Legalising Mumbai's slums: Why the Cong-NCP govt is in a fix

In the past 8-9 years, the Maharashtra government could not convince the Supreme Court that legalising some 3.5 slum dwellings across Mumbai would not burden the infrastructure. Now that the Aam Aadmi Party has got into the fray for the Lok Sabha elections, with one of its candidates a serious pro-slum campaigner, Medha Patkar, there is some sweating in the Congress-Nationalist Party alliance. Legalising them could amount to protecting slums from demolitions and making them eligible for free replacement housing. The Shiv Sena-BJP government had legalised as many as a million such dwellings soon after coming to power. Its cut-off date for eligibility was 1 January, 1995. The demand is for doing the same with all, but the successor Congress-led governments had conceded that it could be moved to 1 January, 2000. Legalising pre-2000 slum structures is not going to be easy, but not being able to do so can be an acute embarrassment for Congress and NCP leaders. The alliance had promised it when contesting the 2009 elections. It has failed convince the Supreme Court that the city can cope with such legalising. As many as 15 intervention applications by various government departments have not helped yet. [caption id=“attachment_1178295” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] A file picture of Dharavi - one of the largest slums in Mumbai. AFP[/caption] The government’s own legal eagles have cautioned against any haste in promulgating an ordinance for it would be a brazen defiance of the court. It can be hardly expected that the apex court would take it in stride. The only possibility is having to face the slapping of a contempt notice. Another intervention application in the PIL by the Janhit, an NGO, needn’t mean a response prior to the elections. The state government has extended relief to post-1995 slums but if the structures were built prior to 2000. But it is not a universally approved policy. It has got entangled in a court case launched by this civil society organisation in 2007. Legalising all pre-2000 goes against the government’s own earlier plea that it would not do so. That slip is proving to be a serious political blunder. Caught between a rock and a hard place and unable to face the slum electorate in a city where over half the population is slum dwellers, the alliance mandarins seem to be exploring an option. A Bill legalising the post-1995 but pre-2000 slum dwellings in the current four-day legislative session, they think could do the trick. It is less brazen, and introduction does not mean adoption. Opposition, caught in a fix, cannot oppose a pro-slum move. The AAP has made it amply clear that housing issues in Mumbai is its priority. It includes not merely the slums but the housing crisis which the middle classes have not been able to cope with. Patkar’s campaigns in Mumbai on this has been long and sustained, pointing out that slums were not seen as an issue in itself but eyed as a real estate. The government lays stress on the latter, conniving with the builders lobby. A Bill, even if not adopted as an Act, has the ability to enhance the credibility of the two parties before the electorate – look, we are doing it, but there are constraints. If the apex court were to, in the least, frown, the escape route exists. Mere withdrawal of a Bill as compared to an Ordinance may be wrongly perceived as lesser of a crime. Apparent calculation appears to be that court ire be risked and leave the consequences to be handled by a successor government. The ruling alliance cannot afford to let a campaign against it by a strong voice like Medha Partkar’s underlining that the promises have not been met though made in 2009, to run the course. It is possible the AAP may not win many seats but could gain traction to build a base for the Assembly elections due in October. Perhaps this is the first time an alliance is rueing an unkept promise.