[Urbanstudy] Urbanstudygroup Digest, Vol 49, Issue 16

Thu Mar 20 17:48:09 IST 2008

Dear All,

An apt time for me to have come across a discussion on slum settlements - someone I know lives in such a settlement that is now to be surrendered to builders who would like to redevelop the same. 

This lady and her family have been promised the be given back a share of the redeveloped property in accordance with the property they are now giving up. 

In the interim period (of one year) a sum of money will be given to them that will allow them to rent out alternate accomodation.

I am wondering, what are the rights given by the government to slum settlers. Is there clarity on this? Do they have ownership / tenancy rights on the property they live in? What is the policy in Mumbai?

Would appreciate some feedback.

Thanks,
Aditi

 > Message: 5> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 05:31:10 +0000 (GMT)> From: anant m <anant_umn at yahoo.co.uk>> Subject: Re: [Urbanstudy] slum discussion> To: gauri bharat <gauribharat at gmail.com>, urbanstudygroup at sarai.net> Message-ID: <434230.38635.qm at web23005.mail.ird.yahoo.com>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"> > Just to take this note from Gauri Bharath a little> further --> two different directions are worth pursuing. > 1) the discursive terrain> 2) the state related discussion > I am not putting in any citations because this is a> rough and ready account. But I will be happy to follow> it up if anyone is interested. > > Discursively, the idea of the 'slum' in India came> through the colonial administration. The earliest> references of slums in India are to be found in the> context of the city/town improvement trusts/boards.> The first of these not surprisingly were in the two> big port cities -- Calcutta and Bombay. This> introduction of slums into colonial port cities> happened in the context of both a fear of> plague/cholera epidemics and also the need for> rationalizing the city. The moral dimension here was a> complicated one -- slums were places of vice - but> they also reflected badly on how the administrators> were discharging their own moral obligation. However,> in most instances the residents opposed slum> eradication efforts. (Often these places included> 'unplanned', 'congested' housing lots which were> unintelligible to the planner's (of> transportation,roads,sanitation etc.) gaze. In the> face of this resistance the colonial administration> began to recruit native elites to persuade the Hindoos> and Moslems respectively to give up their 'bad' living> arrangements. Archives of this kind of stuff are not> easy to come by because it will be mostly in the form> of city and town improvement trust documents, annual> reports etc. as well as diaries and reports of> engineers and medical doctors. This process of> spotting and removing slums which began in calcutta> and bombay gradually migrated to native ruled cities> by the first and second decades of the 20th century> and got reshaped by both people like patrick geddes> and mokshagundam visweswarayya. although neither of> these people have written much directly on slums,> initiatives that were launched under their guidance --> City Improvement Board in Hyderabad for instance --> record slums removal efforts at that time. > during the next two decades, there was a fair amount> of physical anthropology kind of work on whether or> not living in slums stunts bodily growth, reports of> census officers confused by the impossibility of> delimiting a family or a household in the enormous> diversity of dwellings has developed in India. > > But it was only in 1939 -- during the Bombay> development plan writing that the first serious> official pronouncements on slums in India become> visible. in that document, the planners effectively> say that slums are related to industry. so if we shift> industry out of the city, slums will automatically> move out with them and then they will be the> responsibility of the industry itself. the state does> not have to worry about it so much. > > the 1956 slum act retains the early definition of> slums and the moral fervor, developmental vision and> so on but two issues are important to note here. this> was the time when there was a tremendous mobility of> people into state capitals-- lingusitic reorganization> of states being only one of the contributory factors.> in many states the records of rights were being> revamped and resurveyes were being done as a result of> all of which there were many violent conflicts in> cities over landed property. some of these conflicts> were large enough to shape the political careers young> local leaders. the act was mainly an attempt to deal> with those conflicts through the notification> procedures. very very limited housing programs were> undertaken in some cities and these were quite diverse> -- from self help to hire purchase. > beginning late 50s, there has been an important shift> in the way slums are dealt with in India. now that> there are specific procedures and designated> authoritis to deal with them -- officials of housing,> district revenue and municipal authorities the slum> kept getting reproduced in a myriad ways simply> through governmental procedures. > in the years to follow two important dimensions were> added to this: 1) the envisioning of the urban> community development program as a corollary to the> rural community development program under the auspices> of the community development ministry 2) the tying of> these programs to international developmental aid. in> some ways what happened was a short circuit between> local officials and international discourse on urban> poverty from the UN etc. both of these were of course> subject to a lot of contingent factors which had to > do with political developments at different scales. > As a consequence, at this point any attempt to write a> n intelligible timeline of governmental attitude> towards slums is doomed to fail. each city and some> times even each municipal ward can present a> bewildering mass of facts. this is not to deny the> fact that turner's influence did not matter -- but> what needs to be done is to map out how why turner> mattered at a certain point of time and exactly> through what administrative channels did his ideas get> transformed and materialized in different cities. I> have not seen much work on this really, except a> recent article which talks about how there is a wide> gap between international policy discourse and its> implementation in thailand. > [the entry of British ODA in the 80s, the role of DFID> and the mid 90s Indian Population project of the world> bank and of course the emergence of a largish urban> NGO sector in the 80s and 90s, the plotting and> squatting stuff that began after the urban development> authorities were enacted in the mid 70s -- all this is> a differennt story altogether but as confusing and> exciting as the rest:)]> anant > > --- gauri bharat <gauribharat at gmail.com> wrote:> > > Dear list members,> > My first posting to this forum, I'd like to add my> > two bits to this> > discussion on the slum.> > > > The 'moral' mention in the 1956 definition was> > probably a result of the> > nature of early scholarship/ way of thinking on the> > slums. Slums have been> > written about since the late 19 century (Jacob Riis,> > 1896) and in the US,> > were a product of a middle class outraged at the> > depravity they saw around> > them. The forays into the slum were tinted by a> > (often Christian) moral> > reform agenda, and the writings of the time> > reflected this. This attitude> > carried on for the next few decades, and as late as> > the 1960s, scholars like> > Oscar Lewis spoke of the slums as having a 'culture> > of poverty'. Basically,> > the slums were considered a pathologically deficient> > body, distinctly> > different and depraved in comparison to the main> > stream city.> > > > In the early 1970s, the works of people like John> > Turner (mentioned in an> > earlier reply) began to see the slums in more> > positive light, in terms of> > its potential for housing the poor. And this was> > followed in the late 1970s> > and 1980s by the the works of people like Janice> > Perlman who debunked the> > 'myth of marginality' among the urban poor, and> > Manuel Castells and the> > political economy of slum housing etc.> > > > These shifts in ways of thinking corresponded with> > shifts in policy - like> > the govt. agenda for instance. From subsidised> > housing provision in the> > 1960s, the govt position shifted to site and> > services schemes and in situ> > upgrading in the 1980s, and further to the whole> > sector reform in recent> > times.> > > > My point, in all this, is to suggest the the ways of> > seeing/ understanding> > the slum, and subsequently, of policy has undergone> > a change over the> > decades. What I've written above is sketchy, but> > indicative of some of the> > shifts that have taken place. I also hope this makes> > clear that the absence> > of the 'moral' aspect in later years is due to a> > more fundamental shift in> > the perception of slums.> > > > Roy and AlSayyad's Urban Informality (2004) offers a> > detailed discussion on> > the historiography of scholarship on slums, and> > cases and theoretical> > positions from different parts of the world today.> > > > Regards,> > Gauri Bharat> > > > > > > > >> > >> > >> > > Dipu:> > >> > > Was this shift at all precipitated by the> > Emergency? I am wondering what> > > role the Emergency played in this shift.> > Unfortunately, I cannot> > > substantiate this further, it's more of an open> > question.> > >> > > Curt> > >> > > ----- Original Message ----> > > From: "sharan at sarai.net" <sharan at sarai.net>> > > To: lalit batra <lalitbatra at gmail.com>> > > Cc: urbanstudygroup at sarai.net> > > Sent: Friday, March 7, 2008 11:40:51 PM> > > Subject: Re: [Urbanstudy] Urbanstudygroup Digest,> > Vol 49, Issue 2> > >> > > Dear Lalit, Zainab and List Members,> > > Do notice the disappearance of the 'moral' aspect> > in the latter> > > definition.> > > Here's my hypothesis: in the period of upto about> > 1970s slum improvement> > > was closely tied to the idea of moral reform of> > the inhabitants of the> > > slums; since then the focus has been mostly on the> > physical infrastructure> > > or (il)legality - either by way of land-use, as in> > the case of squatters> > > or> > > in terms of 'illegitimate' access to such things> > as water and electricity.> > > This aspect - the (il)legality of built structures> > - was not entirely> > > absent in the earlier phase, but seems to have> > been clearly subordinate to> > > the moral question.> > >> > > I have been trying to understand the nature of> > this transformation and its> > > implication and would apppreciate any comments on> > it.> > >> > > Cheers,> > > Dipu> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________> > Urbanstudygroup mailing list> > Urban Study Group: Reading the South Asian City> > > > To subscribe or browse the Urban Study Group> > archives, please visit> >> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup> > > > > ----------------> A place does not merely exist...it has to be invented in one's imagination….> > > ___________________________________________________________ > Rise to the challenge for Sport Relief with Yahoo! For Good > > http://uk.promotions.yahoo.com/forgood/> > > > ------------------------------> > _______________________________________________> Urbanstudygroup mailing list> Urbanstudygroup at sarai.net> https://mail.sarai.net/mailman/listinfo/urbanstudygroup> > > End of Urbanstudygroup Digest, Vol 49, Issue 16> ***********************************************
_________________________________________________________________
Tried the new MSN Messenger? It’s cool! Download now.
http://messenger.msn.com/Download/Default.aspx?mkt=en-in
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.sarai.net/pipermail/urbanstudygroup/attachments/20080320/63f91750/attachment-0001.html 