You Are Not Welcome Here - Exclusion, Homeless Shelters and Communites

You
Are Not Welcome Here

The Dynamics of Socio-‐Spatial Exclusion

A Case Study of Homeless Shelters in Hyderabad, India

International Development Studies

Department of Society and Globalization
Roskilde University

Supervisor: Bodil Folke-‐Frederiksen
Student: Malte Warburg Sørensen

May 2011

2

Summary
This report examines the establishment of homeless shelters in the Indian city of
Hyderabad, focusing particularly on the attitudes of community residents
towards the shelters. Using the concept of NIMBY (Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back_Yard), the
dynamics of socio-‐spatial exclusion is investigated. The analysis reveals how
exclusion is based on the construction of prejudices and how communities
construct their opposition to shelter based on these negative perceptions. Also,
the analysis shows how community opposition evolves, and how different
stakeholders use a variety of strategies in order to make push their agenda
forward. Finally, the report relates the findings from the analysis to broader
societal issues in India, particularly the themes of governance and participation.

Acknowledgements
I would like to express my gratitude towards all the people who have helped
make this report possible. Firstly, I want to thank the residents, leaders and
homeless people in Musanagar, Bapunagar, Bible House, Kachiguda, Uppal and
L. B. Nagar. Thank you for sharing your views and allowing me inside your
homes and neighborhoods. Furthermore, I am grateful to Aparna Gayathri who
helped with translation and interviews. I also received invaluable assistance
from several NGOs; thank you to K. Anuradha , and the dedicated staff from
Aman Vedika and thank you to Arunmai Racherla and Mirza Hamed from LSN
Foundation. I am also appreciative of the assistance offered from the officials of
Hyderabad Municipality; Additional Commissioner G.D. Priyadarshini, and
Livelihoods Specialist V. Prasanna Kumaar.

I am especially grateful to independent scholar Anant Maringanti and human
rights activist Jeevan Kumar for their advice, critique, contacts and logistical
support throughout the project.

Lastly, thank you to Bodil Folke-‐frederiksen, my supervisor, for sharp insights
and the kind of scholarly flexibility that allows students to explore their
interests.
3

Map of Hyderabad and Shelter Neighborhoods

____________________________________________________________________________________________

The house icons on the map indicate the three neighborhoods that have shelters, while

the other three have either resisted a shelter or might get one in the future.

4

List of Contents

Abstract and Acknowledgements
Map of Hyderabad and Shelter Neighborhoods

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Introduction……………………………………………………………………………….6
1.2 The Urban Divide and Urban Inequalities ……………………………………6
1.3 Governance, Civil Society and Participation …………………………………7
1.4 Socio-‐spatial Exclusion and NIMBY ………………………………....................8
1.5 Field Study and Research Questions ………………………………………….10
1.6 Structure of the Report …………………………………………………………….12

Chapter 2 - Case Background
2.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………13
2.2 Hyderabad -‐ An Extreme City …………………………………………………….13
2.3 The Right to Food Case and Its Connection to Shelters ………………..14
2.4 The Parallel Bureaucracy …………………………………………………………..15
2.5 Judicial Activism in India …………………………………………………………...16

Chapter 3: Methodology
3.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..18
3.2 Desktop Research ……………………………………………………………………..18
3.3 Fieldwork ……………………………………………………………………………......18
3.4 Delimitation …………………………………………………………………………......20

Chapter 4: Theoretical Framework
4.1 Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………..22
4.2 NIMBY -‐ Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back-‐Yard …………………………………………………..22

Chapter 5: Case Analysis
5.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………25
5.3 Types of NIMBY Objections ………………………………………………………..29
5.4 Stages and Dynamics of Community Resistance ……………………….....34
5.5 Approaches and Strategies of Shelter Developers ……………………….36
5.6 Reflections on Findings of Case Analysis……………………………………..39

Chapter 6: Governance and Participation
6.1 Introduction………………………………………………………………………………43
6.2 Public Policy and Its Consequences …………………………………………….43
6.3 Government Inaction and Grassroots Inaction ……………………………44
6.4 National Perceptions of Marginalized Groups..…………………………….45

Chapter 7 - Conclusion and Discussion
6.1 Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………47
6.2 Discussion……………………………………………………………………….. ……….49

Bibliography and Appendix

5

Chapter 1 - Introduction

_____________________________________________________________________

1.1 Introduction
This chapter positions the report within the general debate on urbanization and
poverty. First, the theme known as the urban divide is explored and related to
the idea of a holistic approach to urban planning. Secondly, issues connected to
urban governance, civil society and public participation are examined. Often the
urban divide is stated as the problem, and good urban governance as the
solution, which is supposed to bring us towards a more inclusive and equal city.
Lastly, the concept of NIMBY (Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back-‐Yard) is described and related to
the patterns of socio-‐spatial exclusion. This leads to an outline of the specific
field study, problem statement and research questions.

1.2 The Urban Divide & Urban Inequalities
“Bridging the Urban Divide” is the title theme of the newest State of the World’s
Cities report. The report highlights the “enormous gap”, the “open wound” (State
of the World’s Cities, 2010: 2) between the rich and the poor, and how that gap is
producing social instability. My report is also about the urban divide, but not the
big one; this study focuses on the many little gaps, the many small wounds, the
multiple urban divisions. Using the case of homeless shelters in Hyderabad, it
focuses on the discrimination, exclusion and mechanisms of control that poor
people exercise upon other poor people.

Urban planning that tries to counter the urban divide is often based on a holistic
approach that seeks to incorporate four broad dimensions: Economic, social,
political and cultural (State of the World’s Cities, 2010: 56). Proponents of this
type of holistic approach to development criticize more traditional urban plans
for viewing development as a technical problem requiring technical solutions,
instead of viewing it as an organic process that includes a multitude of societal
dimensions. In general, the view of development underlying this study is part of
6

the broad literature in the social sciences that Homelessness

does not consider development to be merely a A Case of Multiple Exclusions

question of economic growth. The situation of homeless people is an
example of the inter-‐linkages of the four
dimensions of the Urban Divide.

The basic idea is that inequalities in cities Economic Exclusion: The homeless population
is impoverished, which means that they
reflect entrenched patterns of social cannot afford proper shelter.
discrimination, exclusion and informal
Political Exclusion: The lack of shelter forces
ownership of physical space. The urban divide upon them the label of being homeless. In
India, a person without a permanent address
is not merely a question about income and cannot vote, relegating the homeless to non-‐
citizens, and hereby excluding them from
consumption. Reflecting a holistic approach to formal political participation.

planning, the city of Hyderabad has developed Social Exclusion: This political non-‐identity
a city plan taking into account both social, translates into social exclusion; for example, a
person without an identity card cannot obtain
cultural and political dimensions. The plan was food ration cards and cannot use public
hospitals.
developed in close cooperation with the United
Cultural Exclusion: As the label of being
Nation’s Cities Alliance, and contained a homeless is reinforced in different ways,
cultural exclusion takes hold.
specific chapter on “Basic Services to the Poor”,
including sections about the “Growth of Slums
and Slum Population” (Hyderabad City Development Plan, 2002: 2). However,
Hyderabad still remains an extremely divided city. So why is it that cities that
have adopted a pro-‐poor development plan based on a holistic approach still fail
to deliver?

1.3 Governance, Civil Society & Participation
Part of the answer has to do with unsuitable governance structures, lack of broad
participation in decision-‐making processes, and poor capacities of planning and
management, particularly the lack of coordination across national, provincial
and municipal governments. A study on the experiences of urban planners in
Latin America and Asia found that fewer than 25 per cent of respondents think
that coordination was effective among the three levels of government (State of
the World’s Cities, 2010: 127). The same report reveals that cities trying to
address issues of exclusion by developing new policies, often “fail to turn [the
policies] into goalposts, sustained processes or tangible results that can be
monitored” (State of the World’s Cities, 2010: 127). The reason for these failures
7

often lies in the institutional frameworks themselves, since over time, they tend
gradually to incorporate negative and rather inefficient attitudes, as well as
corrupt social arrangements that are not favorable towards change (State of the
World’s Cities, 2010: 128). An independent researcher in Hyderabad put it this
way“It’s indifference and greed, that’s it. They really don’t have a very strong idea
about social justice” (Maringanti, interview, 2011).

So how can this situation be turned around? How can different levels of
government become accountable to the citizens that they are supposed to
represent? The answer to this question is one of the most widely debated themes
in international development studies, indeed in social science in general. The
report does not give an answer, but illustrates a number of ways that groups at
different levels try to position themselves, either to maintain the high position
that they already possess, or to try to ensure that their voices are heard. The case
illustrates how the Supreme Court of India establishes a kind of parallel
bureaucracy, on a national level, because it does not trust the traditional Indian
bureaucracy. As this parallel bureaucracy exerts pressure on local municipalities,
the city level officials try to manage the intensified top-‐down institutional
pressure. The report also examines the way that NGOs carefully engage with the
municipality; looking at how they try to advance the cause of their clients
(homeless people), and at the same time preserve a favorable relation with the
more powerful municipality. However, as stated earlier, the largest part of the
report is dedicated to the power struggles at the community level where some of
the most brutal fights over space, identity and power are fought. .

1.4 Socio-spatial Exclusion & NIMBY
Socio-‐spatial exclusion can be understood as a complex set of processes and
relationships that prevent individuals and groups from accessing resources,
participating in society and asserting their rights (Notti & Meyer, 2009: 12).
As regards to the spatial aspect, it should be noted that the most socially
excluded are also often the most spatially distant. In this way physical distance
helps safeguard social and moral distance. In Indian society these mechanisms of
exclusion are particularly evident in the case of homeless people. They are
8

viewed as “anti-‐social elements”, and so communities will protest vehemently
against their presence, trying to maintain a safe distance.

This type of communal dynamics can also be observed in connection with the
phenomenon of NIMBY (Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back-‐Yard), which broadly can be described
as the protectionist attitudes and opposition that a community displays when
faced by an unwelcome development (Dear, 1992: 288). The concept is part of a
wider literature on human service facilities, and as such forms part of urban
social geography. NIMBY can be used to assess how neighborhoods use
stereotypes, sometimes unconsciously, to construct arguments for exclusion.
Unfortunately, some NIMBY analysis has a tendency to characterize community
protests as simple expressions of self-‐interested politics. In contrast, this report
tries to remain open to the fact that NIMBY can sometimes be considered
legitimate social activism, just like community groups protesting against a
nuclear power plant or airport in their local area. Overall, the NIMBY framework
is used to investigate the dynamics of urban exclusion, and how marginalization
is structured within Indian society.

A community leader, left, in discussion with human rights activist Jeevan Kumar
9

1.5 Field Study and Research Questions

As outlined above, this report uses the case of homeless shelters as an entry
point to understand a variety of urban challenges. By studying the way
neighborhoods in Hyderabad have opposed or accepted homeless shelters, I
hope to shed light on the dynamics of socio-‐spatial exclusion, and how
stigmatization is constructed and maintained in favor of the political status quo.
The initial hypotheses that have directed the research are listed below.

Causes for Community Opposition:
I assume that there are a variety of reasons for community opposition, for
example lack of space in the community or lack of involvement in the planning
process. However, the prevalence of strong stereotypes about homeless people is
assumed to be one of the underlying causes of community protests.

Stages of Community Opposition:
Based on the writings of Michael Dear, it is assumed that the way that
community opposition evolves in three different stages; the youth stage, the
matirity stage and the old age stage. Certain oppositional activities and tactics
are thought to occur at each stage.

Strategies of Shelter Developers and Communities:
The strategies adopted by shelter developers in relation to the communities, for
example a participatory approach versus a autonomous approach, is assumed to
impact the chances of successfully establishing a shelter. Taking a participatory
approach is expected to increase the chances of community acceptance.

Governance and Participation:
On a broader level, the actions of city governments and NGOs are believed to
play a determining role in either diminishing or exacerbating urban divisions
and marginalization. Specifically, the strength of the civil society and the political
will of the municipality are considered paramount in relation to achieving
substantial change.

10

Problem Statement:
How are the dynamics of socio-‐spatial exclusion expressed in the case of
homeless shelters in Hyderabad?

Research Questions:
1) What are the causes for community opposition or acceptance of homeless
shelters?

2) To what extent do community residents’ perceptions of homeless people
influence the possibilities of establishing a shelter?

3) How do conflicts between shelter developers and communities evolve?

4) How do the strategies of shelter developers influence community attitudes
towards shelters?

5) Do neighborhood characteristics shape specific responses to homeless
shelters?

6) How does the case reflect socio-‐spatial exclusion in relation to the broader
themes of governance and participation?

Photo from Bible House homeless shelter
11

1.6 Structure of the Report

Chapter 1 – Introduction: This chapter positions the report within the broad
debate on urbanization and development in Asia. The report’s focus on socio-‐
spatial exclusion and the concept of NIMBY is also introduced. Finally, the
chapter outlines the field study and research questions.

Chapter 2 - Case Background: The chapter describes the background of the
case study with a focus on the Right to Food Case and the Indian legal system.

Chapter 2 – Methodology: The methodological considerations are presented
and discussed, including a description of the fieldwork and a review of the
methods of sample selection, interviews and community surveys.

Chapter 3 – Theoretical Framework: The concept of NIMBY is discussed,
including an explanation of how key NIMBY models are used in the analysis.

Chapter 5 – Case Analysis: The case analysis treats the data collected at
neighborhood level and includes analysis of residents’ NIMBY objections, the
stages of community resistance, and the strategies used by shelter developers.
Finally, the findings are reflected upon at length and related to the research
questions.

Chapter 6 - Governance and Participation: This chapter links the discussion
of community politics to the wider themes of governance and participation.

Chapter 7 - Conclusion: This chapter briefly reviews the findings from the
analysis and briefly relates these to the problem statement and research
questions

12

Chapter 2 - Case Background

___________________________________________________________________________________________

2.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the case by first giving a brief description of Hyderabad
and its diversity of ethnic and religious groups. Then the Right to Food Case is
presented and its connection to the court ruling on homeless shelters. Afterward,
the parallel bureaucracy is described as the monitoring sustem set up by the
Indian Supreme Court. Finally, the special tradition of Indian judicial activism is
in explained.

2.1 Hyderabad - An Extreme City
Hyderabad is India’s sixth largest city with a population of more than 6 million
people. It is also one of the fastest growing cities on the sub-‐continent with a
decadal growth rate of 32% (Hyderabad City Plan, 2002: 3). The economy of the
city has been booming for the past fifteen years and the city has established itself
as a centre for IT, accounting for approximately 10% of India’s IT exports.
However, Hyderabad is also an extremely culturally and socially divided city. In
India the city is famous for its communal tensions between Hindus and Muslims
Caste divisions are also highly pronounced in the city compared to for example
Bombay.

Hyderabad Old City Photo: Kishor Krishnamoorthi
13

In the city’s Census Report of 1981 no less than 17 major groups of “specific
collective identities” were identified in Hyderabad (Krank, 2008: 3). These
included ethnic groups, such as Arabs, Marwaris, Marathas, Bohoras, Pathans,
Pardhis, Jotishi, Lodha, Parsis and Andhras, and also religious groups like Shi’ahs,
Sunnis, Kayasths, Khatris and Christians. Consider this diversity, there is a
considerable danger of exclusion and discrimination based on group identity. In
the particular case of homeless people, which is always a very hetereogenous
group consisting of people from a variety of backgrounds, it can be difficult to
live in an environment marked by such strong communal identities.

2.2 The Right to Food Case and Its Connection to Shelters
In April 2001, a group of activists under the banner of the People’s Union for
Civil Liberties (PUCL) submitted a petition to the Supreme Court of India seeking
enforcement of the right to food. The basic argument was that the right to food is
an implication of the fundamental “right to life” enshrined in Article 21 of the
Indian Constitution. Since the hearings of this case have proceeded in recent
years, the Supreme Court of India has passed “a series of significant, and at times
even historic interim orders, that have touched the lives of millions of indigent
Indians living with desperate poverty and hunger” (Commissioners’ Secretariat -‐
Right to Food Case, 2005:13). The most significant orders have obliged states to
provide mid-‐day meals in all public schools, programs of subsidized food to poor
families and a national “Food for Work Scheme”. In general, the court ruling has
had a very wide target group, ranging from school children, elderly and pregnant
women to orphans and widows.

In the winter of 2009-‐10 the media started reporting on homeless people
freezing to death on the streets of Delhi. The public conscience was briefly
stirred and the commissioners in the Right to Food case seized upon this chance
to get homeless people included in the court orders. On 13 January 2010 the
Commissioners wrote to the judges that “many of the winter deaths of homeless
people could have been avoided had government implemented food schemes for
people living on the streets and provided shelters to them.” (Mander, 2010: 3). The
Supreme Court recognized the legitimacy of the case and in two nights the
14

number of shelters in Delhi doubled. Later, the court orders were widened
to include all state government,who were then directed to build shelters in cities
with a population of more than 1 million, or cities of special political or cultural
importance. According to the order, for every 100.000 persons, one shelter
should be built with the capacity to sleep 100 persons. Subsequently, a total of
62 such cities in India were identified and state governments were ordered to
get the shelters ready by March 31st, 2011. For the first time, the issue of
homelessness and shelters was taken up at the highest administrative levels.

However, discussing shelters at meetings does not necessarily mean that the
issue gets any priority on the real agenda of state politics. This is confirmed by
the fact that in the state of Andra Pradesh, which has a number of large cities,
only the state capital of Hyderabad has advanced on the issue of shelters. In
Hyderabad the municipality produced a list of 40 buildings that could be used as
potential shelters. Compared to other city governments, the list was a major step
forward, and testified to the fact that some municipal officers were dedicated to
the issue. According to the municipality the buildings were “unused” government
buildings or community halls. Unfortunately, as we shall see later, the
community halls were indeed being used. Also, the neighborhoods where the
government buildings were located showed significant opposition towards the
idea of allowing homeless people into their communities. As an end result, in
Hyderabad, with a population of more than six million people, only six shelters
have been established, which stands in stark contrast to the 40 shelters
originally planned.

2.3 The Parallel Bureaucracy
As a reflection of the poor implementation of the court orders by the state and
city bureaucracy, the Supreme Court has set up an extensive monitoring and
advisory system. This “parallel bureaucracy” basically works on three levels: On
a national level the Commissioners are the central figures and report directly to
the Supreme Court. On a state level, the State Advisors assemble reports and
coordinates the activities of NGOs. On the city level, various activist groups and
NGOs conduct shelter visits, produce audits on quality and make enquires in
15

response to complaints, which are then sent back upwards into the system.
No attempt is made to disguise the political orientation of the whole operation,
and connections between the Supreme Court and human rights activists is clear
in many official documents. A good example of this is the fact that the Special
Commissioner for the Right to Food is the former director of ActionAid India, one
of the country’s most prominent rights-‐based NGOs. Furthermore, the language
employed by both the Supreme Court, the Commissioners and the State Advisers
is very bluntly inspired by social justice ideals.

The establishment of this extensive, alternative bureaucracy is not, however, a
special case. In many other instances, the Supreme Court has established similar
structures based on their genuine distrust of the formal Indian state
bureaucracy. Skeptics have criticized this parallel bureaucracy for being
undemocratic since no elected representatives have any power in deciding who
gets appointed and who does not. Also, within the ranks of leftwing
sympathizers, there is a concern that the system is weak because, to some extent,
it relies on the goodwill of a few individual judges. The fear is that if these judges
are replaced, then the whole structure will crumble (Maringanti, 2011,
interview). However, this type of judicial activism has been a characteristic of the
Indian Supreme Court for more than four decades, and in recent years it has only
grown stronger.

2.4 Judicial Activism in India
Wikipedia defines judicial activism as “Judicial ruling suspected of being based on
personal or political considerations rather than on existing law”. In the Anglo-‐
Saxon tradition, judicial activism is generally used as a negative term to describe
judges who are not able to perform their duties neutrally. More generally,
judicial activism is considered to be closely related to constitutional
interpretation and separation of powers. However, in India, another tradition
exists, illustrated by this quote from a former Indian Chief Justice: ”Judges can
and should adopt an activist approach. There is no need for judges to feel shy or
apologetic about the law creating roles” (Bhagwati, 1977: 1). He continues to
describe how “The judge infuses life and blood into the dry skeleton provided by
16

the legislature and creates a living organism appropriate and adequate to meet the
needs of the society” (Bhagwati, 1977: 2).

Knowing that this is the dominant way of thinking within the Indian Supreme
Court makes it easier to understand the Right to Food case. The fact that a civil
rights group can make a court case on behalf of millions of poor people, and the
fact that human rights activists are appointed “Commissioners”, and the fact that
a huge parallel bureaucracy is established to counter corruption in the original
bureaucracy; all of this is only possible because of the existence of special type of
judicial activism. However, as one expert jokingly said “Right now, if you’re
leftwing in India, you probably love the Supreme Court. But what if the judges get
replaced with rightwing people? That might change your opinion about the
greatness of judicial activism” (Maringanti, 2011: Interview).

17

Chapter 3 - Methodology

____________________________________________________________________________________________
3.1 Introduction
In this chapter the methods are presented and evaluated in order to give the
reader a sense of the methodological strengths and weaknesses. The fieldwork
and empirical data have been given priority, and so the methods have been
chosen according to their relevance to case studies and fieldwork data collection.
First, I briefly describe the desktop research, and then I move on to describe the
progression of the fieldwork, including descriptions of the specific methods of
sample selection, interviews and community surveys. Lastly, I comment on some
of the limitations of the report.

3.2 Desktop Research
Research is rarely a linear process, especially not when it includes fieldwork.
This project was based on a broad interest in Indian society, and only gradually
did I narrow in on a specific topic, geographical location, method and theoretical
framework. The initial desktop research consisted of broad readings and
personal mind maps to identify research interests. Then concept notes were
written, which were used in discussions with my supervisor. Later, I began a
series of email correspondences and long-‐distance telephone interviews with
Indian researchers. These were very beneficial in identifying potential case
studies, and identifying local contacts. After having decided to study homeless
shelters in Hyderabad, I began a literature review of homelessness and socio-‐
spatial exclusion, which helped in locating knowledge gaps.

3.3 Fieldwork
Below I describe the three primary methods used during the fieldwork; sample
selection, interviews and community surveys. The fieldwork itself lasted three
weeks and can be divided into four phases. In the first phase I conducted a series
of introductory interviews and site visits. Then I carried out a number of in-‐
depth interviews with experts and community residents. Thirdly, the community
surveys were done. Finally, I did a presentation of my findings at one of the
18

shelter NGOs, which lead to a discussion that generated new insights. Writing
and reflection was an ongoing process.

Sample Selection - Case Study as a Method:
After having visited a few neighborhoods and homeless shelters, I decided to
focus my data collection on six locations. The strategy used for selection was
“information-oriented”, which means that cases were ”selected on the basis of
expectations about their information content.” (Flyvbjerg, 2004: 426). In order
words, the critical dimension in my study was the homeless shelter: I wanted to
examine a variety of shelter situations in a variety of neighborhoods. I needed
neighborhoods that had accepted the shelter, while others needed to have
opposed and rejected it. I also wanted to include a community that had been
designated as a future location of a shelter. The reason for choosing such varied
sub-‐samples was to obtain information about process and outcome: Why had
some communities accepted the shelter, while others had rejected it? And how
were community residents reacting when faced with the prospect of hosting a
future shelter?

Interviews:
Individual interviews were conducted with four categories of people; municipal
staff, community leaders, NGOs and a small group of academics and human rights
activists. A total of 17 interviews were conducted of approximately 45 minutes
each. Three group interviews were also carried out with homeless people at
three different shelters. The method used was qualitative semi-‐structured
interviews, which meant that interviews were structured around key themes,
but still flexible enough to allow natural diversions. The interviews with
municipal staff, community leaders, and NGOs concentrated on the recent
attempts to establish night shelters, their perceptions about their own roles and
those of other stakeholders. The group interviews with shelter clients were
conducted in order to gain a better understanding of the homeless people’s own
perception of the functioning of the night shelters and their view on
homelessness as social phenomenon.

19

Community Surveys:
The community surveys were conducted in four communities with a total of 33
respondents. The aim of the surveys was not to gather statistical data, but merely
to get an impression of the opinions circulating within the community. Initially,
the survey was done using a rather extensive questionnaire (see appendix 2), but
it was quickly reduced to a few basic questions. If a respondent wanted to
elaborate on his or her answers this was allowed. In this way, approximately 1/3
of the encounters turned into interviews of 5-‐15 minutes duration.

3.4 Delimitation
Language and translation is always a challenge as information can get distorted
to a considerable degree. For example, both the translator and the interviewee
might leave out important details for a variety of reasons; maybe because some
things are simply considered common sense and taken for granted, or maybe
some things are considered impolite or insensitive. In relation to the levels of
analysis, this report has prioritized an analysis of the community level, while not
giving less attention to the city, state or national level. The reason for this is a
keen interest in the micro dynamics of exclusion, but also because access to high
level officers and key documents proved difficult. Overall, the focus has been on
socio-‐spatial exclusion, however if time had allowed, many other theoretical
perspectives could have been brought in, for example the concept of power and
community surveillance, the Right to the City, or a stronger focus on identity as
understood in social constructivism.

20

Overview of Data Collection
Interviews Community Surveys Shelter Visists

A total of 17 interviews Four community surveys Only 3 of the 6 communities
conducted with an approximate conducted with a total of 33 have shelters, and all three
duration of 45 minutes each. respondents. were visisted.

Municipal Staff Musanagar: Bible House:
-‐ Additional Commissioner -‐ 10 respondents Visited twice, included a 1 hour
-‐ Project Officer, Shelters Project -‐ Generally supportive of future discussion with clients
-‐ Project Officer, Uppal shelter
Kachiguda:
Political Leaders Bapunagar: Visted twice, included a 1 hour
-‐ Community leader, Musanagar -‐ 10 respondents discussion with clients
-‐ Congress leader, Bapunagar -‐ Mostly opposed to potential
-‐ Cooperator, Uppal shelter, but still very different Uppal:
-‐ Colony president, L. B. Nagar opinions. Visisted twice, included a 1
-‐ MIM Party Representative hour discussion with clients.
L. B. Nagar:
NGOs -‐ 10 respondents Note:
Aman Vedika: -‐ Very different opinions on As mentioned above,
-‐ Director future shelter communities without shelters
-‐ Community Officer in charge of have been included because
Bible House Shelter Uppal: they represent a different
-‐ Only 3 respondents reality from communities where
LSN Foundation: -‐ Respondents accepting of shelters already exist.
-‐ Assistant Director current shelter.
-‐ Community Officer in charge of
Kachiguda Shelter Bible House:
No survey conducted since the
ActionAid: NGO in charge thought it might
-‐ Regional Manager stir negative feelings in the
community. The shelter was
SPARK: still in the process of being
-‐ Director accepted within the community.

CONARE: Kachiguda:
-‐ Director No survey was conducted, as
this shelter was not originally
Others part of the fieldwork.
-‐ Independent scholar
-‐ President of Human Rights
Forum, Hyderabad

21

Chapter 4 - Theoretical Framework

____________________________________________________________________________________________

4.1 Introduction
This chapter introduces the theory that has guided both the fieldwork and the
analysis. The concept of NIMBY (Not-‐In-‐My-‐Back-‐Yard) is discussed, including its
most important analytical models. While reading about the theoretical
framework, the reader should have in mind the broader concepts presented in
the introduction.

4.2 NIMBY - Not-In-My-Back-Yard
Locating certain facilities often provokes opposition from the potential
neighbors. The term NIMBY is used to describe opposition to a wide range of
facilities, such as garbage dumps, dams, airports, elderly homes, psychiatric
hospitals and homeless shelters. The concept came into being because municipal
officers and activists wanted to understand the specifics of neighborhood
opposition in order to overcome it. NIMBY can best be described as a framework
for understanding socio-‐spatial stigma. In this way, it brings together a variety of
concepts in order to analyze and understand conflicts connected to siting human
service facilities. The most widely spread definition was coined by Michael Dear
as he defined NIMBY as ”The protectionist attitudes of and oppositional tactics
adopted by community groups facing an unwelcome development in their
neighborhood” (Dear, 1992: 1).

A literature review shows that early studies on NIMBY have generally been
preoccupied with measuring attitudes towards various marginalized groups or
the different types of residential facilities. These studies asked people how they
they would feel having certain groups living in their neighborhoods (Piat, 2000;
12). Over time different specific measures of attitude have also emerged, for
example the Social Distance Scale (Piat, 2000: 12). However, more recent studies
have tried to identify the specific variables that may cause or predict the NIMBY
phenomenon. This more recent development of analytic categories and models
22

can be very useful when it comes to conducting and gathering original research.
Below, the models used in this report are described briefly.

Models:
The NIMBY Iceberg: This model, developed by Jeannie Wynne-‐Edwards,
connects three aspects of community opposition. Firstly, it assesses the types of
arguments and objections that community residents might raise. Secondly, it
examines “the stage or place that such objections are expressed” (Wynne-‐
Edwards, 2003: 35). Lastly, it illustrates the approach or strategy that shelter
developers can employ to overcome community opposition.

Strategies of Facility Developers: This model, developed by Michael Dear,
describes the different strategies, or non-‐strategies, deployed by facility
developers to secure the siting of the facility. The “low-‐profile” or “autonomous”
approach tries to establish the facility without the knowledge of the
neighborhood, hoping that they will accept its presence once it is already there.
The “high-‐profile” or “collaborative” approach actively tries to build a
relationship with the community in order to secure cooperation.

Three-‐stage Cycle of Community Resistance: According to this model, also
developed by Michael Dear, community resistance develops in a three-‐stage
cycle. The “youth stage” describes when the news of the proposal breaks and
where the opposition is usually confined to a small vocal group very near the
proposed development. The “maturity stage” is the period where conflict is
solidified, and the debate moves away from private complaints and into a public
forum. If the conflict is not resolved, the next step is described as the “old age
stage” where the conflict gets drawn out. Victory tends to go to those with the
persistence and stamina to keep going.

All these three models will be used in the analysis in an attempt to understand
the specifics of siting homeless shelters in an Indian context. The strength of the
models is that they ground the analysis firmly on real statements and arguments
put forth by local actors. According to Takahashi (Takahashi , 1998: 81) such
23

analysis can help reveal how NIMBY politics ”maintain, enforce, and reinforce
community boundary definitions, resulting in the maintenance of spatial relations
of stigma.’’

Lockers used for storing personal belongings at Kachiguda shelter

24

Chapter 5 - Case Analysis

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

5.1 Introduction
The case analysis investigates the dynamics of establishing homeless shelters,
focusing on the two main stakeholders: The community on one side and the
shelter developers on the other. The analysis consists of four parts where I start
out by providing an overview of the shelters and neighborhoods and explaining
the “NIMBY Iceberg”. Then the data collected at neighborhood level is analyzed
using a number of NIMBY models. First, the different types of NIMBY objections,
which were uncovered during the community surveys, are categorized and
analyzed. Then I go on to investigate the types of resistance and opposition
tactics employed by the communities. Afterwards, the specific strategies (and
non-‐strategies) by the shelter developers are examined. Finally, I conclude the
chapter by relating the findings of the analysis to the research questions.
A municipal officer writes down notes at meeting with NGOs

A municipal officer writes down notes at meeting with NGOs
25

Neighborhood & Shelter Overview
26

27

5.2 The NIMBY Iceberg
In order to present the complex processes of NIMBY dynamics in a tangible way,
I have decided to use the illustration of a “NIMBY Iceberg”. The model, developed
by Jeanne Wynne-‐Edwards, connects three key aspects of NIMBYism. On the left
side, it presents the different types of NIMBY objections, which range from
specific arguments related to “project”, for example objections against the
physical location of a shelter, to arguments based purely on prejudice. Secondly,
it describes the stage, meaning both the place-‐specific forum where objections
are raised, and the time-‐specific evolution of the conflict. Thirdly, on the right
side, it describes the approaches or strategies that shelter developers might use
in order to overcome community resistance. The analysis that follows is
organized around these three aspects, however, since the model is a combination
of different scholarly work, additional theory and models support it.

Source: Wynne-‐Edwards, 2003: 35

28

5.3 Types of NIMBY Objections
The community surveys detected twenty different types of NIMBY objections to
the presence of shelters. Below I group those arguments into five different
categories, as has been suggested by the framework developed by White &
Ashton.

Five Types of NIMBY Objections
Process Objections that relate to criticism of land use regulations and the
public participation process.
Project Objections that comment on the physical characteristics of the
proposal.

Presage Objections that are largely speculative in nature about the
proposal and were not confirmed or supported with evidence.

Pretext Comments that indicate that the issue is not exclusively related
to the process itself, but to prior conditions or previous
development experiences in the community.
Prejudice Objections that clearly or implicitly are aimed at the occupants
of the housing proposal.
Adapted from -‐ White & Ashton, 1992, p.36

By categorizing the arguments it becomes possible to see what type of
arguments are most common, and in this way understand what the community
thinks about the shelter, and what the main reasons for opposition are.

Process: Objections that relate to criticism of land use regulations and the public
participation process.

There was no anti-‐shelter argument that related to criticism of land regulation,
but a few related to lack of public participation. I can only speculate about the
reasons, but two aspects might be significant. Firstly, the shelter developers
were not constructing new buildings, but simply occupying old ones, which
means that use of land was not being changed. Also, the general awareness of
29

legal regulations of land might be very low, which means that people do not
consider this opportunity. In relation to public participation a group of political
leader complained about the lack of involvement. Also, the community a
Kachiguda raised this issue. In general, though, it can be argued that people do
not generally have high expectations in terms of the municipality involving them
in decision-‐making processes.

Project: Objections commenting on the physical characteristics of the proposal.

Argument 1: Inappropriate building -‐ “We are already using our community hall
for weddings and other community activities.”
This was one of the most common arguments. It also seems very legitimate; since
many of the community halls were indeed being used for wedding ceremonies,
religious celebrations, dance lessons, karate classes, etc. A sub-‐argument often
repeated was that people in the community were so poor that they did not have
the money to rent a private function hall and therefore could only use the
community hall. In this way, their own poverty became an argument against
sharing the limited resources with others.

Community hall used for scholling in Musanagar

30

Argument 2: Lack of space -‐ “Our neighborhood is already too crammed, there is
no space here.”
This argument was only used by people in the neighborhoods of Mushanagar and
Bapunagar where the lack of space was indeed a major obstacle to any new
construction.

Presage: Objections that are largely speculative in nature about the proposal
and were not confirmed or supported with evidence.
Argument 1: Non-‐belief in shelters -‐ “It does not make sense to make a shelter
because they (the clients) will leave within 2 weeks anyway. They have that
roaming behavior.”
The belief that homeless people have a special “roaming” behavior was
widespread. In some cases it is true that homeless people who have been
without shelter for many years will feel unease living inside a room. However,
based on experiences with shelters in Delhi, it is clear that most homeless people
will not leave after two weeks.

Argument 2: Declining property values -‐ “If someone got the idea of putting a
shelter here, people would fight it, also because property values might go down.”
Only one person mentioned property values as an argument to fight the
establishment of a shelter. This is interesting, since the property value argument
is one of the most widely cited in for example the US and Canada. A reason for
this difference might be that most of the interviewees lived in poor
neighborhoods that are not part of the formal real estate market.

Pretext: Comments that indicate that the issue is not exclusively related to the
process itself, but to prior conditions or previous development experiences in
the community.
Argument 1: Misuse of facility -‐ “Such a place will be misused by others. They will
bring prostitutes here, they will hang around and play cards. Also, people with
power might want to use it for their own purposes”.
31

A few individuals stated that a shelter would probably end up being used for
other means if it was not carefully managed. Such worries seemed to be based on
previous experience with similar projects, however, no details were obtained.

Prejudice: Objections that clearly or implicitly are aimed at the occupants of the
housing proposal.

More than eight different types of arguments based on prejudice was leveled
against the shelter clients.
Argument 1: Trouble Makers -‐ “I have nothing against homeless people, but in the
long run problems might occur. So it would be better to place them outside the city
or just further away.”

This was the most frequently expressed prejudice. It indicates that people do not
consider themselves prejudiced, but still the argument does not conceal the fact
that residents want homeless people to be located as far away as possible.

Argument 2: Otherness -‐ “Homeless people are not from here.”
This argument was put forth very often, and it became clear that “not from here”
included a variety of identity markers such as caste, religion and language.

Argument 3: Lack of family -‐ “Homeless people have no family.”
This argument is closely related to Otherness. However, the twist is that people
assume that if a homeless person is not together with his/her family then it must
be because they have done something wrong, for example committed a murder
or stolen something.

Argument 3: Disease -‐ “Homeless people might have communicable diseases.”
This extreme form of discriminatory thinking might be related to ideas of caste
and strong religious binaries of purity/impurity. In India low caste people were
often required to cover their mouths with their hands when they spoke, because
upper castes were afraid of getting “polluted” by their breath.

32

Argument 4: Crime -‐ “Homeless people are criminal or attract crime.”
Many interviewees gave examples of things gone missing in the vicinity of
homeless people . Also, there is a widespread fear that homeless people are
escaped prisoners.

Argument 5: Drug addiction -‐ “Homeless people are drug addicts.”
Knowledge about drugs is extremely limited. There is little knowledge about the
bio-‐physical effects of drugs, which means that many people think that drug
addicts are simply weak-‐willed in relation to quitting their addiction.

Begging: “Homeless people are beggars”.
In India, as in many other countries, begging is looked down upon. Furthermore,
in India there is a fear that beggars also steal.

Alcoholism: “Homeless people are alcoholics”.
In India, as in many other countries, alcoholism is closely associated with theft,
violence and inappropriate behavior. Many people mentioned that they did not
want their children to be near alcoholics.

Pro-shelter arguments
In the literature on NIMBY little attention is given to pro-‐shelter arguments by
residents. However, Michael Dear briefly describes that such arguments are
often based on “humanistic or religious values”. Indeed, the pro-‐shelter
arguments in Hyderabad seemed to be mostly founded on ethical considerations.

Argument 1: The Right to Shelter -‐ “Today we have a house, but tomorrow I might
not, so how can I deny others a roof over their head?”

Argument 2: Class-‐based Solidarity: “We are poor and they are poor, so we
understand these people.”

Surprisingly, it was not possible to identify any pro-‐shelter arguments based on
religious ideas. This seems might be due to translation issues.
33

Reflections on NIMBY-objections

Looking at the statements above two types of anti-‐shelter arguments stand out
as the most common. Firstly, the most common anti-‐shelter arguments are based
on prejudices and hostility against homeless people. The other most cited
argument was that the community halls were already being used, which is an
argument more directly related to the specific logistics of the project.
Considering these two arguments, it becomes clear that the municipality has
made a mistake in suggesting that shelters should be located in community halls.
Also there is a need to work with the communities in order to sensitize them
about the situation of homeless people. Another insight from the community
surveys is that in India ethnicity seems much more important as a cause for
discrimination compared to the US. In general it might seem surprising that so
much prejudice was openly expressed. Because according to the NIMBY Iceberg,
prejudice is located below the surface and is supposed to only be “found in
private arenas, not usually vocalized”. Apparently, value judgments about
marginalized groups do not seem taboo in Hyderabad.

5.4 Stages & Dynamics of Community Resistance
Oppositional tactics and types of resistance to homeless shelters include a broad
range of actions. In much of the NIMBY literature, community opposition is
described using conflict resolution theory. However, in my analysis below, I will
limit myself to a simple three-‐stage model (Dear, 1992: 290) and use this to
examine the opposition observed in Hyderabad.

Three-stage Cycle of Community Resistance

Youth News of the proposal breaks, lighting the fuse of conflict. Opposition tends to be
confined to a small vocal group residing very near to the proposed development.
NIMBY sentiments are usually expressed in a very direct way, often reflecting an
unthinking response by opponents.
Maturity The conflict is solidified as the two sides assemble supporters. The debate moves
away from private complaints and into a public forum. As a consequence, the
rhetoric of opposition becomes more rational and objective.
Old Age The period of conflict resolution is often long, drawn-‐out, and sometimes
inconclusive. Victory tends to go to those with the persistence and stamina to
keep going. Typically, at this stage, some kind of arbitration process is adopted,
using professional or political resources.
(Dear, 1992: 290)

34

Youth
The initial reaction of the community depends a lot on the approach of the
shelter developer. In the case of the shelter in Uppal, the responsible municipal
officer had collected a list of the homeless persons who might stay at the shelter
if it was opened. This sent a signal to the community that the municipality was
well organized, and at the same time they knew what kind of people to expect at
the shelter. All of this facilitated a less hostile attitude from the community. In
contrast, in Bapunagar neighborhood, the community had not been properly
informed about the shelter, which caused a violent reaction on the opening day.
A group of more than 10 youths gathered and drove the shelter developers out of
the area.

Maturity
During the mature stage of the conflict, a broad range of actions was observed in
Hyderabad. In the neighborhood of Kachiguda, a group of residents gathered
and staged a “dharna”, which is a form of public protest used during India’s
independence movement. In Bapunagar, the residents started lobbying the local
elected representative, who had originally been positive towards the
establishment of a shelter. After internal discussions amongst a group of
residents in Uppal, a formal complaint letter was sent to the municipality. After
the complaint had been sent, the municipal officer organized a meeting where
the presence of a trusted senior politician helped pave the way for community
approval. After the Uppal community had accepted the shelter, the community
came forward to offer support to the shelter, like second hand food and clothes.

Old Age:
As mentioned by Dear, violent or illegal action is relatively rare, however, at the
Bible House shelter one of the staff was physically assaulted by residents. The
reason was that anger and frustration had been building up, which was trickered
by the fact that some of the homeless clients had been making noise and sleeping
in the neighborhood outside the shelter. One of the reasons why the conflict did
not escalate was that the municipality had other offices in the same building who
had actively entered into a dialogue with the community residents. In this way
35

they had been able to calm down the community. During the old age stage, it
sometimes becomes unclear to both the community and the shelter developers
whether or not a conflict has been resolved. In the case of Bapunagar, the
community clearly considered the case closed, while the NGO that was trying to
establish the shelter still believed that there might be a chance to reopen.

Reflections on Stages and Dynamics of Community Opposition
Reflecting on the type of opposition dynamics observed in Hyderabad, it is clear
that Dear’s three-‐stage cycle should be understood as a generalized model. It
cannot accurately describe the processes in any of the neighborhoods. Group
dynamics and the type of community leadership seem to be two of the most
important factors in determining the way that a conflict might evolve.
Furthermore, the strategy chosen by the shelter developer also influences the
final outcome to a significant degree. All of these aspects will be examined
further in the following section.

5.5 Approaches & Strategies of Shelter Developers
Reviewing the history of siting human facility services, Michael Dear describes
four different approaches that facility providers have taken towards host
communities.

Approaches & Strategies of Shelter Developers

Low-profile / Developers secretly establish the facility hoping that by the time its
Autonomous operation is discovered, it will already have demonstrated its successful
integration into the neighborhood.
High-profile / This approach seeks to involve the host community. It grants relative
Collaborative priority to the community’s right to be informed of and participate in
decisions affecting their neighborhood.
Risk-free Developers seek out risk-‐free locations, which means locations where
Locations: the host community is more thought to be more tolerant because of
more mixed land use and less homogenic communities.
Fair-share Fair-‐share principles is a strategy by municipalities fair-‐share principles
Principles: are implemented to ensure that ensure all the city’s communities share
the responsibility of hosting certain facilities.
(Dear, 1992: 294)

36

The work in Hyderabad, and other major cities around India, is clearly the first
large experiment with homeless shelters in Indian history. This makes it
particularly interesting to observe the approaches adopted by shelter
developers. In the following I use the four strategies described above to examine
the approaches taken by stakeholders in Hyderabad.

Low-profile - Autonomous:
In Kachiguda neighborhood the responsible NGO established the shelter without
giving notive to anybody. Just as the shelter was about to open, they then invited
the local political leader to inaugurate the place. The community was initially
skeptic, but was later convinced by the shelter manager who gave them his card,
address and contact number, and assured them that he would take personal
responsibility for the management of the shelter. When the same NGO tried a
similar strategy in Bapunagar neighborhood, it failed. The community in
Bapunagar is from the scheduled tribe Lambardi, which is a nomadic ethnic
group infamous for their rash temperaments. In the area around Bible House the
responsible NGO tried out a semi-‐low-‐profile approach in as much as they did
contact the community leaders, but not in a particularly planned way. The
attempt at community involvement later backfired when elected representatives
became bitter and turned against the shelter.

High-profile - Collaborative:
In Uppal neighborhood a dedicated municipal officer was able to implement and
succeed with a high-‐profile approach where she involved the community from
the beginning. She involved a number of respected leaders and officials, while at
the same time conducting meetings with residents. She also gave concessions to
the community and gave them assurances in different ways, for example saying
that the municipality would provide a watchman, that it would only be a
women’s shelter, and that the shelter would be closed down if any problems
occurred.

37

Risk-free Locations:
So far none of the shelter developers have actively formulated a strategy of
seeking out risk-‐free locations, but based on their difficulties with certain
communities and community halls, they have begun discussing it informally. A
municipal officer, who wanted to establish a large shelter, had found a location in
a commercial area in downtown, which she descried as a risk-‐free location in the
sense that “There is no community to throw us out, since there are only small shops
in that area” (anonymous, 2011, interview).

Fair-share Principles:
The Hyderabad Municipality has no fair-‐share principles and it does not seem
likely that any will be developed in the foreseeable future. From the list of
buildings proposed for future shelters, all the structures were located in poor
neighborhoods. At the same time, there has not been any political demand from
these neighborhoods that fair-‐share principles should be devised. The reason for
this is probably that no community has yet been saturated by human services
facilities, simply because the municipality has established so few facilities of any
kind. Also, many neighborhoods might not have the political imagination or
capacity to challenge the municipality to create such new legislation.

The analysis of strategies of shelter developers reveals a number of things.
Firstly, it appears that the categories devised by Dear are not sufficient to
describe what has been happening in Hyderabad; both the NGOs and the
municipality have not had a conscious strategy or based their actions on training
or guidelines. To some extent their approach has been “ad hoc planning” based
on personal intuition and individual experiences. However, an interesting
development is that an alliance of NGOs have come together to launch a
sensitization campaign, which was financed by the municipality. In this way, the
emerging strategy preference in Hyderabad seems to be a high-‐profile approach.

38

5.6 Reflections on Findings from Neighborhood Analysis

One of the most significant findings in the neighborhood analysis is that the
processes surrounding each shelter have been extremely varied. However, is it
possible to observe any overall patterns? The answer appears to be yes. In the
following I will re-‐assess the findings from analysis and relate them to five of the
six research questions, the sixth research question on governance and
participation will be treated in the next chapter. Lastly, I make some broader
reflections on the usefulness of NIMBY as an analytical tool.

Causes for Community Opposition:
The first research question asks what the causes for community opposition
towards the homeless shelters might be. The analysis has revealed that there can
be any number of reasons for rejecting a shelter, however two major causes
appeared significant in Hyderabad. Firstly, the prejudices and hostility in the
communities against homeless people are pervasive. In general it might seem
surprising that so much prejudice was openly expressed. Because according to
the NIMBY Iceberg, prejudice is located below the surface and is supposed to
only be “found in private arenas, not usually vocalized”. Apparently, value
judgments about marginalized groups do not seem taboo in Hyderabad.
Considering this, it becomes clear that both the NGOs and the municipality have
underestimated the degree of hostility towards homeless people as a
marginalized group.

Another important cause for opposition was the fact that the community halls,
which the municipality had suggested as shelter locations, were already being
used by the community. To assume that the communities would willingly let go
of their community halls was a fundamental mistake by the municipality. The
name itself, “community hall”, should warn officials and NGOs that the
community naturally feels ownership towards that building. Actually, the
municipality’s misjudgment seems so big that it poses a new question: Did the
municipality know that the community halls would never work out as sites, but
simply go ahead in order to just let the case fizzle out in a quirk mire of local

39

resistance? Based on conversations with municipal officers, it seems unlikely
that they had such a shrewd plan, but the question remains unanswered.

The Influence of Perceptions of Homeless People:
The second research question asks to what extent community perceptions of
homeless people might influence the possibility of establishing a shelter. As
mentioned above, the prejudices of community residents have been confirmed as
one of the major reasons for opposition. It is evident that these stereotypes
function as building blocks for exclusion. However, out of all the different groups
of homeless people it seems that young or middle-‐aged males from low castes
and low-‐class appear to be the most discriminated against. At least this was the
group that people had the deepest fear of. Many of the prejudices also bordered
on literal misconceptions. For example, many community residents perceived
homelessness to be a sort of mental disorder, which clearly would only add to
their fear and thus discrimination. Also, homelessness was perceived by many to
be chronic and somewhat contagious. These findings pose more profound
questions, such as; how do certain prejudices come to make sense to people?
What is the frame they use to make sense of their world? What are the
ideological resources that people have at their disposal to create meaning?

The Evolution of Community Opposition
The third research question asks how conflicts between shelter developers and
communities evolve. As mentioned earlier it is difficult to observe any particular
pattern as regards to the development of conflicts between the stakeholders.
However, the strategy chosen by the shelter developer and the characteristics of
the neighborhood surely makes a difference. Also group dynamics and the type
of leadership found in the community will be determining in setting out the
course of the conflict. In relation to leadership it was interesting to notice how
much the communities differed. In some communities people refused to talk to
before we had spoken to the leader. During the community surveys many
residents simply said that they did not have any opinion and that they would do
whatever the leader decided. However, in other communities, particularly the
40

ones in newly established peri-‐urban areas, this kind of centralized decision-‐
making was completely absent.

The Significance of Strategies and Non-strategies by Shelter Developers
The fourth research question asks how the strategies of shelter developers might
influence community attitudes towards shelters. As mentioned above, it appears
that the strategy categories developed by Dear; low-‐profile, high-‐profile, risk
free-‐locations and fair-‐share principles, are not sufficient to describe the
developments in Hyderabad; both the NGOs and the municipality have not had a
conscious strategy. However, shelter developers that adopted a high-‐profile
collaboratory approach later in the process reported more success than those
organizations focusing less on involving the community. Another aspect is the
importance of how opponents try to frame each other. Some of the NGO staff
clearly framed the communities as being selfish and cold hearted for not
allowing the development of the shelters. This kind of framing is typical in
NIMBY conflicts where one side tries to undermine the actions of the other.
Similarly, the communities tried to frame the shelter developers by labeling
them as unprofessional and disorganized. Some community leaders accused the
NGOs for not having involved them in the process and hereby denying them of
the chance to participate. However, it should also be noted that many NGO staff
and community members had a very nuanced view of the conflicts and genuinely
listened to the arguments put forth by the other side.

Neighborhood Characteristics as a Determining Factor:
The fifth research question asks if certain neighborhood characteristics shape
the attitudes of communities towards shelters. This questions has not been
treated in a specific section of the analysis, but can be answered by connecting a
number of observations. One clear point is that a heterogeneous community will
often be more accepting towards shelters than very homogenous neighborhoods
For example, the religiously mixed community of Musanagar seemed relatively
accepting towards the establishment of a shelter. In contrast the ethnically
closed knit Lambardi community in Bapunagar appeared very hostile towards
outsiders. Other homogeneous groups that seemed very intolerant towards
41

homeless people were found in richer areas. However, here their homogeneity
was not based on ethnicity, but rather on lifestyle and economic status. An
interesting observation in relation to class was that many people expressed a
belief that poor neighborhoods would be more accepting towards shelter than
wealthier neighborhoods. However, the community surveys showed that poor
neighborhoods were as opposed to homeless people as others. In fact, the poor
neighborhood of Warasiguda staged a public demonstration against a proposed
shelter, while the middle class area of Uppal ended up accepting the shelter.

42

Chapter 6 - Governance and Participation

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

6.1 Introduction
Although most community opposition arguments are rooted in local attitudes,
community resistance is not purely a local phenomenon. It is also tied to wider
discourses that stigmatize particular groups and behaviors, and to institutional
sources of power. This part of the report is a short attempt to link some of the
issues in the neighborhood analysis to broader themes and struggles. The
reflections are not based on a strict theoretical framework, but instead
structured loosely around the concept of inequitable exclusion alliances, which
was formulated by a group of researchers around Barbara Tempalski. The
concept describes how local NIMBY phenomena are linked to higher systemic
levels of government and national culture. They specifically investigate how
NIMBY is connected to three areas; public policy, government inaction and
national perceptions of marginalized groups (Tempalski et. al., 2007: 1251). The
reflections below are structured around the same three themes and should be
seen as an attempt to answer the sixth research question on governance and
participation.

6.2 Public Policy and Its Consequences
In relation to public policy, Tempalski et. al. use the example of drug addicts to
describe three ways that harmful policies can affect marginalized groups: Firstly,
harmful policies increases elite and lay tendencies to discriminate broadly,
thereby increasing resistance to facilities offering services to marginalized
groups. The Bombay Act of Begging is an example of such policies in India. The
act was passed under British rule, but is still in place today and continues to
frame the practices of general harassment of homeless people. The arrests of
street vendors who are often homeless, and the confiscation of their goods, are
other examples (Cardo Report, 2001: 3).

43

Secondly, Tempalski et. al. argue that discriminatory policies increase the rate of
incarceration of marginalized groups, in this case homeless people. In Hyderabad
stories of imprisonment were widespread. In fact, one of the homeless shelters
was located right opposite a police station, but only three persons used it. Other
homeless people confirmed that they stayed away from the shelter due to fear of
the police. Another example of harassment is illustrated by stories of Bill
Clinton’s visit in 2005 where masses of people had been loaded onto trucks,
transported out of the city and left on the periphery.

Thirdly, Tempalski et. al. mention how discriminatory policies create barriers to
safe living practices under the guise of policing and law enforcement actions.
For example, they describe how the US “War on Drugs” has fuelled community
opposition to drug addicts and how political leaders at city, state and national
level have contributed to stigmatization by commenting negatively on drug
addicts in the media. In India the discussions about creating “world class” cities
in order to attract foreign direct investment has formed the backdrop of broad
hostility towards homeless people. For example, the evictions of homeless
pavement dwellers for “loitering” and “disorder” and the tearing down of make-‐
shift shelters create exactly the kind of barriers to safe living that Tempalski
describes.

6.3 Government Inaction & Grassroots Inaction
Commenting on the second aspect; institutional and political (in)action and
opposition, it is described how political resistance towards establishing certain
facilities is widespread among politicians because they fear loosing votes.
Tempalski et al. show that providing crucial facilities are not always high on the
political agenda. Reflecting this, one activist said: “There are only two things that
motivate Indian politician, and that is money and vote banks. If cannot offer them
one of these, your project probably won’t take off” (Jeevan Kumar, 2011,
interview). Furthermore, Tempalski et. al. argue that the failure of governments
to initiate national programs to support marginalized groups often results in the
responsibility being shifted to states and cities, and that this often results in a
very varied, and often poor, response. The fact that the state government was
44

completely absent from the process of establishing the shelters also testifies to
an astonishing lack of political and bureaucratic will. The lack of fair-‐share
principles in siting is a good example of how important legislation simply does
not exist. Also, the decision to only locate shelters in poor areas shows that that
state and local governments are predisposed to favoring more wealthy urban
residents.

On a broader level, the whole tradition of Indian judicial activism and the recent
rulings of the Supreme Court can be understood as a reaction to government
inaction. The fact that the initiative comes from the Supreme Court and not the
government indicates that political will is lacking. The fact that the move to
establish shelters is not rooting in party politics might be a part of the reason
why things are moving so slow. The local governments might not feel the same
urgency towards establishing the shelters as if the order had come from their
political headquarter. Another reason why the shelters are not been established
is that there is no mobilized movement behind the demands. The court ruling
comes from the central capital of Delhi and lacks local rooting. Basically, the
homeless people are not organized in such a way that they can put pressure on
the municipalities.

One of the reasons for this is that many of the organizations working with
homeless people in Hyderabad are not very attentive towards politics and
political mobilization. However, there are signs in other cities that such
movements have grown and become powerful. Also, during my time in
Hyderabad, the clients in the Bible House shelter decided to form a “Homeless
Workers Association”, which might help them to carve out some space for
themselves in urban politics.

6.4 National Perceptions of Marginalized Groups,.
In relation to the third aspect; national perceptions of marginalized groups, the
significance of public images is explored. Tempalski et. al. describe how media,
business and various institutions contribute to producing certain images that
reinforce stigma. Speaking broadly about stigma they conclude that “As a social
45

process, stigma operates by producing and reproducing social structures of power,
hierarchy, class, and exclusion, and by transforming difference into social
inequality.” The image of the homeless person as dirty works as an example: A
person categorized as being dirty will automatically be excluded from all places
considered clean.

In an essay on the restructuring of urban space in India, Leela Fernandes
explains the process above as “spatial purification” and links it to the rise of the
Indian middle classes (Fernandes, 2004: 2416). This idea is confirmed by the
fact that wealthy residents in Hyderabad were described as being ready to pay
money to municipal officers to avoid having a shelter in their locality. According
to Fernandes, a new middleclass identity is asserting itself in public discourses.
She points specifically the development of new urban aesthetics and argues that
“forms of local spatial politics point to the production of an exclusionary form of
cultural citizenship” dominated by the middle classes. This might be true, but in
Hyderabad it was clear that processes of spatial purification not only occur in
connection with upper or middle class development. Spatial purification was also
observed in the very poorest neighborhoods. People from all social classes
expressed hostility towards the shelters and many argued that they should be
placed outside the city, echoing a mentality of people zoning.

46

Chapter - 7 Conclusion and Discussion

___________________________________________________________________________________________

7.1 Conclusion
Social and spatial stigma surrounding homeless shelters have dramatic
consequences for the people that need their services. As a result of the lack of
shelters many homeless people quite literally die or simple never get the chance
to get back on their feet. This report has examined how the dynamics of socio-‐
spatial exclusion are expressed in the case of homeless shelters in Hyderabad.
Below is a brief outline of the main conclusions of the report.

The causes for community opposition will always depend on the specific
community or neighborhood. However, the analysis reveals that community
objections are most often related to either prejudices against the marginalized
group, frustration with the proposed building, or lack of involvement in the
initial processes of shelter development. In continuation of this, the perceptions
of community residents towards homeless people have also proved to greatly
influence the chances of establishing shelters. The idea of the homeless person
ignites deep-‐rooted fear and results in strong discrimination.

Furthermore, the report documents that no particular patterns can be
distinguished in relation to the evolution of conflicts between shelter developers
and communities. However, the strategy chosen by the shelter developer and the
specific characteristics of a neighborhood surely makes a difference. As regards
to the strategy, it appears that organizations focusing on a high-‐profile,
collaboratory approach were more successful than organizations less focused on
involving the community. By comparing the characteristics of different
communities and assessing their level of acceptance towards shelters, the report
shows that heterogeneous communities are more likely to accept homeless
shelters. On the other hand the community surveys also shows that poor
neighborhoods are as likely to oppose a shelter as more wealthy areas.

47

The socio-‐spatial exclusion described in this report does not occur in a vacuum,
but is closely tied to broader issues of governance and participation. The study
documents this by linking the local NIMBY phenomena to public policy and
government inaction. For example, the report shows how the existence of anti-‐
homeless legislation legitimizes police harassment and imprisonment of
homeless people. Finally, the inaction of governments is assumed to be linked to
the fact that the homeless population still remains poorly organized in terms of
political mobilization.

48

7.2 Discussion
How can the dynamics of exclusion be turned around so that urban space is
opened up to marginalized groups? How can the negative spiral of stigmatization
and discrimination be reversed? This report does no offer many answers to
these questions, since the focus has been to understanding the underlying
factors. However, in other reports, the answer is often formulated within the
paradigm of the right to the city. This concept has evolved during the past decade
to become a widespread ideal, which is has been used in connection with social
action against exclusionary urban processes. In other words, the right to the city
has been used as a banner under which a variety of critical voices have raised
their concerns about socio-‐spatial exclusion in the cities of the world.

Overall, the right to the city is the vision that tries to project a different, inclusive
city contrasted with the divided city. Also, the right to the city is not to be viewed
as yet another legal concept; rather, it represents “a dynamic and pragmatic
combination of the multiple human rights to which urban dwellers are entitled,
and that they want fulfilled” (State of the World’s Cities, 2011: 57). However, in a
city like Hyderabad, the sense of a right to the city is particularly weak among
newly arrived, homeless migrants. They simply do not consider that the city is
somehow also theirs. The fact that they have no specific place to call home means
that they also refrain from making other legitimate claims to city-‐citizenship.

Considering this, a number of questions might be posed, for example: how might
a rights-‐based approach be implemented in Asian mega cities like Hyderabad?
What are the experiences with the right to the city in other parts of the world,
particularly in Latin America? How is the right to the city related to citizenship
and participation?

49

Bibliography

Berreman, Gerald (1972) Social Categories and Social Interaction in Urban India,
American Anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley

Bhagwati, P.N., interview with former Chief Justice, unknown university
magazine, year unknown.

Commissioners’ Secretariat, Right to Food (2005), Securing State Accountability
for Right to Food - Manual for State Advisors

Dear, Michael (1992) Understanding and Overcoming the NIMBY Syndrome,
Journal of the American Planning Association, 58

Fernandes, Leela (2004) The Politics of Forgetting: Class Politics, State Power and
the Restructuring of Urban Space in India, Urban Studies, Vol. 41, No. 12, 2415–
2430

Hyderabad City Development Plan, 2002

Krank, Sabrina (2008) Cultural, spatial and socio-economic fragmentation in the
Indian megacity Hyderabad, unpublished master thesis

Lauber, D. (1990) Community Residence Location Planning Act Compliance
Guidebook. Evanston, IL: Planning/Communications.

Mander, Harsh (2010), Shelters for the Urban Homeless, Handbook for State and
Local Governments

Notti, F. and Meyer, N. (2009) Mission report on excluded groups in Nepal,
contribution to VEGM, OHCHR

50

Piat, Myra (2000) The NIMBY phenomenon: Community residents' concerns about
housing for deinstitutionalization, Health & Social Work; Research Library

Speak, S. and Tipple A. G. (2001) The Nature and Extent of Homelessness in
Developing Countries, Cardo Report School of Architecture, Planning and
Landscape, University of Newcastle upon Tyne

State of the World’s Cities (2010) UN-‐Habitat

Tempalski, Barbara et al (2007) NIMBY localism and national inequitable
exclusion alliances: The case of syringe exchange programs in the United States,
Geoforum

Wynne-‐Edwards, Jeannie (2003), Overcoming Community, Opposition to
Homelessness, Sheltering Projects under the National Homelessness Initiative

51

Appendix 1

Fieldwork Overview -‐ Calendar
Date Location and participants
Thursday 24 th Meeting w/ LSN Foundation

March
Friday 25th Meeting w/ Aman Vedika

Shelter visit at Kachiguda
Saturday 26th Interview w/ President of Human Rights Forum

Shelter visit at Bible House
Sunday 27th Writing
Monday 28th Interview municipal officers

Interview at ActionAid India
Tuesday 29th Interview w/ independent researcher
Wednesday 30th Writing, visit to Uppal Women’s Shelter
Thursday 31st Writing
Friday 1st Organizing field visits to communities
Saturday 2nd Preparing questionnaire
Sunday 3rd Coordination meeting with translator
Monday 4th Community survey in Musanagar, interview with communy leader
Tuesday 5th Interview with director of NGO CONARE

Survey of opinions in wealthy neighborhood Banjara Hills
Wednesday 6th Community survey in L.B. Nagar and Uppal, interview with Uppal corporator
Thursday 7th Community survey in Musanagar, L.B. Nagar and Bible House
Friday 8th Relaxation
Saturday 9th Writing
Sunday 10th Writing
Monday 11th Writing
Tuesday 12th Interview w/ President of Human Rights Forum
Wednesday 13th Interview w/ independent researcher

Presentation of findings at Aman Vedika
Thursday 14th Writing

52

Appendix 2

Questionnaire -‐ Community Survey

Research focus:
- How did the community react to a shelter?
- What are people’s perceptions about homeless people?

1) Intro questions
Purpose:
-‐ Find out if the respondent knows about the proposed shelter
-‐ Get a feeling of how the respondent views the proposed shelter

1a) Do you know that there was a plan to establish a destitute shelter in this area?
1b) What do you think about having such a shelters in this area?

2) Community Reactions towards the shelter
Purpose:
-‐ Know about the community’s immediate reactions
-‐ Know about local activism or mobilization against the shelter – by basti leaders,
corporator

4A) What was your immediate reaction?
4b) Did people come together to protest or nothing much happened?
4c) What were the reasons that people protested?
4d) Is their community hall being used for any activities or not really?

If the C.H. is not being used:
- Would it be fine to use it as a shelter for homeless people according to them?
Why/why not?

If the shelter is being used:
- Would they mind if another building, such as an unused govt. building, would be
used as a shelter for the destitute? Why?why not.

4c) How did the corporator or other leaders handle the situation?

3) Community knowledge about establishment of shelter
Purpose:
-‐ Know if there has been any sensitization about the shelter – by GHMC or NGOs
-‐ Know how information “travels” in the community, e.g. through key individuals
or peers

2a) Did anybody tell you about the shelter, or how did you come to know about it?
2b) Was it a friend or maybe the corporator who told you about the shelter?
53

2c) Why do you think they chose this area for the shelter?

4) Attitude towards the municipality and NGOs
Purpose:
-‐ Know how residents perceive the GHMC in relation to the shelter
-‐ Know how residents perceive the NGO in relation to the shelter

6a) How do you think the GHMC or local officr handled the situation?
6b) How do you think the NGOs handled the situation?

4) Attitudes towards homeless people

2a) What do you know about homeless people?
2b) Have you had any experiences with homeless people – good or bad?
2c) Do you think the homeless people have a right to stay in the city?

5) Attitudes towards homeless shelters (similar to questions above)
Purpose:
-‐ To know about people’s perception about homeless shelters.
-‐ To know how the person thinks the rest of the community views shelters

3c) How do you think other people in the community viewed the proposal?
3d) How close do you live from the proposed shelter building?
3e) Would it be better to have the shelter in another area? Why/why not?

6) Media Influence
Purpose: To know how the media is portraying homeless people

7a) Have you read anything about the shelter in the newspaper?

7) Personal resident information
- Name
- Age
- Gender

54

You Are Not Welcome Here - Exclusion, Homeless Shelters and Communites

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

You Are Not Welcome Here - Exclusion, Homeless Shelters and Communites

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

You

Are Not Welcome Here

International Development Studies

Map of Hyderabad and Shelter Neighborhoods

List of Contents

Chapter 1 -­ Introduction

the broad literature in the social sciences that Homelessness

1.5 Field Study and Research Questions

1.6 Structure of the Report

Chapter 2 -­ Case Background

Chapter 3 -­ Methodology

Chapter 4 -­ Theoretical Framework

Lockers used for storing personal belongings at Kachiguda shelter

Chapter 5 -­ Case Analysis

Reflections on NIMBY-­objections

Three-­stage Cycle of Community Resistance

Approaches & Strategies of Shelter Developers

5.6 Reflections on Findings from Neighborhood Analysis

Chapter 6 -­ Governance and Participation

Chapter -­ 7 Conclusion and Discussion

Thursday 24 th Meeting w/ LSN Foundation

Friday 25th Meeting w/ Aman Vedika

Saturday 26th Interview w/ President of Human Rights Forum

Sunday 27th Writing

Monday 28th Interview municipal officers

Tuesday 29th Interview w/ independent researcher

Wednesday 30th Writing, visit to Uppal Women’s Shelter

Thursday 31st Writing

Friday 1st Organizing field visits to communities

Saturday 2nd Preparing questionnaire

Sunday 3rd Coordination meeting with translator

Tuesday 5th Interview with director of NGO CONARE

Friday 8th Relaxation

Saturday 9th Writing

Sunday 10th Writing

Monday 11th Writing

Tuesday 12th Interview w/ President of Human Rights Forum

Wednesday 13th Interview w/ independent researcher

Thursday 14th Writing

Questionnaire -­‐ Community Survey

Você também pode gostar

Chapter 1 - Introduction

Chapter 2 - Case Background

Chapter 3 - Methodology

Chapter 4 - Theoretical Framework

Chapter 5 - Case Analysis

Reflections on NIMBY-objections

Three-stage Cycle of Community Resistance

Chapter 6 - Governance and Participation

Chapter - 7 Conclusion and Discussion

Questionnaire -‐ Community Survey