Urban planning and Politics of Slum Demolition in Metropolitan Mumbai
Abstract
Sanchayeeta Adhikari1
Till now urban planning has been seen only as the means of land development by the state for
various space using functions of the city. As far as the housing is concerned state intervenes
through its different policies of urban planning, as the private production of these is frequently
disturbed due to the profit motives of the private enterprises. However, in the third world
countries, the state is unable to undertake long term rational plans for the development of the city
and for controlling the urban chaos because of lack of adequate resources and due to the general
contradiction that exists between rational planning and interest group politics.
Thus in most of the third world countries, in the name of urban renewal programme, one
of the most sort after solutions by the policy makers, for making the urban areas a better living
place, is an increase in the slum demolition activities. This in turn leads to a continuous struggle
for survival of the slum dwellers who have to wage a daily war to hold on to their tenements,
which are often unauthorized settlements on government or private lands. Their presence also
offends the middle-class residential blocks whose residents have their own notions of sanitation
and hygiene. Thus this paper critically analyses urban planning process, which results in slum
demolition, and its implications focussing mainly on metropolitan Mumbai.
Keywords: Urban planning, Slum demolition, Mumbai.
1 M.Phil. Student, Department of Humanities and Social Sciences; Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay,
Powai, Mumbai-400076, India; Telephone: 91-22-2576-4365 (Dept.); 91-9869365705 (mobile);
Fax: 91- 22- 2572 3480, e-mail: sadhikari@iitb.ac.in.
1
Urban Planning and Politics of slum demolition in Mumbai
Introduction
The urban areas developing rapidly in the third world countries because of massive ruralurban migration and due to internal growth are different from their developed
counterparts. This huge urban growth, taking place at lower levels of development creates
its own implications like acute housing shortage, congestion, and proliferation of slums.
This proliferation of slums and squatters in large cities of Third World has become
central theme of discussion among policy makers, public officials and academics. For
some, the urban crisis is synonymous with the ‘housing crises. Ample data can be cited to
prove the phenomenal growth of sub-standard dwellings in urban areas. But with the
increase in slums and squatters, the solutions suggested have also changed. So many
solutions have been suggested. And one of the most sort after solutions in most of these
third world countries in the name of urban renewal is increase in the slum demolition
activities. This holds true for the city of Mumbai, which attracts the attention of the
policy makers not only because of it being the largest urban agglomerate and the financial
capital of India, but also because of its ill famous slums scattered all over the city. With
about 82% of the population living in one room abode, Mumbai makes one of the worst
places for living especially for the urban poor. This housing situation blatantly exposes
the continuing indifference, neglect and lack of capacity of the government in providing
housing and other urban amenities to the poorest sections of the society. As the private
sector involvement becomes questionable because of the profit motive of this sector, it
necessitated civil society interventions in the form of Non Governmental organisations
(NGOs), which are working amongst the urban poor and trying to alleviate their
condition.
In their struggle for survival, the urban poor have to wage a daily war to hold on to
their tenements, which are often unauthorized settlements on government or private
lands. Their presence also offends the middle-class residential blocks whose residents
have their own notions of sanitation, hygiene and beautification. The urban poor face
constant threats of eviction, frequent demolition of their houses along with destruction of
2
their precious household goods by municipal bulldozers. They therefore actively seek the
support of NGOs, political parties or private/public agencies, who uses them for the
fulfilment of their own interests.
The aim of this paper is therefore to look at the politics behind the slum
demolition and issues of urban planning critically, focusing on the slums of Mumbai. An
appraisal of the government’s policy on slums and its development programmes has also
been undertaken in order to contextualize the housing struggle of the urban poor in terms
of their major players involved i.e. the state, private sector and the urban poor.
Rationale of the Study:
Almost one out of five persons in urban areas lives below poverty line. The eightplan document has estimated such persons to be around 42 million. In Mumbai out of the
total population of 11million 55% are slum population, which constitutes merely 6% of
city’s total land area. Approximately 5.5 to 6 million live in slums in the most unhygienic
and filthy conditions and another one million live on the pavements. It is also estimated
that nearly 2 million people live as tenants in rented premises, a large number of which
are old and dilapidated structures, including what are popularly known as the ‘chawls’ of
Mumbai. As a result we find that nearly 8.5 million of the city’s population lives in substandard or unsafe housing conditions under the abuse and continuous threat of
displacement. About82%of the population live in one room abode. This housing situation
blatantly exposes the continuing indifference, neglect and lack of the will of the
government towards housing and living conditions in the city. The private participation is
discouraging because of its profit motive. The recent involvement of the civil societies in
housing, in the form of voluntary organisations and NGO’s, is uncertain because of their
financial and administrative constraints. It becomes necessary to find out some policy
decisions to solve this ever-increasing urban crisis.
Research Methodology:
To critically analyse the role played by the state and to understand the politics
of slum demolition and the housing struggle of the urban poor in the metropolitan
Mumbai, mainly case study reports published by different NGO’s have been used. A
3
variety of census data and additional material including gazetteers, municipal and other
official records, maps and secondary sources such as historical, geographical, and
sociological research literature, were studied for this purpose. The primary survey of the
slum of Sanjay Gandhi National Park was carried out between September 2003 and
November 2003. This involved the analysis of the questionnaires of the randomly
selected 430 samples. The household-survey data were analysed using the Statistical
Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) and MS Excel. Another 25 samples were interviewed
for better understanding of the slum dwellers perception of the whole state machinery,
and other stakeholders involved.
Background of the Study: Defining Slum in Mumbai: Though various people from all over the world has
defined slums in different ways. But in this study the definitions established in India has
been taken.
The Slum Areas (Improvement and clearance) Act, 1956 defines slums as “areas
where buildings (a) are in any respect unfit for human habitation;(b) are by reason of
dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangements and design of such buildings,
narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light or sanitation
facilities, or any combination of these factors are detrimental to safety, health or morale.”
However, the survey of the Bombay Municipal Corporation in late fifties (cited
in Desai and Pillai: 1972) adopted a three –fold classification of slums, which have been
adopted by the state government for its policy decisions till now:
1.
Chawls: Areas with permanent multi-storeyed buildings built long ago according to
the standards prevailing then, but are today in a deteriorated condition.
2.
Partrachawls: Areas with semi permanent structures both authorized and
unauthorized often built of corrugated iron-sheets and commonly known as ‘patrachawls’, patra meaning tin sheets or some such materials.
3.
Zopadpattis: Areas commonly referred to as squatter settlements, shanty towns or
hutment colonies, consisting of hovels made of variety of hard and soft materials like
pieces of wood, rag, tin – sheets, mud, brick and any such thing that comes in handy.
4
Thus to begin with slums are residential areas inhabiting poorest of the
poor. Such areas are deprived of basic amenities of life, such as schools, health centers,
post offices, roads, electricity etc.
As far as Mumbai is concerned, the city of Mumbai expanded industrially
and commercially, so did the number of its squatter settlements and slums. The cotton
boom, followed by the rapid growth of mills and shipping which drew large population
from the rest of the country into a city ill equipped to deal with them. The 1911 census
figures show that 69% of the population lived in one-room dwellings. The Second World
War resulted in rapid growth of the city’s population, which aggravated further the
housing situation. According to 1971 census nearly 77.4% of the households lived in oneroom units and 14.2% of the households in two-room units. According to 1981, 82% of
the city’s population lived in one room abode (quoted in Structure of Urban Poverty by
S.S. Jha, 1986)
Table 1: Population growth of Greater Bombay And Share of Slum Population ( In
Lakhs)
Year
Total population of Greater
Bombay
Year
Slum population
Share of slum population
in total population
(Slum
census)
1951
29.67
1951
-
-
1961
41.52
1961
4.98
12 %
1971
59.71
1968
10.00
20 %
1981
82.42
1976
32.50
41 %
1991
99.00
1981
42.00
51 %
2001
119.90
2001
75.00
63 %
Sources:
Census of India, 1991, Sengupta. C: Urban poor and Environmental Management in India – The Case of
Bombay, 1991 and D’Souza, Victor: Infant Mortality in the Slums of Bombay, Family Planning Foundation, and New
Delhi.
Mumbai’s population has been increasing rapidly since 1940’s. The city had less
than a million persons living within its boundary in the beginning of this century .By the
end of 1930’s this number had risen to nearly 1.69 million. By 1981 it has risen to 8.24
5
million. And by 2001 it has touched 11.90 million. And with this the slum population
also increased keeping pace with the population increase. (See Table 1)
Other factors leading to slum growth in Mumbai is historical development of the
city. The city grew out of the seven tiny islands into huge industrial commercial place,
which resulted in the displacement of the Koli fishermen who moved into impoverished
living space that was far shabbier than before. Some villages were enclosed by the city
growing around them. Dharavi, originally a village with a small tanning industry, has
become a slum in this fashion.
The incapacity of the city’s labour force to have adequate housing finally results
in their occupancy of land preferably near their places of work. Such lands are mostly
uninhabitable low lying or marsh areas or hilly sites in and around the city, around the
railway lines and congested road as these are the less wanted areas of any city. Also the
government and the civic authorities did not show much concern for a long time towards
the growth of ‘illegal’ squatter settlements and slums on public land since the low cost of
squatter housing and the money earned by them through the supply of their cheap labour
to the city’s economic and commercial enterprises ensured that large masses of the poor
survive with minimum demands on the public exchequer (S.S.Jha, 1986).
As a remedial measure for this slum problem of Mumbai, since independence,
numerous urban policies have been enacted. Different housing and land policies have
been started to resolve the urban crisis of housing shortage. But it has only resulted into
amendment of each of the policies and no results.
Politics of Slum Demolition in Mumbai: State and Failure of Urban policies:
The urban development policies have expanded to include various facets of urban
living. But in this paper only the policies concerned with housing has been taken into
account. The housing policies for slum upgradation in Mumbai have followed almost all
the policies of upgradation that has been prevalent in the developing world. But of all the
policies, neither the land policies nor the housing policies have achieved their goals on
the whole.
6
The Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act for instance was bound to be a
failure from the very beginning because of half hearted measures like people having more
land than 10,000sq ft will have to give the surplus land to the government at a partly rate
of Re.1 per sq ft. no doubt very little land has been acquired through this act because of
the absence of any compensation, the landowners through various manipulative means
have managed to bypass ceiling restrictions.
Not only in the national level policies but in the state level also the urban policies
have failed to accommodate to the needs of the urban poor. This we can see through the
different housing policies that have been launched by the state government and the way
they have failed to cater to the needs of the urban poor living in the different slums of
Metropolitan Mumbai.
In the first two decades after independence, the official approach towards
slums in Mumbai was to clear the hutments and re-house the slum dwellers in alternate
accommodation. An amendment, section 354A was introduced to the BMC Act in 1954
to make this legally possible. Also Slum Improvement Programme was started in 1970 to
improve in the basic amenities like drainage, drinking water, roads toilets etc. Inspite of
these in 17th May 1976 forcible eviction and demolition of the Janata colony situated in
Mankhurd with a population of 70,000 was done. They were not provided with enough
accommodation in the new site in the Cheetah camp as promised by the BARC officials
and BMC who wanted to make swimming pool and other recreation facilities for the
scientists residing in the BARC complex.
Also the programmes for slum development in Mumbai have been a
failure. The Slum Improvement Program (SIP) was launched in 1970 to provide water
supply, toilets, roads, drainage and streetlights for the shim-dwellers. A BMC Report in
the early 90s by Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Slums) K.G. Pai pointed out that even
basic slum improvement would have required Rs.150 crore a year, whereas, the scheme
had a provision of Rs 151 crores for the entire Sixth Plan period. The report goes on to
admit that the SIP had, not even touched 30 lakh slum-dwellers in Mumbai alone. 'A
survey of 4,000 households in 9 slums revealed ... no household had a private toilet, a
quarter did not have access to community toilets, a third had no drainage facilities, while
7
40% had only open drains. The per capita investment norms and the suggested scale of
amenities were unrealistic.
After the failure of the SIP, in 1985 the State Government launched yet another
scheme for slum improvement with new outfits, namely the Slum Upgradation Program
(SUP), in collaboration with the World Bank and the BMC. The SUP, while providing
some civic amenities, envisaged slum cooperatives undertaking slum development in
exchange for transfer of land tenure and housing loans. But, due to the of drive and
commitment on the part of the authorities and due to the influence on the government by
real-estate developers against transfer of land tenure to the slum dwellers, only 22,000
households were covered in a period of 8 years up to 1993.
Under the guise of privatisation, it was convenient for the Government to answer
this string of failures not with greater involvement, but by withdrawing and giving the
field to private builders and developers. Thus, Sharad Pawar's (then Chief Minister of the
ruling congress government) Slum Redevelopment Scheme (SRD) was launched in 1991.
The scheme was a non-starter from the very beginning. Firstly, this scheme did not
provide sufficient business opportunity to the investors; secondly the builders were
sceptical of getting into wrangles with the slum-dwellers whereby their profits would not
materialize within calculated periods. Even if they did have plans, work could not be
started due to the lack of transit accommodation. Also, slum-dwellers were reluctant to
give possession of their plots in the absence of alternative accommodation. They feared
losing possession of their sites permanently since they did not trust the builders. They
already had horrid experiences of attacks on them and forcible evictions, led by number
of builders at many places in the city. One example of forcible eviction led by the
builders was the demolition of the Ambedkar Nagar situated near Back Bay bus depot in
23rd April 1997. After the demolition, the PAN REALITY CONSTRUCTION PVT.
LTD. grabbed hold of the land by fencing with wires and stones to put a stop to the entry
to the land.
The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS) launched with much fan-fare by the SSBJP Government in Mumbai was merely a souped-up version of the SRD launched by the
earlier Congress government. Both the, schemes depended on private investments and
increased the role of developers and builders in providing housing to the poor, the
8
method generally being to allow 'Incentive FSI' to the developers who could then make
profit by selling the surplus FSI as tenements or in the form of Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR) in the open market. (Floor-space index (FSI) determines how high a
building can be built and is directly proportional to the size of the plot. For example, an
F.S.I of 1.0 on a 1,000 sq metre plot means that the total floor space constructed in the
building should not exceed 1,000sq metre.) A part of this profit could thus be utilized to
cover the cost of housing for the slum-dwellers. For luring the builders and investors to
undertake responsibility of housing, the government does not hesitate in raising the F.S.I
for slum lands up to 2.5 from one in the suburbs and 1.33 in the city. From indications
available, the government is considering to increase the F.S.I further up to 5. Higher F.S.I
raises the density, which means the number of persons on a particular land area increases
and the average land area per person reduces, leading to degeneration of environment.
Under the present schemes having a F.S.I of 2.5, the average land area per person reduces
to as low as 37sqft.Increase in density will also exert additional pressure on our existing
services and infrastructure, which is already in dilapidated and insufficient. Thus leading
to further deterioration of living conditions in the city. The Congress Government
however had maintained a contributive share of Rs.20, 000 per slum-dweller's family in
the financing for slum redevelopment, while the Sena Government made it completely
free, thus making it the greatest bluff till date perpetrated on the slum-dwellers in
Mumbai.
During the ninth plan VAMBAY programme was launched to provide financial
grant. However this scheme is largely irrelevant and inapplicable under the present
condition prevailing in most the cities in the country, particularly in Mumbai. This
scheme promises to support the construction of housing for the poor but sets Rs.60, 000
as a limit for the construction of a housing unit to qualify. (Construction cost of a
250sqft-housing unit in multi-storeyed buildings is not less than Rs.150, 000/-excluding
land cost.) Given the nature of real estate process, there cannot be any construction
possible in this price unless the houses are built an independent structures on individual
plots and not multi-storeyed. This means a new land policy has to be simultaneously
formulated, whereby the poor can get subsidized land and individual plots. In Mumbai
the government has no vacant land to consider for distribution for housing for the poor.
9
The policies in the post independence show a trend of the government
withdrawing from housing sector and increasing the private participation in the housing
sector. This is mainly evident from the 74th constitutional amendment, which has led to
increase private participation as well as community participation. But increasing the
private participation in housing also was not successful as the builders and the developers
who were providing housing for the poor were motivated by profit interest. Rather than
helping the poor the private participation even increased the misery of the urban poor.
Both the private sector and the public sector failed to cater to the housing needs of the
poor. Thus neither the public sector nor the private sector, there is a need of the
intervention of the third sector that is the NGO’s, which is a part of civil society.
Our urban planning has not only been unbalanced and without a vision to foresee
the future needs of the towns and cities in general, it has also been highly discriminatory
to the poor in terms of making provisions for their accommodation facilities and the basic
services needed for their everyday existence. In the name of creating an orderly, hygienic
and aesthetically pleasing environment, the urban planning denies the poor access to
adequate housing and environment. Urban planning in Mumbai has become an
instrument in the hands of the capitalist to fulfil their interest. These points can be seen
in much of the slum demolitions.
The example of Subhashnagar, Wadala where all the residents were residing near
the Don Bosco School for about 15 years or more prior to November 1993.But part of the
settlement were demolished on May 10, 1993. No notices were given prior to the
demolition. The police had even resorted to lathi charge and several persons suffered
injuries. The site from which they were evicted from near the Don Bosco School has
now been made into a ‘garden’.
Other examples include Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar and Nity Anand Nagar,
Wadala and Korba Mitha nagar, Wadala. Notice for demolition has been served by the
collector’s office on 366 families in this area. The collector wanted the land for a truck
terminal.
No alternate accommodation is offered to any of the residents. And the
brutality shown to the residents is atrocious.
There are numerous examples to show that the middle class notion of
beautification which led to the demolition of many a slum. One of them being the Sanjay
10
Gandhi Nagar in Nariman Point where people came for construction work and settled
there in the construction site and areas, which were unsuitable for development work. It
was not long before the people they served expressed their distaste for them as
neighbours. The Cuffe Parade/ Colaba Residents Association brought pressure upon the
local authority to remove them from sight. As a result, in 1980 the municipal authority
demolished the colony. Having nowhere to go the people simply rebuilt their huts. In
1981 and 1986 they were demolished again until one NGO came to there rescue and
acquired a land for their rehabilitation.
Not only the builders are trying to grab hold the land of slum dwellers, they are
even trying to make huge profits from the construction of alternate housing for the
evicted slum dwellers. A field study carried out at Sanjay Gandhi National Park would
further help to clarify the situation of the politics behind the slum demolition.
Experience from Sanjay Gandhi National Park: Sanjay Gandhi National Park (SGNP), commonly known as Borivili National
Park (BNP) is a miraculously preserved green oasis in the centre of the urban sprawl of
Mumbai. It has an environmental significance because it forms the catchments of two
lakes Tulsi and Vihar, which provides water to Mumbai. Out of the total land area of
103.09sq.kms., Sanjay Gandhi National Park 7.73 sq. kms of the park is encroached upon
of which about 1.87 sq.kms. of such encroachment are hutments.
The initiation of the slum problem when for the removal of the slum dwellers
from the national park, writ petitions was filed by the Bombay Environmental Action
Group. Since the state government promised to initiate steps to rectify the situation, the
court chose not to pass any specific directions. But because of inaction by the state
government, fresh legal proceedings were undertaken by the Bombay Environmental
Action Group. In response the Bombay High court constituted a committee comprising
the government (forest officers, police officers, etc.) and municipal officers. It was
recommended by some people including the Chief Executive officer D. T. Joseph of the
Slum Rehabilitation Authority and some encroachers’ organization to rehabilitate the
people in some of the wasted quarries and lands around the National park in multistoreyed buildings under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. It was proposed that funds to
11
be raised by selling flats on a commercial basis, which then would be used to construct
even more multi-storeyed buildings within the park for slum re-housing. But the
government didn’t agree again because of the NGO, BEAG’s interventions. And the
landmark decision was taken to remove the encroachers from SGNP who settled after
1985. Later the cut of date was extended to 1995.
The demolition in Sanjay Gandhi National Park started in 1997. Many of the
residential structures demolished were those having relevant proof of residence of
1.1.1995. And in an order passed in 7th May 1997 by Chief Justice M.B.Shah and Justice
Mr. F.I.Rebello, persons having names in electoral rolls prepared in 1.1.1995 and prior to
it will continue to live in the house built by the resident. This proof of residence for many
slum dwellers is present because of the ‘agreement of sale’ on stamp papers given to
them by the slumlords.
Figure: 1
The way the slum dwellers aquired their hutment in SGNP
6%
squatting
42%
money to another slum
dweller
money to slum lord
no information
52%
Source: sample survey
The sample survey conducted showed 6% of the slum dwellers acquired their
huts by paying money to the slumlords. These are the people who through muscle power
had taken certain area as theirs and then sold it to the people for Rs.1, 000/- to as much as
Rs.60, 000/-. Around 42% of the sample bought their tenements from older slum dwellers
(See Figure 1). And in time being these older slum dwellers also vanished. Many of the
12
slum dwellers also claimed that the forest officials gave the lands to them. According to
them, the forest officials took money from them. The forest officials themselves sent
other officials and cleared the bushes and trees to accommodate the people after taking
money for the section of land where the person was supposed to put up the hut. It is
apparent that the general illiteracy and low level of education, the severe poverty and the
desire to have a better life with better survival conditions make these people an easy prey
of the hoodlums, slum lords, corrupt officials and other people.
Although the government agreed to provide alternate accommodation to those
who settled prior to 1995 and had photo passes, and High Court ordered demolition of
only those huts, which had no proof of residence before 1995, but the demolition drive
took place irrespective of the court orders by the Municipal Corporation of Mumbai.
Many a hut was demolished which had valid photo passes prior to 1995. With the
Bombay High Court orders passed to remove the encroachments started the most brutal
demolitions started.
Sample survey conducted tried to find out the problem faced by the family of the
respondent due to the demolition. It showed that 4 respondents out of 180 samples who
have faced demolition said that they have faced deaths in the family.
Figure: 2
Problems faced by slum dwellers because of demolition
7
4
58
58
deaths in family
unemployment
hospitalisation
search for a place to live
others
no information
15
38
Source: Sample Survey
13
Another 15 respondent has faced hospitalisation of family members due to
demolition. These were the people who were either injured during the lathi charge or they
were dragged from their house and then beaten up. Many of them were suffocated
because of the tear gas mainly the younger and older population. 32.2% of the people
have faced the other problems which made the peoples’ lives dreadful, were there was
loss of their belongings which were either looted by the casual workers employed by the
forest department, or local hoodlums or they were broken down or burnt by the forest
officials. Many people had to stay in footpaths and open space within the forest for
months where they were not only afraid of the animals like panthers and snakes but were
afraid of the forest officials and other interest groups who could have driven them out of
that place any time. 21.1% of the respondents’ family faced the problem of finding a
place to live, as they didn’t rebuild their house at the same place. (See Figure 2)
The political nexus between the local hoodlums, slumlords, corrupt forest
officials, police department and some local leaders has made the lives of lakhs of people
into perpetual insecurity and ruin. These different interest groups not only made flowery
promises of permanent housing and better facilities but also promised of no further
demolitions. Not that some of the promises are unfulfilled. Like they have provided them
with electricity, water taps, public toilets, and some other amenities, which the slum
dwellers crave for. But these amenities have become costlier to the slum dwellers.
Because this gives the slum dwellers a feeling of security and so in the process they try to
make their place of living more habitable. This feeling comes because of the feeling of
achieving a permanency of their house, which comes with this security. So they try to
improve their dwellings. But it is only time, which makes them, realizes that this feeling
of security is only short lived. It is only a matter of some time when the state machinery
finds some way to evict them from these places. In the present context the forest official
initially allowed the people to settle here. But later because of the other interest group
pressure they had to change this policy. And start the demolition process in the National
Park. One narrative by a respondent very well describes this observation.
“…And what will these politicians do? Wadkar Mama (local politician),
came himself with the bulldozers to demolish the slum… One group of people from a
political party came one day and promised us that our house will not be demolished by
14
the forest officials. Another group of the same party came next day and were helping the
demolition squad in the demolition process. Only (NETA) leaders don’t do this. There are
goons being appointed by the forest officials also. One group comes and promises that
our house will not be demolished if we pay money to them. Then they take money from us.
And the next day the other group of goons comes and demolishes our house…they come
only for votes…”
But the promises of favours given so easily by the different interest groups are
themselves very weak; as the executers of the orders are either ill informed themselves or
they close the eyes to towards to the information in the hope of some gains. In Sanjay
Gandhi National Park, the haphazard demolition drives taken by the forest department
shows the general lack of information and communication between the executioner and
the decision maker and ignorance towards the orders passed by the Bombay High Court.
The government although has halted the demolition drive for the time being, but
the insecurity still remains for the people who has survived demolition process. The
struggle still goes on for the slum dwellers to get an alternate housing. Although the
Bombay high court has declared that the rehabilitation of the people from any area should
be done, before they are being evicted from their present area of residence- slum. But the
state government fails to provide the land for rehabilitation of the slum dwellers near to
their present settlement. And the state government had failed to rehabilitate the people
before they were being evicted. This is very much evident from the present study where
the state government aided rehabilitation of the slum dwellers of Sanjay Gandhi National
Park is being done in the area near to Kalyan and Ambernath, a distance of nearly 60km
from Sanjay Gandhi National Park slum area. Lands in five villages had been identified
for relocation. Four of these villages were in the Green Zone in the regional plan and
require to be converted to Residential Zone. Because of such a distance the people would
be severed from their means of livelihood from Mumbai, the very reason for which they
migrated to Mumbai. Because of this the rehabilitation scheme has become a failure even
before it has been initiated. Also the government’s inadequacy to develop the site has
resulted in the people’s reluctance to go there. One of the reasons cited by a slum dweller
for his reluctance to go to Kalyan: -
15
“When we paid the money to the Bombay High Court, we were assured to get
alternate house after we have been removed from this place in next six months, which will
be our permanent residence. Now five years has passed since we have paid the
money….”
The rehabilitation scheme was contemptuously rejected by the slum dwellers
because not only they were being evicted but they were asked a fee of Rs.7, 000 for
relocation: relocation in a place where the land development was at its initiation.
The inability and ignorance of the state government to provide satisfactory
rehabilitation for the slum dwellers of Sanjay Gandhi National Park led the third party
interferences which includes the initiative taken by the Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti, a
local NGO, to provide housing to the slum dwellers. Although the NGO has been
struggling for the human rights of the slum dwellers from the beginning of the slum
demolitions of Sanjay Gandhi National Park and they have been able to start
rehabilitation programme for the slum dwellers, they have been criticised for their alleged
involvement with the builders.
In a controversial move, the Maharashtra Government has been accused of
dereservation of a huge chunk of land in the no-development zone in Chandivli near
Powai to accommodate 20,000 slum families evicted from the Sanjay Gandhi National
Park in Borivili. A big builder, Sumer Corporation, has been given the contract to
rehabilitate 16,000 squatter families evicted from the Sanjay Gandhi National Park at
Borivili to Chandivali. The Chandivali project has been said to be one of the largest slum
rehabilitation program in the world, which will cost around Rs.500 crore. The proposed
township, spread over 85 acres, is coming up on an exhausted quarry site at Chandivali in
a joint venture between the Shabana Azmi-backed Nivara Hakk Welfare Centre, the state
government and Sumer Builders under the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The builders will
get floor space index (FSI) of 2.5 to rehabilitate the slum dwellers and, in return, reap a
bonanza in the form of transfer of development rights (TDR). The builder has offered its
own plot in Chandivali, near Powai, measuring 3.60 lakh square metres. Of this, as much
as 1.2 lakh sq metres come under a no-development zone. The Slum Rehabilitation
Authority had released 11,690 sq.mtrs of transfer of development rights worth about
Rs.10 crores to the developers Sumer Corporation. The 11, 690 square meters was to the
16
developers as the first instalment after the developer conveyed the title of 60, 000
sq.mtrs. of the land to the Slum Rehabilitation Authority for the project. TDR gives
construction rights to a builder anywhere north of the plot surrendered by him to the
government for public purposes like parks and playgrounds or for rehabilitating eligible
slum dwellers. The Sumer builder will reap a huge profit from the transfer of
development rights (TDR) amounting to over one crore square feet, which could be
exploited in a prime locality like Andheri, which falls north of Chandivali and where the
real estate prices are high (the current rate for slum TDR is about Rs.820 a sq.ft.). The
profits could run into several hundred crores of rupees even after taking into account the
cost of constructing houses for the slum dwellers (20 March 2002, Times of India). The
high court sanctioned the project and also the state governments’ approved the project of
rehabilitation in Chandivali by Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti. It is only time, which will
decide whether any real help, will be been done to the slum dwellers through this
rehabilitation project or not.
Findings and Suggestions:
Urban planning is basically concerned with the location, intensity and amount of
land development required for various space using functions of city life industry,
wholesaling, business, housing, recreation, education, religious and cultural activities of
the people. Thus urban planning is itself neutral. But the institutionalisation of planning
practice within a complex bureaucracy has contributed to the re-politicisation of urban
planning. It has become a mode of intervention that is only implemented when it serves
the specific interests of the interest group parties. Thus slum demolition is a process in
urban renewal, a process in urban planning, which has become a mode or tool of the
ruling classes for fulfilling their own interests. In shaping the city in such a way that it
conforms to the upper class notion of the city, it is its interests, which are furthered. In
actuality clearance is necessary to make the centrally located areas available to the
capitalists for various economic activities.
As far as Indian urban policies has been concerned it has been seen that there has
been a lag between the promises made in different plans in paper and actual practical
work that has been done. Though the state within its set structure of the society has tried
17
to work for the poor through different urban planning policies and housing policies like
the different slum development policies in Mumbai, urban land (ceiling and regulation)
act, more peoples participation in development activities through 74th constitutional
amendments, different poverty alleviation programmes but in actual reality very less has
been done. The politicians, builders, businessmen, slumlords, the elite class has
continuously manipulated the different policies according to there need and profit
maximisation motivations and left the urban poor in constant misery. Urban policies in
general and urban planning in particular has been become an instrument in the hand of
the capitalists to fulfil there needs. Thus there is need to make urban development propoor or to evolve an urban development framework to agree to the needs of the most
vulnerable sections of the urban population.
They should not be concerned about the needs of the capital alone. This can be
done through two things. One is the representation in the planning and policy-making
bodies and other is the creation of mechanisms or forums for participation in policy
making. Thus decentralization of decision-making should be done as has been done
through 74th constitutional amendments. But the decentralization should mean change in
the structure or power sharing in the society and not decentralization of some convenient
functions or responsibilities in a centralized society as of now where economic processes
and decision making paradigms are centralized. So decentralization is not only about
taking it down to the community but looking at how communities themselves can
determine as stakeholders what should happen around them and whatever happens
around them should be for them.
People’s participation, decentralization, and Privatisation should not be taken as
synonyms of each other. Role of the state and role of private sector and people’s needs
should be appropriately and adequately discussed so that some general understanding is
arrived at, as there cannot be a single model applicable to all the urban housing and basic
services and utilities. All dimensions, political as well as economic, of the 74th
constitutional amendment be analysed and understood realistically and not on ideological
or emotional basis. A proper understanding of urban institutions and their functioning has
to be developed. The outcomes of NGO’s acting as catalysts in the community actions
towards development are very encouraging. The experiences and experiments have been
18
regarding alternative institution building, where the stakeholders themselves are directly
brought as actors in the development process.
But NGO’s as the solution for housing struggle of the urban poor has also been
questioned upon. This has been mainly because their internal limitations set to them like
the financial constraints and the external limitations like the power politics and
administrative constraints. Housing today is looked upon merely in real estate terms. This
is what the real –estate agenda has encouraged today due to the Privatisation thrust in
housing and corporatisation of the various development and construction activities.
Housing projects are evaluated in terms of size, the built up area, the FSI consumed, the
financial turnover, and various other business and marketing merits. The bigger the
project, the better it is and the greater the attraction for developers in undertaking the
scheme. A huge network is thus established between the developers, the landowners, and
the financial institutions wherein the slum dwellers find no place.
Thus there is need of changing in the attitude of the government and the elite
towards the slum dwellers. Program for slum development must primarily be seen as an
environmental scheme and not merely as an agenda for real estate development and
construction turnover. It is the slum-like conditions i.e. lack of drinking water, inadequate
toilet facilities, garbage, heaps, lack of sewage disposal, absence of open-spaces,
inadequate and unsafe access that are of primary concern. Even with the rehabilitation
programmes by the Government and the NGO’s some basic element is lacking in these
projects that is the people. This has been particularly the case of the rehabilitation of the
evicted SGNP slum dwellers.
It is obvious from the above argument that neither the state nor the private sector
alone can handle the problem of housing for the poor. So there is need for the NGO
intervention. But NGO’s have there own drawbacks in terms of financial and
administrative constraints. So the solution to overcrowding and housing is to ensure that
the socio-economic compulsions that force mass migration towards the cities are ended.
However another more rational way out will be the integrated efforts of the private
sector, central government, civil society and people. However, this requires simultaneous
efforts by national, local governments, civil society, and private sector and people
themselves to eliminate impediments at all the levels. While central governments address
19
policy matters and regulatory impediments nationally, local authorities and civil societies
should design strategies to make appropriate interventions and regulatory changes in the
city. Local experiences should be fed back to national governments to influence their
support to cities, as well as for redesigning national programme.(See Figure 3)
Figure: 3 Integrated intervention of private sector, public sector, civil society and
people’s participation
Policy making,
Development of
Infrastructure, land,
and Implementation
Private sector
(Builders,
Construction
companies, etc.)
Resources
(Investments
of capital)
Accountability
& Mediation
Central Government
State Government
Local Government
Civil Society
(NGO’s)
Land and housing
Policy
Need
(Social and
Economic)
People’s participation
Another thing that can be done is the site and service scheme that has been started
by the government in Fourth plan and continued in seventh plan. This is a solution by
which the 5 million homeless workers of Mumbai can be housed. In this scheme the
government is totally responsible for providing all the services such as water, electricity,
20
sewage, drainage, and toilets, for providing technical know how and skills, interest-free
loans and for providing building materials at highly subsidized rates. First of all land is
taken over under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act at the rate of Re1/-a
square foot which is virtually free or at adequate compensation or if land is already in
possession of the government it can be used directly. Instead of This land is divided into
thousands of small plots. Then no construction is actually done in the beginning, as is the
case of conventional schemes. But water supply, sewage drainage and electricity are
provided to each plot. Then, depending on the financial capacity of each person the
worker can build his house. The advantage is even a person with a budget of 2000/- can
go ahead (See Table 2). Secondly the house can be developed over time. Thirdly and
most important, the worker has control over his house. Housing must be made
fundamental right enshrined in the constitution. Both the availability of direct finance and
subsidized building materials will tremendously excite the slum dwellers in under taking
the renovation and reconstruction of their houses on their own.
Table: 2 Housing Budget Profile
Monthly
Income Rs.
Credit
Possible Rs.
0-200
201-350
Monthly
Repayment
Ability Rs.
15
30
2,200
4,500
Cost
of
Affordable
House Rs.
3,200
6,400
351-600
50
5,400
8,300
601-1000
115
9,600
16,000
1001-1500
850
21,000
42,000
1501+
400
28,000
56,000
Type
of
Possible
shelter
Serviced site
Serviced site with
core house
Serviced site with
core house
One
room
conventional house
Two
room
conventional house
Three
room
conventional house
%
Of
Household
7
12
35
25
12
9
Source: MHADA
From the table given we can see that people with different income group will be
able to afford different types of shelter within there limited finances. Like People with
income of as low as Rs.200/- can afford a house of cost 3,200 where the site and services
has been provided by the government and the person can make a house within his or her
budget. Whereas, a person with a monthly income of more than 1500, can afford a house
of Rs.56, 000 made in a conventional way.
21
Also under the development proposal, the house will be ground and ground + one
or two stories high, enabling easy repairs and maintenance directly under the control of
the users. There would, therefore, be less dependency on hired skills and services. This
will encourage people’s participation in decision-making and will inculcate a greater
sense of belonging resulting in personalization of spaces and structures. While the
construction of houses will be the individual’s prerogative, the restructuring of the slumlayout, road, services, open spaces etc., could be a collective effort with governmental
support
Development programme for each slum will have to be evolved independently
and relevant guidelines fixed. Even F.S.I for each slum may vary to enable housing for all
the slum-dwellers on, as–is-where–is basis. Each slum has its own peculiar situation and
needs. For example what will apply for Dharavi may not be relevant for another slum in
Jogeshwari and vice versa. Therefore, within the main policy framework, individual
development strategies will have to be evolved. This will encourage people’s
participation in decision-making.
Also for undertaking slum development programme, it will be necessary to draw
support and contributions from the building industry. The proposal is to give the builders
an additional F.S.I incentive of 0.33 on their other housing sites being developed for
middle and high-income groups. However the total F.S.I on their site should not exceed
1.33 times the built up area of the slum housing having a F.S.I of one. Also there would
be no trading with T.D.R. certificates in the market as under the present Government
policy is considering increasing F.S.I. for slum lands up to 5 with sanctions for T.D.R.
The idea of independent developments of slum lands and housing schemes for
middle and higher income groups on other sites with 0.33 additional F.S.I will generate a
more balanced density and equitable distribution of land leading to a balanced
distribution of services and infrastructure. This will contribute immensely towards a
better housing environment in the city of Bombay.
Thus we can conclude that slum problem is a part of the overall crisis generated
by our present industrial commercial and urban planning policy and unless there is a
radical departure from this policy it has no real and effective solution. Therefore on
whole we can say that that the role of different participants in the housing problem of
22
Mumbai, there are three equal stakeholders, of which none of them solitarily will be able
to resolve the crisis of housing in Mumbai. So a balanced approach is required in which
the people’s participation should be given the priority.
Reference
Books, Reports and Articles: Afzulpurkar, D.K., (1995), “Programme for the Rehabilitation of Slum and Hutment
Dwellers in Brihan Mumbai”, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Clinard, B. Marshall (1996),” Slums & Community Development Experiments in SelfHelp”, Himalaya Publishing House.
Das.P.K (1995), “A Housing Alternative for Bombay”, Mumbai, Nivara Hakk Suraksha
Samiti Publication.
Das.P.K (2002), “Slums: The Continuing Struggle for Housing”, Mumbai, Nivara Hakk
Suraksha Samiti Publication.
Das.P.K and Gonsalves, Colin (1987), “The Struggle for Housing: A Peoples’ Manifesto”
Mumbai, Nivara Hakk Suraksha Samiti Publication.
David, M.D (1996),” Urban Explosion of Mumbai”, Bombay: Himalaya Publishing
House.
Dear, m (1981), “Urbanization and Urban Planning In Capitalist Society” London,
Methuen & Co.Ltd.
Desai, A.R and Pillai, S.D. (1990),”Slums and Urbanisation”, Bombay (2nd end.)
Desai, Vandana, (1995), “Community Participation and Slum Housing: A Study of
Bombay”, Sage Publication, New Delhi.
Hare, O. Greg, Abbott, Dina and Barke, Michael (1998), “A review of slum housing
policies in Mumbai”. Cities Volume 15, Issue 4, Pages 260-283.
Jha, S.S (1986),”Structure of Urban Poverty—The Case of Bombay Slums”, Bombay,
Popular Prakashan.
Justice Hosbet, Suresh (1997),” Demolition and Fire At Ambedkar Nagar –Violation of
the Right Of Working People to Live in the city. Mumbai”, Lokshahi Hakk Sanghatana.
23
Justice Hosbet, Suresh.(1991),” Forced eviction –An ‘Indian People’s Tribunal’ Enquiry
into The Brutal Demolitions Of Pavement and Slum Dwellers Homes”,Bombay,The
Committee For The Right To Housing.
Mukhija, Vinit (2001), “Upgrading Housing Settlements in Developing Countries: The
Impact of Existing Physical Conditions”. Cities Volume 18, Issue 4, Pages 213-222
Patel, S.B., 1995. Slum rehabilitation: 40 lakh free lunches?. Economic and Political
Weekly 30 40, pp. 2473–2476.
Patel, Sujata and Thorner, Alice (1995),” Bombay: Mosaic of Modern Culture”, Bombay:
Oxford University Press.
Patel, Sujata and Thorner, Alice (1995),” Metaphor for Modern India”, Bombay, Oxford
University Press.
Payne, k. Geoffrey (1977), “Urban housing in the third world”, London.
Prabhavathi, P.V.S (1992), “Housing and development”, Allahbad, Chugh Publications.
Roy, K. Sanjay (1993),”State, Ideologies and Urban poor in Third World”, Economic
and PoloticalWeekly (December 4).
Singh, G. and Das, P.K., 1995. Building castles in air: housing scheme for Bombay's
slum-dwellers. Economic and Political Weekly 30 40, pp. 2477–2481.
Sundaram, P.S.A (1989), “Bombay : Can it house its millions”, New Delhi, Clarion
Books.
Tindall, Gillian (1992),” City of Gold”, Penguin Books.
Venkatarayappa, K.N., (1971), “Slums: A Study of Urban Problem”, Sterling Publishers
(P) LTD, New Delhi.
News Papers: The Times of India, April 1, 2002 “Slum – dwellers must be spurred to upgrade homes
with savings, loans.”
The Times of India, March 20, 2002,”States eyes reserved land near Powai for slum
rehab project”.
The Times of India, March 27, 2002, “NGO explains reversal of stand on slum rehab
scheme.”
The Times of India, May 10, 2002,”Redevelopment plans for chawls are stayed “.
24