Abstract
Poor, illiterate immigrants unlawfully living in tiny, unhygienic, densely packed shanties on pavements, drains and public lands, doing menial and insignificant jobs: that is the image of slums and slum dwellers in the eyes of the general public and often, even the authorities (Dupont, 2008; Bhan, 2009). A generic narrative that establishes slums and their inhabitants as a blight on the city’s fabric, it devalues their contribution and refuses to acknowledge the phenomena of slum occurrence as flaws in the governance structures and policies. Such statements paint slums as mere beneficiaries of the city and their rights as human and economic assets are hugely compromised. Delhi’s current policy frameworks for deficit housing construction, slum rehabilitation, and labour welfare are still top-heavy and segregated. It merely provides a percentage of residents with subsidised shelters after demolishing their existing homes, livelihoods, and social capital. For example, with no real progress to date, the 14000 residents of Delhi’s first in-situ rehabilitation at Kathputli Colony that began in 1986, don’t hold much hope (Banda et al, 2013). Such precedents paint a worrisome picture for the 3 million slum population, expected to rise at 75,000 people annually. For the low-income population of Delhi, disease-prone polluted environments aggravate the consequences of inaccessibility of sanitation and potable water. The city’s ecological wealth in water bodies, forests, parks, etc., are protected with fences and laws instead of season and topography sensitive practices that would make them self-sufficient productive parcels of land rather than mere destinations. Projects and funding policies look at slum upgrading and environmental upgrading as separate projects. The labour force that enables all these projects that serve the city is then relegated to the city’s leftover spaces - drains, railway tracks, etc. This research-by-design attempts at looking at the city's human, ecological, and economic prospects as a collective to aim for a framework that mutually benefits us all. It advocates undertaking livelihood enhancement within the local networks and capitals. Therefore, the local ecology finds agents of upkeep in the local slum residents. They, in turn, get additional opportunities that recognise their skills and can then incrementally improve their living conditions themselves. The study location Lajpat Nagar, with one of the largest retail cloth markets of the city, houses 25% of its population in seven slums. A detailed urban design study to understand the heterogeneity and networks of ethnicity, livelihood, classes, and shelter across the larger precinct was fundamental to the query. Accordingly, the slums are reimagined with community spaces along with the infrastructure to reinforce the socio-spatial interdependencies of houses, markets, schools, hospitals, etc. with new facilities for a better liveable environment. It aims to engage all the classes as agents of establishing a circular urban economy with waste recycle systems, weekly markets for upcycled handicrafts, produces from urban farming parks along with providing facilities for healthcare and education; bringing everyone closer with a dignified shared identity. At 19%, Delhi has the highest geographical area under green cover amongst Indian metropolitan cities. With a 14.8% slum population beside a mere 10% population living in planned colonies, Delhi’s diaspora of classes trying to survive failing housing and infrastructure make a strong case for the argument that the paper puts forward. Cities must devise strategies to project themselves into a better future that account for the growth and migrant population influx it is likely to see. The larger argument of the paper is to look at a bottom-up approach where the needs or issues of the wider society are solved with the population that is blatantly blamed for the same.
