August 2007 Edition
Simpreet Singh
Mumbai
ANY kind of development activity involves three questions: what does development mean, how should it be carried out and for whom. The protests against various projects, such as SEZs, dams, highways and industries, exist because there is no consensus on the above three aspects. These projects were initiated without taking into consideration the people who are paying the costs of such projects with their land, livelihood and lives. Dharavi’s redevelopment is one such example. The government of Maharashtra plans to redevelop Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum, spread across more than 500 acres. Dharavi produces goods worth Rs 4,000 crore annually, from leather products that are exported across the world to the papads consumed in Indian households. The plan is to redevelop the whole area by constructing highrises for which global tenders are to be invited. The project is claimed to be worth Rs 9,500 crore. The notification for the Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP) was issued on January 19, following which suggestions/objections were invited. It is worth mentioning that this process of consultation is binding on the state as per the provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (MRTP).
Though the hearing on the objections began in the
second week of June, the Expression of Interest
(EoI) document, which costs Rs 1 lakh, was issued
on May 30.
Those who participate in public hearings are
aware that most of them end up as mere formalities.
But in this case even the formality was violated.
The EoI could only have been issued if the project
profile was clear and decided upon. Since an effective hearing requires due application of the
mind, it could lead to fundamental changes in the
project parameters and profiles. However, as the
EoI was passed before the hearing, the hearing didn’t
make sense. This question is to be answered by
those taking the project forward.
After the 74th Constitutional Amendment, urban
planning has been delegated to the domain of
urban self-governance bodies. But state governments
have been encroaching upon the rights of
such urban bodies under several pretexts. In the
case of Dharavi Redevelopment, the government
found an excuse in Section 37 AA of the MRTP Act,
which gives it power to draw development plans
for an area in case issues of public interest are
involved. The DRP can be held valid only if it is in
public interest.As per the claims of the project proponents, the
project will provide for the rehabilitation of some
57,000 families. Surprisingly, the authorities responsible
for the implementation of the project have not
been able to provide the basis of such a figure.
When was the survey conducted, what is the number of total resident families, number of commercial units, etc. As per the census data, the population of Dharavi is eight lakh, meaning 1 lakh 33 thousand families. This means that redeveloping Dharavi would leave more than 65,000 families homeless. Any project that displaces more than it rehabilitates cannot be termed to be in public interest. Surprisingly, the earlier rules that provided for the mandatory 70 per cent consent of the residents for approval of any project, have been done away with in the DRP. While on the one hand we hear every day of people’s participation and decentralisation, in reality, every rule that encourages people’s participation is being done away with. Close to Dharavi is the office of the district planning officer, who has been delegated with the responsibility of formulating the annual plans for the district, which includes Dharavi. And this process involves the participation of the local councillors, MLAs and local residents.
The office is unaware of the planning process undertaken for DRP, as is the case of the overall planning of urban development. Though the district planning committee has a constitutional mandate under the 74th Constitutional Amendment, no one really cares. The redevelopment of Dharavi falls in the line of the overall makeover of Mumbai city. In 2004, Bombay First, an NGO floated by corporates, entrusted McKinsey International with bringing out a Vision Mumbai report which talked of the Shangaisation of Mumbai. One of the thrust areas of the report was slums. It recommended reducing the slum population of Mumbai to less than 10 per cent of the total population by 2011. What was not mentioned was the way this figure was to be achieved. The state government then went on a reckless demolition drive which rendered more than three lakh people homeless. This illegal eviction drive was challenged and resisted by the affected slum dwellers, but it received fresh impetus due to two factors. The first was the National Urban Renewal Mission and the second was this year’s Union Budget which mentions that Mumbai is to be developed as a Global Financial Centre.
The plans are to develop Mumbai as a hub for global financial players to provide financial services. A high-powered expert committee report talks of it in great detail. One impetus of the report is to overhaul the city’s infrastructure, magnificently. The report recommends equipping Mumbai with world class infrastructural facilities, in order to attract around 50,000 high-level people who would be employed by global financial firms. Now where does Dharavi fit into this scheme? Dharavi lies in the heart of the city, and is the only vast tract of land left that can be made available for fresh construction activities. The tragedy of Dharavi is that it is in close proximity to the Bandra Kurla Complex (BKC). With the proposal of making Mumbai a global financial centre, BKC is to be expanded, for which Dharavi is the next location. The slums of nearby Kurla area have already been evicted under the pretext of Mithi River Development, leaving a huge area vulnerable to development for the corporate sector.
Redeveloping Dharavi is definitely not a bad idea, but there are different ways to go about it. Manik Prabhavati, a local activist says: ‘‘Our politicians are eager to let global companies set base in Dharavi at the same time evicting thousands of small units with a turnover of Rs 4,000 crore which are the source of employment for several local residents. And for these activities the locals do not demand any concessions from the government, as our corporate houses are availing today under the aegis of SEZs. Can our government give us the concession of leaving us as we are?’’ The questions raised by protesting residents are similar to those raised by other project affected people. Do they have any rights over the resources they live on, in this case, land? Is it not necessary for our governments to consult their citizens? Or are we the subjects and not the citizens?
(Simpreet Singh, based in Mumbai, is an activist with
National Alliance of People's Movements)
Want to give feedback on this article |
Disclaimer
The views expressed here are strictly personal and civilsocietyonline.com does not necessarily subscribe to them. We shall endeavour to upload/publish as many of the comments that are submitted as possible within a reasonable span of time, but we do not guarantee that all comments that are submitted will be uploaded/published. Messages that harass, abuse or threaten other members; have obscene, unlawful, defamatory, libellous, hateful, or otherwise objectionable content; or have spam, commercial or advertising content or links are liable to be removed by the editors. We also reserve the right to edit the comments that do get published. Please do not post any private information unless you want it to be available publicly.
TopYour Feedback on this story...
_________________________________________________________________________________________________________
About Us | Site Map | Privacy Policy | Contact Us | ©2007 Civil Society
.
........................................Webmaster Vishwanathan ( vishu4@rediffmail.com )