False Promises and Discriminatory Policies
The demolitions are remarkable given the fact that both the union and state governments in Delhi had promised jahan jhuggi wahan makaan (wherever there is a shanty, there will be a house). On the question of housing, PM Modi said in 2018 that every Indian will have a house with electricity, sanitation and drinking water by 2022 under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (PMAY). Later, this deadline was extended to 2024. But in reality, presently, about 2 lakh urban people are still homeless; and about 6.5 crores reside in slums. As per the reports, as of January 2023, around 84 lakh houses are yet to be completed under the project and in the urban centres with about 51% of the target achieved.
The housing question is exacerbated by the landlessness in the country. According to the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Rural Development & Panchayati Raj 2,79,321 (65.26%) out of the total of 4,27,975 landless beneficiaries (under PMAY) are yet to be provided land. In the midst of such landlessness, demolitions have been rampant.
The Land Conflict Watch recently reported that since January 2023, more than 1,600 homes were demolished and over 3,000 eviction notices were served in Delhi alone, impacting nearly 2.5 lakh lives. The report ‘Forced Evictions in India in 2020: A Grave Human Rights Crisis During the Pandemic’, released by the Housing and Land Rights’ Network (HLRN) noted that at least 61,257 families have lost their homes since March 2020 in at least 245 incidents of forced eviction drives across the country during the pandemic. A close look at the Delhi Master Plan (prepared in 2021) shows that the government promises were a bit of a sham right from the start.
Delhi Master Plan
A detailed analysis of the Master Plan throws up some disturbing features. Matam, Singh, and Nagpal point out that the Plan indeed enlists two ‘improvement’ schemes for unauthorised colonies aiming ‘to improve the quality of life of people living in unplanned areas.’ The first scheme pertains to the ‘regeneration’ of unauthorised colonies. It calls for fresh development requiring high monetary and technical investment. The scheme however ignores the prevalent high densities and compact built forms of many unauthorised colonies. The scheme also delegates the entire responsibility of regeneration to a Developer Entity, defined as ‘an individual land/property owner or a group of land/property owners who have pooled one or more parcels of land for taking up development/ regeneration’.
But what percentage of residents will constitute the Developer Entity? How will representation of vulnerable residents (such as marginalised caste groups, women owners, and small plot owners) be ensured? What form will this consent take? These questions find no answer in the plan.
The scheme is paving the way for gentrification and the possible displacement of vulnerable residents, the authors suggest. The scheme is prone to exploitation by developers and market forces, especially in areas where land value is high. Matam, Singh, and Nagpal also suggest that since the first scheme requires high financial and technical capacities, a majority of unauthorised colonies are likely to resort to the second scheme that details provisions for layout approvals of existing unauthorised colonies. Popularly referred to as the ‘as is scheme’, the norms proposed are too rigid to address the density and diverse urban morphology of the majority of Delhi’s unauthorised colonies, the authors argue. For instance, the scheme proposes that all the plots should be within 30-metres distance from a 9-metre-wide road to adhere to conventional fire safety norms. Such requirements have been major roadblocks to regularisation attempts for several years. For dense colonies that have existed for over 50 years, this is unfeasible as it will require major adjustments in the built environment. What will happen to the colonies which will not fit into these schemes? The Master Plan does not say it, but the rampant bulldozers are making the answer quite evident.
Political and Organizational Challenges
Land and housing crisis has always been a feature of Indian cities. Now with increasing urbanization, it is heading towards a tipping point and the burden of the crisis, like in most cases, is being shifted to the poor. This is emerging as a key pillar of inequality.
The policy thrust of the kind that is visible in the Delhi Master Plan runs contrary to both international laws and the Indian constitution. The right to adequate housing is a part of the international human rights law. This was recognized as part of the right to an adequate standard of living in article 25 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in article 11.1 of the 1966 International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It is also an integral part of article 21 of the Indian constitution which guarantees a life of dignity for all. What else but a strong political voice of workers could make sure that these laws do not remain merely on paper?
The emerging discourse around the right to the city is a useful framework within which the question of housing can be raised. However, it must be well-integrated with trade union based organizing in industrial areas and different parts of towns and cities, and it must be connected with movements against dispossession in rural and forest areas as well. It is also important that we connect this issue with the problem of denial of essential requirements to live a life of dignity to various sections of the Indian people. The right to the city of Dalits, workers, women, Muslims, and other sections who constitute India’s bottom 90%, must not be an isolated slogan.
Organizationally, deep-rooted grassroots activities in urban and industrial areas are required in order to build an effective political movement around these questions. Babasaheb Ambedkar’s idea of public conscience provides us with a hitherto less explored framework to successfully mobilize solidarity across social sections against this war on the poor. Public consciousness, according to Babasaheb, means consciousness which becomes agitated at every wrong; no matter who is the sufferer and it means that everybody whether they suffer that particular wrong or not, is prepared to join them. How can fellow citizens watch quietly when the rights of India’s 90% who are on the wrong side of inequality, whose labour builds and sustains the country, are being bulldozed in open daylight?
