LOGIN TO YOUR ACCOUNT

Username
Password
Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Or use your Academic/Social account:

Congratulations!

You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.

Important!

Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message

CREATE AN ACCOUNT

Name:
Username:
Password:
Verify Password:
E-mail:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Languages: English
Types: Doctoral thesis
Subjects: HM, HN, HT, DS
This thesis traces the settlement and history of an East Delhi resettlement colony, and the everyday and associational lives of its residents. Settled by the state at the height of the Emergency in 1976, from jhuggies demolished at the centre of the city, Punarvaspur sits within a longer history and politics of planning by the colonial and postcolonial developmental state. As such, Punarvaspur and neighbourhoods like it have long been, and continue to be the site of debates and anxieties about the place of ‘the urban poor’ in the city, and of much NGO and political work. As the subjects of large-scale demolitions of housing and livelihood in the course of resettlement, residents’ experience of these debates has been far from abstract. Even after 30 years, the aftermath of the resettlement still shapes social relations in the close physical spaces of Punarvaspur. For residents their frequent designation as ‘slum dwellers’ makes them the subject of much development work, while by extension also labelling them as ‘illegal’ ex-squatters. Drawing on the work of social theorists and geographers, particularly the work of Henri Lefebvre and Doreen Massey, the main aim of this thesis is to explore the spatial dimensions of the politics of development, through the lived experiences and spatial practices of its residents. By tracing how the socio-historical roots of planners’ dominant ‘representations of space’ are neither fixed, static, nor uniform, it can be seen how they are modified by the ‘spatial practices’ and lived experiences of city dwellers as they are traced out over the fabric of Delhi. For instance, the space of the neighbourhood becomes a medium for the organisation and articulation of social relations in its public spaces. This can been seen in the marking of public spaces by groups through speech, organisational affiliations and concrete devotional shrines. Similarly, residents, NGOs, local politicians and others deploy ideas of morality, respectability, and difference to limit and enhance the agency and ability of themselves and others to act in the public space of the neighbourhood. In this way certain locales are understood as being in need of development as relationships around development are inscribed in space.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • SITUATING NGOS ..................................................................................................................... 166 DEVELOPMENT AND DAY-TO-DAY WORK............................................................................... 169 WOMEN AND WORK.................................................................................................................. 170 NGOS IN PUNARVASPUR.......................................................................................................... 171 'CAREER' HISTORIES AND NARRATIVE .................................................................................... 173 “BOY'S WOULDN'T HAVE THE PATIENCE FOR THIS KIND OF WORK” GENDERED ACCOUNTS OF NGO WORK. ..................................................................................................... 174 Rupa, Bhavana, neighbour and friends................................................................................. 174 Rani: responsibilities, risk and mobility................................................................................ 181 Umrao: fieldwork, critique and making the most of contacts............................................... 182 Reena and Ramesh: becoming a 'known person' .................................................................. 186 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................. 189
    • “NGOS SHOULDN'T DO THAT KIND OF WORK” ....................................................... 194 Abrams, Philip. 1988. “Notes on the Difficulty of Studying the State.” Journal of Historical Sociology 1(1): 58-89.
    • Appadurai, Arjun. 1986. “Is Homo Hierarchicus?.” American Ethnologist 13(4): 745-761.
    • Appadurai, Arjun. 1996. Modernity at Large. Cultural Dimensions of Globalisation. London: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Appadurai, Arjun. 1990. “Topographies of the self: praise and emotion in Hindu India.” In Language and the Politics of Emotion, eds. Catherine A Lutz and Lila Abu-Lughod. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Arnold, David, and Stuart Blackburn, eds. 2004. “Introduction: Life Histories in India.” In Telling Lives in India: Biography, Autobiography, and Life History, Delhi: Permanent Black.
    • Arnold, David, and Ramachandra Guha, eds. 1995. Nature, Culture, Imperialism: Essays on the Environmental History of South Asia. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    • Atkinson, Rowland, and John Flint. 2001. “Social Research Update 33: Accessing Hidden and Hard-to-Reach Populations.” Social Research Update 33. Available at: http://sru.soc.surrey.ac.uk/SRU33.html [Accessed June 5, 2008].
    • Barth, F, ed. 1969. “Introduction.” In Ethnic Groups and Boundaries: the Social Organisation of Cultural Difference, Bergen: Universitetsforlaget.
    • Baviskar, Amita. 2003. “Between violence and desire: space, power, and identity in the making of metropolitan Delhi.” International Social Science Journal 55(175): 89-98.
    • Baviskar, Amita. 1997. In the belly of the river : tribal conflicts over development in the Narmada Valley. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    • Baviskar, Amita. 2004. “Tale of two cities.” The Hindu (Newspaper). Available at: http://www.thehindu.com/thehindu/mag/2004/05/30/stories/200405300012 0200.htm [Accessed May 31, 2004].
    • Baviskar, Amita. 2002. “The Politics of the City.” Seminar, India (516). Available at: www.india-seminar.com/2002/516/516%20amita%20baviskar.htm [Accessed January 27, 2004].
    • Benjamin, Solomon. 1996. Neighbourhood as Factory: The influence of land development and civic politics on an industrial cluster in Delhi, India. Unpublished DPhil thesis: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
    • Beteille, Andre. 1999. “Citizenship, State and Civil Society.” Economic and Political Weekly 34(36): 2588-2591.
    • Bharat Sevak Samaj. 1958. Slums of Old Delhi. Delhi: Atma Ram and Sons.
    • Bombay First, and McKinsey & Co. 2003. Vision Mumbai: Transforming Mumbai into a world class city. A summary of recommendations. Bombay: Bombay First - McKinsey & Co.
    • Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. Cambridge, Cooke, Bill, and Uma Kothari, eds. 2001. Participation, the New Tyranny? London: Zed.
    • Cooper, Frederick, and Randall M Packard, eds. 1997. International Development and the Social Sciences: Essays on the History and Politics of Knowledge. Berkeley, Calif: University of California Press.
    • Corbridge, S. et al. 2005. Seeing the State: Governance and Governmentality in India. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    • Fernandes, Leela. 2006. India's New Middle Class: Democratic Politics in an Era of Economic Reform. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Fernandes, Leela. 1997. Producing Workers: The Politics of Gender, Class, and Culture in the Calcutta Jute Mills. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
    • Fernandes, Leela. 2004. “The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power and the Restructuring of Urban Space in India.” Urban Studies 41(12): 2415-2430.
    • Foucault, Michel. 1980. Power-Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, 1972- 1977. Brighton: Harvester Press.
    • Frøystad, Kathinka. 2006. “Anonymous Encounters. Class categorisation and social distancing in public places.” In The Meaning of the Local: Politics of Place in Urban India, eds. Geert De Neve and Henrike Donner. London: Routledge, p. 159-181.
    • Frøystad, Kathinka. 2005. Blended Boundaries: Caste, Class and Shifting Faces of 'Hinduness' in a North Indian City. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    • Fuller, C. J., and J. Harriss. 2001. “For an Anthropology of the Modern Indian State.” In The Everyday State and Society in Modern India, eds. C. J. Fuller and Veronique Benei. London: Hurst & Co.
    • Fuller, Chris, and Ve_ronique Benei, eds. 2001. The Everyday State and Society in Modern India. London: Hurst & Co.
    • Gadgil, Madhav, and Ramachandra Guha. 1992. This fissured land : an ecological history of India. Delhi: Oxford University Press.
    • Government of Delhi. 2008. “Socio-Economic Profile of Delhi.” Available at: http://delhiplanning.nic.in/SEP/SEP78.PDF [Accessed April 14, 2008].
    • Greenough, P. 1995. “Nation, Economy, and Tradition Displayed: The Indian Crafts Museum, New Delhi.” In Consuming Modernity: Public Culture in a South Asian World, ed. Carol A. Breckenridge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
    • Hansen, T. B., and F. Stepputat. 2005. Sovereign Bodies: Citizens, Migrants, and States in the Postcolonial World. Princeton University Press.
    • Hansen, T. B., and F. Stepputat. 2006. “Sovereignty Revisited.” Annual Review of Anthropology 35: 295-315.
    • Harriss, J. 2005. “Political Participation, Representation and the Urban Poor Findings from Research in Delhi.” Economic and Political Weekly 40(11): 1041-1954.
    • Hearn, Jonathan. 2001. “Taking Liberties: Contesting Visions of the Civil Society Project.” Critique of Anthropology 21(4): 339-360.
    • Heaton, Celayne. 2006. “"They Can't Mix Like We Can": Bracketing Differences and Professionalisation of NGOs in Nepal.” In Development Brokers and Translators: The ethnography of Aid and Agencies, eds. David Lewis and David Mosse. Bloomfield: Kumarian Press, p. 195-216.
    • Heaton, Celayne. 2001. 'Our Differences Don't Make a Difference': Practising 'civil Society' in Nepal's Non-Governmental Sector. Unpublished PhD Thesis. University of London, School of Oriental and African Studies.
    • Jodhka, Surinder S. 1998. “From “book view” to “field view”: Social anthropological constructions of the Indian village.” Oxford Development Studies 26(3): 311.
    • Low, Setha M. 1996. “The Anthropology of Cities: Imagining and Theorizing the City.” Annual Review of Anthropology 25: 383-409.
    • Sheilds, Rob. 2004. “Henri Lefebvre.” In Key Thinkers on Space and Place, eds. Phil Hubbard, Rob Kitchin, and Gill Valentine. London: SAGE, p. 208-213.
    • Vera-Sanso, Penny. 1995. “Community, seclusion and female labour force participation in Madras, India.” Third World Planning Review 17(2): 155-177.
    • Vera-Sanso, Penny. 2006. “Conformity and Contestation. Social heterogeneity in south Indian settlements..” In The Meaning of the Local: Politics of Place in Urban India, eds. Geert De Neve and Henrike Donner. London: Routledge, p. 182-205.
    • Vera-Sanso, Penny. 1999. “Dominant Daughters-in-Law and Submissive Mothers-inLaw? Cooperation and Conflict in South India.” The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute 5(4): 577-593.
  • No related research data.
  • No similar publications.

Share - Bookmark

Download from

Cite this article