If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Chief Minister Vilasrao Deshmukh has decided not to wait for the slum dwellers’ consent before engaging in the 10,000 crore redevelopment programme. He says,
“He met many delegations and local representatives on this issue. Since this is a government project, there is no need for consent. Normally, we need that only for private projects.’’
Err…isn’t the government more accountable to the people than the private sector? Why should government projects be excused while private projects be subjected to additional scrutiny? Is the implied understanding that the government will always take due care of its junta? We know that isn’t always true. If you thought I am reading too much into his statement, he clarified soon after. “We are doing it for the overall development of that area as well as the city, so people should cooperate with the government.’’
Dear Mr. Deshmukh, I know you have our best interests at heart but this is a frikkin democracy and sometimes things take time especially when 10,000 crores are at stake. Since we cannot undo planning decisions, we better ensure that we get it right the first time around. The clause for 70 percent vote favoring the plans in response to the request for consent is in the documents for a reason. If it is that easily dispensable, then it shouldn’t be there in the first place. Let us not make a mockery of participatory processes if we have chosen to include them. A last minute provision that “slumdwellers who don’t respond within 30 days of receiving the notices be deemed to have consented” seems to be aimed at forcing consent. Making sure that the consent forms don’t reach slum dwellers (an easy task in Mumbai) can easily achieve that end.
Citizen participation no matter how cumbersome it might seem, is important. If you are too impatient, you are probably in the wrong profession.
Technorati Tags: Mumbai, Dharavi Redevelopment Project, Vilasrao Deshmukh, citizen participation, planning
by Patrix | on Thursday, October 12th, 2006 at 10:00 pm | 
Governance, Politicking, Urban Planning . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
October 13th, 2006 at 5:14 am reply
Patrix - Valid points raised and I wonder if this was a result of the builder lobby. In my interview with Chandrashekhar Prabhu, he’d stated that slum rehab schemes in Mumbai are typically for, by and of the builder. (Link here).
Having said that, I was also wondering - only for a brief moment - if its not such a bad idea. Dharavi’s redevelopment was - and will always be - a hugely challenging task which will require single-minded political will and resolve to overcome vested interests such as (a) coalition politics between Congress and NCP (b) the chances of interference from parties like Shiv Sena, MNS and (c) political parties playing the NGO game.
I’m sure all these factors could play a role in manipulating Dharavi’s massive 1m population (and thats a huge vote bank to consider) ahead of the BMC elections (2007) and general elections (2009). Maybe the only way to do the redevelopment quickly is to get it done this way. I know this doesn’t sound right and surely not - as you pointed out - the done thing in a democracy.
But, like I said, this was just a passing thought. Would love to know your views, Pat.
October 13th, 2006 at 6:29 am reply
perhaps in the midst of controversy some positive change might take place…………in a sense keeping the situation in its apalling conditions is not really the right thing to do.
October 13th, 2006 at 10:57 am reply
Bombay Addict, Prabhu is more or less right. They are for the builder but if we consider the greater good i.e. if they end up giving affordable homes to low-income people while also earning a decent profit for the builder, then it achieves a doubled-ended objective. If builders do not profit, it will be hard to convince them to do it and public housing by the government is generally prone to failure.
The Dharavi Redevelopment Project might face numerous implementation issues but it is generally expected in a project of this magnitude. Citizen participatory measures not only lend the equitable angle but also give a voice to the people who might be actually using the space. The planners might be made aware of solutions they had never thought of. We have to understand if we want to do this quickly or we want it done right. Remember, planning and construction scheme decisions are irreversible and can have adverse consequences if not done right.
M, It sure is but we don’t want to worsen the situation by doing something totally opposite to a desirable solution.
October 14th, 2006 at 12:30 am reply
Pat - broadly agree with what you say. Yet, the builder-politician nexus often ensures that while builders and politicians profit, the city and its residents loses.
On a separate note - No chances of you relocating to India, right ?! I was thinking that’s probably the only way I could see more of your writings on urban planning in Mumbai on your other blog. Sigh.
October 15th, 2006 at 5:13 am reply
Pat,
Yes. No doubt you are right. But political pulls and pressures make broader consultation a tricky task.
Second, these are illegal encroachments, right? I am not sure I am prepared to give them the same rights. Ideally, I would have advocated demolishing them, unfortunately that is not an option.