Constructing Right To The City Cultural Studies Essay

Published: Last Edited:

This essay has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work written by our professional essay writers.

Introduction: Rajiv Awaas Yojna (RAY), as a 'social welfare' program in India, envisages the concept of 'slum free cities'. Most of the city governments translate the notion of 'slum free cities' as an eviction mechanism. As an 'efficient' government, Delhi government has used its state machinery for eviction propaganda before Asian Games. Thousands of people have been forcefully evacuated. As an official statement, Sheila Dikshit, the chief minister of Delhi, has commented "This clearance had to be done, and it has been done". [2] This indicates a dangerous tendency where survival itself is criminalized. [3] This can be seen as a consequence of neoliberal economic policies. Neoliberal economic policies have intensified the competition among urban areas for capital investment.

In January 2003, Arundhuti Roy spoke at the World Social Forum in Brazil. She said "we be many and they be few. They need us more than we need them. Another world is not only possible, she is on her way. On a quiet day, I can hear her breathing". [4] This statement may be criticized as an over romanticized statement of Roy's own ideological biases. But there are ample examples of movements across the globe to support her view. Some of these movements are small, others are large, some are disjointed, and others are not. The examples are everywhere from Global South to the western world. In 2011, New York City has observed an overwhelming protest 'Occupy Wall Street' as a reaction to the neo-liberal economic policies. The May Day protest in Seattle for 'immigrants and workers right' can be a recent example in United States [5] . In India, the Narmada movement has opposed the displacement of poor and tribal people. In Cancun, Mexico, hundreds of people have protested in front of the venue of the United Nations Climate Change Conference to raise their voice against the commercialization of forestry [6] . In Cochabamba, Bolivia, the commercialization of water has given birth to a protest which translated into a 'Water Riot' there [7] . These movements are creating a space for alternative urbanism which triggers my purpose of carrying this research study.

Main Focus: The focus of my literature review study is to understand the processes of 'subaltern urbanism' [i] . The 'right to the city' creates a radical new paradigm for 'subaltern urbanism'. There is a profound gap in academic scholarships to address that how right claims of marginalized people in cities of the global south can be practiced. The literature review is intended to explore the concept of right to the city by several scholars and provide a context to study the claim of rights by marginalized people of the global south.

Structural Adjustment and its Consequences on Cities: As a part of structural adjustment, the cities of the global south are facing a new form of challenges from the economic & social forces. The term structural adjustment means liberalization of economies to market forces and a relative withdrawal of government from the price setting mechanism. [8] The structural adjustment is putting pressures on the fabric of the cities. These pressures come from international economic policies and globalization which promote capital investments and free flow of goods. It translates into change in city fabric. This results in unemployment, overpopulation and lack of direction in urban development. Exclusion is thus becoming a consequence of these in the cities of global south. Neoliberalism is pushing marginalized population to the peripheries of urban space. This is a conscious effort to alienate people from the production of urban space. It promotes a specific process which can be termed as middle class activism. This results in deepening of inequalities of income and economic opportunities. [9] The increasing land value in urban areas due to volatile land market is pushing poor people more towards informal housing and inadequate urban services. Jordi Borja (2011) argues that the new metropolitan regions of neoliberal urbanism can be looked through as a process of privatization. This privatization process has implications in public spaces. Public spaces are becoming privatized, "functionally specialized, socially segregated and compartmentalized" [10] . The neoliberal cities are trying to build a metanarrative of "world class cities". The spatial narrative of "world class cities" is represented by lucrative compartmentalized spaces for capital investment. It promotes iconic architectures, high rise apartments, malls, flyovers and expressways. Arif Hasan argues that in world class cities "the global capital determines the physical and social fabric of a city". [11] The example of this can be cited from the experience of Delhi, India before the commonwealth game, 2010. About 500,000 people were evicted for making space for commonwealth games and to cover up the grey areas of the city. A Housing and Land Rights Network, Delhi, report exposed that these evictions were occurred without any prior notice and reason and without any compensation or rehabilitation plan. [12] The result was massive displacement, loss of income opportunities, property destruction. The construction of this metanarrative is associated with covering up of grey areas of the city-the slums and marginalization of impoverished groups from the planning process. In his study on urban regeneration and gentrification, Neil Smith criticizes this process of neoliberal cities. He mentions "language of regeneration sugarcoats gentrification" [13] . He also views this as a process of mobilization of individual property rights through market determined ways of capital accumulation. This capital accumulation process is increasing inequalities in cities and making the difference between formal and informal more prominent. In a research article Ananya Roy (2011)argues, that neoliberal economic forces are consciously making efforts to increase polarization between formal and informal sectors, in terms of housing, economic activities and public space utilization. She also claims that it has two major goals to serve. One goal is to create division among people and the other goal is to separate marginalized people from the planning and decision making processes. Don Mitchell in his book Right to the City (2003), shows that in this polarized world of formal and informal, urban space is losing its essence of free interaction, free speech, inclusion and participation in the political process. He further explains this notion as 'disneyfication of space'. The 'disneyfication of space' means planned and controlled environment which promotes space utilization by an "appropriate" group of people. These spaces are not inclusive. The 'disneyfication of space' is creating a set of ordered space which can be utilized by a group of people and in turn creating a certain kind of public which is easy to manage and plan. This is an attempt to blur the distinction between public and private, between market and people, to avoid the representations of underprivileged and finally to promote, what Foucault has described as 'governmentality'. Governmentality offers a process of homogenization which creates pseudo- spaces' to "enjoy surveillance more than free interactions; entertainment more than politics" [14] . It only promotes certain democracy in which performance of activities is possible only those are satisfactory to the state. Mitchell argues that the activities which are threatening to the existing order usually treated as an act of violence by state. This relates to a process called 'dangerousness' where specific groups treat as potential dangers without any criminal attributes of the population. Castells (2010) defines placelessness phenomena as the emergence of a new form of capitalism where places lost its importance and replaced with space of flows. He describes it as the emergence of network society. The poor, the ethnic minority, the homeless people are always outsiders of this society because their presence is ignored in the network of capital investments. As a part of the homogenization process by the state, cities are sacrificing the diversity of social process and spatial relations.

Indian Context of Neoliberalism: The Indian economy took a new shape after the LPG (Liberalization, Privatization and Globalization) era in the 1990s. After 1991, the economy began to change with emphasis on foreign investments, globalization and free trade. The neoliberal economic policies has a direct impact upon the planning process. With the top-down approach, it is observed that regional disparities. Urban areas were facing a large amount of migration as a part of the 'pull effect'. The 'pull effect' comes from the hope of new economic opportunities. But finally most of the rural migrants ended up with the economic participation in the informal sector. With an influx of population, the urban services are steadily degrading. Local authorities are unable to provide services to a majority of the population because they are not capable of in terms of technical knowledge as well as financial resources. There is a continuous contradiction among formal and informal in terms of economic activity, housing and public spaces. Post 2000 era observed a sudden rise of middle class society in urban areas. A McKinsey report projects India will gain 583 million middle class people by 2025 [15] . This indicates a pervasive attempt of middle class activism. This middle class activism promotes privatization of public spaces, spatial segregation and project based urban development. This often ignores the "other half" of the society-the marginalized. Due to widespread effect of middle class activism real estate dealers are trying to shape the planning process. This is a dangerous tendency where a political process is shaping towards a market determined process through private players. Several reports on household income support this dangerous tendency. The table below depicts the income distribution of India.

Table 1 Household Annual Income Distribution and Population Share (2010-11) [16] 

Socio Economic Class

Annual Household Income (in $)

Population (2010-11) (in million)

% Share of total Population

















The table shows more than half of the population lives as deprived group. This group can be termed as destitute. If we add aspires or the lower income group, the share jumps to 85% or more than 3/4th of the population. Affordable housing has become a buzz word now a day. But if we focus how the real estate agencies are defining the affordable housing the scenario becomes more prominent towards the middle class activism. A leading real estate intelligence company PropEquity defines their affordable housing price bracket as $(35-45)/sq.ft [17] . According to the National Urban Housing & Habitat Policy, India 2007, the minimum floor area required for a family is 300 sq.ft. [18] If we combine it with the price of available affordable housing stock, the median price reaches $13,500. Here lies the irony of affordable hosing. If we consider the thumb rule of 30% of income to expenditure on housing, the deprived group and aspires lie well below to even reach the market defined by the real estate agencies. At this juncture, the marginalized are depending solely on informal housing. It is creating a paradox of two situations. In one hand, the market is defining the formal housing which is not affordable to a large section and on the other hand, market ensures a process of gentrification and eviction of informal housing. It put us in front of a fundamental question- what happens to those 85% people? The question leads us to the struggle and movement to change the middle class activism.

With the advent of neoliberalism and globalization, Indian planning process adopts a distinct language of developmentalism. In 2005, India launched an urban reform program called Jawaharlal Neheru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). This mission was designed to create cities investment friendly. It focuses on improvement of infrastructure, provision of housing and large scale investment. This was an attempt to improve the financial health of cities. As a policy measure, it focuses on a model of urban economic growth [19] . The design of the program does not look into the informal sector of the economy which comprises a significant part. The result leads to evictions and increasing inequality. The spaces of informal activities have been transformed through zoning regulations and privatization of public spaces. Benjamin Solomon mentions this burgeoning process as "politics of developmentalism". The language of this developmentalism politics is derived by international donor agencies corporate and consultancy firms and N.G.O.s. The major players of the decision making process are lead by these groups where people are missing although it has a notion of decentralized planning. It promotes 'structured participation of legalized citizens' [20] .This results into more of contestation in urban spaces, rising land values and a skewed urban growth. A perfect example of this is Mumbai. Mumbai is the 10th highest land value ($11,306/ [21] city after New York and simultaneously it caters the second largest slum of Asia, Dharavi [22] . Solomon Benjamin coins a distinct process to resist this developmental politics "occupancy urbanism" [23] . He mentions "occupy urbanism" as a way to radicalize politics and economy to resist the developmental politics of policy and programs.

Critical Urban Theory: Critical urban theory is an academic discourse that was initiated by David Harvey. It has a broad tradition in urban planning, geography, political economy and international development. The global recession of 2008 can be treated as an intense failure of neoliberal and market economy. As an alternative approach, social science academia in recent days is inclining more towards critical urban theory. Critical urban theory emerges from Marxian and Hegelian principles and has its roots in a radical approach towards urban problems. According to critical urban theory, urban problems can be looked through the Hegelian dialectics of thesis, anti thesis and synthesis. About critical urban theory, Neil Brenner says "critical urban theory rejects disciplinary divisions of labor and statist, market driven and market oriented form of urban knowledge". [24] It focuses on urban spaces which are politically and socially contested and the outcome depends on the "historically specific relations of social power" [25] . Critical urban theory is a critique of hegemonic power relations, cultural dominations, social injustice and inequality. According to Peter Marcuse, critical urban theory postulates five indispensible conditions: a) urban problems are not separate and it has its roots in economic, political and social structures and the society; b) radical action is required; c) it is related with the underlying super structure of the society and demands a structural change d) collective demand is necessary to achieve a common goal e) collective effort is supported by individual effort of participation [26] . Critical urban theory as an alternative approach looks beyond the economic growth of cities. This promotes a tradition of people's movement towards structural change. Critical urban theory supports a radical approach of urban change through people's right in the city. This is a discourse which acts as niche for radical social demands and their implementation in urban areas.

Right to the City: Lefebvre has mentioned "right to the city is like a cry and demand". It is important to understand what he tried to mean by cry and by demand. For Lefebvre, the "cry comes out from a necessity and demand for something more" [27] . As a response to the pervasive attempt of neoliberalism and hegemonic social and political relations, right to the city is a necessity for urban change. Peter Marcuse describes it as "Right to the city is an intuitively compelling slogan and theoretically complex and provocative formulation" [28] . Neoliberalism imports a homogenization process in cities and its spaces. Right to the city is that radical discourse that questions this homogenization process. David Harvey (2012), Mark Purcell (2008) and Don Mitchell (2003) argue that to resist the homogenization process right to the city approach is necessary. Rights offer deep structural changes in the process of production and consumption of urban resources [29] . The idea was first promoted by French philosopher Henri Lefebvre. His right to the city encompasses the ideas that: a) the city is public-free social interaction and exchange; b) heterogeneity- where space encourages differences; c) difference -creates struggle to access the resources, citizenship and democracy. Lefebvre envisaged reformulation of the framework of citizenship through the right to the city which would enable urban dwellers to claim the resources of the city. He also claimed everyday life is the pivotal force for the right to the city. Urban dwellers those who perform their daily activities and relations create urban space through the living and possess a legitimate right to the city. [30] Upendra Baxi states that Lefebvre has developed his idea of right to the city on the basis of "conceptual triads": spatial practice, physical practice of everyday routine and networks and pathways. [31] 

Harvey, Purcell and Mitchell formulate their ideas on the basis of Lefebvre's idea. David Harvey argues; right to the city give citizens a shaping power over the processes of urbanization, over the resources and decision making processes. [32] He views right as a collective process to bargain the citizenship and political space for the marginalized groups. According to Purcell, right to the city idea reshape the range of decisions that produce urban space. He elaborates his thesis by mentioning two major domains for rights-a) right to utilization of urban space and b) right to participate politically in shaping the urban space. [33] Mitchell argues that right to the city cannot be achieved in the existing legislative system because state power has a tendency to legitimize activities in public space in an orderly manner. It uses legislative system as a tool to regulate the public space. The regulation through legislative system can be seen as a regulation of space and spatial relationships. Most of the times, the state power decides the content and form of protests which can be seen as the predominance of state over space. Mitchell mentions that rights have a relation to counteract this and promote progressive social policy. He describes that social justice for the marginalized group can be achieved through the exercise of right to the city. Right to the city creates a process of institutionalization of justice. With the institutionalization effort, the state governed hierarchy in the social order can be changed. The spaces can be created by the logic of representation. He supports the notion of creation of multiple, mutually exclusive social spaces instead of Habermass's notion of universal single social space. The right to the city signifies societal ethics produced through living in the city and free utilization of urban space. [34] It includes public participation in urban governance and decision making process. Mitchell proposes a radical solution for right to live: "Either a city possesses sufficient safe, sanitary shelter to house its homeless population or it does not. If it does not, then homeless people simply must occupy public space". [35] In his book 'The New Urban Frontier-Gentrification and the Revanchist City' (1996), Neil Smith elucidates Lefebvre's idea to define revanchist city. Smith coins the concept of the 'revanchist city' to capture malice of welfare reforms [36] . This is identified through a discourse of revenge against minorities, homeless people, the working class, the environmental activists and the immigrants. In his research, Smith focuses on urban regeneration projects through gentrification. His research shows that gentrification for the sake of urban development creates a city of inequality. The inequality is persistent across European cities, North American cities and the cities of global south. As a corrective measure to this inequality, Smith focuses on Lefebvre's idea of right to the city. In a nutshell, these scholarships highlights that right based approach enable to distribute the outcomes of development and also it ensures a participatory democracy [37] .

The Montréal Charter of Rights and Responsibilities (2002) explores rights in seven dimensions: [38] a) Democracy: promotes citizens' democratic rights to participate; b) Economic and social life: promotes adequate housing and services and action to reduce poverty; c) Cultural life: seeks to preserve and present cultural and natural heritage, and promote creative endeavor and diversity of cultural practices; d) Recreation, physical activities and sports: establishes rights to sport and recreation promoting parks, recreational facilities and services; e) Environment and sustainable development: promotes waste reduction, re-use and recycling, and protection of natural environments; f) Security: promotes secure development, security for women, and safety in the use of public space; g) Municipal Services: seeks rights to high quality municipal services through transparency, equitable service provision, and adequate maintenance and management.

This approach has a different narrative of rights. The approach to different forms of rights has a connotation of hegemonic identity. In terms of cultural rights, it mentions preservation of heritage. Heritage is not an inclusive concept. It promotes orderly arrangements of space. The Montreal Charter also highlights recreational rights by promoting parks and recreational area. This beautification approach relates to the idea of 'santitized democracy'. It seeks to control people's behavior. According to this idea, a park hinders the notion of 'public space' by restricting certain behaviors like political protests, shelter for homeless people. By the term security, the Charter focuses on surveillance which relates to the notion what Foucault called as 'biopolitic'- a politics of fear. This idea of right to the city is distinctively different from the idea of spatial rights as Mitchell describes.

UNESCO UN Habitat proposes five fundamental axes of their right to the city project. The five axes are: a) access to liberty and freedom b) transparency, equity and efficiency in local government c) participation in local decision making process d) inclusion and reduction in the rate of urban violence and e) celebration of differences in economic, cultural and social life. [39] 

Aberdeen Agenda or Commonwealth Principles of 2005 identifies a set of parameters for local democracy. This has an in depth connection with the right to the city approach. The parameters for local democracy are: a) recognition of local democracy b) ability to elect government c) partnership with governments d) defined structured framework of governance e) participation in local decision making f) accountability and transparency of local government g) inclusiveness h) equitable distribution of resources i) good governance. [40] 

This highlights that right to the city is necessary to claim the demands for the marginalized. The rights are both collective and individual [41] . These two rights are not disjointed rather they supports each other. Collective rights focus on claims from bottom and individual rights help to institutionalize the claim through participation. Participation would lead to reorientation of institutional mechanisms through which a change in social order is possible.

Space, Citizenship and Democracy: Holston and Appadurai (1999) mention that place serves as a fundamental medium for membership and negotiations. Space is that object through which representations can be made visible and citizenship can be performed. [42] The fundaments of right to the city depend on the spatial practice. In this context, space is an important concept in the understanding of right to the city idea. Right to the city demands participation in decision making process by questioning state imposed process. Lefebvre's idea of 'Production of Space' is also important to understand the spatial relationships. Lefebvre's mentioned that space is never 'innocent'. Space always represents the process of production. The specific use of a space is determined by spatial practice & spatial expressions. In this regard, Lefebvre introduced a three dimensional approach of space- perceived space, conceived space, & lived space. [43] Perceived space is the mappable, physical space. Conceived space is the imaginary space of human cognition. Lefebvre put foremost importance on lived space which is the space of everyday living with social relations, networks and spatial practices. For him everyday life represents interaction of social relations and lived space. Spatial practice in lived space also involves control over urban social and spatial relations. In the right to the city, inhabitants participate in decision making process. The right to the city highlights (1) the right for accessible urban space; and (2) the right to participate in the production of urban space. [44] 

The idea of citizenship and democracy also needs a reorientation. In most of the cases citizenship is defined as a legal instrument to alienate the marginalized or the unwanted groups in the city. In 2002, Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court, in a public meeting addressed the framework of constitutional rights. He said: "Property gives you the ability to resist the demands of the state, which is always going to try to control your life". [45] This gives the notion of the judicial system. It defines the elements of model citizenship between state and its 'civilized' citizens. But this also imposes a fundamental question-what happens to those who do not have a property? How can they resist the demands of the state? The poor, the immigrants, the homeless people, the colored people are always the "constitutive outside" of the propertied citizenship. Cities of the global south are constantly enforcing this propertied citizenship through slum eviction to create a capital attractive property market, for the sake of 'better infrastructure' and to construct 'affordable housing' for middle class people. In the global south, housing rights are the forms of constructing citizenship. Large numbers of people who are continuously evicted from one place to another always face a disjuncture between what Bourdieu called 'double life of social structure'. [46] The first order relates to the distribution of urban resources and political power. The second order denotes the spatial practice. The disjuncture comes from the territorialized uncertainty of informal housing. [47] The techniques of management are served by criminalization and institutionalization. Most of the American cities criminalize homelessness what Don Mitchell calls as "annihilation of space by law". [48] The "annihilation of space by law" destroys the right of homeless people. The squatting and informal housing in the cities of global south are always an attempt to qualify for citizenship. Claims for citizenship are always a result of dichotomy between 'propertied citizenship' and exclusion from this. An antithesis against the 'propertied citizenship' can be developed through revisiting the idea of 'right to the city'. It involves a political membership of the marginalized in urban areas. In liberal democracy, citizenship is determined by the state. [49] This form of citizenship faces difficulties to resist the power of the state. Political membership gives citizen the power to resist state power. For the restructuring of citizenship, change in the political economy is necessary which will reduce the hegemonic relations of nation-state. This new form of citizenship can be treated as what Jacqueline Bhaba defines as 'post national citizenship'. The subaltern form of citizenship evokes to the concept of right to city and thus throws challenges to the hegemonic neoliberal political economy. It generates a radical reorientation of political economy. Lefebvre rejects the hypothesis of formal citizenship. According to him, inhabitance in the city claims citizenship in right to the city.

In the context of citizenship the concept of democracy is also essential. Post 9/11 era American foreign policy, puts maximum importance on 'establishing democracy' in politically turmoil areas of the world. The American foreign policy defines 'democracy' with reinventing new spatial markets for neoliberal policies. This pervasive and dogmatic notion of democracy can be perceived through the experiences of Iraq and Afghanistan. The dogmatic democracy can be linked with the 'propertied citizenship'. It enables intense penetration of market forces. The perceived democracy is distinctly different from it. Joseph Stiglitz declared "the triumph of democracy" when the WTO negotiations collapsed at Cancun because of the protest from poor countries. This is an essential alternative notion of democracy against neoliberal democracy. Two different aspect of democracy is relevant in this regard. One is liberal democracy and the other is deliberate democracy. Liberal democracy is designed to protect individuals from intrusion by the democratic state. [50] As a protection mechanism, individuals practice personal rights. Liberal democracy often makes a clear distinction between private and public spheres. Deliberate democracy has its foundation on Habermas' notion of communicative rationality. Communicative rationality can be achieved through a politics where outcomes are determined by "forceless force of the better argument". [51] This indulges the notion of rational planning. An alternative approach of radical democracy is important in the context of right to the city. Radical democracy rejects the hypothesis of liberal democracy because of its distinction of private from the public. Radical democracy argues collective rights against individual rights. A critical thinking on deliberate democracy is also important. Deliberate democracy argues about achievement of common goods. Radical democracy theory argues that within the embedded hegemonic political economic system achieving common goods always excludes a certain portion of the society. Existing hegemonic system restricts marginalized population from participation in the process of communicative rationality. Radical democracy focuses on urban and spatial democracy. This is an attempt to abandon the neoliberal hegemonic system. As a spatial project, radical democracy puts questions upon neoliberalism. It flourishes through political participation and spatial practices.

Conclusion: These studies are asserting towards a distinctly different form of urbanism through struggle and collective bargain what Lefebvre has called as 'urban revolution' [52] . Peter Marcuse (2009) mentions about a three stage process to achieve the rights in the cities. According to him critical urban theory relies on three interconnected stages namely expose, propose and politicize. [53] Expose relates to the analysis of the contextual problem. Propose includes working with the affected population and formulation of strategies and targets to achieve a common goal. Politicize translates into actual political actions. This relies heavily on Hegelian dialectics of thesis, anti thesis and synthesis. Jordi Borja proposes a threefold process for development mechanism and practicing of civic and political process. The processes are: cultural process, social process and political process. i) The cultural process includes the analysis of the cultural hegemony and the "act of demonstrating them" ii) Social process initiate the process of citizen mobilization and creation of mechanisms to achieve a common goal iii) The political and institutional process helps to "formalize, consolidate and develop policies". [54] Jordi Borja further explains his theoretical framework in three reflection areas. Reflection area one addresses the reorientation of the idea of "propertied citizenship". It can be achieved through integration of urban services with people's accessibility. Reflection area two denotes rethinking of societal plan. The societal plan can be formulated with the aspirations from the bottom, value of individuals, freedom and equity. Reflection area three includes connection between political theory and practice. The practice of political theory can be possible with participation of the marginalized in the political process and through their representations. [55] 

One of the drawback of major scholarly works of the right to the city approach is it relies heavily on building up of a theoretical framework. Often the central theme of the approach is spatial. But the spatial problems are not isolated islands but they emerge from economic, social and political domains. Only a spatial approach can leads to a partial solution by ignoring the broader picture. This can be dangerous. Another limitation of these scholarly works is they lack an illustrative sequence of activities through which the rights can be claimed. Sometimes the studies overromanticize the idea of right which can be resulted into a social anarchy. Left liberalist Marcelo Lopes de Souza (2010) heavily criticizes the idea of right to the city as a N.G.O. centric development. He believes that right to the city has become an umbrella phrase for small N.G.O.s to United Nations. He views this "leads to a future which is more or less extension of the present". [56] He theorizes it as a "consultant for development with minimum horror" (Castoriadis, 1996). According to him, this leads to an uncertain horizon for the global south heavily based on western epistemological discourse. This is very prominent in theoretical aspect of right to the city which tries to link local, micro level demands in broader political and economic context. This has an acute tendency of generalization biases. De Souza points towards the limitations of right to city in addressing radical social movements of the global south like Zapatista movement. He views right to the city misinterprets many of the exiting social movements by peasants and laborers of the global south. As a left libertarian, he views this as a reductionist approach to society and historical materialism [ii] . For him, there needs to be a complete refusal of hierarchy whether vertical or horizontal. This approach promotes state not as a partner rather than an enemy as important as neoliberal policies and capitalistic economy. This approach is also very lucid in terms of applicability. This is based heavily on Peter Kropotkin's anarchistic communism [iii] . But the presence of an institution is important. At present economic and social condition, an extensive urban revolution is utopian. The concept of participatory planning and collective bargaining can lead towards a process of legitimizing marginalized in the decision making process. This will also institutionalize the demands for the marginalized. My study will try to evaluate the possibilities to construct the rights in an applicable manner. I'll try to focus on two things-one -to construct civic rights (access to urban services, proper land tenure, access to public distribution system) for marginalized group and to the creation of a political space for collective bargaining and participation.