Survival has never seen such a difficult battle as with urbanization, with the latter forcing a retreat on the former to the periphery of urban territory. The battle is of the weak and oppressed against the mighty and powerful; like David versus Goliath. It’s a struggle for securing the rights which are being denied. As urbanization progresses, spreading further interior, it uproots anything that comes in its way, leaving many homeless. Those without a roof above their heads are the ones that keep the city ticking, the labourers, who migrate from the interiors to eke out a living in the urbanized setting. However, urbanization as a planning objective has failed to incorporate the views and entitlements of all sections of society, especially in developing countries of South Asia.
For decades now, the proliferation of urban slums across South Asia has inspired dialogue and debate around granting property rights to slum-dwellers. It is a controversial issue. Migrants move to cities like Mumbai, Karachi, Dhaka and Kathmandu seeking better fortunes for themselves and their families, but the price of such a move is to settle unofficially at the periphery of formal city life.
According to the World Bank, the urban poor are forced to live in illegal dwellings because of existing land policies and regulations. In particular, the urban poor face “insecure tenure” if their dwellings satisfy one of the following conditions: (1) built on public land; (2) built on private property not belonging to the dwelling’s owner; (3) built on shared title land and/or constructed without occupancy or construction permits; or (4) rented in slums without formal renting contracts.
The pace of rapid urbanization has made it increasingly difficult for urban planning efforts to keep apace with a city’s growing needs. This effectively increases demand for land and housing while supply remains the same, thereby making legal housing unaffordable for the poor. Even if the urban poor are granted the opportunity to apply for appropriate tenure permits, navigating the regulatory environment can be baffling, especially given lower rates of awareness and literacy among the bottom of the pyramid. Additionally, there may be multiple forms of property rights that complicate the issuance of land documents.
In 2011, the Government of India launched its Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) program towards a “slum-free India.” The mission of RAY is to create “…inclusive and equitable cities in which every citizen has access to basic civic and social services and decent shelter.” Phase I of the program facilitates affordable housing for slum-dwellers and was approved in June 2011. In October 2012, Phase II of the program was approved; it focuses on “providing long-term and bankable property rights to slum dwellers.” The central government wants to promote in-situ redevelopment schemes for slum clusters.
The state of Maharashtra under the aegis of Shiv Sena and Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) combined government recognized the rights of slum dwellers to free housing back in 1996 in the by establishing the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) to provide housing to those who had arrived prior to 1995 in the city. The new Slum Protection Bill, introduced by the Congress government is promising housing also to families living in hutments that sprang up between 1995 and 2000. In a city where, according to data from the 2011 national census, every second citizen lives in makeshift housing, introducing concessions for slum dwellers is electoral tradition. Slums make for enormous political capital. Since the time SRA came into effect, barely 1.53 lakh slum dwellers have been rehabilitated. Official statistics reveal that just over 13 per cent redevelopment projects — 199 out of 1,524 — have so far been completed. About 215 projects are stalled, while another 1,100 are still being developed. Though launched in 1996, the slum replacement scheme has more or less bombed. Builders have not found the slum spaces attractive enough to build, harvest extra FSI for sale in open market thereby subsidizing the rehabilitation.
The extension of the cut-off date for provision of free housing to January 1, 2000 from January 1, 1995 would have much of an effect. There are three reasons why. One, the free slum replacement housing for the pre-1995 slum dwellings has hardly moved an inch since the 1996 effort. Two, the government is confused. Three, the real estate developer’s lobby has its way. The slum dwellers are, at best, beneficiaries of an assurance that their dwellings, if built prior to 2000, will not see their occupants evicted and structure razed. Much like the most of the pre-1995 slum dwellers have, they would feel reassured.
If the rehabilitation drive has largely failed, it is also because those rehabilitated have later been uprooted as a result of being seperated from their location of economic activity. In the slums, shanties of the households double up as business hubs where they manufacture and trade in goods from textiles to food and leather products. In their new places, these economic ties have been abruptly broken.
Given the complexity of the urban context, what does a city’s regulatory framework need to support tenure security for the poor? The key factors are transparency, flexibility, clearly delineated public roles and private property rights. Land provision needs to be transparent, as do the rules and processes governing provision. Market transactions need to be made clear: registration, sales, building and taxation policies should be “simple” enough for interested parties to understand. This is a particularly important point for the urban poor: unclear or convoluted procedures can further confuse ownership claims and further distance the urban poor from their legitimate claims.
The efficacy of such policy moves is questionable. Demystifying property rights and making it an accessible channel for the urban poor will require a multi-pronged approach. It is too soon to comment on what will happen in India, but if states are willing to follow Delhi’s suit and implement their own laws and regulations to formalize the urban poor’s incorporation into society, that is a step in the right direction.
