Slums need to be prevented,rather than cured

Slum laws declare areas as slums and virtually freeze development there,only ably aided by rent control laws. Inner cities have been left to their destiny,to fend for themselves. Consequently,inner cities have become centres of dirt,filth,squalor,crime and a place where one can do anything and get away with it. These are also areas where the maximum densities exist and where civic infrastructure is most stressed. We have never had any policy or mechanism to address this issue of inner city decay,loss of heritage and rampant slum proliferation. The result is there for us to see.

On the other hand,we also have migrants moving into the urban areas who squat somewhere,be it near the drains,the railway lines or the flyovers. Shanty settlements breed more shanty settlements,the success story of one villager in the city brings ten more,and the story goes on. Slums can only grow bigger and bigger. This is what has been happening to our cities over the decades.

Today,most cities have slums in the range of 30-50 per cent of the population. What has been done about this? A lot,but certainly not always right and definitely not enough. The first public policy intervention was the enactment of the Slum Areas Clearance and Improvement Act. The view of the fifties was that slums were unsightly pictures which need to be cleared. Unfortunately,while there was some enthusiasm in declaring areas as slums,there was not enough in either clearing them or improving them. The plethora of Slum Clearance Boards created in good intent were hardly given any funds. Till today,they are still alive and languish,directionless,not knowing what to do.

Over the years,the clearance concept did not appeal to our law makers and policy makers. Clearance was found to be a politically incorrect way of addressing the vote bank. It was felt that if minimum needs and basic services are provided,slum dwellers would be a better lot. Thus was born the concept of in-situ improvement. New programmes called Minimum Needs Programme (MNP) and the Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS) were introduced. Again,funds provided in these programmes were too meagre to cover the population with adequate standards of provision and yielded little improvement. There was more lip service than activity on the ground.

Other programmes such as the Urban Basic Services (later extended to the urban poor who are technically poorer than the general slum dwellers) did little to ameliorate the conditions. Some programmes such as Low Cost Sanitation have also met with similar fate,since the money given was too meagre,the facility provided was far from sanitary.

A spate of international donor agencies have made forays into India in various areas of development. Of particular interest are the World Bank and DFID slum improvement projects. The sites and services provision for slum dwellers in several states by the World Bank came in for a lot of criticism since most of the beneficiaries sold away the plots of land given to them and again started to squat in new locations. On the other hand,DFID made a difference with community participation and skill enhancement for slum improvement. However,they had limited success and slums continue to grow unhindered. Even resettlement of slums in green field locations has not worked in the absence of affordable public transportation to connect them to their work places.

Many states followed different approaches. Madhya Pradesh was perhaps the first where grant of tenure or patta was seen as a measure where access to title would give access to services and consequent shelter consolidation. This approach has not been replicable elsewhere. The state of Uttar Pradesh has recently witnessed unprecedented largesse; the government is doling out free houses to the below poverty line (BPL) families in over 60 towns of the state. Most schemes,however,have seldom crossed the realm of political rhetoric. The numbers who benefit are always far too small than needed.

Mumbai is the land of business opportunities,real estate being the biggest of them all. When slums and real estate are mixed,it is undoubtedly a heady cocktail. The Maharashtra government has done just that. Real estate developers would clear the slums,give free homes to slum dwellers and get incentives in terms of higher FSI so as to recoup expenditure,and make a profit too. This scheme appears to have worked in quite a few locations in Mumbai and is likely to be replicated in various other cities and states as well. In fact,it is slated to become part of national policy soon.

The Central government launched the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM). Under this,a sub-mission called basic services for urban poor (BSUP) was launched. While this is still underway,the government suddenly launched Rajiv Aawas Yojana. The guidelines under this scheme keep getting modified once too often,and one may never know which is the final version.

In the ultimate analysis,the question one needs to ask is where have we gone wrong? Why are we not succeeding in our efforts? The answers are clear. Firstly,rural aspirations have increased hugely. With little or no opportunity in the villages,migration to the city is the only answer to these people.

Secondly,the phenomenon of illegal occupation of land has been encouraged by many politicians across party lines,permitting squatter settlements and getting them regularised later. Political patronage has led to the growth of slums and unhygienic living areas.

Thirdly,the efforts so far have always been curative,not preventive. If inflow of migrants into large urban agglomerations is unavoidable,they can at least be managed,so that they do not squat anywhere and everywhere. Planned night shelters,dormitories and other such accommodations need to be developed in huge numbers so that some dignity of life could be afforded to the poor immigrants. Sadly,there is little effort in this direction.

Lastly,there is little political will and local governance has been at its lowest ebb when it comes to manage this phenomenon in a proper manner. Implementation is invariably left to the municipal bodies which do not have the requisite technical and managerial capacities.

Further,none of the programmes so far have provided for adequate funds to tackle this issue seriously. Slum dwellers are used as vote banks only and kept on the tenter hooks; their ignorance is to our benefit. The fact that slum dwellers are the people who contribute majorly to urban productivity,local economy and functioning of the city is yet to be properly understood. Investments in their welfare and well-being would go a long way in making development inclusive. Till such time there is political enlightenment,slum dwellers would continue to be a deprived and exploited lot and our cities continue to be pictures of stark contrasts.

The author is Professor,SPA,New Delhi