Bombay’s pavement people get the push

Press, 2 December 1985, Page 16

Bombay’s pavement people get the push

From

“The Economist,”

” London

“We hold that no person has the right to encroach, by erecting a structure or otherwise, on footpaths, pavements or any other place reserved or earmarked for a public purpose.” So ruled a five-member bench of India’s Supreme court in a decision that could mean eviction for the hundreds of thousands of people who live on the pavements of India’s cities. The decision ends a two-year legal wrangle but leaves' unsolved the human problem of what is to be done with these oeoDle. The pavement-dwellers of Bombay were the cause of the dispute. Bombay has 9 million people; probably 400,000 of them live on the pavements. The city is hemmed in by the sea on one side and hills on the other, and its population is growing fast:

200-300 more people arrive every day. Property prices are too high for most of the immigrants, so those with no family or friends stay on the pavements. Even that can be costly: the pavements are organised and “slum lords” charge new arrivals 1000 to 2500 rupees for the privilege of being an illegal squatter. Once established, the pavementdwellers build shacks, raise families and live out their lives there. Some have been on the pavements for 20 years. The pavement-dwellers are a health hazard; they also obstruct pedestrians and occupy public property. There have been occasional attempts since 1976 to survey the extent of the problem, though local governments have generally preferred to ignore it.

The state Government of Maharashtra, of which Bombay is the capital, decided in 1981 that it had had enough and started evicting pavement-dwellers. Some were forced on to buses, driven out of the city and dumped in the countryside. The brutality of the evictions brought civil-rights groups to their help. In July the Supreme court gave its decision, but its judgment poses more questions than it answers. These squatters are an important part of Bombay’s economy; if they are removed, who will do their jobs? If the Government demolishes their huts, where will they go? The thought of removing 400,000 men, women and children from their homes to unspecified destinations daunts the city and state Governments. Copyright, “The Economist.”