Dharavi is one of many slums in India and around the world. It is characterized by noise, crowds, poor infrastructure, lack of modern plumbing, and pollution. One of many, Dharavi has been chosen as a focus because it is in the geographic center of Mumbai, a rising financial center in India that one day hopes to rival the US and Chinese economies. If Mumbai hopes to achieve this, then it must eliminate its slums. The slums house a large number of the poor, which when compared to the few wealthy residents who live in certain luxurious neighborhoods, emphasizes the lack of the middle class in Mumbai. A robust middle class is necessary to fill the workforce of any financial powerhouse city. This lack of middle class is reminiscent to the situation in the South Bronx, where poor residents have no power to represent themselves and thus are forced to accept their living conditions. However, New York City is already a financial center, and there is no political urgency to redevelop the South Bronx.
Mark Jacobson, author of “Mumbai’s Shadow City” deems the redevelopment of Dharavi from slum to modernized city important because it will be an example for other slums’ redevelopments. Any issues that impede progress for redevelopment will usually be present in other slums. Furthermore, any remaining problems after development has occurred will most likely be present in the transformation of other slums worldwide.
It is not the most heavily populated slum, for certain Mexican and Pakistani inner cities rival Dharavi in size. According to Jacobson, Dharavi is the spiritual and psychological center of Mumbai, although he does not provide evidence to confirm his claim. However, planners have targeted Dharavi because of the existence of two railway lines that would facilitate the commutes of future working and business classes. Additionally, the Banda-Kurla Complex , a group of offices for globally-known companies, already exists in Dharavi. Their presence rationalizes converting Dharavi into a financial hub. Finally, throngs of poor people are not supposed to be found in the centers of cities. Although, Jacobson did mention the exception of inner cities such as Harlem. The existing transportation and financial Complex give Dharavi an advantage because it is less work for planners to consider—provided that the resulting inner city can be easily built around this existing infrastructure.
One thing that Dharavi is unique for is all the diverse industries that are present: tannery, textile, and pottery. The issue of accommodating certain industries after redevelopment seems troublesome. The potters, known as Kumbhars, are opposed to upgrading the slum to a city. They believe the land belongs to them. However, the repeal of the Vacant Land Tenancy Act in 1974 has taken away the Kumbhars’ right to live on the land. Yet, their industry is slowing down as younger generations are becoming merchant seamen and computer specialists. Additionally, their pottery kilns are producing black smoke that is affecting nearby Sion Hospital. Pulmonary patients are adversely affected by the factories’ noxious fumes. In this case, it seems that preference to stay on location would be given to a public health center rather than industry, unless plans are made to relocate the hospital. This predicament illustrates another planning dilemna: when two facilites are conflicting with each other and cannot both stay, which one must move? The diminishing power of the pottery industry is certainly not a selling, persuasive point for the potters.
However, Kumbhars believe they are safe from the reaches of redevelopment. After the Kumbhars had a meeting with Mukesh Mehta, architect and city planner, each party left with a different impression. The Kumbhars did not seem devoted to cooperation because when asked if they would participate in a census, a beginning step to redevelopement, a representative responded “We’ll think about it.” However, Mehta was feeling upbeat after the encounter, confiding in Jacobson that the Kumbhars seemed willing to fill out the census. This lack of mutual understanding between residents and planners is another important factor in the redevelopment of slums.
Mehta’s plan to redevelop Dharavi has also been presented to the proper authorities and pre-approved. His plan consists of relocating 57,0000 families into high rises that have indoor plumbing and elevators. The private firm that will construct this building for free will then have permission to build high market value property on remaining land, which will yield a healthy profit. Approval of such plans would normally require 60 % of the residents’ votes. However, the government is in charge of this plan, and as such deems that the only way progress will be halted is if there are sufficient resident complaints during a 30-day complaint period. However, the number of complaints necessary was not specified. Bypassing typical protocol in order to develop, and therefore overlooking resident input to a certain degree, does not constitute a healthy development process. This holds true especially when there is resident opposition.
Residents of Dharavi are against opposition. They point to earlier attempts of redevelopment that have failed. For instance, one attempt left the willing residents in half-finished houses without a steady supply of water or electricity. Besides, they currently guage their present housing as superior to the proposed housing. One resident, Meera Singh, relates that she receives 2,100 rupees monthly from rent. If she moved to the high rises, she would be losing money on a monthly basis, to pay for elevator and other fees. Moreover, she would have more square footage in her current slum residence than the new apartment high rise. The promise of indoor plumbing is not too appealing. It seems like a waste to use so much water for one person, according to Dharavi residents. Also, the quality of these proposed high rises comes to the forefront. Will they be similar to the apartment building pointed out by the Kumbhars, which was presentable at first but became dilapidated after lack of maintenance? Reluctance to pay money from their own pockets, when they currently do not have to, and awareness of a decreased living space in the high rises, inhibits residents from accepting the plan. There is suspicion considering that “everyone in Dharavi had their own opinion about how and why the plan was concocted to hurt them in particular.”
Perhaps this suspicion is not irrational. After all, politicians have been known to displace constituents after representing them for years. One such political decision resulted in 300,000 residents being displaced after their slum was demolished. However, politicians are typically against slum renovation. They want to keep slums intact, so their voters are kept intact. Otherwise, some voters will relocate if slums are redeveloped, decreasing the politicians’ power. This highlights another impediment to progress: political opposition.
Slum redevelopment seems ideal but it runs into various roadblocks: resident and political opposition, lack of understanding between planners and residents, and needing to relocate or accommodate existing industries in the new city. The cities that are chosen for this complex process are pinpointed for a reason. Considering Dharavi, it could be because of existing train lines, existing financial complexes, government willingness to bend the rules to implement redevelopment, and prime location. Hopefully, it will prove easier to take advantage of these existing benefits and build a modern inner city, rather than rebuilding a slum that does not have any useful initial factors to accommodate.
By Patricia Paredes
