Transport Systems in Bombay/Mumbai

This paper seeks to explore the impact of transportation systems on urbanisation trends and characteristics in the colonial city of Bombay. The central focus of this paper is an examination of the interrelatedness of flows and mobilities in a cityscape engineered by colonial and indigenous forces of capital. Mumbai offers interesting insights in this area, given the deep historicity of its transport systems, the aspirational significance of the city in the local as well as global landscape and the constitution of the urban fabric through socio-cultural forces of migration, colonialism as well as a planned approach to urban development. The multi-faceted nature of urban life in the city is complemented by a dynamic exchange of goods, services and people both within and at its boundaries. Situating the multivariate factors for its expansion in the need to facilitate these exchanges is then fundamental for caricaturing its composition. Identifying both global and local factors in the sustenance and expansion of the city in the past provide crucial input for understanding the urbanity in the present. Transportation in the city is closely correlated with employment flows, residential and settlement patterns, industrial requirements and political agendas of planning and organising mobilities around the interests of elites and dominant class groups. Objectives have been wide-ranging, including promoting access and affordability on one hand while also facilitating capitalist enterprise and exchange to develop the primary industrial centre of the colonial government in Bombay. The analysis in this paper locates the historical origins of transport and the planned approach to organising the movement of commodities as well as people in the heterogeneous composition of the city, which often stems from the agendas of planning, promoting segregation and unevenness in the development patterns within the city. The larger aim of such an analysis is to throw light on the persistent inequalities within the city and recognise the ‘splintering’ of the urban.

Mobilities and Flows in Colonial Bombay

A colonial past foreshadows the construction of contemporary Mumbai and sets the stage for global and local flows of capital and labour in the city. It is also equally important to highlight the contributions of the Indian elements in this process. A foray into the historical context of the development of transport and capital networks informed by a sociological understanding of the complexity of the urban landscape of Bombay presidency can help establish the backdrop against which the current cityscape has evolved.

Bombay’s growth as the ‘second city of the empire’ was closely tied to the inflow of capital, both foreign and indigenous, as a result of a century-long import-export trade. The unique location of Bombay as a port city aided its rise as an industrial centre highly conducive for business and accumulation of wealth which further encouraged economic activity at rates much higher than any other colonial city. Multiple factors contributed to the rise of Bombay as a hub for commercial activity and massive economic exchanges throughout the course of the 19th century. The British opium trade with China was significantly responsible for funnelling a sizeable amount of foreign capital which furthered the economic interests of multiple stakeholders in Bombay. These factors also included the increase in the volume of trade for cotton due to the American Civil War, the improvements in transport and communication which in turn enabled expansion of markets exponentially and the construction of railways, road networks and telegraph links which connected Bombay’s manufacturing industries and cotton textile mills to the local markets and stimulated indigenous demand. The newfound mobility of goods through rail networks was complemented by similar flexibility of movement of people from the hinterland to the urban locations as it opened up avenues of employment and resulted in a notable rise in long-distance migrations. While the cotton textile mills dominated the industrial landscape in Bombay, the money lending activities of the Gujarati entrepreneurial community alongwith the indigenous banking system set up in parts like Jhaveri Bazaar and Sheikh Memon Street constituted the sources of financial flows in the city. In fact, it has been argued that most of the industry established in Bombay by the end of the 19th century was a result of the investments made by Indian capitalists.

As Bombay’s administration became increasingly more important due to the changing political structures in the colonial regime, the economic and political organisation of the city was brought into focus. Largely under the control of business owners and industrialists, the turn of the 19th century also saw a shift in power from the colonial governance towards the business owners and industrialists. Chandavarkar argues that it would be a mistake to conclude that the emergence of Bombay as the mainstay of colonial industrial prowess was solely a product of imperial modernity (Chandavarkar 2002). Bombay’s linkage with its hinterland which extended to most of the subcontinent, the capitalist forces of the internal economy and the workforce which migrated into Bombay and populated its mills and factories played a crucial role in the construction of colonial Bombay and laid the groundwork for future development. As the economy of Bombay closely affected the rural economy through labour and capital flows of remittances and reinvestment, the capitalist development within the city could be located both in the larger economic arrangements of the country as well as the world capitalist system through its colonial interconnections.

Activities of trade, especially in opium and cotton became important sources of accumulation for the bourgeoisie in Bombay, profits from which brought in and reaped both by the British and Indian capitalists. These profits were channelled in the social construction of space in the city and made the transition to urbanity in Victorian Bombay a product of both western and native enterprise. The social engineering of the city’s geography in order to organise housing and civic arrangements was undertaken within a colonial framework but it was carried out using the architectural and technical labour of Indian professionals, namely civil engineers and architects. The city’s urban development was marked by negotiations and conflicts between the desires of the local inhabitants and that of the colonial regime’s vision for the organisation of the city space. Furthermore, while historically the Fort, the Esplanade and the soldier’s barracks had served as the military base for the colonial masters, the elite merchant communities in the city, namely the Bohras, Banias and the Parsis alongwith other Hindu and Muslim trading communities made their presence known on the city’s landscape through the emergence of the Bazaargate localities. Patterns of settlement, largely determined by the need of commerce, saw the emergence of housing arrangements structured around communities and their religion, ethnic and occupational identities. The chawl became a characteristic element of the city’s social space as housing became an increasingly scarce resource with the influx of migrant populations from all over the country. The response of the colonial administration came in the form of an “urban improvement” trust in the city which sought to design the city space in order to combat the growing exigencies of population growth and the resulting problems of sanitation and hygiene. The plague at the end of the 19th century further exacerbated this requirement and set the wheels in motion for intensive urban planning in colonial Bombay. Construction of road and rail networks and policies to curb the spread of disease formed the main working points for restructuring the city’s landscape through town planning exercises. A retrospective inquiry into the design of various buildings and prominent landmarks in the city, through an analysis of the architectural styles of the city, reveals a significant contribution to the making of Bombay by the local communities who shared the city with their colonial masters (Chopra 2011). A recognition of the historicity of the city’s transport, housing and infrastructural networks elaborates the sheer multiplicity of possible future directions for urban development in the city. The next section examines the planning exercises undertaken in the Mumbai metropolitan region and the variety of objectives and concerns they sought to target.

Urbanisation for Whom?

Having recognised the variegated composition of the city of Mumbai as a result of both its past and present status of a ‘global-city’ in the Indian subcontinent, it would also be useful to explore the history of planned urbanisation interventions in the city which predate to the Bombay City Improvement Trust set up by the British in 1898 in the aftermath of the plague. The expansion of the large-scale industrial base in the city was also accompanied by the degradation of the environment and a land-availability crunch due to the laissez-faire urbanisation practices of the local elites. The congestion and unsanitary conditions ​ resembled those witnessed in pre-industrial Europe, wherein the introduction of the industry also mandated a rehaul of the urban ecosystem and led to urban-renewal missions. Bombay followed a similar pattern as the city’s local elites sought to ‘clean-up’ the city and rid the urban expanse of overcrowded slum settlements. The initial setting up of ‘chawls’ in the city, both by local inhabitants and the industrial capitalists as low-cost tenements for workers and the subsequent slum clearance strategies of the municipal agencies in the city resulted in a ‘shifting, rather than the abolition, of overcrowding’ (Hazareesingh 2001, p. 240). The construction of railways and roadways in the city also contributed to this trend by displacing residents around the newly constructed thoroughfares and concentrating settlements short distances away. The colonial government’s notable interest in the land in the city was further demonstrated by their appropriation of a huge portion of land near Matunga in 1904 in order to develop the railway networks without the consent of the local authorities1. Furthermore, the two major roadways projects undertaken by the Trust, the Princess Street completed in 1905 and Sandhurst Road completed in 1909, were both for the benefit of the elites, both Indian and British. In fact, the width of the roads was kept wide enough to support motor vehicles which facilitated the movement of the elites from the centre of the city, westwards to areas such as Malabar Hill, a trend which can be observed in present-day Mumbai as well.

The increasing land prices due to the tussle between the various factions of elites (European and Indian commercial enterprises, landlords, merchants, industrialists and so on) coupled with the tendency of the urban development exercises to cater to the dominant sections of the society resulted in increased segregation of social space in the city. The engineering of transportation and housing facilities in the city only added to the segregating tendencies of urbanisation. The working classes were sought to be rehabilitated in areas closer to their workplaces near the docks, mills or factories in order to keep travel costs low for them while the ‘well-to-do’ residents were to live in the southern part of the city where

1 “The Municipal Commissioner slammed the Railway Companies' ‘land hunger’, accusing them of seeking ‘to turn ​ the city into a station yard with a few houses dotted about here and there’.” (Government of Bombay, ‘Medical ​ proceedings, 1905’, p. 128) housing was made available for them through reclamation and explicit urban development strategies. The 1909 government resolution2 clearly mentions the need to maintain spatial segregation of housing on the basis of affordability of public transport facilities which could only be availed by the upper and middle classes so as to ensure that the class interests don’t clash3. The resolution extensively echoed the immediate interests of the elite classes in ignoring the technological advances which could enable low-cost public transportation for the working classes. Inspite of the Bombay Government’s own memorandum’s (1907) recommendations for workmen’s trains and tramways to encourage “working-class accommodation ‘in the less frequented portions of the Island where land is available on easy terms’” (ibid p. 243), the 1909 resolution declared any such initiatives as premature and not as an ​ immediate requirements of the city. The advent of electrified railways and rapid transit modes of transport was only envisioned after the establishment of upper-class residential areas in the reclaimed and southern parts of the city (eg. Colaba, Fort, etc.). A parallel trend observed in the European inner cities which made available cheaper and subsidized modes of transport for the working classes (Capuzzo 2003) was completely absent in the conceptualising of industrial policies and urban development plans in Bombay. If anything, this was a clear demonstration of the close correlation between the interests of the dominant elite groups and the urban governance of the colonial city of Bombay.

The rise of the private motor-vehicles in the city can also be traced back to the inability of public transportation to service the middle-classes and the rising working-class population. While car ownership translated directly to affluence and had a significant class character associated with it, the increasing number of private motorcars were also to disperse the wealthier classes in the northern parts of the city4. However, the impact of the motor-vehicles was an adverse one on the environment as well as the urban layouts of the city. The poor quality of the existing roads and the inability of the new construction to keep up with the rising numbers of motor vehicles augmented the lack of outward expansion towards north Bombay. Not only did this worsen the pollution situation in the city, increasing the risk of respiratory diseases and other health risks, but the exponentially increasing traffic on the streets also formed the cornerstone of congested alleys and bylanes as witnessed in the city even today. What this also resulted in was a complete overhaul of traffic rules and regulations, both formal and informal, to accommodate the motley varieties of vehicles on the roads which ranged from ox-carts to motorised four-wheelers. The contemporary discourse on pedestrian safety on the roads finds its preliminary counterparts in the rising number of accidents in which the casualties of rash driving and speeding were more often than not the elderly and the children. The lack of a regulatory framework accompanying the introduction of motorised vehicles on the streets of Bombay further the citizens of a rapidly industrialising and urbanising city from their European counterparts. Diversification of transportation once again reaffirmed its alignment with the dominant classes in the city and catered to their interests under the guise of expanding mobilities with little or no inclination to provide transit opportunities for the masses.

2 Government of Bombay General Department Resolution no. 3022, 14 Jun. 1909, ‘Development of Bombay City and the improvement of communications in the Island’: Government of Bombay, ‘Local self-government proceedings, 1909’, 381-6. 3 ‘... otherwise the interests of one class will suffer by the intrusion, into areas unsuitable for them, of residents of another’ (ibid., p. 72) ​ ​ 4 “During the War years, the Trust embarked on luxury residential schemes adjacent to the Worli and Dharavi waterfronts, designed ‘for the upper classes who can afford to keep motor cars’(Bombay Improvement Trust, ‘City Improvement Trust Report, 1916’, p. 15.).” (ibid p. 252-253) ​ ​

Disruptions and Splinters in the Urban

The lack of long-term urban planning practices and the impulse to cater to short-term vested interests has been reiterated as a continuing shortcoming of governance in the city of Mumbai. Even while the city prospered economically in terms of booming capital flows driving enterprise, trade and commerce within and at the boundaries of the city, the poverty levels amongst the residents gave way to abominable living conditions, an acute congestion problem and a serious lack of foresight in accommodating the diverse populations. An instance of social segregation persisting inspite of conscious efforts by planning agencies in the city has been observed in the residential patterns of Navi Mumbai. A social agenda of planning the region was to demolish the ethnic congregation trends observed in the Greater and suburban regions of Mumbai. However, Ananthakrishnan (1998) argues that the urban social patterns of the area reveal a gradual movement on religious and ethnic lines through reselling and redistribution of the housing. Another study (Baker et. al 2005) illustrates the spatial concentration of the poor households in Mumbai and their separation from the richer households in particular zones in the city. Furthermore, the proximity between the workplace and housing for a majority of workers in the city continue to be a characteristic feature as the study also finds that most commuters from poor households rely on walking to work (Baker et. al 2005). The persistence of slum housing facilities, especially in the wake of failed rehabilitation policies post-revamping transport facilities such as flyovers, highways, freeways and the current metro projects have continued to be a major part of larger infrastructural failures in the city. Urban inequalities and the drastic disparities between the social groups in the city, be it religious, ethnic or class-based, are a consequence of these failures (McFarlane 2010). The recent motorisation trends observed within the middle-classes (Shirgaokar 2014) also reinforce the stratification of class groups, moderating their access to facilities for health, education and employment and their overall participation in the planned urbanisation paradigm.

Networks of infrastructure, be it transport, communication or resources such as water and electricity, portend a heavy reliance on technological interventions and constitute complex socio-technical systems (Graham 2004). To analyse the design of these systems and the empirical outcomes of hierarchies formed as a result of unevenness in their implementation, the interplay of power becomes evident in social, economic and political struggles for resources and control over these systems within an urban expanse. These networks then sustain and concretise the ‘socio-technical geometries of power’ (Massey 1993) and mandate equally complex regulatory mechanisms to ensure an overarching redistributive as well as an equity-based approach to urban development. However, in the absence of such an approach or due to its relative weakening in the neoliberal era, a ‘networked society’ might emerge in a manner which strengthens the global and external connections but disconnects the architecture of the city from the local and the internal. In the wake of contemporary globalisation and international capitalist forces, the splintering of the urban and its fragmentation due to the parallel embeddedness in multiple contexts is accelerated. In the particular case of Bombay, now Mumbai, these trends can very well be traced back to the colonial era and the failures of policy frameworks to correct the historical failures and establish an urban environment suitable for the diverse populations in the city. The continuation of this fragmentation can only be mitigated through a cohesive understanding of the socio-technical infrastructures supplemented by a thorough examination of the multitudinal character of the city and its inhabitants.

References

Adey, P., Bissell, D., Hannam, K., Merriman, P. and Sheller, M. eds., 2014. The Routledge handbook of mobilities. Routledge. Ananthakrishnan, M., 1998. The Urban Social Patterns of Navi Mumbai, India (Doctoral dissertation, Virginia Tech). Baker, J., Basu, R., Cropper, M., Lall, S. and Takeuchi, A., 2005. Urban poverty and transport: the case of Mumbai. The World Bank. Capuzzo, P., 2003. Between Politics and Technology: Transport as a factor of mass suburbanization in Europe, 1890–1939. Suburbanizing the Masses: Public Transport and Urban Development in Historical Perspective, pp.23-48. Chandavarkar, R., 2002. The Origins of Industrial Capitalism in India: Business strategies and the working classes in Bombay, 1900-1940 (Vol. 51). Cambridge University Press. Chopra, P., 2007. Refiguring the Colonial City: Recovering the Role of Local Inhabitants in the Construction of Colonial Bombay, 1854-1918. In Buildings & Landscapes: Journal of the Vernacular Architecture Forum (Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 109-125). University of Minnesota Press. Chopra, P., 2011. A joint enterprise: Indian elites and the making of British Bombay. U of Minnesota Press. Cidell, J. and Prytherch, D. eds., 2015. Transport, mobility, and the production of urban space. Routledge. Divall, C., 2015. Cultural Histories of Sociabilities, Spaces and Mobilities. Routledge. Graham, S. and Marvin, S., 2002. Splintering Urbanism: networked infrastructures, technological mobilities and the urban condition. Routledge. Hall, P.V. and Hesse, M. eds., 2013. Cities, regions and flows (Vol. 40). Routledge. Hazareesingh, S., 2001. Colonial modernism and the flawed paradigms of urban renewal: uneven development in Bombay, 1900–25. Urban History, 28(2), pp.235-255. Larsen, J. and Urry, J., 2016. Mobilities, networks, geographies. Routledge. McFarlane, C., 2010. Infrastructure, interruption, and inequality: Urban life in the global South. Disrupted cities: When infrastructure fails, pp.131-144. Pike, A., Rodríguez-Pose, A. and Tomaney, J. eds., 2010. Handbook of local and regional development. Routledge. Saunders, P., 2003. Social theory and the urban question. Routledge. Shirgaokar, M., 2014. Employment centers and travel behavior: Exploring the work commute of Mumbai’s rapidly motorizing middle class. Journal of Transport Geography, 41, pp.249-258. URBAN, A., 2007. Urban India: Understanding the Maximum City. In Urban Age (London School of Economics and Political Science): Urban Age Conference Newspaper (No. 8). Vuchic, V.R., 2007. Urban transit systems and technology. John Wiley & Sons. Massey, D., 2012. Power-geometry and a progressive sense of place. In Mapping the futures (pp. 75-85). Routledge.