|
SINGAPORE HAS NO SHADOWS!
A critical examination of the Comprehensive Development Plan 2005 for Bangalore
SINGAPORE HAS NO SHADOWS!
Clifton D' Rozario
Alternative Law Forum
Background:
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is the Planning Authority for Bangalore and in this capacity it is saddled with the task of preparing the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for Bangalore.
• CDP provides and defines the vision and major developments of a city. Basically it implies the projected growth of the city and the means to achieve this.
• A CDP by definition provides vision, infrastructure, economic growth, building bye laws, land use regulations, zonal regulations and area – wise development plans.
• It is much more than a document for spatial development orientation; it is, above all, a strategic vision of the city based on directive principles combining respect for natural resources, economic efficiency, market forces and social equity into a coherent whole.
The first CDP was prepared in 1984 and this was required to be revised once in ten years as per section 25 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961. Subsequently CDP was revised and approved in 1995. Thus as per the law, its second revision has been taken on to update the physical developments and projected trends in growth.
This work of the Second Revision commenced from April, 2003. A French Consultant was entrusted this task in keeping with the agreement arrived the Indo - French Protocol. In this connection, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in February 2003 with the BDA and M/S Strategic Conseil Etudes (SCE) consortium comprising the City Government of Paris (APUR) - the Greater Paris Development and Planning Authorities (IAURIF), the Sorbonne University and the Group 8; in the presence of French Prime Minister and the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. The commercial contract was finalised and signed on 2nd June 2003, officially launching the revision of the 1995 CDP. Under the Protocol the French Government would extend a loan amounting to Euro 4.56 million (about Rs.22.34 crores) and carries an interest rate of 2.6% per annum. It is repayable over a period of 23 years, including a grace period of 5 years.
Over the past two years the French Consultant have completed City diagnostic surveys which covers major areas like population structure, Urban pattern, social development, socio-economic matters, housing, civic amenities, infrastructure, traffic and transportation and institutional efficiency etc.
The BDA has now prepared a draft of the revised CDP for which it is supposedly inviting suggestions before it can be finalised.
This presentation of mine examines the present CDP with regard to two important realities of Bangalore.
IT sector:
Firstly IT and sometimes one feels that it is probability too much of a reality in Bangalore. This fact is driven home time and again. The last few days have witnessed the IT industry raising a huge furore about the lack of infrastructure amid threats of leaving the city etc. etc. There are 1260 IT companies in Bangalore that provide employment to about 2 lakh persons.
Slums:
But there is another reality of Bangalore that rarely gets the same press coverage or political interest and that is the slums / urban poor of Bangalore.
• There are 778 slums in Bangalore city and 6 City Municipal Councils around it.
• That is, 26 % (and growing) of Bangalore’s population lives in the slums. In all about 35% of Bangalore are classified as urban poor.
• The slums in Bangalore city come under the purview of following government authorities or others;
Sl no.Different Authorities No of slums1Bangalore Development Authority67
2Bangalore Mahanagara Palike1133Slum Clearance Board3454Indian Railways625Forest, defense, PWD, factory, high tension wire, private, etc.
191Total778
Needless to add the slum dwellers and the urban poor have been living in deplorable conditions for decade on end without much intervention from the successive governments despite strong protests and repeated reminders.
LET US SEE WHAT THE CDP HAS IN STORE FOR BOTH THESE REALITIES
ATTITUDE TOWARDS SLUMS:
The draft Vision Document prepared by the BDA does not mention the word “slums”. As a matter of fact it does not even mention “slum dwellers”. A reading of the document shows us that instead of referring in particular to the word “slums”, the BDA has opted to use “shadow areas” i.e. areas defined by the lack of facilities and civic amenities. In doing so the BDA has denied the very existence of slums in Bangalore thereby denying slum dwellers any existence in the future vision of the city. This is also made clear from the fact that the report states that “...a large part of the population lives in poverty” (page 6) but it goes on to add that “...An important part of the society is excluded from basic services; the improvement of shadow areas is more than a priority: it is an obligation” (Page 20).
What this also does is to ignore identifying the special problems that slum dwellers face i.e. lack of tenure security, poor housing, poor access to basic civic amenities, etc. to just a problem of access to civic amenities. The use of the word “slum” invokes associations that help understand the realities of slums dwellers, especially lack of livable conditions. However, the use of “shadow areas” does not invoke such associations and instead a lesser reality that actually exists.
Importantly this puts the slum dwellers on par with lower / middle class settlements where the civic amenities have not been provided adequately thereby negating the specific problems that slum dwellers face.
As a matter of fact it can be said that BDA does not envisage any space for slum dwellers in its future vision of Bangalore.
This is also appalling because it is seen that the previous CDPs (1984 and 1995) have made specific mention of the existence and proliferation of slums besides providing some details on the various schemes that have been undertaken or need to be undertaken to provide basic services such as water, drains, etc. to slums. Importantly there is specific focus laid on the various housing and rehabilitation plans need for housing indicating that tenure security was high on the agenda.
The 1995 CDP goes many steps further than the 1984 CDP with regard to elaborating on the perspective around slums. To quote,
”The normal tendency has been to look upon slums as ugly spots dotting an otherwise beautiful city and these must, therefore be removed and if it is not possible to remove them, some improvements must be made as per the Government programme.
This approach has to change and a slum has to be seen as a human settlement. So long as people keep on migrating into the city for jobs and as long as housing is in short supply, specially for the poor, this problem is bound to persist. Planning should therefore aim at providing shelter to such people than preventing them from leading a decent life.”
In conclusion, what we can infer is that the previous CDPs have at least taken on board the fact that slums exist in the city and hence, any future vision for the city can only be imagined keeping in mind the needs of slum dwellers with regard to civic amenities and tenure security.
However, the present CDP revision has to offer for slum dwellers and in fact denies their very existence.
It is important to locate this silence about slums and the urban poor within the present developments in Bangalore.
EMPHASIS ON IT:
Then what is this CDP all about?
The CDP is most concerned about the changing status of Bangalore from a Capital city to a Metropolis i.e. Global City and the role that the IT sector has to play in this changing status. The entire report emphatically states the necessity to place the IT sector centrally in any future vision for Bangalore. It also emphasis on the need for better traffic infrastructure especially wide roads and additional roads. This, if we recall, these have been the main demands of the IT sector over the past few years. The Infosys lead BATF had this as their main target, Azim Premji of Wipro threated to shift Wipro out of Bangalore due to the bad state of roads and this year several of the leading IT companies in Bangalore are boycotting the IT.Com for this very reason.
This is not to say that this sector mustn't be taken into account. The problem is the fact that it is only the IT sector and their needs that are being addressed in this CDP.
It must be remembered that it was during the period when SM Krishna was the Chief Minister that the IT sector started to gain such centrality be it in the form of BATF or the various incentives offered to IT companies.
It was during this time that the “Lets make Bangalore into Singapore” slogan was raised. Singaporean consultants Jurong were contracted to prepare a report to enable this. To this extent they came up with the IT Corridor report. The proposed IT Corridor stretches from Electronic city in the south to Old Madras road to the North east: covering a curvilinear stretch of 25 km in length and 7.5 km in width and covering an area of about 138.6 sq. km, To quote from the report: “The vision for the IT Corridor is to provide a showcase environment for IT professionals to live, work, play and strike business deals”. BDA has been made the nodal agency for implementing this master plan. At a meeting on the IT Corridor, convened by Chief Minister S M Krishna, he emphasized the need for incorporating the IT Corridor Master Plan into the City's CDP was felt as it would ensure a systematic growth. Simultaneously the KIADB acquires atleast around 1000 acres of land for supposed IT companies in this proposed area while the BDA notified the acquisition of 1522 acres for the formation of a Hi-Tech City and road between Hosur Road (Electronic City) and Sarjapur road.
Now the draft CDP clearly lays IT sector as its central focus especially in terms of projected land requirements. According to the estimates of the CDP the following are the projected land requirements.
IT Sector – 6250 acres
Other Industries – 3750 acres
Logistics – 3250 acres
There is, however, no mention of the land requirements for the housing of slum dwellers and the urban poor. Of course there is some lip service paid in the statement where housing for the poor is pointed out as necessary yet this does not get translated into actual land allocation as such.
The IT sector is being sought to be developed in the form of campuses keeping in mind the mantra, “live, work and play”. It follows that the livelihood, shelter and recreational needs of a particular class is being addressed. However, this is not being done in the case of slum dwellers or the urban poor. In fact nothing is being done for them.
WHOSE TO BLAME?
It is clear that there an IT – centricity in the planning of the government. But who do we blame of this – the government or the IT sector or both?
• While the government must be taken to task on the manner in which it continues to ignore slums and deny 35% of its citizens from a decent life we also need to be aware of the role of the IT sector.
• The role of the IT sector also needs to be critiqued here.
IT cannot represent the needs of Bangalore!!!
The recent furore of the IT sector over bad roads and the outcome of it, have again reinforced the view that the IT sector only represents its needs. Like Mr. Ravindra has stated in his article appearing in the Times of India on the 19th of September, “...Improvement of certain roads to enable IT commuters to travel faster is accorded priority whereas the roads and footpaths used by lakhs of ordinary citizens in neighbourhood localities are ignored.”
There is no problem with this considering that these are business ventures and they would do what is good for their business. The problem arises when they encroach into governance and attempts at representation.
The Nandan Nilekani headed BATF was a very good indication of this. According to BATF the main problems in Bangalore were the condition of the roads, garbage, mosquitoes, pollution and public toilets, in that order.
• Roads, rather than public transport;
• garbage and pollution, rather than public housing;
• mosquitoes and public toilets rather than public health.
The second tier of problems included blocked sewage, poor traffic management, alcohol in residential areas, public safety, and bringing up the rear, public transport.
In its words, BATF was formed in 2000 with the “desire to showcase Bangalore as the gate way to class one cities of the country and strengthen its position as an engine for Karnataka's robust growth”. Thus, with Nandan Nilenkani (Managing Director and CEO of Infosys) as Chairman, BATF was formed. The Bangalore Agenda was meant to be a partnership between the citizens, corporates and the administrative agencies – the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (city corporation), Bangalore Development Authority (urban development), Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (transport), Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (water and sewerage), Bangalore Electric Ssupply Company (power), Bangalore Sanchar Nigam Limited (telecommunications), and Police.
Though the claim of the BATF was to cater to the needs of all classes of society, its work has proven otherwise. The gap between the lip-service paid to the upholding interests of urban poor and its projects are way too wide to bridge. For the sake of the article we choose to focus on one such project called “Swachha Bangalore” (Clean Bangalore), an initiative in the area of Solid Waste Management (SWM). While the BATF concerned itself with municipal solid waste collection, its transportation, disposal and processing it did not bother itself with the concerns of the “pourakarmikas” (contract street sweepers).
There are about 10,000 pourakarmikas sweeping the streets and cleaning the garbage dumps in Bangalore receving a meager pay of between Rs 1000 and 1500. They are not assured any guaranteed wages though the minimum wage is fixed at Rs. 1800, no job security and horrible working conditions. In a recent survey carried out by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation and Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, more than 80% pourakarmikas have been diagnosed with some ailment or the other – primarily diabetes, high blood pressure and heart related illnesses. According to reports their unhygienic working conditions is the root cause of their deteriorating health. However, the BATF is only interested in a “Clean Bangalore” notwithstanding the adverse poverty and deteriorating health conditions of the pourakarmikas.
The role of the BATF in ensuring IT’s hegemony in Bangalore is also exemplified by the IT Corridor. Even though the project in its entirety is yet to be implemented the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) placed with the responsibility of acquiring land for the project formed a “Think Tank” of which BATF member Ravichander is a part. Not surprisingly not a single elected member finds place in these decision making bodies. More importantly, the villages whose agricultural lands are acquired for the IT Corridor have no say whatsover in this process and their stiff opposition to the arbitrary acquisitions have been ignored by all concerned authorities.
Conclusion:
The project of planning has always unfolded itself within the larger fabric of models of development, mirroring transitions in social and economic relations. In the era of globalization and rapid urbanization, where in the past ten years, Bangalore has attained almost a mythical status as the silicon valley of India we have seen a significant transformation of Bangalore with the emergence of the dominant narrative of Bangalore as the silicon valley of India, a symbol of the emergence of India as an IT superpower.
The Bangalore Summit in 2000 represented a new stage in the public life of the city, bringing the private sector to the foreground in a city which has long been envisaged and promoted as the public sector city par excellence. Shedding its more timid presence in a city the new corporate culture attributes the city’s problems to inefficient management while envisaging realizable plans that made a Singapore possible. This was a fresh attempt at moving to center stage the economic and technological aspects of planning which may be at odds with social, community and ecological uses of city land. Thus BATF was formed.
However, co-existing parallel with this vision of Bangalore as “Singapore” and the trajectory towards this vision is a city mirroring the silent but steady growth of local economies lacking the infrastructural provisions and state backing unlike the IT companies. This city weaves in its core the “unorganized” and “unplanned” growth of the city, both economically and spatially. It is here that the slum dwellers and the urban poor comprising 35% of the city reside and carry out trade in conditions that make a decent living standard unattainable.
It is in this larger context of globalization and the changing self representation of Bangalore that we have to contextualize the present proposal of rewriting the CDP.
This space of the new global city however has to jostle, economically, culturally and legally with the older networks of interests and claims upon the city. We should therefore have no doubts in our minds that any attempt at formalizing the new vision of Bangalore will have to contend with the various contestations and contradictions that competing models of development and interests raise. One of the critical flaws of the modernist project of planning has been to imagine itself as mega project of social cohesion, creating economic and social efficiency through the orderly and planned development of society.
The present Draft CDP makes this fundamental mistake when it focuses entirely on requirements to fit Bangalore into the slot of Metropolis especially the role of the IT sector. The CDP, no doubt, also conceives in itself a space for the middle class and their aspirations in this manner but fails miserably to take into account the needs of slum dwellers. The result is that on one hand the housing and other needs of slum dwellers are entirely ignored, while on the other hand, there will be a real estate boom in Bangalore, which will benefit the builder / developer lobbies supremely besides the cement, sand and steel lobbies that will benefit no-end thanks to all the development and infrastructure projects that have been proposed.
This is unacceptable since, as pointed above, any future vision of Bangalore must cater to the needs of all its citizens especially the vulnerable slum citizens. Another point to ponder about is the lack of any caste perspective in the CDP. Considering the centrality of the CDP in the spatial and economical planning of Bangalore, it would be constitutionally mandatory that caste was also taken into consideration. This lack is further aggravated by the fact that the majority of the slum dwellers are in fact Dalit.
A word of caution. The vision for Bangalore as another Singapore is not a new phenomenon. In the early 1980s the then CM of Maharashtra, Shri Antulay, had visions of converting Mumbai to Singapore. What followed was large-scale demolitions of hundereds of slums. In fact slum dwellers were put in buses and packed out of the city and sent to the “villages/towns of origin” - nearby villages in Maharashtra itself and buses to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu as well. Now Vilasrao Deshmukh has visions of converting Mumbai into Shanghai and yet again large-scale demolitions of slums have ensued. More than 90,000 families have been forced on to the streets due to these evictions.
Can we infer that the same is to take place in Bangalore and that the silence about slums in the CDP is a step in that direction? That this need to become Singapore automatically render the urban poor undesirable and hence disposable?
Annexure 1
1984 Comprehensive Development Plan:
According to the 1984 CDP, “There are about 400 slums in Bangalore with a population of about 2.00 lakhs” (Page 4). However later on in the report it is stated that “There are 290 slums in Bangalore City out of which 162 slums are under the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, 64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore City Corporation and 64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority” (Page 6).
The report provides some detail of the efforts of the authorities in providing housing and basic amenities such as water supply, street lighting, toilets and drains for slum dwellers.
The report also records the formation of a special squad for prevention of unauthorized construction of huts in the declared slums as well as formation of new slums.
Annexure 2
Revised Comprehensive Development Plan 1995:
According to the 1995 plan there were 401 slums in Bangalore of which (Page 25) -
64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore City Corporation
64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority
273 slums were under the jurisdiction of Karnataka Slum Clearance Board
The CDP points out that the improvement schemes taken up by the authorities are ad hoc and makes numerous suggestions to rectify the situation and approach, namely, -
In situ rehabilitation by means of construction of proper houses and provision of civic amenities unless the existing area is unsuitable for living or land is needed to be released for important urban programmes.
Participation of slum dwellers in formulation and execution of any rehabilitation schemes should be pursued.
Programmes must be formulated not only for housing but also for provision of basic facilities including health, education, etc.
Participation of voluntary organizations such as AVAS must be encouraged.
Slum dwellers must be encouraged to form co-operative societies. This would help them to obtain finance for their activities
Government must draw-up a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem of shelter for the urban poor i.e. Slum dwellers and pavement dwellers.
Annexure 3
Budgetary Outlays:
Let us see how much amount has been sanctioned for development of slums in Bangalore. The KSCB has a Central Government fund of Rs. 34.50 crores from National Slum Development Programme and a certain amount towards construction of 8000 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana houses for the while of Karnataka. This amounts also cover the staff salaries and one can easily imagine what pittance will reach the slum dwellers.
Incidentally BDA has no amount sanctioned for slums!
BMP on the other hand has sanctioned 700 lakhs towards slum development. This is lesser than the 750 lakhs that have been allocated towards development of the Freedom Park. Further only for infrastructure works i.e. construction of flyovers and road development about 23,268 lakhs have been allocated.
Annexure 4
Reality of Slums:
There are 778 slums in Bangalore providing housing to more than 18.5 lakhs of people. Just about half of these slums have been recognized by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board while the rest, according to the KSCB, do not exist. The provision of even basic services like drinking water, latrines, roads, schools, public health facilities, etc is desperately lacking resulting in sub-standard living conditions of varying degrees in most slums.
According to STEM, a research organization, who conducted a survey of 985 slums across Karnataka:
• 30% of the slums do not have access to drinking water
• 66.3% of the slums do not have latrine facilities
• 37.3% of the slums do not have drainage facilities
• 54.5% of the slums do not have proper roads
• 63.6% of the slums have insufficient street lighting
• 70.5% of the slums do not have proper garbage disposal facilities
• 75.4% of the slums have no PHC (public health centers) facilities
• 34.2% of the slums do not have anganwadis (crèches)
It is estimated that there are at the least 4500 slums in Karnataka.
Annexure 5
Slums – What is a Slum?
The Draft Vision Document does not mention the existence of slums in Bangalore, however, the Planning District Report contains some record of the existence of slums.
It is interesting to note the definition of slums in the said document. “Slum is a makeshift accommodation without basic infrastructure and land tenure security. Settlements occur in several spatial configurations. (Katcha, Basti, Kulocha)... ” (Page 228). This definition is in complete contradiction to the legal definition of slums since it states that slums are temporary settlements. The implication is that it denies the slum dwellers can right to claim ownership over the land while it absolves the State of providing in situ rehabilitation.
This definition is also contrary to the definition of slums as per law. 'Slums' have been defined under Section 3 of the Slums Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 as areas where buildings –
i.) are in any respect unfit for human habitation;
ii.) are by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light, sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors which are detrimental to safety, health and morals.
The Census of India 2001, tried to make the definition of slums a more inclusive one, and proposed to treat the following as ‘Slum’ areas: -
All areas notified as ‘Slum’ by State/Local Government and UT Administration under any Act;
All areas recognized as ‘Slum’ by State/Local Government ad UT Administration which have not been formally notified as slum under any Act;
A compact area of at least 300 population or about 60-70 households of poorly built congested tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with inadequate infrastructure and lacking in proper sanitary and drinking water facilities. This definition appears to be satisfactory at all India level.
A slum household is defined by UN-HABITAT, The UN Human Settlements Programme, as a group of individuals living under the same roof that lack one or more (in some cities, two or more) of the following conditions: security of tenure, structural quality and durability of dwellings, access to safe water, access to sanitation facilities and sufficient living area.
Clifton D' Rozario
Alternative Law Forum
Background:
Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) is the Planning Authority for Bangalore and in this capacity it is saddled with the task of preparing the Comprehensive Development Plan (CDP) for Bangalore.
• CDP provides and defines the vision and major developments of a city. Basically it implies the projected growth of the city and the means to achieve this.
• A CDP by definition provides vision, infrastructure, economic growth, building bye laws, land use regulations, zonal regulations and area – wise development plans.
• It is much more than a document for spatial development orientation; it is, above all, a strategic vision of the city based on directive principles combining respect for natural resources, economic efficiency, market forces and social equity into a coherent whole.
The first CDP was prepared in 1984 and this was required to be revised once in ten years as per section 25 of the Karnataka Town and Country Planning Act 1961. Subsequently CDP was revised and approved in 1995. Thus as per the law, its second revision has been taken on to update the physical developments and projected trends in growth.
This work of the Second Revision commenced from April, 2003. A French Consultant was entrusted this task in keeping with the agreement arrived the Indo - French Protocol. In this connection, a Memorandum of Understanding was signed in February 2003 with the BDA and M/S Strategic Conseil Etudes (SCE) consortium comprising the City Government of Paris (APUR) - the Greater Paris Development and Planning Authorities (IAURIF), the Sorbonne University and the Group 8; in the presence of French Prime Minister and the Hon'ble Chief Minister of Karnataka. The commercial contract was finalised and signed on 2nd June 2003, officially launching the revision of the 1995 CDP. Under the Protocol the French Government would extend a loan amounting to Euro 4.56 million (about Rs.22.34 crores) and carries an interest rate of 2.6% per annum. It is repayable over a period of 23 years, including a grace period of 5 years.
Over the past two years the French Consultant have completed City diagnostic surveys which covers major areas like population structure, Urban pattern, social development, socio-economic matters, housing, civic amenities, infrastructure, traffic and transportation and institutional efficiency etc.
The BDA has now prepared a draft of the revised CDP for which it is supposedly inviting suggestions before it can be finalised.
This presentation of mine examines the present CDP with regard to two important realities of Bangalore.
IT sector:
Firstly IT and sometimes one feels that it is probability too much of a reality in Bangalore. This fact is driven home time and again. The last few days have witnessed the IT industry raising a huge furore about the lack of infrastructure amid threats of leaving the city etc. etc. There are 1260 IT companies in Bangalore that provide employment to about 2 lakh persons.
Slums:
But there is another reality of Bangalore that rarely gets the same press coverage or political interest and that is the slums / urban poor of Bangalore.
• There are 778 slums in Bangalore city and 6 City Municipal Councils around it.
• That is, 26 % (and growing) of Bangalore’s population lives in the slums. In all about 35% of Bangalore are classified as urban poor.
• The slums in Bangalore city come under the purview of following government authorities or others;
Sl no.Different Authorities No of slums1Bangalore Development Authority67
2Bangalore Mahanagara Palike1133Slum Clearance Board3454Indian Railways625Forest, defense, PWD, factory, high tension wire, private, etc.
191Total778
Needless to add the slum dwellers and the urban poor have been living in deplorable conditions for decade on end without much intervention from the successive governments despite strong protests and repeated reminders.
LET US SEE WHAT THE CDP HAS IN STORE FOR BOTH THESE REALITIES
ATTITUDE TOWARDS SLUMS:
The draft Vision Document prepared by the BDA does not mention the word “slums”. As a matter of fact it does not even mention “slum dwellers”. A reading of the document shows us that instead of referring in particular to the word “slums”, the BDA has opted to use “shadow areas” i.e. areas defined by the lack of facilities and civic amenities. In doing so the BDA has denied the very existence of slums in Bangalore thereby denying slum dwellers any existence in the future vision of the city. This is also made clear from the fact that the report states that “...a large part of the population lives in poverty” (page 6) but it goes on to add that “...An important part of the society is excluded from basic services; the improvement of shadow areas is more than a priority: it is an obligation” (Page 20).
What this also does is to ignore identifying the special problems that slum dwellers face i.e. lack of tenure security, poor housing, poor access to basic civic amenities, etc. to just a problem of access to civic amenities. The use of the word “slum” invokes associations that help understand the realities of slums dwellers, especially lack of livable conditions. However, the use of “shadow areas” does not invoke such associations and instead a lesser reality that actually exists.
Importantly this puts the slum dwellers on par with lower / middle class settlements where the civic amenities have not been provided adequately thereby negating the specific problems that slum dwellers face.
As a matter of fact it can be said that BDA does not envisage any space for slum dwellers in its future vision of Bangalore.
This is also appalling because it is seen that the previous CDPs (1984 and 1995) have made specific mention of the existence and proliferation of slums besides providing some details on the various schemes that have been undertaken or need to be undertaken to provide basic services such as water, drains, etc. to slums. Importantly there is specific focus laid on the various housing and rehabilitation plans need for housing indicating that tenure security was high on the agenda.
The 1995 CDP goes many steps further than the 1984 CDP with regard to elaborating on the perspective around slums. To quote,
”The normal tendency has been to look upon slums as ugly spots dotting an otherwise beautiful city and these must, therefore be removed and if it is not possible to remove them, some improvements must be made as per the Government programme.
This approach has to change and a slum has to be seen as a human settlement. So long as people keep on migrating into the city for jobs and as long as housing is in short supply, specially for the poor, this problem is bound to persist. Planning should therefore aim at providing shelter to such people than preventing them from leading a decent life.”
In conclusion, what we can infer is that the previous CDPs have at least taken on board the fact that slums exist in the city and hence, any future vision for the city can only be imagined keeping in mind the needs of slum dwellers with regard to civic amenities and tenure security.
However, the present CDP revision has to offer for slum dwellers and in fact denies their very existence.
It is important to locate this silence about slums and the urban poor within the present developments in Bangalore.
EMPHASIS ON IT:
Then what is this CDP all about?
The CDP is most concerned about the changing status of Bangalore from a Capital city to a Metropolis i.e. Global City and the role that the IT sector has to play in this changing status. The entire report emphatically states the necessity to place the IT sector centrally in any future vision for Bangalore. It also emphasis on the need for better traffic infrastructure especially wide roads and additional roads. This, if we recall, these have been the main demands of the IT sector over the past few years. The Infosys lead BATF had this as their main target, Azim Premji of Wipro threated to shift Wipro out of Bangalore due to the bad state of roads and this year several of the leading IT companies in Bangalore are boycotting the IT.Com for this very reason.
This is not to say that this sector mustn't be taken into account. The problem is the fact that it is only the IT sector and their needs that are being addressed in this CDP.
It must be remembered that it was during the period when SM Krishna was the Chief Minister that the IT sector started to gain such centrality be it in the form of BATF or the various incentives offered to IT companies.
It was during this time that the “Lets make Bangalore into Singapore” slogan was raised. Singaporean consultants Jurong were contracted to prepare a report to enable this. To this extent they came up with the IT Corridor report. The proposed IT Corridor stretches from Electronic city in the south to Old Madras road to the North east: covering a curvilinear stretch of 25 km in length and 7.5 km in width and covering an area of about 138.6 sq. km, To quote from the report: “The vision for the IT Corridor is to provide a showcase environment for IT professionals to live, work, play and strike business deals”. BDA has been made the nodal agency for implementing this master plan. At a meeting on the IT Corridor, convened by Chief Minister S M Krishna, he emphasized the need for incorporating the IT Corridor Master Plan into the City's CDP was felt as it would ensure a systematic growth. Simultaneously the KIADB acquires atleast around 1000 acres of land for supposed IT companies in this proposed area while the BDA notified the acquisition of 1522 acres for the formation of a Hi-Tech City and road between Hosur Road (Electronic City) and Sarjapur road.
Now the draft CDP clearly lays IT sector as its central focus especially in terms of projected land requirements. According to the estimates of the CDP the following are the projected land requirements.
IT Sector – 6250 acres
Other Industries – 3750 acres
Logistics – 3250 acres
There is, however, no mention of the land requirements for the housing of slum dwellers and the urban poor. Of course there is some lip service paid in the statement where housing for the poor is pointed out as necessary yet this does not get translated into actual land allocation as such.
The IT sector is being sought to be developed in the form of campuses keeping in mind the mantra, “live, work and play”. It follows that the livelihood, shelter and recreational needs of a particular class is being addressed. However, this is not being done in the case of slum dwellers or the urban poor. In fact nothing is being done for them.
WHOSE TO BLAME?
It is clear that there an IT – centricity in the planning of the government. But who do we blame of this – the government or the IT sector or both?
• While the government must be taken to task on the manner in which it continues to ignore slums and deny 35% of its citizens from a decent life we also need to be aware of the role of the IT sector.
• The role of the IT sector also needs to be critiqued here.
IT cannot represent the needs of Bangalore!!!
The recent furore of the IT sector over bad roads and the outcome of it, have again reinforced the view that the IT sector only represents its needs. Like Mr. Ravindra has stated in his article appearing in the Times of India on the 19th of September, “...Improvement of certain roads to enable IT commuters to travel faster is accorded priority whereas the roads and footpaths used by lakhs of ordinary citizens in neighbourhood localities are ignored.”
There is no problem with this considering that these are business ventures and they would do what is good for their business. The problem arises when they encroach into governance and attempts at representation.
The Nandan Nilekani headed BATF was a very good indication of this. According to BATF the main problems in Bangalore were the condition of the roads, garbage, mosquitoes, pollution and public toilets, in that order.
• Roads, rather than public transport;
• garbage and pollution, rather than public housing;
• mosquitoes and public toilets rather than public health.
The second tier of problems included blocked sewage, poor traffic management, alcohol in residential areas, public safety, and bringing up the rear, public transport.
In its words, BATF was formed in 2000 with the “desire to showcase Bangalore as the gate way to class one cities of the country and strengthen its position as an engine for Karnataka's robust growth”. Thus, with Nandan Nilenkani (Managing Director and CEO of Infosys) as Chairman, BATF was formed. The Bangalore Agenda was meant to be a partnership between the citizens, corporates and the administrative agencies – the Bangalore Mahanagara Palike (city corporation), Bangalore Development Authority (urban development), Bangalore Metropolitan Transport Corporation (transport), Bangalore Water Supply & Sewerage Board (water and sewerage), Bangalore Electric Ssupply Company (power), Bangalore Sanchar Nigam Limited (telecommunications), and Police.
Though the claim of the BATF was to cater to the needs of all classes of society, its work has proven otherwise. The gap between the lip-service paid to the upholding interests of urban poor and its projects are way too wide to bridge. For the sake of the article we choose to focus on one such project called “Swachha Bangalore” (Clean Bangalore), an initiative in the area of Solid Waste Management (SWM). While the BATF concerned itself with municipal solid waste collection, its transportation, disposal and processing it did not bother itself with the concerns of the “pourakarmikas” (contract street sweepers).
There are about 10,000 pourakarmikas sweeping the streets and cleaning the garbage dumps in Bangalore receving a meager pay of between Rs 1000 and 1500. They are not assured any guaranteed wages though the minimum wage is fixed at Rs. 1800, no job security and horrible working conditions. In a recent survey carried out by the Bangalore Municipal Corporation and Jayadeva Institute of Cardiology, more than 80% pourakarmikas have been diagnosed with some ailment or the other – primarily diabetes, high blood pressure and heart related illnesses. According to reports their unhygienic working conditions is the root cause of their deteriorating health. However, the BATF is only interested in a “Clean Bangalore” notwithstanding the adverse poverty and deteriorating health conditions of the pourakarmikas.
The role of the BATF in ensuring IT’s hegemony in Bangalore is also exemplified by the IT Corridor. Even though the project in its entirety is yet to be implemented the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (KIADB) placed with the responsibility of acquiring land for the project formed a “Think Tank” of which BATF member Ravichander is a part. Not surprisingly not a single elected member finds place in these decision making bodies. More importantly, the villages whose agricultural lands are acquired for the IT Corridor have no say whatsover in this process and their stiff opposition to the arbitrary acquisitions have been ignored by all concerned authorities.
Conclusion:
The project of planning has always unfolded itself within the larger fabric of models of development, mirroring transitions in social and economic relations. In the era of globalization and rapid urbanization, where in the past ten years, Bangalore has attained almost a mythical status as the silicon valley of India we have seen a significant transformation of Bangalore with the emergence of the dominant narrative of Bangalore as the silicon valley of India, a symbol of the emergence of India as an IT superpower.
The Bangalore Summit in 2000 represented a new stage in the public life of the city, bringing the private sector to the foreground in a city which has long been envisaged and promoted as the public sector city par excellence. Shedding its more timid presence in a city the new corporate culture attributes the city’s problems to inefficient management while envisaging realizable plans that made a Singapore possible. This was a fresh attempt at moving to center stage the economic and technological aspects of planning which may be at odds with social, community and ecological uses of city land. Thus BATF was formed.
However, co-existing parallel with this vision of Bangalore as “Singapore” and the trajectory towards this vision is a city mirroring the silent but steady growth of local economies lacking the infrastructural provisions and state backing unlike the IT companies. This city weaves in its core the “unorganized” and “unplanned” growth of the city, both economically and spatially. It is here that the slum dwellers and the urban poor comprising 35% of the city reside and carry out trade in conditions that make a decent living standard unattainable.
It is in this larger context of globalization and the changing self representation of Bangalore that we have to contextualize the present proposal of rewriting the CDP.
This space of the new global city however has to jostle, economically, culturally and legally with the older networks of interests and claims upon the city. We should therefore have no doubts in our minds that any attempt at formalizing the new vision of Bangalore will have to contend with the various contestations and contradictions that competing models of development and interests raise. One of the critical flaws of the modernist project of planning has been to imagine itself as mega project of social cohesion, creating economic and social efficiency through the orderly and planned development of society.
The present Draft CDP makes this fundamental mistake when it focuses entirely on requirements to fit Bangalore into the slot of Metropolis especially the role of the IT sector. The CDP, no doubt, also conceives in itself a space for the middle class and their aspirations in this manner but fails miserably to take into account the needs of slum dwellers. The result is that on one hand the housing and other needs of slum dwellers are entirely ignored, while on the other hand, there will be a real estate boom in Bangalore, which will benefit the builder / developer lobbies supremely besides the cement, sand and steel lobbies that will benefit no-end thanks to all the development and infrastructure projects that have been proposed.
This is unacceptable since, as pointed above, any future vision of Bangalore must cater to the needs of all its citizens especially the vulnerable slum citizens. Another point to ponder about is the lack of any caste perspective in the CDP. Considering the centrality of the CDP in the spatial and economical planning of Bangalore, it would be constitutionally mandatory that caste was also taken into consideration. This lack is further aggravated by the fact that the majority of the slum dwellers are in fact Dalit.
A word of caution. The vision for Bangalore as another Singapore is not a new phenomenon. In the early 1980s the then CM of Maharashtra, Shri Antulay, had visions of converting Mumbai to Singapore. What followed was large-scale demolitions of hundereds of slums. In fact slum dwellers were put in buses and packed out of the city and sent to the “villages/towns of origin” - nearby villages in Maharashtra itself and buses to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu as well. Now Vilasrao Deshmukh has visions of converting Mumbai into Shanghai and yet again large-scale demolitions of slums have ensued. More than 90,000 families have been forced on to the streets due to these evictions.
Can we infer that the same is to take place in Bangalore and that the silence about slums in the CDP is a step in that direction? That this need to become Singapore automatically render the urban poor undesirable and hence disposable?
Annexure 1
1984 Comprehensive Development Plan:
According to the 1984 CDP, “There are about 400 slums in Bangalore with a population of about 2.00 lakhs” (Page 4). However later on in the report it is stated that “There are 290 slums in Bangalore City out of which 162 slums are under the jurisdiction of the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board, 64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore City Corporation and 64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority” (Page 6).
The report provides some detail of the efforts of the authorities in providing housing and basic amenities such as water supply, street lighting, toilets and drains for slum dwellers.
The report also records the formation of a special squad for prevention of unauthorized construction of huts in the declared slums as well as formation of new slums.
Annexure 2
Revised Comprehensive Development Plan 1995:
According to the 1995 plan there were 401 slums in Bangalore of which (Page 25) -
64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore City Corporation
64 slums were under the jurisdiction of Bangalore Development Authority
273 slums were under the jurisdiction of Karnataka Slum Clearance Board
The CDP points out that the improvement schemes taken up by the authorities are ad hoc and makes numerous suggestions to rectify the situation and approach, namely, -
In situ rehabilitation by means of construction of proper houses and provision of civic amenities unless the existing area is unsuitable for living or land is needed to be released for important urban programmes.
Participation of slum dwellers in formulation and execution of any rehabilitation schemes should be pursued.
Programmes must be formulated not only for housing but also for provision of basic facilities including health, education, etc.
Participation of voluntary organizations such as AVAS must be encouraged.
Slum dwellers must be encouraged to form co-operative societies. This would help them to obtain finance for their activities
Government must draw-up a comprehensive plan to deal with the problem of shelter for the urban poor i.e. Slum dwellers and pavement dwellers.
Annexure 3
Budgetary Outlays:
Let us see how much amount has been sanctioned for development of slums in Bangalore. The KSCB has a Central Government fund of Rs. 34.50 crores from National Slum Development Programme and a certain amount towards construction of 8000 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana houses for the while of Karnataka. This amounts also cover the staff salaries and one can easily imagine what pittance will reach the slum dwellers.
Incidentally BDA has no amount sanctioned for slums!
BMP on the other hand has sanctioned 700 lakhs towards slum development. This is lesser than the 750 lakhs that have been allocated towards development of the Freedom Park. Further only for infrastructure works i.e. construction of flyovers and road development about 23,268 lakhs have been allocated.
Annexure 4
Reality of Slums:
There are 778 slums in Bangalore providing housing to more than 18.5 lakhs of people. Just about half of these slums have been recognized by the Karnataka Slum Clearance Board while the rest, according to the KSCB, do not exist. The provision of even basic services like drinking water, latrines, roads, schools, public health facilities, etc is desperately lacking resulting in sub-standard living conditions of varying degrees in most slums.
According to STEM, a research organization, who conducted a survey of 985 slums across Karnataka:
• 30% of the slums do not have access to drinking water
• 66.3% of the slums do not have latrine facilities
• 37.3% of the slums do not have drainage facilities
• 54.5% of the slums do not have proper roads
• 63.6% of the slums have insufficient street lighting
• 70.5% of the slums do not have proper garbage disposal facilities
• 75.4% of the slums have no PHC (public health centers) facilities
• 34.2% of the slums do not have anganwadis (crèches)
It is estimated that there are at the least 4500 slums in Karnataka.
Annexure 5
Slums – What is a Slum?
The Draft Vision Document does not mention the existence of slums in Bangalore, however, the Planning District Report contains some record of the existence of slums.
It is interesting to note the definition of slums in the said document. “Slum is a makeshift accommodation without basic infrastructure and land tenure security. Settlements occur in several spatial configurations. (Katcha, Basti, Kulocha)... ” (Page 228). This definition is in complete contradiction to the legal definition of slums since it states that slums are temporary settlements. The implication is that it denies the slum dwellers can right to claim ownership over the land while it absolves the State of providing in situ rehabilitation.
This definition is also contrary to the definition of slums as per law. 'Slums' have been defined under Section 3 of the Slums Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956 as areas where buildings –
i.) are in any respect unfit for human habitation;
ii.) are by reason of dilapidation, overcrowding, faulty arrangement and design of such buildings, narrowness or faulty arrangement of streets, lack of ventilation, light, sanitation facilities or any combination of these factors which are detrimental to safety, health and morals.
The Census of India 2001, tried to make the definition of slums a more inclusive one, and proposed to treat the following as ‘Slum’ areas: -
All areas notified as ‘Slum’ by State/Local Government and UT Administration under any Act;
All areas recognized as ‘Slum’ by State/Local Government ad UT Administration which have not been formally notified as slum under any Act;
A compact area of at least 300 population or about 60-70 households of poorly built congested tenements, in unhygienic environment usually with inadequate infrastructure and lacking in proper sanitary and drinking water facilities. This definition appears to be satisfactory at all India level.
A slum household is defined by UN-HABITAT, The UN Human Settlements Programme, as a group of individuals living under the same roof that lack one or more (in some cities, two or more) of the following conditions: security of tenure, structural quality and durability of dwellings, access to safe water, access to sanitation facilities and sufficient living area.