The developmental model of building settlements for low-income communities at the peripheries of urban centres is almost considered self-evident by authorities in India, but does it really work?
—
ABOUT 35 percent Indians live in urban areas and this number is estimated to rise to around 60 percent by 2050. In 2022, the urban population of India was reported to be about 51 crore.
According to another report, urbanisation, that is, the rate at which people move to urban areas to find work, has increased by almost 4 percent in the last decade in India.
The National Institute of Urban Affairs estimates that the urban population will grow from the current 31.16 percent to 40.76 percent of the total population by 2030.
Quoting a World Bank report, the institute reports that the “urban sprawl” or the expansion of development on undeveloped land near a city, accounts for 55.3 percent of India’s total population.
The World Bank has termed India’s urbanisation “messy and hidden”, pointing to the “relative lack of livability” in Indian cities.
Right to housing
While the Constitution of India does not provide for a specific right to housing, the rights of the underprivileged, which would include the right to housing, are affirmed under Articles 14, 15, 19(1)(d), 19(1)(e) and 21.
The National Institute of Urban Affairs estimates that the urban population will grow from the current 31.16 percent to 40.76 percent of the total population by 2030.
The Constitution also binds the State to ensure such basic rights are not denied in the form of the Directive Principles of State Policy under various provisions such as Articles 38, 39, 41, 42 and 47.
Also read: Experiments with truth, Part 3: The moral and political dilemmas of housing rights
Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 1966 (ICESCR), which India ratified in 1976, recognises the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions.
Government’s cognisance
The Union government has acknowledged the need for the development of infrastructure as well as for improving the quality of life in urban areas.
In pursuit of this acknowledgement, the government introduced the Smart Cities Mission in 2015 “to promote cities that provide core infrastructure and give a decent quality of life to their citizens”.
The mission’s strategy recognises the core infrastructure elements such as adequate water supply; assured electricity supply; sanitation; efficient urban mobility and public transport; affordable housing; robust IT connectivity and digitalisation; good governance; a sustainable environment; and safety, security, health and education of citizens.
According to the Union Minister for Housing and Urban Affairs Hardeep S. Puri, smart cities represent the next generation of Indian cities.
The government introduced the Smart Cities Mission in 2015 “to promote cities that provide core infrastructure and give a decent quality of life to their citizens”.
Reportedly, the director of the G20 unit of the Union Housing and Urban Affairs Department M.B. Singh has stressed on the need for building new cities and said, “Haphazard expansion on the outskirts of existing cities is affecting the basic planning of these cities”.
Furthermore, various affordable housing initiatives have been introduced in recent times to address the housing crisis of the urban poor.
Among the recent ones, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) was launched in December 2005 for planned development of urban areas.
Its sub-missions of the Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing & Slum Development Programme aimed at providing basic amenities and services to urban poor and slum dwellers such as security of tenure at affordable prices, improved housing, water supply, sanitation, education, health and social security.
In September 2009, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation issued guidelines, which included provisions such as: “Care should be taken to see that the urban poor are provided housing near their place of occupation”.
Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) was launched in 2011 to scale up BSUP. It was replaced by Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U) in 2015.
Also read: Is ‘unity in diversity’ a farce when it comes to housing in India?
The housing scheme of PMAY-U was launched to provide houses to “eligible families or beneficiaries”, who belong to the economically weaker sections and low-income groups, by 2022. PMAY-U seeks to make home loans affordable for the urban poor through four programme verticals.
However, two of its programmes, ‘beneficiary-led individual house construction or enhancement’ and ‘credit-linked subsidy’ mandate land ownership certificates and identity documents to obtain loans.
Reportedly, this prerequisite excludes a majority of urban slum dwellers from availing subsidised housing loans.
Peripheralisation of the poor
Housing complexes for slum dwellers built under the JNNURM are, however, widely criticised for being far away from city centres and avenues of work and for poor-quality of the construction.
According to a study by CEPT University, urban beautification and infrastructure projects in Ahmedabad have displaced thousands of poor households and vendors in the city.
The effectiveness of the third vertical of PMAY-U— affordable housing in partnership— is also questioned since affordable housing projects in major cities can be allocated primarily in outskirt areas and satellite towns.
In Ajay Maken versus Union of India (2019), the Delhi High Court identifies that many low-income service providers travel long distances for work in Delhi, live in deplorable conditions and suffer indignities.
On account of the expansion of its peripheries, Delhi is referred to as a “border-less city”.
According to a report by the Centre for Science and Environment (CSE), the present state of urban planning is pushing low-income groups to the peripheries of cities, disrupting livelihoods and increasing travel distances and costs for jobs, education, sanitation facilities and other essential services.
The CSE’s report titled How accessible are low-income settlements? The Case of Delhi highlights that planned low-income settlements in Delhi, particularly the older resettlement areas such as Savda Ghevra, Baprola, Bawana, Holambi Kalan, Papan Kalan, Rohini and Narela have been relocated to the peripheries of the city.
For instance, the report points out that in Savda Ghevra, the residents have endured a lack of bus connectivity, water supply, sewage network or other physical infrastructure provisions. “Affordable homes are not closer to affordable transport,” the report adds.
According to a study by CEPT University, urban beautification and infrastructure projects in Ahmedabad have displaced thousands of poor households and vendors in the city.
The study states that under the Basic Services to the Urban Poor Programme of the Union government, the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation built housing in Vatwa, a south-eastern periphery of Ahmedabad between 2010 and 2014.
Also read: Eminent domain doctrine in India and the lack of due process
A 2018 article in The Quint explains the plight of slum dwellers allotted housing quarters at Sadaramangala and Bheemanakuppe in Bengaluru by the Karnataka Slum Development Board.
Although around seven years had passed since the reallocation, the article explains that hundreds of residents continue to suffer the consequences of long-distance travel in the form of unemployment and lack of easy access to necessities including grocery stores and hospitals.
The goal of providing affordable housing under the Smart Cities Mission is termed “slum clearance” on account of the lack of specific policies to ensure the development of slums.
Furthermore, the article highlights that the residents are facing issues with essential services such as inadequate water supply, absence of electricity, incomplete housing infrastructure and lack of quality education.
Reportedly, over the last two decades, 55,000 families of slum dwellers in Chennai have been forcibly relocated to “ghettos” that are at a considerable distance from the city. The resettled families in the peripheries have been facing problems in terms of access to basic needs of water, health and sanitation.
In several of the resettlement areas built by the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, schools and health centres were set up years after the resettlement.
Madras Institute of Development Studies studied 200 relocated households in the peripheries of Ahmedabad and Chennai in 2018.
It was found that in the case of resettlement houses in Perumbakkam and Gudapakkam in Chennai, the residents had to travel 25–35 km each way.
Whereas, while the distance to travel was relatively shorter— 6 to 12 km— for resettlement areas of SKV Nagar and Umang Lambha in Ahmedabad, the transport arrangements were found to be inadequate, infrequent and scarce.
As a consequence of the spatial dislocation, the report noted several shortcomings including poor housing infrastructure; high travel costs for jobs, healthcare and education; lack of safety for women; and lack of access to urban amenities such as the cinema, internet centres and markets.
Under the PMAY-U, BSUP and RAY, “states and private builders alike seek out the cheapest available land for construction” of low-income housing units, causing their peripheralisation.
The goal of providing affordable housing under the Smart Cities Mission is termed “slum clearance” on account of the lack of specific policies to ensure the development of slums.
Also read: Tughlakabad eviction drive lays bare changing nature of citizenship
For instance, slums in Bhubaneswar and Pune, falling under Smart City development projects, are to be relocated to the peripheries of the city in order to use the land for commercial purposes.
In Ajay Maken, the Delhi High Court referred to the South African Constitutional Court in acknowledging the right of “meaningful engagement” of a person who is being evicted from informal settlements, with any relocation plans.
The Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 aims to make better provision for improvement, clearance and redevelopment of slum areas in Maharashtra. The Act also makes provisions for protection of occupiers from eviction and distress warrants.
On September 26, the Bombay High Court heard two public interest litigations highlighting the issue of non-payment of transit rent by developers to slum dwellers.
Transit rent is the rent paid by a developer to those vacating their houses for redevelopment or rehabilitation until permanent accommodation is provided.
Reportedly, the court observed that despite a mechanism in place under the Act, the Slum Rehabilitation Authority has failed to ensure that the interest of the slum dwellers are protected.
Mobility
While low-income groups are active users of public transport, cycling and walking, the peripheralisation of the poor is bound to make travel to earn a livelihood in cities expensive and inconvenient.
CSE’s study finds that the share of public transport is bound to drop by around 31 percent by 2030–31.
The report notes that policies such as the Smart Cities Mission fail to address the transport needs of those living on the outskirts of cities since considerable investment is seen in road-building (50 percent of the funds allocated for 15 percent of users) as compared to affordable transport (24 of the funds for 85 percent of users).
CEPT University’s study says, “Distant relocation along with lack of appropriate and affordable transport options negatively impact the mobility, work and livelihoods of a vast majority.”
The Charter of the Right to the City was introduced under the New Urban Agenda during the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainability Development (Habitat III) in 2016.
The study details the consequences of the distant reallocation in Ahmedabad on livelihoods such as high motorised travel expenses, dropping out of women from the workforce, underemployment and lack of casual work.
The study also points out hardships in accessing amenities, including private schools, public healthcare, colleges and recreational open spaces.
Absence of choice
According to recommendations submitted by a civil society memorandum to the ministry, people’s participation in making an informed choice related to housing, including the design and size of the house, is vital.
Also read: Eviction drive in Tughlakabad: 1,000 families sent notices to vacate their houses
According to a study by the Indian Institute of Management, Bangalore, unlike choices available for usual residential relocation, slum-dwellers do not generally have multiple destination options.
“Their [slum-dwellers’] destination site is generally determined by urban authorities based on land availability in different parts of the city, and they are rarely in a position to make a choice about it,” the study adds.
In Ajay Maken, the Delhi High Court referred to the South African Constitutional Court in acknowledging the right of “meaningful engagement” of a person who is being evicted from informal settlements, with any relocation plans.
The high court observed that under the Constitutional Court’s concept of “meaningful engagement”, the State is mandated to consider the needs of the affected persons and take them into confidence on the proposed schemes of rehabilitation.
The State must be prepared to review the schemes based on the inputs from such affected groups, the high court adds.
The right to the city
The Charter of the Right to the City (RTTC) was introduced under the New Urban Agenda during the United Nations Conference on Housing and Sustainability Development (Habitat III) in 2016. The RTTC is an instrument that aims to ensure equitable enjoyment of the cities while respecting the principles of sustainability, democracy and social justice.
The RTTC primarily promotes the equal use and enjoyment of cities and human settlements, seeking to promote inclusivity and ensure that all inhabitants, of present and future generations, without discrimination of any kind, are able to inhabit and produce just, safe, healthy, accessible, affordable, resilient and sustainable cities and human settlements to foster prosperity and quality of life for all.
The RTTC is considered a collective international human right of all city inhabitants, especially the vulnerable and the disfavoured.
In Ajay Maken, the Delhi High Court pointed to the “increasing recognition in the international sphere” of the RTTC. It considered the RTTC an essential element in the policy for the rehabilitation of slum dwellers.
Notably, the high court indicated that the principle of RTTC acknowledges that those living in jhuggis or slums contribute to the economic and social life of a city, including sanitation workers, garbage collectors, domestic help, rickshaw pullers and labourers.
Reportedly, several countries in the global South, including Brazil, Ecuador and Mexico have acknowledged the RTTC model in their legal frameworks.
It is, therefore, vital that in the interest of social equity, the poor are not pushed to the peripheries of the city by ensuring affordable and reliable housing and transport in the core city areas.
