---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:
Frank Conlon <conlon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>Date: Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 9:29 PM
Subject: H-ASIA: Slumdogs, Slums and Mumbai
To:
H-ASIA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxH-ASIA
February 25, 2009
Slumdogs, Slums and Mumbai
(x-post Urban Study Group)
***********************************************************************
Ed. note: On Monday morning (Indian Standard Time) I was preparing to depart Mumbai for my long slog back to the United States. I was going through security when a shout went up; guards applauded, smiles everywhere, some staff jumped up and down--the film Slumdog Millionaire had just won the 'best picture' Oscar. Considering that many commentators had bemoaned the film as presenting a dark side of India--and thus "gratifying" (sic) Westerners prejudices (I am not making this up), it came as a bit of a surprise that many Mumbaikars were watching the broadcast with great anticipation. I have seen the film and enjoyed it--the grim, gritty portrayal of some of realities of modern Mumbai are not often seen, and the romantic happy ending was a right, light touch. No one I spoke with during my two weeks in Mumbai said anything negative about the film, which I found remarkable. One thing that puzzled me was the use of the term 'slumdog'--it has not been a conventional term in Mumbai English and the term "jhopadpati ki kuti" had not been widely employed in my experience. As for "slum" well a slum is in one's own perception; there is a long history of "slum" as a place and as an idea; and although the film was shot in a variety of locations, the setting is suppoed to be Dharavi--described in literature as "Asia's Largest Slum."
The magic of film making allowed the cop to chase the young boys from the Santa Cruz airport into the lane in Dharavi--a remarkable feat in terms of geography and the capacity to run on the water. Oh well.
The following is cross posted from the list of the Urban-Study-Group in India:
FFC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Anuj Bhuwania <anujbhuwania at
gmail.com>
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/21/opinion/21srivastava.html?_r=2
Taking the Slum Out of 'Slumdog'
By MATIAS ECHANOVE and RAHUL SRIVASTAVA
Published: February 21, 2009
IT does not take much to galvanize protest against a movie in India,
but few thought the word "slumdog" would cause so much anger —
especially as hundreds of Bollywood titles translate into much worse
slurs. We had to pay attention, though, when friends from Mumbai's
sprawling Dharavi area joined hands with those demonstrating against
the Oscar-nominated film "Slumdog Millionaire." The Indian media
widely reported that the outrage was over the word "dog." But what we
heard from Manju Keny, a college student living in Dharavi, was
something else. She was upset at the word "slum." We could not agree
more.
In truth, the movie never claims to be a portrait of Dharavi, though
some of the most spectacular scenes were shot there, including
depictions of the anti-Muslim riots of 1992. The director, Danny
Boyle, constructs a cinematic slum out of many pockets around Mumbai.
The opening sequence has children playing near the airport, being
chased by policemen and ending up--in a moment of pure Hollywood
magic--a few miles away in Dharavi.
The imagery represents what most middle-class residents of Mumbai (and
now all over the world) imagine Dharavi to be. The urban legend of its
squalor has taken root because few Mumbaikers have ever been there --
just as most Manhattanites still avoid stepping anywhere near
Bedford-Stuyvesant, that beautiful neighborhood in Brooklyn. Times may
have changed since the mid-'70s, when the community worker Barry Stein
described Bed-Stuy as the "largest ghetto in the country," but
prejudices die hard, in New York and India.
Its depiction as a slum does little justice to the reality of Dharavi.
Well over a million "eyes on the street," to use Jane Jacobs's phrase,
keep Dharavi perhaps safer than most American cities. Yet Dharavi's
extreme population density doesn't translate into oppressiveness. The
crowd is efficiently absorbed by the thousands of tiny streets
branching off bustling commercial arteries. Also, you won't be chased
by beggars or see hopeless people loitering-- Dharavi is probably the
most active and lively part of an incredibly industrious city. People
have learned to respond in creative ways to the indifference of the
state--including having set up a highly functional recycling industry
that serves the whole city.
Dharavi is all about such resourcefulness. Over 60 years ago, it
started off as a small village in the marshlands and grew, with no
government support, to become a million-dollar economic miracle
providing food to Mumbai and exporting crafts and manufactured goods
to places as far away as Sweden.
No master plan, urban design, zoning ordinance, construction law or
expert knowledge can claim any stake in the prosperity of Dharavi. It
was built entirely by successive waves of immigrants fleeing rural
poverty, political oppression and natural disasters. They have created
a place that is far from perfect but has proved to be amazingly
resilient and able to upgrade itself. In the words of Bhau Korde, a
social worker who lives there, "Dharavi is an economic success story
that the world must pay attention to during these times of global
depression."
Understanding such a place solely by the generic term "slum" ignores
its complexity and dynamism. Dharavi's messy appearance is nothing but
an _expression_ of intense social and economic processes at work. Most
homes double as work spaces: when morning comes, mattresses are
folded, and tens of thousands of units form a decentralized production
network rivaling the most ruthless of Chinese sweatshops in
efficiency. Mixed-use habitats have often shaped urban histories. Look
at large parts of Tokyo. Its low-rise, high-density mixed-use
cityscape and intricate street network have emerged through a similar
Dharaviesque logic. The only difference is that people's involvement
in local development in Tokyo was seen as legitimate.
Building on what exists, rather than clearing it for redevelopment,
may preserve not only the character of a place but also its economic
vibrancy. In Dharavi, it would allow all residents to leverage their
most precious asset: a place to live and work. Slum-rehabilitation
projects in Mumbai often end up creating new slums elsewhere as they
increase real-estate value in the places they redevelop.
In the movie, when the protagonists return to their childhood haunts,
they find that multistoried apartments have replaced the old decrepit
structures, giving the impression of urban mobility and
transformation. What the camera doesn't reveal are the enormous
shantytowns hidden behind those glistening towers, waiting to be
redeveloped all over again.
In many ways, Dharavi is the ultimate user-generated city. Each of its
80-plus neighborhoods has been incrementally developed by generations
of residents updating their shelters and businesses according to needs
and means. As Ramesh Misra, a lawyer and lifelong resident, puts it:
"We have always improved Dharavi by ourselves. All we want is
permission and support to keep doing it. Is that asking for too much?"
Matias Echanove and Rahul Srivastava are affiliated with the research
collective Partners for Urban Knowledge Action and Research.
******************************************************************
To post to H-ASIA simply send your message to:
<
H-ASIA@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
For holidays or short absences send post to:
<
listserv@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> with message:
SET H-ASIA NOMAIL
Upon return, send post with message SET H-ASIA MAIL
H-ASIA WEB HOMEPAGE URL:
http://h-net.msu.edu/~asia/