.png)
On 4th February 2004, the Maharashtrian Chief Minister in-office Vilasrao Deshmukh proposed the Dharavi rehabilitation project to relocate slum dwellers to comparatively urbane spacious apartments from the minimal settlements. Eighteen years hence, the stakeholders still look forward to finding traces of the promised restructuring. Though the government changed eight times, the plan to revamp a 600-acre pocket of Dharavi remained a dream only to be brought up just before elections and foregone subsequently. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), on behalf of the government, was able to rehabilitate a countable 350 of the residents only. This revival project conceived in 1990 by Mukesh Mehta, an architect and head of MM Project Consultants Private Limited, was eventually upheaved by a group of social media activists as they imposed stringent roadblocks.
Many such challenges plagued the project, the most controversial of which was determining the eligibility of to-be-flat-owners. Among the 2,00,000 settlements in Dharavi, only 69,16 fall under the legal category i.e., they are built before January 1, 2000, hence are legally protected and free rehabilitation has to be provided upon removal. Roughly only 37% of them would have a proper roof over their head as per the project’s criteria and the remaining 67% would be the ignored lot turned down by the developers. The idea of redistribution of wealth by the government gets corrupted here as resources reach those hands which are already economically and legally secured. Those with no such security will be left void of any shelter, post-eviction. Even though 37% of slum inhabitants would be provided with living space in a comparatively established neighborhood, their ability to survive with the income from their old jobs would still be a debatable issue. The ‘urban class’ might also hesitate to assimilate the new population, thereby depriving them of potential opportunities and pushing them back to square one.
Categorization of the slum population would only turn people against the project. Hence the project it selves has to be restructured to secure livelihoods and provide out-of-the-bo solutions by understanding Dharavi not just as a slum, but in its true subjective sense. Looked down upon as a slum by the outer world, Dharavi is a thriving economy worth approximately $500-$650 million. It houses industrial units of electronics, suitcases, clothing, food, recycling, leather, pots, etc., employing almost 85% of the population. Urbanization would seize such jobs and disrupt the business chain. Dharavi always attracted labor as it allowed for production and shelter technically on the same premises. Shifting elsewhere into the city would devoid people of a room so cheap. As Mumbai is typically dependent on the service sector, the manufacturing sector which otherwise absorbs unskilled labor would be unable to provide an adequate job market. In the absence of employment and to fulfill the need to survive, people generated economies of their own. Their hard-built community provides an overwhelming sense of cohesiveness which the urban space would not have offered otherwise. Dharavi was and is always about quality business and social relationships, so redevelopment might not serve the best action. For that reason, it is not just a shift in the physical spaces they require, but a much mor inclusive plan which would protect their core livelihoods throughout the renovation. The problem with the redevelopment here is the actionable plan either considers the physical structure, or the social structure and is not an amalgamation of the duo. Many factors such as rural-to-urban migration, inadequate urban administration, choice of location, etc., are not inculcated into the urbanization models. The model being imperfect would produce distorted results too.
Revival plans are a necessity, especially post-COVID, but an appropriate plan is possible only with an interdisciplinary approach and understanding of Dharavi as a multidimensional entity. Only such a plan can justify the redistribution of resources. More than anyone, the ones at the receiving end must approve the initiatives, to avoid becoming displacement than a restoration. From an economic perspective, its robust informal economy would be shattered, thereby putting more burden on the mainland of Mumbai to absorb laborers. A partial laissez-faire interference would do just the needed by reviving only the laid-back areas and not interrupting the bustling informal sector. Given an urban settlement, the population located in various urban centers contributes to the economy in their unique ways by utilizing the resources in their vicinity. Relocating an IT hub away from its market in a metropolitan like Mumbai would cause the same effect as relocating the informal sector too. Maintaining an economic ecology is a must to ensure optimum utilization of land and infrastructure which in turn is possible only by thoughtful urban planning initiatives.
Comments