Public spaces are contested spaces shaped by urban practices. This view has been well articulated by Arjun Appadurai, who has extensively worked on the notion of locality in public spaces where marginalised communities create their own space through social negotiation, mostly in defiance of formal urban planning.
A public space is a dynamic amoeba-like floating signifier. Nobody inherits it, and the meaning is always appropriated by the locality, as Appadurai says. It is especially punctuated by the living imaginations of people who assert their rights by setting up street shops, organising political celebrations, or claiming their rights to living on the peripheries. An important part of this is the ‘informal sector’, which includes those who are not considered in the planning of a city’s budgets.
Sharit K. Bhowmick, a well-known sociologist, has shown through his extensive research that the earnings in this sector significantly influence the city’s overall GDP, yet they are not taken into account for the budget planning. So, economically, socially, and on a human index, the public space is a no-man’s land that caters to anyone and everyone, except those who occupy it, live precariously, and are under the constant threat of eviction. It is a see-saw existence and a complex relationship with the city.
Over time, with development becoming the metaphor for the majority of Indian cities, the influx of migrant labour and lack of facilities for the migrants to establish their work profile in these new cities, public spaces have become the centre where their encounters play out.
According to Henri Lefebvre, these spaces become rituals of everyday life that are produced through social and economic relationships, and cultural activities like the celebration of festivals. These festivities that begin with the selling of diyas, Christmas caps and plastic trees, colour powders, flowers, etc., have become an important signifier of celebrations that begin in public spaces. Every time one sees a line-up of new kinds of objects, such as bulbs in a bottle, it becomes a heralding of sorts; sometimes even serving as an important reminder to clean our own homes.
As a result, the occupants of public spaces are, thus, beginning to serve as important indicators of events, celebrations, festivals, school days… when, once, our mothers used to play this role.
The public space is interestingly a ‘placemaking activity’ without formal intervention. And it is important to note that in such an organic connection between humans and festivity, the public space is far more generative and lively than any formal placemaking.
This informal economic activity signals a deep connection with traditions that may have been forgotten or ill-afforded. One sees young people hanging out near make-shift stalls as a ‘gathering point’, enjoying the spontaneous purchase of a t-shirt or a toy. Many cities like Ahmedabad are thriving in public space activities such as food culture. The scale is unimaginable and mind-boggling. The most expensive cars are parked by the roadside food stalls, and are served delicious fare. They congregate for and at the food stalls. These stalls are the reason for public spaces to exist in cities like Ahmedabad, Surat, and Baroda.
I must emphasise that public spaces in India have become deeply evolved social and economic activities, unlike in other countries, where public spaces are recreational and meant for healthy living.
The boundary between who owns a public space and who has the right to it dissolves the moment it becomes transactional. Both sides support the economic activity as it is enjoyable, easily accessible, promises good bargains and deals, and provides interesting conversations.
If I had to define it in terms of parameters, this would be it: in India, a public space would be one to which anything and anyone can contribute transactionally, conversationally, and provide leisure. And everyone has the right to it and is entitled to it. Nobody decides; it is decided by the economic activity and supported by those who partake in it.
Take any city in India, like Lucknow, Banaras, Kanpur, Mumbai, Indore, Delhi, Chandigarh, Chennai. The imprint of the informal sector is fused with the idea of the public space. And yet, we do not engage with the place-making of a public space in a formal, planned manner. Even if there are attempts, they are few and far between. For example, the Dilli Haat was a successful experiment because it created a cultural continuation for people who had migrated to Delhi. It is a well-adapted natural space, designed to look and feel organic, so it eases acculturative stress. The communities that adapt to the new cities find a sense of familiarity, and instantly connect with what they left back home.
On the other hand, the public spaces in our cities are increasingly being taken over by political rallies and religious fervour, causing a lot of traffic jams and inconvenience. Now this is a different kind of occupation; it is assertive and exclusive. Despite being in a public place, it sends clear signals of belongingness rituals. This is not placemaking. It creates a voyeurism that is laced with discomfort because it is asserted as a right to space. It creates anxiety and insecurity among those who are not a part of these rituals. With the state being complicit in this act, public spaces are now being deployed more and more for election rallies or political celebrations.
The shrinking of assertion in public spaces for a common cause, such as health, recreation, or just memory and nostalgia for home, is a dangerous trend that further contributes to a lack of identity for the migrants. They remain ‘have been’. The celebrations are pushed inside the boundaries of societies and gated communities. The loud, assertive celebrations are state-sponsored or corporate-sponsored, splitting the city into a deep chasm.
Oceans of humanity in the public spaces versus the gated community celebrations leave only two options for the have-nots: belong to the larger ideological construct, or stay within your gated constructs. The population in the middle have no scope of asylum in either the public or the private. And the city swells with more of them.
This leaves us with a deep worry. Appropriation of public spaces is a much bigger problem than it seems. It is much more than squatters or stalls; it is the genesis of political movements, of ideological apparatus, and of endangering the city’s multi-dimensional fabric. This, I doubt, is even discussed in city planning networks. The search for a scapegoat is a very tiny issue in comparison to the continuous unfolding of masses who are made to join in without any understanding or belief.
