Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
2
Summary
This
report
examines
the
establishment
of
homeless
shelters
in
the
Indian
city
of
Hyderabad,
focusing
particularly
on
the
attitudes
of
community
residents
towards
the
shelters.
Using
the
concept
of
NIMBY
(Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back_Yard),
the
dynamics
of
socio-‐spatial
exclusion
is
investigated.
The
analysis
reveals
how
exclusion
is
based
on
the
construction
of
prejudices
and
how
communities
construct
their
opposition
to
shelter
based
on
these
negative
perceptions.
Also,
the
analysis
shows
how
community
opposition
evolves,
and
how
different
stakeholders
use
a
variety
of
strategies
in
order
to
make
push
their
agenda
forward.
Finally,
the
report
relates
the
findings
from
the
analysis
to
broader
societal
issues
in
India,
particularly
the
themes
of
governance
and
participation.
Acknowledgements
I
would
like
to
express
my
gratitude
towards
all
the
people
who
have
helped
make
this
report
possible.
Firstly,
I
want
to
thank
the
residents,
leaders
and
homeless
people
in
Musanagar,
Bapunagar,
Bible
House,
Kachiguda,
Uppal
and
L.
B.
Nagar.
Thank
you
for
sharing
your
views
and
allowing
me
inside
your
homes
and
neighborhoods.
Furthermore,
I
am
grateful
to
Aparna
Gayathri
who
helped
with
translation
and
interviews.
I
also
received
invaluable
assistance
from
several
NGOs;
thank
you
to
K.
Anuradha
,
and
the
dedicated
staff
from
Aman
Vedika
and
thank
you
to
Arunmai
Racherla
and
Mirza
Hamed
from
LSN
Foundation.
I
am
also
appreciative
of
the
assistance
offered
from
the
officials
of
Hyderabad
Municipality;
Additional
Commissioner
G.D.
Priyadarshini,
and
Livelihoods
Specialist
V.
Prasanna
Kumaar.
I
am
especially
grateful
to
independent
scholar
Anant
Maringanti
and
human
rights
activist
Jeevan
Kumar
for
their
advice,
critique,
contacts
and
logistical
support
throughout
the
project.
Lastly,
thank
you
to
Bodil
Folke-‐frederiksen,
my
supervisor,
for
sharp
insights
and
the
kind
of
scholarly
flexibility
that
allows
students
to
explore
their
interests.
3
The
house
icons
on
the
map
indicate
the
three
neighborhoods
that
have
shelters,
while
the
other
three
have
either
resisted
a
shelter
or
might
get
one
in
the
future.
4
5
6
7
often
lies
in
the
institutional
frameworks
themselves,
since
over
time,
they
tend
gradually
to
incorporate
negative
and
rather
inefficient
attitudes,
as
well
as
corrupt
social
arrangements
that
are
not
favorable
towards
change
(State
of
the
World’s
Cities,
2010:
128).
An
independent
researcher
in
Hyderabad
put
it
this
way“It’s
indifference
and
greed,
that’s
it.
They
really
don’t
have
a
very
strong
idea
about
social
justice”
(Maringanti,
interview,
2011).
So
how
can
this
situation
be
turned
around?
How
can
different
levels
of
government
become
accountable
to
the
citizens
that
they
are
supposed
to
represent?
The
answer
to
this
question
is
one
of
the
most
widely
debated
themes
in
international
development
studies,
indeed
in
social
science
in
general.
The
report
does
not
give
an
answer,
but
illustrates
a
number
of
ways
that
groups
at
different
levels
try
to
position
themselves,
either
to
maintain
the
high
position
that
they
already
possess,
or
to
try
to
ensure
that
their
voices
are
heard.
The
case
illustrates
how
the
Supreme
Court
of
India
establishes
a
kind
of
parallel
bureaucracy,
on
a
national
level,
because
it
does
not
trust
the
traditional
Indian
bureaucracy.
As
this
parallel
bureaucracy
exerts
pressure
on
local
municipalities,
the
city
level
officials
try
to
manage
the
intensified
top-‐down
institutional
pressure.
The
report
also
examines
the
way
that
NGOs
carefully
engage
with
the
municipality;
looking
at
how
they
try
to
advance
the
cause
of
their
clients
(homeless
people),
and
at
the
same
time
preserve
a
favorable
relation
with
the
more
powerful
municipality.
However,
as
stated
earlier,
the
largest
part
of
the
report
is
dedicated
to
the
power
struggles
at
the
community
level
where
some
of
the
most
brutal
fights
over
space,
identity
and
power
are
fought.
.
1.4
Socio-spatial
Exclusion
&
NIMBY
Socio-‐spatial
exclusion
can
be
understood
as
a
complex
set
of
processes
and
relationships
that
prevent
individuals
and
groups
from
accessing
resources,
participating
in
society
and
asserting
their
rights
(Notti
&
Meyer,
2009:
12).
As
regards
to
the
spatial
aspect,
it
should
be
noted
that
the
most
socially
excluded
are
also
often
the
most
spatially
distant.
In
this
way
physical
distance
helps
safeguard
social
and
moral
distance.
In
Indian
society
these
mechanisms
of
exclusion
are
particularly
evident
in
the
case
of
homeless
people.
They
are
8
viewed
as
“anti-‐social
elements”,
and
so
communities
will
protest
vehemently
against
their
presence,
trying
to
maintain
a
safe
distance.
This
type
of
communal
dynamics
can
also
be
observed
in
connection
with
the
phenomenon
of
NIMBY
(Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back-‐Yard),
which
broadly
can
be
described
as
the
protectionist
attitudes
and
opposition
that
a
community
displays
when
faced
by
an
unwelcome
development
(Dear,
1992:
288).
The
concept
is
part
of
a
wider
literature
on
human
service
facilities,
and
as
such
forms
part
of
urban
social
geography.
NIMBY
can
be
used
to
assess
how
neighborhoods
use
stereotypes,
sometimes
unconsciously,
to
construct
arguments
for
exclusion.
Unfortunately,
some
NIMBY
analysis
has
a
tendency
to
characterize
community
protests
as
simple
expressions
of
self-‐interested
politics.
In
contrast,
this
report
tries
to
remain
open
to
the
fact
that
NIMBY
can
sometimes
be
considered
legitimate
social
activism,
just
like
community
groups
protesting
against
a
nuclear
power
plant
or
airport
in
their
local
area.
Overall,
the
NIMBY
framework
is
used
to
investigate
the
dynamics
of
urban
exclusion,
and
how
marginalization
is
structured
within
Indian
society.
A
community
leader,
left,
in
discussion
with
human
rights
activist
Jeevan
Kumar
9
10
Problem
Statement:
How
are
the
dynamics
of
socio-‐spatial
exclusion
expressed
in
the
case
of
homeless
shelters
in
Hyderabad?
Research
Questions:
1)
What
are
the
causes
for
community
opposition
or
acceptance
of
homeless
shelters?
2)
To
what
extent
do
community
residents’
perceptions
of
homeless
people
influence
the
possibilities
of
establishing
a
shelter?
3)
How
do
conflicts
between
shelter
developers
and
communities
evolve?
4)
How
do
the
strategies
of
shelter
developers
influence
community
attitudes
towards
shelters?
5)
Do
neighborhood
characteristics
shape
specific
responses
to
homeless
shelters?
6)
How
does
the
case
reflect
socio-‐spatial
exclusion
in
relation
to
the
broader
themes
of
governance
and
participation?
Photo
from
Bible
House
homeless
shelter
11
Chapter
1
–
Introduction:
This
chapter
positions
the
report
within
the
broad
debate
on
urbanization
and
development
in
Asia.
The
report’s
focus
on
socio-‐
spatial
exclusion
and
the
concept
of
NIMBY
is
also
introduced.
Finally,
the
chapter
outlines
the
field
study
and
research
questions.
Chapter
2
-
Case
Background:
The
chapter
describes
the
background
of
the
case
study
with
a
focus
on
the
Right
to
Food
Case
and
the
Indian
legal
system.
Chapter
2
–
Methodology:
The
methodological
considerations
are
presented
and
discussed,
including
a
description
of
the
fieldwork
and
a
review
of
the
methods
of
sample
selection,
interviews
and
community
surveys.
Chapter
3
–
Theoretical
Framework:
The
concept
of
NIMBY
is
discussed,
including
an
explanation
of
how
key
NIMBY
models
are
used
in
the
analysis.
Chapter
5
–
Case
Analysis:
The
case
analysis
treats
the
data
collected
at
neighborhood
level
and
includes
analysis
of
residents’
NIMBY
objections,
the
stages
of
community
resistance,
and
the
strategies
used
by
shelter
developers.
Finally,
the
findings
are
reflected
upon
at
length
and
related
to
the
research
questions.
Chapter
6
-
Governance
and
Participation:
This
chapter
links
the
discussion
of
community
politics
to
the
wider
themes
of
governance
and
participation.
Chapter
7
-
Conclusion:
This
chapter
briefly
reviews
the
findings
from
the
analysis
and
briefly
relates
these
to
the
problem
statement
and
research
questions
12
Hyderabad
Old
City
Photo:
Kishor
Krishnamoorthi
13
In
the
city’s
Census
Report
of
1981
no
less
than
17
major
groups
of
“specific
collective
identities”
were
identified
in
Hyderabad
(Krank,
2008:
3).
These
included
ethnic
groups,
such
as
Arabs,
Marwaris,
Marathas,
Bohoras,
Pathans,
Pardhis,
Jotishi,
Lodha,
Parsis
and
Andhras,
and
also
religious
groups
like
Shi’ahs,
Sunnis,
Kayasths,
Khatris
and
Christians.
Consider
this
diversity,
there
is
a
considerable
danger
of
exclusion
and
discrimination
based
on
group
identity.
In
the
particular
case
of
homeless
people,
which
is
always
a
very
hetereogenous
group
consisting
of
people
from
a
variety
of
backgrounds,
it
can
be
difficult
to
live
in
an
environment
marked
by
such
strong
communal
identities.
2.2
The
Right
to
Food
Case
and
Its
Connection
to
Shelters
In
April
2001,
a
group
of
activists
under
the
banner
of
the
People’s
Union
for
Civil
Liberties
(PUCL)
submitted
a
petition
to
the
Supreme
Court
of
India
seeking
enforcement
of
the
right
to
food.
The
basic
argument
was
that
the
right
to
food
is
an
implication
of
the
fundamental
“right
to
life”
enshrined
in
Article
21
of
the
Indian
Constitution.
Since
the
hearings
of
this
case
have
proceeded
in
recent
years,
the
Supreme
Court
of
India
has
passed
“a
series
of
significant,
and
at
times
even
historic
interim
orders,
that
have
touched
the
lives
of
millions
of
indigent
Indians
living
with
desperate
poverty
and
hunger”
(Commissioners’
Secretariat
-‐
Right
to
Food
Case,
2005:13).
The
most
significant
orders
have
obliged
states
to
provide
mid-‐day
meals
in
all
public
schools,
programs
of
subsidized
food
to
poor
families
and
a
national
“Food
for
Work
Scheme”.
In
general,
the
court
ruling
has
had
a
very
wide
target
group,
ranging
from
school
children,
elderly
and
pregnant
women
to
orphans
and
widows.
In
the
winter
of
2009-‐10
the
media
started
reporting
on
homeless
people
freezing
to
death
on
the
streets
of
Delhi.
The
public
conscience
was
briefly
stirred
and
the
commissioners
in
the
Right
to
Food
case
seized
upon
this
chance
to
get
homeless
people
included
in
the
court
orders.
On
13
January
2010
the
Commissioners
wrote
to
the
judges
that
“many
of
the
winter
deaths
of
homeless
people
could
have
been
avoided
had
government
implemented
food
schemes
for
people
living
on
the
streets
and
provided
shelters
to
them.”
(Mander,
2010:
3).
The
Supreme
Court
recognized
the
legitimacy
of
the
case
and
in
two
nights
the
14
number
of
shelters
in
Delhi
doubled.
Later,
the
court
orders
were
widened
to
include
all
state
government,who
were
then
directed
to
build
shelters
in
cities
with
a
population
of
more
than
1
million,
or
cities
of
special
political
or
cultural
importance.
According
to
the
order,
for
every
100.000
persons,
one
shelter
should
be
built
with
the
capacity
to
sleep
100
persons.
Subsequently,
a
total
of
62
such
cities
in
India
were
identified
and
state
governments
were
ordered
to
get
the
shelters
ready
by
March
31st,
2011.
For
the
first
time,
the
issue
of
homelessness
and
shelters
was
taken
up
at
the
highest
administrative
levels.
However,
discussing
shelters
at
meetings
does
not
necessarily
mean
that
the
issue
gets
any
priority
on
the
real
agenda
of
state
politics.
This
is
confirmed
by
the
fact
that
in
the
state
of
Andra
Pradesh,
which
has
a
number
of
large
cities,
only
the
state
capital
of
Hyderabad
has
advanced
on
the
issue
of
shelters.
In
Hyderabad
the
municipality
produced
a
list
of
40
buildings
that
could
be
used
as
potential
shelters.
Compared
to
other
city
governments,
the
list
was
a
major
step
forward,
and
testified
to
the
fact
that
some
municipal
officers
were
dedicated
to
the
issue.
According
to
the
municipality
the
buildings
were
“unused”
government
buildings
or
community
halls.
Unfortunately,
as
we
shall
see
later,
the
community
halls
were
indeed
being
used.
Also,
the
neighborhoods
where
the
government
buildings
were
located
showed
significant
opposition
towards
the
idea
of
allowing
homeless
people
into
their
communities.
As
an
end
result,
in
Hyderabad,
with
a
population
of
more
than
six
million
people,
only
six
shelters
have
been
established,
which
stands
in
stark
contrast
to
the
40
shelters
originally
planned.
2.3
The
Parallel
Bureaucracy
As
a
reflection
of
the
poor
implementation
of
the
court
orders
by
the
state
and
city
bureaucracy,
the
Supreme
Court
has
set
up
an
extensive
monitoring
and
advisory
system.
This
“parallel
bureaucracy”
basically
works
on
three
levels:
On
a
national
level
the
Commissioners
are
the
central
figures
and
report
directly
to
the
Supreme
Court.
On
a
state
level,
the
State
Advisors
assemble
reports
and
coordinates
the
activities
of
NGOs.
On
the
city
level,
various
activist
groups
and
NGOs
conduct
shelter
visits,
produce
audits
on
quality
and
make
enquires
in
15
response
to
complaints,
which
are
then
sent
back
upwards
into
the
system.
No
attempt
is
made
to
disguise
the
political
orientation
of
the
whole
operation,
and
connections
between
the
Supreme
Court
and
human
rights
activists
is
clear
in
many
official
documents.
A
good
example
of
this
is
the
fact
that
the
Special
Commissioner
for
the
Right
to
Food
is
the
former
director
of
ActionAid
India,
one
of
the
country’s
most
prominent
rights-‐based
NGOs.
Furthermore,
the
language
employed
by
both
the
Supreme
Court,
the
Commissioners
and
the
State
Advisers
is
very
bluntly
inspired
by
social
justice
ideals.
The
establishment
of
this
extensive,
alternative
bureaucracy
is
not,
however,
a
special
case.
In
many
other
instances,
the
Supreme
Court
has
established
similar
structures
based
on
their
genuine
distrust
of
the
formal
Indian
state
bureaucracy.
Skeptics
have
criticized
this
parallel
bureaucracy
for
being
undemocratic
since
no
elected
representatives
have
any
power
in
deciding
who
gets
appointed
and
who
does
not.
Also,
within
the
ranks
of
leftwing
sympathizers,
there
is
a
concern
that
the
system
is
weak
because,
to
some
extent,
it
relies
on
the
goodwill
of
a
few
individual
judges.
The
fear
is
that
if
these
judges
are
replaced,
then
the
whole
structure
will
crumble
(Maringanti,
2011,
interview).
However,
this
type
of
judicial
activism
has
been
a
characteristic
of
the
Indian
Supreme
Court
for
more
than
four
decades,
and
in
recent
years
it
has
only
grown
stronger.
2.4
Judicial
Activism
in
India
Wikipedia
defines
judicial
activism
as
“Judicial
ruling
suspected
of
being
based
on
personal
or
political
considerations
rather
than
on
existing
law”.
In
the
Anglo-‐
Saxon
tradition,
judicial
activism
is
generally
used
as
a
negative
term
to
describe
judges
who
are
not
able
to
perform
their
duties
neutrally.
More
generally,
judicial
activism
is
considered
to
be
closely
related
to
constitutional
interpretation
and
separation
of
powers.
However,
in
India,
another
tradition
exists,
illustrated
by
this
quote
from
a
former
Indian
Chief
Justice:
”Judges
can
and
should
adopt
an
activist
approach.
There
is
no
need
for
judges
to
feel
shy
or
apologetic
about
the
law
creating
roles”
(Bhagwati,
1977:
1).
He
continues
to
describe
how
“The
judge
infuses
life
and
blood
into
the
dry
skeleton
provided
by
16
the
legislature
and
creates
a
living
organism
appropriate
and
adequate
to
meet
the
needs
of
the
society”
(Bhagwati,
1977:
2).
Knowing
that
this
is
the
dominant
way
of
thinking
within
the
Indian
Supreme
Court
makes
it
easier
to
understand
the
Right
to
Food
case.
The
fact
that
a
civil
rights
group
can
make
a
court
case
on
behalf
of
millions
of
poor
people,
and
the
fact
that
human
rights
activists
are
appointed
“Commissioners”,
and
the
fact
that
a
huge
parallel
bureaucracy
is
established
to
counter
corruption
in
the
original
bureaucracy;
all
of
this
is
only
possible
because
of
the
existence
of
special
type
of
judicial
activism.
However,
as
one
expert
jokingly
said
“Right
now,
if
you’re
leftwing
in
India,
you
probably
love
the
Supreme
Court.
But
what
if
the
judges
get
replaced
with
rightwing
people?
That
might
change
your
opinion
about
the
greatness
of
judicial
activism”
(Maringanti,
2011:
Interview).
17
18
shelter
NGOs,
which
lead
to
a
discussion
that
generated
new
insights.
Writing
and
reflection
was
an
ongoing
process.
Sample
Selection
-
Case
Study
as
a
Method:
After
having
visited
a
few
neighborhoods
and
homeless
shelters,
I
decided
to
focus
my
data
collection
on
six
locations.
The
strategy
used
for
selection
was
“information-oriented”,
which
means
that
cases
were
”selected
on
the
basis
of
expectations
about
their
information
content.”
(Flyvbjerg,
2004:
426).
In
order
words,
the
critical
dimension
in
my
study
was
the
homeless
shelter:
I
wanted
to
examine
a
variety
of
shelter
situations
in
a
variety
of
neighborhoods.
I
needed
neighborhoods
that
had
accepted
the
shelter,
while
others
needed
to
have
opposed
and
rejected
it.
I
also
wanted
to
include
a
community
that
had
been
designated
as
a
future
location
of
a
shelter.
The
reason
for
choosing
such
varied
sub-‐samples
was
to
obtain
information
about
process
and
outcome:
Why
had
some
communities
accepted
the
shelter,
while
others
had
rejected
it?
And
how
were
community
residents
reacting
when
faced
with
the
prospect
of
hosting
a
future
shelter?
Interviews:
Individual
interviews
were
conducted
with
four
categories
of
people;
municipal
staff,
community
leaders,
NGOs
and
a
small
group
of
academics
and
human
rights
activists.
A
total
of
17
interviews
were
conducted
of
approximately
45
minutes
each.
Three
group
interviews
were
also
carried
out
with
homeless
people
at
three
different
shelters.
The
method
used
was
qualitative
semi-‐structured
interviews,
which
meant
that
interviews
were
structured
around
key
themes,
but
still
flexible
enough
to
allow
natural
diversions.
The
interviews
with
municipal
staff,
community
leaders,
and
NGOs
concentrated
on
the
recent
attempts
to
establish
night
shelters,
their
perceptions
about
their
own
roles
and
those
of
other
stakeholders.
The
group
interviews
with
shelter
clients
were
conducted
in
order
to
gain
a
better
understanding
of
the
homeless
people’s
own
perception
of
the
functioning
of
the
night
shelters
and
their
view
on
homelessness
as
social
phenomenon.
19
Community
Surveys:
The
community
surveys
were
conducted
in
four
communities
with
a
total
of
33
respondents.
The
aim
of
the
surveys
was
not
to
gather
statistical
data,
but
merely
to
get
an
impression
of
the
opinions
circulating
within
the
community.
Initially,
the
survey
was
done
using
a
rather
extensive
questionnaire
(see
appendix
2),
but
it
was
quickly
reduced
to
a
few
basic
questions.
If
a
respondent
wanted
to
elaborate
on
his
or
her
answers
this
was
allowed.
In
this
way,
approximately
1/3
of
the
encounters
turned
into
interviews
of
5-‐15
minutes
duration.
3.4
Delimitation
Language
and
translation
is
always
a
challenge
as
information
can
get
distorted
to
a
considerable
degree.
For
example,
both
the
translator
and
the
interviewee
might
leave
out
important
details
for
a
variety
of
reasons;
maybe
because
some
things
are
simply
considered
common
sense
and
taken
for
granted,
or
maybe
some
things
are
considered
impolite
or
insensitive.
In
relation
to
the
levels
of
analysis,
this
report
has
prioritized
an
analysis
of
the
community
level,
while
not
giving
less
attention
to
the
city,
state
or
national
level.
The
reason
for
this
is
a
keen
interest
in
the
micro
dynamics
of
exclusion,
but
also
because
access
to
high
level
officers
and
key
documents
proved
difficult.
Overall,
the
focus
has
been
on
socio-‐spatial
exclusion,
however
if
time
had
allowed,
many
other
theoretical
perspectives
could
have
been
brought
in,
for
example
the
concept
of
power
and
community
surveillance,
the
Right
to
the
City,
or
a
stronger
focus
on
identity
as
understood
in
social
constructivism.
20
Overview
of
Data
Collection
Interviews
Community
Surveys
Shelter
Visists
A
total
of
17
interviews
Four
community
surveys
Only
3
of
the
6
communities
conducted
with
an
approximate
conducted
with
a
total
of
33
have
shelters,
and
all
three
duration
of
45
minutes
each.
respondents.
were
visisted.
Municipal
Staff
Musanagar:
Bible
House:
-‐
Additional
Commissioner
-‐
10
respondents
Visited
twice,
included
a
1
hour
-‐
Project
Officer,
Shelters
Project
-‐
Generally
supportive
of
future
discussion
with
clients
-‐
Project
Officer,
Uppal
shelter
Kachiguda:
Political
Leaders
Bapunagar:
Visted
twice,
included
a
1
hour
-‐
Community
leader,
Musanagar
-‐
10
respondents
discussion
with
clients
-‐
Congress
leader,
Bapunagar
-‐
Mostly
opposed
to
potential
-‐
Cooperator,
Uppal
shelter,
but
still
very
different
Uppal:
-‐
Colony
president,
L.
B.
Nagar
opinions.
Visisted
twice,
included
a
1
-‐
MIM
Party
Representative
hour
discussion
with
clients.
L.
B.
Nagar:
NGOs
-‐
10
respondents
Note:
Aman
Vedika:
-‐
Very
different
opinions
on
As
mentioned
above,
-‐
Director
future
shelter
communities
without
shelters
-‐
Community
Officer
in
charge
of
have
been
included
because
Bible
House
Shelter
Uppal:
they
represent
a
different
-‐
Only
3
respondents
reality
from
communities
where
LSN
Foundation:
-‐
Respondents
accepting
of
shelters
already
exist.
-‐
Assistant
Director
current
shelter.
-‐
Community
Officer
in
charge
of
Kachiguda
Shelter
Bible
House:
No
survey
conducted
since
the
ActionAid:
NGO
in
charge
thought
it
might
-‐
Regional
Manager
stir
negative
feelings
in
the
community.
The
shelter
was
SPARK:
still
in
the
process
of
being
-‐
Director
accepted
within
the
community.
CONARE:
Kachiguda:
-‐
Director
No
survey
was
conducted,
as
this
shelter
was
not
originally
Others
part
of
the
fieldwork.
-‐
Independent
scholar
-‐
President
of
Human
Rights
Forum,
Hyderabad
21
22
can
be
very
useful
when
it
comes
to
conducting
and
gathering
original
research.
Below,
the
models
used
in
this
report
are
described
briefly.
Models:
The
NIMBY
Iceberg:
This
model,
developed
by
Jeannie
Wynne-‐Edwards,
connects
three
aspects
of
community
opposition.
Firstly,
it
assesses
the
types
of
arguments
and
objections
that
community
residents
might
raise.
Secondly,
it
examines
“the
stage
or
place
that
such
objections
are
expressed”
(Wynne-‐
Edwards,
2003:
35).
Lastly,
it
illustrates
the
approach
or
strategy
that
shelter
developers
can
employ
to
overcome
community
opposition.
Strategies
of
Facility
Developers:
This
model,
developed
by
Michael
Dear,
describes
the
different
strategies,
or
non-‐strategies,
deployed
by
facility
developers
to
secure
the
siting
of
the
facility.
The
“low-‐profile”
or
“autonomous”
approach
tries
to
establish
the
facility
without
the
knowledge
of
the
neighborhood,
hoping
that
they
will
accept
its
presence
once
it
is
already
there.
The
“high-‐profile”
or
“collaborative”
approach
actively
tries
to
build
a
relationship
with
the
community
in
order
to
secure
cooperation.
Three-‐stage
Cycle
of
Community
Resistance:
According
to
this
model,
also
developed
by
Michael
Dear,
community
resistance
develops
in
a
three-‐stage
cycle.
The
“youth
stage”
describes
when
the
news
of
the
proposal
breaks
and
where
the
opposition
is
usually
confined
to
a
small
vocal
group
very
near
the
proposed
development.
The
“maturity
stage”
is
the
period
where
conflict
is
solidified,
and
the
debate
moves
away
from
private
complaints
and
into
a
public
forum.
If
the
conflict
is
not
resolved,
the
next
step
is
described
as
the
“old
age
stage”
where
the
conflict
gets
drawn
out.
Victory
tends
to
go
to
those
with
the
persistence
and
stamina
to
keep
going.
All
these
three
models
will
be
used
in
the
analysis
in
an
attempt
to
understand
the
specifics
of
siting
homeless
shelters
in
an
Indian
context.
The
strength
of
the
models
is
that
they
ground
the
analysis
firmly
on
real
statements
and
arguments
put
forth
by
local
actors.
According
to
Takahashi
(Takahashi
,
1998:
81)
such
23
analysis
can
help
reveal
how
NIMBY
politics
”maintain,
enforce,
and
reinforce
community
boundary
definitions,
resulting
in
the
maintenance
of
spatial
relations
of
stigma.’’
24
A
municipal
officer
writes
down
notes
at
meeting
with
NGOs
25
Neighborhood
&
Shelter
Overview
26
27
5.2
The
NIMBY
Iceberg
In
order
to
present
the
complex
processes
of
NIMBY
dynamics
in
a
tangible
way,
I
have
decided
to
use
the
illustration
of
a
“NIMBY
Iceberg”.
The
model,
developed
by
Jeanne
Wynne-‐Edwards,
connects
three
key
aspects
of
NIMBYism.
On
the
left
side,
it
presents
the
different
types
of
NIMBY
objections,
which
range
from
specific
arguments
related
to
“project”,
for
example
objections
against
the
physical
location
of
a
shelter,
to
arguments
based
purely
on
prejudice.
Secondly,
it
describes
the
stage,
meaning
both
the
place-‐specific
forum
where
objections
are
raised,
and
the
time-‐specific
evolution
of
the
conflict.
Thirdly,
on
the
right
side,
it
describes
the
approaches
or
strategies
that
shelter
developers
might
use
in
order
to
overcome
community
resistance.
The
analysis
that
follows
is
organized
around
these
three
aspects,
however,
since
the
model
is
a
combination
of
different
scholarly
work,
additional
theory
and
models
support
it.
Source:
Wynne-‐Edwards,
2003:
35
28
5.3
Types
of
NIMBY
Objections
The
community
surveys
detected
twenty
different
types
of
NIMBY
objections
to
the
presence
of
shelters.
Below
I
group
those
arguments
into
five
different
categories,
as
has
been
suggested
by
the
framework
developed
by
White
&
Ashton.
Five
Types
of
NIMBY
Objections
Process
Objections
that
relate
to
criticism
of
land
use
regulations
and
the
public
participation
process.
Project
Objections
that
comment
on
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
proposal.
Presage
Objections
that
are
largely
speculative
in
nature
about
the
proposal
and
were
not
confirmed
or
supported
with
evidence.
Pretext
Comments
that
indicate
that
the
issue
is
not
exclusively
related
to
the
process
itself,
but
to
prior
conditions
or
previous
development
experiences
in
the
community.
Prejudice
Objections
that
clearly
or
implicitly
are
aimed
at
the
occupants
of
the
housing
proposal.
Adapted
from
-‐
White
&
Ashton,
1992,
p.36
By
categorizing
the
arguments
it
becomes
possible
to
see
what
type
of
arguments
are
most
common,
and
in
this
way
understand
what
the
community
thinks
about
the
shelter,
and
what
the
main
reasons
for
opposition
are.
Process:
Objections
that
relate
to
criticism
of
land
use
regulations
and
the
public
participation
process.
There
was
no
anti-‐shelter
argument
that
related
to
criticism
of
land
regulation,
but
a
few
related
to
lack
of
public
participation.
I
can
only
speculate
about
the
reasons,
but
two
aspects
might
be
significant.
Firstly,
the
shelter
developers
were
not
constructing
new
buildings,
but
simply
occupying
old
ones,
which
means
that
use
of
land
was
not
being
changed.
Also,
the
general
awareness
of
29
legal
regulations
of
land
might
be
very
low,
which
means
that
people
do
not
consider
this
opportunity.
In
relation
to
public
participation
a
group
of
political
leader
complained
about
the
lack
of
involvement.
Also,
the
community
a
Kachiguda
raised
this
issue.
In
general,
though,
it
can
be
argued
that
people
do
not
generally
have
high
expectations
in
terms
of
the
municipality
involving
them
in
decision-‐making
processes.
Project:
Objections
commenting
on
the
physical
characteristics
of
the
proposal.
Argument
1:
Inappropriate
building
-‐
“We
are
already
using
our
community
hall
for
weddings
and
other
community
activities.”
This
was
one
of
the
most
common
arguments.
It
also
seems
very
legitimate;
since
many
of
the
community
halls
were
indeed
being
used
for
wedding
ceremonies,
religious
celebrations,
dance
lessons,
karate
classes,
etc.
A
sub-‐argument
often
repeated
was
that
people
in
the
community
were
so
poor
that
they
did
not
have
the
money
to
rent
a
private
function
hall
and
therefore
could
only
use
the
community
hall.
In
this
way,
their
own
poverty
became
an
argument
against
sharing
the
limited
resources
with
others.
Community
hall
used
for
scholling
in
Musanagar
30
Argument
2:
Lack
of
space
-‐
“Our
neighborhood
is
already
too
crammed,
there
is
no
space
here.”
This
argument
was
only
used
by
people
in
the
neighborhoods
of
Mushanagar
and
Bapunagar
where
the
lack
of
space
was
indeed
a
major
obstacle
to
any
new
construction.
Presage:
Objections
that
are
largely
speculative
in
nature
about
the
proposal
and
were
not
confirmed
or
supported
with
evidence.
Argument
1:
Non-‐belief
in
shelters
-‐
“It
does
not
make
sense
to
make
a
shelter
because
they
(the
clients)
will
leave
within
2
weeks
anyway.
They
have
that
roaming
behavior.”
The
belief
that
homeless
people
have
a
special
“roaming”
behavior
was
widespread.
In
some
cases
it
is
true
that
homeless
people
who
have
been
without
shelter
for
many
years
will
feel
unease
living
inside
a
room.
However,
based
on
experiences
with
shelters
in
Delhi,
it
is
clear
that
most
homeless
people
will
not
leave
after
two
weeks.
Argument
2:
Declining
property
values
-‐
“If
someone
got
the
idea
of
putting
a
shelter
here,
people
would
fight
it,
also
because
property
values
might
go
down.”
Only
one
person
mentioned
property
values
as
an
argument
to
fight
the
establishment
of
a
shelter.
This
is
interesting,
since
the
property
value
argument
is
one
of
the
most
widely
cited
in
for
example
the
US
and
Canada.
A
reason
for
this
difference
might
be
that
most
of
the
interviewees
lived
in
poor
neighborhoods
that
are
not
part
of
the
formal
real
estate
market.
Pretext:
Comments
that
indicate
that
the
issue
is
not
exclusively
related
to
the
process
itself,
but
to
prior
conditions
or
previous
development
experiences
in
the
community.
Argument
1:
Misuse
of
facility
-‐
“Such
a
place
will
be
misused
by
others.
They
will
bring
prostitutes
here,
they
will
hang
around
and
play
cards.
Also,
people
with
power
might
want
to
use
it
for
their
own
purposes”.
31
A
few
individuals
stated
that
a
shelter
would
probably
end
up
being
used
for
other
means
if
it
was
not
carefully
managed.
Such
worries
seemed
to
be
based
on
previous
experience
with
similar
projects,
however,
no
details
were
obtained.
Prejudice:
Objections
that
clearly
or
implicitly
are
aimed
at
the
occupants
of
the
housing
proposal.
More
than
eight
different
types
of
arguments
based
on
prejudice
was
leveled
against
the
shelter
clients.
Argument
1:
Trouble
Makers
-‐
“I
have
nothing
against
homeless
people,
but
in
the
long
run
problems
might
occur.
So
it
would
be
better
to
place
them
outside
the
city
or
just
further
away.”
This
was
the
most
frequently
expressed
prejudice.
It
indicates
that
people
do
not
consider
themselves
prejudiced,
but
still
the
argument
does
not
conceal
the
fact
that
residents
want
homeless
people
to
be
located
as
far
away
as
possible.
Argument
2:
Otherness
-‐
“Homeless
people
are
not
from
here.”
This
argument
was
put
forth
very
often,
and
it
became
clear
that
“not
from
here”
included
a
variety
of
identity
markers
such
as
caste,
religion
and
language.
Argument
3:
Lack
of
family
-‐
“Homeless
people
have
no
family.”
This
argument
is
closely
related
to
Otherness.
However,
the
twist
is
that
people
assume
that
if
a
homeless
person
is
not
together
with
his/her
family
then
it
must
be
because
they
have
done
something
wrong,
for
example
committed
a
murder
or
stolen
something.
Argument
3:
Disease
-‐
“Homeless
people
might
have
communicable
diseases.”
This
extreme
form
of
discriminatory
thinking
might
be
related
to
ideas
of
caste
and
strong
religious
binaries
of
purity/impurity.
In
India
low
caste
people
were
often
required
to
cover
their
mouths
with
their
hands
when
they
spoke,
because
upper
castes
were
afraid
of
getting
“polluted”
by
their
breath.
32
Argument
4:
Crime
-‐
“Homeless
people
are
criminal
or
attract
crime.”
Many
interviewees
gave
examples
of
things
gone
missing
in
the
vicinity
of
homeless
people
.
Also,
there
is
a
widespread
fear
that
homeless
people
are
escaped
prisoners.
Argument
5:
Drug
addiction
-‐
“Homeless
people
are
drug
addicts.”
Knowledge
about
drugs
is
extremely
limited.
There
is
little
knowledge
about
the
bio-‐physical
effects
of
drugs,
which
means
that
many
people
think
that
drug
addicts
are
simply
weak-‐willed
in
relation
to
quitting
their
addiction.
Begging:
“Homeless
people
are
beggars”.
In
India,
as
in
many
other
countries,
begging
is
looked
down
upon.
Furthermore,
in
India
there
is
a
fear
that
beggars
also
steal.
Alcoholism:
“Homeless
people
are
alcoholics”.
In
India,
as
in
many
other
countries,
alcoholism
is
closely
associated
with
theft,
violence
and
inappropriate
behavior.
Many
people
mentioned
that
they
did
not
want
their
children
to
be
near
alcoholics.
Pro-shelter
arguments
In
the
literature
on
NIMBY
little
attention
is
given
to
pro-‐shelter
arguments
by
residents.
However,
Michael
Dear
briefly
describes
that
such
arguments
are
often
based
on
“humanistic
or
religious
values”.
Indeed,
the
pro-‐shelter
arguments
in
Hyderabad
seemed
to
be
mostly
founded
on
ethical
considerations.
Argument
1:
The
Right
to
Shelter
-‐
“Today
we
have
a
house,
but
tomorrow
I
might
not,
so
how
can
I
deny
others
a
roof
over
their
head?”
Argument
2:
Class-‐based
Solidarity:
“We
are
poor
and
they
are
poor,
so
we
understand
these
people.”
Surprisingly,
it
was
not
possible
to
identify
any
pro-‐shelter
arguments
based
on
religious
ideas.
This
seems
might
be
due
to
translation
issues.
33
34
Youth
The
initial
reaction
of
the
community
depends
a
lot
on
the
approach
of
the
shelter
developer.
In
the
case
of
the
shelter
in
Uppal,
the
responsible
municipal
officer
had
collected
a
list
of
the
homeless
persons
who
might
stay
at
the
shelter
if
it
was
opened.
This
sent
a
signal
to
the
community
that
the
municipality
was
well
organized,
and
at
the
same
time
they
knew
what
kind
of
people
to
expect
at
the
shelter.
All
of
this
facilitated
a
less
hostile
attitude
from
the
community.
In
contrast,
in
Bapunagar
neighborhood,
the
community
had
not
been
properly
informed
about
the
shelter,
which
caused
a
violent
reaction
on
the
opening
day.
A
group
of
more
than
10
youths
gathered
and
drove
the
shelter
developers
out
of
the
area.
Maturity
During
the
mature
stage
of
the
conflict,
a
broad
range
of
actions
was
observed
in
Hyderabad.
In
the
neighborhood
of
Kachiguda,
a
group
of
residents
gathered
and
staged
a
“dharna”,
which
is
a
form
of
public
protest
used
during
India’s
independence
movement.
In
Bapunagar,
the
residents
started
lobbying
the
local
elected
representative,
who
had
originally
been
positive
towards
the
establishment
of
a
shelter.
After
internal
discussions
amongst
a
group
of
residents
in
Uppal,
a
formal
complaint
letter
was
sent
to
the
municipality.
After
the
complaint
had
been
sent,
the
municipal
officer
organized
a
meeting
where
the
presence
of
a
trusted
senior
politician
helped
pave
the
way
for
community
approval.
After
the
Uppal
community
had
accepted
the
shelter,
the
community
came
forward
to
offer
support
to
the
shelter,
like
second
hand
food
and
clothes.
Old
Age:
As
mentioned
by
Dear,
violent
or
illegal
action
is
relatively
rare,
however,
at
the
Bible
House
shelter
one
of
the
staff
was
physically
assaulted
by
residents.
The
reason
was
that
anger
and
frustration
had
been
building
up,
which
was
trickered
by
the
fact
that
some
of
the
homeless
clients
had
been
making
noise
and
sleeping
in
the
neighborhood
outside
the
shelter.
One
of
the
reasons
why
the
conflict
did
not
escalate
was
that
the
municipality
had
other
offices
in
the
same
building
who
had
actively
entered
into
a
dialogue
with
the
community
residents.
In
this
way
35
they
had
been
able
to
calm
down
the
community.
During
the
old
age
stage,
it
sometimes
becomes
unclear
to
both
the
community
and
the
shelter
developers
whether
or
not
a
conflict
has
been
resolved.
In
the
case
of
Bapunagar,
the
community
clearly
considered
the
case
closed,
while
the
NGO
that
was
trying
to
establish
the
shelter
still
believed
that
there
might
be
a
chance
to
reopen.
Reflections
on
Stages
and
Dynamics
of
Community
Opposition
Reflecting
on
the
type
of
opposition
dynamics
observed
in
Hyderabad,
it
is
clear
that
Dear’s
three-‐stage
cycle
should
be
understood
as
a
generalized
model.
It
cannot
accurately
describe
the
processes
in
any
of
the
neighborhoods.
Group
dynamics
and
the
type
of
community
leadership
seem
to
be
two
of
the
most
important
factors
in
determining
the
way
that
a
conflict
might
evolve.
Furthermore,
the
strategy
chosen
by
the
shelter
developer
also
influences
the
final
outcome
to
a
significant
degree.
All
of
these
aspects
will
be
examined
further
in
the
following
section.
5.5
Approaches
&
Strategies
of
Shelter
Developers
Reviewing
the
history
of
siting
human
facility
services,
Michael
Dear
describes
four
different
approaches
that
facility
providers
have
taken
towards
host
communities.
36
The
work
in
Hyderabad,
and
other
major
cities
around
India,
is
clearly
the
first
large
experiment
with
homeless
shelters
in
Indian
history.
This
makes
it
particularly
interesting
to
observe
the
approaches
adopted
by
shelter
developers.
In
the
following
I
use
the
four
strategies
described
above
to
examine
the
approaches
taken
by
stakeholders
in
Hyderabad.
Low-profile
-
Autonomous:
In
Kachiguda
neighborhood
the
responsible
NGO
established
the
shelter
without
giving
notive
to
anybody.
Just
as
the
shelter
was
about
to
open,
they
then
invited
the
local
political
leader
to
inaugurate
the
place.
The
community
was
initially
skeptic,
but
was
later
convinced
by
the
shelter
manager
who
gave
them
his
card,
address
and
contact
number,
and
assured
them
that
he
would
take
personal
responsibility
for
the
management
of
the
shelter.
When
the
same
NGO
tried
a
similar
strategy
in
Bapunagar
neighborhood,
it
failed.
The
community
in
Bapunagar
is
from
the
scheduled
tribe
Lambardi,
which
is
a
nomadic
ethnic
group
infamous
for
their
rash
temperaments.
In
the
area
around
Bible
House
the
responsible
NGO
tried
out
a
semi-‐low-‐profile
approach
in
as
much
as
they
did
contact
the
community
leaders,
but
not
in
a
particularly
planned
way.
The
attempt
at
community
involvement
later
backfired
when
elected
representatives
became
bitter
and
turned
against
the
shelter.
High-profile
-
Collaborative:
In
Uppal
neighborhood
a
dedicated
municipal
officer
was
able
to
implement
and
succeed
with
a
high-‐profile
approach
where
she
involved
the
community
from
the
beginning.
She
involved
a
number
of
respected
leaders
and
officials,
while
at
the
same
time
conducting
meetings
with
residents.
She
also
gave
concessions
to
the
community
and
gave
them
assurances
in
different
ways,
for
example
saying
that
the
municipality
would
provide
a
watchman,
that
it
would
only
be
a
women’s
shelter,
and
that
the
shelter
would
be
closed
down
if
any
problems
occurred.
37
Risk-free
Locations:
So
far
none
of
the
shelter
developers
have
actively
formulated
a
strategy
of
seeking
out
risk-‐free
locations,
but
based
on
their
difficulties
with
certain
communities
and
community
halls,
they
have
begun
discussing
it
informally.
A
municipal
officer,
who
wanted
to
establish
a
large
shelter,
had
found
a
location
in
a
commercial
area
in
downtown,
which
she
descried
as
a
risk-‐free
location
in
the
sense
that
“There
is
no
community
to
throw
us
out,
since
there
are
only
small
shops
in
that
area”
(anonymous,
2011,
interview).
Fair-share
Principles:
The
Hyderabad
Municipality
has
no
fair-‐share
principles
and
it
does
not
seem
likely
that
any
will
be
developed
in
the
foreseeable
future.
From
the
list
of
buildings
proposed
for
future
shelters,
all
the
structures
were
located
in
poor
neighborhoods.
At
the
same
time,
there
has
not
been
any
political
demand
from
these
neighborhoods
that
fair-‐share
principles
should
be
devised.
The
reason
for
this
is
probably
that
no
community
has
yet
been
saturated
by
human
services
facilities,
simply
because
the
municipality
has
established
so
few
facilities
of
any
kind.
Also,
many
neighborhoods
might
not
have
the
political
imagination
or
capacity
to
challenge
the
municipality
to
create
such
new
legislation.
The
analysis
of
strategies
of
shelter
developers
reveals
a
number
of
things.
Firstly,
it
appears
that
the
categories
devised
by
Dear
are
not
sufficient
to
describe
what
has
been
happening
in
Hyderabad;
both
the
NGOs
and
the
municipality
have
not
had
a
conscious
strategy
or
based
their
actions
on
training
or
guidelines.
To
some
extent
their
approach
has
been
“ad
hoc
planning”
based
on
personal
intuition
and
individual
experiences.
However,
an
interesting
development
is
that
an
alliance
of
NGOs
have
come
together
to
launch
a
sensitization
campaign,
which
was
financed
by
the
municipality.
In
this
way,
the
emerging
strategy
preference
in
Hyderabad
seems
to
be
a
high-‐profile
approach.
38
39
resistance?
Based
on
conversations
with
municipal
officers,
it
seems
unlikely
that
they
had
such
a
shrewd
plan,
but
the
question
remains
unanswered.
The
Influence
of
Perceptions
of
Homeless
People:
The
second
research
question
asks
to
what
extent
community
perceptions
of
homeless
people
might
influence
the
possibility
of
establishing
a
shelter.
As
mentioned
above,
the
prejudices
of
community
residents
have
been
confirmed
as
one
of
the
major
reasons
for
opposition.
It
is
evident
that
these
stereotypes
function
as
building
blocks
for
exclusion.
However,
out
of
all
the
different
groups
of
homeless
people
it
seems
that
young
or
middle-‐aged
males
from
low
castes
and
low-‐class
appear
to
be
the
most
discriminated
against.
At
least
this
was
the
group
that
people
had
the
deepest
fear
of.
Many
of
the
prejudices
also
bordered
on
literal
misconceptions.
For
example,
many
community
residents
perceived
homelessness
to
be
a
sort
of
mental
disorder,
which
clearly
would
only
add
to
their
fear
and
thus
discrimination.
Also,
homelessness
was
perceived
by
many
to
be
chronic
and
somewhat
contagious.
These
findings
pose
more
profound
questions,
such
as;
how
do
certain
prejudices
come
to
make
sense
to
people?
What
is
the
frame
they
use
to
make
sense
of
their
world?
What
are
the
ideological
resources
that
people
have
at
their
disposal
to
create
meaning?
The
Evolution
of
Community
Opposition
The
third
research
question
asks
how
conflicts
between
shelter
developers
and
communities
evolve.
As
mentioned
earlier
it
is
difficult
to
observe
any
particular
pattern
as
regards
to
the
development
of
conflicts
between
the
stakeholders.
However,
the
strategy
chosen
by
the
shelter
developer
and
the
characteristics
of
the
neighborhood
surely
makes
a
difference.
Also
group
dynamics
and
the
type
of
leadership
found
in
the
community
will
be
determining
in
setting
out
the
course
of
the
conflict.
In
relation
to
leadership
it
was
interesting
to
notice
how
much
the
communities
differed.
In
some
communities
people
refused
to
talk
to
before
we
had
spoken
to
the
leader.
During
the
community
surveys
many
residents
simply
said
that
they
did
not
have
any
opinion
and
that
they
would
do
whatever
the
leader
decided.
However,
in
other
communities,
particularly
the
40
ones
in
newly
established
peri-‐urban
areas,
this
kind
of
centralized
decision-‐
making
was
completely
absent.
The
Significance
of
Strategies
and
Non-strategies
by
Shelter
Developers
The
fourth
research
question
asks
how
the
strategies
of
shelter
developers
might
influence
community
attitudes
towards
shelters.
As
mentioned
above,
it
appears
that
the
strategy
categories
developed
by
Dear;
low-‐profile,
high-‐profile,
risk
free-‐locations
and
fair-‐share
principles,
are
not
sufficient
to
describe
the
developments
in
Hyderabad;
both
the
NGOs
and
the
municipality
have
not
had
a
conscious
strategy.
However,
shelter
developers
that
adopted
a
high-‐profile
collaboratory
approach
later
in
the
process
reported
more
success
than
those
organizations
focusing
less
on
involving
the
community.
Another
aspect
is
the
importance
of
how
opponents
try
to
frame
each
other.
Some
of
the
NGO
staff
clearly
framed
the
communities
as
being
selfish
and
cold
hearted
for
not
allowing
the
development
of
the
shelters.
This
kind
of
framing
is
typical
in
NIMBY
conflicts
where
one
side
tries
to
undermine
the
actions
of
the
other.
Similarly,
the
communities
tried
to
frame
the
shelter
developers
by
labeling
them
as
unprofessional
and
disorganized.
Some
community
leaders
accused
the
NGOs
for
not
having
involved
them
in
the
process
and
hereby
denying
them
of
the
chance
to
participate.
However,
it
should
also
be
noted
that
many
NGO
staff
and
community
members
had
a
very
nuanced
view
of
the
conflicts
and
genuinely
listened
to
the
arguments
put
forth
by
the
other
side.
Neighborhood
Characteristics
as
a
Determining
Factor:
The
fifth
research
question
asks
if
certain
neighborhood
characteristics
shape
the
attitudes
of
communities
towards
shelters.
This
questions
has
not
been
treated
in
a
specific
section
of
the
analysis,
but
can
be
answered
by
connecting
a
number
of
observations.
One
clear
point
is
that
a
heterogeneous
community
will
often
be
more
accepting
towards
shelters
than
very
homogenous
neighborhoods
For
example,
the
religiously
mixed
community
of
Musanagar
seemed
relatively
accepting
towards
the
establishment
of
a
shelter.
In
contrast
the
ethnically
closed
knit
Lambardi
community
in
Bapunagar
appeared
very
hostile
towards
outsiders.
Other
homogeneous
groups
that
seemed
very
intolerant
towards
41
homeless
people
were
found
in
richer
areas.
However,
here
their
homogeneity
was
not
based
on
ethnicity,
but
rather
on
lifestyle
and
economic
status.
An
interesting
observation
in
relation
to
class
was
that
many
people
expressed
a
belief
that
poor
neighborhoods
would
be
more
accepting
towards
shelter
than
wealthier
neighborhoods.
However,
the
community
surveys
showed
that
poor
neighborhoods
were
as
opposed
to
homeless
people
as
others.
In
fact,
the
poor
neighborhood
of
Warasiguda
staged
a
public
demonstration
against
a
proposed
shelter,
while
the
middle
class
area
of
Uppal
ended
up
accepting
the
shelter.
42
43
Secondly,
Tempalski
et.
al.
argue
that
discriminatory
policies
increase
the
rate
of
incarceration
of
marginalized
groups,
in
this
case
homeless
people.
In
Hyderabad
stories
of
imprisonment
were
widespread.
In
fact,
one
of
the
homeless
shelters
was
located
right
opposite
a
police
station,
but
only
three
persons
used
it.
Other
homeless
people
confirmed
that
they
stayed
away
from
the
shelter
due
to
fear
of
the
police.
Another
example
of
harassment
is
illustrated
by
stories
of
Bill
Clinton’s
visit
in
2005
where
masses
of
people
had
been
loaded
onto
trucks,
transported
out
of
the
city
and
left
on
the
periphery.
Thirdly,
Tempalski
et.
al.
mention
how
discriminatory
policies
create
barriers
to
safe
living
practices
under
the
guise
of
policing
and
law
enforcement
actions.
For
example,
they
describe
how
the
US
“War
on
Drugs”
has
fuelled
community
opposition
to
drug
addicts
and
how
political
leaders
at
city,
state
and
national
level
have
contributed
to
stigmatization
by
commenting
negatively
on
drug
addicts
in
the
media.
In
India
the
discussions
about
creating
“world
class”
cities
in
order
to
attract
foreign
direct
investment
has
formed
the
backdrop
of
broad
hostility
towards
homeless
people.
For
example,
the
evictions
of
homeless
pavement
dwellers
for
“loitering”
and
“disorder”
and
the
tearing
down
of
make-‐
shift
shelters
create
exactly
the
kind
of
barriers
to
safe
living
that
Tempalski
describes.
6.3
Government
Inaction
&
Grassroots
Inaction
Commenting
on
the
second
aspect;
institutional
and
political
(in)action
and
opposition,
it
is
described
how
political
resistance
towards
establishing
certain
facilities
is
widespread
among
politicians
because
they
fear
loosing
votes.
Tempalski
et
al.
show
that
providing
crucial
facilities
are
not
always
high
on
the
political
agenda.
Reflecting
this,
one
activist
said:
“There
are
only
two
things
that
motivate
Indian
politician,
and
that
is
money
and
vote
banks.
If
cannot
offer
them
one
of
these,
your
project
probably
won’t
take
off”
(Jeevan
Kumar,
2011,
interview).
Furthermore,
Tempalski
et.
al.
argue
that
the
failure
of
governments
to
initiate
national
programs
to
support
marginalized
groups
often
results
in
the
responsibility
being
shifted
to
states
and
cities,
and
that
this
often
results
in
a
very
varied,
and
often
poor,
response.
The
fact
that
the
state
government
was
44
completely
absent
from
the
process
of
establishing
the
shelters
also
testifies
to
an
astonishing
lack
of
political
and
bureaucratic
will.
The
lack
of
fair-‐share
principles
in
siting
is
a
good
example
of
how
important
legislation
simply
does
not
exist.
Also,
the
decision
to
only
locate
shelters
in
poor
areas
shows
that
that
state
and
local
governments
are
predisposed
to
favoring
more
wealthy
urban
residents.
On
a
broader
level,
the
whole
tradition
of
Indian
judicial
activism
and
the
recent
rulings
of
the
Supreme
Court
can
be
understood
as
a
reaction
to
government
inaction.
The
fact
that
the
initiative
comes
from
the
Supreme
Court
and
not
the
government
indicates
that
political
will
is
lacking.
The
fact
that
the
move
to
establish
shelters
is
not
rooting
in
party
politics
might
be
a
part
of
the
reason
why
things
are
moving
so
slow.
The
local
governments
might
not
feel
the
same
urgency
towards
establishing
the
shelters
as
if
the
order
had
come
from
their
political
headquarter.
Another
reason
why
the
shelters
are
not
been
established
is
that
there
is
no
mobilized
movement
behind
the
demands.
The
court
ruling
comes
from
the
central
capital
of
Delhi
and
lacks
local
rooting.
Basically,
the
homeless
people
are
not
organized
in
such
a
way
that
they
can
put
pressure
on
the
municipalities.
One
of
the
reasons
for
this
is
that
many
of
the
organizations
working
with
homeless
people
in
Hyderabad
are
not
very
attentive
towards
politics
and
political
mobilization.
However,
there
are
signs
in
other
cities
that
such
movements
have
grown
and
become
powerful.
Also,
during
my
time
in
Hyderabad,
the
clients
in
the
Bible
House
shelter
decided
to
form
a
“Homeless
Workers
Association”,
which
might
help
them
to
carve
out
some
space
for
themselves
in
urban
politics.
6.4
National
Perceptions
of
Marginalized
Groups,.
In
relation
to
the
third
aspect;
national
perceptions
of
marginalized
groups,
the
significance
of
public
images
is
explored.
Tempalski
et.
al.
describe
how
media,
business
and
various
institutions
contribute
to
producing
certain
images
that
reinforce
stigma.
Speaking
broadly
about
stigma
they
conclude
that
“As
a
social
45
process,
stigma
operates
by
producing
and
reproducing
social
structures
of
power,
hierarchy,
class,
and
exclusion,
and
by
transforming
difference
into
social
inequality.”
The
image
of
the
homeless
person
as
dirty
works
as
an
example:
A
person
categorized
as
being
dirty
will
automatically
be
excluded
from
all
places
considered
clean.
In
an
essay
on
the
restructuring
of
urban
space
in
India,
Leela
Fernandes
explains
the
process
above
as
“spatial
purification”
and
links
it
to
the
rise
of
the
Indian
middle
classes
(Fernandes,
2004:
2416).
This
idea
is
confirmed
by
the
fact
that
wealthy
residents
in
Hyderabad
were
described
as
being
ready
to
pay
money
to
municipal
officers
to
avoid
having
a
shelter
in
their
locality.
According
to
Fernandes,
a
new
middleclass
identity
is
asserting
itself
in
public
discourses.
She
points
specifically
the
development
of
new
urban
aesthetics
and
argues
that
“forms
of
local
spatial
politics
point
to
the
production
of
an
exclusionary
form
of
cultural
citizenship”
dominated
by
the
middle
classes.
This
might
be
true,
but
in
Hyderabad
it
was
clear
that
processes
of
spatial
purification
not
only
occur
in
connection
with
upper
or
middle
class
development.
Spatial
purification
was
also
observed
in
the
very
poorest
neighborhoods.
People
from
all
social
classes
expressed
hostility
towards
the
shelters
and
many
argued
that
they
should
be
placed
outside
the
city,
echoing
a
mentality
of
people
zoning.
46
47
The
socio-‐spatial
exclusion
described
in
this
report
does
not
occur
in
a
vacuum,
but
is
closely
tied
to
broader
issues
of
governance
and
participation.
The
study
documents
this
by
linking
the
local
NIMBY
phenomena
to
public
policy
and
government
inaction.
For
example,
the
report
shows
how
the
existence
of
anti-‐
homeless
legislation
legitimizes
police
harassment
and
imprisonment
of
homeless
people.
Finally,
the
inaction
of
governments
is
assumed
to
be
linked
to
the
fact
that
the
homeless
population
still
remains
poorly
organized
in
terms
of
political
mobilization.
48
7.2
Discussion
How
can
the
dynamics
of
exclusion
be
turned
around
so
that
urban
space
is
opened
up
to
marginalized
groups?
How
can
the
negative
spiral
of
stigmatization
and
discrimination
be
reversed?
This
report
does
no
offer
many
answers
to
these
questions,
since
the
focus
has
been
to
understanding
the
underlying
factors.
However,
in
other
reports,
the
answer
is
often
formulated
within
the
paradigm
of
the
right
to
the
city.
This
concept
has
evolved
during
the
past
decade
to
become
a
widespread
ideal,
which
is
has
been
used
in
connection
with
social
action
against
exclusionary
urban
processes.
In
other
words,
the
right
to
the
city
has
been
used
as
a
banner
under
which
a
variety
of
critical
voices
have
raised
their
concerns
about
socio-‐spatial
exclusion
in
the
cities
of
the
world.
Overall,
the
right
to
the
city
is
the
vision
that
tries
to
project
a
different,
inclusive
city
contrasted
with
the
divided
city.
Also,
the
right
to
the
city
is
not
to
be
viewed
as
yet
another
legal
concept;
rather,
it
represents
“a
dynamic
and
pragmatic
combination
of
the
multiple
human
rights
to
which
urban
dwellers
are
entitled,
and
that
they
want
fulfilled”
(State
of
the
World’s
Cities,
2011:
57).
However,
in
a
city
like
Hyderabad,
the
sense
of
a
right
to
the
city
is
particularly
weak
among
newly
arrived,
homeless
migrants.
They
simply
do
not
consider
that
the
city
is
somehow
also
theirs.
The
fact
that
they
have
no
specific
place
to
call
home
means
that
they
also
refrain
from
making
other
legitimate
claims
to
city-‐citizenship.
Considering
this,
a
number
of
questions
might
be
posed,
for
example:
how
might
a
rights-‐based
approach
be
implemented
in
Asian
mega
cities
like
Hyderabad?
What
are
the
experiences
with
the
right
to
the
city
in
other
parts
of
the
world,
particularly
in
Latin
America?
How
is
the
right
to
the
city
related
to
citizenship
and
participation?
49
Bibliography
Berreman,
Gerald
(1972)
Social
Categories
and
Social
Interaction
in
Urban
India,
American
Anthropologist,
University
of
California,
Berkeley
Bhagwati,
P.N.,
interview
with
former
Chief
Justice,
unknown
university
magazine,
year
unknown.
Commissioners’
Secretariat,
Right
to
Food
(2005),
Securing
State
Accountability
for
Right
to
Food
-
Manual
for
State
Advisors
Dear,
Michael
(1992)
Understanding
and
Overcoming
the
NIMBY
Syndrome,
Journal
of
the
American
Planning
Association,
58
Fernandes,
Leela
(2004)
The
Politics
of
Forgetting:
Class
Politics,
State
Power
and
the
Restructuring
of
Urban
Space
in
India,
Urban
Studies,
Vol.
41,
No.
12,
2415–
2430
Hyderabad
City
Development
Plan,
2002
Krank,
Sabrina
(2008)
Cultural,
spatial
and
socio-economic
fragmentation
in
the
Indian
megacity
Hyderabad,
unpublished
master
thesis
Lauber,
D.
(1990)
Community
Residence
Location
Planning
Act
Compliance
Guidebook.
Evanston,
IL:
Planning/Communications.
Mander,
Harsh
(2010),
Shelters
for
the
Urban
Homeless,
Handbook
for
State
and
Local
Governments
Notti,
F.
and
Meyer,
N.
(2009)
Mission
report
on
excluded
groups
in
Nepal,
contribution
to
VEGM,
OHCHR
50
Piat,
Myra
(2000)
The
NIMBY
phenomenon:
Community
residents'
concerns
about
housing
for
deinstitutionalization,
Health
&
Social
Work;
Research
Library
Speak,
S.
and
Tipple
A.
G.
(2001)
The
Nature
and
Extent
of
Homelessness
in
Developing
Countries,
Cardo
Report
School
of
Architecture,
Planning
and
Landscape,
University
of
Newcastle
upon
Tyne
State
of
the
World’s
Cities
(2010)
UN-‐Habitat
Tempalski,
Barbara
et
al
(2007)
NIMBY
localism
and
national
inequitable
exclusion
alliances:
The
case
of
syringe
exchange
programs
in
the
United
States,
Geoforum
Wynne-‐Edwards,
Jeannie
(2003),
Overcoming
Community,
Opposition
to
Homelessness,
Sheltering
Projects
under
the
National
Homelessness
Initiative
51
Appendix
1
Fieldwork
Overview
-‐
Calendar
Date
Location
and
participants
Monday 4th Community survey in Musanagar, interview with communy leader
Wednesday 6th Community survey in L.B. Nagar and Uppal, interview with Uppal corporator
Thursday 7th Community survey in Musanagar, L.B. Nagar and Bible House
52
Appendix
2
53
2c)
Why
do
you
think
they
chose
this
area
for
the
shelter?
4)
Attitude
towards
the
municipality
and
NGOs
Purpose:
-‐
Know
how
residents
perceive
the
GHMC
in
relation
to
the
shelter
-‐
Know
how
residents
perceive
the
NGO
in
relation
to
the
shelter
6a)
How
do
you
think
the
GHMC
or
local
officr
handled
the
situation?
6b)
How
do
you
think
the
NGOs
handled
the
situation?
4)
Attitudes
towards
homeless
people
2a)
What
do
you
know
about
homeless
people?
2b)
Have
you
had
any
experiences
with
homeless
people
–
good
or
bad?
2c)
Do
you
think
the
homeless
people
have
a
right
to
stay
in
the
city?
5)
Attitudes
towards
homeless
shelters
(similar
to
questions
above)
Purpose:
-‐
To
know
about
people’s
perception
about
homeless
shelters.
-‐
To
know
how
the
person
thinks
the
rest
of
the
community
views
shelters
3c)
How
do
you
think
other
people
in
the
community
viewed
the
proposal?
3d)
How
close
do
you
live
from
the
proposed
shelter
building?
3e)
Would
it
be
better
to
have
the
shelter
in
another
area?
Why/why
not?
6)
Media
Influence
Purpose:
To
know
how
the
media
is
portraying
homeless
people
7a)
Have
you
read
anything
about
the
shelter
in
the
newspaper?
7)
Personal
resident
information
-
Name
-
Age
-
Gender
54