you are not welcome here - exclusion, homeless shelters and communites

8/6/2019 You Are Not Welcome Here - Exclusion, Homeless Shelters and Communites

1/54

YouAreNotWelcomeHere

TheDynamicsofSocio-SpatialExclusion

ACaseStudyofHomelessSheltersinHyderabad,India


2/54

2

InternationalDevelopmentStudies

DepartmentofSocietyandGlobalizationRoskildeUniversity

Supervisor:BodilFolke-FrederiksenStudent:MalteWarburgSrensen

May2011


3/54

3

Summary

ThisreportexaminestheestablishmentofhomelesssheltersintheIndiancityof

Hyderabad,focusingparticularlyontheattitudesofcommunityresidents

towardstheshelters.UsingtheconceptofNIMBY(Not-In-My-Back_Yard),the

dynamicsofsocio-spatialexclusionisinvestigated.Theanalysisrevealshow

exclusionisbasedontheconstructionofprejudicesandhowcommunities

constructtheiroppositiontoshelterbasedonthesenegativeperceptions.Also,

theanalysisshowshowcommunityoppositionevolves,andhowdifferent

stakeholdersuseavarietyofstrategiesinordertomakepushtheiragenda

forward.Finally,thereportrelatesthefindingsfromtheanalysistobroader

societalissuesinIndia,particularlythethemesofgovernanceandparticipation.

Acknowledgements

Iwouldliketoexpressmygratitudetowardsallthepeoplewhohavehelped

makethisreportpossible.Firstly,Iwanttothanktheresidents,leadersand

homelesspeopleinMusanagar,Bapunagar,BibleHouse,Kachiguda,Uppaland

L.B.Nagar.Thankyouforsharingyourviewsandallowingmeinsideyour

homesandneighborhoods.Furthermore,IamgratefultoAparnaGayathriwho

helpedwithtranslationandinterviews.Ialsoreceivedinvaluableassistance

fromseveralNGOs;thankyoutoK.Anuradha,andthededicatedstafffrom

AmanVedikaandthankyoutoArunmaiRacherlaandMirzaHamedfromLSN

Foundation.Iamalsoappreciativeoftheassistanceofferedfromtheofficialsof

HyderabadMunicipality;AdditionalCommissionerG.D.Priyadarshini,and

LivelihoodsSpecialistV.PrasannaKumaar.

IamespeciallygratefultoindependentscholarAnantMaringantiandhuman

rightsactivistJeevanKumarfortheiradvice,critique,contactsandlogistical

supportthroughouttheproject.

Lastly,thankyoutoBodilFolke-frederiksen,mysupervisor,forsharpinsights

andthekindofscholarlyflexibilitythatallowsstudentstoexploretheir

interests.


4/54

4

MapofHyderabadandShelterNeighborhoods

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Thehouseiconsonthemapindicatethethreeneighborhoodsthathaveshelters,while

theotherthreehaveeitherresistedashelterormightgetoneinthefuture.


5/54

5

ListofContents

AbstractandAcknowledgements

MapofHyderabadandShelterNeighborhoods

Chapter1:Introduction

1.1Introduction.6

1.2TheUrbanDivideandUrbanInequalities6 1.3Governance,CivilSocietyandParticipation7

1.4Socio-spatialExclusionandNIMBY....................8 1.5FieldStudyandResearchQuestions.10

1.6StructureoftheReport.12

Chapter2-CaseBackground

2.1Introduction13

2.2Hyderabad-AnExtremeCity.132.3TheRighttoFoodCaseandItsConnectiontoShelters..14

2.4TheParallelBureaucracy..152.5JudicialActivisminIndia...16

Chapter3:Methodology

3.1Introduction..18

3.2DesktopResearch..18

3.3Fieldwork......18 3.4Delimitation......20

Chapter4:TheoreticalFramework

4.1Introduction..22

4.2NIMBY-Not-In-My-Back-Yard..22

Chapter5:CaseAnalysis

5.1Introduction25 5.3TypesofNIMBYObjections..29

5.4StagesandDynamicsofCommunityResistance.....34

5.5ApproachesandStrategiesofShelterDevelopers.36 5.6ReflectionsonFindingsofCaseAnalysis..39

Chapter6:GovernanceandParticipation

6.1Introduction43

6.2PublicPolicyandItsConsequences.43 6.3GovernmentInactionandGrassrootsInaction44

6.4NationalPerceptionsofMarginalizedGroups...45

Chapter7-ConclusionandDiscussion

6.1Conclusion47 6.2Discussion...49

BibliographyandAppendix


6/54

6

Chapter1-Introduction

_____________________________________________________________________

1.1Introduction

Thischapterpositionsthereportwithinthegeneraldebateonurbanizationand

poverty.First,thethemeknownastheurbandivideisexploredandrelatedto

theideaofaholisticapproachtourbanplanning.Secondly,issuesconnectedto

urbangovernance,civilsocietyandpublicparticipationareexamined.Oftenthe

urbandivideisstatedastheproblem,andgoodurbangovernanceasthe

solution,whichissupposedtobringustowardsamoreinclusiveandequalcity.

Lastly,theconceptofNIMBY(Not-In-My-Back-Yard)isdescribedandrelatedto

thepatternsofsocio-spatialexclusion.Thisleadstoanoutlineofthespecific

fieldstudy,problemstatementandresearchquestions.

1.2TheUrbanDivide&UrbanInequalities

BridgingtheUrbanDivideisthetitlethemeofthenewestStateoftheWorlds

Citiesreport.Thereporthighlightstheenormousgap,theopenwound(State

oftheWorldsCities,2010:2)betweentherichandthepoor,andhowthatgapis

producingsocialinstability.Myreportisalsoabouttheurbandivide,butnotthe

bigone;thisstudyfocusesonthemanylittlegaps,themanysmallwounds,the

multipleurbandivisions.UsingthecaseofhomelesssheltersinHyderabad,it

focusesonthediscrimination,exclusionandmechanismsofcontrolthatpoor

peopleexerciseuponotherpoorpeople.

Urbanplanningthattriestocountertheurbandivideisoftenbasedonaholistic

approachthatseekstoincorporatefourbroaddimensions:Economic,social,

politicalandcultural(StateoftheWorldsCities,2010:56).Proponentsofthis

typeofholisticapproachtodevelopmentcriticizemoretraditionalurbanplans

forviewingdevelopmentasatechnicalproblemrequiringtechnicalsolutions,

insteadofviewingitasanorganicprocessthatincludesamultitudeofsocietal

dimensions.Ingeneral,theviewofdevelopmentunderlyingthisstudyispartof


7/54

7

thebroadliteratureinthesocialsciencesthat

doesnotconsiderdevelopmenttobemerelya

questionofeconomicgrowth.

Thebasicideaisthatinequalitiesincities

reflectentrenchedpatternsofsocial

discrimination,exclusionandinformal

ownershipofphysicalspace.Theurbandivide

isnotmerelyaquestionaboutincomeand

consumption.Reflectingaholisticapproachto

planning,thecityofHyderabadhasdeveloped

acityplantakingintoaccountbothsocial,

culturalandpoliticaldimensions.Theplanwas

developedinclosecooperationwiththeUnited

NationsCitiesAlliance,andcontaineda

specificchapteronBasicServicestothePoor,

includingsectionsabouttheGrowthofSlums

andSlumPopulation(HyderabadCityDevelopmentPlan,2002:2).However,

Hyderabadstillremainsanextremelydividedcity.Sowhyisitthatcitiesthat

haveadoptedapro-poordevelopmentplanbasedonaholisticapproachstillfail

todeliver?

1.3Governance,CivilSociety&Participation

Partoftheanswerhastodowithunsuitablegovernancestructures,lackofbroad

participationindecision-makingprocesses,andpoorcapacitiesofplanningandmanagement,particularlythelackofcoordinationacrossnational,provincial

andmunicipalgovernments.Astudyontheexperiencesofurbanplannersin

LatinAmericaandAsiafoundthatfewerthan25percentofrespondentsthink

thatcoordinationwaseffectiveamongthethreelevelsofgovernment(Stateof

theWorldsCities,2010:127).Thesamereportrevealsthatcitiestryingto

addressissuesofexclusionbydevelopingnewpolicies,oftenfailtoturn[the

policies]intogoalposts,sustainedprocessesortangibleresultsthatcanbemonitored(StateoftheWorldsCities,2010:127).Thereasonforthesefailures

Homelessness

ACaseofMultipleExclusions

Thesituationofhomelesspeopleisan

exampleoftheinter-linkagesofthefour

dimensionsoftheUrbanDivide.

EconomicExclusion:Thehomelesspopulation

isimpoverished,whichmeansthatthey

cannotaffordpropershelter.

PoliticalExclusion:Thelackofshelterforces

uponthemthelabelofbeinghomeless.In

India,apersonwithoutapermanentaddress

cannotvote,relegatingthehomelesstonon-

citizens,andherebyexcludingthemfrom

formalpoliticalparticipation.

SocialExclusion:Thispoliticalnon-identitytranslatesintosocialexclusion;forexample,a

personwithoutanidentitycardcannotobtain

foodrationcardsandcannotusepublic

hospitals.

CulturalExclusion:Asthelabelofbeing

homelessisreinforcedindifferentways,

culturalexclusiontakeshold.


8/54

8

oftenliesintheinstitutionalframeworksthemselves,sinceovertime,theytend

graduallytoincorporatenegativeandratherinefficientattitudes,aswellas

corruptsocialarrangementsthatarenotfavorabletowardschange(Stateofthe

WorldsCities,2010:128).AnindependentresearcherinHyderabadputitthiswayItsindifferenceandgreed,thatsit.Theyreallydonthaveaverystrongidea

aboutsocialjustice(Maringanti,interview,2011).

Sohowcanthissituationbeturnedaround?Howcandifferentlevelsof

governmentbecomeaccountabletothecitizensthattheyaresupposedto

represent?Theanswertothisquestionisoneofthemostwidelydebatedthemes

ininternationaldevelopmentstudies,indeedinsocialscienceingeneral.The

reportdoesnotgiveananswer,butillustratesanumberofwaysthatgroupsat

differentlevelstrytopositionthemselves,eithertomaintainthehighposition

thattheyalreadypossess,ortotrytoensurethattheirvoicesareheard.Thecase

illustrateshowtheSupremeCourtofIndiaestablishesakindofparallel

bureaucracy,onanationallevel,becauseitdoesnottrustthetraditionalIndian

bureaucracy.Asthisparallelbureaucracyexertspressureonlocalmunicipalities,

thecitylevelofficialstrytomanagetheintensifiedtop-downinstitutional

pressure.ThereportalsoexaminesthewaythatNGOscarefullyengagewiththe

municipality;lookingathowtheytrytoadvancethecauseoftheirclients

(homelesspeople),andatthesametimepreserveafavorablerelationwiththe

morepowerfulmunicipality.However,asstatedearlier,thelargestpartofthe

reportisdedicatedtothepowerstrugglesatthecommunitylevelwheresomeof

themostbrutalfightsoverspace,identityandpowerarefought..

1.4Socio-spatialExclusion&NIMBY

Socio-spatialexclusioncanbeunderstoodasacomplexsetofprocessesand

relationshipsthatpreventindividualsandgroupsfromaccessingresources,

participatinginsocietyandassertingtheirrights(Notti&Meyer,2009:12).

Asregardstothespatialaspect,itshouldbenotedthatthemostsocially

excludedarealsooftenthemostspatiallydistant.Inthiswayphysicaldistance

helpssafeguardsocialandmoraldistance.InIndiansocietythesemechanismsofexclusionareparticularlyevidentinthecaseofhomelesspeople.Theyare


9/54

9

viewedasanti-socialelements,andsocommunitieswillprotestvehemently

againsttheirpresence,tryingtomaintainasafedistance.

ThistypeofcommunaldynamicscanalsobeobservedinconnectionwiththephenomenonofNIMBY(Not-In-My-Back-Yard),whichbroadlycanbedescribed

astheprotectionistattitudesandoppositionthatacommunitydisplayswhen

facedbyanunwelcomedevelopment(Dear,1992:288).Theconceptispartofa

widerliteratureonhumanservicefacilities,andassuchformspartofurban

socialgeography.NIMBYcanbeusedtoassesshowneighborhoodsuse

stereotypes,sometimesunconsciously,toconstructargumentsforexclusion.

Unfortunately,someNIMBYanalysishasatendencytocharacterizecommunity

protestsassimpleexpressionsofself-interestedpolitics.Incontrast,thisreport

triestoremainopentothefactthatNIMBYcansometimesbeconsidered

legitimatesocialactivism,justlikecommunitygroupsprotestingagainsta

nuclearpowerplantorairportintheirlocalarea.Overall,theNIMBYframework

isusedtoinvestigatethedynamicsofurbanexclusion,andhowmarginalization

isstructuredwithinIndiansociety.

Acommunityleader,left,indiscussionwithhumanrightsactivistJeevanKumar


10/54

10

1.5FieldStudyandResearchQuestions

Asoutlinedabove,thisreportusesthecaseofhomelesssheltersasanentry

pointtounderstandavarietyofurbanchallenges.Bystudyingtheway

neighborhoodsinHyderabadhaveopposedoracceptedhomelessshelters,Ihopetoshedlightonthedynamicsofsocio-spatialexclusion,andhow

stigmatizationisconstructedandmaintainedinfavorofthepoliticalstatusquo.

Theinitialhypothesesthathavedirectedtheresearcharelistedbelow.

CausesforCommunityOpposition:

Iassumethatthereareavarietyofreasonsforcommunityopposition,for

examplelackofspaceinthecommunityorlackofinvolvementintheplanningprocess.However,theprevalenceofstrongstereotypesabouthomelesspeopleis

assumedtobeoneoftheunderlyingcausesofcommunityprotests.

StagesofCommunityOpposition:

BasedonthewritingsofMichaelDear,itisassumedthatthewaythat

communityoppositionevolvesinthreedifferentstages;theyouthstage,the

matiritystageandtheoldagestage.Certainoppositionalactivitiesandtacticsarethoughttooccurateachstage.

StrategiesofShelterDevelopersandCommunities:

Thestrategiesadoptedbyshelterdevelopersinrelationtothecommunities,for

exampleaparticipatoryapproachversusaautonomousapproach,isassumedto

impactthechancesofsuccessfullyestablishingashelter.Takingaparticipatory

approachisexpectedtoincreasethechancesofcommunityacceptance.

GovernanceandParticipation:

Onabroaderlevel,theactionsofcitygovernmentsandNGOsarebelievedto

playadeterminingroleineitherdiminishingorexacerbatingurbandivisions

andmarginalization.Specifically,thestrengthofthecivilsocietyandthepolitical

willofthemunicipalityareconsideredparamountinrelationtoachieving

substantialchange.


11/54

11

ProblemStatement:

Howarethedynamicsofsocio-spatialexclusionexpressedinthecaseof

homelesssheltersinHyderabad?

ResearchQuestions:

1)Whatarethecausesforcommunityoppositionoracceptanceofhomeless

shelters?

2)Towhatextentdocommunityresidentsperceptionsofhomelesspeople

influencethepossibilitiesofestablishingashelter?

3)Howdoconflictsbetweenshelterdevelopersandcommunitiesevolve?

4)Howdothestrategiesofshelterdevelopersinfluencecommunityattitudes

towardsshelters?

5)Doneighborhoodcharacteristicsshapespecificresponsestohomeless

shelters?

6)Howdoesthecasereflectsocio-spatialexclusioninrelationtothebroader

themesofgovernanceandparticipation?

PhotofromBibleHousehomelessshelter


12/54

12

1.6StructureoftheReport

Chapter1Introduction:Thischapterpositionsthereportwithinthebroad

debateonurbanizationanddevelopmentinAsia.Thereportsfocusonsocio-

spatialexclusionandtheconceptofNIMBYisalsointroduced.Finally,the

chapteroutlinesthefieldstudyandresearchquestions.

Chapter2-CaseBackground:Thechapterdescribesthebackgroundofthe

casestudywithafocusontheRighttoFoodCaseandtheIndianlegalsystem.

Chapter2Methodology:Themethodologicalconsiderationsarepresented

anddiscussed,includingadescriptionofthefieldworkandareviewofthe

methodsofsampleselection,interviewsandcommunitysurveys.

Chapter3TheoreticalFramework:TheconceptofNIMBYisdiscussed,

includinganexplanationofhowkeyNIMBYmodelsareusedintheanalysis.

Chapter5CaseAnalysis:Thecaseanalysistreatsthedatacollectedat

neighborhoodlevelandincludesanalysisofresidentsNIMBYobjections,the

stagesofcommunityresistance,andthestrategiesusedbyshelterdevelopers.

Finally,thefindingsarereflecteduponatlengthandrelatedtotheresearch

questions.

Chapter6-GovernanceandParticipation:Thischapterlinksthediscussion

ofcommunitypoliticstothewiderthemesofgovernanceandparticipation.

Chapter7-Conclusion:Thischapterbrieflyreviewsthefindingsfromthe

analysisandbrieflyrelatesthesetotheproblemstatementandresearch

questions


13/54

13

Chapter2-CaseBackground

___________________________________________________________________________________________

2.1Introduction

ThischapterintroducesthecasebyfirstgivingabriefdescriptionofHyderabad

anditsdiversityofethnicandreligiousgroups.ThentheRighttoFoodCaseis

presentedanditsconnectiontothecourtrulingonhomelessshelters.Afterward,

theparallelbureaucracyisdescribedasthemonitoringsustemsetupbythe

IndianSupremeCourt.Finally,thespecialtraditionofIndianjudicialactivismis

inexplained.

2.1Hyderabad-AnExtremeCity

HyderabadisIndiassixthlargestcitywithapopulationofmorethan6million

people.Itisalsooneofthefastestgrowingcitiesonthesub-continentwitha

decadalgrowthrateof32%(HyderabadCityPlan,2002:3).Theeconomyofthe

cityhasbeenboomingforthepastfifteenyearsandthecityhasestablisheditself

asacentreforIT,accountingforapproximately10%ofIndiasITexports.However,Hyderabadisalsoanextremelyculturallyandsociallydividedcity.In

IndiathecityisfamousforitscommunaltensionsbetweenHindusandMuslims

Castedivisionsarealsohighlypronouncedinthecitycomparedtoforexample

Bombay.

HyderabadOldCityPhoto:KishorKrishnamoorthi


14/54

14

InthecitysCensusReportof1981nolessthan17majorgroupsofspecific

collectiveidentitieswereidentifiedinHyderabad(Krank,2008:3).These

includedethnicgroups,suchasArabs,Marwaris,Marathas,Bohoras,Pathans,

Pardhis,Jotishi,Lodha,ParsisandAndhras,andalsoreligiousgroupslikeShiahs,Sunnis,Kayasths,KhatrisandChristians.Considerthisdiversity,thereisa

considerabledangerofexclusionanddiscriminationbasedongroupidentity.In

theparticularcaseofhomelesspeople,whichisalwaysaveryhetereogenous

groupconsistingofpeoplefromavarietyofbackgrounds,itcanbedifficultto

liveinanenvironmentmarkedbysuchstrongcommunalidentities.

2.2TheRighttoFoodCaseandItsConnectiontoSheltersInApril2001,agroupofactivistsunderthebannerofthePeoplesUnionfor

CivilLiberties(PUCL)submittedapetitiontotheSupremeCourtofIndiaseeking

enforcementoftherighttofood.Thebasicargumentwasthattherighttofoodis

animplicationofthefundamentalrighttolifeenshrinedinArticle21ofthe

IndianConstitution.Sincethehearingsofthiscasehaveproceededinrecent

years,theSupremeCourtofIndiahaspassedaseriesofsignificant,andattimes

evenhistoricinterimorders,thathavetouchedthelivesofmillionsofindigentIndianslivingwithdesperatepovertyandhunger(CommissionersSecretariat-

RighttoFoodCase,2005:13).Themostsignificantordershaveobligedstatesto

providemid-daymealsinallpublicschools,programsofsubsidizedfoodtopoor

familiesandanationalFoodforWorkScheme.Ingeneral,thecourtrulinghas

hadaverywidetargetgroup,rangingfromschoolchildren,elderlyandpregnant

womentoorphansandwidows.

Inthewinterof2009-10themediastartedreportingonhomelesspeople

freezingtodeathonthestreetsofDelhi.Thepublicconsciencewasbriefly

stirredandthecommissionersintheRighttoFoodcaseseizeduponthischance

togethomelesspeopleincludedinthecourtorders.On13January2010the

Commissionerswrotetothejudgesthatmanyofthewinterdeathsofhomeless

peoplecouldhavebeenavoidedhadgovernmentimplementedfoodschemesfor

peoplelivingonthestreetsandprovidedshelterstothem.(Mander,2010:3).TheSupremeCourtrecognizedthelegitimacyofthecaseandintwonightsthe


15/54

15

numberofsheltersinDelhidoubled.Later,thecourtorderswerewidened

toincludeallstategovernment,whowerethendirectedtobuildsheltersincities

withapopulationofmorethan1million,orcitiesofspecialpoliticalorcultural

importance.Accordingtotheorder,forevery100.000persons,onesheltershouldbebuiltwiththecapacitytosleep100persons.Subsequently,atotalof

62suchcitiesinIndiawereidentifiedandstategovernmentswereorderedto

getthesheltersreadybyMarch31st,2011.Forthefirsttime,theissueof

homelessnessandshelterswastakenupatthehighestadministrativelevels.

However,discussingsheltersatmeetingsdoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthe

issuegetsanypriorityontherealagendaofstatepolitics.Thisisconfirmedby

thefactthatinthestateofAndraPradesh,whichhasanumberoflargecities,

onlythestatecapitalofHyderabadhasadvancedontheissueofshelters.In

Hyderabadthemunicipalityproducedalistof40buildingsthatcouldbeusedas

potentialshelters.Comparedtoothercitygovernments,thelistwasamajorstep

forward,andtestifiedtothefactthatsomemunicipalofficerswerededicatedto

theissue.Accordingtothemunicipalitythebuildingswereunusedgovernment

buildingsorcommunityhalls.Unfortunately,asweshallseelater,the

communityhallswereindeedbeingused.Also,theneighborhoodswherethe

governmentbuildingswerelocatedshowedsignificantoppositiontowardsthe

ideaofallowinghomelesspeopleintotheircommunities.Asanendresult,in

Hyderabad,withapopulationofmorethansixmillionpeople,onlysixshelters

havebeenestablished,whichstandsinstarkcontrasttothe40shelters

originallyplanned.

2.3TheParallelBureaucracy

Asareflectionofthepoorimplementationofthecourtordersbythestateand

citybureaucracy,theSupremeCourthassetupanextensivemonitoringand

advisorysystem.Thisparallelbureaucracybasicallyworksonthreelevels:On

anationalleveltheCommissionersarethecentralfiguresandreportdirectlyto

theSupremeCourt.Onastatelevel,theStateAdvisorsassemblereportsand

coordinatestheactivitiesofNGOs.Onthecitylevel,variousactivistgroupsandNGOsconductsheltervisits,produceauditsonqualityandmakeenquiresin


16/54

16

responsetocomplaints,whicharethensentbackupwardsintothesystem.

Noattemptismadetodisguisethepoliticalorientationofthewholeoperation,

andconnectionsbetweentheSupremeCourtandhumanrightsactivistsisclear

inmanyofficialdocuments.AgoodexampleofthisisthefactthattheSpecialCommissionerfortheRighttoFoodistheformerdirectorofActionAidIndia,one

ofthecountrysmostprominentrights-basedNGOs.Furthermore,thelanguage

employedbyboththeSupremeCourt,theCommissionersandtheStateAdvisers

isverybluntlyinspiredbysocialjusticeideals.

Theestablishmentofthisextensive,alternativebureaucracyisnot,however,a

specialcase.Inmanyotherinstances,theSupremeCourthasestablishedsimilar

structuresbasedontheirgenuinedistrustoftheformalIndianstate

bureaucracy.Skepticshavecriticizedthisparallelbureaucracyforbeing

undemocraticsincenoelectedrepresentativeshaveanypowerindecidingwho

getsappointedandwhodoesnot.Also,withintheranksofleftwing

sympathizers,thereisaconcernthatthesystemisweakbecause,tosomeextent,

itreliesonthegoodwillofafewindividualjudges.Thefearisthatifthesejudges

arereplaced,thenthewholestructurewillcrumble(Maringanti,2011,

interview).However,thistypeofjudicialactivismhasbeenacharacteristicofthe

IndianSupremeCourtformorethanfourdecades,andinrecentyearsithasonly

grownstronger.

2.4JudicialActivisminIndia

WikipediadefinesjudicialactivismasJudicialrulingsuspectedofbeingbasedon

personalorpoliticalconsiderationsratherthanonexistinglaw.IntheAnglo-Saxontradition,judicialactivismisgenerallyusedasanegativetermtodescribe

judgeswhoarenotabletoperformtheirdutiesneutrally.Moregenerally,

judicialactivismisconsideredtobecloselyrelatedtoconstitutional

interpretationandseparationofpowers.However,inIndia,anothertradition

exists,illustratedbythisquotefromaformerIndianChiefJustice:Judgescan

andshouldadoptanactivistapproach.Thereisnoneedforjudgestofeelshyor

apologeticaboutthelawcreatingroles(Bhagwati,1977:1).HecontinuestodescribehowThejudgeinfuseslifeandbloodintothedryskeletonprovidedby


17/54

17

thelegislatureandcreatesalivingorganismappropriateandadequatetomeetthe

needsofthesociety(Bhagwati,1977:2).

KnowingthatthisisthedominantwayofthinkingwithintheIndianSupremeCourtmakesiteasiertounderstandtheRighttoFoodcase.Thefactthatacivil

rightsgroupcanmakeacourtcaseonbehalfofmillionsofpoorpeople,andthe

factthathumanrightsactivistsareappointedCommissioners,andthefactthat

ahugeparallelbureaucracyisestablishedtocountercorruptionintheoriginal

bureaucracy;allofthisisonlypossiblebecauseoftheexistenceofspecialtypeof

judicialactivism.However,asoneexpertjokinglysaidRightnow,ifyoure

leftwinginIndia,youprobablylovetheSupremeCourt.Butwhatifthejudgesget

replacedwithrightwingpeople?Thatmightchangeyouropinionaboutthe

greatnessofjudicialactivism(Maringanti,2011:Interview).


18/54

18

Chapter3-Methodology

____________________________________________________________________________________________

3.1Introduction

Inthischapterthemethodsarepresentedandevaluatedinordertogivethe

readerasenseofthemethodologicalstrengthsandweaknesses.Thefieldwork

andempiricaldatahavebeengivenpriority,andsothemethodshavebeen

chosenaccordingtotheirrelevancetocasestudiesandfieldworkdatacollection.

First,Ibrieflydescribethedesktopresearch,andthenImoveontodescribethe

progressionofthefieldwork,includingdescriptionsofthespecificmethodsof

sampleselection,interviewsandcommunitysurveys.Lastly,Icommentonsome

ofthelimitationsofthereport.

3.2DesktopResearch

Researchisrarelyalinearprocess,especiallynotwhenitincludesfieldwork.

ThisprojectwasbasedonabroadinterestinIndiansociety,andonlygradually

didInarrowinonaspecifictopic,geographicallocation,methodandtheoretical

framework.Theinitialdesktopresearchconsistedofbroadreadingsand

personalmindmapstoidentifyresearchinterests.Thenconceptnoteswere

written,whichwereusedindiscussionswithmysupervisor.Later,Ibegana

seriesofemailcorrespondencesandlong-distancetelephoneinterviewswith

Indianresearchers.Thesewereverybeneficialinidentifyingpotentialcase

studies,andidentifyinglocalcontacts.Afterhavingdecidedtostudyhomeless

sheltersinHyderabad,Ibeganaliteraturereviewofhomelessnessandsocio-

spatialexclusion,whichhelpedinlocatingknowledgegaps.

3.3Fieldwork

BelowIdescribethethreeprimarymethodsusedduringthefieldwork;sample

selection,interviewsandcommunitysurveys.Thefieldworkitselflastedthree

weeksandcanbedividedintofourphases.InthefirstphaseIconductedaseries

ofintroductoryinterviewsandsitevisits.ThenIcarriedoutanumberofin-

depthinterviewswithexpertsandcommunityresidents.Thirdly,thecommunitysurveysweredone.Finally,Ididapresentationofmyfindingsatoneofthe


19/54

19

shelterNGOs,whichleadtoadiscussionthatgeneratednewinsights.Writing

andreflectionwasanongoingprocess.

SampleSelection-CaseStudyasaMethod:Afterhavingvisitedafewneighborhoodsandhomelessshelters,Idecidedto

focusmydatacollectiononsixlocations.Thestrategyusedforselectionwas

information-oriented,whichmeansthatcaseswereselectedonthebasisof

expectationsabouttheirinformationcontent.(Flyvbjerg,2004:426).Inorder

words,thecriticaldimensioninmystudywasthehomelessshelter:Iwantedto

examineavarietyofsheltersituationsinavarietyofneighborhoods.Ineeded

neighborhoodsthathadacceptedtheshelter,whileothersneededtohave

opposedandrejectedit.Ialsowantedtoincludeacommunitythathadbeen

designatedasafuturelocationofashelter.Thereasonforchoosingsuchvaried

sub-sampleswastoobtaininformationaboutprocessandoutcome:Whyhad

somecommunitiesacceptedtheshelter,whileothershadrejectedit?Andhow

werecommunityresidentsreactingwhenfacedwiththeprospectofhostinga

futureshelter?

Interviews:

Individualinterviewswereconductedwithfourcategoriesofpeople;municipal

staff,communityleaders,NGOsandasmallgroupofacademicsandhumanrights

activists.Atotalof17interviewswereconductedofapproximately45minutes

each.Threegroupinterviewswerealsocarriedoutwithhomelesspeopleat

threedifferentshelters.Themethodusedwasqualitativesemi-structured

interviews,whichmeantthatinterviewswerestructuredaroundkeythemes,

butstillflexibleenoughtoallownaturaldiversions.Theinterviewswith

municipalstaff,communityleaders,andNGOsconcentratedontherecent

attemptstoestablishnightshelters,theirperceptionsabouttheirownrolesand

thoseofotherstakeholders.Thegroupinterviewswithshelterclientswere

conductedinordertogainabetterunderstandingofthehomelesspeoplesown

perceptionofthefunctioningofthenightsheltersandtheirviewon

homelessnessassocialphenomenon.


20/54

20

CommunitySurveys:

Thecommunitysurveyswereconductedinfourcommunitieswithatotalof33

respondents.Theaimofthesurveyswasnottogatherstatisticaldata,butmerely

togetanimpressionoftheopinionscirculatingwithinthecommunity.Initially,thesurveywasdoneusingaratherextensivequestionnaire(seeappendix2),but

itwasquicklyreducedtoafewbasicquestions.Ifarespondentwantedto

elaborateonhisorheranswersthiswasallowed.Inthisway,approximately1/3

oftheencountersturnedintointerviewsof5-15minutesduration.

3.4Delimitation

Languageandtranslationisalwaysachallengeasinformationcangetdistortedtoaconsiderabledegree.Forexample,boththetranslatorandtheinterviewee

mightleaveoutimportantdetailsforavarietyofreasons;maybebecausesome

thingsaresimplyconsideredcommonsenseandtakenforgranted,ormaybe

somethingsareconsideredimpoliteorinsensitive.Inrelationtothelevelsof

analysis,thisreporthasprioritizedananalysisofthecommunitylevel,whilenot

givinglessattentiontothecity,stateornationallevel.Thereasonforthisisa

keeninterestinthemicrodynamicsofexclusion,butalsobecauseaccesstohighlevelofficersandkeydocumentsproveddifficult.Overall,thefocushasbeenon

socio-spatialexclusion,howeveriftimehadallowed,manyothertheoretical

perspectivescouldhavebeenbroughtin,forexampletheconceptofpowerand

communitysurveillance,theRighttotheCity,orastrongerfocusonidentityas

understoodinsocialconstructivism.


21/54

21

OverviewofDataCollection

Interviews CommunitySurveys ShelterVisists

Atotalof17interviews

conductedwithanapproximate

durationof45minuteseach.

MunicipalStaff

-AdditionalCommissioner

-ProjectOfficer,SheltersProject

-ProjectOfficer,Uppal

PoliticalLeaders

-Communityleader,Musanagar-Congressleader,Bapunagar

-Cooperator,Uppal

-Colonypresident,L.B.Nagar

-MIMPartyRepresentative

NGOs

AmanVedika:

-Director

-CommunityOfficerinchargeof

BibleHouseShelter

LSNFoundation:

-AssistantDirector

-CommunityOfficerinchargeof

KachigudaShelter

ActionAid:

-RegionalManager

SPARK:

-Director

CONARE:

-Director

Others

-Independentscholar

-PresidentofHumanRights

Forum,Hyderabad

Fourcommunitysurveys

conductedwithatotalof33

respondents.

Musanagar:

-10respondents

-Generallysupportiveoffuture

shelter

Bapunagar:

-10respondents-Mostlyopposedtopotential

shelter,butstillverydifferent

opinions.

L.B.Nagar:

-10respondents

-Verydifferentopinionson

futureshelter

Uppal:

-Only3respondents

-Respondentsacceptingof

currentshelter.

BibleHouse:

Nosurveyconductedsincethe

NGOinchargethoughtitmight

stirnegativefeelingsinthe

community.Theshelterwas

stillintheprocessofbeing

acceptedwithinthecommunity.

Kachiguda:

Nosurveywasconducted,as

thisshelterwasnotoriginallypartofthefieldwork.

Only3ofthe6communities

haveshelters,andallthree

werevisisted.

BibleHouse:

Visitedtwice,includeda1hour

discussionwithclients

Kachiguda:

Vistedtwice,includeda1hour

discussionwithclients

Uppal:

Visistedtwice,includeda1

hourdiscussionwithclients.

Note:

Asmentionedabove,

communitieswithoutshelters

havebeenincludedbecause

theyrepresentadifferent

realityfromcommunitieswhere

sheltersalreadyexist.


22/54

22

Chapter4-TheoreticalFramework

____________________________________________________________________________________________

4.1Introduction

Thischapterintroducesthetheorythathasguidedboththefieldworkandthe

analysis.TheconceptofNIMBY(Not-In-My-Back-Yard)isdiscussed,includingits

mostimportantanalyticalmodels.Whilereadingaboutthetheoretical

framework,thereadershouldhaveinmindthebroaderconceptspresentedin

theintroduction.

4.2NIMBY-Not-In-My-Back-Yard

Locatingcertainfacilitiesoftenprovokesoppositionfromthepotential

neighbors.ThetermNIMBYisusedtodescribeoppositiontoawiderangeof

facilities,suchasgarbagedumps,dams,airports,elderlyhomes,psychiatric

hospitalsandhomelessshelters.Theconceptcameintobeingbecausemunicipal

officersandactivistswantedtounderstandthespecificsofneighborhood

oppositioninordertoovercomeit.NIMBYcanbestbedescribedasaframework

forunderstandingsocio-spatialstigma.Inthisway,itbringstogetheravarietyof

conceptsinordertoanalyzeandunderstandconflictsconnectedtositinghuman

servicefacilities.ThemostwidelyspreaddefinitionwascoinedbyMichaelDear

ashedefinedNIMBYasTheprotectionistattitudesofandoppositionaltactics

adoptedbycommunitygroupsfacinganunwelcomedevelopmentintheir

neighborhood(Dear,1992:1).

AliteraturereviewshowsthatearlystudiesonNIMBYhavegenerallybeen

preoccupiedwithmeasuringattitudestowardsvariousmarginalizedgroupsor

thedifferenttypesofresidentialfacilities.Thesestudiesaskedpeoplehowthey

theywouldfeelhavingcertaingroupslivingintheirneighborhoods(Piat,2000;

12).Overtimedifferentspecificmeasuresofattitudehavealsoemerged,for

exampletheSocialDistanceScale(Piat,2000:12).However,morerecentstudies

havetriedtoidentifythespecificvariablesthatmaycauseorpredicttheNIMBY

phenomenon.Thismorerecentdevelopmentofanalyticcategoriesandmodels


23/54

23

canbeveryusefulwhenitcomestoconductingandgatheringoriginalresearch.

Below,themodelsusedinthisreportaredescribedbriefly.

Models:

TheNIMBYIceberg:Thismodel,developedbyJeannieWynne-Edwards,

connectsthreeaspectsofcommunityopposition.Firstly,itassessesthetypesof

argumentsandobjectionsthatcommunityresidentsmightraise.Secondly,it

examinesthestageorplacethatsuchobjectionsareexpressed(Wynne-

Edwards,2003:35).Lastly,itillustratestheapproachorstrategythatshelter

developerscanemploytoovercomecommunityopposition.

StrategiesofFacilityDevelopers:Thismodel,developedbyMichaelDear,

describesthedifferentstrategies,ornon-strategies,deployedbyfacility

developerstosecurethesitingofthefacility.Thelow-profileorautonomous

approachtriestoestablishthefacilitywithouttheknowledgeofthe

neighborhood,hopingthattheywillacceptitspresenceonceitisalreadythere.

Thehigh-profileorcollaborativeapproachactivelytriestobuilda

relationshipwiththecommunityinordertosecurecooperation.

Three-stageCycleofCommunityResistance:Accordingtothismodel,also

developedbyMichaelDear,communityresistancedevelopsinathree-stage

cycle.Theyouthstagedescribeswhenthenewsoftheproposalbreaksand

wheretheoppositionisusuallyconfinedtoasmallvocalgroupverynearthe

proposeddevelopment.Thematuritystageistheperiodwhereconflictis

solidified,andthedebatemovesawayfromprivatecomplaintsandintoapublic

forum.Iftheconflictisnotresolved,thenextstepisdescribedastheoldage

stagewheretheconflictgetsdrawnout.Victorytendstogotothosewiththe

persistenceandstaminatokeepgoing.

Allthesethreemodelswillbeusedintheanalysisinanattempttounderstand

thespecificsofsitinghomelesssheltersinanIndiancontext.Thestrengthofthe

modelsisthattheygroundtheanalysisfirmlyonrealstatementsandarguments

putforthbylocalactors.AccordingtoTakahashi(Takahashi,1998:81)such


24/54

24

analysiscanhelprevealhowNIMBYpoliticsmaintain,enforce,andreinforce

communityboundarydefinitions,resultinginthemaintenanceofspatialrelations

ofstigma.

LockersusedforstoringpersonalbelongingsatKachigudashelter


25/54

25

Chapter5-CaseAnalysis

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5.1Introduction

Thecaseanalysisinvestigatesthedynamicsofestablishinghomelessshelters,

focusingonthetwomainstakeholders:Thecommunityononesideandthe

shelterdevelopersontheother.TheanalysisconsistsoffourpartswhereIstart

outbyprovidinganoverviewofthesheltersandneighborhoodsandexplaining

theNIMBYIceberg.Thenthedatacollectedatneighborhoodlevelisanalyzed

usinganumberofNIMBYmodels.First,thedifferenttypesofNIMBYobjections,

whichwereuncoveredduringthecommunitysurveys,arecategorizedand

analyzed.ThenIgoontoinvestigatethetypesofresistanceandopposition

tacticsemployedbythecommunities.Afterwards,thespecificstrategies(and

non-strategies)bytheshelterdevelopersareexamined.Finally,Iconcludethe

chapterbyrelatingthefindingsoftheanalysistotheresearchquestions.

AmunicipalofficerwritesdownnotesatmeetingwithNGOs

AmunicipalofficerwritesdownnotesatmeetingwithNGOs


26/54

26

Neighborhood&ShelterOverview


27/54

27


28/54

28

5.2TheNIMBYIceberg

InordertopresentthecomplexprocessesofNIMBYdynamicsinatangibleway,

IhavedecidedtousetheillustrationofaNIMBYIceberg.Themodel,developed

byJeanneWynne-Edwards,connectsthreekeyaspectsofNIMBYism.Ontheleft

side,itpresentsthedifferenttypesofNIMBYobjections,whichrangefrom

specificargumentsrelatedtoproject,forexampleobjectionsagainstthe

physicallocationofashelter,toargumentsbasedpurelyonprejudice.Secondly,

itdescribesthestage,meaningboththeplace-specificforumwhereobjections

areraised,andthetime-specificevolutionoftheconflict.Thirdly,ontheright

side,itdescribestheapproachesorstrategiesthatshelterdevelopersmightuse

inordertoovercomecommunityresistance.Theanalysisthatfollowsis

organizedaroundthesethreeaspects,however,sincethemodelisacombination

ofdifferentscholarlywork,additionaltheoryandmodelssupportit.

Source:Wynne-Edwards,2003:35


29/54

29

5.3TypesofNIMBYObjections

ThecommunitysurveysdetectedtwentydifferenttypesofNIMBYobjectionsto

thepresenceofshelters.BelowIgroupthoseargumentsintofivedifferent

categories,ashasbeensuggestedbytheframeworkdevelopedbyWhite&

Ashton.

FiveTypesofNIMBYObjections

Process Objectionsthatrelatetocriticismoflanduseregulationsandthe

publicparticipationprocess.

Project

Objectionsthatcommentonthephysicalcharacteristicsoftheproposal.

Presage

Objectionsthatarelargelyspeculativeinnatureabouttheproposalandwerenotconfirmedorsupportedwithevidence.

Pretext

Commentsthatindicatethattheissueisnotexclusivelyrelated

totheprocessitself,buttopriorconditionsorprevious

developmentexperiencesinthecommunity.

Prejudice Objectionsthatclearlyorimplicitlyareaimedattheoccupantsofthehousingproposal.

Adaptedfrom-White&Ashton,1992,p.36

Bycategorizingtheargumentsitbecomespossibletoseewhattypeof

argumentsaremostcommon,andinthiswayunderstandwhatthecommunity

thinksabouttheshelter,andwhatthemainreasonsforoppositionare.

Process:Objectionsthatrelatetocriticismoflanduseregulationsandthepublic

participationprocess.

Therewasnoanti-shelterargumentthatrelatedtocriticismoflandregulation,

butafewrelatedtolackofpublicparticipation.Icanonlyspeculateaboutthe

reasons,buttwoaspectsmightbesignificant.Firstly,theshelterdevelopers

werenotconstructingnewbuildings,butsimplyoccupyingoldones,which

meansthatuseoflandwasnotbeingchanged.Also,thegeneralawarenessof


30/54

30

legalregulationsoflandmightbeverylow,whichmeansthatpeopledonot

considerthisopportunity.Inrelationtopublicparticipationagroupofpolitical

leadercomplainedaboutthelackofinvolvement.Also,thecommunitya

Kachigudaraisedthisissue.Ingeneral,though,itcanbearguedthatpeopledonotgenerallyhavehighexpectationsintermsofthemunicipalityinvolvingthem

indecision-makingprocesses.

Project:Objectionscommentingonthephysicalcharacteristicsoftheproposal.

Argument1:Inappropriatebuilding-Wearealreadyusingourcommunityhall

forweddingsandothercommunityactivities.

Thiswasoneofthemostcommonarguments.Italsoseemsverylegitimate;since

manyofthecommunityhallswereindeedbeingusedforweddingceremonies,

religiouscelebrations,dancelessons,karateclasses,etc.Asub-argumentoften

repeatedwasthatpeopleinthecommunityweresopoorthattheydidnothave

themoneytorentaprivatefunctionhallandthereforecouldonlyusethe

communityhall.Inthisway,theirownpovertybecameanargumentagainst

sharingthelimitedresourceswithothers.

CommunityhallusedforschollinginMusanagar


31/54

31

Argument2:Lackofspace-Ourneighborhoodisalreadytoocrammed,thereis

nospacehere.

ThisargumentwasonlyusedbypeopleintheneighborhoodsofMushanagarand

Bapunagarwherethelackofspacewasindeedamajorobstacletoanynewconstruction.

Presage:Objectionsthatarelargelyspeculativeinnatureabouttheproposal

andwerenotconfirmedorsupportedwithevidence.

Argument1:Non-beliefinshelters-Itdoesnotmakesensetomakeashelter

becausethey(theclients)willleavewithin2weeksanyway.Theyhavethat

roamingbehavior.

Thebeliefthathomelesspeoplehaveaspecialroamingbehaviorwas

widespread.Insomecasesitistruethathomelesspeoplewhohavebeen

withoutshelterformanyyearswillfeeluneaselivinginsidearoom.However,

basedonexperienceswithsheltersinDelhi,itisclearthatmosthomelesspeople

willnotleaveaftertwoweeks.

Argument2:Decliningpropertyvalues-Ifsomeonegottheideaofputtinga

shelterhere,peoplewouldfightit,alsobecausepropertyvaluesmightgodown.

Onlyonepersonmentionedpropertyvaluesasanargumenttofightthe

establishmentofashelter.Thisisinteresting,sincethepropertyvalueargument

isoneofthemostwidelycitedinforexampletheUSandCanada.Areasonfor

thisdifferencemightbethatmostoftheintervieweeslivedinpoor

neighborhoodsthatarenotpartoftheformalrealestatemarket.

Pretext:Commentsthatindicatethattheissueisnotexclusivelyrelatedtothe

processitself,buttopriorconditionsorpreviousdevelopmentexperiencesin

thecommunity.

Argument1:Misuseoffacility-Suchaplacewillbemisusedbyothers.Theywill

bringprostituteshere,theywillhangaroundandplaycards.Also,peoplewith

powermightwanttouseitfortheirownpurposes.


32/54

32

Afewindividualsstatedthatashelterwouldprobablyendupbeingusedfor

othermeansifitwasnotcarefullymanaged.Suchworriesseemedtobebasedon

previousexperiencewithsimilarprojects,however,nodetailswereobtained.

Prejudice:Objectionsthatclearlyorimplicitlyareaimedattheoccupantsofthe

housingproposal.

Morethaneightdifferenttypesofargumentsbasedonprejudicewasleveled

againsttheshelterclients.

Argument1:TroubleMakers-Ihavenothingagainsthomelesspeople,butinthe

longrunproblemsmightoccur.Soitwouldbebettertoplacethemoutsidethecity

orjustfurtheraway.

Thiswasthemostfrequentlyexpressedprejudice.Itindicatesthatpeopledonot

considerthemselvesprejudiced,butstilltheargumentdoesnotconcealthefact

thatresidentswanthomelesspeopletobelocatedasfarawayaspossible.

Argument2:Otherness-Homelesspeoplearenotfromhere.

Thisargumentwasputforthveryoften,anditbecameclearthatnotfromhere

includedavarietyofidentitymarkerssuchascaste,religionandlanguage.

Argument3:Lackoffamily-Homelesspeoplehavenofamily.

ThisargumentiscloselyrelatedtoOtherness.However,thetwististhatpeople

assumethatifahomelesspersonisnottogetherwithhis/herfamilythenitmust

bebecausetheyhavedonesomethingwrong,forexamplecommittedamurder

orstolensomething.

Argument3:Disease-Homelesspeoplemighthavecommunicablediseases.

Thisextremeformofdiscriminatorythinkingmightberelatedtoideasofcaste

andstrongreligiousbinariesofpurity/impurity.InIndialowcastepeoplewere

oftenrequiredtocovertheirmouthswiththeirhandswhentheyspoke,because

uppercasteswereafraidofgettingpollutedbytheirbreath.


33/54

33

Argument4:Crime-Homelesspeoplearecriminalorattractcrime.

Manyintervieweesgaveexamplesofthingsgonemissinginthevicinityof

homelesspeople.Also,thereisawidespreadfearthathomelesspeopleare

escapedprisoners.

Argument5:Drugaddiction-Homelesspeoplearedrugaddicts.

Knowledgeaboutdrugsisextremelylimited.Thereislittleknowledgeaboutthe

bio-physicaleffectsofdrugs,whichmeansthatmanypeoplethinkthatdrug

addictsaresimplyweak-willedinrelationtoquittingtheiraddiction.

Begging:Homelesspeoplearebeggars.

InIndia,asinmanyothercountries,beggingislookeddownupon.Furthermore,

inIndiathereisafearthatbeggarsalsosteal.

Alcoholism:Homelesspeoplearealcoholics.

InIndia,asinmanyothercountries,alcoholismiscloselyassociatedwiththeft,

violenceandinappropriatebehavior.Manypeoplementionedthattheydidnot

wanttheirchildrentobenearalcoholics.

Pro-shelterarguments

IntheliteratureonNIMBYlittleattentionisgiventopro-shelterargumentsby

residents.However,MichaelDearbrieflydescribesthatsuchargumentsare

oftenbasedonhumanisticorreligiousvalues.Indeed,thepro-shelter

argumentsinHyderabadseemedtobemostlyfoundedonethicalconsiderations.

Argument1:TheRighttoShelter-Todaywehaveahouse,buttomorrowImight

not,sohowcanIdenyothersaroofovertheirhead?

Argument2:Class-basedSolidarity:Wearepoorandtheyarepoor,sowe

understandthesepeople.

Surprisingly,itwasnotpossibletoidentifyanypro-shelterargumentsbasedon

religiousideas.Thisseemsmightbeduetotranslationissues.


34/54

34

ReflectionsonNIMBY-objections

Lookingatthestatementsabovetwotypesofanti-shelterargumentsstandout

asthemostcommon.Firstly,themostcommonanti-shelterargumentsarebased

onprejudicesandhostilityagainsthomelesspeople.Theothermostcitedargumentwasthatthecommunityhallswerealreadybeingused,whichisan

argumentmoredirectlyrelatedtothespecificlogisticsoftheproject.

Consideringthesetwoarguments,itbecomesclearthatthemunicipalityhas

madeamistakeinsuggestingthatsheltersshouldbelocatedincommunityhalls.

Alsothereisaneedtoworkwiththecommunitiesinordertosensitizethem

aboutthesituationofhomelesspeople.Anotherinsightfromthecommunity

surveysisthatinIndiaethnicityseemsmuchmoreimportantasacausefor

discriminationcomparedtotheUS.Ingeneralitmightseemsurprisingthatso

muchprejudicewasopenlyexpressed.BecauseaccordingtotheNIMBYIceberg,

prejudiceislocatedbelowthesurfaceandissupposedtoonlybefoundin

privatearenas,notusuallyvocalized.Apparently,valuejudgmentsabout

marginalizedgroupsdonotseemtabooinHyderabad.

5.4Stages&DynamicsofCommunityResistanceOppositionaltacticsandtypesofresistancetohomelesssheltersincludeabroad

rangeofactions.InmuchoftheNIMBYliterature,communityoppositionis

describedusingconflictresolutiontheory.However,inmyanalysisbelow,Iwill

limitmyselftoasimplethree-stagemodel(Dear,1992:290)andusethisto

examinetheoppositionobservedinHyderabad.

Three-stageCycleofCommunityResistanceYouth Newsoftheproposalbreaks,lightingthefuseofconflict.Oppositiontendstobe

confinedtoasmallvocalgroupresidingveryneartotheproposeddevelopment.

NIMBYsentimentsareusuallyexpressedinaverydirectway,oftenreflectingan

unthinkingresponsebyopponents. Maturity

Theconflictissolidifiedasthetwosidesassemblesupporters.Thedebatemoves

awayfromprivatecomplaintsandintoapublicforum.Asaconsequence,the

rhetoricofoppositionbecomesmorerationalandobjective. OldAge Theperiodofconflictresolutionisoftenlong,drawn-out,andsometimes

inconclusive.Victorytendstogotothosewiththepersistenceandstaminato

keepgoing.Typically,atthisstage,somekindofarbitrationprocessisadopted,

usingprofessionalorpoliticalresources.

(Dear,1992:290)


35/54

35

Youth

Theinitialreactionofthecommunitydependsalotontheapproachofthe

shelterdeveloper.InthecaseoftheshelterinUppal,theresponsiblemunicipal

officerhadcollectedalistofthehomelesspersonswhomightstayattheshelterifitwasopened.Thissentasignaltothecommunitythatthemunicipalitywas

wellorganized,andatthesametimetheyknewwhatkindofpeopletoexpectat

theshelter.Allofthisfacilitatedalesshostileattitudefromthecommunity.In

contrast,inBapunagarneighborhood,thecommunityhadnotbeenproperly

informedabouttheshelter,whichcausedaviolentreactionontheopeningday.

Agroupofmorethan10youthsgatheredanddrovetheshelterdevelopersoutof

thearea.

Maturity

Duringthematurestageoftheconflict,abroadrangeofactionswasobservedin

Hyderabad.IntheneighborhoodofKachiguda,agroupofresidentsgathered

andstagedadharna,whichisaformofpublicprotestusedduringIndias

independencemovement.InBapunagar,theresidentsstartedlobbyingthelocal

electedrepresentative,whohadoriginallybeenpositivetowardsthe

establishmentofashelter.Afterinternaldiscussionsamongstagroupof

residentsinUppal,aformalcomplaintletterwassenttothemunicipality.After

thecomplainthadbeensent,themunicipalofficerorganizedameetingwhere

thepresenceofatrustedseniorpoliticianhelpedpavethewayforcommunity

approval.AftertheUppalcommunityhadacceptedtheshelter,thecommunity

cameforwardtooffersupporttotheshelter,likesecondhandfoodandclothes.

OldAge:

AsmentionedbyDear,violentorillegalactionisrelativelyrare,however,atthe

BibleHouseshelteroneofthestaffwasphysicallyassaultedbyresidents.The

reasonwasthatangerandfrustrationhadbeenbuildingup,whichwastrickered

bythefactthatsomeofthehomelessclientshadbeenmakingnoiseandsleeping

intheneighborhoodoutsidetheshelter.Oneofthereasonswhytheconflictdid

notescalatewasthatthemunicipalityhadotherofficesinthesamebuildingwho

hadactivelyenteredintoadialoguewiththecommunityresidents.Inthisway


36/54

36

theyhadbeenabletocalmdownthecommunity.Duringtheoldagestage,it

sometimesbecomesuncleartoboththecommunityandtheshelterdevelopers

whetherornotaconflicthasbeenresolved.InthecaseofBapunagar,the

communityclearlyconsideredthecaseclosed,whiletheNGOthatwastryingtoestablishtheshelterstillbelievedthattheremightbeachancetoreopen.

ReflectionsonStagesandDynamicsofCommunityOpposition

ReflectingonthetypeofoppositiondynamicsobservedinHyderabad,itisclear

thatDearsthree-stagecycleshouldbeunderstoodasageneralizedmodel.It

cannotaccuratelydescribetheprocessesinanyoftheneighborhoods.Group

dynamicsandthetypeofcommunityleadershipseemtobetwoofthemost

importantfactorsindeterminingthewaythataconflictmightevolve.

Furthermore,thestrategychosenbytheshelterdeveloperalsoinfluencesthe

finaloutcometoasignificantdegree.Alloftheseaspectswillbeexamined

furtherinthefollowingsection.

5.5Approaches&StrategiesofShelterDevelopers

Reviewingthehistoryofsitinghumanfacilityservices,MichaelDeardescribesfourdifferentapproachesthatfacilityprovidershavetakentowardshost

communities.

(Dear,1992:294)

Approaches&StrategiesofShelterDevelopers Low-profile/

Autonomous

Developerssecretlyestablishthefacilityhopingthatbythetimeits

operationisdiscovered,itwillalreadyhavedemonstrateditssuccessful

integrationintotheneighborhood.

High-profile/

Collaborative

Thisapproachseekstoinvolvethehostcommunity.Itgrantsrelative

prioritytothecommunitysrighttobeinformedofandparticipateindecisionsaffectingtheirneighborhood.

Risk-free

Locations:

Developersseekoutrisk-freelocations,whichmeanslocationswhere

thehostcommunityismorethoughttobemoretolerantbecauseof

moremixedlanduseandlesshomogeniccommunities.

Fair-share

Principles:

Fair-shareprinciplesisastrategybymunicipalitiesfair-shareprinciples

areimplementedtoensurethatensureallthecityscommunitiesshare

theresponsibilityofhostingcertainfacilities.


37/54

37

TheworkinHyderabad,andothermajorcitiesaroundIndia,isclearlythefirst

largeexperimentwithhomelesssheltersinIndianhistory.Thismakesit

particularlyinterestingtoobservetheapproachesadoptedbyshelter

developers.InthefollowingIusethefourstrategiesdescribedabovetoexaminetheapproachestakenbystakeholdersinHyderabad.

Low-profile-Autonomous:

InKachigudaneighborhoodtheresponsibleNGOestablishedtheshelterwithout

givingnotivetoanybody.Justastheshelterwasabouttoopen,theytheninvited

thelocalpoliticalleadertoinauguratetheplace.Thecommunitywasinitially

skeptic,butwaslaterconvincedbythesheltermanagerwhogavethemhiscard,

addressandcontactnumber,andassuredthemthathewouldtakepersonal

responsibilityforthemanagementoftheshelter.WhenthesameNGOtrieda

similarstrategyinBapunagarneighborhood,itfailed.Thecommunityin

BapunagarisfromthescheduledtribeLambardi,whichisanomadicethnic

groupinfamousfortheirrashtemperaments.IntheareaaroundBibleHousethe

responsibleNGOtriedoutasemi-low-profileapproachinasmuchastheydid

contactthecommunityleaders,butnotinaparticularlyplannedway.The

attemptatcommunityinvolvementlaterbackfiredwhenelectedrepresentatives

becamebitterandturnedagainsttheshelter.

High-profile-Collaborative:

InUppalneighborhoodadedicatedmunicipalofficerwasabletoimplementand

succeedwithahigh-profileapproachwheresheinvolvedthecommunityfrom

thebeginning.Sheinvolvedanumberofrespectedleadersandofficials,whileat

thesametimeconductingmeetingswithresidents.Shealsogaveconcessionsto

thecommunityandgavethemassurancesindifferentways,forexamplesaying

thatthemunicipalitywouldprovideawatchman,thatitwouldonlybea

womensshelter,andthattheshelterwouldbecloseddownifanyproblems

occurred.


38/54

38

Risk-freeLocations:

Sofarnoneoftheshelterdevelopershaveactivelyformulatedastrategyof

seekingoutrisk-freelocations,butbasedontheirdifficultieswithcertain

communitiesandcommunityhalls,theyhavebegundiscussingitinformally.Amunicipalofficer,whowantedtoestablishalargeshelter,hadfoundalocationin

acommercialareaindowntown,whichshedescriedasarisk-freelocationinthe

sensethatThereisnocommunitytothrowusout,sincethereareonlysmallshops

inthatarea(anonymous,2011,interview).

Fair-sharePrinciples:

TheHyderabadMunicipalityhasnofair-shareprinciplesanditdoesnotseem

likelythatanywillbedevelopedintheforeseeablefuture.Fromthelistof

buildingsproposedforfutureshelters,allthestructureswerelocatedinpoor

neighborhoods.Atthesametime,therehasnotbeenanypoliticaldemandfrom

theseneighborhoodsthatfair-shareprinciplesshouldbedevised.Thereasonfor

thisisprobablythatnocommunityhasyetbeensaturatedbyhumanservices

facilities,simplybecausethemunicipalityhasestablishedsofewfacilitiesofany

kind.Also,manyneighborhoodsmightnothavethepoliticalimaginationor

capacitytochallengethemunicipalitytocreatesuchnewlegislation.

Theanalysisofstrategiesofshelterdevelopersrevealsanumberofthings.

Firstly,itappearsthatthecategoriesdevisedbyDeararenotsufficientto

describewhathasbeenhappeninginHyderabad;boththeNGOsandthe

municipalityhavenothadaconsciousstrategyorbasedtheiractionsontraining

orguidelines.Tosomeextenttheirapproachhasbeenadhocplanningbased

onpersonalintuitionandindividualexperiences.However,aninteresting

developmentisthatanallianceofNGOshavecometogethertolauncha

sensitizationcampaign,whichwasfinancedbythemunicipality.Inthisway,the

emergingstrategypreferenceinHyderabadseemstobeahigh-profileapproach.


39/54

39

5.6ReflectionsonFindingsfromNeighborhoodAnalysis

Oneofthemostsignificantfindingsintheneighborhoodanalysisisthatthe

processessurroundingeachshelterhavebeenextremelyvaried.However,isit

possibletoobserveanyoverallpatterns?Theanswerappearstobeyes.InthefollowingIwillre-assessthefindingsfromanalysisandrelatethemtofiveofthe

sixresearchquestions,thesixthresearchquestionongovernanceand

participationwillbetreatedinthenextchapter.Lastly,Imakesomebroader

reflectionsontheusefulnessofNIMBYasananalyticaltool.

CausesforCommunityOpposition:

Thefirstresearchquestionaskswhatthecausesforcommunityoppositiontowardsthehomelesssheltersmightbe.Theanalysishasrevealedthattherecan

beanynumberofreasonsforrejectingashelter,howevertwomajorcauses

appearedsignificantinHyderabad.Firstly,theprejudicesandhostilityinthe

communitiesagainsthomelesspeoplearepervasive.Ingeneralitmightseem

surprisingthatsomuchprejudicewasopenlyexpressed.Becauseaccordingto

theNIMBYIceberg,prejudiceislocatedbelowthesurfaceandissupposedto

onlybefoundinprivatearenas,notusuallyvocalized.Apparently,valuejudgmentsaboutmarginalizedgroupsdonotseemtabooinHyderabad.

Consideringthis,itbecomesclearthatboththeNGOsandthemunicipalityhave

underestimatedthedegreeofhostilitytowardshomelesspeopleasa

marginalizedgroup.

Anotherimportantcauseforoppositionwasthefactthatthecommunityhalls,

whichthemunicipalityhadsuggestedasshelterlocations,werealreadybeingusedbythecommunity.Toassumethatthecommunitieswouldwillinglyletgo

oftheircommunityhallswasafundamentalmistakebythemunicipality.The

nameitself,communityhall,shouldwarnofficialsandNGOsthatthe

communitynaturallyfeelsownershiptowardsthatbuilding.Actually,the

municipalitysmisjudgmentseemssobigthatitposesanewquestion:Didthe

municipalityknowthatthecommunityhallswouldneverworkoutassites,but

simplygoaheadinordertojustletthecasefizzleoutinaquirkmireoflocal


40/54

40

resistance?Basedonconversationswithmunicipalofficers,itseemsunlikely

thattheyhadsuchashrewdplan,butthequestionremainsunanswered.

TheInfluenceofPerceptionsofHomelessPeople:Thesecondresearchquestionaskstowhatextentcommunityperceptionsof

homelesspeoplemightinfluencethepossibilityofestablishingashelter.As

mentionedabove,theprejudicesofcommunityresidentshavebeenconfirmedas

oneofthemajorreasonsforopposition.Itisevidentthatthesestereotypes

functionasbuildingblocksforexclusion.However,outofallthedifferentgroups

ofhomelesspeopleitseemsthatyoungormiddle-agedmalesfromlowcastes

andlow-classappeartobethemostdiscriminatedagainst.Atleastthiswasthe

groupthatpeoplehadthedeepestfearof.Manyoftheprejudicesalsobordered

onliteralmisconceptions.Forexample,manycommunityresidentsperceived

homelessnesstobeasortofmentaldisorder,whichclearlywouldonlyaddto

theirfearandthusdiscrimination.Also,homelessnesswasperceivedbymanyto

bechronicandsomewhatcontagious.Thesefindingsposemoreprofound

questions,suchas;howdocertainprejudicescometomakesensetopeople?

Whatistheframetheyusetomakesenseoftheirworld?Whatarethe

ideologicalresourcesthatpeoplehaveattheirdisposaltocreatemeaning?

TheEvolutionofCommunityOpposition

Thethirdresearchquestionaskshowconflictsbetweenshelterdevelopersand

communitiesevolve.Asmentionedearlieritisdifficulttoobserveanyparticular

patternasregardstothedevelopmentofconflictsbetweenthestakeholders.

However,thestrategychosenbytheshelterdeveloperandthecharacteristicsof

theneighborhoodsurelymakesadifference.Alsogroupdynamicsandthetype

ofleadershipfoundinthecommunitywillbedetermininginsettingoutthe

courseoftheconflict.Inrelationtoleadershipitwasinterestingtonoticehow

muchthecommunitiesdiffered.Insomecommunitiespeoplerefusedtotalkto

beforewehadspokentotheleader.Duringthecommunitysurveysmany

residentssimplysaidthattheydidnothaveanyopinionandthattheywoulddo

whatevertheleaderdecided.However,inothercommunities,particularlythe


41/54

41

onesinnewlyestablishedperi-urbanareas,thiskindofcentralizeddecision-

makingwascompletelyabsent.

TheSignificanceofStrategiesandNon-strategiesbyShelterDevelopersThefourthresearchquestionaskshowthestrategiesofshelterdevelopersmight

influencecommunityattitudestowardsshelters.Asmentionedabove,itappears

thatthestrategycategoriesdevelopedbyDear;low-profile,high-profile,risk

free-locationsandfair-shareprinciples,arenotsufficienttodescribethe

developmentsinHyderabad;boththeNGOsandthemunicipalityhavenothada

consciousstrategy.However,shelterdevelopersthatadoptedahigh-profile

collaboratoryapproachlaterintheprocessreportedmoresuccessthanthose

organizationsfocusinglessoninvolvingthecommunity.Anotheraspectisthe

importanceofhowopponentstrytoframeeachother.SomeoftheNGOstaff

clearlyframedthecommunitiesasbeingselfishandcoldheartedfornot

allowingthedevelopmentoftheshelters.Thiskindofframingistypicalin

NIMBYconflictswhereonesidetriestounderminetheactionsoftheother.

Similarly,thecommunitiestriedtoframetheshelterdevelopersbylabeling

themasunprofessionalanddisorganized.Somecommunityleadersaccusedthe

NGOsfornothavinginvolvedthemintheprocessandherebydenyingthemof

thechancetoparticipate.However,itshouldalsobenotedthatmanyNGOstaff

andcommunitymembershadaverynuancedviewoftheconflictsandgenuinely

listenedtotheargumentsputforthbytheotherside.

NeighborhoodCharacteristicsasaDeterminingFactor:

Thefifthresearchquestionasksifcertainneighborhoodcharacteristicsshape

theattitudesofcommunitiestowardsshelters.Thisquestionshasnotbeen

treatedinaspecificsectionoftheanalysis,butcanbeansweredbyconnectinga

numberofobservations.Oneclearpointisthataheterogeneouscommunitywill

oftenbemoreacceptingtowardssheltersthanveryhomogenousneighborhoods

Forexample,thereligiouslymixedcommunityofMusanagarseemedrelatively

acceptingtowardstheestablishmentofashelter.Incontrasttheethnically

closedknitLambardicommunityinBapunagarappearedveryhostiletowards

outsiders.Otherhomogeneousgroupsthatseemedveryintoleranttowards


42/54

42

homelesspeoplewerefoundinricherareas.However,heretheirhomogeneity

wasnotbasedonethnicity,butratheronlifestyleandeconomicstatus.An

interestingobservationinrelationtoclasswasthatmanypeopleexpresseda

beliefthatpoorneighborhoodswouldbemoreacceptingtowardsshelterthanwealthierneighborhoods.However,thecommunitysurveysshowedthatpoor

neighborhoodswereasopposedtohomelesspeopleasothers.Infact,thepoor

neighborhoodofWarasigudastagedapublicdemonstrationagainstaproposed

shelter,whilethemiddleclassareaofUppalendedupacceptingtheshelter.


43/54

43

Chapter6-GovernanceandParticipation

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6.1Introduction

Althoughmostcommunityoppositionargumentsarerootedinlocalattitudes,

communityresistanceisnotpurelyalocalphenomenon.Itisalsotiedtowider

discoursesthatstigmatizeparticulargroupsandbehaviors,andtoinstitutional

sourcesofpower.Thispartofthereportisashortattempttolinksomeofthe

issuesintheneighborhoodanalysistobroaderthemesandstruggles.The

reflectionsarenotbasedonastricttheoreticalframework,butinstead

structuredlooselyaroundtheconceptofinequitableexclusionalliances,which

wasformulatedbyagroupofresearchersaroundBarbaraTempalski.The

conceptdescribeshowlocalNIMBYphenomenaarelinkedtohighersystemic

levelsofgovernmentandnationalculture.Theyspecificallyinvestigatehow

NIMBYisconnectedtothreeareas;publicpolicy,governmentinactionand

nationalperceptionsofmarginalizedgroups(Tempalskiet.al.,2007:1251).The

reflectionsbelowarestructuredaroundthesamethreethemesandshouldbe

seenasanattempttoanswerthesixthresearchquestionongovernanceand

participation.

6.2PublicPolicyandItsConsequences

Inrelationtopublicpolicy,Tempalskiet.al.usetheexampleofdrugaddictsto

describethreewaysthatharmfulpoliciescanaffectmarginalizedgroups:Firstly,

harmfulpoliciesincreaseseliteandlaytendenciestodiscriminatebroadly,

therebyincreasingresistancetofacilitiesofferingservicestomarginalized

groups.TheBombayActofBeggingisanexampleofsuchpoliciesinIndia.The

actwaspassedunderBritishrule,butisstillinplacetodayandcontinuesto

framethepracticesofgeneralharassmentofhomelesspeople.Thearrestsof

streetvendorswhoareoftenhomeless,andtheconfiscationoftheirgoods,are

otherexamples(CardoReport,2001:3).


44/54

44

Secondly,Tempalskiet.al.arguethatdiscriminatorypoliciesincreasetherateof

incarcerationofmarginalizedgroups,inthiscasehomelesspeople.InHyderabad

storiesofimprisonmentwerewidespread.Infact,oneofthehomelessshelters

waslocatedrightoppositeapolicestation,butonlythreepersonsusedit.Otherhomelesspeopleconfirmedthattheystayedawayfromtheshelterduetofearof

thepolice.AnotherexampleofharassmentisillustratedbystoriesofBill

Clintonsvisitin2005wheremassesofpeoplehadbeenloadedontotrucks,

transportedoutofthecityandleftontheperiphery.

Thirdly,Tempalskiet.al.mentionhowdiscriminatorypoliciescreatebarriersto

safelivingpracticesundertheguiseofpolicingandlawenforcementactions.

Forexample,theydescribehowtheUSWaronDrugshasfuelledcommunity

oppositiontodrugaddictsandhowpoliticalleadersatcity,stateandnational

levelhavecontributedtostigmatizationbycommentingnegativelyondrug

addictsinthemedia.InIndiathediscussionsaboutcreatingworldclasscities

inordertoattractforeigndirectinvestmenthasformedthebackdropofbroad

hostilitytowardshomelesspeople.Forexample,theevictionsofhomeless

pavementdwellersforloiteringanddisorderandthetearingdownofmake-

shiftshelterscreateexactlythekindofbarrierstosafelivingthatTempalski

describes.

6.3GovernmentInaction&GrassrootsInaction

Commentingonthesecondaspect;institutionalandpolitical(in)actionand

opposition,itisdescribedhowpoliticalresistancetowardsestablishingcertain

facilitiesiswidespreadamongpoliticiansbecausetheyfearloosingvotes.Tempalskietal.showthatprovidingcrucialfacilitiesarenotalwayshighonthe

politicalagenda.Reflectingthis,oneactivistsaid:Thereareonlytwothingsthat

motivateIndianpolitician,andthatismoneyandvotebanks.Ifcannotofferthem

oneofthese,yourprojectprobablywonttakeoff(JeevanKumar,2011,

interview).Furthermore,Tempalskiet.al.arguethatthefailureofgovernments

toinitiatenationalprogramstosupportmarginalizedgroupsoftenresultsinthe

responsibilitybeingshiftedtostatesandcities,andthatthisoftenresultsinaveryvaried,andoftenpoor,response.Thefactthatthestategovernmentwas


45/54

45

completelyabsentfromtheprocessofestablishingthesheltersalsotestifiesto

anastonishinglackofpoliticalandbureaucraticwill.Thelackoffair-share

principlesinsitingisagoodexampleofhowimportantlegislationsimplydoes

notexist.Also,thedecisiontoonlylocatesheltersinpoorareasshowsthatthatstateandlocalgovernmentsarepredisposedtofavoringmorewealthyurban

residents.

Onabroaderlevel,thewholetraditionofIndianjudicialactivismandtherecent

rulingsoftheSupremeCourtcanbeunderstoodasareactiontogovernment

inaction.ThefactthattheinitiativecomesfromtheSupremeCourtandnotthe

governmentindicatesthatpoliticalwillislacking.Thefactthatthemoveto

establishsheltersisnotrootinginpartypoliticsmightbeapartofthereason

whythingsaremovingsoslow.Thelocalgovernmentsmightnotfeelthesame

urgencytowardsestablishingthesheltersasiftheorderhadcomefromtheir

politicalheadquarter.Anotherreasonwhythesheltersarenotbeenestablished

isthatthereisnomobilizedmovementbehindthedemands.Thecourtruling

comesfromthecentralcapitalofDelhiandlackslocalrooting.Basically,the

homelesspeoplearenotorganizedinsuchawaythattheycanputpressureon

themunicipalities.

Oneofthereasonsforthisisthatmanyoftheorganizationsworkingwith

homelesspeopleinHyderabadarenotveryattentivetowardspoliticsand

politicalmobilization.However,therearesignsinothercitiesthatsuch

movementshavegrownandbecomepowerful.Also,duringmytimein

Hyderabad,theclientsintheBibleHouseshelterdecidedtoformaHomeless

WorkersAssociation,whichmighthelpthemtocarveoutsomespacefor

themselvesinurbanpolitics.

6.4NationalPerceptionsofMarginalizedGroups,.

Inrelationtothethirdaspect;nationalperceptionsofmarginalizedgroups,the

significanceofpublicimagesisexplored.Tempalskiet.al.describehowmedia,

businessandvariousinstitutionscontributetoproducingcertainimagesthatreinforcestigma.SpeakingbroadlyaboutstigmatheyconcludethatAsasocial


46/54

46

process,stigmaoperatesbyproducingandreproducingsocialstructuresofpower,

hierarchy,class,andexclusion,andbytransformingdifferenceintosocial

inequality.Theimageofthehomelesspersonasdirtyworksasanexample:A

personcategorizedasbeingdirtywillautomaticallybeexcludedfromallplacesconsideredclean.

InanessayontherestructuringofurbanspaceinIndia,LeelaFernandes

explainstheprocessaboveasspatialpurificationandlinksittotheriseofthe

Indianmiddleclasses(Fernandes,2004:2416).Thisideaisconfirmedbythe

factthatwealthyresidentsinHyderabadweredescribedasbeingreadytopay

moneytomunicipalofficerstoavoidhavingashelterintheirlocality.According

toFernandes,anewmiddleclassidentityisassertingitselfinpublicdiscourses.

Shepointsspecificallythedevelopmentofnewurbanaestheticsandarguesthat

formsoflocalspatialpoliticspointtotheproductionofanexclusionaryformof

culturalcitizenshipdominatedbythemiddleclasses.Thismightbetrue,butin

Hyderabaditwasclearthatprocessesofspatialpurificationnotonlyoccurin

connectionwithupperormiddleclassdevelopment.Spatialpurificationwasalso

observedintheverypoorestneighborhoods.Peoplefromallsocialclasses

expressedhostilitytowardsthesheltersandmanyarguedthattheyshouldbe

placedoutsidethecity,echoingamentalityofpeoplezoning.


47/54

47

Chapter-7ConclusionandDiscussion

___________________________________________________________________________________________

7.1Conclusion

Socialandspatialstigmasurroundinghomelesssheltershavedramatic

consequencesforthepeoplethatneedtheirservices.Asaresultofthelackof

sheltersmanyhomelesspeoplequiteliterallydieorsimplenevergetthechance

togetbackontheirfeet.Thisreporthasexaminedhowthedynamicsofsocio-

spatialexclusionareexpressedinthecaseofhomelesssheltersinHyderabad.

Belowisabriefoutlineofthemainconclusionsofthereport.

Thecausesforcommunityoppositionwillalwaysdependonthespecific

communityorneighborhood.However,theanalysisrevealsthatcommunity

objectionsaremostoftenrelatedtoeitherprejudicesagainstthemarginalized

group,frustrationwiththeproposedbuilding,orlackofinvolvementinthe

initialprocessesofshelterdevelopment.Incontinuationofthis,theperceptions

ofcommunityresidentstowardshomelesspeoplehavealsoprovedtogreatly

influencethechancesofestablishingshelters.Theideaofthehomelessperson

ignitesdeep-rootedfearandresultsinstrongdiscrimination.

Furthermore,thereportdocumentsthatnoparticularpatternscanbe

distinguishedinrelationtotheevolutionofconflictsbetweenshelterdevelopers

andcommunities.However,thestrategychosenbytheshelterdeveloperandthe

specificcharacteristicsofaneighborhoodsurelymakesadifference.Asregards

tothestrategy,itappearsthatorganizationsfocusingonahigh-profile,

collaboratoryapproachweremoresuccessfulthanorganizationslessfocusedon

involvingthecommunity.Bycomparingthecharacteristicsofdifferent

communitiesandassessingtheirlevelofacceptancetowardsshelters,thereport

showsthatheterogeneouscommunitiesaremorelikelytoaccepthomeless

shelters.Ontheotherhandthecommunitysurveysalsoshowsthatpoor

neighborhoodsareaslikelytoopposeashelterasmorewealthyareas.


48/54

48

Thesocio-spatialexclusiondescribedinthisreportdoesnotoccurinavacuum,

butiscloselytiedtobroaderissuesofgovernanceandparticipation.Thestudy

documentsthisbylinkingthelocalNIMBYphenomenatopublicpolicyand

governmentinaction.Forexample,thereportshowshowtheexistenceofanti-homelesslegislationlegitimizespoliceharassmentandimprisonmentof

homelesspeople.Finally,theinactionofgovernmentsisassumedtobelinkedto

thefactthatthehomelesspopulationstillremainspoorlyorganizedintermsof

politicalmobilization.


49/54

49

7.2Discussion

Howcanthedynamicsofexclusionbeturnedaroundsothaturbanspaceis

openeduptomarginalizedgroups?Howcanthenegativespiralofstigmatization

anddiscriminationbereversed?Thisreportdoesnooffermanyanswerstothesequestions,sincethefocushasbeentounderstandingtheunderlying

factors.However,inotherreports,theanswerisoftenformulatedwithinthe

paradigmoftherighttothecity.Thisconcepthasevolvedduringthepastdecade

tobecomeawidespreadideal,whichishasbeenusedinconnectionwithsocial

actionagainstexclusionaryurbanprocesses.Inotherwords,therighttothecity

hasbeenusedasabannerunderwhichavarietyofcriticalvoiceshaveraised

theirconcernsaboutsocio-spatialexclusioninthecitiesoftheworld.

Overall,therighttothecityisthevisionthattriestoprojectadifferent,inclusive

citycontrastedwiththedividedcity.Also,therighttothecityisnottobeviewed

asyetanotherlegalconcept;rather,itrepresentsadynamicandpragmatic

combinationofthemultiplehumanrightstowhichurbandwellersareentitled,

andthattheywantfulfilled(StateoftheWorldsCities,2011:57).However,ina

citylikeHyderabad,thesenseofarighttothecityisparticularlyweakamongnewlyarrived,homelessmigrants.Theysimplydonotconsiderthatthecityis

somehowalsotheirs.Thefactthattheyhavenospecificplacetocallhomemeans

thattheyalsorefrainfrommakingotherlegitimateclaimstocity-citizenship.

Consideringthis,anumberofquestionsmightbeposed,forexample:howmight

arights-basedapproachbeimplementedinAsianmegacitieslikeHyderabad?

Whataretheexperienceswiththerighttothecityinotherpartsoftheworld,particularlyinLatinAmerica?Howistherighttothecityrelatedtocitizenship

andparticipation?


50/54

50

Bibliography

Berreman,Gerald(1972)SocialCategoriesandSocialInteractioninUrbanIndia,

AmericanAnthropologist,UniversityofCalifornia,Berkeley

Bhagwati,P.N.,interviewwithformerChiefJustice,unknownuniversity

magazine,yearunknown.

CommissionersSecretariat,RighttoFood(2005),SecuringStateAccountability

forRighttoFood-ManualforStateAdvisors

Dear,Michael(1992)UnderstandingandOvercomingtheNIMBYSyndrome,

JournaloftheAmericanPlanningAssociation,58

Fernandes,Leela(2004)ThePoliticsofForgetting:ClassPolitics,StatePowerand

theRestructuringofUrbanSpaceinIndia,UrbanStudies,Vol.41,No.12,2415

2430

HyderabadCityDevelopmentPlan,2002

Krank,Sabrina(2008)Cultural,spatialandsocio-economicfragmentationinthe

IndianmegacityHyderabad,unpublishedmasterthesis

Lauber,D.(1990)CommunityResidenceLocationPlanningActCompliance

Guidebook.Evanston,IL:Planning/Communications.

Mander,Harsh(2010),SheltersfortheUrbanHomeless,HandbookforStateand

LocalGovernments

Notti,F.andMeyer,N.(2009)MissionreportonexcludedgroupsinNepal,

contributiontoVEGM,OHCHR


51/54

51

Piat,Myra(2000)TheNIMBYphenomenon:Communityresidents'concernsabout

housingfordeinstitutionalization,Health&SocialWork;ResearchLibrary

Speak,S.andTippleA.G.(2001)TheNatureandExtentofHomelessnessinDevelopingCountries,CardoReportSchoolofArchitecture,Planningand

Landscape,UniversityofNewcastleuponTyne

StateoftheWorldsCities(2010)UN-Habitat

Tempalski,Barbaraetal(2007)NIMBYlocalismandnationalinequitable

exclusionalliances:ThecaseofsyringeexchangeprogramsintheUnitedStates,

Geoforum

Wynne-Edwards,Jeannie(2003),OvercomingCommunity,Oppositionto

Homelessness,ShelteringProjectsundertheNationalHomelessnessInitiative


52/54

52

Appendix1

FieldworkOverview-Calendar

Date Locationandparticipants

Thursday24th

March

Meetingw/LSNFoundation

Friday25th Meetingw/AmanVedika

SheltervisitatKachiguda

Saturday26th Intervieww/PresidentofHumanRightsForum

SheltervisitatBibleHouse

Sunday27th Writing

Monday28th Interviewmunicipalofficers

InterviewatActionAidIndia

Tuesday29th Intervieww/independentresearcher

Wednesday30th Writing,visittoUppalWomensShelter

Thursday31st Writing

Friday1st Organizingfieldvisitstocommunities

Saturday2nd Preparingquestionnaire

Sunday3rd Coordinationmeetingwithtranslator

Monday4th CommunitysurveyinMusanagar,interviewwithcommunyleader

Tuesday5th InterviewwithdirectorofNGOCONARE

SurveyofopinionsinwealthyneighborhoodBanjaraHills

Wednesday6th CommunitysurveyinL.B.NagarandUppal,interviewwithUppalcorporator

Thursday7th CommunitysurveyinMusanagar,L.B.NagarandBibleHouse

Friday8th Relaxation

Saturday9th Writing

Sunday10th Writing

Monday11th Writing

Tuesday12th Intervieww/PresidentofHumanRightsForum

Wednesday13th Intervieww/independentresearcher

PresentationoffindingsatAmanVedika

Thursday14th Writing


53/54

53

Appendix2

Questionnaire-CommunitySurvey

Researchfocus:

-Howdidthecommunityreacttoashelter?

-Whatarepeoplesperceptionsabouthomelesspeople?

1)IntroquestionsPurpose:

-Findoutiftherespondentknowsabouttheproposedshelter-Getafeelingofhowtherespondentviewstheproposedshelter

1a)Doyouknowthattherewasaplantoestablishadestituteshelterinthisarea?

1b)Whatdoyouthinkabouthavingsuchasheltersinthisarea?2)CommunityReactionstowardstheshelterPurpose:

-Knowaboutthecommunitysimmediatereactions-Knowaboutlocalactivismormobilizationagainsttheshelterbybastileaders,

corporator

4A)Whatwasyourimmediatereaction?

4b)Didpeoplecometogethertoprotestornothingmuchhappened?

4c)Whatwerethereasonsthatpeopleprotested?4d)Istheircommunityhallbeingusedforanyactivitiesornotreally?

IftheC.H.isnotbeingused:

-Woulditbefinetouseitasashelterforhomelesspeopleaccordingtothem?

Why/whynot?

Iftheshelterisbeingused:

-Wouldtheymindifanotherbuilding,suchasanunusedgovt.building,wouldbe

usedasashelterforthedestitute?Why?whynot.4c)Howdidthecorporatororotherleadershandlethesituation?

3)CommunityknowledgeaboutestablishmentofshelterPurpose:-KnowiftherehasbeenanysensitizationabouttheshelterbyGHMCorNGOs

-Knowhowinformationtravelsinthecommunity,e.g.throughkeyindividuals

orpeers

2a)Didanybodytellyouabouttheshelter,orhowdidyoucometoknowaboutit?2b)Wasitafriendormaybethecorporatorwhotoldyouabouttheshelter?


54/54

2c)Whydoyouthinktheychosethisareafortheshelter?

4)AttitudetowardsthemunicipalityandNGOsPurpose:-KnowhowresidentsperceivetheGHMCinrelationtotheshelter

-KnowhowresidentsperceivetheNGOinrelationtotheshelter

6a)HowdoyouthinktheGHMCorlocalofficrhandledthesituation?

6b)HowdoyouthinktheNGOshandledthesituation?

4)Attitudestowardshomelesspeople

2a)Whatdoyouknowabouthomelesspeople?2b)Haveyouhadanyexperienceswithhomelesspeoplegoodorbad?2c)Doyouthinkthehomelesspeoplehavearighttostayinthecity?

5)Attitudestowardshomelessshelters(similartoquestionsabove) Purpose:

-Toknowaboutpeoplesperceptionabouthomelessshelters.

-Toknowhowthepersonthinkstherestofthecommunityviewsshelters

3c)Howdoyouthinkotherpeopleinthecommunityviewedtheproposal?

3d)Howclosedoyoulivefromtheproposedshelterbuilding?

3e)Woulditbebettertohavetheshelterinanotherarea?Why/whynot?

6)MediaInfluencePurpose:Toknowhowthemediaisportrayinghomelesspeople

7a)Haveyoureadanythingabouttheshelterinthenewspaper?

7)Personalresidentinformation

-Name-Age-Gender

you are not welcome here - exclusion, homeless shelters and communites

Documents