The idea of urban space in India goes back to the times when the astonishingly well-planned dual townships of Mohenjo Daro and Harappa formed the anchor of the ancient Indus Valley civilisation. Since then, several new cities have appeared while many others have declined and withered away.
An important part of this evolution process has always been the people who moved to these cities in search of new opportunities, better prospects and, in general, a good life. In fact, the migrant population has contributed significantly to the growth of our cities, especially in post-independence India. As they move from areas where there is surplus of labour to areas of deficit, they raise the overall productivity of the labour force and balance out imperfections in the labour market. Moreover, migrants to the city also contribute to the growth of their villages back home through remittances. In other words, migrants are important drivers of our national growth.
In spite of these, migrants, especially those who are poor, unskilled and work in the unorganised sector — they make up for at least 65 per cent of the entire migrant population — are not viewed positively. They almost always face some form of discrimination in the city, and the situation is only made worse by the growing anti-migrant sentiment. More often than not, they form the most vulnerable group of city residents at any point. Their protection and well-being is perhaps the greatest challenge to urbanisation in modern-day India; a challenge that has taken on an all new proportion given the alarming rate at which the number of the country’s urban poor is increasing.
It is in this context that a rights-based approach to the problem is helpful, as a recent UN report shows. The concept of the Right To The City is a particularly powerful one. It was first suggested by French social scientist Henri Lefebvre as a radical call to all city residents to “contribute to the production of urban space”, in his 1968 book by the same name, but received large-scale attention only in the 1990s when neo-Marxist American scholars such as David Harvey realised its significance in the present-day urban context.
There are, of course, multiple interpretations of what exactly the Right to the City means, but essentially it can be defined as a right to enjoy all that the city has to offer. At the core of the RTTC lies two fundamental points: The first relates to the domain of legal entitlements and moral claims, while the second is about the distinctive idea of formal rights and substantive rights. For instance, the ‘right’ to travel, work and settle in any city has little value unless cities are made affordable (think housing), accessible (transport), safe (effective policing, street lights etc) and liveable (urban amenities) for all.
When viewed within this context of the Right to The City — the right of everyone, including migrants, to enjoy the benefits of all that the city has to offer — the phenomenon of migration and the challenges it poses takes on a whole new meaning. To understand how exactly the Right To The City is applicable, it would be worthwhile to place it as a backdrop to one of the most visible manifestations of the socio-economic deprivation faced by migrants — slums.
The operational definition of the slum, as suggested by the UN, refers to any area that exhibits certain key characteristics such as inadequate access to safe water, sanitation and other basic infrastructure, poorly constructed housing, insecure residential status and overcrowding. The Slum Census of India 2011 similarly defines slums as any a collection of poorly built, mostly temporary, tenements, crowded together usually with inadequate sanitary and drinking water facilities and unhygienic facilities. Other authorities have described a slum variously, but the essence remains the same.
The 2001census pegged the number of people living in slums across Indian cities at 43 million — this represents about 23 per cent of the entire population. In the past decade that number is estimated to have grown to a whopping 93 million people. That is, 93 million people without having access to clean drinking water and sanitation facilities, living in shoddily constructed houses in overcrowded colonies, from where too they can be evicted without a minute’s notice.
The common refrain in favour of such evictions,which are undertaken simultaneously with the large-scale demolition of slum colonies (often in attempt to ‘beautify’ our cities), is that the construction was illegal in the first place, and that the slum-dwellers were illegally occupying another’s land. While this is often true, it must be understood that illegal occupation of vacant land is usually the only option available to the poor migrant who simply cannot afford the city’s expensive housing options.
Worse still, such eviction and demolition programmes lead to long-term cumulative impoverishment that has been routinely ignored by babus who sanction these acts. The occasional resettlement and rehabilitation programme that sometimes accompanies such mass evictions have proved to be largely inadequate. They benefit only a handful of slum residents while the poorest of the lot find themselves literally on the road, stripped of even their meagre possessions.
This only feeds a vicious circle of urban poverty. But for this to halt, a whole new perspective is necessary. This must be based on the understanding that migration is not a phenomenon that is borne out of poverty but one that contributes to our national growth. Migration is not about dependence on the city but about development of the country.
Finally, migration is also a matter of ‘right’. Those who move to the cities have the Constitutional right to do so. Article 19 states, “All citizens have the right to move freely… reside and settle… practice any trade or profession throughout the territory of India”. Also, Article 21 provides that no person shall be deprived of their personal liberty. Taken with the concept of the Right To The City, several experts working in the field of urban planning say there is sufficient ground to render slum evictions not only illegal but also label them a gross violation of human rights.
Indeed, slum demolitions and forced evictions form some of the worst practices performed by the Indian state. Not only do they violate human rights to adequate housing, but also the right to livelihood, health, education, culture and the right to live with dignity.
It is high time the civic authorities took note of the ground realities and make a concerted effort to go beyond the hollow slogan of ‘inclusive cities”. They will find that The Right To The City approach provides an excellent starting point.
