[Urbanstudy] Nangla Machi

[Jeebesh Bagchi]

dear Sanjay,

Thanks for your mail. The violence of the administrative order comes  
out nicely.

You have been visting Nangla for now over one year and have many  
friends/ acquaintance there. You have in the last few weeks witnessed  
the destruction of  their homes. Someone like Jaanu, who took you  
around Nangla and introduced you to many people, lost his home and  
had to move out. This is a reality that you saw unfolding.

How do you think you will be able to write about this encounter? I  
write this, because you position a distance between yourself and the   
object called Nangla, in your postings. Just curious how  
administrative and court violence is lived, felt and thought by you.

I am enclosing a posting by Karim after the High court hearing.

warmly

jeebesh

from: karim at sarai.net
to: reader-list at sarai.net

The honourable justice Vijender Jain passed certain orders  
specifically concerning Nangla on the 5th of April, in the High Court.

Some houses have identity cards and other documents predating 1998  
and in some cases 1994. The details were not dwelt upon, but it  
seemed that the MCD had made some intimation or report to the effect  
that these people would be relocated.

Justice Jain said that in the absence of any official relocation to  
Nangla or any title deeds or similar documentaton, "these people are  
illegal encroachers", and ALL houses standing in NanglaMachi were to  
be razed completely. He said that this "removal" was to happen  
regardless of whether relocation of the affected families that had  
documentation took place. This was a clear and deliberate delinking:  
When "illegal encroachers" encroach upon land, their removal would  
NOT be delayed until they were relocated.

So Jain, J. has not taken up the matter of whether some people are  
deserving of relocation and whether they should be allotted plots. He  
is concerned with removing the encroachments and fixing  
responsibility on those officials who allowed the encroachment to  
take place, be they from any body. According to the MCD, in any case,  
they do not have any land for relocation.

This removal will probably happen in the next few days. The next date  
for the matter is the 17th of this month and Jain is asking for an  
action taken report to be placed before him in this regard on that date.

======================================================================== 
=======


The above piece of writing was sent on the 6th to some people, along  
with my thoughts and commentary on the judgement, the atmosphere and  
the comments passed in court. Were I to reproduce those here, on a  
public list, it would "lead to complete chaos and anarchy, as the  
majesty of law would come to disrepute and be seriously damaged with  
dangerous consequences."[1] and I would  be in criminal contempt of  
court[2]  under Indian law. In craven fear therefore, I am writing  
them as white colour text on a white background. Look closely.




On 07-Apr-06, at 10:13 PM, Sanjay Srivastava wrote:

>
> For those of you interested in what's happening in Nangla Machi, it  
> now appears
> that no one from there -- whether settled before or after 1990 --  
> will be able
> to get a plot in a 'resettlement' colony elsewhere. The recent   
> round of
> demolitions at the end of March, when some 1100-1200 structures  
> were torn down,
> had raised hopes among the owners of those left standing that they  
> had been
> spared because their papers were 'in order'. However, a recent  
> meeting with
> some officials at the MCD Slum Wing suggests that no one might be  
> eligible, and
> that the rest of the locality will be demolished without any notice  
> being given.
> The latter is done (and a 'Demolition Slip' issued) when the  
> persons to be
> displaced are to be offered plots elsewhere. It appears that in its  
> most recent
> say on the matter (5th March), the High Court is completely silent  
> on the issue
> of alternative plots to the residents. It has merely issued  
> instructions that
> the land be cleared by the 17th of May. Of course, I hope this  
> information is
> wrong.
>
> Around mid-March (2006) when another 'Survey' was being carried  
> out, some of the
> houses were marked 'P-98', and many such houseowners felt relieved  
> as they
> assumed that 'P' indicated 'Permanent'. Sadly, it meant  
> 'Post-1998', and at the
> end of March they watched in bewilderment as their houses were  
> knocked down
> along with the others. During the March survey, many were concerned  
> that the
> fact that their houses were not being 'surveyed' meant that they  
> were in
> danger. However, they were told that this was a good thing and that  
> only those
> being surveyed had cause for concern since this was a survey of  
> 'illegal'
> structures. In fact, it now doesn't appear that any of the  
> numbering or signage
> system (around seven different types) allocated to various  
> structures over the
> past few years has anything to do with the firmness of claim over  
> land. Only
> the ways of devising varying systems of classification is  
> permanent. The vast
> collection of 'proofs' people have gathered in order to signify  
> themselves
> appear all to have come to nought.
>
> Sanjay Srivastava
> _______________________________________________
> 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