Committee for the Right to Housing                                                                                   

 

 

 

Context of Mumbai’s Development

Urban Development for whom? - Limits of the JNNURM

According to the 2001 Census, 28,535 million people reside in urban areas, constituting 27.8% of the total population, expected to rise to 40.7% by 2030. Although more people still live in villages, the Government of India has pushed urban development because of two inter-related reasons: the urban economy has become an important driver of national economic growth, and many cities have been challenged by urban crises caused by rapid urbanization outpacing infrastructural development combined with the prevalence of high levels of poverty and insecurities. The liberalization of the economy in 1991 and its opening to international market forces brought about a paradigm shift in the Central government's approach towards urban development in India. Large cities gained disproportionate importance for attracting foreign capital and international business and became "the bridge between the domestic economy and the global economy" Pursuing sustainable urban economic growth and renewal through investment in infrastructure and improvement in the quality of life has become the agenda of the central government, reflected in the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM), launched by Prime Minister Manmohan Singh in 2005.  The conceptual framework of the JNNURM corresponds to the agenda of the Central government and mainstream international development agencies such as the World Bank in which policy has been based on demand-driven development, privatization and deregulation, while keeping a vital role for governments in development.

Urban policy and planning are state projects, according to the Indian Constitution. Traditionally the Central government has limited its role to issuing policy directives and providing ad hoc grants to a few large cities. Because of political compulsions and a lack of adequate funding, the state government has been more inclined to spend on development and welfare in rural areas, although much of these funds have been wasted and  the targeted beneficiaries received a only a fraction. Having been left to their own devices, Indian cities have grown haphazardly.  Additionally, agencies for social services such as education, health care and social security exist in rural India, but urban local bodies have not ensured that these services reach the urban poor. The JNNURM therefore indicates a broad shift toward a centralization of the national urban development vision.

Prime Minister Singh has praised the new integrated framework of the Mission in contrast to previous one-dimensional urban development that focused "more on space and less on people." He claimed that in the Mission "spatial development of cities will go hand-in-hand with improvement in the quality of living of ordinary people living there." Thus sub-missions under the JNNURM explore urban infrastructure and governance as well as basic services to the urban poor.  However there is strong skepticism among urban activists and critics of the plausibility of the Mission’s dual focus.  The urbanization framework in which mega cities take the main role as international generators of economic momentum intrinsically holds sources of conflict among populations and groups with conflicting demands.  Especially under growth-oriented urban development in which capital investment is solicited globally, urban space becomes attractive to investors for speculation.  As commercialization of land progresses, the struggle of the people for affordable space worsens. Also, market-driven urban development under globalization threatens informal manufacturing and service economies to be displaced to make room for capital intensive, high value added firms, further alienating poorer populations.

The JNNURM emphasizes urgent urban governance reform in order to correct the failure to address the needs of the poor. The Mission obliges the State governments seeking funds to explore governance reform by implementing the Constitution’s 74th Amendment, which aims to empower civic governments to involve people in policy and planning through representation by voluntary organization, integrating local planning with district planning and mobilizing financial resources.  However, although the JNNURM states that integrated development of urban poor housing with basic and social services is at the core of the Mission, it does not require that housing schemes be developed by using a community consultative process. The JNNURM encourages urban professionals to contribute their skills and to participate in urban renewal in the form of citizen initiatives but there is no particular direction to be seen in the Mission for strategically mobilising slum dweller knowledge in an innovative and productive manner.  Especially when cities lack strategies for capacity building of participatory planning for the poor, strategic directives should be set so that capacity building activities could have a chance to "push at the ceiling to change mind sets" and "enter unfamiliar territory where planning paradigms are shifted by turning inside out".  Unfortunately the JNNURM shows no such ambition or concern to end the isolation of the voiceless urban poor.

In addition to these governance issues there is concern regarding its possibly hostile financial effects on the urban poor.  The Mission includes an optional reform item that encourages earmarking at least 20 - 25 % of developed land in all housing projects for economically weaker sections and low-income groups with a system of cross-subsidization. However it clearly states that (a) funds accessed cannot be used to create wage employment; (b) land costs will not be financed; (c) housing to the poor cannot be given free of cost; (d) privatization of Public Private Partnership will be the preferred mode of implementing projects; (e) a "reasonable" user fee will be charged; and (f) the onus of minimizing risks for the private investor would be on state governments/ULBs in order to create "an investor-friendly environment.  As critics point out, development at the pace that JNNURM dictates will result in competitive demands placed on a limited amount of land and a divergence of needs.   Housing for the poor must be based on their right to housing that goes further than the right not to be subjected to arbitrary or forced eviction. It also involves a duty of the State to take effective action to enable its people to meet their need for safe and secure homes where they can live with dignity.

If designing urban space for the poor is an endeavor to accommodate people's aspiration for income and community in a sustainable and integrated way, then there must be stakeholder inclusion and processes of community mobilization and organization and at the core. Despite the stated claims for being pro-poor, an assurance to include the poor in the urban development process, by encouraging them to articulate their voices to be heard, is missing in the JNNURM. This strongly affects the credibility of the effectiveness as the holistic and integrated development framework that it claims.