Thesis resisting exclusions

RESISTING EXCLUSIONS

ORGANIZING AGAINST DISPLACEMENT IN RAPIDLY URBANIZING DELHI Sruti Penumetsa

Resisting Exclusions 1 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

2

RESISTING EXCLUSIONS

ORGANIZING AGAINST DISPLACEMENT IN RAPIDLY URBANIZING DELHI

SRUTI PENUMETSA MASTERS THESIS: MAY 2017 Msc Design and Urban Ecologies Parsons School for Design, The New School Thesis Advisors: Miguel Robles Duran, Associate Professor of Urbanism William. R. Morrish, Professor of Urban Ecologies

Resisting Exclusions 3 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

4

CONTENTS

Acknowledgments Abbreviations + Terminology

PART I 1.

Introduction- The Crisis of Internal Displacement in Delhi

8

2.

Context of Delhi Spatial geography of Delhi Spatial-Political governance of the city consequences of the governance system

12

3.

Failures of the governance system Influence of various actors on the process of displacement Shift in policy Intersection and Interplay of actors in the Governance System

19

2.1 2.2 2.3

3.1 3.2 3.3

PART II 4.

4.1 4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.2

Identifying the space for intervention Identifying the role of NGOs as actors of the governance system Contradictions in existing forms of mobilization Influence of other actors in the governing system Other factors impairing the mobilization structure Theorizing the urban governance perpetuating displacementA shift from ‘Managerial urbanism to Entrepreneurial Urbanism’

5.

30

[Re]framing social mobilization 5.1 Aim and parameters of the strategy 5.1.1 Samoohik Aayojan: The construct of the manual 5.1.2 Strategizing distribution 5.3 Intended Outcomes

42

6.

Conclusion

50

7.

Bibliography Resisting Exclusions 5 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I would like to express my undue gratitude to my advisors, Miguel Robles Duran and William Morrish for their time and effort, which has been invaluable throughout the progression of my work. I would also like to thank Miodrag Mitrasinovic, Mindy Fullilove and Achilles Kallergis for letting me explore and research my thesis topic in their courses. Their guidance and feedback was valuable and helped me explore different perspectives.

My research in Delhi was a challenging process which could not have been accomplished without the support of various individuals and organizations. I would like to thank Dr. Renu Khosla for being extremely responsive through out my journey in Delhi, connecting me to various other individuals and for helping me understand the complexity of the situation in the city; InduPrakash Singh for broadening my perspective on displacement by exposing the context of homelessness in Delhi; Dunnu Roy for illuminating the agendas driving the political governance of the jhuggi jhopris; Hitesh Vaidya for providing an insight into the present and future agendas of the Delhi government to manage the slums within the city and Ajay Suri and Paromita Datta Dey for providing me with the necessary information to deepen my research. I would also like to acknowledge Sheela Patel who connected me with Dr. Renu Khosla without whose help my conversations in Delhi would not have been possible. Owing to the lack of an extensive body of work on internal displacement in Delhi, the research analysis of my thesis has been inspired by the project ‘Cities of Delhi’ by Centre for Policy Research.

I would also like to acknowledge and thank my colleagues Heming Zhang, Jakob Winkler, Isabel Saffon, Michaela Krammer, Paul Kardous, Priya Pinjani and Ruchika Lodha for continually providing support, encouragement and feedback in this process. Finally, I want to acknowledge my family, parents and my partner Shashank for continually encouraging me and supporting my endeavors.

6

ABBREVIATIONS + TERMINOLOGY

J.J.C DDA DUSIB MCD GNCTD SDA INR RAY NSDP JNURM Slum-Free City Entreprenurial Urbanism

Welfare Urbanism

Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters Delhi Development Authority Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board Municipal Corporation of Delhi Government of National Capital Territory of India Slum Designated Area Indian Rupee (currency), (1USD=64 INR) Rajiv Awas Yojana ; Federal policy aimed at slum improvement National Slum Development Program; Federal policy aimed at slum improvemnt Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Mission; Federal policy aimed at slum improvement A scheme embedded under the Rajv Awas Yojana (RAY)policy by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation to pursue government’s vision of creating a Slum-free India. “the new urban entrepreneurialism typically rests, then, on a public-private partnership focusing on investment ad economic development with the speculative construction of place rather than amelioration of condition within a particular territory as its immediate political and economic goal”.

- David Harvey “where welfare is dead, but is kept alive strategically for promotion of an equitable public sphere”.

- Ipshita Chattarjee

Resisting Exclusions 7 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

1

INTRODUCTION

India is a developing nation, where the markers of progressive growth are defined by technological advancements and an inexorable growth in infrastructure. While development is substantially increasing, the Indian government is conveniently ignoring a more dynamic process that is redefining the ‘urban’ of India. Internal displacement caused due to development has uprooted millions of Indians from their land, homes, culture and neighborhoods.

The most adversely affected in this process are the marginalized communities in the rural counterparts.

The displaced are further exploited with no compensation provided or are put into resettlement camps with minimum facilities to survive. India does not have a National Resettlement Policy; displaced people are only entitled to meager cash compensation.

The poorest of them, Dalits and Adivasis, who are either landless or have no formal title to their lands, but whose livelihoods depend entirely on agriculture get nothing (Llama).

Slum settlements are inextricably linked with migration and displacement, as labor demand in cities in increase, the resulting migration creates greater pressures to accommodate more people. “In 2011, 68 million Indians lived in slums, comprising one-quarter of the population of India’s 19 cities with more than 1 million residents1”. Across the country, the experiences of slum dwellers are characterized by sudden evictions without adequate rehabilitation and local governments that do not provide low-cost housing for the urban poor(Abbas,Varma, 2014.).

Once, again people are forced to move to another slum or settle down in the resettlement colonies.

Slum dwellers who are migrants sometimes face the added challenge of establishing tenure, the right to remain on a particular piece of urban land, and the right to compensation if the dwelling on that land is seized by the government for redevelopment.

1 Divya Varma, Internal Migration in India Raises Integration Challenges for Migrants 8

These patterns of spatial exclusions are most deeply manifested in Delhi, the capital city of India. As a capital city although Delhi has enjoyed many advantages, it is a deeply divided city marked by extreme forms of social exclusion. Across the city, the experiences of slum dwellers are characterized by sudden evictions without adequate rehabilitation and local governments that do not provide low-cost housing for the urban poor. In this course of multiple displacements within an overpowering political system NGOs and civil society organizations play a very important role in advocating for the rights of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters. The city today is dotted with 675 squatter settlements (known as Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters) who often fall prey to unwarranted displacement. With the onset of the smart city initiatives and India’s growing need to achieve the ‘world class image’ it is all the more necessary to research, understand and analyze the contemporary patterns of spatial exclusion in India’s capital city.

My research aims to analyze the forces of internal displacement in Delhi to identify the political and socio-spatial parameters that defy the Jhuggi Jhopris ‘right to the city’ and to identify the role of NGOs and CSOs in advocating for their rights. My thesis builds on identified gaps of existing structures of mobilization.

PART I

UNDERSTANDING THE EMBEDDED CONTEXT

Resisting Exclusions 9 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

image of delhi

10

image of delhi

Resisting Exclusions 11 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

2

CONTEXT OF DELHI

2.1 Spatial-geography of Delhi

History: “Since independence, the government has assumed a dominant role in the process of development leading to the impoverishment of a large section of the population1”. Displacement in India assumed alarming proportions under the British rule and further intensified after independence because of planned development. Basic to displacement is the land acquisition act, 1894, that was implemented by the British government to maximize their gains from countries under their rule (Saurabh, n.d.).

“Contemporary patterns of spatial exclusion in India’s capital city are rooted in how the city has been planned in the post-Independence period2”.

This perception is rooted in the planning of the city beginning from the first master plan of the city (Bhan, 2013). The city is famously known as the walled city, due to the presence of a 3.6km wide green belt that was designed, so as to divert population influx into the neighboring states of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh (Mehra, 2008). It was a way of protecting the city from the influx of rural migrants and populating the city lands with slums. The land zoning perpetuates categorization of settlements around which squatter settlements are built as in the case of the Yamuna river bank. The river bank was deemed unfit for any development and hence became the center of squatter settlements. These settlements were however evicted eventually as the city sought to expand to create a global image. The Yamuna Pushta demolitions were part of a city-wide campaign of clearing squatter settlements that, between the years 2000 and 2004, displaced an estimated 8,00,000 people from the capital (Mehra, 2008). A very small percentage of the displaced were resettled and those who were “not eligible” to be resettled were simply rendered homeless. c3”. The only megacity of Northern India and in close proximity to 4 major states (Haryana, Punjab, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh) is a 1 Smriti Saurabh, Development and Displacement in India A Historical Perspective 2 Patrick Heller, The Exclusion Field: Politics Institutions and Inequality in Indian City,(2015) Pg 9 3 Ayona Datta, The Myth of Resettlement(2013).

12 context of Delhi

city of migrants. “From a population of just under 700,000 in 1941, the city doubled in size as it absorbed half a million refugees from the partitioning of India in 1947. By 2011 its population had grown to 18 million and was projected to reach 23 million by 2021 4” (Heller, 2105).

Current Context: There is arguably no city in India better equipped to manage a growing population.

Delhi is the richest city and state in the Union, and as the capital city, has long enjoyed a disproportionate share of Centre funds. It enjoys by far the highest level of modern infrastructure of any Indian city.

“Delhi has the highest Human Development index of any state, and at 0.75 is well above the national average of 0.467 (Planning Commission, 2013:310).

Located in the middle of a flat agrarian region with no natural barriers to expansion, Delhi has accommodated population growth through sprawl and is the least densely populated mega city of India5” (Heller, 2105).

Compared to other Indian mega cities, Delhi is more dominated by the central governance system of India rather than its state government or the local government. “Indian cities generally enjoy limited local autonomy and authority and share governance functions with their (Provincial) States as well as the Centre6”. Since 1992, the city of Delhi has been virtually co-terminus with the state of Delhi (officially the Government of the National Capital Territory of Delhi) meaning that State and the City has the same political constituency. “Whereas other mega cities such as Mumbai and Calcutta have been governed by regional parties, Delhi has been alternatively governed by the Congress and the BJP, the country’s only two national parties. Delhi has also been largely spared the nativist politics and 4 Patrick Heller, The Exclusion Field: Politics Institutions and Inequality in Indian City,(2015) 5 Patrick Heller, The Exclusion Field: Politics Institutions and Inequality in Indian City,(2015) 6 Patrick Heller, Binding the State: State Capacity and Civil society in India (2011)

Shahjahanabad The city of Indra 17th-19th Century 16th century

communal tensions that are common in most Indian cities (Heller, 2105)7”.

“Yet despite these advantages, good resources, a mostly middle class white collar base and a fairly stable political and social equation ,Delhi is a deeply divided city marked by extreme forms of social exclusion 8”.

Sub City development Yammuna Development South Delhi New Delhi

City of Indraprashtha

1950s

1929

Mughal of Johadhs

Riverbank slum

1990-2000’s

1960s

Asian games village

Figure 1: Historial events that perpetuated large scale displacement

7 Patrick Heller, The Exclusion Field: Politics Institutions and Inequality in Indian City,(2015) 8 Patrick Heller, The Exclusion Field: Politics Institutions and Inequality in Indian City,(2015)

2010

Commonwealth games

large scale demolitions

Dhobi Ghat

Resisting Exclusions 13 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

2

CONTEXT OF DELHI

2.2 Spatial-political governance of Delhi

Being the capital city, a state within itself and a Union Territory, Delhi sits at the complex intersection of local, state and national governments. While the state, is managed by the assembly constituency representatives, the central government also has a dominating governance over the city, and at the local level, the city is divided and managed by Municipal Corporation Of Delhi (Mandelkern, 2014). This complexity in terms of governance is mirrored onto the urban landscape of Delhi, throwing the city’s population into a confusion over their divided landscape with a multitude of representative governments, who often don’t comply with each other, creating a further divide in the governance system. This complexity directly speaks to the deep layers of social exclusions manifested within the capital city.

“By the government of Delhi’s own classification system, only 23.7% of Delhi’s population live in what are designated as “Planned Colonies” (Delhi Economic Survey 2008-2009)9”.

The balance of Delhi’s population resides in what are either entirely illegal settlements or areas that were never authorized for development and as such never properly planned. “The absence of planning means not only that the physical space of the settlement was not laid out in accordance with basic building codes or public space requirements; including road and access grids but that the settlement is not integrated into the city’s bulk infrastructure delivery system (Partha Mukhopadhyay, 2015)10”. Due to the lack of adequate affordable land for housing to different categories of residents along with a continuous flow of migrants, Delhi is marked by eight different kinds of settlement types, with distinctive features with respect to civic amenities and type of house and land (Cities of Delhi, 2015). The following are the different categorizations of settlement types.

Planned colonies also referred to as ‘approved 9 Cities of Delhi. (2015). Categorization of Settlements in Delhi 10 Partha Mukhopadhyay, Exclusion, Informality, and Predation (2015), The Cities of Delhi.

14 context of Delhi

colonies’ sit on land demarcated as “development area” in the master plan of Delhi. Housing units in these colonies comply with planning norms and are fully serviced with infrastructure.

1) Slum Designated Areas (SDA’s) represent the only settlements in Delhi that are technically ‘slums’. In order to be considered an SDA, a settlement must be notified under the 1956 Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act. Once notified, an SDA is guaranteed basic services and its residents are entitled to due procedure and notice prior to eviction. No settlement in Delhi has been identified as an SDA since 1994 (Cities of Delhi, 2015).

2) Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters (JJC’s) are non-notified slums are categorized as jhuggi jhopri clusters. These squatter settlements are located on government owned land and hence are often referred to as “encroachments” in public discourse. An estimated 685 JJC clusters exist in Delhi. Of all the settlement types residents of JJC’s have least secure tenure and are the most vulnerable to demolitions and evictions (Cities of Delhi, 2015).

3) JJ Resettlement colonies: At the time of their eviction from a JJC, those found eligible are allotted plots in settlements categorized as JJ Resettlement Colonies. The policy that established these resettlement colonies was designed to impose a measure of planning, providing basic services and shaping settlements in contrast to the JJCs they replace. On the contrary, these colonies remain outside the ambit of “planned colonies”(Cities of Delhi, 2015).

4) Unauthorized colonies are built in contravention of zoning regulations, developed either in violation of Delhi’s Master Plans The two distinguishing features of unauthorized colonies are; these areas have been ‘illegally’ subdivided into plots, and the buyers of plots in these settlements posses documents, that prove some form of tenure, which may be characterized as ‘semi-legal’. In recent years, the government has introduced a policy framework for regularization of these colonies (Cities of Delhi,

2015).

5) Regularized Unauthorized colonies : regularization should bring the unauthorized colonies into the ambit of the ‘planned’ city. This has not been the case: they continue to be referred to, even many years after regularization as “regularized-unauthorized colonies”, remaining squarely within taxonomy of ‘unplanned’ settlement. Various documents of the city count 567 regularized unauthorized colonies (Cities of Delhi, 2015) 6) Rural Villages are located mostly on Delhi’s periphery in areas that continue to be classified as “rural” by the Master Plan of Delhi. They are typically characterized by agricultural activity. The term “Lal Dora” (red thread) finds repeated mention in policy documents related to villages in Delhi. with a red thread; these boundaries were reflected in red ink on village maps. Unlike the agricultural land outside of these boundaries, parcels of land included within the “Lal Dora” line are not assessed for land revenue. Ownership of “Lal Dora” land is only by way of possession and is not recorded in land revenue records. The authority for certifying the boundary of the village “abadi” is the Revenue Department of Delhi (Cities of Delhi, 2015).

7) Urban Villages : From time to time, rural villages are notified by the Delhi municipal corporation, shifting the settlements into the urban ambit and designating them as “urban villages”, also sometimes referred to as “urbanized villages” in policy documents. Upon declaration as “urban”, the “Lal Dora” area in a village ceases to exist and the provisions of the Master Plan, Zonal Plan, or relevant Area Development Plan and Building By laws become applicable (Cities of Delhi, 2015).

Spatial exclusion in Delhi is not a product of failed planning, but of planning itself. The practice begins at the highest level of state development and is driven by the city’s most powerful agency, the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) (Cities of Delhi, 2015). After India gained Independence in 1947,

there was an influx of migrants into Delhi from the neighboring states in search for jobs, which gave rise to squatter settlements. To control the influx of the population a bureaucratic top down approach institution was established which is the DDA and the first master plan was devised which aimed at making Delhi a ‘Slum-Free city11’, resulting in large scale evictions and demolitions of settlements. The aim for development resulted in large scale land acquisitions which did not lead to any development.

This resulted in a large surplus of vacant lands which were encroached by informal settlements once again.

During this period the infamous ‘state of emergency’ was declared in India due to political unrest. After the formation of the new government in 1977, the government authorized DDA to develop a new master plan for Delhi (Mandelkern, 2014). However, there was a long delay in the drafting of the plan which led to major housing crisis. This was the biggest failure of the Delhi development authority. After the second master plan was drafted, the emphasis on private public partnerships created new opportunities for wealth generation and capital investment furthering the social exclusion process by demolishing unplanned settlements.

11 A scheme embedded under the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) policy by Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation to pursue government’s vision of creating a Slum-free India Resisting Exclusions 15 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

Figure 2: Categories of unplanned settlement

SLUM DESIGNATED AREA

14.78% (20.72 lakhs)

UNAUTHORIZED COLONIES

RURAL VILLAGES

5.3%(7.4 lakhs)

16 context of Delhi

12.7% (17.76 lakhs)

REGULARIZED UNAUTHORIZED COLONIES

5.3%(7.4 lakhs)

JHUGGI JHOPRI CLUSTERS

RESETTLEMENT COLONIES

URBAN VILLAGES

19.1%(26.64 lakhs)

6.4%(8.8 lakhs)

2

CONTEXT OF DELHI

2.3 Spatial-political governance of Delhi

The modern city of Delhi, systematically excludes The modern city of Delhi, systematically excludes most of its residents. “Over the decades it has systematically excluded the majority of its citizens from inclusion in the planned city . It has done so through its actions giving clear preferential treatment to the higher income groups and all but shunning the lower classes but also through its own stated objectives 12”. In recent decades, it has become far more committed to profiting of land than planning for an inclusive city.

When JJC residents are evicted, current policy mandates that arrangements be made for their resettlement at another location. This process in which residents are relocated and in some cases allotted land or a flat designated for the ‘economically weaker sections’ (EWS) is known, broadly, as rehabilitation. It is not an automatic process, and it is governed by complex regulations that mean not all evicted residents are ultimately ‘rehabilitated’. The government seeks resettlement as a blanket solution, but if anything this has only worsened the living conditions of the families that are evicted. It is worth noting that there exist 675 Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters in the city of Delhi today.

Historically, the narrative of labeling the slum dwellers by the institutional bodies as “illegal” corroborates them unfit for any compensation when evicted. This led to a number of supreme court trials with NGO’s were they were successful in making resettlement as a compulsion in return for eviction.

This led to a narrative of resettlement as ‘desired’ for squatter settlements (Datta, 2013). “This myth valorizes resettlement as a route to social justice in the absence of right to the city, while masking the real and everyday exclusions in the lives of those who are resettled13”. Resettlement is a highly segregated process based on cut off dates with 12 Patrick Heller, Partha Mukhopdhyay, Subhadra Banda and Shahana Sheikh, Exclusion, Informality and Predation in the Cities of Delhi (2015).

13 Ayona Datta, The Myth of Resettlement(2013).

respect to the year the family or individual moved into the squatter settlement. A JJC household’s eligibility for rehabilitation depends on being able to prove residency before a given date or ‘cut-off date’ (Mehra, 2008). The principle of a cut-off date of arrival in the slum cluster as an eligibility criterion for resettlement necessarily excluded a large number of “non-eligible” families, who found themselves on the streets, without any compensation or alternative arrangement. The first and most important casualty of ‘resettlement’, is loss of livelihood and income(Darshini Mahadevia). “They have to spend months pleading or struggling to get plots allotted and demarcated and basic amenities provided. Meanwhile they continue living under makeshift shelters made of plastic or thatch. The allotment of plots entails paying a bribe to local municipal officials. Even then corner plots and those on the main roads are never allotted to slum residents. Once the allotment is done slum dwellers are hounded by local MCD and DDA officials and land dealers to sell their plots to them at a nominal payment. Distancing resettlement colonies from the center of the city14”. These jobs typically fetch less money than the statutory minimum wages and depend crucially on the proximity of residence to the workplace (Mehra, 2008). “It takes years, if not decades, of sweat, toil and incremental investment to build spaces like the Yamuna Pushta, delicate linkages between security of work and security of residence, which ensures a general improvement in the life chances of a family (Mehra, 2008)15”.

“Eviction and resettlement brutally destroys this linkage16” . “The resettlement site is almost always on the far outskirts of the city surrounded by rural villages, fields, ‘yet-to-be-developed’ industrial areas and wastelands. Many of the settlements are 14 Divya Mehra, Lalit Batra. The Demolition of Slums and The Production of Neo liberal Space (2008) 15 Divya Mehra, Lalit Batra. The Demolition of Slums and The Production of Neo liberal Space (2008) 16 Darshini Mahadevia, Inside the Transforming Urban Asia: Processes, Policies, and Public Actions, Pg 410 Resisting Exclusions 17 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

established on inhospitable patches of land17” .

As Ayona Datta argues “Despite the fact that, the state ideology of resettlement has often pushed those in state provided ‘legal’ resettlement colonies back into informality in order to meet their basic needs, slum dwellers demand resettlement to be identified as urban citizens of Delhi18” . Resettlement is not an outcome that squatters link in any way to justice, rather they see it as a way in that their presence is acknowledged and this form of inclusion as an entitlement of an urban citizen within the legal city (Datta, 2013).

RESETTLEMENT (before 1990)

Source: Delhi.gov.in

RESETTLEMENT (after 1990)

Figure 3: Demolitions of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters and established JJ Resettlement Colonies

17 Divya Mehra, Lalit Batra. The Demolition of Slums and The Production of Neo liberal Space (2008) 18 Ayona Datta, The Myth of Resettlement(2013).

18 context of Delhi

3

FALIURES OF THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM

3.1 Influence of various actors on the process of displacement

This chapter enumerates the existing framework and organizational structure of the city’s governance system and its policies and the existing disparities with respect to resettlement.

As mentioned earlier, Delhi sits at the complex intersection of local, state and national governance systems. The planning of the city lies primarily with the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which was established by India’s central government institution in 1957. Today the authority owns about a quarter of Delhi’s land and is involved in almost every activity related to land, housing and infrastructure in the city.

The biggest drawback of the governance of DDA is the lack of provision of affordable housing for the inflowing migrant population at the right time, this gave rise to numerous squatter settlements. Till the 1990’s squatter settlements were found through out the capital, insinuating themselves into all the interstices of the urban fabric wherever there was vacant land and where surveillance by the legal authorities was limited (Dupont, 2008). Yet, although their inhabitants accounted for about a quarter of the urban population, they occupied less than 6% of the urban land, essentially public land and most of it owned by the DDA from the monopoly of the DDA from the monopoly of DDA on land acquisition since the sixties (Mandelkern, 2014). Since, the 1990’s, the implementation of urban projects, especially infrastructure expansion and urban renewal projects in the ideals of globalizing cities. The state officials and the politicians were driven to promote Delhi as a ‘Slum-Free City’ and encouraging an efficient land market by converting “under-utilized” public land occupied by slum dwellers into exploitable private property” (Mandelkern, 2014). This resulted in the demolitions of poor or unauthorized settlements and forced evictions, which increased the number of homeless people.

Figure 4 illustrates the three levels of the governance systems at the national, state and the local level, with their overlaps and disconnects. The most dominating governance system in Delhi is the state,

which mainly comprises of the Delhi Development authority, the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, and the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board. To respond to the crisis of the immigrants, the new government of India convened a committee to review the Delhi Improvement Shelter Trust, the agency charged with maintaining and developing the city. Consequently the Delhi Development Authority was established and was mandated to ‘promote and secure the development of Delhi in accordance with the master plan’. The underlying principle of the bill was that the initiative for town planning would be derived from the top, rather than be allowed to emerge from the bottom. The first master plan was approved in assistance with the ford foundation and 62,000 acres of land was acquired and construction began (Mandelkern, 2014). The ownership of land by government makes planning and the implementation of the plan easier and is imperative if slum clearance, redevelopment, subsidized housing and provision of community facilities according to accepted standards have to be undertaken as they must be in Delhi in a determined way. Despite the clear mandate to remove slums, the practical means to do so, were limited(Ghertner 2011) .

Figure 4: Hierarchies of political governance in Delhi

Resisting Exclusions 19 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

Controls the settlements on the city land

Provides land for residential development

Controls the city land drafts the master plan Auctions of land to private developers

Provides services to the settlements

Figure 5: Governing agencies perpetuating displacement and engaging in resettlement

20 Faliures of the governance system

oversees the resettlement process

The slum and JJ department was consequently set up as a part of the municipal council of Delhi and after the establishment of JJ department the residents of Delhi’s JJCs have experienced at least three waves of eviction and resettlement. The DDA wanted to develop 30,000 acres of land for residential use but only developed 13,412 which favored the elite (Mandelkern, 2014). Through the 1990s a number of programs were implemented to upgrade or relocate slums, but slum population in this period nearly doubled (Mandelkern, 2014). The state agencies upon whose lands the slum was situated, were the authoritative bodies for deciding the removal of the slum. “The respective land owning authority is charged with notifying the slum residents, surveying the households to determine resettlement eligibility, collecting fees from those offered resettlement, purchasing and/ or allocating the necessary land for establishing a resettlement colony and co coordinating the resettlement process with the Slum Wing of the Municipal corporation”19. These surveys were mandatory for slum eviction/ demolition, which incentivized tampering with records. Further, the cost of obtaining and preparing land for resettlement colonies escalated, creating a strong disincentive for land owning agencies to remove slums in the first place. Moreover, the ambiguity with respect to the land owning agency charged slum eviction as a complex political issue. In 1994, After the second master plan was developed a series of new central government policies reduced public sector control on land and housing sector and the era of the public private partnerships began and the tenure policies were reformed shifting from leasehold to freehold ownership of houses, alongside India’s economic liberalization (Partha Mukhopadhyay, 2015).

Also, the shift towards privatization, increased the imperative to demolish unplanned settlements. In the late 1990s, the courts had increasingly begun to take notice of the Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters and in 2002 19Ghertner, D. A., Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi (2011).

observed that the spread of these settlements was beyond their control. In response to the increased Public Interest Litigations filed by Resident Welfare Organizations, the courts began intervening in the slum matters and rebuked the DDA and other land owning agencies for failing to address the “illegal encroachments” situation (Ghertner, 2011). “When the courts pushed these agencies to handle the matter, they found themselves amidst messy ground realities and incomplete surveys and were unable to assess the size of the problem. This put the court in a strange position of being prepared to order a slum demolition but confused with the ambiguity of land ownership. Moreover, if the court had to remove all the unauthorized colonies most of Delhi would have to be razed including those developments central to Delhi’s ‘worlding image’ (Ghertner, 2011)20”. “The planning narrative of the city is such that although a commercial center is constructed on a land against its land use it is ultimately notified as a planned structure or legal structure owing to its ‘planning corroborated by architects or planners’21”. Thus strict enforcement of the master plan which was avoided for over fifty years was not implemented would lead to a ‘Slum Free-City’ . “Recognizing this aspect, the local governing agencies mandated that the slums cannot be controlled under existing laws and succesfully reconfigured law to evict slums, in order to achieve a word class future22”. This led to a scenario were slums were identified solely based on their appearance without any data and were identified as illegal or encroachments, which led to their demolition (Ghertner, 2011).

“As DDA sought to auction properties ‘encroachments’ stood in the way. Now the DDAs massive land resources not only had a use value 20 Ghertner, D. A., Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi (2011).

21 Ghertner, D. A., Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi (2011).

22 Ghertner, D. A., Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi (2011).

Resisting Exclusions 21 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

but an exchange value. So, to protect the land from encroachments DDA established a ‘working system for land protection’. The labeling of settlements as ‘encroachments’ was an imperative for the master plan to not accommodate the slum dwellers. The ‘encroachments’ were identified as nuisance and their eviction was based on three criteria; i) Their appearance as illegal visually ii) they occupied public land iii) a nuisance23”.

Evidently, this is most commonly done by presenting in the court photographs that show the slums “dirty” look and poor environmental conditions: open defecation, overcrowded living conditions, children playing and taking over the street, stagnant water etc (Ghertner, 2011). While the DUSIB maintains formal authority over some categories of Delhi’s unplanned settlements, the DDA continues to collect its own information and move forward with its own information and move forward with its own operations in those settlements located on DDA land.

Residents in many of these settlements continue to experience daily vulnerability (Banda, 2014).

Alongside, the state governance systems, the national governing bodies play a major role in mandating regulations and forming organizations to regulate the city at the state level. On the contrary the local governing agencies often seem to loose power or are subjugated to the state and national organizations.

Ford foundation has played a significant role in the implementation and drafting of the master plan of the city, which was developed by the Delhi Development Authority. (DDA). The plan that was drafted by DDA was not approved by the Ministry of Urban Development of India until the end of the decade due to conflicts between the proposed master plan and the regional plan being developed by the national capital regional planning board (Banda, 2014). The effect of this was evident in the lack of required Economically Weaker Section housing, which led to a rise in squatter settlements and consequently homelessness (Banda, 23Ghertner, D. A., Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi (2011).

22 Faliures of the governance system

2014). The NGO’s play a significant role in repressing policies and law in favor of private partnerships in the supreme court (Datta, 2013). The organizations also play a significant role on the field in providing and helping with basic services for the residents of resettlement colonies and as intermediaries between the governing agencies and the residents of the JJCs and resettlement colonies.

The desire to create a global image of the city led the state officials to promote a land market that converts “under utilized(land occupied by slums)” public land occupied by slum dwellers into commercially exploitable private property (Ghertner, 2011).

Private Sector: The public private partnerships influence the government to function in a more entrepreneurial manner. This leads to a development that is aesthetic driven over functional infrastructure, cleanliness over livability and a ‘world class’ veneer over inclusion. The Delhi Development Authority has been launching of rehabilitation and construction of dwelling units through public-private partnerships. These projects further manifest social polarization, as they upgrade the socioeconomic development objectives, favoring the ‘elite.

‘Government interventions, in such projects enhance the production process as they tend to restructure the relegating norms in order to favor the private entities; “public sector running cities in a business like manner 24” (Moulaert, 2002). The neo-liberal market favors state capitalization, consolidating the socio spatial fabric and accentuating the determinants of the mechanisms of inclusion/exclusion spatially.

The court of Justice is an independent judiciary system and has emerged as a prime actor in the urban governance, especially through the Public Interest Litigation(PIL). In many cases, especially in the 2000s, the intervention of the courts in Delhi was 24 Eric Swyngedouw, Frank Moulaert, Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large-scale Urban Development Projects and Urban Policy (2002).

a response to petitioners representing the interests of industrialists or resident welfare associations, more generally of upper and middle-income groups, who put forward environmental and sanitation considerations, or the “nuisance” factor, through PIL and asked for the removal of neighboring slums (Braathen, 2013). When the court during this time, labeled slum dwellers as illegal or pick pockets an emergent social activism by NGO’s argued for resettlement in defense for the slum dwellers.

Non Governmental Organizations (NGO’s): NGO’s occupy a prime role in the urban governance system.

They form the meso-space in the urban governance system. Policies such as the Bhagidari and the sanjha prayas program have been attempted to involve the NGO’s as the dominant paradigm in the stake holder system. The program “Mission Convergence”, launched in 2008 to reach the most deprived sections of the society, relies on “public-private-community partnership” with the active involvement of NGOs .

Other recent attempts aimed at enhancing NGOs and community participation in slums and resettlement colonies, such as the Sanjha Prayas program, working with poor communities (under Bhagidari), or pilot projects of socio-economic survey and insitu upgrading in slum pockets (under DUSIB), were discontinued after a couple of years (Braathen, 2013).

In fact, many of the schemes launched over the last two decades suffered from a lack of sustainability.

Some activists have interpreted that the launch of these programs could have been strategized by the government as a part of the policy, with the expected effect of silencing the NGOs (Braathen, 2013).

Resisting Exclusions 23 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

24 Faliures of the governance system

Delhi Police Department

Ford Foundation

Indian Central Government

SPATIAL GOVERNANCE

Since the late 1980’s, urban and housing policies in India, including more recent national programs, evidenced a major shift in the role of the state. After Independence the proliferation of settlements was Delhi Cantonment Board

Delhi Development Authority(DDA)

National Institute of Urban Affairs(NIUF)

Delhi State Government (AAP)

Delhi Water and Sewage Disposal

Delhi Jal Board

New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi Railway Department

Re-Urban Mission

Government of National Capital Territory of India

Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board (DUSIB)

Delhi Development Authority(DDA)

National Capital Regional Planning Board

Indian Central Government (BJP)

The Supreme Court

The High Court

POLITICAL GOVERNANCE

MInistry of Urban Development

RESOURCE DISTRIBUTION

NGOs

DUSIB

SOCIAL INTERVENTION

CENTRAL

STATE

Resident Welfare Associations

Resident Welfare Associations

Figure 6: Actors and Organizations in the governing system of Delhi and their area of interventions

Private Developers

Private Developers

Slum and Jhuggi Jhopri Department

South Delhi Municipal corporation

North Delhi Municipal corporation

West Delhi Municipal corporation

East Delhi Municipal corporation

Municipal corporation of Delhi

New Delhi Municipal Council

Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board (DUSIB)

NGOs

Policy Think Tanks

DUSIB

LOCAL

Resisting Exclusions 25 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

3

FALIURES OF THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM

3.2 Shift in policy

considered a hindrance to the image of the city. In lieu, of the situation the Slum Areas Act of 1956 was employed to implement measures for improving the old housing stock and demolition of buildings in a dilapidated condition in the settlement. Although, It was conceived to improve the existing conditions of the settlements, the Act was appropriated by private entities and government private partnerships as a license for demolition and eviction. The Slum Areas Act also introduced a distinction between the notified and non-notified slums, likely to generate a new line of exclusion for the provision of basic services. These broad distinctions have in fact guided if not leveraged much of the policy intervention within the country and especially Delhi. The three major policies that seeked precedence since then are the National Slum Development Program (NSDP) , Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNURM) and the Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY).

National Slum Development Program (NSDP): The National Slum Development Program is a centrally planned scheme which focuses on up gradation and improvement of urban slums through provision of infrastructure. The policy mandates that states can adopt their own up gradation policy and does not provide a framework for the process. This policy has not witnessed much success as it is applicable only to notified slums. In India, specifically in Delhi the majority of the slums are non-notified and hence are not bracketed under the ‘legal’ category for slum upgradation Jawaharlal Nehru Urban Renewal Mission (JNURM): The formulation of this policy was very broad with an intention to cover a lot of the slum issues under its umbrella. The two of its main components are the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP), under all states would be designated funding for provision of basic services for slum settlements and the Integrated Housing and Development Program(IHDP) which aims at integrated development of slums through projects for providing shelters, basic services and other related 26 Faliures of the governance system

civic amenities(Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation). Although the policy was to expire in 2011, it was further extended to 2012 and subsequently to 2015.

Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY): The aim of the Rajiv Awas Yojana policy is to bring all non-notified slums under the formal system to avail them with services and infrastructure. The local slum improvement policies in Delhi have been extracted from Rajiv Awas Yojana and are integrated in the agendas of the local governing agencies as in-situ and relocation broadly. The center for policy research identifies four different policies under the classifications of in-situ and relocation that have been widely adopted by the government of Delhi in order to manage the presence of slums (known as Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters); Relocation, In-Situ rehabilitation, In-situ up gradation, Environmental improvement. Each of these policies effect the dwellers of Jhuggi Jhopri clusters (JJCs) to a different scale with respect to evictions. Amongst these policies in-situ up gradation is the policy with the least impact in terms of evictions (Banda 2014). However statistics show that since 1990 only four JJCs have been upgraded in-situ, while 217JJCs have been relocated in the same time period (Banda 2014). Research on field identifies the failure to adopt the policy is attributed to the challenges that surround its implementation (Banda 2104). While the research on all of these policies seems sparse in terms of resources, there exists extensive study on the resettlement policy and implementation in Delhi. The reason can be attributed to the fact that relocation/resettlement as a policy is widely adopted as a blanket solution in Delhi despite all of its drawbacks.

Resettlement schemes are aimed at the Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters (JJC’s) for relocating the displaced families when the land on which their settlement exists is demolished for ‘public projects’. The displaced families are theoretically provided with basic infrastructure where they have to build their own

dwelling. Relocation to resettlement colonies at the peripheries of the cities without any housing was a strategy of the Delhi government to deal with squatter settlements. Moreover, the resettlement required a contribution of INR750025 and the plot sizes are in between 18sq m – 12.5sq m; and allocation of the plot depends on the cut off date of arrival into the settlement. Resettlement most often entails relocation in remote peripheral zones (Braathen, 2013) . The long distances between the new sites and the previous ones negatively affect the access to employment and social networks, and more generally access to the city resources and opportunities, while urban services and social facilities in the relocation sites remain deficient. Located in the middle of a flat agrarian region with no natural barriers to expansion the resettlement colonies have been further shifting out into the peripheries.

In Situ upgradation is the policy amongst three ‘insitu’ policies that entails minimum disruption to the lives of Jhuggi Jhopris, were in theory the residents are allowed to stay in the same place. The policy involves modifying the layout of the settlement and the level of basic services in a manner that is least disruptive to the residents (Banda 2014). As mentioned earlier since its conception in 1980, the policy has been implement to only four JJCs. In practice the process of in-situ improves the existing fabric in housing and the settlement layout in order to implement basic services infrastructures.

The process involves surveying to determine the eligibility, demolition of few JJCs while the residents are shifted to a nearby location and when the plots and lanes are cut the residents are given back plots on which they can build their houses and subsequently basic services are provided.

The government of Delhi states that this process of slum improvement is the most preferred method and relocation as an option will be adopted as the last solution. Although this is explicitly stated in 25 As of May 2017 ,1USD= 64.73 INR, A dweller in a sqautter settlement does not even 1Rs on few days

the agenda of the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Boards and GNCTD’s Annual Plan Document, on ground realities of slum improvement in Delhi are quite contrasting in nature. Centre for Policy Research identifies the reason behind this shift in the on ground implementation is due to the inherent complexity of the steps that precede the application of in-situ up gradation. Hence policy documents allow for sitespecific adjustments to the process; “The development norms/shelter norms may require to be altered site to site because any particular development site up gradation of slums is a very complex exercise and requires extensive innovation and on-site planning interventions where any standardized formulations cannot be strictly applied26” . Despite this flexibility in-situ upgradation does not have intended outcomes (Cities of Delhi 2015). Moreover in-situ upgradation can be successful in Delhi, considering the fact that most of the land on which Jhuggis reside is public owned land. The Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board had identified 180 JJCs for in-situ upgradation in early 1990s but the scheme was implemented only in four JJCs (Cities of Delhi 2015). Adding to the futility of these reforms is the approach taken for resettlement, which is presented as an ideal solution but in reality leaves millions of the displaced homeless.

26 Shahana Sheikh and Subhadra Banda, ‘In-situ Upgradation of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters: A Plan for Improvement without Relocation’. A report of the Cities of Delhi project, Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi (December 2014).

Resisting Exclusions 27 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

3

FALIURES OF THE GOVERNANCE SYSTEM

3.3 Intersection and interplay of actors within the governance system

Commodification and the creation of value: The context of globalization brings forth an urge on the part of civic governments to become ‘world class’ by emulating the cityscapes of the first world.

Most civic governments are increasingly becoming entrepreneurial and hence less re-distributive and democratic. Growing public-private partnerships were the public bears the risk and the private sector accumulates profit, and city versus city competition for capital has intensified social exclusions in the public sphere. There is always a rapid transfer of municipal budgets from social infrastructure towards beautification and slum eviction. The shifting visibility of river Yamuna in the social imagination of Delhi from being a neglected space to a prized real estate for private and public corporations resulted in the commodification of the river land (Mehra, 2008). This case is an exemplification of how civic governance systems function in an entrepreneurial manner and make way for increased participation of the private sector.

In 2004-2006, demolition of slums affected dramatically the embankments of the Yamuna river causing the eviction of more than 40,000 households, in connection with the redevelopment of the river front and the construction of the athlete’s village for 2010 commonwealth games (Mehra, 2008). A very small percentage of the displaced were resettled and those who were “not eligible” to be resettled were simply rendered homeless. “Some scattered to the city’s periphery, living on rent in squatter settlements on the margins of Delhi, forced to again live precariously in the interstices of the law and urban economy 27 (Datta, 2013)”.

Since the mid 2000’s private-public partnership has become a part of the urban development strategy, and is promoted by both the Delhi Development Authority and the Government of Delhi. In the case of the Yamuna river waterfront development, public private partnerships presided the planning process, privatizing the civic governance system.

27 Ayona Datta, The Myth of Resettlement(2013).

28 Faliures of the governance system

The NGO’s occupy a prime role in leading a strong social activism movement in the urban governance system of Delhi. However, the Indian governance system and its alleviated interest in public-private partnerships, consider NGO’s an opposition for the ‘development’ of the city. In this, pretext the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board has launched a number of schemes such as the Bhagidari, Sanjha Prayas and ‘public-private-community’ partnerships, which attempted a co-option process by the government, as a strategy to control the opposition groups and make the NGO’s do the work as part of the government policy, with the expected effect of silencing the NGO’s(Braathen, 2013).

Secondly, mobilizations carried by NGOs seldom are able to go beyond a certain stage, above all “because of their failure to locate the issues of discontent within the structural dynamics of society” and “the larger political context28” (Braathen, 2013). The preparation to host the 2010 Common Wealth Games provided a particular context where slum clearance for infrastructure works and “beautification” were prioritized, whereas the protests by slum dwellers were marginalized, if not de-legitimized, in the agenda of showcasing the capital city and building its image before the world29.

28 Veronique Dupont, Addressing Sub-Standard Settlements WP3 Settlement Fieldwork Report 29 Veronique Dupont, Addressing Sub-Standard Settlements WP3 Settlement Fieldwork Report

PART II

ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVE PROPOSAL [Re] FRAMING SOCIAL MOBILIZATION

Resisting Exclusions 29 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

4

IDENTIFYING THE SPACE FOR INTERVENTION

4.1 Analyzing the role of NGOs against internal displacement

This section attempts to analyze and understand the mobilization of NGOs in the broader context of social and political forces driving internal displacement. In this light, this section also explores the possibilities and limits of radical alternatives of social mobilization in the times of globalization. The primary adopted methodologies for this attempt are open interviews with individuals from various NGOs in Delhi with varied structures of mobilizations and observations through case studies of interventions

by NGOs in situations of large scale displacements through history. It is essential to realize that the work of NGOs is determined and impacted by various others actors in the governing system of Delhi and hence their mobilization against displacement cannot be analyzed in isolation. Hence my analysis of the work of NGOs is embedded within the overlapping systems of actors. The aim of the interviews were to identify the role of organizations in tackling the larger context of internal displacement and also to identify each individuals perceptions on displacement. The following individuals were interviewed in order to gain a holistic understanding of the situation.

Interviews: The analysis of the interviews aimed to surface a broad understanding of how different NGOs belonging to various forms of mobilization perceive displacement and how these perceptions define the values that determine their work and correspondingly their outcomes. The individuals identified for interviews were two sets of actors; individuals working within the governance system and the individuals mobilizing against the governing system of Delhi; by this I mean individuals within governing agencies and NGOs. Ajay Suri, National Institute for Urban Affairs: The National Institute for Urban Affairs in the sole government aided institution whose research contributes to the formulation of urban policies that aim for poverty alleviation, slum free city planning and other similar policies by the Government of India that directly affect the squatter settlements.

30 Identifying the space for intervention

Hitesh Vaidya, UN Habitat Delhi: UN Habitat headquartered at Delhi in India works with the district administration, the Municipal Council and NGOs primarily in the field of water ad sanitation and assists in policy formulations of slum free city planning.

Hitesh Vaidya advocates strongly for community engagement processes in order to formulate these policies, but he is currently struggling with embedding a more engaged and inclusive process of planning in the beauracratic political system of Delhi.

SK Mahajan, Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board (DUISB): The Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board run by the state government of Delhi is responsible for the resettlement process of the dwellers of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters and for service provision within resettlement colonies. Ideally the Delhi Development Authority run by the central government of Delhi and the Municipal corporation of Delhi run by the local government of ideally should work together to negotiate resettlement and avoid displacements. In reality, on the ground these three organizations do not work together which perpetuates unwarranted displacement and unaccountability to the citizens of Delhi.

Dr. Renu Khosla, Centre for Urban and Regional Excellence (CURE): CURE advocates for resettlement for the displaced and works for service provision within resettlement colonies and helps build resiliency of the resettled dwellers by assisting them in rebuilding their lives in the resettlement colonies.

CURE works closely with the state government of Delhi (GNTCD) during the process of resettlement and taps into their resources for funds in order to provide for services in resettlement colonies.

InduPrakash Singh, Action Aid: Action Aid advocates for the rights of the homeless in Delhi.

InduPrakash has been very successful in advocating for the provision of homeless shelters in Delhi and has recently managed to legalize the provision of homeless shelters in the forthcoming master plan of Delhi. He advocates for their rights by fight against the political governance of Delhi through the high

court of Delhi and supreme court of India.

Dunu Roy, Hazards Centre: Hazards Centre researches and provides alternative framework on issues of development policy, planning and practice.

They provide voice and express the opinions of the Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters to the larger public.

Observations : The observation outlines four specific cases I studied in order to observe the nature of intervention of NGOs and the influence of other actors in the governance system that determined their mobilization against displacement. The four cases that I highlight are Common Wealth games in 2010, the Yamuna Pushta demolitions, The resettlement in the case of Yamuna water front development and the case of Rajendra Nagar homelessness. The four cases varied in magnitude and involved the same perpetrators of displacement. The aim of analyzing these four cases was to identify the role of NGOs in advocating for the rights of JJCs and the forces influencing their mobilization and resistance against displacement.

Case1- Common Wealth Games 2010: The case of the Common Wealth Games manifests a context where slum clearance for beautification was prioritized as the agenda for hosting the games. In this context a number of NGOs organized against the evictions of the Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters and demanded for resettlement as an alternative for the displacement. The central and the state government in response adopted resettlement as the solution for slum clearance and provided relocation sites to the a percentage of the evicted families selected under certain criteria for an amount of 8000INR. The fair resettlement process demanded by the NGOs was co-opted as an exclusionary practice entailing more displacement.

Case2- Yamuna Pushtha demolitions: The banks of river Yamuna were originally designated as a flood plain and hence deemed unfit for any construction.

The banks housed a large number of squatter settlements that exponentially grew and densified as

migration into the city increased. During the Asian Games a huge number of migrants from neighboring states arrived to the city as construction workers and settled down in these squatter settlements. These huge squatter settlements were demolished in a drive that started in March 2004 commissioned by the Election Commission ahead of the Lok Sabha elections, to make space for ‘public infrastructure’.

Case3-The Yamuna Waterfront Development: In order to host the 2010 Common Wealth Games the city started investing millions of dollars in infrastructure that the country could not afford to spend. In 2007 an eight lane expressway was opened paving way for the construction of 2010 Common Wealth Games Village and the beautification drive of the Yamuna river bank. By October 2009 close to a million slum dwellers from three large scale slum clusters of Yamuna Pushta, Naglamanchi and Bhatti mines were displaced.

Case4- Rajendra Nagar homeless shelter: In 2000, the construction of a metro line disrupted the life of a community in Rajendra Nagar and their efforts to build a place for themselves in the city. The process of forced eviction shows how the slum dwellers were deprived from their entitlement to a relocation plot and rendered homeless. There was manipulation and fraudulent practices by property dealers, corrupted municipal officers and the police resorting to violence. The forced eviction of homeless people in winter ensued deaths due to cold.

The analysis of all the interviews and observations through historical context have been structured around the following three categories in order to find the gaps in the existing context and there after identify the space for intervention.

1) Gaps in existing forms of mobilization 2) Influence of other actors in the governing system 3) Other factors impairing the mobilization structure

Resisting Exclusions 31 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

Figure 7: Sabarmati Waterfront Development

Figure 8: Yamuna Pushta Demolitions

Figure 9: Resettlement Colonies after Common Wealth Games

Figure 10: Motia Khan night shelter after Rajendra Nagar homeless case

32 Identifying the space for intervention

4

IDENTIFYING THE SPACE FOR INTERVENTION

4.1.1 Contradictions in existing forms of mobilization

The current values of NGOs are segregated based on the perception that mobilization for slum dwellers and mobilization for the homeless is different. While one form of mobilization advocates for adequate resettlement, the other advocates for homeless shelters. Based on these structures of mobilization the fight against homelessness is characterized as ‘activism’ and the fight for resettlement is characterized as ‘development’. This surfaces major gap in the context, parallels and intersection of these two forms of mobilization. The gap I highlight is ‘that displacement is what generates the need for resettlement and those dwellers who do not get resettled are rendered homeless.’ Both resettlement and homelessness are attributed to the vicious cycle of displacement. Hence dealing with each of these issues in isolation has impaired the ability to deal with the crisis of internal displacement. The result of this structure is strong mobilization for resettlement with no resistance against internal displacement.

While resettlement as a process is segregated, the networks of NGOs in the city are also divided on the basis of these processes . The movement for claiming rights for slum dwellers lacks a strong combined action. The study of various events in the history of Delhi surfaced a pattern where the most successful cases of mobilization against displacement employed a framework where various actors within civil society groups and NGOs collectivized to campaign against the crisis. The cases of the Sabarmati waterfront development and the Rajendra Nagar homeless shelter are exemplifications of combined resistance against the root cause for both resettlement and homelessness. In the case of Sabarmati Waterfront development with the help of NGO’s and advocacy groups and support from the media and the legal system, the settlers on the banks of the river Sabarmati resisted and as the controversies deepened, there was an increased pressure to reformulate the vision of the project from slum removal and beautification to a more multi dimensional approach. After a lot of set

back the Sabarmati River Front Development was attempted to be visualized as project for the masses.

In the midst, of the growing controversy there was a need to replace “beautification” with “rejuvenation” with the clarification that the settlements on the river bank are included in the “rejuvenation”. NGO’s made every attempt to push back the project by building a discourse on “globalization” and “capitalism”.

The case of Rajendra Nagar in Delhi, to illustrate a successful mobilization campaign, that reached beyond the case of the demolition of a temporary night shelter and addressed larger issues of forced evictions of homeless people and a right to life for people dying in the street because of lack of shelter.

In 2000, the construction of a metro line disrupted the life of this community and their efforts to build a place for themselves in the city. The process of forced eviction shows how the slum dwellers were deprived from their entitlement to a relocation plot and rendered homeless. There was manipulation and fraudulent practices by property dealers corrupted municipal officers and the police resorting to violence. The forced eviction of homeless people in winter ensued deaths due to cold. This triggered a protest movement by several NGO’s and with the intervention of the Delhi High Court, the affected homeless people were resettled in the Motia Khan night shelter with the help of NGO’s and charitable organizations (Braathen 2013). A strong network of Civil Society Organizations (CSO’s) was materialized and a number of shelters were opened with their advocacy and the directions of the Delhi High Court.

As a result of strong mobilization the number of night shelters were unprecedented in Delhi. The success of this specific campaign boosted a larger movement for the homeless. For example, the various issues of urban homelessness were taken up at a national level through the organization of a “national city makers caravan30” that aimed at sensitizing the government authorities, the media, and the general public to those concerns. This brought a very significant 30 movement started by Action Aid

Resisting Exclusions 33 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

shift from ‘homeless people’ a descriptive term to ‘homeless citizens’ which stressed on the underlying rights and entitlements for being ‘legal citizens’ of the city (Braathen 2013). “The campaign ensured long term structural work at the grass root level and mobilization of various actors in different spheres and at different institutional levels”.

The idea of resettlement as a blanket solution was adopted by Delhi in early 2000s. During the ‘economic liberalization’ phase of India development was slowly creeping into the inner city, leading to large scale displacement of the Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters. During this period emergent social activism led by grassroots NGOs and slum organizations have organized in defense of slum communities, arguing that resettlement should be a mandatory provision if and when slums are demolished. The mobilization was favored by the civic governance system to an extent, but modified according to the ‘rules of privatization’, which de legitimized the work of NGO’s to a certain extent. Resettlement was carried out as a bureaucratic process with strict cut off dates for eligibility resulting in 30% of the evicted slum dwellers actually being resettled. Through previous research, having traced patterns of resettlement, it is quite evident that resettlement as a solution provided by the government is a failure. This solution is attributed to loss of lives, loss income and loss of employment owing to their locations far away from the city along the peripheries. Once the eligible slum dwellers are resettled, most of them move back into Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters to regain employment opportunities and are once again subjected to the vicious cycle of displacement. Defending slum communities from dispossession in favor of resettlement has led to the myth that slum dwellers prefer resettlement over their illegality. The failure to understand this discontent has employed a state of redundancy in mobilization by supporting resettlement. With respect to these gaps in resettlement, the NGOs are working towards and pushing for a failed urban policy. The adoption 34 Identifying the space for intervention

of resettlement as a solution has provided no space for pondering over alternative solutions to campaign against displacement.

An understanding shared amongst the individuals is the fact that Delhi has an over powering authoritative system and hence overturning the system or challenging the system is impractical.

This conception influences the mobilization structure of the NGOs and civil society organizations to a very large extent. The governance of Delhi as described earlier is deeply divided along the lines of local, state and central. This governance structure although is divided embodies an overpowering ideology in the country. This image further pushes away all other actors in the urban landscape of the city embedding a stark divide between the top down and bottom up systems. The persistence of this divided urban governance makes it difficult for the NGOs to situate themselves in the political context.

SOCIAL

Access to resettlement sites Planning and execution of Sanitation systems Planning and co-building hutments in resettlement sites

SOCIAL POLITICAL

SPATIAL

Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters Demolitions/Evictions

DISPLACEMENT

GAP faliure t o locate t he issue within t he structural dynamics of the system

self organization of pavement dwellers Access to homeless shelters Access to basic services

Legal provisions for homeless shelter in master plan Advocating for shelters

HOMELESS ECONOMIC

Access to bank loans Funding for basic services and infrastructure Government funds for acquiring resetllement sites

ECONOMIC

RESETTLEMENT

SPATIAL

Policy Advocacy Defending Slum Communities Camapaigning for resettlement sites

POLITICAL

Self Organization of Jhuggi Jhopri clusters Strengthening self sustenance Basic Education Access to employment oppurtunities Access to identity proofs Access to medical services

Access to government funding for provision of the shelters

Provision of homeless shelters Planning of the homeless shelters Provision of basic sanitation systems

Figure 10: Identfied gap in the mobilization structure of NGOs

Resisting Exclusions 35 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

4

IDENTIFYING THE SPACE FOR INTERVENTION

4.1.2 Influence of other actors on the mobilization against displacement

The NGO’s occupy a prime role in leading a strong social activism movement in the urban governance system of Delhi. However, the Indian governance system and its alleviated interest in public-private partnerships, consider NGO’s an opposition for the ‘development’ of the city. In this, pretext the Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board has launched a number of schemes such as the Bhagidari, Sanjha Prayas and ‘public-private-community’ partnerships, which attempted a cooption process by the government, as a strategy to control the opposition groups and make the NGO’s do the work as part of the government policy, with the expected effect of silencing the NGO’s. This pattern is also observed in the way the policies have been implemented so far.

While the NGOs have been pushing for resettlement and mandatory homeless shelters, the government conveniently co-opted both the processes, ultimately leading to the scenario where only 30% of the evicted are resettled and eventual shutting down of homeless shelters. While in the case of resettlement, the government adopted an eligibility criteria according to which the slum dwellers are resettled.

Adoption of this eligibility criteria ensures that the government does not have to provide land for all the slum dwellers from the jhuggi jhopri they intend to demolish. Since Delhi’s land has a very high exchange value and hence the government is not willing to invest their land where they do not gain a profit. Hence, resettlement colonies do not have the capacity to hold all the evicted slum dwellers and are also far away from they city were the land value is extremely low. While in the case of homeless shelters all though strong movements by several NGOs managed to successfully make shelters a necessity according to law, the lack of care by the government results in these shelters falling in disrepair. In this context Dr. Renu Khosla identifies her position in this scenario as a necessity to ensure that the bad policy choices that the government has adopted are at least executed properly; “Our presence ensures there is some quality of work that is executed and we are not 36 Identifying the space for intervention

in the business of contracting with the government.” and hence her organization makes sense in working with the government. In this pretext, the NGOs involvement as true forms of mobilization are coopted by the governance system of Delhi. Here I take the case of the 2010 common wealth games.

This historical event was envisioned to change the global face of India to that of a ‘world class city’.

During this time in Delhi ‘resettlement as an ideal solution for displacement’ was being implemented on a large scale. During the Common Wealth Games, the government started working with the NGOs to provide resettlement to the displaced dwellers as a result of the pushback they received with the onslaught of the construction on the sites where Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters resided. Instead of involving the NGOs at the beginning during the planning of the common wealth games, they let them intervene after the resettlement colonies were established.

By this time the dwellers eligible for resettlement were decided and the process of resettlement had already begun. By projecting the idea of ‘welfare Urbanism’ the government adopted resettlement, but in reality millions of dwellers were displaced without any compensation or resettlement, including migrants who were brought to the city to work for the construction of the required infrastructure for commonwealth games.

This surfaces a pattern where the space of intervention of NGOs in the existing policies and strategies are sporadic and lack a long term sustenance. In the case of resettlement, the NGOs intervene/ allowed to intervene after the resettlement process is complete in order to provide service for their sustenance and assist in re-building their communities within the resettlement colonies. Hence, the organizations do not have a control over the resettlement process which causes the biggest causality. The NGOs in Delhi are very successful in navigating through the political context to obtain necessary resources and funding for providing with the services the resettlement colonies

require. On the contrary their intervention in the political context in order to control the phenomenon of displacement has been futile. This can be regarded to the power of governance structure in Delhi, the overlapping agencies and actors that make it almost impossible to navigate among the confusion they create.

Resisting Exclusions 37 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

4

IDENTIFYING THE SPACE FOR INTERVENTION

4.1.2 Other factors impairing the mobilization structure

Insufficient resources: The work surrounding internal displacement in Delhi is limited. There is an absence of extensive research that can aid the work of NGOs in their mobilization structure. This concern was shared by all the individuals from various NGOs in Delhi. InduPrakash Singh expressed that the lack of research hindered his work to a great extent ; “when we started the work we looked for research and studies on this, and there wasn’t much work except for Veronique DuPont’s. It wasn’t an exhaustive study all. We really needed strong research to do our work”. This lack of resources impairs the ability of both NGOs and governing agencies to envisage alternative strategies. Due to the lack of reliable qualitative and quantitative data, the scale of internal displacement is hard to measure.

Redundancy in policy: The policy adopted by the government in the form of resettlement has been redundant over the years. As explicated by Dr. Renu Khosla from CURE the reason can be attributed to the fact that government does not have sufficient data and information to work with; “I just got to see the data that they’ve collected and its analyzed data using the support of NIUF to put it together. It didn’t have enough information and was improperly complied. It’s aver simplified analytics that they’ve put together.” The lack of critical information characterizes the governments inability to find gaps in the way policy is deduced and implemented. This pattern within the government is supported by Dr. Renu Khosla’s experience with the government; “In what I have seen in the local government is the fact that there is a lack of ready data available with them”.

Building onto this is the fact another aspect Dr. Khosla experienced while working with the government on various issues is the fact they “lack the capacity to draw conclusions from the information they have distributed” which builds into their incapability to use the information in a way that serves the rights of the slum dwellers. Hence the idea of resettlement as a default policy is conjugated to its legislation on the basis of a common ideology that slum dwellers are 38 Identifying the space for intervention

‘encroachers’. Over the years this idea seems to have crystallized among the government departments to an extent that all financing and projects are designed around that with no alternate solutions. Another important aspect that Dr. Renu Khosla highlights which builds into the redundancy in policy is the fact that “Their legacies don’t provide them with any examples of what can be done differently”.

Effectively using policy: In conjugation with adopting a national resettlement policy very recently the government of India has formulated other schemes such as the ‘Rajiv Awas Yojana’, ‘Slum Free City’ under which policies such as in-situ up gradation, in-situ rehabilitation and environmental up gradation where the slum dwellers are not subjected to displacement. However these policies have barely been implemented in Delhi. The in-situ up gradation policy necessitates JJCs to be upgraded in place and provided with better service provisions . But only four slums in Delhi have been upgraded under this policy until date. This policy can be highly successful in Delhi as the requirements for a slum to be upgraded in-situ is that the land on which the JJC is present should be owned by the government.

In Delhi, since 90% of the land is owned by the government the policy can be highly successful. In addition, if the settlement sits on a DUSIB (Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board) owned land then the JJC does not even require any permission from the land owning agency to be upgraded in situ and they cannot be legally evicted. However the explication of this policy in public documents lacks any detail and hence NGOs and other Civil Society Organizations find difficulty in using the policy effectively. To begin with there does not exist an updated data set that spatializes DUSIB owned land in the city. This absence of layers of information impairs not only the NGOs role in effectively advocating for the rights of the Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters, it also holds back the governments ability to improve and build on existing policies.

4

IDENTIFYING THE SAPCE FOR INTERVENTION

4.2 Theorizing the urban governance system perpetuating displacement

Each governing system has its own ‘managerial agenda’, thus deepening the social exclusion in its public sphere. The result is an agency that plans, builds, and maintains an ‘aesthetic’ city one that privileges parks over functional infrastructure, cleanliness over livability, and a ‘world-class’ image over inclusion. This approach is inevitably class biased. This highlights Deutsche’s conception of an “aesthetic or cultural public sphere” (Deutsche, 49107); the public discourse in Delhi should challenge the political discourse and its articulation of the public sphere (undocumented/unplanned settlements).

The political discourse and the spatial politics of the public sphere in Delhi cannot be overlooked or negated as they are built into the spatial fabric of the city. However, the planning of the city from its first master plan in 1962 to its proposed master plan of 2021 overlooks or simply blind sights the socio-spatial configurations of the public sphere. As Deutsche argues “urban practitioners who view planning as a technical problem and politics as a foreign substance to be eliminated from spatial structures are involved in, and simultaneously mask, spatial politics” . This narrative in planning and spatial organization is generalized and has been standardized, in order to withhold a ‘global image’ of the city. The generative global image conceals the social metamorphism of the city within its aesthetic developments, resulting in fetishizing the city as a physical object. The idealism almost always enacts certain exclusions to homogenize public spaces by expelling certain differences which disregard the dominations that make the social exclusions possible. In the prevalent neoliberal urban discourse to surpass the conditions of dominance, it is essential to strengthen the role of the ‘excluded’ or ‘undocumented population’ to claim their rights in public sphere. I employ Fraser’s alternative of the bourgeois public sphere which emphasizes the importance of counter publics. Fraser problematizes Habermas conception of the public sphere and suggests an alternative concept of the public sphere in order to address the limits of actually

existing democracy. Habermas “liberal model of the Bourgeois public sphere” is a limited form of the public sphere that does not comply with the “welfare state mass democracy”. A capitalist society entails social inequality; Fraser’s ‘rethinking the public sphere’ elucidates the manifestation of plurality in the public sphere of a contemporary society and the necessity to “expose the limits of the specific form of democracy” , so as to concede a broader sense of the public sphere (Fraser, 1990).

As explicated by Harvey “ the new urban entreprenurialism rests, then, on public-private partnership focussing on investment and economic development with the speculative construction of place rather than amelioration of condition within a particular territory as its immediate political and economic goal”. Today as urban governance is shifting from ‘managerial to entrepreneurial’, the redistributive role of the governing system is shedding away to promote profit accumulation, deepening social exclusions in the public sphere.

‘Entrepreneurial Urbanism’ promotes publicprivate partnerships as a response to global capital, thus questioning social redistributive policies within the cities (Chattarjee, 2014). In this regressive shift towards an entrepreneurial practice Ipshitha Chattarjee in her book ‘displacement, revolution and the new urban condition’ identifies the presence of a ‘welfare discourse’ in civic governance systems at the discursive level, while pursuing ‘rapid entrepreneurialism’. According to Chatterjee, there always exists a carefully chosen narrative of welfare discourse in planning documents to create an image of ‘growth with equity’. At the level of discourse however this narrative is dominated by ‘city beautification’ and ‘slum eviction’.

Resisting Exclusions 39 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

“the new urban entreprenurialism rests, then, on public-private partnership focussing on investment and economic development with the speculative construction of place rather than amelioration of condition within a particular territory as its immediate political and economic goal�- David Harvey

DELHI OPPRESSIVE POLITICAL SYSTEM

The private market provides with basic services and infrastructure for the resettlement process

DOMINANT MARKET SYSTEM

p Entreprenurial Urbanism

Private Partnerships

Welfare Urbanism

Managerial g Urbanism

THE SPATIAL CONFIGURATION OF DELHI

Government seeks resettlement in exchange for city land used by sqautter settlements

Categorization of settlement

Socio-spatial

Planned

Socio-economic

Unplanned (JJCs)

THE CRISIS

(vulnerable) No mobilization m

Resettlement (temporality)

N BY NGOs MOBILIZATION SPACE OF INTERVENTION

Co-option of NGOs and civil society organizations

Utilizing government provided resources and encourages resettlement as a solution

Large scale displacements

Figure 11: Theorising the urban governance of the marginalized population in Delhi

40 Identifying the space for intervention

Homelessness

HYPOTHESIS In Delhi mobilization by NGOs, worker unions and various other individuals do exist, and their protests against slum demolitions include rallies, public meetings, legal actions, capacity building affected people etc. Although, they have been successful at a very local level in denouncing large scale slum demolitions, they have not altered the implementation of slum clearance. The mobilization has more often been fragmented and sporadic and has lacked significance as far as slum demolition is concerned. Although, there exists coalitions, these are not organized into a unified strong social movement (Braathen, 2013). A number of reasons contribute to the lack of a mass social mobilization such as; the persistence of segregated local leadership in slum settlements along political, social and religious lines. The gradually diminishing support of the middle class political members as they are being vacuumed into the ‘globalising image of the city’.

The main stream media seldom focuses on slum dwellers protests. Most importantly, “mobilizations carried out by NGOs are seldom able to go beyond a certain stage”. This very reason perpetuates the need to strengthen Non governmental organizations, by reducing the gap between the realm of discourse and realm of practice which would then enable non governmental organizations to engage as active participants in framing the urban governing policies.

As Young, elucidates, “rather than create and sustain bureaucratic state institutions to promote the well being of citizens, instill in citizens a sense of obligation to others and the skills to organize civic institutions of solidarity and mutual aid” .

organizations and agencies to promote social justice.

The dominant narrative revealed through the analysis is the lack of mobilization to tackle the grass root problem of resettlement and homelessness which is internal displacement. This means resistance against removal and demolition of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters from their space in the city. The underlying reasons being lack of resources and most importantly the lack of a unified movement in identifying the issue of discontent in the larger political context.

Although, strong movements by Non Governmental Organizations in Delhi necessitated unavoidable ties with authoritative state procedures, it weakened their ability to hold state institutions accountable questioning the legitimacy of the movement. Hence, the process of mobilization should be a collective ‘scaled-up’ process including diverse local actors, Resisting Exclusions 41 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

5

[RE]FRAMING SOCIAL MOBILIZATION

5.1 Aim of the proposal

There are contradictions, conflicts and confrontations among NGOs that aim to represent the larger public in Delhi. Some voice radical interventions, others aim for reformist strategies and collaborate with government. We could as well speculate that goodwilled activism may suffer from a fundamental dilemma like the one described by urban theorist Peter Saunders i.e. whether to act within the system but thereby fail to pose an effective challenge, or to mobilize from outside the system. The state is here to stay. And hence it is important that the mobilization against internal displacement should be re framed to counter the legal vocabulary of the state, place its demands before the state machinery, demonstrate against human rights violations, debate on urban issues in various conventions. These scaled up movements should be collective and contest dominant ideas of planning, exclusionary spatial forms and demanded for right to information.

The intention of my thesis is to provide to the NGOs and civil society organizations a resource that could be used to create awareness among a larger group of individuals in the city to create awareness about the political context of displacement. This could help them not just create awareness across the city but also in guiding the one’s affected through the political and legal vocabulary of the state enabling them to situate themselves in the political context of displacement in Delhi. The resource also attempts to engage organizations in identifying possibilities and methods of building capacities and stronger networks amongst existing capabilities. The resource is designed in the form of a manual that aims to catalyze a collective action to advocate for the rights of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters.

Manual as a resource would be successful in reaching out to the smaller organizations working within Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters . It would be functional as an individual component without an external agency to guide them through the complexity 42 [Re]framing social mobilization

of displacement and resettlement. Moreover the manual as a pedagogical tool is a more permeant form of knowledge dissemination with the space to analyze, understand and build onto an existing body of knowledge. This pedagogical tool does not serve the purpose of being an ultimate guide to counter internal displacement, but is more a means to expose the dominant forces and practices of displacement.

By exposing the narrative and legalities that are obscure the affected individuals in Jhuggi Jhopris and the general public are made aware of the context they are situated within, enabling them to engage with alternative ideas of mobilization.

The manual should be visualized as a point of entry into the disparate, divided structures of mobilization in Delhi. As a ‘common pedagogical tool’ the manual would weave new connections which would ultimately lead to diverse discussions. The discussions generated by the manual would be the platform to produce and collectively produce a second phase of the manual to build onto the narrative of alternative forms of social mobilization.

The manual is designed to satisfy three parameters; knowledge transfer Reflection Collaboration; in order to create opportunities for intervening in the larger political context of the city and concurrently embedding values of collective action.

Knowledge transfer: The manual aims to reframe the current mobilization for resettlement and homelessness to mobilization against internal displacement through its content. The manual bridges the gap in knowledge by explicating language that guides the socio-spatial existence of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters, related urban policy and legal entitlements for jhuggi jhopri clusters. Knowledge transfer reframes the current context is comprehended.

Reflection: The manual aims to instigate collective reflection amongst the broader public and the NGOs in order to enable them to identify their position in the larger political context of internal displacement.

This parameter is achieved with the dissemination of the manual to NGOs working both in the field of resettlement and homelessness, individuals and broader public and thereafter providing a platform to collectively analyze the situation of internal displacement.

Collaboration: Finally the proposal intends to bridge the gap between knowledge and action by providing opportunities to form collaborative networks of social mobilization. This parameter will be realized through the platform of collective reflection , where the discussion between various organizations and individuals entail opportunities for new networks of collaboration. The manual aims to create opportunities for collaboration through existing platforms by building capabilities and capacities.

These three parameters holistically would ensure the success of the manual. Each of these parameters are embedded through the design of the manual, dissemination and discussion phases of the strategy.

The manual adopts simple language in order to communicate successfully with a larger audience (Individuals directly affected by displacement,larger public with unfamiliarity of the situation and smaller NGOs) and a similar language would be adopted during its dissemination as well as the discussions.

Resisting Exclusions 43 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

5

[RE]FRAMING SOCIAL MOBILIZATION

5.1.1 The construct of the manual

‘Samoohik Ayoojan31’(figure 12), the manual is designed to explain language that guides the sociospatial existence of JJC’s in Delhi’s urban space, explication of relevant urban policy and entitlements of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters through historical events in Delhi that perpetuated large scale displacement.

Chapter 1: What causes internal displacement?

The first chapter explicates events through history that perpetuated large scale displacement in order to instill an understanding of the political factors and forces that drive displacement. This chapter is described through patterns of displacement through history while explicating its spatial-political practices through master plan of the city, its implications, land tenure policies, public private partnerships and their consequent effects on Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters.

Chapter 2: Resettlement as an identified solution: This chapter explicates conditions under which resettlement was identified as a solution and the governance system that guides the process of resettlement. This chapter aims to expose the context of resettlement and the political ideology behind the process which propagates ‘ownership as the basis of citizenship’.

Chapter 3: Is resettlement as ideal solution? The third chapter exposes the legalities, failures and implications of resettlement to instigate in organizations the necessity to challenge the political process of resettlement.

Chapter 4: Understanding urban policy: Identifying the lack of understanding and knowledge of urban policies the fourth chapter explicates relevant policy in order to identify the most effective policies to combat internal displacement. This chapter explicates in further detail ‘in-situ’ upgradation as one of the more approachable policies to avoid displacement. However, in doing so the manual also clearly states the drawbacks and identified gaps attributed to this policy and alternatives that can could be employed to ensure minimum destruction 31 Samoohik Ayojan is a hindi phrase when converted to english means ‘collective organization’ 44 [Re]framing social mobilization

during the implementation of the policy. The chapter reveals the most effective ways of using existing policy to challenge the political system of internal displacement.

Chapter 5: organizing against internal displacement: The final chapter provides resources of organizations highlighting their strengths to encourage formation of collaborative networks during times of crisis. This section also holds details of government agencies responsible to dwellers of Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters and details of the court to encourage legal pushback against demolitions and evictions of JJCs.

SAMOOHIK AAYOJAN

(Figure 12)

The dissemination of the manual will be initiated Resisting Exclusions 45 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

5

[RE]FRAMING SOCIAL MOBILIZATION

5.1.2 Distribution of the manual

through three organizations, who will further distribute the manual through their established platforms and partnered organizations. The three identified organizations CURE(Centre for Regional and Urban Excellence), Action Aid and Hazards center employ different framework for mobilization and work for resettlement colonies, the homeless and policy advocacy respectively.

CURE identifies itself as a development organization and focuses on mobilizing resources in resettlement colonies. The organization and its founder Dr. Renu Khosla strongly advocate for resettlement.

As highlighted previously in the interview prĂŠcis Dr.Renu believes that since the city has made a bad policy choice with respect to resettlement it is essential to support the government to ensure that the chosen policy is at least implemented properly . The organization has been highly successful in pushing the government to fund for service provisions in resettlement colonies.

Action Aid as an organization advocates for the rights of the homeless in Delhi. InduPrakash Singh of Action Aid has been highly successful in legalizing the provision for homeless shelters in the 2020 master plan of the city. He fights against the bureaucratic governance system of Delhi through the High court of Delhi and the Supreme court of India.

Hazards Centre founded by Dunu Roy works to advocate policy in Jhuggi Jhopri Clusters.

The organization focuses on research, training, publication, communication and assistance for campaigns to various focus groups within the city.

Once the manual is handed over to these three organizations, the organizations further utilize their existing platforms to further distribute to various other organizations.

If the manual is received well, through the feedback from these organizations and in collaboration I intend to create an the online section that can document the recurring demolitions and evictions as a data platform , which will enable them to identify scale of 46 [Re]framing social mobilization

displacement at a city level. This online section could possibly entail a debate/ discussion on identifying methods for effective policy implementation which is supported through the fourth section of the book.

Finally, the discussions generated through the collaborative meetings and through the documentation of the online portal a second part of the manual will be designed in collaborations with the organizations.

Indu prakash singh

Action Aid

NGOs in collaboration with Action Aid

Collaboration of 50 organizations

Organizations at

Dunnu Roy

self organizes t o give voice t o the experiences a nd a spirations o f people living JJCs and unauthorized colonies

Sajha Manch

Hazard Centre NGOs in collaboration with Hazard Centre

Collaboration of various organization and individuals with expertise

Dr. Renu Khosla

Centre for Regional and Urban Excellence

identify effective ways of mobilization in resettlement colonies and service provisions within these colonies

Samvaadh

Organizations at

NGOs in Savdha Ghevra

Figure 13: Distribution of the manual, reaching out to organizations

Sajha Manch

Both the platforms collaborate

MANUAL

creates dialogue around issues of justice

Invite to the next meeting

To create a new platform

Sajha Manch Combined Meet

Discussion of the Manual

Samvaadh

Figure 14: Distribution of the manual, combining platforms for collaborations

Resisting Exclusions 47 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

SAMOOHIK OHIK AAYOJAN

North Delhi

TO MARK A DEMOLITION go to link: https://thenewschool.carto.com/u/sruti/dashboard

Measuring g scale of displacement

Effectively using policy through the framewrok of the manual

Invite to the next meeting

To create a new platform

Sajha Manch Combined Meet

Combined Meet II

Individual and organizations build the online portal

Analyzing the pattern

Discussion of the Manual Introduction of the online portal

Documenting evictions

Samvaadh

Understanding the context

Documenting struggles

Both the platforms collaborate

Sajha Manch

Figure 15: Distribution of the manual, Engaging discussion on a combined platform

North Delhi

SAMOOHIK AAYOJAN TO MARK A DEMOLITION go to link: https://thenewschool.carto.com/u/sruti/dashboard

Figure 16: Online Platform, tool for collective organizing and analysis

48 [Re]framing social mobilization

Indu prakash singh

Building a second part of the manual in collaboration with NGOs based on the documentations in the online portal

Action Aid

Hazard Centre NGOs in collaboration with Hazard Centre

Organizations at

Measuring scale of displacement

Dunnu Roy

Sanjha Prayas

Partnered organizations/ familiar organizations

Partnered organizations/ familiar organizations

Both the platforms collaborate

Invite to the next meeting

To create a new platform

Combined Meet

Combined Meet II Add/contribute to the online portal Analyzing the pattern

Discussion of the Manual Introduction of the online portal

Understanding the context

Centre for Regional and Urban Excellence

NGOs in Savdha Ghevra

Samvaadh

Organizations at

Documenting struggles

Dr. Renu Khosla

Documenting evictions

MANUAL

Effectively using policy through the framewrok of the manual

A collective action to claim JJCs ‘Right to the city’

NGOs in collaboration with Action Aid

Figure 17: Intended outcome: A collective action to claim JJC’s ‘Right to the City’

Resisting Exclusions 49 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

Finally

Figure 18: JJ Clusters, North Delhi

Figure 19: JJ Clusters, South Delhi

Figure 20: JJ Clusters, West Delhi

Figure 21: JJ Clusters, East Delhi

50 [Re]framing social mobilization

6

CONCLUSION “The figure of the encroacher establishes a foundation on the basis of which the poor can be seen as unworthy of legal and constitutional protection”- Gautam Bhan

I conclude by tying back to the adopted theo retical framework of entrepreneurial urbanism that presents fair slum policies explicitly in its reports and documents as ideas of ‘welfare approach’ but implicitly negates the ‘welfare’ idea during the implementation. The narrative of welfare discourse fares well in press interviews, planning documents and strategic alliances with NGO’s, but spatially, the city is organized under a dominating entrepreneurial agenda.

Chatterjee refers to the urban politics of the combination of ‘entrepreneurial urbanism’ with piecemeal redistribution as “farewell welfare approach; where welfare is dead, but is kept alive strategically for promotion of an equitable public sphere32”. I argue, that the entrepreneurial discourse inscribed in the urban governance systems in their planning agenda should be balanced with their ‘welfare discourse’ and their ideology of ‘welfare discourse’ and civic society organizations in the urban governance system and not just as ‘strategic alliances’.

Through out my research and analysis of understanding how dwellers of Jhuggi Jhopris navigate through the political discourse, I have realized the presence of a dominant narrative where the NGOs become the voice for these marginalized communities. In the prevalent neoliberal urban discourse to surpass the conditions of dominance, it is essential to strengthen the role of the CSO’s and NGOs to effectively challenge this state led bureaucracy and make the organizations accountable to the spatial exclusions they perpetuate. Further the lack of sufficient research on the conditions of Jhuggi Jhopri clusters and clear policy guidelines presents challenges in even understanding the current context.

Moreover the redundancy in the ideologies of governing agencies does not provide them with any alternative frameworks or solutions for managing slum improvement. Most research on Delhi tends to 32 Chattarjee, I. Displacement, Revolution and the New Urban Condition. (2014)

draw strong comparisons with Mumbai. Although this framework might present the government and NGOs with new legacies on implementation of policies, it does not succeed in studying the patterns of spatial exclusions in the urban landscape of Delhi.

Hence, the solutions provided are not space based that respect and understand the spatial patterns of Delhi.

Having identified these gaps, it is imperative to understand that the ‘state of power’ is here to stay.

Acknowledging the dominant forces, the strategy holistically builds capacities and capabilities of NGOs by building collective awareness to entail a collectivized action to claim Jhuggi Jhopris ‘Right to the city’. Echoing with Dr. Renus reflection “the time for idea to work together has come. I am confident that we can bring in more NGOs, more people onto the same page and hopefully we can do thing together. When we come together we become formidable and then its hard for the government to ignore our ideas”, the manual aims serve as a platform that integrates organizations in order to embed a foundation of collective organization.

Resisting Exclusions 51 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

7

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Banda, S. S. (2014). The Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board (DUSIB) The Challenges Facing a Strong, Progressive Agency. Centre for Policy Research. Centre for Policy Research.

Bhatra, Divya Mehra and Lalit. The Demolition of Slums and The Production of Neo liberal Space. 2008.

Bhan, G. (2013). Planned Illegalities: Housing and the ‘Failure’ of Planning in Delhi: 1947-2010.

Economic and Political Weekly XLVIII , 58-70.

Bhan, G. (2009). “This is no longer the city I once knew”. Evictions, the urban poor and the right to the city in millennial Delhi. 21 (1), 15.

Braathen, E. (2013). Addressing Sub-Standard Settlements. Field Work.

Census of India. 2001. Data Highlights: Migration Tables Chattarjee, I. (2014). Displacement, Revolution and the New Urban Condition. Sage Publications.

Cities of Delhi. (2015). Categorization of Settlements in Delhi. Centre For Policy Research. Centre For Policy Research .

Datta, A. (2013, may). The Myth of Resettlement in Delhi. Conflict and Peace Building .

Dupont. V (2013). Addressing Sub-Standard Settlements WP3 Settlement Fieldwork Report Deutsche, R. (49-107). Evictions: art and spatial politics, Uneven Development: Public Art in New York City. MIT Press.

Eric Swyngedouw, Frank Moulaert, Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe (2002) : Large-scale Urban Development Projects and Urban Policy.

Evictions: art and spatial politics, Uneven Development: Public Art in New York City. MIT press.

Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere. MIT Press.

Ghertner, D. A. (2011). Rule by aesthetics: world-class city making in Delhi. In A. R. Ong, Worlding Cities: Asian Experiments and the Art of Being Global. Oxoford: Blackwell.

Govt of NCT of Delhi. Delhi Urban Improvement Shelter Board Report Harvey, D. (2015). Seventeen Contradictions and the End of Capitalism.

Harvey, D. (1989). From Magerialism to Entrepreneurialism: The Transformation in Urban Governance 52

in Late Capitalism.

Heller, P. (2105). The Exclusion Field: Politics, Institutions and Inequality in an Indian City.

Heller, P. Binding the State: State Capacity and Civil Society in India. Centre for Policy Research IM, Young. Inclusion and Democracy , civil society and its limits. 2000.

Llama, M. (n.d.). India and the guiding principals. (Review 8).

Mahadevia, D. (2008). Inside the Transforming Urban Asia: Processes, Policies and Public Actions. Concept Publishing Company.

Mandelkern, S. S. (2014). The Delhi Development Authority: Accumulation without Development. Centre for Policy Research. Centre for Policy Research.

Mehra, L. B. (2008). The Demolition of Slums and The Production of Neo liberal Space. Inside Transforming Urban Asia , 29.

Michelle Hindman, O. L.-H. Addressing Slum Redevelopment Issues in India. University Of Michigan.

Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation. Guidelines for slum free city Planning Moulaert, E. S. (2002). Neoliberal Urbanization in Europe: Large Scale Urban Development Projects and the New Urban Policy.

Partha Mukhopadhyay, P. H. (2015). Exclusion, Informality, and Predation in the Cities of Delhi. Centre for policy research. Centre for policy research.

Rameez Abbas, Divya Varma. Internal Labor Migration in India Raises Integration Challenges for Migrants.

Migration Policy Institute, Migration Policy Institute, 2014.

Smriti Saurabh (n.d.,). Development and Displacement in India: A Historical Perspective Subhadra Banda, Y. V. (2017). THE CASE OF KATHPUTLI COLONY: Mapping Delhi’s First In-situ Slum Rehabilitation Project. Centre for Policy Research. Centre for Policy Research.

Veronique Dupont, Tara Saharan. “Addressing substandard settlements in Delhi.” 2013.

Resisting Exclusions 53 Organizing against displacement in rapidly urbanizing Delhi

54