In the densely populated city of Mumbai, India, the construction of market-rate housing and slum redevelopment are occurring alongside one another.

By Jas Kirt (UCLA 2015)

UCLA International Institute, March 23, 2015 — Vinit Mukhija, associate professor and vice chair of the urban planning department of UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs, discussed Mumbai’s slum redevelopment program at a recent event hosted by the Center for India and South Asia. In his recent book, “Squatters as Developers?” (Ashgate, 2013), Mukhija explains the growth of development programs in the city over time and explores issues of corruption and consent.

The slum redevelopment program in Mumbai that began in 1995 reflects a period of market liberalization in India, said Mukhija. The land underlying the city’s slums is extremely valuable and its development provides an opportunity to capture economic profits. It is easier for elites than for slum dwellers to capture those benefits, with the latter often becoming the victims of corrupt policies and practices. Many slum dwellers in Mumbai are becoming increasingly vulnerable as the construction of market-price housing proliferates in slum redevelopment projects.

Background

Since the 19th century, property prices have been high in Mumbai — comparable to property prices in London. The city’s high property prices have persisted over time, increasing by over 700 percent from 1966 to 1981 alone.

Today, Mumbai is the most populous city in India and a major hub for finance and business, having been transformed into a world-class metropolis. The central government has even adopted the goal of a slum-free city similar to Singapore. (Although the central government introduced the goal as part of its modernization efforts, state governments are responsible for establishing and implementing development policy).

Of note, more than 50 percent of Mumbai residents live in slums, even though the city is not overwhelmingly poor. In fact, many of those living in these areas are middle-class citizens. The poor conditions in the slums are due to high population density, which makes it increasingly difficult to add needed infrastructure, such as sewers.

The speaker remarked that Dharavi, a large central slum, covers a land area slightly bigger than UCLA, but has a population about the size of San Francisco. Alas, the area “probably has the same number of toilets as UCLA,” he said. In contrast to slums in other cities of the world, Mukhija asserted that “you do not feel unsafe in a Mumbai slum . . . it is a real neighborhood.”

Past slum strategies give way to dual-track development

The Maharashtra state government has supported a policy of slum clearance and resettlement since 1956. Although the state sought to eliminate these areas, their high population density created resettlement problems. So in 1995, it began to encourage slum improvement. The Slum Rehabilitation Scheme was consequently adopted to protect the rights of slum dwellers and to promote the development of slum areas. Because the government believed the land in these areas was sufficiently valuable to merit the construction of both market-rate housing and replacement housing, it began building both side by side.

Many concerns about the equity of slum redevelopment projects have arisen, most of which involve tenants’ rights. For example, the actual unit size of new houses increased from 185 to 225 square feet, but the unit size of 80 percent of the replacement housing built for slum dwellers is less than 100 square feet. In addition, home-based workers living in slum neighborhoods face the challenge of finding similar accommodations in the new settlements. And certain slum areas may never be redeveloped, including low-profit locations and areas where the land is environmentally and/or ecologically sensitive. Perhaps of greatest concern is that coercion has been used to force inhabitants to resettle.

Market-rate housing in Mumbai is being built on top of the slums so that individuals living in new complexes do not see slum dwellings. The Imperial, a twin-tower residential skyscraper complex with slums on its east side, is a stark example of the juxtaposition of the two types of communities.

Slum dwellers and residents living in market-rate residential housing are in some ways economically integrated, but not socially, noted Mukhija. Many divisions exist between the two. For example, no community associations include both populations as members. Many former slum dwellers, moreover, end up working as drivers and domestic servants for inhabitants of the new luxury housing complexes. 

Corruption part of redevelopment process

Corrupt practices appear to be part and parcel of the redevelopment process. Large developers, for example, partner with small-time developers, who do all the “shady” things necessary to get permits and consent for the projects. In return, the big companies provide money and expertise for construction. Mukhija pointed out that while a great deal of money is being put into these projects, very little of it is going to slum dwellers.

In some cases, the state government has altered government policy for specific projects, as seen in the case of the DCR Mills redevelopment. The initial agreement for the project allocated one-third of the land attached to a textile mill to the property and mill owners, one-third to the city and one-third to the mill workers. However, the government later altered the rules so that the agreement applied only to “open land,” which excluded sites on which a shopping center was built. As a result, mill workers (who were slum dwellers) received a smaller proportion of the land.

The state has also resettled 9,000–11,000 individuals from ecologically and environmentally sensitive zones, as well as dangerous locations, into poorly designed housing, such as the Lallubhai Compound in Govandi. This compound consists of endless rows of narrow, wasted space that cannot be repurposed for anything but trash and litter, said the speaker.

Redevelopment and controversy continue

A slum-free city remains the federal government’s goal and redevelopment continues at an enormous pace. Yet Mumbai slum dwellers believe the pace is too slow. The number of slum rehabilitation projects has nevertheless increased considerably, jumping from 2,242 in 1998 to 157,402 in 2014 (with another 460,000 approved that same year).

The issue of slum dwellers’ consent to resettlement continues to be debated. Some argue that consent is not necessary if the government provides free alternative housing. In the case of the Golibar Colony in Mumbai, for example, the slum was demolished, but community residents said that they had never consented to this. Their replacement housing, as mentioned previously, was also of very poor quality.

The Ahmedabad model of slum redevelopment in the State of Gujarat appears to offer India a new model. There, inhabitants’ consent is not required and the state government alone determines which slum sites will be redeveloped. Mukhija did not believe this model would take hold in Mumbai, noting that corruption and consent continued to drive the debate on redevelopment in the latter city.

Published: Monday, March 23, 2015