Deposition at the Independent People’s Tribunal on the Coastal Road : Hussain Indorewala


This presentation will try to show why the Coastal Road Project (CRP) is sure to be counter-productive from the perspective of traffic congestion management, wasteful in terms of public expenditure, disruptive in terms of ecology and livelihoods, and ignores cheaper and more efficient alternatives. The project will increase the number of vehicles on the road, cause considerable environmental damage and adversely impact livelihoods of fishing communities. Moreover, as a project that serves to transport not more than 1.5% of the city’s population on any given day it is more of a private amenity than a public good. And despite doing nothing to ease the burden on the congested public transport network, the public will be made to finance this fundamentally in-egalitarian project.

Download full document here

Heritage in the Post-Industrial City

Discourses on Architectural Heritage, De-politicisation of Space and Issues of Socio-cultural Continuity in Mumbai’s Historic Neighbourhoods

By Shweta Wagh | Published in the Intach Journal of Heritage Studies Vol 1

In the context of the economic restructuring of the city from a landscape of production to a landscape of consumption, there has been a general shift in the theory and practice of conservation. This paper will look at discourses centred around heritage conservation in Mumbai with the particular intent of examining how these play out in a post-industrial city attempting to demystify some of the rhetoric adopted by conservationists. It will try to show how conservation discourses and practices tend to align with the interests of dominant groups in the city, often insensitive to the interests of marginalized groups. In this process, landscapes of the city such as its industrial cores, places of workers housing, inner cities, gaothans and koliwadas which once were landscapes of manufacturing, commerce and productivity are relegated to the margins. As histories are constructed around imagined communities, landscapes are commodified, transforming traditional neighbourhoods into consumable artefacts and aestheticised enclaves. The paper argues for the need for alternative frameworks which are inclusive and accommodative of the needs and interests of local communities and address issues related to sociocultural continuity in historic landscapes.

See more

Why Maharashtra’s latest plan for Mumbai coastal road is a disaster

By Hussain Indorewala & Shweta Wagh

Published on on 28th August 2015

The Maharashtra government’s plan to build a 34-km coastal road is rapidly running out of friends. The problem for its proponents is that the more they justify it, the more absurd it sounds. The government wants to build a coastal freeway in Mumbai, from Nariman Point in the city’s south to Kandivali in the western suburbs. But the voices of protest against it are growing.

On August 15, hundreds of people joined in protest against the coastal road. Already in July, Mumbai’s fisherfolk decided to unanimously oppose the project. The Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan non-profit group has also issued its own statement condemning what it called a “futile” investment at the expense of the social sector and calling for “real and practical” transport alternatives.

The project now has two versions: a Rs 8,000-crore joint technical committee version that came out in 2011 and a newer, Rs 12,000 crore, detailed project report that was opened up for public comments recently. Objections to the new plan have now prompted its apologists to suggest alterations, such as doing away with the under-sea tunnels and building stilted roads over mangroves. But as we pointed out in an earlier article, the problem is the project itself, not its alignment.

…read full article here

Why the Coastal Road is a mistake Mumbai cannot afford to make

By Shweta Wagh & Hussain Indorewala

Published in the DNA | 28th July 2015

On July 26, 2005, more than a 1000 people perished due to flooding on the streets of Mumbai – the result of high intensity rainfall of 380 mm for three hours. This year, we saw flooding after rainfall of 38 mm/hour, so one can only imagine the disaster that rainfall of an intensity anywhere close to 2005 levels might cause.

The new drainage system in the city is still incomplete and has been under construction for the past 20 years. At Rs 1,200 crores, it costs one tenth of what the city will spend on the Coastal Road – which will make the city even more vulnerable to floods. The decision to invest in such unnecessary mega projects indicates the glaring disregard for the city’s real needs and problems, ignorance of social and environmental consequences and a criminal waste of public resources.

Read full article here

The biggest flaw in Mumbai’s Development Plan: it misunderstands both development and planning

By Hussain Indorewala

Published on on 18th April 2015

Mumbai’s new draft development plan has evoked massive public outrage. The plan, which may serve as the urban planning blueprint for the city for the next 20 years, has been criticised as patently myopic, misdirected, inaccurate and in essence disastrous. But none of this uproar has upset the plan’s author, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. The corporation has dismissed all criticism of the draft as based either on a misreading or a misunderstanding. It fails to realise that a cross-section of Mumbai’s residents have raised objections not simply to this proposal or that – but to the conception, the framework and the process that has fashioned this plan. What is being challenged here is not what the development plan means for Mumbai – but what the planners mean by “development” and “planning”.

Read full article here

Mumbai’s Docklands – Cutting the Cake

by Hussain Indorewala

published on Kafila on February 17 2015

In the early 1970s, a conservative government in the UK set up a study group for the London Docklands. Its report, which focused primarily on exploiting the commercial potential of the docklands, was torn up and thrown out by local community groups and the local boroughs. Later, in 1974, a strategic-planning authority called the Docklands Joint Committee (DJC) was set up to plan the area. This committee included, along with central and local government representatives, the Port of London Authority and trade unions; it was also associated with the Docklands Forum, which was a group that represented various sections of the public, including “militant community groups.”[i] The DJC along with the Docklands Forum adopted a radically new approach to planning: it instituted a bottom-up process, working with communities entailing a “delicate, even tentative, negotiated style of planning.” The planner was now the “servant of the public” and the “large-scale, top-down, professionally oriented planning” was replaced with its opposite.[ii] Significantly, the DJC came up with a comprehensive plan – the London Docklands Strategic Plan of 1976 – that was based on the preservation of manufacturing, creation of social housing, and social programs for residents of the area. So progressive it seemed, that it never got realised. In 1979, Margaret Thatcher became Prime Minister of the UK, drowning any little hope that remained.

Flying over London, in the mid-70s, Thatcher’s Secretary of State for the Environment, Michael Heseltine had found “appalling proof” that the various committees, reports, discussions were hopeless, and since everyone was involved, “no one was in charge.” New legislation was written, that created powers to establish Enterprise Zones and Urban Development Corporations. The London Docklands Development Corporation (LDDC) was created in 1981 as the planning authority for 5,500 acres of the dock areas. Entrepreneurial in style, ideologically committed to private enterprise, the LDDC did little planning, and used consultants who provided guiding frameworks that were flexible and demand-led, and focused more on implementation rather than planning. Heseltine wanted the LDDC to be “seen to do things” and liberated from “the inevitable delays of the democratic process.”[iii] The LDDC as an Urban Development Corporation was run by a board appointed by the central government, giving local authorities very little power, which they refused to use anyway. The problem of too much democracy was solved by excluding residents from the planning process.

…Read full article here