URBAN REIMAGINATION: PUBLIC TRUSTS, LANDED ASSETS, AND THE FUTURE OF INDIA'S CITIES
Keywords:
India, Improvement Trust, Real Estate, FinancializationAbstract
This extensive article meticulously examines the historical trajectory of public improvement trusts in shaping India's urban landscape during the late colonial period. It delves into their intricate relationship with real estate and the emergence of modern urban planning paradigms. Focusing on a comparative analysis of the Calcutta Improvement Trust (CIT) and the Bombay City Improvement Trust (BCIT), this paper illustrates how these institutions, originally conceived as instruments for civic betterment, concurrently fostered a dynamic, often speculative, real estate market. This process, driven by technocratic expertise and distinct financial mechanisms, laid foundational principles for contemporary urban development in India. The article posits that the "improvement regime" was a crucial, yet under-explored, antecedent to India's ongoing urban transformations, characterized by an enduring tension between the pursuit of public welfare and the inherent logic of land valorization. By tracing the evolution of these trusts from their inception in response to public health crises to their role as key players in urban financialization, this research offers a nuanced understanding of the historical contingencies that continue to influence urban governance, land economics, and the socio-spatial inequalities prevalent in present-day Indian cities. It argues that what is often perceived as "neoliberal urbanism" today is, in many respects, a discontinuous unraveling of processes initiated over a century ago within this improvement regime.
References
1. Bompas, C. H., “The Work of the Calcutta Improvement Trust,” Journal of the Royal Society of Arts 75, 3868 (1927): 199–219, 216Google Scholar.
2. Stokes, Eric, The English Utilitarians and India (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1959), 24 Google Scholar.
3. Munro’s observation draws from a long tradition of Western imperialist thinking that upholds Europe as the beacon of culture and civilization and the non-European world as prehistoric, savage, and enchanted.
4. Mantena, Karuna, Alibis of Empire: Henry Maine and the Ends of Liberal Imperialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2010)10.1515/9781400835072CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mehta, Uday Singh, Liberalism and Empire: A Study in Nineteenth-Century British Liberal Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999)10.7208/chicago/9780226519180.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mamdani, Mahmood, Define and Rule: Native as Political Identity (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012)10.4159/harvard.9780674067356CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Sen, Sudipta, “Liberalism and the British Empire in India,” Journal of Asian Studies 74, 3 (2015): 711–2210.1017/S0021911815000637CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
5. For a comprehensive study on the bubonic plague’s impact on global urban centers, see Echenberg, Myron, Plague Ports: The Global Urban Impact of Bubonic Plague, 1894–1901 (New York: New York University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.
6. Hazareesingh, Sandip, “Colonial Modernism and the Flawed Paradigms of Urban Renewal: The Uneven Development of Bombay City, 1900–1925,” Urban History 28, 2 (2001): 235–55, 23910.1017/S096392680100205XCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
7. Dhanpal, Sonali, “The Making of a Model Town: Planning in a Princely City and the All-India Sanitary Conferences,” Planning Perspectives 38, 3 (2023): 467–9710.1080/02665433.2022.2131610CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
8. Russell, James B., On the Immediate Results of the Operations of the Glasgow Improvement Trust (Glasgow: Bell and Bain Printers, 1875), 1Google Scholar.
9. Beattie, Martin, “Colonial Space: Health and Modernity in Barabazaar, Kolkata,” Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review 14, 2 (2003): 7–19, 10Google Scholar.
10. “Slum” is a generic term for autoconstructed informal settlements. Chawls are specific to Bombay and refer to tenement-style houses typically housing a significant number of the city’s millworkers. Bustees has a pan-Indian usage and is deployed interchangeably with slums.
11. Richards, E. P., The Condition, Improvement, and the Town Planning of the City of Calcutta and Contiguous Areas (London: Routledge, 2015), 363 Google Scholar.
12. Here, I am drawing from Lata Mani’s incisive analysis on how “Hindu tradition” came to be defined in official colonial discourse in the context of the Sati Abolition debate; “Contentious Traditions: The Debate on Sati in Colonial India,” Cultural Critique 7 (1987): 119–56.
13. Ghosh, Nabaparna, A Hygienic City-Nation: Space, Community, and Everyday Life in Colonial Calcutta (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 4, 16 10.1017/9781108489898CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
14. Shaikh, Juned, Outcaste Bombay: City Making and Politics of the Poor (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2021)10.1515/9780295748511CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rao, Nikhil, House, but No Garden: Apartment Living in Bombay’s Suburbs, 1989–1964 (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2013)10.5749/minnesota/9780816678129.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Chhabria, Sheetal, Making the Modern Slum: The Power of Capital in Colonial Bombay (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2019)10.1515/9780295746296CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
15. Shaikh, Outcaste Bombay, 9.
16. Stromquist, Shelton, Claiming the City: A Global History of Workers’ Fight for Municipal Socialism (London: Verso Books, 2023)Google Scholar.
17. Shaikh, Outcaste Bombay, 4; Chakrabarty, Dipesh, Rethinking Working-Class History: Bengal 1890 to 1940 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989)10.1515/9780691188218CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
18. Kidambi, Prashant, The Making of an Indian Metropolis: Colonial Governance and Public Culture in Bombay, 1890–1920 (Abingdon: Ashgate, 2007), 93 Google Scholar.
19. For a detailed discussion on the mandates of the Calcutta and Bombay municipal corporations, see Goode, S. W., Municipal Calcutta: Its Institutions in Their Origin and Growth (Edinburgh: T & A. Constable, 1916)Google Scholar; Wacha, D. E., Rise and Growth of Bombay Municipal Government (Madras: G. A. Natesan & Co., 1913)Google Scholar.
20. Goode, Municipal Calcutta, 34.
21. Wacha, Rise and Growth, 20.
22. Although Nabaparna Ghosh acknowledges the gap in existing literature regarding the trust’s legal powers, her work attends to the “legal trials that the Trust carried out outside of the courts in informal spaces such as the street-side, city-schools, a room in the house of an influential gentleman, and so on, forcibly acquiring land for urban development.” A survey of the trust’s artificial legal personhood is still amiss from her work: A Hygienic City Nation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2020), 12. For a discussion on CIT’s legal trials, see pp. 85–95.
23. Hazareesingh, Sandip, “Colonial Modernism and the Flawed Paradigms of Urban Renewal: The Uneven Development of Bombay City, 1900–1925,” Urban History 28, 2 (2001): 235–55, 23910.1017/S096392680100205XCrossRefGoogle Scholar.
24. Vevaina, Leilah, Trust Matters: Parsi Endowments in Mumbai and the Horoscope of a City (Durham: Duke University Press, 2023), 26 Google Scholar.
25. Maitland, F. W., “The Corporation Sole,” In Runciman, David and Ryan, Magnus, eds. State, Trust, and Corporation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 9 10.1017/CBO9780511810435.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
26. Birla, Ritu, Stages of Capital: Law, Culture, and Market Governance in Late Colonial India (Durham: Duke University Press, 2009), 68 Google Scholar.
27. The Calcutta Improvement Act of 1911 under the Bengal Act no. V of 1911, my emphasis.
28. Ibid.
29. The Bombay City Improvement Trust from 1898 to 1909: A Lecture Delivered by J. P. Orr before the Bombay Association of Architects and Surveyors (Bombay: Times Press, 1911), 1.
30. Raman, Bhavani, “Corporations,” in Valverde, Mariana, et al., eds., Routledge Handbook of Law and Society (New York: Routledge, 2021), 108 Google Scholar.
31. Maitland, “Corporation Sole,” xxiv.
32. Ibid., 99–100.
33. Vevaina, Trust Matters, 3.
34. Datta, Partho, Planning the City: Urbanization and Reform in Calcutta, c. 1800–1940 (New Delhi: Tulika Books, 2012), 204 Google Scholar.
35. These terms do not come with specific citations since they are conspicuously present across all reports of the improvement trusts.
36. Swati Chattopadhyay writes, “Calcutta’s negative impression had much to do with the Bengalis, who were considered disagreeable and politically dangerous, while the Parsis in Bombay were seen as allies of British interest.” In Representing Calcutta: Modernity, Nationalism, and the Colonial Uncanny (Abingdon: Routledge, 2005), 11.
37. Chhabria, Making the Modern Slum, 151.
38. For a discussion on the politics surrounding Bombay’s social welfare initiatives, see Shaikh, Outcaste Bombay.
39. The Calcutta Improvement Act of 1911.
40. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 1.
41. “The Calcutta Improvement Scheme,” letter from Chamber to Government of Bengal (Legislative Department), Calcutta, 16 Dec. 1910, 449.
42. Proceedings of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, 1912–13.
43. Chhabria, Making the Modern Slum, 152.
44. Letter from Chamber to the Calcutta Corporation, 25 Nov. 1910.
45. I have borrowed this term from Timothy Mitchell, who discusses (among other things) the advent of technical professionals and the birth of technoscientific rationale in the workings of the Egyptian government in the twentieth century; Rule of Experts: Egypt, Techno-politics, Modernity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002).
46. Birla, Stages of Capital, 69.
47. Ibid.
48. Ibid., 68, my emphasis.
49. Richards, Condition, 411.
50. Ibid., 320.
51. Proceedings of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, 1913–14, my emphasis.
52. Ibid.
53. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 10.
54. Hart, Tom, “Urban Growth and Municipal Government,” in Slaven, Anthony and Aldcroft, Derek H., eds., Business, Banking, and Urban Housing: Essays in Honour of S. G. Checkland (Edinburgh: John Donald Publishers, 1982), 199, 201.
55. Ibid., 256.
56. Richards, Condition, 13.
57. Ibid., xvii.
58. Home, Robert, “British Colonial Civic Improvement in the Early Twentieth Century: E. P. Richards in Madras, Calcutta, and Singapore,” Planning Perspectives 31, 4 (2016): 635–44.
59. Ibid.
60. Richards, Condition, xv, his emphasis.
61. Ibid.
62. Bompas, “Work of the Calcutta Improvement Trust,” 200.
63. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 28.
64. Foucault, Michel, “Governmentality,” in Burchell, Graham, Gordon, Colin, and Miller, Peter, eds., The Foucault Effect: Studies in Governmentality (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1991): 87–104.
65. Scott, David, “Colonial Governmentality,” Social Text 43 (1995): 191–220; Chatterjee, Partha, The Politics of the Governed: Reflections in Popular Politics in Most of the World (New York: Columbia University Press, 2004).
66. Stephen Legg has deployed the Foucauldian lens throughout his works to critically study the making of colonial Delhi. See especially his “Governmentality, Congestion, and Calculation in Colonial Delhi,” Social and Cultural Geography 7, 5 (2006): 709–29; Also see Chhabria, Making the Modern Slum; and “The Aboriginal Alibi: Governing Dispossession in Colonial Bombay,” Comparative Studies in Society and History 60, 4 (2018): 1096–126.
67. Letter from the Bengal Chamber of Commerce to the Government of Bengal, 16 Dec. 1910.
68. Proceedings of the Calcutta Improvement Trust, 1912–13.
69. See Mitchell, Rule of Experts, 80–119.
70. Tejani, Shabnum, “Disputing ‘Market Value’: The Bombay Improvement Trust and the Reshaping of a Speculative Land Market in Early Twentieth-Century Bombay,” Urban History 48, 3 (2021): 572–89, 574.
71. Bompas, “Work of the Calcutta Improvement Trust,” 219.
72. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 22.
73. Bompas, “Work of the Calcutta Improvement Trust,” 205.
74. Proceedings of Calcutta Improvement Trust, 1913–14.
75. Arnold, Caroline E., “The Bombay Improvement Trust, Bombay Millowners and the Debate over Housing Bombay’s Millworkers, 1896–1918,” Essays in Economic and Business History 30 (2012): 105–23.
76. Ibid., 117.
77. Chhabria, Making the Modern Slum, 10.
78. Ibid., my emphasis.
79. Yates, Alexia, Real Estate and Global Urban History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021), 2.
80. I borrow this phrase from Alexia Yates’ observation about property’s capacity “to exist as a material, productive entity at the same time as it can support circulating signs representing its value”; “The Double Life of Property: Mobilizing Land and Making Capitalism in Modern France,” Critical Historical Studies 6, 2 (2019): 247–78, 254.
81. Yates, Real Estate, 4.
82. Maitland, “Corporation Sole,” 78.
83. Ibid., 4–5.
84. Richards, Condition, 430.
85. Rao, House, 24.
86. Vevaina, Trust Matters, 5.
87. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 22. A lakh is a hundred thousand.
88. Ascher, Ivan, Portfolio Society: On the Capitalist Mode of Prediction (New York: Zone Books, 2016), 14, his emphasis.
89. Yates, “Double Life of Property.”
90. Ascher’s reading of financialization is rooted in the Marxian tradition of critique. He attempts to creatively read Karl Marx’s Capital, Volume 1 to analyze two recent developments “that Marx could not have anticipated”: the rise in financial markets since the financial crisis of 2008 and the concurrent rise in “portfolio society.” Ascher moves away from modes of production to understand how modes of prediction define social relations in the twenty-first century; Portfolio Society, 10.
91. Yates, “Double Life of Property”, 250.
92. See “Special Issue: Unleashing Speculative Urbanism,” Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space 55, 2 (2023). For a bibliographic survey of the field, see Ashima Sood, “Speculative Urbanism,” in Anthony M. Orum, ed., Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Urban and Regional Studies (London: Blackwell, 2019).
93. Tejani, Shabnum, “Disputing ‘Market Value’: The Bombay Improvement Trust and the Reshaping of a Speculative Land Market in Early Twentieth-Century Bombay,” Urban History 48, 3 (2021): 572–89, 574.
94. I borrow this phrase from Laura Bear, for whom capitalism is motivated by technologies of imagination that fuel speculation. She writes, “The imaginative style of capitalism is future-oriented speculation or the attempt to divine and manipulate the visible and invisible aspect of human and non-human productivity.” In “Capitalist Divination: Popularist Speculators and Technologies of Imagination on the Hooghly River,” Comparative Studies of South Asia, Africa, and the Middle East 35, 3 (2015): 408–23, 409.
95. Both David Ricardo and Adam Smith emphasize the monopolistic nature of private landholding, which by default made rent from such property its “natural” monopoly price.
96. Richards, Condition, 416.
97. Christophers, Brett, “The Problem of Rent,” Critical Historical Studies 6, 2 (2019): 303–23. From being called parasitic, indolent, functionless, and unproductive to being blamed for reaping what they never sowed and living off the fat of the land, by the twentieth century rentiers had come to symbolize the antithesis of enterprise, productivity, and innovation. See especially pp. 310–11.
98. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 13.
99. Richards, Condition, 361.
100. Letter from Sub-committee, Calcutta Improvement Scheme to President and Committee of the Chamber, 23 Nov. 1910, 457.
101. Orr, Bombay City Improvement, 25.
102. Over the last decade, urban theorists and practitioners working on and from the Global South have advanced a robust critique of “applying” theory from the Global North onto spaces in the South. These works have highlighted the importance of “place” as the site for theory-building, rather than as a field for empirical data collection. See Bhan, Gautam, “Notes on a Southern Urban Practice,” Environment and Urbanization 31, 2 (2019): 639–54; Roy, Ananya, “What Is Urban about Critical Urban Theory?” Urban Geography 37, 6 (2016): 810–23; Sheppard, Eric, Leitner, Helga, and Maringanti, Anant, “Provincializing Global Urbanism: A Manifesto,” Urban Geography 34, 7 (2013): 893–900.
103. Quote from Mr. S. N. Mullik, quoted in Bompas, “Work of the Calcutta Improvement Trust,” 216.
104. Ibid., 219.
105. Ibid., 217.
106. Metcalf, Thomas R., Ideologies of the Raj (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), 29.
107. The list is even longer: Lahore instituted the Lahore Development Authority in 1975, replacing the Lahore Improvement Trust; Singapore Improvement Trust became the Housing Development Board in 1960.
108. Stephen Legg has traced the shift in governmental rationality from the Delhi Improvement Trust to the Delhi Development Authority through the (dis)continuities in colonial governmental rationality in a postcolonial context; “Postcolonial Developmentalities: From the Delhi Improvement Trust to the Delhi Development Authority,” in Sarswati Raju, M. Satish Kumar, and Stuart Corbret et al., eds., Colonial and Postcolonial Geographies of India (London: Sage, 2006), 182–204. A comparative analysis of the conceptual shift from improvement to development across Indian cities is yet to be undertaken.
109. Asher E. Gartner, Rule by Aesthetics: World-Class City Making in Delhi (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar; Cowan, Thomas, Subaltern Frontiers: Agrarian City-Making in Gurgaon (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022)10.1017/9781009118859CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pati, Sushmita, Properties of Rent: Community, Capital, and Politics in Globalising Delhi (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2022)10.1017/9781009043694CrossRefGoogle Scholar.