Mum(bai)’s the Word: Practiced Ignorance, Manipulation, and Prejudice as a Means of Water Access 

In “PRESSURE: The PoliTechnics of Water Supply in Mumbai,” published 2011 in Cultural  Anthropology, Nikhil Anand discusses the city of Mumbai’s water system, focusing on the acquisition of water by settlers and residents. Anand elaborates upon the concept of diversity in the forms in which pressure manifests and how the methods developed by settlers, politicians, authority figures, and members of the water supply department directly manipulate the literal water pressure and levels of accessibility amongst various social groups. The argument Anand provides is crucial in approaching the answers to the questions of how individuals are able to establish themselves as citizens and members of society through water access,  and how water sometimes has the ability to surpass its relationship with political structures. What follows is my summary of Anand’s argument, as well as an evaluation of the range and relevance of evidence utilized to support the argument. To conclude, I will analyze the possible influences on Anand’s point of view, and how these influences and his disciplinary training in anthropology (particularly environmental and urban anthropology) shape his perspective. The focus of my argument regarding Anand’s work in “PRESSURE:...” is directed to how social prejudices determining political value govern water access, as well as the measures engineers take in order to mitigate the pressures inflicted on their respective departments.  

My interpretation of Anand’s article draws on the difficulty of establishing “hydraulic citizenship” and terms of receiving access to water from the engineers controlled by politicians and councilors who dictate the scarce flow in relation to a certain population’s political value. Pressure is imposed at multiple stages of the water acquisition process, not just exclusively by residents but also by politicians and those who Anand describes as “charismatic figures” (settlement dadas and councilors) (Anand, 9). This pressure is inflicted specifically on the engineers who directly manipulate the water pressure and distribution. In arguing these points I will be elaborating upon the discrepancy in treatment between Muslim-majority settlement  Premnagar and Marathi-Hindu populations, as well as intelligent disobedience that water department engineers must adopt in response to corrupt practices. For this approach, it is necessary to understand the presence of social prejudices that the majority of Mumbai’s Shiv Sena-oriented population holds against minority groups with differing political and religious views. 

Premnagar, a settlement over 40 years old, is located on topographically-challenged, hilly land, and receives little to no municipal water services. Though engineers are quick to attribute the low water access as dictated by natural adversities such as rugged landscapes and altitude, the neighboring settlement Meghwadi  (which has a largely Marathi-Hindu population) receives adequate water pressure and access. Additionally,  politically and economically powerful residents of Malabar Hill have reliable access to pumped water. Due to its Muslim population, Premnagar settlers are deemed less politically valuable, and in contrast to Malabar Hill residents, the price of pumping water would not be worth the cost and resources. This is elaborated upon in  Anand’s interactions with maintenance department engineer Kerkar. Kerkar’s experiences accurately represent the in-group and out-group dilemma that Premnagar is negatively impacted by. He creates a strong differentiation between Premnagar settlers and Banjrekar Wadi settlers (who are primarily Marathi-Hindu),  using the term ‘“Our people”’ for those in Banjrekar Wadi and describing them as hardworking and clean  (Anand, 14). In turn, Kerkar adversely characterizes those in Premnagar as ‘“their people,’” dirty, and belligerent (Anand, 14). He views Premnagar Muslim settlers as not belonging to Mumbai and instead, to other Indian states. As a small minority community, Premnagar residents are unable to effectively exert large amounts of pressure upon the water department for better water access. Additionally, Shiv Sena-elected leaders are more likely to dedicate attention to improving services in Marathi-Hindu settlements, as they are more politically relevant. Demand for water in Premnagar without municipal support results in the development of infra-political methods of obtaining water, including working closely with plumbers and utilizing illegal booster pumps. Many settlers also resort to collecting well water, which is generally unregulated due to wells’ decentralization and difficulty in being controlled by Mumbai’s hierarchical bureaucracy. Additionally, well water’s lower quality and inadequacy do not often merit the time and expertise of municipal engineers (Anand, 16). The situation in the Premnagar settlement provides an example as to how water can bypass (and incidentally, surpass) existing political structures in Mumbai. Anand’s argument also presents the immense pressure that many hydraulic engineers in Mumbai’s water department face from the community. As recounted by a former engineer, politicians, and administrators pressure engineers to disregard illegitimacy in settlers’ documentation and embrace a sense of ignorance in suspicious and corrupt matters to avoid state law violations. I describe this encouraged ignorance as a type of  “intelligent disobedience.” While engineers are officially required by law to report illegitimacy, they consciously deploy ignorance as a means to minimize the accusations of illegality. As a result, corrupt means of water distribution and access occur regularly in personal relationships between councilors, politicians, and settlers. 

To develop his argument on the materiality of water and the pressures that affect its accessibility to the residents of Mumbai, Anand spent 22 months conducting ethnographic research in a northern Mumbai settlement and field office of the city’s water department. In his time in the field, he focused on researching settler water access. He interviewed and interacted with engineers, prominent settlement leaders, and politicians. Mumbai community members he was involved with include Patkar, a senior hydraulic engineer at the headquarters of Mumbai’s water supply department, Rané, a leader of a prominent female settlers’ group,  Mr. Surve, a Shiv Sena leader, and additional anonymous water engineers. To further supplement his writing,  Anand cites over 35 secondary sources, many of which relate to Mumbai and politics. A large portion of his secondary sources are written pieces published by accredited institutions. Other sources include scholarly articles published in academic journals, much like Anand’s piece itself. Altogether, Anand’s secondary sources were published between 1990 and 2010. (Concerning the 2011 publication date of “PRESSURE:...” ) Upon light investigation, a number of the arguments provided by these pieces discuss authority and impoverished populations, both of which are significant characters in Anand’s writing. This is evident in articles such as Arjun  Appadurai’s “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics” and Thomas Hansen’s  “Sovereigns beyond the State: On Legality and Authority in Urban India.” Appadurai researches how disenfranchised groups in Mumbai make claims to citizenship through independent governance. Hansen delves into the term, “legal consciousness,” (recognition of the law and litigations) and its state of decline in urban India, manifested as disputes between differing religious communities, belligerence against minorities,  and subversion of the law by political parties. Arguments commonly seen among Anand’s sources resonate largely with his perception of Mumbai’s corrupt political system and how minority and impoverished communities are negatively affected. Additionally, a source that is prominent amongst the written work is  Anand’s inclusion of Premnagar resident Shali Shaikh’s film, “Pyasa Premnagar,” which documents the water issues residents in Premnagar faced. Shaikh’s short, meditative documentary features several candid interviews and conversations between Premnagar settlers and the narrator, offering a perspective that Anand did not otherwise have when speaking to engineer Kerkar. (Anand’s independent fieldwork and interviews did  not include settlers of Premnagar.) 

Anand’s primary sources of evidence are crucial to developing his argument. First-hand interactions and experiences recounted by Mumbaikars are compelling, also representing the confusing and at times contradictory nature of the city’s water department and the materiality of water as a means of influencing politics.  Direct interviews of hydraulic engineers offer a technical perspective on water accessibility issues in Mumbai,  and also effectively illustrate how the engineers are faced with pressures from their superiors and occasionally settlers as well. An anonymous former chief engineer discloses how the water department was often urged by politicians and administration ‘“not to go into depth [to verify the authenticity] of every application”’  (Anand, 11). Authority figures pressured engineers to practice ignorance and discourage whistle-blowing in response to documents possibly manipulated or forged by councilors. Anand recalls a conversation with Shiv  Sena leader Mr. Surve, where Anand questions why settlers and their plumbers don’t visit the water authority directly, instead electing to go to party offices. Surve explains that the state’s water regulation procedures are a set of complicated processes to encourage settlers to forgo it completely and instead, communicate with their councilors (Anand, 10). This reinforces the idea that the personal relationships between settlers and their councilors and political parties are significant for the water supply. 

The narrative of Rané, a leader of a Shiv  Sena-affiliated settlement’s women’s group, provides a point of view of settlers who can rally and petition a local councilor and political leader for water. Her story is another example of politically valuable populations receiving water access–as the Shiv Sena is a right-wing party powerful in Mumbai and leads the civic administration. Rané’s group’s strong connection to the party establishes political relevance to Mumbai’s administration. As a result, city councilors and representatives became more personally involved in her settlement, with new pipes conspicuously bearing their names and water availability greatly improved.  Though Anand provides the audience with a wide array of characters in Mumbai, he does not include first-hand accounts from “dadas” and councilors. Perhaps their involvement would have devalued his argument,  should they attempt to deny the corruption occurring amongst the levels of water distribution. I was confused with Anand’s decision to omit these viewpoints, while he incorporates that of the Shiv Sena leader–the councilors and political leaders are closely affiliated power figures in the water regulation process and I don’t believe they can be easily made exclusive from one another. This choice made by Anand is presumably for the sake of brevity in his article. Furthermore, in the footnotes of “PRESSURE:...” I noticed Anand’s statement,  “Uncomfortable with the pathologies associated with the word slum, I prefer to use the terms settlement and  settler in my work.” I perceive Anand’s deliberate substitution of “settler” in place of “slum dweller” as a demonstration of compassion for the impoverished and undocumented residents, though he does not display an overt inclination towards these populations. 

Nikhil Anand is a current assistant professor at the University of Pennsylvania in the Department of  Anthropology. Anand’s new research focuses on how urban rivers and seas create and manage social differences in both the United States and India. His stated interests in South Asia, material cultures,  infrastructure, postcolonial urbanism, and citizenship can all be connected to the production of this article. In total, Anand has contributed to 10 publications, the most recent as co-editor of Duke University Press published book, The Promise of Infrastructure, directed to the methods in which infrastructure can theorize time and politics (“Nikhil Anand | Department of Anthropology”). A number of his other written pieces have been published by recognized journals such as Antipode, Ethnography, and Public Culture, citing his presence in urban anthropology. “PRESSURE: The PoliTechnics of Water Supply in Mumbai” itself was published in a volume of the academic anthropological journal, Cultural Anthropology, a section of the American  Anthropological Association. Anand’s specific work in Mumbai researching how certain city populations are unable to establish “hydraulic citizenship” and gain access to water raises awareness and consideration for the underrepresented settlers who may have previously been scorned and disregarded. In the conclusion of his article, Anand states his argument as a means to raise awareness of the methods settlers and engineers employ to manage the growing difficulties of water accessibility in Mumbai (Anand, 17). Anand’s background in environmental science (complementing his anthropological education) indicates his passion for developing solutions to environmental issues affecting societies. He draws upon not only the social but also the natural environment of Mumbai and how both negatively or positively affect different communities. Anand can explain the geographical challenges that many areas of Mumbai are predisposed to in terms of water accessibility but also reject many of these hindrances as excuses for Mumbai’s municipal water department not supplying water, citing social prejudices and labels of value instead.  

In this summary of Anand’s article exploring the issues of water accessibility in Mumbai, I focused on  different pressures exerted by members of Mumbai’s society, and how the pressures relate to Anand’s term of  “hydraulic citizenship.” I also analyzed Anand’s fieldwork and sources used, judging their suitability for his argument. The motivations behind the article can be identified from my evaluation of Anand’s educational background and training, encouraging further consideration of differing arguments that may be proposed by ethnographers with educational backgrounds apart from environmental studies. The discussion of the political values of specific populations is crucial to understanding why certain areas and settlements of Mumbai are able or unable to gain accessibility to water; these points assist in recognizing that methods of water distribution in the city must be improved upon. In Mumbai’s case, both the settlers and engineers are negatively regulated by the “charismatic figures” of authority. Anand’s article is a compelling means of presenting the ever-growing issues and corruption that both disadvantaged characters face in the constant tug-of-war for water pressure, calling for change and reflection on these matters in alternative societies. 

Works Cited 

Anand, Nikhil. “PRESSURE: The PoliTechnics of Water Supply in Mumbai.” Cultural Anthropology, vol. 26, no. 4, 13 Nov. 2011, pp. 542–564., doi:10.1111/j.1548-1360.2011.01111.x. 

“Department of Anthropology.” Nikhil Anand | Department of Anthropology, www.sas.upenn.edu/anthropology/people/nikhil-anand.