Thursday, November 4, 2010
Poverty and Housing in Nairobi and Mumbai
In our readings this week, Robert Neuwirth takes us to two very different cities in Kenya and India. As you read these accounts of life in these two squatter cities, pay attention to the way that Neuwirth develops his descriptions of place. What does his ethnographic approach to understanding cities reveal? What kind of image of place does he develop in both of these accounts? Each place that he visits in the book tells a particular story of the conditions of housing and poverty in urban areas. In these two chapters what are these squatter cities like and how are they different in each place? Our goal for this week will be to look outside of these areas themselves to explore more why squatter cities exist in the first place and what conditions exist that produce change within and around them (or that prohibit change to take place). In class, we'll be discussing and debating the elements that "make" poverty as well as different explanatory frameworks used to understand those elements. So, as you read and in your commentaries consider the economic forces, political movements, and individual people that play a role in Neuwirth's depiction of these two places. What and who contribute to life in these squatter cities? As you think about this, consider what might be missing from Neuwirth's accounts? What are the potential limitations of his ethnographic approach (i.e. what is he unable to explain)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Neuwirth describes in the chapter about Nairobi how the people live in mud huts that are terrible with no indoor plumbing. the sewers are right next to their homes. the people of this squatters village basically build their huts on top of garbage hills. The water and sanitations program tried to bring indoor plumbing to the village however the government said that it cost to much and canceled the construction. the people of the village didnt try to get them to continue or fight for their rights, however they did take the left over metal pipes and sold them. I did however like how the woman of the village started the merry go round to help each other out with money. With the money the woman start their own business or pay bills. The woman of the village was very smart for starting the merry go round. plus they are strong especially since they are the one going to the kiosk everyday carrying the jerry jars of water. Also that amazed me that they have to pay for water. Isnt water supposed to be free? Neuwirth said this village believes in starting their own business and spending money when they get it because they dont see the purpose of saving.
ReplyDeleteIn Mumbai the living conditions are kind of the same but i think the people work a little harder then the people in Nairobi. In Mumbai the people live in concrete huts instead of mud huts. However they dont have indoor plumbing either and their water comes on in the middle of the night. the people of this village try to rebuild and make the village better. I think the people dont let the government keep them from improvong their village. Even a real estate agent tried to help the village by building new buildings so the the market price could go up and the village can make more money.
Our author Neuwirth's take on chapter 2 “Nairobi..The Squatter Control” describes the conditions of a legitimate third world country. He depicts how the people or large mass of it’s population is made up of a majority of adolescents under the age of 16 living on the streets or in makeshift mud puddles. Living in an environment where there is either no running water, sewers, sanitation and toilets; the residents of this squatters nation is inhabitant to living in an area basically build upon filth and garbage. Whereas we take a look at Mumbai and we are approached with the idea that this squatter environment is built upon a class structure that is far more advanced in it’s upbringing of life and slum village residents. Compared to those who live in Nairobi, the community of Mumbai have water available within a few feet of almost every door, they have toilets, but have no sewage systems within the community which makes it hard for them to actually take use of it for fear of sewage and waste overflow in their streets. To keep my focus mainly on Mumbai for a minute I would like to point out the story on one indvidual in particular Sanjay Nagar who states on page 104 how he paid 1,000 rupees (about $22 U.S. Dollars) a month for his room, which in reality seems like a fair price but puts the room beyond the means of many squatters in Mumbai; which makes me wonder does he mean in fact the price to live in Mumbai at that time in which he was renting to live was it up to standards for that price or was he being overcharged to live in a society built similar to slums with no proper infrastructure in tow..
ReplyDeleteThe Squatter community are also divided from the more wealthy community from the poor communities, they live in very low status. I think the big reason after the increase of Squatters is that they can't afford to purchase land or they like living like that, usally most Squatters are poor people they barely don't have jobs or money to live a good middle class life . In Nairobi 500,000 to 1 million Squatters, most residents are under 16 years old, most are old and young, new arrivals, some have been living there for years without running clean water, sewers, bathroom or sanitations. Squatter people living in Nairobi are very poor, the streets are broken and very dirty and trashes can be found in every coners of the streets, unhealty food is served or being sold and the place is very unsafe, that people get scard to buy anything expansive because they fear it might get stolen. The community was so contaminated because there was garbage everywhere and Squatters in Nairobi was mosty living in huts. Mumbai is a little different from Nairobi, In Mumbai all houses in neighborhood have 300 families.They have western railways, people were only able to use water at a certain time of the day, these Squatter have both rich and poor neighborhoods.They have system of public bathrooms in the neighborhood. The poor squatters in Mumbai are seen very low in society, rich people didn't like them very much, but they still have a way of a clean living. They also have sewers. In Mumbai most Squatters makes homes/ huts out of mud and bamboo sticks/logs but the surounded area is kept pretty clean, Unlike Squatters in Nairobi( Nairobi Squatters city are much more poorer then Mumbai, even if Mumbai Squatters city is poor itself ). Mumbai Squatter city has a good system and policyies that brings people to act in a orderly fashion, it makes people and the community more organized. One thing Neuwirth should have explained more was how the different in Religion/ Race makes a difference in these communities?? Because I know that in Mumbai there are people of different religions or race living in same place, they have conflict over their religion so very offten, so how does the Squatters deal with these kind of problems??
ReplyDelete- Saliha Lipi
In this chapter about Nairobi, Neuwirth discusses the living condition of that area. He explains that the people living in Nairobi are poor as compared to the others part of the world. These squatter have worst living condition than any other. In this regard he describes that the people have made huts which are basically made of mud and bamboo have no electricity or water system. Moreover, there is no arrangement for the sewer system so that the waste should be removed away from the houses as it happens in the big cities instead, the waste is found near the houses and all over in the streets. This lack of sanitation causes pollution and diseases. Neuwirth also argues that these squatters are mostly build on the lands that are contaminated or contained garbage of the cities and not favorable to live and survive.
ReplyDeleteDespite of the fact that squatters of Nairobi are contaminated and have the lowest level of living the government still doesn’t take any action to get rid of it because if they try to clear up the land then they are going to have places where these people can live. Also, the government didn’t show any interest to build up a sanitation system for these undeveloped squatters because they were lacking the funds and this would cost more than building a new city.
Neuwirth is comparing the squatter of Mumbai and Nairobi. He describes that the squatters of Mumbai better than Nairobi and are not made of mud and soil, it is made of concrete but still lacking the resources like Nairobi. As far as the sanitation is concerned the Mumbai squatter have toilets which are actually far from the houses but they do not have any sanitation system to run the waste to keep the area clean instead it piles around there and pollute the land.
In author Neuwirth's explanation of the chapter on Kenya and India it showed the realization of the two cities and how each city was similar in landscape and the way the people are living. The country of Kenya for a start showed the small squatter city that was next to a middle working class community called Karen, it was a silver roofed squatter city for as far as the eye can see in a land that was so hot the flies would die in mid air. As neuwirth went into the chapter more he showed how some squatter’s in Kenya do not have the luxury of toilets and that some share a makeshift one or what a little boy did he got on top of a mound of garbage and defecated on it. As for the country of India it had not much of change in the ways of landscape but it was poor as any Kenya in the city of Mumbai where down the road could be a sick village and up the road can be a good city. The city of Mumbai as a squatter city has evolved over the year’s into something that would help the community and even the country itself benefit from that was the main difference between the two countries. The one thing I think is missing in neuwirth’s accounts are what are the reasons why the government just does not go in and change the land as soon as they have enough money to build houses that could help them and make a good profit.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Neuwirth's experience, he had explained how people were struggled living in squatter cities. Basically, most residents who live in Nairobi and Mumbai are really poor; therefore, their living condition is really bad, too. Also, their lives are deficient in electricity and water sources which the local government doesn't help them to build it, and expand the system to the whole community. People need to save the money for themselves, so they can use it to build more lines for the water or electricity. Additionally, people are saving money to expand or maintain their houses in squatter cities. In Nairobi, there has no police patrol on the streets, especially in the poorest area, but there is police in the Mumbai. Although the author are saying Mumbai is better than Nairobi, people are generally having a hard life. However, those residents who live in squatter cities can't able to change their current situation for their whole life.
ReplyDeleteTo begin with, India and Kenya were both former colonies of the British Empire for a long time. Both of these countries gained their soverignety from the British colonisators in 1947 and 1963 respectively. And their similiraties don't end here.In the chapters that we had to read for this week, Neuwirth approached with cautioness the cities of Nairobi and Mumbai. Known also to be large, overpopulated cities. Famous for being surrounded by entire squatter cities.
ReplyDeleteIn the city of Nairobi, largest city in Kenya, lies a big squatter city called Kibera. It is located 3,1 miles from the center of Nairobi area and has a colossal ountumber of residents - over a million of people. 16 years old teenagers at the most. These people are living in absolute poverty. Primar commodities such as water or food are acquired on markets. Water is being distributed in places, often, too far from concentration of households. And women, that are told to, often carry 5 gallons of water daily. For very long distance. Food is mainly shopped during night. Hours before sunrise. And these products are rotten. But Kibera residents don't have a wider choice. They buy it. But, here again, there are two risks to encounter during night shopping : complete house pillage/robbery and the incapability to bring heavy food back home. For the last, women, quite often, don't have any other choice than to pay the youth for their assistance in carrying their bought goods back home. In Kibera scale - such services aren't cheap. While the youth is making money from this, the older generation gains it's money from speculating food market, working in low-waged governmental jobs or even dwelling, selling and renting their mud huts. Of course, the United Nations launched several programs of slum improvement, but things have never gone that well. Infrastructures and necessary accomodities have never been delivered to these people. As for the opinion of squatters about their desperate conditions, they simply feel like they are count for trees.
In Mumbai, in contrary, we've learnt about a lot of organizations, both profit and non-profit, GO and NGO, constructing and placing some primar accomodations and comforts for the squatter cities of Sanjay Ghandi Nagar, Byculla, Dharavi, Behrampada. We've read of optimism that people feel about upcoming improvements, water canals construction, currents of electricity placed in particular districts of squatter cities. Also, there's a lot of ideas, plans, projects with the idea of placing well organized sewages, roads and telecommunication in Mumbai squatters coming from Indian policy makers, the U.N., various investors and celebraties. From a regulation of dwellers quota to architecture planning. This, in the purpose of preventing people lethatity from moonsoons, anti-sanitaria and diseases. But there too, problems with realization eventually occur. Politicians keep funds, provided for the development of infrastructure organization of squatter cities, in their pocket. Indian investors don't see any profit in contributing in improvement. No funds, no improvement. In addition to that, the population of Mumbai squatters differ by district and places. Either by the organization of their community, or by the contingent of these communities themselves. Cast system stays firmly in the India of today. Even within Indian people, and the most defavorized ones called "Harijans" and "Bhangis", take place religion founded discrimination. The Muslim minority is struggling against the Hindis that dehumanize them in all possible ways. This confrontation, however, have not been completely covered by Neuwirth. Maybe be for political correctness issues...
Neuwirth observed that in Nairobi, people are renting mud huts. No proper water distribution, electricity and no toilets. They had jobs that require a lot of physical work and time, and only few people are lucky to escape the discomfort of squatters, just like the only squatter millionaire. If we measure the development of the squatter city as a whole by looking at the developments off the individuals, we could see that not the whole city of Nairobi benefited. Only those who got rich, like that millionaire, were able to be comfortable in the squatters. Though he helped in some ways to some people (giving 100 shillings to the fund-raising and providing jobs), his main concern was money, only for himself. They don’t even consider Jockin’s idea of saving because they are already afraid of trusting anyone that might just steal their hopes of improvements.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, in the squatter cities of India, people had a different action towards their situations. They rented lands. If they get evicted from that land, they rebuild homes wherever they can. They used their hard-earned money to improve their houses, which eventually is contributing to the improvements of the city as a whole. Part of these improvements is having water and electricity once developing concrete, multiple-story houses. The cooperation of the people on these communities produces over half of the income of India that made the city, though illegal, useful to the government. This is a reason that the government does not want to totally remove them. They did efforts of cleaning them up but as these communities rebuilt, they continue to establish businesses that contributes to India’s income. Though the government wanted to demolish squatters and use the then-unused lands that are now useful and developed to build luxurious infrastructures, they would not necessarily get rid of them but would relocate them.
Clearly, one common thing that these two squatter cities have is that they are both being stepped on by the government. However, the ways that their governments handled them and how they both reacted were different. In Nairobi, people were not acting up because, as Neuwirth puts it, the government “denies the residents control over their future”. People of Nairobi are just useful when elections are coming, when votes are needed. They get promised of improvements but after the election is over, they get ignored again. There is no one to fight for them against the abusive treatments of the government. They have no choice but to stick to what they have, get used to it, and master the only ways they know to survive.
Unlike in India, people of the squatters there are standing up for themselves even though the government keeps putting pressure on them. In India, people helped each other to give themselves better lives. They save money for themselves or for the whole community to improve the whole place. Their vision of improving their lives is not only for themselves, but extends to the whole squatter communities.
@Lavaisha, you bring up a terrific question about water as a public vs. private resource and whether or not people should pay for access to it. In the 1980s and 1990s, a number of countries around the world privatized water as a resource, meaning that instead of being managed by the state, water (and associated sanitation services) were turned over to private corporations. As a result, people have had to pay more for water, but clean water has actually reached more people world wide...
ReplyDelete@Nyashia what do you mean when you write that Mumbai is built on a more advanced class structure? What do you think causes the difference between squatter life in Nairobi and Mumbai?
@ Saliha great questions about how broader issues--race, religion, but also broader structural questions surrounding globalization--are left out of Neuwirth's account.
@ Muhammad, although squatters in Mumbai seem better off than those in Nairobi, how does the example of their unused toilets speak to the persistent issue of insecurity and impermanence there?
@Brandon, why do you think that the government does not build houses for the residents on the land? What are the limitations for doing this? What is needed for that to happen?
@Andrea,
@Ka, what makes the residents of squatter cities unable to change their situation?
@Tashibay, thanks for making the connection to India and Kenya's status as post-colonial countries. How do you think that fact contributes to the systems of government in these countries? I'd also be interested to know why Neuwirth doesn't bring up bigger issues like cast structure and ethnic tension in his writings on Mumbai, particularly given that he at least touches on similar issues affecting relations among squatters in Nairobi...
@Andrea, Neuwirth doesn't bring it up either, but how do you think the development of squats in Nairobi and Mumbai is influence by broader political movements beyond those within Kenya and India?
Robert Neuwirth introduces the cities of Nairobi and Mumbai to us. These cities are known to be very large and have a big population. Also that around these two cities there are squatter cities. In Nairobi in the squatter cities people work very hard for anything they can get. They didn’t have luxury of good electricity and toilets. They also rented mud huts. As you can see they have ever low and bad living standards. Most of them weren’t able to get out of these conditions because they didn’t trust anyone. They didn’t save anything because they didn’t trust anyone to get in the middle of their development.
ReplyDeleteIn Mumbai Neuwirth describes to us how they make beneficial choices in squatter cities. These citizens actually rent land and build wherever they can. The use their money to benefit themselves, they try to take care of their homes and make them better. They were able to make multiple-story houses which they have water and electricity in. Mumbai is doing better than Nairobi when it comes to economic standard. Mumbai makes up half of India’s income and is growing still. They are building up there communities, they have many businesses and are increasing India’s income. The government would not try to stop these squatter cities in Mumbai because they are every beneficial to the nation.
Neuwirth is describing how a squatter city can be progressive if they get the chance. Nairobi doesn’t have the chance and they aren’t improving much. Mumbai on the hand is doing exceeding well for a squatter city. This may be to the fact that the government does not control them and the people get the control to do what they want with their money. The know what the best intentions are for them self.