Different parties, same aim: Money

A 42% increase in population and the consequent rise in the number of elected representatives from urban areas (of 288 assembly constituencies, this time as many as 130 are urban) shows the importance of urban areas and their representation in management of the state. But subsequent governments in the state have cared little for the urban voters and their decisions have only added to the latter’s woes.

In Mumbai alone, the number of voters since the last election has gone up by four lakh in the suburbs and there is a proportionate increase in the slum population, poor public housing, growth of slums, and poor quality of life.

The city has seen in the past 10 years two different political ideologies in the power of government. Yet their approaches in addressing its problems have not been different. The chief minister, who has become the chief executive of various schemes by assuming the chairmanship of specially constituted authorities, has awarded civil contracts of a magnitude unknown in the past.

If one were to add up the value of the contracts given out in this city by those bodies over the past 10 years, it would come to a value unprecedented, possibly higher than that given in the rest of the states. This city’s development means award of contracts and growth of builders.

Since slum dwellers constitute more than 50% of the city’s population and since their number is increasing, it is necessary to deal with that problem as the government has not tackled it over the last several decades.

Slums were recognised as unauthorised but inevitable, considering the migration of the poor to large cities in search of employment and the incapacity of the government to provide accommodation of accepted standards for such migrants. Giving regular apartments without demanding a paisa, relaxing property laws in their favour, and creating a small capital fund in favour of slum dwellers who gave power of attorney to a builder who could squeeze them in multi-storey apartments was a political promise in the 1995 polls.

In spite of poor progress (less than 80,000 houses for slum dwellers have been built over the past 10 years) the scheme has been continued in Mumbai by a government that is politically different from the one that began this radical scheme. Initially, the cut-off date for such “free housing” for slum dwellers was 1995. But it was recently extended to January 1, 2000.

What this means in terms of the additional burden and its effect on the Development Plan is not asked as a relevant question. Further, the sanctity of this cut-off date is lost when one remembers that it was raised from 1976 to 1985, 1995 and 2000 on the eve of every election.

Since Hong Kong and Singapore were mentioned as ideal cities in the last 10 years, we must note that housing by a public authority is one of the main activities of the government of those states. It is time to evaluate the achievement of slum redevelopment schemes undertaken in Mumbai in terms of loss of public lands and the benefits derived by builders whose profit is the basis of slum clearance. That even in Maharashtra this method of mitigating the slum problem is not advocated in other cities is worth mentioning for judging its effectiveness.

The writer is a former municipal commissioner