The Production Of The Public

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

Public. Experiences from

Mumbai

Prasad Shetty & Rupali Gupte

The idea of public is central to urban planning. Most decisions in planning processes are taken in the name of the public. Public infrastructure, public spaces, public amenities, and so forth, are commonly used terms in the planners' vocabulary. Public here is agreed as all people or everybody. There is an entirety promised in the idea of the public, which is understood to be a clear entity. As any ambiguity or complications in the idea of public would destabilize planning, conceptual discussions on this subject are taboo for the discipline. Hence there is a conceptual closure of the idea, where the public explicitly means a definite entity. The messy urban conditions of Mumbai provide a clear

illustration of how opening up the idea of public would destabilize planning processes.

For instance, in the design of streets, a certain width is considered to accommodate pedestrians

and vehicles. However, a street in the city of Mumbai is often used and claimed

in multiple ways – by hawkers erecting their stalls, by shops extending their boundaries,

by new shops opening, and so forth. Slowly, the street converts itself into a shopping

place (fig. 1). Being unable to accommodate the new activities, the street becomes congested

and becomes an instance of the failure of the plan. While making the plan, the planner

assumes the street to be a public space (infrastructure) – to be used by all people – but

only for walking and driving. The planner further assumes the public to be pedestrians

and car drivers who have no claims over the road, but use it to pass through. The planner

can only handle such clearly defined and closed ideas of the public (without claims) for

designing the street. Any attempt at a conceptual opening-up of the idea would make

the situation unmanageable for the planner. Closer material examination of how streets

are worked out as public spaces would clarify the difficulties arising from handling the

conceptual opening up.

Planning uses the language of cartography to define and recognize property using points,

lines and polygons, which represent positions, edges, and bounded spaces respectively.

In defining and recognising property, polygons with clear boundaries are used along with

a record of rights (that connects each polygon with a name of the owner). Any change

in the polygons (and hence property) can only take place through elaborate administrative

and legal processes of amalgamation and subdivisions. Property defined through cartography

needs clear polygons with stable edges. The street is typically defined as space

between polygons, which is not claimed by anyone (other than the state). The clearly

defined public of the planner is supposed to use this space to pass through and do nothing

else. But if the idea of the public is to be opened up to include the claims of hawkers,

informal occupiers, and other claimants, then an unstable condition is expected where

positions change, edges mutate, and spaces morph as these claims are not fixed and clear.

The clarity of cartography has an inherent inability to deal with such instabilities of

positions, edges and spaces – and, by further implication, planning is hence also unable

to deal with it. While it takes years to change the polygons of property on the cartographic

map – on the street it happens every hour. Recognizing such unclear claims hence

becomes unmanageable for the planner as there is no language for dealing with such a

scenario. The idea of the public is also not opened up to include the claims for another

reason: this would mean recognizing the claims and installing a degree of formality to

them. This would be in contradiction with the property regimes in the city and the state

will be unable to deal with such contradictions. Hence in many ways, the planner is forced

not to recognize such claims and to use a closed idea of the public for making the plan.

In the above discussion, the imagination of the planner forges a public which includes

only pedestrians and car drivers. The entirety promised in the idea of the public is

not possible on the ground. Hence, the idea of the public is not an established entirety,

but rather a production (in this case, by the planner) for a specific purpose (in this

case, the making of a plan). We argue that the idea of the public is a production/imagination

rather than an established condition. It is produced for various reasons – as

an object for consumption, as an ethic, as a space, and also as a strategy. We start from

this claim, and aim to discuss the multiple ways in which the public becomes produced.

012 Issue # 11/11 : Public Issues

1 — Road

2 — Public Art

7 — Bandra Open Space 8 — NGO-Board

013 Issue # 11/11 : Public Issues

Public as object

A conceptual closing of the idea of the public produces the public as an object – for

easy consumption. In the above discussion, the planner produces the public as a homogenous

mass (of pedestrians and car drivers), with singular needs (of passing through).

This public is an object – to be consumed to make plans. The production of the public

as an object is best captured in the practices of public art.

There is a recent surge in the art practices concerned with the public. There are typically

three ways in which these practices work out. The first one is where the artist takes

up the cause of the disadvantaged, the oppressed, and the exploited. The typical modus operandi

is to bare the facts about the disadvantage, exploitation, and oppression, and

to present it to the world in creative ways expecting the arousal of large-scale outrage

against the advantage-takers, the exploiters, and the oppressors. In this case, the whole

purpose of art is to make it useful for a cause. The second one is slightly different

in its intentions – these are the practices that become fascinated with material that is

so to say unusual. The modes of operation in these practices include entering the depths

of such material, knowing about it, and doing something with it. Here the question is

not how art becomes useful to the cause but rather how the unusual material becomes useful

to art. Various kinds of archiving practices are examples of this category of practice.

However, the most vulgar form of this kind is the engagement with remote communities

(tribes, for instance) and then work with them and bring their art to the city to be shown

in the gallery space. The third are works that expect public engagement. These could be

in form of objects installed within the gallery or outside in the city; or could even be

performances and workshops involving the public. Intentions here include provoking the

public, sensitizing it, or even simply expecting a response from unusual interventions in

urban spaces.

The interrogation of relationships between the artist, the art object, and the public cast

light on the problems of this kind of art. Various questions – Who is the public? What

is the relationship of the artist with the public? What does such art do to the public?

Does the public require such art? What happens when this art is sold? – emerge when such

an interrogation is undertaken. Such questioning also reinforces the contention that the

public is produced as an object in these kinds of works. The public is either represented

in the art, or engaged with it during the production process, or is expected to engage

with the art as it is produced or after it has been produced. The public, however, remains

external to the artist and the art object. The art is either for, about, or by the

public. The artist becomes a representative, interpreter, employer, or curator of the

public, but seldom part of it. This externalization of the public turns it into an object

to be consumed – by being represented, spoken about, employed, or curated. While these

works claim to be public art, they end up producing the public as an object (fig. 2).

Public as ethic

The 1974 Bollywood blockbuster ROTI (directed by Manmohan Desai) contains a song on

the idea of the public. Written by Anand Bakshi, the song is sung by Kishore Kumar

and enacted by Rajesh Khanna. The opening lyrics, 'yeh jo public hai, ye sab jaanti hai,

aji andar kya hai, aji bahar kya hai, ye sab kuchh pehchaanti hai' (This public, it is

aware of everything, whatever is inside, whatever is outside, it recognizes everything),

themselves bestow upon the idea of public an almost eternal all-knowing characterization.

In the video, Rajesh Khannna walks along with a large crowd of people, but looks out of

the screen talking to the audience and explaining the concept of the public. The song is

shot at three locations – a street with a procession, a public meeting, and a park, clearly

identifying with the popular understanding of the public. Along with the image and

notions about the idea of the public, the song also encapsulates the power associated with

it – namely, the power of encompassing knowledge about everything. The video of the song

suggests the source of this power, which is the crowd. Rajesh Khanna acts simultaneously

on behalf of the crowd and as a part of the crowd. Throughout the song he is involved

in exposing many secrets of people. The suggestion that nothing escapes the many eyes of

this crowd is amply (though simplistically) clarified. Here the public is produced as a

watchdog, a guardian of truth, the bearer of knowledge, and a magnanimous whole above an

individual. The individual is not only being watched by the public, but is also accountable

and answerable to the public. The public here is produced as an ethic.

The production of the public as an ethic could be best described through the activities

of the media. The high-decibled and aggressive television anchors of Indian news channels

are generally seen pushing the politician/bureaucrat by repeatedly stating, 'today the

public wants an answer…'. Although annoyed, the politicians/bureaucrats offer defensive

responses to explain their position. However, they never ask the question, 'Who are you

to ask that question?' or 'Who is the public?' The public here is not only produced as a

set of people, but more as an ethic that cannot be challenged. In another instance, a few

years ago, the government banned women dancers from the bars of Mumbai, stating that they

were creating an immoral condition in the city. A small group of people opposed the ban

014 Issue # 11/11 : Public Issues

by arguing that the bars provided livelihood to the women and that such a ban would force

the dancers into starvation or prostitution. The media conducted opinion polls asking

people if they supported the ban and continuously flashed the results of the poll – an

overwhelming majority of the people who took the poll supported the ban. Using the form

of an opinion poll, the media had produced a public that was for the ban and which corroborated

the government's position of bar dancing being an immoral activity. Here again the

media produced the public as an ethic.

Public as space

The trains of Mumbai carry about six million people every day (fig. 3). The basic unit of

a train is a seat. Three seats make a row. Two rows are arranged facing each other. The gap

between the two rows is efficiently designed such that when people sit there is just

about a three-inch space between the knees of persons sitting opposite each other. Four

such sets of rows are arranged to make one bay with a gangway between the rows. The doors

of the compartments are located between the bays. Three bays make a compartment. Each train

has nine to fourteen compartments. Each twelve-compartment train with a seating capacity

of about eight hundred and sixty persons carries more than four and a half thousand

persons during peak hours (fig. 4). A recent transportation survey by the Mumbai Metropolitan

Region Development Authority recorded that during peak hours, the highest density

spot in the Mumbai local train has sixteen persons per square meter floor area (fig. 5).

While this occurs between the two bays near the doors of the train, the inner areas with

seats have better conditions. Rigorous discipline is followed to manage the crowd. Four

persons sit in a row with three seats. The fourth person cannot sit on the seat upright

as there is no space so he/she sits perpendicular to the direction of the seat such

that only a part of his/her behind rests on the seat and the remaining part of the body

spills out into the gangway. People carefully occupy the spaces between the legs of the

seated passengers to stand. Three such persons generally occupy the spaces between the two

rows of seats. Getting on and off the train is managed with utmost discipline such that

one part of the door is left for people to board and the other part is from where people

disembark. As spaces between the bays near the doors are extremely crowded, some people

have to travel standing on the doorway (the train's doors are never closed), such that

they have only parts of their feet inside the train and rest of the body hangs out (fig. 6).

They hinge themselves with their hands gripping some pole or rod of the train's interior.

However as this is the best spot to get fresh air, a lot of people prefer to occupy the

doorway. These people get off and on during every stop of the train to allow others to

exit and enter. Persons not familiar with the disciplines of the crowd are first rebuked

by others for their ignorance, but later helped to become accommodated. Men and women

travel in different compartments.

Journeys generally vary between forty five minutes to one hour and a half. As journeys are

long, people make friends on the way. These friends meet and prefer to travel together

at the same time every day. A group forms like this, which follows a definite time to board

the train. Such groups board only specific trains coming at a specific time. For example,

the group travelling on the 08.57 a.m. train will not only travel by on 08.57 a.m. train

every day, but it will also use the same compartment or sometimes even the same bay.

People belonging to a group find it easy to board the train as they are generally helped

by others. Seats are exchanged between people sitting and standing after half the journey.

Throughout the journey, these travelling companions talk, tease each other, share food,

and sometimes also sing songs. Today every train (and sometimes more than one compartment

in a single train) between 06.30 a.m. to 10.30 a.m. in the morning has an organized

singing group that sings devotional songs. These groups also return in the same manner in

the evenings, but in the evenings they sing all kinds of songs – usually from Bollywood.

The compartments with such singing groups attract more people as they provide a good

source of entertainment and are significantly more crowded than other compartments on the

same train. The group has its own dynamics – leadership is assumed, conflicts are resolved,

problems are addressed, etc. New social configurations come into existence. These configurations

make spaces in the journey livable and even enjoyable despite being extremely

uncomfortable. These are spaces where an important part of social life is lived – this is

the most important public space of Mumbai. Here it is not the physical place that produces

a public space, but it is the travellers and their journeying which produce a public

as space – to be occupied by themselves and others. Their songs could be considered

public art – being produced by the public for itself. The artists, the art, and the public

are all one here. This is public as space.

In the production of public as space, the idea of the private is not in traditional

opposition with the idea of the public. On the other hand, many private individuals contribute

to the making of this public (as a space). In fact, such an idea of the private

(as a subset of the public and not as a contrast to the public) seems more relevant to

affirming the idea of the public as an entirety and meaning everybody.

015 Issue # 11/11 : Public Issues

Public as strategy

In mid 2003, leading Mumbai newspapers carried articles stating that the government had

allotted a piece of land in Bandra (a suburb of Mumbai) to certain developers. The newspapers

also mentioned that the developers intended to develop commercial and residential

real-estate on the site (fig. 7). This land was marked as a recreational ground in the

Development Plan (the Master Plan) of the city and belonged to the Housing Authority. Due

to its location, this piece of land was prime property and was valued at Rs. 200 Crores

in the year 2003. Disturbed by the news, the Residents' Association of the neighboring

apartments decided to approach the Bombay High Court with a plea for maintaining the use

of this land as a recreational ground. The members of the Association were inspired by

the case of Oval Maidan (another recreational ground in South Mumbai). The Oval Residents'

Association had fought a court case, where they argued that the Maidan (large open space)

was under severe threat of abuse and misuse as the Municipal Corporation was unable to

maintain it. They also insisted that the responsibility of maintaining it should be handed

over to the Oval Residents' Association. The Mumbai High Court had instructed the Resident's

Association to prove their capacity in a pilot period of one year to organise

resources and improve the Maidan. Subsequently the Residents' Association, with the help

of several private groups, upgraded the open space. They made several small interventions:

the area was fenced, the open space was levelled for efficient drainage, areas for

different purposes were demarcated and several private agencies were appointed to use and

maintain the area. Following the success of the first year, the court asked the Municipal

Corporation to hand over the maintenance of the Maidan to the Oval Residents' Association.

The Residents' Association from Bandra approached an urban research group to help them

with their intentions. They asked the research group to prepare a two-part document – the

first part containing arguments for the court case towards keeping the space open and not

allowing the government to hand it over to a private developer; the second part comprised

designs for the improvement of the open space and (organizational and financial) plans

for its maintainance. This document was not only prepared for the court, but it was also

for the private parties who were to invest in the development of the area as well as

for the various state and private institutions whose blessings were required for the development

of the space. The Residents' Association wanted to prepare itself to take over

the open space like the case of Oval Maidan.

The research group strategized the first part containing arguments for the court case

around the ideas of public space. It made a detailed report, empirically proving the

shortage of public open space in the area and the need to keep this place open for public

use. So far this was simple. However things became complicated in the second part. The

research group started the project with a detailed survey of the space and the community

that was going to use it. They found that a part of the space was being occupied by a

small informal settlement. Also, the open space was used by the dwellers of this settlement

as well as other informal settlements in the neighborhood. There were also other

users of the open space like occasional hawkers who sold their wares around the open space.

Part of the open space was rented for exhibitions and other community activities like

marriages. On the other hand, interviews with the members of the Residents' Association

of the apartments indicated that they wanted to enjoy the benefits of open space for

environmental reasons (ecological balance, ventilation, and breathing space) and also for

cultural ones (recreational purposes, social and cultural gatherings). They were specifically

concerned about the elderly and the children. A number of them did not have a

problem with the land being developed into congruent activities like a Gymnasium, Sports

Centre, Exhibition hall, Community Hall, Library, Swimming Pool, Theatre, etc. The entire

group, however, was unanimous about its dislikes: it did not like the slum-dwellers and

hawkers using the open space and felt that parcelling the land for other activities

like exhibition and marriages was a public nuisance. The Residents' Association insisted

that the space be developed as a public space and that non-congruent activities (like

informal settlements, hawking, community activities, etc.) should not be allowed. They

wanted the research group to develop the project with all these demands.

The research group found itself in a dilemma – while it was the research group itself that

had produced the idea of the public as a strategy to save the open space from predatory

developers, the idea of the public was highjacked and reproduced by the Residents' Association

to evict the informal settlers from the open space. The idea of the public was

produced as a strategy, but it was double edged: while it was useful against appropriation,

it was also problematic when used as an intolerant and indiscriminate instrument (fig. 8).

While we have identified a few ways in which the idea of the public is produced, there may

be many more ways in which this production must be taking place. We have not aimed to list

all the ways in which the public is produced – there cannot be such an exhaustive list. Instead,

we have first sought to explore the idea of the public as being the result of a process

of production; and secondly, we have operationalised this idea by tracing some of the

conceptual trajectories in which the production of the public takes place in urban Mumbai.

016 Issue # 11/11 : Public Issues

4 — Train (Vinita Ghatne)

3 — Mumbai Local Train

Photo Courtesy of Ranjit Kandalgaonkar

5 — Local Train, Mumbai

6 — Mumbai Local Train, Photo Courtesy of Ranjit Kandalgaonkar

017 Issue # 11/11 : Public Issues