Everyday resistance: exposing the complexities of participatory slum-upgrading projects in Nagpur

Abstract

This article exposes practices of informal, everyday resistance by slum dwellers against the implementation of large-scale public housing projects in India. During the last few decades, various large-scale urban projects have been implemented in order to redevelop Indian cities. In these projects, the emphasis is on community participation. By focusing on the local level, we scrutinize how these projects are put into practice. Specifically, we look at how two slum communities react, contest and protest against the implementation of a large-scale public housing project. Using two case studies in Nagpur under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor-an overarching, nation-wide slum upgrading scheme-this article explores how standardized, participatory large-scale housing projects often clash with social realities on the ground, which results in various forms of everyday resistance and protest.

The challenges of livelihoods reconstruction in the context of informal settlement upgrading

“…The conventionally studied ‘conditions for successful upgrading’ portray a provider perspective – for example, focusing on conflicts management so as to facilitate the timely execution of project activities. Fewer studies have taken a critical look at the lived experiences of beneficiaries and how they meet their livelihoods needs during the upgrading process (De Geest, 2016; Napier, 2007; Rigon, 2014; Tissington, 2012). Tissington (2012: 3) argued that the nexus between informal settlement upgrading, livelihood creation and local economic development has not been explored in South Africa.…”

“…(2013), Mitra et al. (2017) and De Geest (2016) have used the livelihoods concept as a systematic tool in analysing existing informal settlement upgrading interventions and activities. Despite wide application, the SLF has also received criticism, including: lacking integration into established fields that analyse social and economic change processes (Geiser et al., 2011; Small, 2007), a tendency to downplay power relations in access modalities by focusing overly on capital resources and activities (De Haan and Zoomers, 2005) and lack of contextual considerations (De Haan and Zoomers, 2005; Meikle et al., 2001; Moser, 1998).…”

“…In order to tackle these criticisms, increasing numbers of researchers are proposing further specification of sustainable livelihoods based on insights from practice theory (see, e.g., De Haan and Zoomers, 2005; Sakdapolrak, 2014; Thieme, 2008). Practice theory is an established field in social sciences that is used to understand social practices and how they influence societal change processes (Cherunya et al., 2020; Hargreaves et al., 2013; Shove et al., 2012).…”

“…The ‘materialities’ and ‘capacities’ are captured within the natural, physical, human, social and financial assets of SLF. De Haan and Zoomers (2005) suggested the extension of the livelihoods concept to emphasize socio-cultural meanings and local power that has been overlooked in the original conceptualization. This precondition is specified in the ODS concept as ‘meanings’.…”

“…People have to reconstruct entire activities and practices related to meeting their livelihoods requirements after a relocation. The current state of literature on settlements upgrading suggests that actual impacts of disruptions on the beneficiaries are still under-studied and under-conceptualized (De Geest, 2016; Gulyani and Bassett, 2007; Napier, 2007; Rigon, 2014; Smith and Brown, 2019; Tissington, 2012). This research gap is significant for African cities where, in a more general sense, fewer studies have been conducted in comparison to Asian and Latin American cities (Gulyani and Bassett, 2007: 487).…”