to the postcolonial years. Arabindoo uses her on-field research conducted in the city of Chennai between 2003-04 to highlight the problematic conceptualization of public space in India due to a difference between the western and indigenous perception of open spaces; characterised by conflict at two levels- between the public and the common, and between the public and the crowd (Arabindoo, 2011).
Key Findings
Arabindoo identifies the main reason for the lack of realization or faulty implementation of urban re-development plans as the conflict between the public and common understanding of public spaces. She explains this through histographic analyses of the problem, starting from the pre-colonial era. She explains how open spaces in pre-colonial India were based on a ‘system of commonness’ and communal ownership (Arabindoo, 2011). Public spaces then had no clear boundaries and rules of their own, revealing little about the social order of the society. When the British came to India, people washed, slept and even urinated and defecated out in the open (Arabindoo, 2011). This was starkly different from the bourgeois vision for the Marina that the British had. Their model of the Marina did not adequately represent the entire society and was severely exclusionary as activities along the beach were restricted for Europeans and the native-elites alone. The non-elite natives however, did not blindly accept this exclusion and challenged it, a phenomenon that carried on much after the British left. The plight of the fisherman along the Marina can be used as an example of the implications between this conflict in understanding. Numerous attempts to ‘beautify’ the Marina beginning in the 1970’s have resulted in various clashes (sometimes even violent) between the fishermen communities residing along the beach identified for resettlement and the government. Even today, urban redevelopment projects are being undertaken on a large scale throughout the country, where the poor and working classes are pushed on the outskirts and evicted from their original homes, with the government deeming them illegal.
The crowd was initially seen as ‘irrational’ by the British (Arabindoo, 2011). They looked at them as a threat to the social order because they could not be controlled easily. They were categorised as ‘unruly’ as opposed to the public, which was seen to be more controlled and well behaved (Arabindoo, 2011). The crowd has been increasingly stereotyped as the poor and working class, while the public is composed of the middle class (Arabindoo, 2011). The state is seen to increasingly legitimize the public and cater to them, while discrediting the crowd.
Another reason for the ‘cracked and refracted’ realization of bourgeois visions for the Marina, according to Arabindoo, is it’s shaky and faulty postcolonial inheritance. After the departure of the British, regional politics in most states were framed by the local language (Arabindoo, 2011). The regional politics and nature of Dravidian politics in Tamil Nadu has a role to play in the eventual doom of the Marina. A constant power struggle between the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (ADMK) has ensured that none of the plans for the Marina have been successfully followed through because efforts undertaken by one party is undone by the other (Arabindoo, 2011). Overlapping responsibility among three different bodies also did not augur well for the Marina. ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth’ and the Marina being managed by the Corporation, the Public Works Department and the Revenue Department meant little clarity with respect to governance of the beach (Arabindoo, 2011).
Also Read: Middle Class, Urbanisation and Gated Communities
Reflections and Conclusion
The overlap of the understanding of public spaces and it’s subsequent issues can be felt even today. The state has been seen to increasingly prioritize the elite middle-class understanding of public space in the country by making use of globally appealing aesthetics (Arabindoo, 2011). This leads to a politics of forgetting, where the government neglects the marginalized poorer and working sections of society in a bit to purify and beautify the state through various policies (Fernandes, 2004). The resulting spatial politics seeks to promote the benefits of globalization and has a detrimental effect on the voiceless. What India lacks is smart urban development, wherein a win-win situation is created for all the stakeholders involved. Take the example of the eviction of fishermen from the Marina. They were offered living quarters far away from the beach, making it impractical to continue their trade unaffected. Switching trades altogether is too far-fetched. What ensued was years of protests and harm to the fishing community.
India can never fully emulate the west and complete adoption of the western concept of open spaces is not possible. The nature of our society differs from the west. Our society is far more integrated, and despite a significant increase in bourgeois guided policies for urban development (like anti homeless architecture and slum clearance projects), the middle class is far too dependent on the poorer, working classes to manage without them nearby. An Indian locality without the local iron walla, chaat walla or fresh vegetable carts seems almost impossible to imagine, at least in the near future. Squatters will remain present for a while and the middle class will truly struggle if the homes of their house help and drivers are razed and they are given government premises further away. The state needs to re-imagine their urban development projects and make them more suited to cater to the Indian public. A mix of pre-colonial and post-colonial visions would be ideal to see some real change. A project meant to make the Marina a world-class space along the lines of Sicily, has ended with the Marina oftentimes being referred to as the ‘world’s largest toilet’; and if the Indian government does not start making realistic redevelopment plans keeping in mind all the stakeholders, more such projects are bound to fail.
References
ARABINDOO, PUSHPA. (2011). ‘City of sand’: Stately Re‐Imagination of Marina Beach in Chennai. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 35. 379 – 401. 10.1111/j.1468-2427.2010.00943.x. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227763123?Mrina_Beach_in_Chennai/
Fernandes, L. (2004). The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power and the Restructuring of Urban Space in India. Urban Studies, 41(12), 2415–2430. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098041233129760
Mehak Neel is a Sociology and Journalism at FLAME University. Her undying love for travel is rooted in her curiosity to learn about various cultures. She considers the knowledge of current world affairs a vital asset and is often found passionately discussing the same. Her hobbies include football, athletics and painting.