[Reader-list] shops and slums - a city divided.

[Tripta B Chandola]

The demolitions are all over; the brazen, almost barren, (till the  
time the football field or the power station or something equally  
imposing appears) space stares at you. An eerie silence marks this  
space, the intersections, the traffic flows. Everyone is pretending  
as if nothing was ever there. Everyone looks away. However, if you  
look closely around the corners, the RAF vans, the police vans, etc  
are all perched in an almost nonchalant manner as if their presence  
had (has) nothing to do with the 'site' itself. The site (and the  
sight) is being shifted.

cheers,
tripta

http://www.hindu.com/2006/04/04/stories/2006040406180900.htm

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?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/reader-list/attachments/20060404/f4e0fbd6/attachment.html