Uprooted Homes Uprooted Lives

265 Pages·2001·2.3 MB·English

Uprooted Homes
Uprooted Lives
A Study of the
Impact of Involuntary Resettlement
of a Slum Community in Mumbai
Qudsiya Contractor
Neha Madhiwalla
Meena Gopal
Research team
Qudsiya Contractor
Neha Madhiwala
Padma Deoasthali
Shakuntala Bhalerao
Zainab Kadri
Deepika Banerjee
CEHAT 2006
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Published in 2006
By
Centre for Enquiry into Health and Allied Themes
Survey No. 2804 & 2805
Aram Society Road
Vakola, Santacruz (East)
Mumbai - 400 055
Tel. : [phone]
Fax : [phone]
E-mail : [email protected]
Website : www.cehat.org
© CEHAT
ISBN : 81-89042-43-2
Cover Design: Pramila Naik and Qudsiya Contractor
DTP and Layout: Pradip Kapdekar and Pramila Naik
Photographs: Mrinal Desai
Printed at :
Satam Udyog
Parel, Mumbai-400 012.
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Acknowledgements
This report would remain incomplete without the mention of all those who
have made this study possible. This study would not have been possible
without the cooperation of the people of Shantiniketan. We would like to
express gratitude to each one of them for their patience and tolerance with
us. During field work, Pramila Naik and Sheetal Bhujbal contributed a much
needed effort towards data collection. Sunita Jadhav, Jyoti Kudale, Savita
Kotwal, Archana Madhare and Sugandha More coded the data and Usha
Ram and Rajshri Kamat contributed by computerizing the data. We would
like to thank Soumitra Pathare and Surinder Jaswal for inputs on the
assessment of mental health as part of the study. We would like to thank
Amar Jesani and Sandhya Srinivasan for an ethics consultation during the
course of field work which provided an opportunity to the team to discuss
and address several ethical dilemmas that emerged during field work. We
would like to thank Padma Deosthali for the training on basic counselling
skills that equipped the team to handle situations in the field better. We
thank Sushma Gamre for typing the qualitative data in Hindi and for the
tiresome job of collating the same from all the interview schedules. We
would also like to thank Padma Deosthali and Pramila Naik for translating
the transcripts from Hindi to English. We would like to thank our peer
reviewers – Sharit Bhowmick, Vibhuti Patel, Ravi Duggal and Padma
Prakash for their critical comments and insights into the first draft of the
research report which has tremendously helped us improve it. The
photographs by Mrinal Desai have added much value to what we attempt
to convey through this study. We thank Sherna Gandhi for language editing.
We would like to thank Sahyog for providing us their office space which
offered us the space to discuss for hours issues, dilemmas and concerns we
came across during field work. Also the students and staff of Sahyog for
making the field work lively and memorable despite the disturbing realities
we witnessed while interacting with the people of Shantiniketan. Finally,
we would like to thank SWISSAID for their support to this project.
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Contents
Chapter 1Introduction................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 2Methodology...................................................................................................................15
Chapter 3The Resettlement Process..............................................................................................27
Chapter 4Right to Social Security...................................................................................................37
Chapter 5Right to Work.................................................................................................................47
Chapter 6Right to Standard of Living............................................................................................69
Chapter 7Right to Health...............................................................................................................81
Chapter 8Right to Education..........................................................................................................115
Chapter 9Right to Self Determination...........................................................................................131
Chapter 10Impact on Women - Space, Mobility, Security and Ownership...................................143
Chapter 11Conclusion and Recommendations..............................................................................163
References............................................................................................................................................171
Annexure
1.General Information Survey Form.......................................................................179
2.Protocols for FGDs................................................................................................188
3.Interview Guides for Key Informant Interviews..................................................192
4.Consent Notes for the General Information Survey,
Focussed Group Discussions and Key Informant Interviews.............................193
5.Certification of the Institutional Ethics Committee............................................196
6.SRA Guidelines for The Implementation of Slum Rehabilitation
Schemes in Greater Mumbai................................................................................200
7.Policy for Resettlement and Rehabilitation of Persons Affected by
Mumbai Urban Transport Project........................................................................245
8.UN Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement...............................................259
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
MAP POSITIVE
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
BLANK PAGE
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
C
h
a
p
t
e
r

1
Introduction
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
Introduction
The issue of involuntary resettlement has been a to the displaced. Or if the damage caused by the
matter of much controversy within development continued presence of that settlement is greater
debates. It has more often than not been associated than the trauma of uprootment and resettlement.
with large dams, or activities such as mining. Much Over the years, arbitrary demolitions, planned
displacement and resettlement however is also relocation and on-site slum improvement have all
taking place due to developmental activities in been variously tried. What underlies all these
urban areas. These include large urban efforts is the reluctance to grant tenure to slum
infrastructure projects such as road widening, inhabitants and a tendency to push slum
construction of flyovers, and expansion of airports communities out as soon as the market value of
etc. These projects are implemented after much the land they occupy increases, or when the land is
political deliberation and often involve funding needed for commercial use. There is no
agencies such as the World Bank, and private unconditional recognition of the right to housing
players such as builders or construction companies. for slum dwellers. Providing security of conditional
tenure is a largely political strategy. Besides, the
These projects are justified as being in the larger entire plan does not take into account the larger
public good and in the national interest. In recent social dimensions of community life. Rehabilitation
times Mumbai has witnessed the implementation is largely restricted to the provision of housing,
of such projects, which have affected the lives of whether on site or in a different location. The
millions adversely. Most of the affected population disruption of social life, loss of access to services,
lives in the slums. They are marginalised and have the fragmentation of communities and separation
very little voice, or bargaining power, to influence of families associated with such plans, are never
such decisions. Slums and those who live in them taken into account.
are treated as hurdles to the aspirations of the
middle class, to law and order, speedy transport, Defining Involuntary Resettlement in the
and cleanliness. The vision of the elite is of Mumbai Urban Context
as a hi-tech, global city. Those who have to live in
slums continue to be treated as ‘outsiders’, who Involuntary resettlement refers to the movement
have no stake in the city and are throttling its of populations when the choice to remain in a place
progress. is not granted. This is distinct from voluntary
population movements, which include rural-urban
The debate has by no means ended particularly if migrations that reflect people’s willing pursuit of
one remembers that these wretched of the city form new opportunities and which stimulates economic
the majority of Mumbai’s population (D’Monte, growth (Cernea, 1996).
2002). This is reflected in the manner in which
resettlement is addressed in the city. The Another way to describe the distinction between
displacement of populations can only be justified involuntary and voluntary resettlement is
if the gains of the development project also accrue identifying ‘push’ and ‘pull’ factors – the former
Introduction / 3
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
forcing people out of their traditional localities, and flyovers, intra-city roads etc.
the latter attracting them to move to new ones.
Involuntary population movements are caused by Involuntary relocation by major projects is found
‘push’ factors only. ‘Pull’ factors, if any, are the to be particularly dramatic in Asian countries that
exception rather than the rule (Asthana, 1996). are engaged in powerful industrialisation and
Therefore the levels of anxiety and insecurity are electrification drives (Cernea, 1996). According to
higher among involuntary resettlers (Guggenheim World Bank (1994) data, six million people are
and Cernea, 1993). Another difference between the displaced by urban development and
two lies in the composition of the displaced transportation programmes each year in Asia.
population. Voluntary movement of people About 10 million people every year, or at least 80-
consists mainly of young families in the early stages 90 million people over the past decade, have been
of their household life cycle. Also, migration is displaced in developing countries, as a result of
gradual and social and economic ties with their infrastructure programmes for dam construction,
villages or earlier places of residence are urban and transportation development taken
maintained. These serve as a cushion in adverse together.
conditions in the new environment. Involuntary
resettlement programmes, by contrast, are Development related displacement in the urban
indiscriminate. Entire populations are forced to context, and especially in Mumbai, has in recent
move, disrupting the diverse risk avoidance and times caused concern and attracted much
social insurance mechanisms present in their controversy. The large numbers of people living in
earlier residence (Guggenheim and Cernea, 1993). slums who are affected by such changes form the
Involuntary resettlement caused by development city’s most vulnerable and marginalised groups and
programmes is also different from displacement play very little or no role in the processes involved.
caused by war and famines. Development projects
causing resettlement, unlike famines and wars, are Social Implications and Mitigating Risks of
seen to fit into the nation’s ideology and the larger Involuntary Resettlement
social good. They are an outcome of a planned
political decision taken for the good of the nation The economic and social deprivation that occurs
(Asthana, 1996). People displaced by wars or in involuntary resettlement varies in intensity in
famines may sometimes be able to return back to different locations. The World Bank (1994) points
their homelands once the turbulence has subsided to the following losses to labourers: (i) job
– they have an option of returning to their earlier opportunities primarily in urban areas (ii) forgoing
places of residence. In contrast, development assets under the common property regimes. Cernea
induced involuntary resettlement is permanent in (2000) points out that when displacement and
nature. Therefore successful resettlement relocation leave people worse off, the empirical
programmes for development projects must evidence reveals a set of eight recurrent
provide the elements for long-term and sustained characteristics that need to be monitored closely
improvement in the standard of living of the people – (1) landlessness (2) joblessness (3) homelessness
resettled. (4) marginalisation (5) morbidity (6) food
insecurity (7) loss of access to common property
Forced relocation is seen mainly as a consequence assets, and (8) social disarticulation. All of these
of constructing hydropower or irrigation dams. In contribute to the process of impoverishment.
reality, however, several categories of development
interventions - and virtually all those predicated Landlessness: Expropriation of land removes the
on major change in land and water use – require main foundation upon which people’s productive
mandatory population dislocation and systems; commercial activities and livelihood are
resettlement (Cernea, 1996). Such projects also constructed. This is the principal form of de-
include construction of transportation corridors capitalisation and pauperisation of displaced rural
such as railways, highways, airports or other urban people. Many urban displacees also lose access to
infrastructure projects such as sewerage systems, some land. Unless this foundation is reconstructed
Introduction / 4
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com
elsewhere, or replaced with steady income- insufficient water supply, an inadequate sanitary
generating employment, landlessness sets in waste system and the lack of other preventive
chronically and the affected families are health care measures(WB, 1994).
impoverished.
Food insecurity : Undernourishment is both a
Joblessness: Loss of wage employment occurs symptom and a result of inadequate resettlement.
because most of the displaced are engaged as Forced uprooting increases the risk that people will
enterprise workers, landless labourers in rural fall into chronic food insecurity defined by the
areas, service sector workers or skilled artisans. World Bank as calorie-protein below the minimum
Creating new jobs for them is difficult and requires necessary for normal growth.
substantial investment. The resulting
unemployment or underemployment among Loss of access to common property : For poor
resettlers has painful economic and psychological people, particularly for the landless and assetless,
effects. loss of access to the common property assets that
belonged to the relocated communities (pastures,
Homelessness: Loss of shelter may be temporary forested lands, water bodies, burial grounds,
for most of those displaced, but for some families quarries, etc.) results in significant deterioration
it may remain a chronic condition. If resettlement in income and livelihood levels. Typically,
policies do not explicitly provide for improvement governments do not compensate losses of common
in housing conditions, or if compensation for property assets. These losses are compounded by
demolished shelters is made at assessed market loss of access to some public services, such as
value rather than replacement value, the risk of school (Mathur 1998; Mahapatra 1999a, 1999b).
homelessness increases. In a broader cultural
sense, loss of a family’s individual home and the Social disarticulation: The disintegration of social
loss of a group’s cultural space tend to result in support networks has far- reaching consequences.
alienation and status-deprivation. It compounds individual losses with the loss of
social capital. Patterns of social organisation, once
Marginalisation: This occurs when families cannot dismantled, are hard to rebuild. Such loss is higher
regain lost economic strength. This can lead to in projects that relocate people in a dispersed
increasing the economic differentiation between manner rather than in groups and social units.
evacuees and hosts. Economic marginalisation is
often accompanied by social and psychological A study of resettlement projects in Rajasthan
marginalisation expressed in a drop in social status, recently carried out by Mathur (2000) found
in resettlers’ loss of confidence in society and in another major risk that accounts for
themselves, a feeling of injustice, and deepened impoverishment much in the same way as the eight
vulnerability. The coerciveness of displacement and main risks identified by Cernea mentioned above.
the victimisation of resettlers tend to depreciate Mathur terms it as the ‘loss of access to basic public
their self-image, and host communities often services’. The Government often provides public
perceive them as a socially degrading stigma. services such as schools, hospitals, drinking water
supply, village-to-market bus service, etc. it’s easy
Morbidity: People forced to relocate are more to construct buildings for schools and hospitals but
exposed to illness and to comparatively more not to post teachers or doctors to run them. This
severe illnesses than those who are not. The means that in an emergency families have to bear
adverse health effects of displacement, particularly the economic burden of accessing a health care
when projects do not incorporate preventive facility situated at some distance, or turn to private
epidemiological measures, are well documented. schools to ensure their children get educated. This,
People suffer from diseases of poor hygiene such Mathur says, puts a heavy burden on an already
as diarrhoea and dysentery and from outbreaks of impoverished population. The risks linger long
parasitic and vector borne diseases such as malaria after relocation to the resettlement colonies.
and schistosomiasis caused by unsafe and
Introduction / 5
PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com