This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
Ghertner may object to this claim by arguing that the actual ownership of land was, in many cases, unclear. But Bhan (2016: 72) estimates that more than 95% of JJ clusters occupy land formally owned by public agencies. Further, Ghertner’s own account of negotiations by Shiv Camp leaders suggests that where public ownership of the land was not clear, summary demolition of the settlement could be avoided, regardless of its aesthetic qualities (chapter 5).
There is also a case to be made that the judicial use of the nuisance discourse was an exercise in bad faith. For instance, Anuj Bhuwania points out that the Delhi High Court in Kalyan Sanstha responded to the passage of the Delhi Special Laws Act (protecting JJ clusters against summary eviction) by arguing that such provisions cannot apply to settlements where “three to four storey buildings have come up in place of Jhuggies” (Bhuwania 2016: 84). In other words, judges who had previously penalized JJ clusters for being an eyesore were now arguing that they did not deserve legal protection because their houses did not look sufficiently miserable.
References
Beverley EL (2011) Colonial urbanism and South Asian cities. Soc Hist 36(4):482–497
Bhan G (2016) In the public’s interest: evictions, citizenship, and inequality in contemporary Delhi. Orient Blackswan, New Delhi
Bhuwania A (2016) Public interest litigation as a slum demolition machine. MIT J Plan 12:67
Sharan A (2006) In the city, out of place: environment and modernity, Delhi 1860s to 1960s. Econ Polit Wkly 41:4905–4911
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rao-Cavale, K. D. Asher Ghertner: Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi, Oxford University Press, 2015, 272 pp. Decision 44, 165–167 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-017-0153-9
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40622-017-0153-9