Overview of Slum Improvement and Clearance in India
The Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act) of 1956 was a pivotal piece of legislation aimed at addressing the dire conditions prevalent in slum areas across various Union territories in India. Its goals encompassed both the improvement of these areas and the protection of tenants from arbitrary eviction. Tamil Nadu became the pioneering state to establish a Slum Clearance Board, laying the groundwork for subsequent initiatives aimed at urban rehabilitation. Under the subsequent Slum Clearance Act, the government is mandated to officially identify slum areas. This identification then obligates the authorities to either construct new permanent housing solutions or enhance the residing conditions of the established slum populations. However, despite its critical objectives, the board, since its inception in 1971, has declared slum areas only twice, with an initial identification of 1,200 and a subsequent addition of merely 17 in 1985.
Slum Displacement in Urban Areas
As the narrative around slums evolved, an Indian minister sparked controversy in 2010 when, during a visit to London in anticipation of the Commonwealth Games, he proclaimed that slums were a relic of the past in India, having been supplanted by so-called urban clusters. This assertion starkly contradicted the reality faced by millions; in Delhi alone, slum clearance initiatives had displaced over a million residents between 1998 and 2008. This demographic upheaval is even more pronounced when considering the 2011 Census, which estimated that approximately 65 million individuals resided in around 108,000 slums throughout the country. Maharashtra, a state characterized by rapid urbanization and industrialization, reported the highest concentration of slums, with around 21,000 identified areas cataloged.
Urban Migration and Housing Crisis
As of 2017, it was noted that about one-third of India’s burgeoning population of 1.25 billion inhabited urban environments. This statistic is indicative of a significant trend: individuals relocating from rural regions to cities in pursuit of better economic prospects. Unfortunately, this migration often culminates in overcrowded living conditions, with many individuals relegated to slums or homelessness due to a stark deficiency of affordable housing. The situation is dire, as approximately 25% of the urban populace finds themselves in informal housing settlements, which include slums.
Addressing the Challenge
Addressing the challenge of slums in India requires not only enhanced legislative frameworks for housing but also comprehensive urban planning that accommodates the influx of migrants and prioritizes the development of affordable housing solutions. Effective implementation of the strategies envisaged under the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance Act) remains critical. Collaborative efforts between government bodies, non-governmental organizations, and community groups are essential in creating sustainable, livable environments for those residing in urban slums. The interplay of policy, public awareness, and targeted action can potentially pave the way toward alleviating the conditions faced by millions of urban dwellers living in slums across India.
Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai
Between 2008 and 2010, the state government of Maharashtra undertook a controversial approach to slum redevelopment in Mumbai, where it granted over 500 acres (200 hectares) of slum land for urban development on a first-come-first-serve basis. This process occurred without adequate scrutiny of the developers’ qualifications and credentials, which raised concerns about transparency and ethical governance. At the heart of this situation was Section 3K of the Slum Act, introduced in 1999, which allowed developers to bypass the usual mandatory requirement of securing 70% consent from slum residents before proceeding with redevelopment projects. Despite its potential implications for residents’ rights, this section was largely unused until a significant scheme in Golibar, Santa Cruz, was approved in August 2008 for the redevelopment of 123 acres (50 hectares). The approval faced strong resistance from slum dwellers, culminating in violent protests as residents attempted to obstruct demolition crews, revealing the deep-rooted tensions between development goals and community rights.
The struggle of slum residents in Mumbai is further complicated by stringent eligibility criteria for free housing. As per existing regulations, only those who lived in a cleared area before 1995, or 2000 in certain cases, qualify for free housing assistance. This limitation affects over 70% of the slum population, forcing many to seek refuge in other slum areas and perpetuating a cycle of displacement. Notable incidents, such as the violent clashes in Ganesh Krupa Society in 2011, illustrate the pivotal struggles between developers and residents. The developer’s intention to clear this extensive slum for commercial purposes led to heightened tensions, especially when a High Court order to evict families was met with allegations of forged signatures on eviction documents, indicating a more profound crisis of trust.
The broader context of slum redevelopment in Mumbai paints a grim picture of inadequate housing solutions. By 2011, nearly 100,000 homes had been constructed under various slum renewal initiatives over a span of 12 years. However, an alarming statistic revealed that 35% of rehoused individuals returned to slums due to the unaffordability of their new accommodations. This trend emphasizes a critical gap in policy effectiveness and the need for a more sustainable approach to housing. With an estimated requirement of 1.2 million homes to adequately house the then population of Mumbai's slums, the challenges of urban migration, housing policies, and social justice remain pressing issues in the ongoing dialogue about urban development and slum rehabilitation in one of the world's most densely populated cities. The interplay of economic interests, resident rights, and urban planning continues to shape the future of Mumbai's slums, necessitating comprehensive reforms and community involvement to create lasting solutions.
Uprooting Communities in Chennai
From January 2011 to September 2013, Chennai experienced a significant demographic shift as the government initiated a major redevelopment program aimed at reducing the number of slums in the city. The initiative led to the forced relocation of over 100,000 families from slums to create space for new commercial and residential structures. The Tamil Nadu state government set an ambitious goal to eradicate slums by the end of 2013, with a particular focus on clearing occupied lands near the city's waterways, which are often at the forefront of flood management strategies. However, despite these substantial efforts, by February 2016, slums continued to persist throughout Chennai, highlighting the complexities and challenges of urban redevelopment.
The abrupt eviction of families from slum areas has had severe repercussions on their quality of life. For instance, in a sudden eviction from the Surya Nagar slum, approximately 1,000 families received just one day’s notice before being displaced. Relocated to an eight-story building over 20 kilometers away, these families faced new adversities such as flooding during the rainy season and persistent damp conditions that led to health problems. The initial sense of community and connection to local jobs that slum dwellers experienced was replaced by feelings of isolation and anxiety after their resettlement. Many expressed that they felt as if they had been "dumped here like orphans with no help," signifying the poignant emotional toll that such displacements can engender.
One of the relocation sites developed by the state over two decades is located in Perumbakkam. This area was created not only as a response to slum clearance but also to accommodate those who became homeless due to significant disasters, such as the 2004 Indian Ocean tsunami and the catastrophic flooding in Chennai in 2015. As of 2017, this site was home to approximately 52,000 families who had lost their slum residences to make room for infrastructural developments, such as new roads and flyovers. These families are often left grappling with the loss of their previous living conditions and the socio-economic stability that came with them.
In a similar thread, another significant event unfolded around 2015 when the Shakur Basti slum was cleared. This operation dismantled around 1,200 homes, displacing residents without providing adequate alternatives. The land had belonged to Indian Railways, which justified the clearance on safety grounds, citing that the residents had settled too close to the railway tracks, which posed risks to train operations. Tragically, the clearance resulted in the death of an infant, an event that sparked outrage; however, Indian Railways refuted any connection between the demise and their actions, illustrating the often-contentious intersection of urban development, safety concerns, and individual lives.
Underlying Causes of Slum Clearance
The drive to clear slums in urban India is deeply intertwined with economic motivations, as highlighted by Dunu Roy, an ex-engineer and founder of the Hazard Centre in Delhi. He argues that the high value of urban land is often a result of the unpaid labor of the very residents living in these slums. This phenomenon creates a cycle where residents are unable to secure stable housing and employment, thereby fueling economic growth for the city. When slum dwellers are displaced, they typically resettle in other areas, contribute to the local economy by constructing new homes, and in turn, elevate the value of the land. This cycle often culminates in another round of evictions years later, as the newly revitalized areas become attractive targets for urban development projects.
The reality of slum evictions in metropolitan areas can be illustrated through events that transpired in Delhi in late 2007. During this time, three significant slum settlements received eviction notices. Alarmingly, less than a quarter of the households affected were provided with alternative housing. The media paradoxically focused on promoting digitized visions of future developments, such as a proposed urban promenade, rather than addressing the dire consequences of the evictions themselves. Similarly, in 2011, the city of Ahmedabad witnessed the forced relocation of its slum population, with many families being moved over 16 kilometers away from their jobs and social networks. This decision was largely driven by urban planners who envisioned transforming the cleared riverbanks into upscale residential areas, akin to London’s iconic Thames Embankment in the 19th century.
In Mumbai, the case was no different as the International Airport sought to expand into slum-occupied land adjacent to its facilities. The proposed clearance plan would have necessitated the relocation of approximately 88,000 families, but opposition arose from residents who faced a daunting choice: many were ineligible for new housing, while others feared losing their community ties, work opportunities, and educational continuity. The ambitious project, which aimed to construct a third terminal and expand the existing runway across 276 acres of land, ultimately faced significant setbacks. By 2014, the relocation process proved too cumbersome and was eventually scrapped, reflecting the complexities involved in displacing large populations and the social implications that follow.
These scenarios collectively highlight the complexities of urban planning and the often-overlooked human cost of slum clearance. While urban renewal projects may promise enhanced infrastructure and economic growth, they frequently disregard the lives and struggles of the marginalized communities that contribute to the very vibrancy cities seek to exploit. The ongoing debate surrounding these issues underscores a pressing need for more holistic approaches to urban development that genuinely incorporate the voices and needs of those most affected.
Economic Redevelopment and Human Cost
The economic redevelopment initiatives often aimed at improving urban infrastructure frequently neglect the significant human cost associated with the clearance of slums. These areas are not merely enclaves of poverty but vibrant communities equipped with their own systems of resources, including reliable access to water and electricity. When families are evicted in the name of development, they are often moved into new settlements that lack basic amenities, such as running water, which may take years to be provided. The disconnect between these redevelopment plans and the actual needs of the residents highlights a critical failure in policy-making. In many cases, residents who were previously able to buy food at low costs find themselves living in areas where essentials, such as vegetables and rice, can be priced at double, straining already limited financial resources.
In addition to economic hardships, the geographic displacement of communities disrupts deeply established social networks. When families are relocated, they are often dispersed and mixed with those from different cultural backgrounds. This has a profound impact on community cohesion, as demonstrated in new housing developments where families with contrasting customs and traditions are placed under one roof. Such arrangements can breed unfamiliarity and mistrust among residents, leading to social tensions. The potential for conflict is heightened when groups with differing cultural values and historical grievances are forced to coexist without any integration support.
During 2018, the scale of eviction due to slum clearance was staggering, with authorities demolishing an average of 114 homes per day. This relentless pace of demolitions resulted in over 41,700 homes being destroyed, displacing an estimated 200,000 people. Notably, the absence of official data on evictions obscures an accurate understanding of the human toll. The issue of evictions and the resultant displacement of communities became increasingly prominent in public discourse leading up to the 2019 Indian general election, illustrating the growing public sentiment and outcry against such practices. Advocacy groups raised concerns about the violations of government guidelines throughout this period, emphasizing the need for a more humane approach to urban development that prioritizes the welfare and rights of affected communities while still pursuing economic growth.