‘The city absorbs everyone’, ‘log yahaan kismet banana aate hai’, ‘the city doesn’t sleep’, ‘yahaan koi kisi ka nahi’ are quotes that I have heard since I was a child. I hadn’t seen ‘Amchi Mumbai’ till the age of 24. My first encounter with Mumbai was only when I got a chance to study in Tata Institute of Social Sciences in June 2012. And yes!! These quotes do make sense today. And like most of the non-Mumbaikars, I admit that I love the city. Why and how Mumbai is different from other urban centres are questions that intrigue many. Take a walk around the old city and the reminiscence of every place pops out amidst the modern spaces so created! The city still reminds us of our colonial history; history that can be traced to the year 1554. The genesis of development of the contemporary city of Mumbai can be traced to the physical space called the Manor House probably built by a Portuguese physician and botanist, Gracia da Orta, who leased the Bomabe island as proprietor from the Portuguese authorities in the year 1554 until his death in Goa in 1570. The H-shaped island of Bombaim or Bombay was part of an archipelago of seven islands (Colaba, Mazagaon, Old Woman's Island, Wadala, Mahim, Parel, and Matunga-Sion) and formed one of the eight administrative divisions of the Portuguese capital at Bassein or Vasai, which lay further beyond the island of Salsette.
The Portuguese authorities called Bombay A ilha da boa vida- the island of good life. The series of changes in the name were from the native Mumbai to Mumbaim, Mombaim, Boa Vida, Bombaim, Bom Bahia, Bombay and Mumbai. The primary concern of the Portuguese was not trade but proselytising and hence this predominant emphasis on religion deterred the development of the Bombay islands. In 1661, Arab marauders partially destroyed the Manor house, leaving only walls intact. In the same year the King of Portugal gifted the Bombay Island to King Charles II of England when he married the Portuguese princess, Catherine of Braganza. The Portuguese in India, however refused to give the islands of Salsette, mazagoan, Varli and Parel, which the English claimed as part of the marriage treaty. In 1665, the British finally succeded in taking possession over the islands after a series of disputes and fortified the Manor House and named it ‘Bombay Castle’. Three years later the Crown handed the islands to the East India Company who had coveted it since long because of its characteristics as an excellent harbour and natural isolation from land attacks. Fourteen years later, the Company succeeded in acquiring the lease on Bombay from the Crown at a trifling rent. In 1668, Sir George Oxenden, President of the Surat factory, which the British had established in 1612, took charge as the first Governor of Bombay. Until his death he aimed at encouraging trade in all possible directions. Thus, Bombay from the onset was based on primary functions of trade and commerce. Administration was secondary and managed by the Company itself. Trade would be enhanced only with connections to the hinterland and hence Indian merchants were given incentives to settle around the castle. The British never envisaged that Bombay would grow rapidly and hence planning of the streets or houses was not done. Bombay grew gradually out of small settlements, with a series of random additions made over the centuries. Gerald Aungier (President of the Company’s Surat factory) was the Governor of Bombay from 1672 to 1675. Constant attacks by the Marathas and dissensions with the local Mughal Governer led to the shifting of the trading headquarters of Company from Surat to Mumbai. After 1686, the Company transferred the seat of governance and its maritime and trading activities from Surat to Bombay. This led to the decline of Surat and the development of Bombay. Aungier encouraged migration of the mercantile communities to the islands by assuring them religious freedom and permitting them to built residential houses within the walled fort. The arrival of Charles Boon in 1715 gave further impetus to the growth and settlement. The company felt the need to further strengthen the harbour and building the ships of war at Bombay.
Plan of Bombay in 1715
In 1735, Lowjee Nusserwanji, a Parsi from the Company at Surat was appointed to built and modernise the Bombay shipyard. By 1767, the size of the dockyard was enlarged. In 1739, a ditch called ‘Maratha Ditch’ was dug outside the fort walls for better protection. This work was carried out by donations from the merchants and traders. This collective tradition for betterment of the city continued for generations among the Bombay citizens. In 1748, building rules for the private and commercial structures were introduced. In 1772, fearing the possibility of an impending attack by the French, a semi-circular swath of the ground adjacent to the fort as cleared to provide a clear range of fire from the fort. This open space was called the ‘Esplanade’. During the Governorship of Wlliam Hornby from 1771 to 1784, a war culminated in 1782 after the signing for treaty of Salbai with the Marathas. The company yin turn of Bassein and certain territories in Gujarat acquired the islands of Salsatte, Elephanta, Karanja and Hog islands. The treaty witnessed a change in the nature of the British administration from traders to rulers. In 1787, special attention was given to the planning of the city. Within the fortified town the land use pattern was mixed. A remarkable feature of the residential area was the inherent segregation on the basis of race and caste. The primary factor that contributed to the segregation of settlement was the initiative taken by Gerald Aungier to reinforce the indigenous Panchayat system, whereby the internal matters of the Indian communities pertaining to religion, law and order would be solved. This contributed to the social compartmentalisation which translated in the physical form of the settlements. Within the boundaries of the fort, there was a demarcation between the blacks (native) and the whites (the British). The separation came about not only due to the cultural scepticism and racial prejudice on the part of the English, but also importantly because of the rigid religious restrictions on the part of the Hindus, who could be considered polluted by social contact with non-Hindus and casteless and therefore ‘untouchable’ Europeans. These segregated communities could socially interact with each other only in the market places, bazaars, public open spaces like maidans and the foreshore beaches, and at the city’s judicial and civic centres where issues could be discussed on a common platform. By the middle of 18th century more immigrants came to Bombay. In 1770, Koli homes on the Dogri Hill and dwellings of the destitute between Churchgate and Bazaargate were removed to suitable locations. Orders were passed in 1772, prohibiting all but the Europeans from building south of Churchgate Street. Bombay’s early stage of settlement marked by gradual growth and stabilisation was not from the internal dynamics but from the external support from the company and from the idea of creating a town in an attempt to create a functional symbol – to reinforce an otherwise shaky claim to the alien soil. In Bombay, the colonial practices of ‘disciplining space’ had not found their way into the mainstream of routine administration in the 18th century.
Bazaargate area derived its importance as the head quarters of the wealthy shroffs, Indian bankers, who were responsible for the entire banking business in the town. The character and the density of the southern fort was in complete contrast to the crowded bazaargate area that lay north of Churchgate Street, which was housed by the wealthy Parsis. The profile of the streetscape has undergone hardly any changes through the decades. In 1811, James MacKintosh, the Recorder of Bombay, reintroduced the earlier proposal to build a town hall. The felicitous site was chosen on the open spacious ground in the vicinity of the Bombay Castle, the seat of governance. The town hall became the focal point of the city’s social and commercial life of the 19th century and its architecture boasted of might and authority. It became a place for crucial political and civic decisions and gradually became linked with the growth and development of Bombay and its many educational, cultural and social institutions. As the localities inside the walled fort developed, an entirely different township was emerging outside the walled town. This involved a bizarre blend of colourful bazaars, vernacular structures, narrow winding lanes and collectively displaying congestion but also an incredible unique dynamism.
Beyond the Fort walls
In February 1803, there was a great fire which destroyed a large portion of the native bazaar and extensive residential property belonging to the Indian merchants. Indians thereafter started building north of the fort in the newly opened residential areas beyond the esplanade. This was the beginning of the expansive development beyond the limits of the fortification. With the dispersal of the people to the seven islands came the move to distil the fort area itself. The walled town was dominated by the parsi community which formed 46% of the population. The residential preferences of the communities were fairly clear. The Parsis, Bohras, Banias and the English selected fort as their primary residence and trade centre, the Indian Christians choose to live in Mahim, Bandra, Mazagaon, Cavel and Girgaum. The Hindus settled in the areas such as Girgaum, Khetwadi, Kalbadevi and Bhuleshwar while the Muslims were at Market, Dongri, Umarkhadi and Mandavi. Even the minorities had their own enclaves – the Armenians in the fort, Kamathi construction labourers from Andhra at Kamathipura and the Jews in the vicinity of the Masjid Bunder station. The Parsis got close to the British because they did not have any religious, social and food taboos as a result of which they blended well with the British. By 1850s, Bombay was a mix of cultures and was acquiring a cosmopolitan spirit with an increasing population. The Industrial revolution was responsible for transforming Bombay from a trading centre to an industrial and manufacturing centre. The first mill that appeared on the landscape was Bombay Spinning and Weaving Company’s cotton mill at Tardeo in central Bombay. The establishment of overland route to London in 1838 and the opening of the Suez Canal in 1869 created newer and faster regional and global channels for the movement of goods and people. The areas where mills were located became the heart of the Indian town. Here unlike the city centre, growth was laissez faire in character and pattern, one where the residential, industrial and religious activities were integrated. Now Bombay had two separate towns, European and Indian and each had their own residential, commercial and recreational spaces – two spaces in which different worlds existed with minimal conflict. Under the governership of Lord Elphinston from 1853 to 1860, the Virar Water Works was commenced. The Sepoy uprising in 1857 hardly touched Bombay but resulted in the Crown retrieving administrative control over india. Bombay was no longer perceived by the Crown merely as a fortified trading town but as a pivotal presidency capital that symbolised colonial power and was a crucial connection between India and the larger global trade. Sir Bartle Frere was the Governor of Bombay from 1862 to 1867 and took the decision to demolish the unnecessary fort walls. This signified a symbolic as well as real change of the purpose of Bombay, which was know a prosperous trading town and no longer needed to serve as a western defence fort. The Muncipal corporation was established in 1872 and the Bombay Trust Port in the following year. Large amount of reclamation and fine network of transport and communication was carried. Bomaby witnessed a remarkable acceleration in the construction activity especially in public buildings designed explicitly to display the imperial rule. Today these designs in Victorian Gothic tradition collectively assert a unique identity to south Bombay. The architecture of the restructured town was not limited by the singular use of the severe classical style. The looseness as well as the exuberant surface decoration inherent in the Gothic architecture gave the town a vibrant and varied look to the town. Concurrent to the restructuring of the fort area from 1860s to 1880s the authorities effectively reinforced Bombay’s civic work. There was a shift from focusing on small areas to the comprehensive planning of the island of Bombay as a whole. Improvements of streets, lighting, drainage, sanitation, modern network of communication and transport were being developed within the budding industrial town. The fire of 1803, gave a chance to the British to bring improvements in the civil structures within the fort area. Administrative power was gradually devolving from the people to an autocratic corporate body. Entrepreneurial spirit of the elite, both Indian and the british, strived for development and improvement of Bombay. They formed many cultural and educational institutions but these too very formed on the basis of caste, community or creed. The phase of emancipation of women took place mainly due to the progressive reformist movement in the mid 19 century. The British began to follow the divide and rule policy. Bombay’s segregated enclaves continued to grow through the decades of the late 1800s. These enclaves became more and more crowded with the creation of more jobs, expansion of trade and mills. The growth of overcrowding led to scarcity of services. These unsanitary conditions led to the outbreak of bubonic plague (first case detected in 1896). The fear of death led the people to flee to higher areas like the Malabar and Cumballa hills, healthier suburbs in the north and even some left Bombay altogether. The first step taken by the government to combat plague was the setting up of the research laboratory under the Dr W M Haffkine. Then the Bombay Improvement Trust was formally constituted on 9th November, 1898 by the City of Bombay Improvement Act, which was to dramatically alter the city and improve its physical state. The trust undertook reclamation of land to make more land available to built improvement trust chawls. The main aim was clearance and development of land and not the actual construction, except for poor and the police. Chawls were also built by private enterprises like the Parsi Panchayat and the Parsi Co-operative society. Development of suburbs increased at the beginning of 1900 and the British and the wealthy Indians shifted to the suburbs. By 1940s, the housing shortage was becoming highly visible and like the British the middle class also fled the inner areas of the city. With the partition in 1945, there was a large influx of refugees in 1948 which aggravated the housing problem. This led to the staggering rise in the price of land in inner areas as well as suburbs. Eventually in 1993, the city improvement trust was incorporated into the Bombay Municipal Corporation. As the Corporation had wide range of functions, the improvement trusts primary focus on city improvement was sidetracked. The number of interventions decreased and even today the lack of political will to convert opportunities into physical attributes of the city can be seen. There are many people to lay claim on the city but very few to make the city. Greater Bombay was formed by the Greater Bombay laws and the Bombay High court Act of 1945. In 1947, a master plan outline was created which focussed on decongestion of the city by moving industries to the periphery of greater Bombay. The Bombay Metropolitan Region Development Authority (BMRDA) was set up on 26 January 1975 by the Government of Maharashtra as an apex body for planning and co-ordination of development activities in the Bombay metropolitan region. In August 1979, a sister township of New Bombay was founded by City and Industrial Development Corporation (CIDCO) across Thane and Raigad districts to help the dispersal and control of Bombay's population.
Today in contemporary Mumbai, two parallel cities exist where fishing villages and slums nestle at the foot of luxury apartments, one is static (the architecture and the monuments built of permanent materials, the pukka city) and the other kinetic (the kutchcha city built of temporary materials). Mumbai has become a city of identity crisis. In the Baybar view of Hotel Oberoi you can order a Dom Perignon Champagne for 20,250 rupees which is more than one and half times the average annual income. A number of people die out of starvation and the city boasts of 150 diet clinics. The sudden acceleration of migration in 1960s to 1990s has transformed the social make up of Bombay and has perpetuated a situation charged with intense duality. The migrants with a different social background, culture and skills have come to the city and in as a result of their interaction with the new space they have altered the very structure of the city. Today the city is comprised of different world in the social and physical space. The bazaar symbolises energy, optimism and the will to survive outside the formal system. It is place where a close contact between the seller and the buyer is established, it is place which has helped migrants to establish a foot hold on the city. Today it is very interesting to see the same street occupied by the formal and the informal sector just adjacent to each other. There would be a Pepe Jeans store and the moment you open the door of the store you would bounce into a cart selling cheap and probably smuggled jeans. In addition, the economic relationship between exploitation and dependency is one of the most important factors that give the ‘two worlds’ in the city their distinctive physical shapes and locations. One world is exploitative of the high spots in the city and the other sprawls into any interstices and crevices it finds. This sense of dualism is also visible in the proposals of the city development authorities. The solutions to improve the city have removed the urban poor to the periphery which has led to inaccessibility to work and the core areas have become available to the government to appropriate this land for its own use. The western concept of zoning has segregated spaces into single-use places, commercial and residential. This has hindered the small scale local activities and services which require close knit and integrated environment. Thus the polarity between the two worlds gets further enhanced with the more and more structuring of the environment with rigid use patterns. The dualities inherent in the development of the city include those of lifestyle, cultural attitudes, planned intervention versus kinetic and incremental growth, and public versus private and rich versus poor. All these forces exist in the single space called Bombay. The sheer number of the kutcha city has resulted in the threat of capital pulling out of the city and on the other hand the Government is feeling the pressure from the poor who are asserting their rights. The processes that began at the time of settling the town, creating the dual city structures, setting up Bombay as a market are being physically manifested today as events leading to the irreversible creation and existence of two worlds on the same space. Right from the time of colonialisation, Bombay and today’s Mumbai have been segregated into core and the peripheries. It would be more appropriate to classify the population into many groups but to relate it to the dependency theory only two groups – core and periphery are used. It should be noted that peripheries can exist in cores and cores can exist in peripheries, as these are relative concepts. But here, the rich who have the decision making power and control over processes are considered as core and the rest who get exploited and do not have a stake in the actual decision making are considered as the periphery. This relationship has been exploitative in nature and exists in the very process of production. Capitalism and market driven approach has further enhanced this exploitative relationship as the government’s role in regulating the economy has considerably reduced. Here I would like to give some examples of the core-periphery relationship and its exploitative nature. Dharavi which shelters a huge leather industry is part of the informal sector. But the leather goods finally land up in the formal market with a huge price tag attached to it. In this process of production, the benefits of profit earned hardly reach the periphery, residing in Dharavi. The obsession with resettlement and rehabilitation in the name of development is the most inhumane thing that can be done to the periphery. Here, the periphery is actually physically relocated to the peripheral areas of Mumbai where the accessibility to work and to the core city is reduced. The planning in Mumbai is done by and for the core. A quick look at the Mumbai’s Vision Plan in the Mc Kinsey Report will show that the planning is done without recognising the existence of the periphery (urban poor, informal sector, slums, chawls). The Vision plan was prepared by Mc Kinsey for Bombay First, a Non- Governmental Organisation which has been formed on the line of London First- an organisation setup to make London a better city. The critique of Bombay First is that it is an organisation captured by the elite and involves no person from the periphery in the decision making process. The plan so made is very ambitious and proposes to make Mumbai a world class city in a span of 10 years. There is a bias in the very approach by the government to the core and the periphery. For example, the when the street vendors who are a part of the periphery claim the streets it is considered as illegal and nuisance by law and when the core claims the street by parking on it, it is allowed to do so. Hence the legality of the claims changes according to the person who makes the claim. Clearly, today there is colonialization of a different type where the colonizers are the core and the colonized are the periphery.
