In the station independency period, India has sought rapid economic growing through ‘planned development ‘ . This has entailed big graduated table investings in dikes, roads, mines, power workss, industrial estates, new metropoliss and other undertakings affecting land acquisition. A big figure of people have been displaced to do manner for these development undertakings.
Amongst such victims are the slum inhabitants in Delhi. Slum destructions and the new land usage on the evacuated sites have been lending to the restructuring of the urban infinite in the capital. Globalization and the aspiration of the capital metropolis to go a “ planetary city and a universe category metropolis ‘ ( DDA, 2007 ) had a decisive impact on the way followed to transform the land usage and reshape the urban landscape. With economic liberalisation in 1991, one saw a displacement from centrally planned land direction to a neoliberal mantra implying public-private partnership. In the instance of Delhi, this meant that the authorities sold land acquired for ‘public intents ‘ to private developers. With immense net incomes to be made from commercial development, the existent estate market is dining. The lands occupied by homesteaders command a premium.
These are the new enclosures: what were one time unclaimed infinites, vacant secret plans of land along railroad paths and by the Yamuna river in Delhi that were settled and made habitable by homesteaders, are now mature for renovation. Luminal lands that the urban hapless could populate on have now been incorporated into the net income market. The existent estate roar is taking precedence over the lodging demands of ordinary citizens.
It was in 1990 that the authorities of Delhi adopted a ‘new ‘ Delhi slum policy reiterated in the Master Plan for Delhi, 2021. The chief aims of the Master Plan of Delhi, 2021 were, an improved substructure base, keeping the pacing of economic growing and to do the national capital a planetary metropolis. The aim of doing Delhi a planetary metropolis would ask and necessitate more and more land to be made available for modern commercial and industrial ventures, within the metropolis every bit good as its fringe. One effect of this is that Delhi would hold to turn through exclusion of hapless migrators every bit good as the bing hapless in the metropolis.
Despite alterations in the policy governments and parties in power, policy shapers in the National Capital have ne’er accepted the rights of homesteaders and slum inhabitants to shack on the secret plans which they are busying. In some instances, land rubrics on a leasehold footing were given to evicted families in relocation sites during the sixtiess and 1970s. Unfortunately, concern for the environment in Delhi, both at the province and the NGO degree, manifested itself in a curious manner. It has strengthened the anteroom against proviso of in situ term of office for the slum inhabitants, and non leting industries in choice residential countries within the metropolis.
Planners, policy shapers, civil society militants are discerning of the metropolis being flooded with migrators, its limited comfortss being choked with population invasion and the metropolis environment devolving due to mushrooming of slums. The latter are now seen as a menace to the macro environment in the metropolis, their illegality in busying public land being compounded by their tapping of comfortss like H2O, electricity, etc without paying user charges.
Resettlement and Rehabilitation policies have barely been implemented to take attention of the displaced. Though many undertaking governments and support bureaus speak of R and R in one breath, they are two distinguishable worlds. While relocation is the physical nidation in a new settlement, rehabilitation is entire re-establishment of lost support. Resettlement is therefore chiefly an economic enterprise. Rehabilitation on the other manus, involves replacing the lost economic assets, reconstructing the community system that has been weakened by supplanting and go toing to the psychological injury of being displaced and of losing their support.
A modest proportion of the population in Delhi lives in slums and homesteaders. They account for approximately 15.72 per centum of the population in the national capital part. Though several civil society groups have challenged these figures for them the so called illegal invaders of public lands are non accounted for. In Delhi, the class of the urban hapless chiefly comprises of the dwellers in JJ bunchs / chunky colonies. These dwellers are service suppliers, which includes domestic aid, peddlers and sellers, low paid workers in the industrial, commercial and trade / concern sectors etc. The socio-economic restraints on entree to income airs restraints to nutrient and other basic necessities including shelter. As a consequence, they are constrained to populate in the worst sort of colonies. Substandard lodging is non merely the effect of poorness but besides policy and fiscal restraints imposed on the authorities sections and bureaus to supply equal services for the hapless. However, the type of lodging they are constrained to take is mostly the effect of poorness, and denial of a piece of land for shelter at an low-cost monetary value.
Migrants from other parts of the state chiefly comprise the population of a slum. These people normally migrate in the hope of better occupation chances. Out of these migrators 83.9 per centum are from rural countries. As a consequence of increasing globalisation and liberalisation the attractive force towards Delhi as a beginning of better employment will merely increase. As Delhi continues to turn further in the context of a globalizing and liberalising economic system, its attractive force as a beginning of employment for rural migrators is likely to be farther enhanced. This in bend is likely to take to a farther addition in the population life in slums. Urban policy demands to happen ways of incorporating slums into the metropolis ‘s colony system and guaranting that these colonies have entree to basic services.
The hapless typically inhabit unplanned or semi-planned developments. In Delhi these are classified as ( a ) Notified Slums in Old Walled City country ; ( B ) Resettlement Colonies ; ( degree Celsius ) Relocated JJ Clusters and ( vitamin D ) JJ Clusters or Squatter colonies. The homesteader colonies are treated as invasions on chiefly public lands. As such these are illegal bunchs ( JJCs ) and are devoid of any legal entitlements. However, attempts have been made by the authorities to widen basic societal and environmental services to them. JJ bunchs are scattered all over the metropolis. Generally they are situated on the vacant land along railroad lines, roads, drains and river embankments and besides vacant infinites near residential, industrial and commercial composites. Around 55 per cent of homesteaders are near the residential countries and 40 % along the route. The homesteader colonies or JJCs assume strategic importance every bit far as the issues of unorganised colonies are concerned. In 1951, Delhi had 12749 JJs scattered over 199 bunchs. By 1973 the figure of JJs had reached 98483 spread over 1373 bunchs.
The resettlement strategy pursued in 1962-77, with a concentrated attempt in 1975-77 resulted in the relocation of 2.4 lakh JJs in different parts of Delhi. In 1977 merely 20000 JJ families remained to be relocated. But, in 1983 the figure of homesteader families had gone upto 1.13 hundred thousand.
In 2001 the JJ bunchs had declined to 729 from 1080 in 1994 due to resettlement of around 300 bunchs. Water and sanitation installations in these unorganised settlements, peculiarly JJ bunchs, are hapless. Merely 21 % of settlements are covered with piped H2O supply and 10 % are covered by sanitation. Most of the installations available or offered are non- functional in around 75-80 % of the colonies. Around 85-90 % of JJ bunchs did non hold even community lavatories, coercing dwellers to stool in the unfastened near the H2O organic structures or drainage channels.
Resettlement settlements, as the name suggests, comprise of JJ bunch families that have been resettled from their original colonies. The entire population in resettlement settlements is estimated to be 18 hundred thousand ( 2000 ) in 44 relocation settlements. The first relocation programme was carried out in 1961 and later many JJ bunchs have been shifted to resettlement settlements. However, given the limited size of slum population prior to 1970, it was possible to switch most of the families ( 43, 000 ) life in these colonies to assorted resettlement settlements, but after 1970, as the rate of migration increased, relocation has non been able to maintain gait with the growing of JJ bunchs.
The consequences of a NCAER ( 2002 ) Survey suggest that the relocation settlements in contrast to slums have better entree to indispensable comfortss. The legal acknowledgment given to resettlement settlements makes it compulsory for the authorities to guarantee the proviso of basic substructure in these settlements5. JJ bunchs, on the other manus, do non bask any such entitlements since they are considered illegal residents of public/ private land. The difference in entitlements is what accounts for the difference in entree to basic substructure between the JJ bunchs and relocation settlements and this difference in bend contributes to the overall better life conditions in relocation settlements as against slums.
However, while JJ bunchs are worse off than relocation settlements, both are far from holding an equal proviso of basic comfortss. Indeed, the grounds from the NCAER ( 2002 ) survey should non be taken to intend that all is good with the relocation settlements. The proviso of substructure in relocation settlements is more frequently than non equal, given its population size.
Over the old ages at that place has been a gradual dilution of commissariats of relocation for the slum population. To get down with, the secret plan size allocated to families in relocation settlements has been steadily worsening. The proviso in the Master Plan of Delhi ( 1962 ) was of an allocation of 80 sq. meters per family. This was later reduced to 40 sq. meters during the monolithic relocations of the seventiess. The Master Plan of Delhi ( 2001 ) so brought this down to 25 sq. meters. In world the secret plan size really allocated is even smaller. Slums that were resettled in Narela ( 2000 ) every bit good as evictees from the Yamuna Pushta slums ( 2004 ) were allocated a secret plan size of 12.5 sq. meters. Apart from limited infinite per household, lodging on little secret plan size contributes to the impairment of resettlement settlements into slums. It is argued that current slum relocation undertakings normally end up looking non really different from the slums they replace. This is more ‘recycling ‘ of poorness than relocation with protected supports of the resettled.
Besides, the first relocation of JJ bunchs in early 1960s entitled the occupants non merely to a secret plan size of 80 sq. meters but one that was serviced with WC, H2O pat and pedestal. Choice of the relocation site had to be done maintaining in head handiness of indispensable services such as H2O supply, sewage and electricity every bit good as schools, dispensary and community Centres. Residents were given ownership rights- subsidy was to the melody of 50 % and refund was on a monthly footing.
Over clip these criterions have got diluted ; there has been a displacement towards proviso of services for a group instead than on an single footing. Therefore, in the relocation schemes carried out in 1975-76, along with a diminution in secret plan size to 25 sq. metres and riddance of ownership rights, the undermentioned criterions were laid down for the proviso of services:
_ Hand pump ( 1 ) for 20 individuals
_ Filtered H2O water faucets ( 1 ) for 40 individuals
_ Bathrooms ( 1 place ) for 6 households
_ Latrines ( 1 place ) for 5 households
In recent old ages, relocation sites are progressively on the outskirts of the metropolis ( for illustration, Narela, Holambi Kalan, Bawana, Madanpur Khader, Tikri Khurd ) in misdemeanor of the recommendations of the Master Plan, which argued for integrating of people from different cross-section of income groups in residential vicinities. Apart from deficiency of substructure installations in these settlements, what is of peculiar concern to the hapless is the deficiency of conveyance installations. These sites located on the fringe of the metropoliss provide small employment chances for the hapless for which they have to transpose to the metropolis Centre. However, the absence of proper conveyance installations makes this journey dearly-won in footings of physical and pecuniary resources every bit good as in footings of the clip spent on travel. As a consequence, people frequently find it prudent to sell off their tenements and return to the metropolis, therefore withstanding the logic of relocation.
There are besides jobs with the relocation procedure. During the resettlement thrust of 1975- 76, commissariats were made for bivouacing sites to let impermanent habitations. Such considerations no longer organize portion of the relocation procedure.
The determination to relocate slums in Yamuna Pushta was taken at a high degree meeting in January 2004, the first destructions were carried out in February and the procedure was completed by early April. Not merely were the occupants non given adequate clip to fix for the destruction, the governments did non besides bother that the destruction thrust in the months of February and March coincided with school tests. The bulldozers advanced at noon when most people were at work. Further, many occupants of JJ bunchs were left out of the relocation procedure. The list of families eligible for secret plans in the relocation site was based on a four- twelvemonth old study which did non take into history the new occupants in the slum. Besides, houses recorded as ‘locked ‘ in the study were non considered for relocation.
The attack of the authorities towards countries notified as Slums under the Slum countries Act 1961 has been three pronged ( I ) Clearance/Relocation ; ( two ) Insitu upgradation ; and ( three ) Environmental Improvement Schemes. Clearance / resettlement has been the pillar of the policy towards the homesteaders and JJ bunchs. The plan of chunky clearance was discontinued at the terminal of the 6th program ( 1980-85 ) . The clearance plan has been initiated once more in 2005. The general policy adopted by the authorities has been two fold ( I ) No new invasion shall be permitted on public land and ( two ) Past invasions viz. those in being up to 1990 would non be removed without supplying options. A three pronged scheme has been adopted by Government of Delhi for covering with the jobs of JJ Clusters. These schemes are ( one ) Resettlement of Jhuggie Households ; ( two ) In-situ Up step of JJ Clusters ; and ( three ) Extension of minimal basic civic comfortss for community usage under EIUS strategies in JJclusters.
Issues emerging from Resettlement Schemes
There are several issues that come up sing shelter for the urban hapless. The rating of slums, JJ bunchs and relocation sites, lodging workers and service suppliers in Delhi highlighted the undermentioned 1s:
( I ) Legal Security of Tenure: Surveies conducted by assorted NGOs and CBOs highlighted the job of security of legal term of office, rights of the inhabitants on relocation sites and the JJ bunchs. Without equal documented term of office, the occupants can non obtain loans from fiscal establishments. Additionally, unscrupulous belongings traders offer loans to occupants and so hale them to go forth under duress.
( two ) Access to Appropriate Mechanisms of Finance: The hapless are unable to run into the demands of conventional funding establishments, and lodging micro-finance is ill developed.
( three ) In-situ Up step of Existing JJ bunchs: About 80 % of inhabitants of JJ bunchs favour unmoved up-gradation of bunchs with proviso of secret plans non less than 40m2. In instance the resettlement is ineluctable, it shall be within 2km radius. If secret plans can non be provided, resettlement in G+1 constructions is preferred.
( four ) Access to Public Goods and Services: In all the resettlement sites, and 85-90 % of JJ bunchs, occupants did non hold entree to public goods and services. These countries lack general wellness services, entree to portable H2O and sanitation.
( V ) Changing plots sizes at resettlement sites: The eligibility standards for relocation is restricted to those who are ( one ) Indian Nationals and ( two ) shacking on the several site as on 31st December 1998 as evidenced by ration cards. Because of the cut-off day of the month, up to 40-45 % households of JJ bunchs are ineligible for resettlement. Hence, it has become really hard to acquire encroached land pockets wholly vacated. The bing pattern adopted by slum section for proviso of secret plan to the donees is ( I ) 18m2 to donees settled before 1990 and 12.5m2 to donees settled during 1990-98. This pattern of supplying differential secret plans sizes to the donees, which is lower than the UNHCR guideline of 40 M2, is one of the major issues to be tackled as portion of the slum resettlement policy.
( six ) Land Suitability of Relocation Sites: The land provided for the building of places in five of the 12 sites is uninhabitable. In countries of Hastsal, Bhalsawa and Madanpur Khader, around 15-20 % of secret plans are 5-10 pess below Ground Level and vulnerable to deluging.
Mega Transformation of Delhi and the Exclusive Approach to the Poor
The procedures of urbanisation and globalisation have played a important function in the intervention of the hapless in urban Centres. With urbanization increasing at the rate that it is, prognosiss claim that half of humanity will be populating in metropoliss within another two coevalss. Globalization and urbanisation are runing within a capitalist and broad economic system driven by the desire for net incomes and economic growing. Cities, viewed as the epicenters of growing and employment, attract in immense Numberss, people from the rural countries. With the market forces in drama and the attach toing new agricultural policies, families in rural countries find it hard to last and switch to urban Centres in order to happen employment and support options.
Consequently, they besides look for shelter. They constantly end up crouching on vacant pieces of land, since the metropoliss are non designed to suit the increasing population inflow ( Roy, 2008 ) .
Urbanization is the consequence of a combination of factors. With increasing globalisation and structural reforms taking topographic point, a parallel phenomenon of increasing investing in industry and substructure by both the authorities and the private sector can be witnessed. This is farther accompanied and reinforced by the promotion in and spread of the conveyance and building sectors. Economic growing is given an drift when metropoliss get linked to the larger planetary economic system which allows the flow of capital from outside the state. The benefits of the investing of this capital are normally seen in the urban Centres. Developing states witness a virtuous rhythm of liberalisation, investing and economic growing that emerges. This rhythm accelerates the gait of urbanisation ( Kundu and Kundu, 2010 ) .
Harmonizing to a United Nations Population Fund study in 2007, ‘no state in the industrial age has of all time achieved important economic growing without urbanisation ‘ . A contrary position argues that metropoliss are non merely the machines that produce wealth but besides those which expand inequalities. This can be seen in the increasing figure of the urban hapless. The Homeless International and Asiatic Alliance for Housing Rights ( 2006 ) claims that the greatest paradox of urban countries is that it is the hapless people, who live in these urban metropoliss and are beginning of inexpensive labor, which are responsible for constructing the metropolis economic system. However, they get no warrants for a safe being and support in the metropolis, nor any of the benefits ensuing from its development.
Developing states in order to pull international capital and investing from the planetary markets seek to construct and better the substructure in their major metropoliss.
The entree to land and capital resources is made easier by the authorities in order to let transnational companies every bit good as companies within the state to put up store. In order to ease this, authoritiess go on ‘sanitation thrusts ‘ to take ‘low valued ‘ activities from the metropolis. In this procedure slums are removed from the chief parts of the metropolis and pushed to the fringe so as to do infinite for the large companies. What we are witnessing is the operating of a capitalist State based driven by neoliberal policies. Harmonizing to Shivani Chaudhry, a human rights militant, ‘there is a strong seeable collusion with the private sector. And this is a tendency we ‘re seeing in Bombay, Delhi, Hyderabad, Bangalore, virtually, every major city in our state. It ‘s the Shanghai-zation tendency, which is all about seeking to make ultra-modern metropoliss like Shanghai ‘ . Harmonizing to Dunu Roy of the Hazards Centre, Delhi, the province is retreating from its constitutional public assistance duties under force per unit area from planetary “ market ” forces, and therefore both land and lodging are going commercial goods instead than legal rights.
Harmonizing to the Global Report on Human Settlements undertakings of ‘beautification ‘ are frequently undertaken in the event of upcoming acmes, athleticss events and the similar. At such times, strategies of slum clearance are given justification and legitimacy. This has been witnessed in India and in China. In the instance of China, ‘urbanizing small towns ‘ could be seen emerging near and around the larger metropoliss prior to the 2006 Olympic Gamess. Similarly, in India this could be seen at the clip of the Commonwealth Games. Till the people populating in slums had some public-service corporation in footings of inexpensive labor and resources, they were allowed in the metropolis. However, after that the sanitation thrusts would get down. There are no commissariats made for their shelter later. Where commissariats of secret plans or jump lodging are made, really few receive the benefits and most are excluded.
‘Shelter exposure ‘ characterize metropoliss in the underdeveloped universe along with ‘economic vulnerabilty ‘ . The state of affairs in India is an illustration of this shelter exposure ( Lal, 2002 ) .
Urbanization demands to be understood within the context of globalisation. Globalization can be defined as, ‘a state of affairs wherein capital seeks to perforate the boundaries of states and make a planetary market enabling its free motion. This procedure is accompanied by a host of cultural, political and economic mechanisms to ease the regulation of private capital ‘ , ( Kumar, 2008 ) . In India, and within Indian cities, including Delhi, we see the outgrowth of a new civilization and ethos. Many alterations are taking topographic point as a consequence of planetary finance.
Cities like Delhi feel the demand for congestion free roads, fancy urinals, remotion of slums, film theaters and immense promenades good beyond the agencies of an ordinary individual. Delhi and all of its human and non human elements are being incorporated into this model of globalisation. This procedure of globalisation entails altering or changing life infinites every bit good leting for the gap up of the market. Beautification of the metropolis requires throwing out the hapless to the absolute fringes, which is upheld and given legitimacy by the bench. The new infinites therefore created are so, in the name of infrastructural development, seen as paving the manner for the market and its effectual operation. Cities are, ‘trying to derive economic efficiency through a procedure of exclusion of fringy countries and marginalized subdivisions of population who can non afford the costs of life in the fast globalizing urban infinite ‘ , ( Kundu and Mahadevia, 2002, p. 1 ) . One can see the supplanting of slums, edifice bowls and overpasss, the outgrowth of new manners of conveyance all of which are taken up with the justification that there will be a ‘better ‘ usage of land, that is to state, a usage which will be more profitable. The metropolis witnesses what can be called elect gaining control in planetary metropoliss which leads to steps of sanitation and forcing migrators to the outskirts. This exclusionary globalisation and urbanisation, based on the involvements of the elites, is further reinforced by the authorities and authorities policies that favour those elites.
It is the higher income groups that are a minority which are considered to be worthy and legitimate citizens of the metropolis, while the hapless are shunned. Dunu Roy points out that this prejudice towards the elites was non present in the earlier, but is going more and more apparent in the recent old ages with differential norms being formulated ( in footings of lodging country, H2O, electricity, sanitation, wellness, instruction ) for different categories.
In order to truly hold any claim on public infinites in Delhi, holding private agencies is about a necessary status. As Amita Baviskar explains, ‘full citizenship is merely allowed to those on the right side of the belongings and category divide. The property-less unrecorded manus to oral cavity: denied infinite, shelter and security ‘ . ( )
Since 2000, the gait of slum destructions in Delhi had increased starkly. The combined figure of slums or JJCs demolished by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( MCD ) and the Delhi Development Authority ( DDA ) for the five old ages taking up to 2000 rose more than tenfold. This addition is the direct result of the benchs expanded function in demanding slum clearance. Whereas the determination to level a slum was earlier about entirely in the sphere of Delhi ‘s assorted land-owning bureaus, peculiarly the DDA, these wings of the authorities now have small say in finding the legal and political position of such colonies. Alternatively the primary avenue by which slums are demolished today begins when a occupant ‘s public assistance association files a writ request for the remotion of a neighbouring slum, returns when the tribunals O.K. it and ends when the land having bureau abides by the tribunals determination.
Therefore, despite the fact that the Delhi slum policy evinced some concern in protecting homesteaders involvements – or at least introduced some conditions to their eviction – the intercession of by the bench in the last decennary or so has undermined the policy to a big extent.
There have been some opinions which deny the duty of the province to supply resettlement options to the evicted households. Judges have remarked that the hapless have no right to lodging: resettling a homesteader is like honoring a cutpurse. By disregarding the absence of low income lodging, the bench has criminalized the really presence of the hapless in the metropolis. Evictions are justified as being in the public involvement, as if the populace does non include the hapless and as if issues of shelter and support are non public concerns. The tribunals have non merely brushed aside representation from basti-dwellers, they have besides penalized authorities functionaries for non pulverizing fast plenty.
There is a turning hostility between the lodging demands for the hapless and the aspiration for a ‘clean and green ‘ Delhi. One can see the precedency of the ‘green docket ‘ over the ‘brown docket ‘ in the capital, since cleaning the metropolis besides involves slum clearance and therefore ‘cleaning up ‘ the metropolis from its slums and slum inhabitants. The monolithic evictions along the Bankss of the Yamuna river ( the Yamuna pushta slum bunchs ) , where the statement of fouling the river was utilized by the Delhi High Court to warrant the remotion of all slum bunchs, represent this hostility.
In malice of its initial province good purpose to incorporate people with low incomes into the urban cloth, the public policy of urban planning and lodging implemented by the DDA failed to run into the demand of the poorest subdivision or the population. As a consequence, the latter resorted to informal home ground, and had no option but to busy vacant lands, basically public land, where they self-constructed stopgap lodging – or JJs. Harmonizing to a survey commissioned in 2003 by the DDA to the association of urban direction and development governments in order to measure its path record the followers was found. For low income lodging the DDA was to develop 27,487 hectares of land in the 20 twelvemonth period of the first maestro program. Of this, merely 15,540 was acquired. Similarly, in 1962, the entire existing urban residential land was 4694 hectares. The program proposed to add another 14,479 hectares by 1981. But the land really developed was merely 7316 hectares. Approximately half the projected residential land was non developed. As a consequence one has observed that there has been a uninterrupted addition of the population in of the JJ bunch s or homesteader colonies from the 1950s boulder clay the 1990s. in 1998, the population life in chunky colonies was estimated to be around three million people scattered in around 1100 bunchs of varied sizes throughout the urban country, and accounted for about 27 per cent of the entire urban population – as compared to 5 per cent in 1951 an 18 per cent in 1991 – but busying merely less than 6 per cent of the metropolis land. These figures illustrate the insufficiency of the assorted slum clearance programmes implemented since the 1950s every bit good as the inability to supply low-cost lodging for the hapless by the DDA.
With the impending Commonwealth games in 2010, one time once more slums inhabitants are the victims. 24 new overpasss and 200 kilometers of new web on the Delhi Metro are on the skyline. The DDA is constructing a Commonwealth Games Village in the metropolis which involves several billion dollars of substructure up-gradation and new substructure. The site for this small town was originally the slum colony called Yamuna Pushta which was later relocated or resettled. The slum was removed because it was believed that the residents were fouling the river. Environmentalists question how the authorities thinks that all of a sudden it is eco friendly to transport out such big graduated table building and it was eco-unfriendly when there were slums at that place. As Jean du Plessis describes it, such sort of mega events and mega undertakings result in ‘a negative lodging bequest for the urban hapless ‘ ( du Plessis 2007 ) .
Statement of the Problem
In 2000, more than 3 million people lived in 1160 jhuggi bastis across town. They accounted for about a one-fourth of Delhi ‘s population. In the last 5-7 old ages, about half of them have been demolished and the same destiny awaits the remainder. A bulk of those evicted have non been resettled. Even among the people entitled to resettlement there are many who have gotten nil. The authorities claims it has no more land to give and yet destructions continue.
What is apparent is that the effectual policies for slums are missing. Resettlement, which can be defined as the physical resettlement of slum inhabitants to some other topographic point, more frequently than non does non go on. Where it does take topographic point, the comfortss and installations they are supposed to supply are losing, therefore rendering the conditions of those displaced even worse. Rehabilitation, which is the complete re-building of every individual ‘s life and support. On both counts consecutive authoritiess have failed to present. Slums and slum inhabitants are now seen as a nuisance and an eyesore something that needs to be removed as it does non suit into the construct of this ‘new ‘ metropolis that is being envisioned. Peoples are being evicted and their places are being demolished pitilessly and no feasible option has been provided. These people merely stand to lose their places, their work and their supports.