The Hindu : Opinion / News Analysis : Shops and slums

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Tuesday, Apr 04, 2006

Opinion

Opinion - News Analysis

Shops and slums — a city divided

A. Srivathsan

The traders' protest and the slum-eviction drive in Delhi can be traced to the failure of city planning and urban governance. What is required is a radical reconstruction of the concept of a city.

EVER SINCE the Supreme Court decided to get cracking on unauthorised commercial establishments in Delhi, traders have been crying hoarse. The court deadline for sealing commercial establishments is June 30. Traders are protesting against this court order and things are turning violent. For the Ministry of Urban Development, the only way to get around this mess and appease the traders was to notify amendment to the Delhi master plan. It has now been announced that commercial establishments can come up in residential areas even on roads as narrow as nine metres across.

In another part of Delhi, at the same time, slums along the river Yamuna were removed by another court order. Slum dwellers were asked to vacate. Bulldozers and authorities moved in and the huts were demolished. No violence was reported.

Powerful lobby

The traders in Delhi make a powerful lobby. They significantly contribute to Delhi's Rs.5,000 core sales tax base. They demand that a distinction be made between greed and need based violation. And, want the spread of commerce in residential area accommodated as a necessity. The Ministry has acceded to their demands. The city master plan is now amended.

The debates are focussed on mixed land use policy, the Ministry's ad hoc changes, and the judiciary's comprehension of civic planning. The question not many are asking is: why are traders more important than the poor in the slums. The focus on traders cannot distract us from the core issues of lack of social housing and failure of city planning.

Legislators and councillors cutting across party lines have supported the Delhi traders. They have vociferously demanded that the traders not only be spared but that their violations be legitimised. They have succeeded. Barring a token protest, slum removal is accepted without a murmur.

Middle class citizens of the city are not very different. The resident welfare associations have spoken against the traders; but the slums have not been their concern. Middle class life is connected to the slums in many ways. It is supported and made possible by the informal economy centred round the slums.

In the eyes of the state, why does one thing appear a necessity and the other an encroachment?

Town planning and city life are connected to property ownership. City governance is oriented to help property owners enjoy their rights. Rights here are not limited to the property alone. A property-owner can demand access roads and object to any obstacles to the enjoyment of his or her entitlement. On the other hand, when you are in a slum, you do not legally own a property. You are not entitled to anything a city offers.

Slums are considered eyesores and slum-dwellers parasites. On the other hand, the land-owning citizens are considered producers of wealth. For example, in the case of Delhi, the penetration of shops in the residential area is considered a service to the city. The claim is that they make commerce accessible, provide employment, and create a vibrant city.

Slums are service providers too, but this fact is ignored. Domestic help, drivers, watchmen come from the slums. They subsidise city life by charging less for their services. It is not just a matter of abundant supply of labour. By living in slums and walking many miles the labourers make their services cheap and affordable. Hawkers and their informal markets provide variety and cheap goods to the middle class. This too is connected to their existence in slums.

Slums spring up by the side of riverbanks, railway tracks, and pavements. These are the places where ownership is not forcefully protected or clearly stated. This allows for inhabitation and makes low wages possible. It is a form of subsidy the property-owning citizens enjoy.

The post-Independence city planning was full of a socialist agenda. Housing for the poor and slum improvement were important planning objectives then. Cities were acknowledged as an uneven mosaic. The poor and slums were accepted as part of the city. The 1980s were the turning point.

Cities are now the new engines of growth. It is estimated that in a few years, the majority of the Indian population will be living in cities. The Planning Commission estimates that 22.44 million dwelling units are required in urban areas for the 10th Plan period (2002-2007). According to 1998 figures, Rs.1,51,000 crore was required to meet the then housing deficit. Government participation in this was estimated to be just 25 per cent. The remaining investment was to be provided by the private sector. This means private housing would alone be taken care of.

The Planning Commission also estimates that 22.8 per cent of the urban population lives in slums. This means, by 2010, a minimum of 85 million would be slum-dwellers. What plans do we have for this burgeoning slum population? Can we continue to force slums out of the city?

The Draft National Slum policy drawn in 1999 suggested in situ slum upgradation and recommended their integration with city plans. But it is yet to be ratified by the Government. The objectives of this policy have also not found their way into city plans. The ideal of making city planning equitable is no more an issue of concern.

Cities are now perceived as sites of wealth production rather than places for people. They are getting increasingly exclusive and promoting islands of wealth. Pictures of futuristic cities have uncluttered streets. Hawkers and slums do not figure in them. The poor are needed to keep cities cheap and make them attractive destinations for investment. This is on a condition that they are not in the picture — literally and otherwise.

The traders' protest and the slum-eviction drive in Delhi can be traced to the failure of city planning and urban governance. A city can no longer be planned as a single homogenous entity. Nor can a single centralised development authority govern it. In spite of recent amendments to the Constitution that empower local bodies, exclusion remains.

What is required is not another new plan nor legislation, but a radical reconstruction of the concept of a city. May be the solution does not lie in planning, but in its politics. Cities within cities have to be acknowledged as separate entities. What would happen if a city is reconfigured and slums designated as separate electoral constituencies? Would it bring in more care and state support to the cities of the poor?

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Opinion

News Update

Stories in this Section

A foundation for public health

Need not be a central monopoly

France in ferment, anger on the streets

Corrections and clarifications

The roads from Chitrakoot

Shops and slums — a city divided

Laughter really is the best medicine

Musharraf pardons several prisoners