Slum Demolitions in Delhi since the 1990s: An Appraisal

Author(s): Véronique Dupont

Source: Economic and Political Weekly , Jul. 12 - 18, 2008, Vol. 43, No. 28 (Jul. 12 - 18,
2008), pp. 79-87
Published by: Economic and Political Weekly

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40277717

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to Economic and Political Weekly

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Slum Demolitions in Delhi since the 1990s :
An Appraisal

VÉRONIQUE DUPONT

The demolitions in Delhi and the new land use on the

redevelopm
evacuated sites have been contributing to the restructuring
for the makin
of the urban space in the capital. This article focuses on the
a heavy cost in
period starting in the beginning of the 1990s, marked by the opening
documenting
and liberalisation of the Indian economy, till 2007. This context of t
place globalisation and the aspiration
on the of the capital city to becomesi
"a
global metropolis and a world-class city" [dda 2007: Introduc-
the emerging
tion] had a decisive impact on the direction followed to transform
findings quest
the land use and reshape the urban landscape. It was in 1990 that
slum policy, n
the government of Delhi adopted a "new" Delhi slum policy, which
remains the general reference
squatter frame, reiterated in the Master Plan
settle
for Delhi 2021, although the resettlement strategy for the evicted
implement pro
slum dwellers was challenged by recent court orders.
preparation
In this context, significant features of the slum policy fo
will be
recalled in the first section.the
provides Our research aims at analysing theu
change of land useto
context that has taken place on the
"clesites of demolished
slum settlements, and to find out whether any pattern may emerge.
This will allow us to better appraise which sections of the popula-
tion have benefited - or may benefit - from the "redevelopment"
projects of the concerned areas, which sections have been
excluded and which zones of the city were involved. Although
one can find a few papers, which deal with slum demolitions and
highlight revealing examples of new land use [Batra and Mehra
2006; Baviskar 2006], we did not find any systematic analysis of
the land use patterns on demolished sites. Thus, our contribution
is based on first-hand data collected through a methodical field
survey, preceded by a critical assessment and analysis of the data
available on slum settlements and their demolition.
The term "slum" refers in this article to the locally called
'jhuggi-jhompri' (jj) clusters, where the physical precariousness
of housing and informal layout are combined to the precarious-
The research prese
ness of the occupancy status - or, in juridical terms, to the illegal-
of the French Cen
ity of the occupation of the land. For the planning authorities and
for Indian and Sou
the judiciary this signifies squatter
Territories and settlements, i e, lands occupied
Ur
for and built upon without the permission of theThis
Research. landowning agency.
developed in close
survey 1 Slum and Urban Policies
would not
Mitra, and the rea
Despite its initial stated good intention to integrate people with
Chapelet. A first v
low incomes into the urban fabric [dda 1957, 1962], the public
Territorial Integra
Law', policy of urban planning and housing implemented by the
organised byDelhi
Development Authorities (dda) failed to meet
International Centthe demand of the
The very valuable
poorest section of the population. Thus, the latter resorted to
revising this
informal draft
habitat, and had no option but to occupy vacant lands,
essentially public land,1
Véronique where they self-constructed makeshift
Dupont
Research for Deve
housing - or jjs. We have analysed elsewhere the discrepancy

Economic & Political weekly B33

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE -

Map 1: Squatter5Settlemen
per cen
occupyin
land.2 (T
the mor
All thes
thevari
mented
of the dd
poor. In
only to
mented
several
mented

1.1 The
In 1990-
"three-p
ter settl
in 1992,
- in situ
"encroac
the conc
15 to 20
- relocat
located o
in the "
emphas
- enviro
based on
commun
of the st
Putting
which can be considered as an interim and
Source: Slum and Jhuggi Jho
Sabir Ali,'Slums complementary measure at minima,Slums
within the strategy
of in situ upgradation was implemented only in
between the
a very few cases,4 and thedeclared
prevalent strategy in Delhi has been the
achievements as
removal of squatter settlements and their we
relocation - or rather
conditional relocation (as explained
Ramanathan forthco later). The same three-
mention the
pronged startlin
strategy is restated in the Master Plan for Delhi 2021:
the dda to the assoc
Insofar as the existing
authorities in squatter settlements
order are concerned, the present t
threefold strategy of relocation from areas required for public purpose,
in situ upgradation at other sites to be selected on the basis of specific
For low-income hous
parameters and environmental upgradation to basic minimum stand-
land in the 20-year pe
ards shall be allowed as an interim measure. Rest of the clusters, till
was acquired. Similar
land was they4,694
are covered by either of the first two components of the strategy,
hecta
should be continued [dda 2007, Section 4.2.3.1].
hectares by 1981. Bu
hectares. Roughly
For the purpose of this article, we shall underline only a
developed [Bhan 200
couple of relevant features of the Delhi jj resettlement scheme,
It is therefore
which does not involve rehousing but simple not relocation on s
the developed plots in "resettlement colonies".
population of An essential element
the
1950s till the
of this policy 1990s,
stated clearly that residents would not be removed
1975-77 without alternatives -
Emergency
living in squatter set
On one hand, no fresh encroachment shall be permitted on public
people, scattered in a
land, and on the other hand, past encroachment which had been in
the urban area (see
existence prior to 31.01.1990 would not be removed without providing
ing for about 27
alternatives [mcd 2000 - emphasis added]. per

°° July 12, 2008 QBH Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 = = SPECIAL ARTICLE

In 2000, precedence
the cut-offof the "green
dat a
ment was the capital, since
extended "cleaning
from
basis of ance"
the and thus "cleaning
ration card up
the size of slum-dwellers.9
the allocated The massi
p
and 12.5 sqYamuna
m river famili
to (the Yamun
1990 up to argument
Decemberof polluting the
199
tant Court to justify
consequences the remov
that w
An March 3,
additional 2003),10 exemplify
point that
of the joint urgent
"larger action appeal
public int by
settlements Housing
and and Land
the Rights
im
cleared Organisation
thus. Our against
survey Tort
this stated evidence from a report on
rationale.
pointed out that the total d
Table 1 : Evolution in the Number
of Yamuna Pushta accounte
Settlements- in Delhi from 1951 to 1998
JJ Clusters (1) Delhi Urban Population sewage released into the rive
further scrutinising, ther
Year Noöf Noöf Estimated Annual Ten-Year Populati
inform theAverage
JJ Clusters Housing Population debates and the
Growth
Units (or (No of Growth Rate
The rise of of
thethe Rate of
environme
Households) Households Rate of the Population P
X5) Population (%) (%) ernance involves activism an
neutral nor politically ne
1951 199 12,749 63,745
denounces "the increasing p
1956 ronmentalism as an ideolo
]%]
cially, the urban ones, wh
1966
question the postcolonial
1971
Mawdsley (2006) further h
1973 1,373 98,483 4,92,415 25.43
the parallels between the dis
1977
of "neo-traditionalist envir
1981

1983 113,386 5,66,930 7.18

1.3 The Economic Rationale
1985 400 1,50,000 7,50,000 15.02

1986 2,00,000 10,00,000 33.33 Practically all the resettlement colonies that were developed
1987 since the 1960s for relocating the inhabitants ofthe old city slums
1990 929 2,59,929 1,299,645 4.93 and demolished squatter settlements were situated, at the time of
1991 the installation ofthe initial group of occupants, on the periphery
1994 1,080 4,80,929 24,04,645 16.63
of the urban agglomeration (Map 1). Most resettlement colonies
1998 1,100 6,00,000 30,00,000 5.69

* Own estimation.
developed in the last 10 years are located even further away than
Source: Compiled from the data ofthe
- previous
(1) Slumresettlement
and sites, in the rural-urban fringedepartmen
jhuggi-jhompri of Delhi,
supplies department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi; 1990 (January) and 199
up to 30 kms from
direct surveys; (2) Census ofthe Population the city
1951, centre 1971.
1961, (Map 2, p 1981,1991.
82). The economic
rationale for the demolition of slums and their relocation in distant
1.2 Intervention of the
peripheral Judiciary
zones is that the value ofthe land occupied by the jj
Despite the fact that clusters
the in the city isslum
Delhi much higherpolicy
than that in theevinced
relocation

in protecting sites. interests

squatters' In the making of Delhi into
- aorworld-class
atcity, especially int
least
conditions to their with the perspective
eviction - the of theintervention
2010 edition of the Commonwealth
by th
the last decade or so Games
has to be hosted by Delhi,13 even unclaimed
undermined the spaces that were to
policy
As shown elsewhere squatted by the poor have become prime
[Ramanathan land, "ripe for 2006;
2005, devel-
Ramanathan opment" [Baviskar
forthcoming] some 2006]. This
key is, for instance, the case of the
judgments, i
Patel case (2000)5 and Yamuna
the Pushta slums clusters settled
Okhla Factory in the floodplainOwner
area of
the riverbed.
case (2002),6 deny the obligation ofthe state to pr
ment alternatives to theA evicted
study by the Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence
families.
In [Khosla and
many cases the intervention of theJha 2005] has undertaken a benefit-cost
courts analysis was
to

petitioners question
representing the the economic rationale of demolition
interests of and relocation of
industrial
resident the poor informal
associations,
or, more settlements. The main arguments of
generally and factors
uppe
taken into account in this revealing analysis are as follows:
income groups, who put forward environmental
considerations through public interest litigati
The major benefit of resettlement to the local government and city
exacerbating the antagonism between
economy is the economic value of evacuatedthe housing
land. Evacuated land can
poor and the be used for
aspiration development
for aprojects
"cleansuch as hospitals, industrial units,
and gree
displayed slogan "Clean etc, which in turn, generate employment and value addition to the city
Delhi-Green Delhi"7 is a re
81
Economic & Political weekly 1133 JULY 12, 2008

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTICLE

Map 2: Location of expenses

Resettlement fo
Colonies

final result
conducted
show that "
economica
Other studi
colonies ha
economic a
relocated h
of civic am
ture in th
subsequent
that follow
ters' dwelli
If the economic calculations for the
city economy and development prospects
of the capital seem yet to favour the
option of slum demolition and relocation,
this is definitely because "these calcula-
tions (...) fail to take into consideration
the significant contribution of the poor
in the informal sector and the latter's
input to the city/national economic
growth and the long-term impact of
displacement on vulnerability of the
poor" [Khosla and Jha 2005: Abstract].
In other terms, they consider the cost-
benefit balance only for the civic authori-
ties while externalising the social and
economic costs born by the affected
families. De facto, this is also because
the relocation costs for the landowning
Source: Slum and Jhuggi Jhompri Department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi.
Sabir Ali Slums within Slums: A Study of Resettlement Colonies in Delhi, Council for Social Development, New Delhi, 1990. agency and town planners are minimised
by the insufficient civic amenities
economy. Evenprovided
if at thetheses
relocation • sites, and most of all by the
lands ar
value could be high since the
fact that the obligation of providing an alternative site to env
air and recreational facilities p
the evicted families was already limited in the Delhi slum
also provide increased earnings
Three major policy by an eligibility criterion, andhave
benefits furthermore refutedbeen
by
benefit cost recent courts' orders. Thus,
analysis ofthe interests - and rights - of the
resettlem
away places.evictedThese
families appear to count very are (1)
little in the consideration l
commercial/development use, (2
of the "larger public interest" evoked initially to justify
and charges [for the civic a
slum clearance.
(3) employment generation fro
evacuated sites [Khosla and Jha
2 Jhuggi-Jhompri Population and Demolitions
From the costs' side, the auth
2.1 Lack of Updated Population Data
The cost of resettlement is often
The extent of slum demolitions in Delhi is difficult to assess with
several indirect and invisible cos
analysis. (. . .) accuracy as no
The updating of the numbers of of
decision jj clusters and jj
reset
if the families
evacuated has been providedis
land by the slum and jj department of the
utilised to
to the city. However, a(mcd),
municipal corporation of Delhi different
which results in inconsist- p
analysis when social costs are tak
ency in the official data published. The last comprehensive
and costs [Khosla and Jha 2005: 1
enumeration of jj clusters conducted by the slum and jj depart-
ment (onthe
Subsequently, the basis- of fieldanalysis
assessment and in consultation with in
of procurement of
area members of the legislativeland
assembly), and whose for
results
site and cost were
of bus
made available as a detailed list service,
providing for each zone of
and shifting thecosts, income
city the number of jhuggi families in each cluster, dates back lo

°2 July 12, 2008 GBE9 Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE

Figure: Demolished Sites and Relocated Families Per Year: 1990-2007 from three
is attribut
of jj cluste
however, s
the impact
(notwithsta
and undere

growth an
population
match wit
of demoli
the same
than 111 e
2001 (Tab
ing to th
unless on
period as
to 1994. Thereafter, till 1998, estimates were provided on the evacuated wit
basis of the 1994 data and projected growth. In fact, until 2007,relocated squa
no new figures for the last few years were made available by the12 per cent of t
slum and jj department. In post-1998 official documents 88 per cent of
published by the planning department of the Government of theresettlement. Ye
National Capital Territory of Delhi (gnctd), including in the mostof Delhi (pp 6-1
recent ones such as the Economic Survey of Delhi, 2005-06, theresettlement inv
Socio Economic Profile of Delhi 2006-07, the Delhi Tenth Five-Yeardate [December
Plan (2002-07) or the Delhi Annual Plan (2006-07), the same cent families of
broad estimate of 6,00,000 households or three million popula-become very dif
tion in 1,100 jj clusters (already provided for the year 1998)To conclude, the
can be found. But each time referring to the "present" situation prove to be not
in Delhi, which indicates clearly that figures were not updated.15 planning exercis
Surprisingly then, the City Development Plan of Delhi, released
2.2 Demolished JJ Clusters and Relocated Families
in 2007 under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal
The
Mission, provides a different set of figures for 2001, quoted as slum and jj department of the mcd has established a list
entitled "Status of relocated/resettled jhuggi families cluster-
data from the 'slum department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi
(Table 2). The 2001 figures would indicate a sharp decline in wise/yearwise
the since the inception of the scheme, i e, April 1,
number of jj clusters, from 1,100 in 1997 to 728 in 2001, and a
1990", that provides a good picture of the evolution of demoli-
tions from 1990 to 2007, along with the relocation sites (see the
subsequent decrease of the population in squatter settlements,
figure and Map 2). A few words of caution are however necessary
Table 2: Evolution in the Number and the Population of JJ Clusters from 1997 to 2001
Year No of JJ Clusters No of Households Estimated Population Area (ha) in order to interpret these data.
According to this list, 217 jj clusters were demolished - where
1997 families had been officially relocated - between 1990 and 2007.
2001 728 4,29,662 21,48,310 650.2 Demolished clusters with no resettlement are hence not recorded.
Chanage between 1997 and 2001 -372 -1,70,338 -8,51,690 -251.9 Sometimes, the same cluster's name appears two or three times
Source: City Development Plan -Delhi, IL and FS Ecosmart, 2007, Chapter - 6, Urban Poor and Slum,
Table 6.4 - quoted as data from slum department, Municipal Corporation of Delhi. from one year to the other, or after a gap of several years. The
first cases correspond to large squatter settlements, which were
Table 3: Distribution of the Demolished Jhuggi-J hompri Sites and Number of
demolished in two or three phases. The second cases correspond
Relocated Squatter Families Per Cluster Size

Cluster's Size All Sites (MCD List)

to demolished jj clusters, where the site was left vacant, then
(No of Demolition Relocated Demolition Sampling Relocated Sampling
Relocated Sites Families Sites Rate Families Rate
squatted by jhuggis that formed a new cluster over the years
Families) No No %~ No % No % and were again demolished. Therefore, the list of 217 jj
<100 108 4,550 7.0
clusters corresponds more precisely to 217 demolition-cum-
100-249 48 7,482 11.6 21 43.8 3,519 relocation operations.
250-499 24 7,992 12.4 Some villages - and villagers - are included under the labels
500-999 18 12,349 19.1 "jj cluster" and "squatter families" of the list. For example, the
1,000 19 32,246 49.9 village of Nangla Dewat (near the international airport), whose
Total 217 64,619 100.0
land was acquired by the airport authorities to build a new
Source: Slum and jhuggi-jhompri departm
(May-June 2007). runway, witnessed its original inhabitants being converted into

Economic & Political weekly EQ52 july 12, 2008 "3

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
SPECIAL ARTICLE - - . -

Map 3: Main Demolished Squatte

•From main demolished squatter set

Source: Slum and jhuggi jhompri dep

squatters the
on Emerge
their ancest
some old village settlem
Jagmohan [J
ment" and hence bulldo
development
Behind the figures
2001, of
before
relocated", presented
(until the by
cha
tlement achievements
Table 4: Land Use Pattern in 2007 in the Sample of 67 Demolition Sites in
ment of the
Land Usegovernment
in May-June 2007

erably higher number

Vacant (entirely or partially) o
living place and
Entirely whose
vacant h
shed. The Partially vacant with jhuggis and/or irregular
principle of shops 6 a c
Park, green areas 13.5
an eligibility criterion fo
Park alone 8
number of "non-eligible"
Park and parking 2
same slum into
Reserved
two
forest area 2
gro
thus interests. During
Green area around protected monument 1
o
of local residents or
Park (and dhobi ghat) 0.5 sh
jhuggi families always
Under construction 9 m
ones as per Under
the official
construction of building l
used as reliable estimates.
Part under construction + jhuggis

1998, the proportion

Under construction of road of n
during the demolition
Built(including road infrastructure) op
Building 4
From 1990 to 2007, acc
Building and park 1
data, around 65,000 sq
Building with jhuggis 0.5
two peaks of demoliti
Building + other project planned 3
and in 2006-07 (see the
Road
at the end of the 1990s
Total
the influence of an acto
Unknown (sites not located)
large-scaleSource:
slum clearan
Own survey (May-June 200

°4 July 12, 2008 EQQ Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 - SPECIAL ARTICLE

his grand direct observations, evicted

plan of families whodevelop
were not eligible for
river resettlementwhose
front, have scattered in other j j clusters, formed
prerenew squat-
its "encroachments".
ter settlements in the vicinity, or may come back after some time A
2006-07, it on also affected
the same site. A survey on spatial mobility conducted in differ-
ment area ent zones of Delhi in 1995, induding
(Map 3, in several slums,
p evidenced
84) a
preparation of
process of repeated the
forced mobility capit
endured by groups of slum-
including dwellers from one squatter
the settlement to the other [Dupont and
constructi
riverbed, Sidhu 2000]. This shows how thevehemen
despite destruction of slums without
as the adequate rehabilitationis
riverbed leads to thea
creationfloodp
of new squatter
Although settlements
demolitionsor the densification of existing nearby slum dusters. o
area, as The second emerging trend in
shown from the land use typology of the
Map 3
addition to the
demolished jj clusters' sites is the embank
significance of conversions into
especially parks and green areas.20
the This provides another illustration of the
central an
eration as priority given to a "clean-green-beautiful"
well as vision of the city at the
the air
of the expense of satisfying the right
capital to housing of the poor. been
has
evidences The
the remaining categories
long "under construction" anddista
"built" do
and the not represent the majority of the evacuated sites, even after
resettlement site
excluding the most recent demolition sites where planned
3 The Survey
development - if any - may of
start later (in the Demo
sample of sites
cleared before April 2004, 16 sites out of 56 were built or under
3.1 Methodology construction). The type of constructions completed or underway
The list of demolished jj clusters, established by the slum and jj highlights some expected results as regards the restructuring of
department of mcd, was used as the sampling frame for our the capital: jj clusters were demolished to build flats21 and
survey, which was conducted in May and June 2007. All the sitesoffice complexes,22 commercial centres/shopping malls,23 petrol
of the larger demolished clusters according to this list (i e, with pumps/NCG stations, community or civic centres or new roads;24
above 1,000 families officially relocated) were covered by the on the other hand, only one case of school construction was found
survey, and are shown in Map 3. These 19 sites, out of 217 in thein the sample. An additional factor for the demolition of some jj
list, account for half of the total number of relocated families over clusters is the proximity - and not necessarily the exact site - of
the period 1990-2007. Then, the sites of a sample of demolishednew construction projects: near a metro line or a metro station,
clusters of between 250 and 1,000 relocated families were surveyed. or a proposed five star hotel.25
In order to improve the representativeness of the sample, and The change of land use which is taking place in the entire zone

optimise the fieldwork visits and moves, the sites of the smaller along the bank of the Yamuna river deserves a special mention,
clusters in the vicinity of the larger ones were also covered. The due to the large-scale evictions that have affected the slum
findings of this article rely on data collected on a total sample of 67 clusters of this area (Map 3) and to the coming up of controversial
sites, that represents 31 per cent of all sites and accounts for 62 per projects. While, on the one hand, the slums were demolished
cent of the total number of relocated families (Table 3). following a Delhi High Court order on the grounds that, firstly,
they constituted encroachment on the riverbed and secondly, were
3.2 Preliminary Findings polluting the river (as commented above), on the other, many
other unauthorised constructions which should have been also
The survey of 67 demolition sites, although not rigorously representa-
tive - statistically - of the 217 jj dusters/sub-dusters demolished affected by the court order, were protected from demolition. This
from 1990 to 2007, provides revealing insights on the change in land anti-poor bias and pro-powerful preferential treatment was
use (Table 4, p 84), and points out emerging processes and trends. denounced by several activists and researchers,26 who listed the
The first striking point is the number of vacant sites, where noillegal structures already built or under construction in the same
non-urbanisable zone: the secretariat of the gnctd, the metro
development project has been undertaken till mid-2007. This may
be expected when the demolitions occurred recently; in suchdepot by the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation (dmrc), the metro
cases a follow-up survey of the concerned sites would be required. police station, an it park at Shastri Park by dmrc-gnctd, the
Nonetheless, if we exclude the sites evacuated during the last Akshardham temple, and the Commonwealth Games Village.
three years, we still found 26 vacant sites in the sample of 56 sites
Conclusions
where jj dusters were demolished between 1990 and March 2004.
When the site is not redeveloped for several years, it is no Slum clearance for the redevelopment and beautification of the
surprise to find that it has attracted new hutments, sometimescapital has often resulted in pushing further away the unwanted
expanding into new jj clusters which were again demolished slums, without solving the issues of adequate shelter for the poor.
during new clearance operations,19 or sometimes irregular shops, Moreover, since slum demolitions entail the destruction of invest-
unless it has become a dumping ground with rubbles from the ments made by the poor for their housing and improving their
demolished structures or a junkyard. As reported by local inform- micro-environment, they systematically impoverish the affected
families. When demolitions are recurrent, they jeopardise the
ants near the previous jj clusters, and verified in a few cases by
Or

Economic &Political weekly BSB JULY 12, 2008

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 SPECIAL ARTICLE - =

efforts of slum dwellers

With the preparation of to
the 2010 improve
Commonwealth Games, a th
them in a povertyreplica
trap of the urbanand
restructuring lead to
process that marked the a
prepa-paup
also create a general context
ration of the 1982 Asian Games [Dupont that
and Ramanathan discou
2007]
invest in their is at work in the capital,
housing, and including
may the construction of modern
result in
ous squatter settlements and
infrastructure and beautifkation campaignsincreased
with similar effects h
The sites of jj clusters, still
on slum demolitions. "Crusades to clean upvacant
the city" [Davis 2006: sev
demolition, 104] on the
question theeve of international
stated events seem toprinciple
be a leitmotiv for
ance policy, namely the
urban authorities in other thirdremoval
world cities too, be it - among theand
settlements onlymost when the
recent sporting examples land
- the preparation of the 2008is r
projects in the larger
Olympic Gamespublic interest.
in Beijing27 or the 2010 Soccer World Cup in Th
incapacity of the Johannesburg
landowning [Bénit-Gbaffou forthcoming].agency to
and more generally,Everywhere,a the failure
access of the poor to urbanof urban
space remains
and governance, theunless it
larger issue at stake. The Delhi merely
slum policy implemented evi
"cleaning up" the
sincecity from
the 1990s has provided only ad hoc its slums
and inadequate
rubbles and debris from the demolished settlements are still solutions, which were moreover superseded by the intervention
visible, this contradicts the objective of beautifying the city, as of the judiciary, whereas the lack of updated and reliable data
if the priority was the clearance of slum-dwellers, or, in otheron the slum population does not permit proper planning in
words, pushing the poor out of sight. order to tackle the problem of housing shortage at its roots.

NOTES
that was implemented by the Delhi government: (p 358) and Table 14.3 on the 'Break up of
Okhlaand
1 On the basis of data compiled from the slum Factory Owners' Association vs Govern- J J clusters as per number of households' (p 359),
ment of NCT of Delhi (Delhi High Court, 2002),
jhuggi-jhompri department of the Municipal the only tables to provide figures on the number
Corporation of Delhi (MCD), the report of Cf, the
Delhi Law Times, 2003, Vol 108, p 517. of JJ clusters and their population refer to the
Delhi Urban Environment and Infrastructure 7 For instance, on a huge portico - along with the situation in 1990 and 1994. We found a word of
Improvement Project (DUEI1P) provides the slogan "DDA marches ahead"- on the road to the caution regarding the non-updated estimates of
following distribution for the year 1994: 83.7 per newly developed peripheral Narela sub-city that the J J clusters population only in the Socio
cent of the land occupied by squatter settlements houses a large resettlement colony and a new Economic Profile of Delhi 2005-06: "No doubt, a
was owned by DDA, 15.7 per cent by other public industrial zone where industrial units banned number of clusters have since [1994] been shifted
landowning agencies, and only 0.6 per cent by from the Delhi city area were relocated. under the scheme of 'Relocation of Squatters', but
private owners [DUEI1P 2001: chapter 6, p 10]. 8 The "green agenda" refers to those speaking in no fresh survey/assessment to ascertain the
the name of environment and giving priority to number of clusters has since been conducted."
2 We found different estimates regarding the
ecological issues in the long term, and the "brown All the above-mentioned documents are availa-
percentage of urban land occupied by the jhuggi-
jhompri clusters, but all of them underline the agenda" to those articulating the issues in terms ble on the official web site of the Planning
extreme inequity of the land distribution in the of social justice and satisfying the immediate Department of the GNCTD: http://www.delhip-
needs of the poor, in particular in relation to their lannine.nic.in
capital, at the expenses of the slum-dwellers, in
similar disproportions. The DUEIIP report (2001) rights to housing [Bartone et al 1994; McGrana- 16 In her detailed critique of Chapter 6 - Urban Poor
quotes the following figures for 1994: a popula- han and Satterthwaite 2000]. and Slum - of the City Development Plan (CDP) of
tion of more than two millions living in jhuggi- 9 Cf Almitra Patel vs Union of India and the analysis Delhi, Khosla (2007: 10) also underlines data
jhompri clusters that occupy 902.36 hectares of of this case in Dupont and Ramanathan (2007). inconsistencies: "Data sources for slums and
land, thus representing only 1.45 per cent of the 10 The same argument is found again in the recom- poverty used in the CDP are old, confusing and
total area of the urban agglomeration of Delhi mendations of the committee under secretary not well triangulated".
(62,428 hectares as per the 1991 Census). Accord- (urban development), ministry of urban develop- 17 For instance, according to some non-governmental
ing to Dewan Verma (2002: 73): "In Delhi [...] ment, government of India, for Yamuna Action Plan organisations' (NGOs) estimates, the demolition
jhuggis accommodate 20 to 30 lakh people and (2004), in its Section 5 on 'Slum Cluster and of the Yamuna Pushta slum clusters in 2004 is
occupy about 4,000 hectares (almost all of it Yamuna River Bed', which is annexed to the reported to have affected about 27,000 families,
government land) out of approximately 70,000 Chapter 9 on 'Environment' of the Delhi Master of whom "less than 20 per cent" would have been
hectares meant to be urbanised for a population Plan for 2021: "One of the contributory factors to allotted alternative plots (quoted in a paper
of 120 lakhs as per the provisions of the 1990 the flow of untreated sewage into the river Yamuna posted on the web site of India Resource Centre)
Master Plan". Kundu (2004: 267) proposes another is the slum clusters that have come up unauthoris- [Adve 2004].
estimate for 2,000: "The total land occupied by edly on both eastern and western banks of river 18 Such as Ravi Aggarwal of Toxics Link and Vimal-
the [three million people living in slum] would, Yamuna. Local bodies have already removed endu Jha of We for Yamuna [Sethi 2005].
however, come to less than 10 km2, around 3 per several JJ clusters existing on the western bank. 19 For instance: civic centre-Minto Road JJ cluster
cent of the total residential area in urban Delhi." Such clusters need to be cleared from riverbed." demolished in 1992-92 and in 2004-05, Bara Pulla
3 DDA is under the purview of the union ministry of11 'Pollution, Pushta, and Prejudices', Hazard Centre, JJ cluster in Nizamuddin demolished in 1995-96
urban development, but it is the slum and jhuggi- 2004, http://www.hazardscentre.org/shelter.thlm and again in 2001-02.
jhompri department in the MCD which is in12 OMCT/HIC-HLRN, Joint Urgent Action Appeal, 20 This pattern was also noted by Khosla (2007: 12,
charge of the implementation of this slum policy. "Over 3,00,000 people to be forcefully evicted referring to the study by Khosla and Jha 2005).
4 Up to 2006, in situ upgradation was undertaken in from Yamuna Pushta in Delhi: 40,000 homes Batra and Mehra (2006) mention too a couple of
three JJ clusters (covering 784 families); another demolished so far", Case IND-FE050504, Delhi, revealing examples of slum clusters cleared "to make
larger project covering 4,800 families is also Geneva, Cairo, Mays, 2004. way for 'a spiritual park"' in Nehru Place district or,
reported as completed [GNCTD 2006-07: 114]. 13 Delhi won the bid to host the 2010 edition of the in the west colony of Vikas Puri, "a neighbourhood
5 A public interest litigation (PIL) dealing initially Commonwealth Games in November 2003. park for middle class residents of the colony".

with solid waste disposal in Delhi, that eventually 14 See for example the study conducted by the NGO 21 Raghubir Nagar, Durga basti.
resulted in Supreme Court orders directed at Jagori in the Bawana resettlement colony 22 DIZ area-Gole Market, Rajiv Gandhi Camp near
cleaning up the city not only in terms of its (Menon-Sen 2006, and research findings on the CGO Complex, Andrews Ganj.
garbage, but also its slums: Almitra Patel vs Union 23 Shaheed Arjun Dass Camp.
web site: httpy/jagori.org/our-activities/research/
of India, Supreme Court Cases, 2000, Vol 2, presentation-of-our-research-findings), or the 24 Gautam Nagar behind All-India Institute for
PP 679-90; Almitra H Patel vs Union of India, survey conducted in 2003 by the National Insti- Medical Sciences; on the embankments of the
Supreme Court Cases, 2000, Vol 8, pp 19-22. tute of Urban Affairs in five relocation sites - Yamuna river.
6 A PIL dealing with the removal and relocation of Narela, Bhalaswa, Holumbikalan, Bakarwala, 25 Bannuwal Nagar in north-west Delhi, a case
slum-dwellers squatting on government land, Molarbund [Dhar2OO4]. quoted by Batra and Mehra (200 61.
where the court eventually examined "the legality,15 In the Economic Survey of Delhi - 2005-06, Table 14.2 26 See, among others: OMCT/HIC-HLRN Joint
validity and propriety" of the resettlement policy on 'Public Land Encroachment by JJ Clusters' Urgent Action Appeal (2004), Adve (2004),

July 12, 2008 QSCa Economic & Political weekly

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 - - - SPECIAL ARTICLE

Verma (2004a, b),

- (1962): Master Plan for Delhi, Delhi Development South Asia Network of
Batra Economic
and Me
Baviskar (2006),
Authority, New Delhi. Research
Bhan Institute, http://www.saneinet.work
(2006), Jam
27 Davis - (2007): Master Plan for Delhinews
quotes 2021, Delhi net.research/
reports from
for Housing Development Authority
Rights (As Notified on Febru- Khosla,
and R (2007): 'Urban Poor and Slums: ARi
Human Criti
evidence the ary 7, 2007. Vide S O No 141 published in Gazette
effects inof Chapter 6
Beijing; and Associated Sections
he in Oth
a
edifying of India Extraordinary, Part II - Section 3 -
worldwide Chapters of the City of
review Development Plan' in Citize
slum
make "the Sub-Section
city (ii)). beautiful" Critique of the City Development Plan, Facilitatin
(2006: 10
DUEIIP (2001): Status Report for Delhi 21, Delhi Urban National Urban Renewal Mission in Delhi, Dra
Environment and Infrastructure Improvement for Discussion, Compiled by Centre for Civ
Project, government of India, ministry of environ- Society, New Delhi, pp 10-15.
REFERENCES
ment and forest and government of NCT of Delhi, Kundu, Amitabh (2004): 'Provision of Tenur
Adve, Nagraj (2004): Security
planning department, New Delhi.
'No for theSpace Urban Poor in Delhi:fo Recen
Resource Centre, July
Trends and Future 13, http
Perspectives', Habitat Interna
Dhar, V K (2004): Relocation ofJJ Squatters. Evalua-
source.org/issues/globalisation tional, 28, pp 259-74.
tion of Plan Schemes: Relocation of JJ Squatters,
efordelhipoor.html Mawdsley, E (2006): 'Hindu Nationalism: Neo-trad
Final Report, National Institute of Urban Affairs,
Bartone, C, New Delhi.J Bernstein, J
tionalism and Environmental LeitmaDiscourses in India'
Towards Environmental Geoforum, 17(1). pp 380-90. Strate
Dupont, V et U Ramanathan (2007): 'Du Traitement
Policy Considerations for
MCD (2000): Urban Development: Urba
Relocation of JJ
des slums à Delhi. Politiques de 'nettoyage' et
Management in Squatters - Annual Plan 2000-01, Slum and Developing C
d'embellissement' in V Dupont and G Heuzé (eds),
Paper 18, World No Bank,
Jhuggi-Jhompri Washin
Department, Municipal Corpora-
La ville en Asie du Sud: Analyse et mise en perspec-
Batra, L and D Mehra (2006):
tion of Delhi, p 13, mimeo. T
tive, Purushartha No 26, EHESS, Paris, pp 91-131.
Slums and the Production McGranahan, G and D Satterthwaite (2000): of
'Environ- Ne
- (forthcoming): The Courts and the Squatter Settle-
Delhi', revised version mental Health of a
or Ecological paper
Sustainability?
ments in Delhi or the Intervention of the Judiciary
conference Tackling Reconciling the Exclusion
Brown and Green Agendas in
in Urban 'Governance" in I Baud and J de Wit (eds),
Services and Citizen's Rights
Urban Development' in C Pugh (ed), Sustainable
New Forms of Urban Governance in India: Models,
Megacities of Asia, June 1-3,
Cities in Developing Countries, Earthscan, London, 200
Networks, and Contestations, Sage, Delhi.
Baviskar, Amita (2002):
PP 73-90. The Po
Seminar-Dupont, V and M Sidhu (2000): 'Les Localisations of
'Shades Green:
Résidentielles Dans Delhi: Contraintes Inégales et Menon-Sen, K (2006): ' 'Better to Have Died A
Than to Sy
Changing Contours of Indian
Live Like This': Women and Evictions in Delhi',Knv
516, August, pp
Stratégies Variables in F Dureau et al (eds),
40-42. Economic & Political Weekly, 41(20), pp 1969-74.
Métropoles en Movement. Une Comparaison Inter-
- (2006): 'Demolishing Ramanathan, UshaDelhi:(2005): 'Demolition Drive, W
nationale, Anthropos-IRD, Paris, pp 175-82.
the Making', created on
Economic & Political Weekly, 40(27), pp Septe
2908-12.
GNCTD (2002-07): Delhi: Tenth Five-Year Plan
Magazine (http://www.metamut
(2002-07), Planning Department, Government of - (2006): 'Illegality and the Urban Poor', Economic
Benit-Gbaffou, Claire (forthcom
& Political Weekly, 41(29), PP 3193-97-
National Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi.
of 2010 - A Fast-tracked Local
- (2005-06): Socio-Economie Profile of Delhi Sethi, Aman (2005): 'A Site of Contestation', Frontline,
How to Get Rid of the Poor in G
2005-06, Planning Department, Government of 22(15), July 16-29.
Development Project, Johannes
National Capital Territory of Delhi, New Delhi. Verma, Dewan G (2002): Slumming India, A Chronicle
U Pillay and R Tomlinson (eds
- (2006-07): Delhi Annual Plan 2006-07, Planning of Slums and Their Saviours, Penguin Books India,
and Dreams: Urban Developme
Delhi.
of the Department, Government
2010 of National Capital
Soccer World Cup
Pretoria. Territory of Delhi, New Delhi. - (2004a): 'Illegal I-T-Park on River Bed', http://plan.
Jagmohan (1978): Island of Truth, Vikas, Delhi. architexturez. org/site/mpisg/riverbed/ 041208
Bhan, Gautam (2006): 'Capital's S
Delhi Is Jamwal, Anyway?',
it Nidhi (2004): 'Beautification Drive', Down to - (2004b):Tehelka,
'Representation for Exemplary Demoli- Oct
Earth, 12(24), May 07. tion of IT Park at Shastri Park', http:// plan.archi-
Davis, Mike (2006): Planet of
texturez.org/site/mpisg/riverbed/041226
New York. Khosla, Renu and G Jha (2005): Economics of Reset-
tling Low-inconit Omlements (Slums) in Urban Williams, G and E Mawdsley (2006): 'Postcolonial
DDA (1957): Work Studies Relating to the Preparation
Environmental Justice: Government and Govern-
of the Master Plan for Delhi. Vol 1, Delhi Develop- Areas: A Case for On-site Upgrading, Draft Final
Report, Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence, ance in India', Geoforum, 37(5), PP 660-70.
ment Authority, New Delhi.

Economic&PoliticalwEEKLY
REVIEW OF LABOUR
May 31, 2008

Class in Industrial Disputes: Case Studies from Bangalore - 5tW* RoyChowdhury

Employee Voice and Collective Formation in Indian ITES-BPO Industry - Philip Taylore, Ernesto Noronha,
Dora Scholarios, Premiila D'Oui

The Growth Miracle, Institutional Reforms and Employment in China - Aìir K Ghose
Soccer Ball Production for Nike in Pakistan " Karin Astrid Sie9mann
Labour Regulation and Employment Protection in Europe:

Some Reflections for Developing Countries " A VJose

Labour, Class and Economy: Rethinking Trade Union Struggle - Man Chakrabarti, Anu

For copies write to

Circulation Manager
Economic and Political Weekly
320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg,
Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013.
email: circulation@epw.in

87
Economic & Political weekly B329 july 12, 2008

This content downloaded from

79.70.173.88 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 22:38:14 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms