Slum Redevelopment in India: Social, Political and Economic Dimensions through the Lens of the Mumbai SRA Model

 

 A Short Primer

1. Introduction

Slum redevelopment in India occupies a contentious space at the intersection of urban planning, real estate economics, community rights, and political negotiation. With nearly 65 million people living in informal settlements across Indian cities, the question of how to rehabilitate slum communities is not merely one of constructing built structures—it is about reshaping lives, livelihoods, and identities.

The Mumbai model, driven by the Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act, 1971 and institutionalized through the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), has emerged as the most influential framework for redevelopment across Indian cities. While often hailed for its ability to mobilize private capital to provide “free housing” to slum dwellers, the model raises significant concerns regarding community consent, knowledge asymmetry, political patronage, and vulnerability of resettlers.

2. The Mumbai Model: A Brief Overview

2.1 Legislative and Institutional Structure

The Maharashtra Slum Act empowers the state to declare areas as slums, determine eligibility for rehabilitation, approve redevelopment schemes, and involve private developers through FSI incentives.

The SRA centralizes decisions regarding proposal approvals, monitoring developer obligations, allotment of rehab units, and ensuring compliance on timelines and quality standards.

2.2 The 70% Consent Rule

A core feature of the SRA’s redevelopment model is the requirement that 70% of eligible slum dwellers must consent to any redevelopment proposal. In theory, this embeds community participation. In practice, the consent process is fraught with opaque information, coercive persuasion, conflicting group interests, and political interventions.

3. The Social Dimensions: Identity, Community, and Displacement

 3.1 The Fragility of Informal Settlements

Slums in Indian cities are socially intricate, economically interdependent, and culturally vibrant. Redevelopment often disrupts community networks, shared spaces, informal support systems, traditional working patterns, and socio-cultural cohesion.

 3.2 The Psychological Impact

 The move from horizontal, open layouts to vertical towers alters more than just physical space: feelings of confinement, loss of community visibility, fear of isolation, and anxiety about maintenance costs often emerge.

 4. Political Dimensions: Patronage, Intermediaries, and Power Imbalances

 4.1 The Role of Political Actors

 Slum clusters are often politically mobilized, making redevelopment a site of competing party interests, vote-bank politics, and local leadership negotiations. Political actors may act as advocates, intermediaries, or brokers—sometimes aligned with developer interests.

 4.2 Intermediaries and Informal Power Structures

 Local leaders often dominate discussions because they possess literacy and connections unknown to many residents. This introduces representational distortion, where the “community voice” often reflects the interests of a few rather than all.

 5. Economic Dimensions: Incentives, Vulnerabilities, and Trade-offs

 5.1 The Developer-Driven Model

 Redevelopment under SRA is financially structured through free housing for slum residents, a premium sale component for the developer, and increased FSI. This market-driven model often results in delays, displacement, and uncertainty for the poorest residents.

 5.2 Livelihood Disruption

 Many slum residents operate home-based businesses. Vertical rehabilitation buildings usually prohibit commercial activities, reducing income and creating new economic stress.

 6. The Dilemma and Predicament of Consent

 6.1 Lack of Knowledge and Awareness

 Most slum dwellers cannot access project documents, interpret legal terms, or understand long-term implications. They rely heavily on verbal assurances from developers and intermediaries, leading to asymmetric decision-making.

 6.2 Dependence on Third Parties

Residents rely on political leaders, developer agents, NGOs, and brokers, often unsure whether they can refuse consent or challenge timelines.

 6.3 Consent under Socio-economic Pressure

Consent may be influenced by threats, promises, fear of eviction, or group pressure—making it procedural rather than substantive.

 7. Post-Resettlement Challenges: Vertical Slums and New Vulnerabilities

 7.1 Maintenance Burden

 After possession, residents face maintenance fees, lift repair costs, and other expenses. Buildings often deteriorate due to poor construction and lack of funds, creating “vertical slums.”

 7.2 Social Fragmentation

 High-rises reduce community bonding, informal childcare networks, and social cohesion.

 7.3 New Forms of Insecurity

 Residents face legal, financial, and social insecurities in their new environments.

 8. Rethinking Redevelopment: A People-Centric Approach

Reform must focus on transparent information access, independent legal aid, in-situ design, social-impact assessments, post-occupancy governance, protection against coercion, and livelihood-sensitive planning.

 9. Conclusion

Slum redevelopment is not merely a construction exercise; it shapes identity, security, and livelihood. Unless governance frameworks address knowledge asymmetry and vulnerabilities, redevelopment will remain inequitable. A just future requires empowering slum communities as active partners, not passive beneficiaries.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

___________________________________________________________________________________

Resources:

 

1 Census of India 2011, ‘Primary Census Abstract—Urban Slums’.

² Nijman J, ‘Against the Odds: Slum Rehabilitation in Globalizing Mumbai’ (2008) Cities 25(2) 73.

³ Maharashtra Slum Areas (Improvement, Clearance and Redevelopment) Act 1971.

⁴ Maharashtra Slum Act 1971, s 3A.

⁵ Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA), Annual Report 2022–23.

⁶ Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG), Performance Audit of Slum Rehabilitation Schemes in Maharashtra (2018).

⁷ DCPR 2034, Regulation 33(10).

⁸ Bhide A, ‘Challenges of Participatory Governance in Mumbai’s Slum Redevelopment’ (2015) Environment and Urbanization Asia 6(1) 45.

⁹ Roy A, ‘Urban Informality: Toward an Epistemology of Planning’ (2005) 71(2) JAPA 147.

¹⁰ Weinstein L, The Durable Slum (University of Minnesota Press 2014).

¹¹ SPARC, Community-Led Slum Upgrading in Mumbai (2016).

¹² HRLN, Forced Evictions and Slum Redevelopment in Mumbai (2016).

¹³ Benjamin S, ‘Governance and Poverty in Bangalore’ (2000) Environment and Urbanization 12(1) 35.

¹⁴ Bhide (n 8).

¹⁵ Slum Rehabilitation Authority, ‘Scheme Guidelines’ (2019).

¹⁶ CAG Report (n 6).

¹⁷ Weinstein (n 10).

¹⁸ Bhide (n 8).

¹⁹ HRLN (n 12).

²⁰ Janhit Manch v State of Maharashtra (Bombay HC).

²¹ CAG Report (n 6).

²² SPARC Report (n 11).

²³ Bhan G, In the Public’s Interest (Orient Blackswan 2016).

 

 

 

Prepared along with AI Assistance