10969.pdf
Media
- extracted text
-
??■
L
*
; i'
4 ’■
■
<
r
"
A •.
\ •
ECONOMIC AFFAIRS DIVISION STAFF PAPER*
>
%
■ ”* t
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING THE URBAN POOR:
THE CASE OF INDIA
■r
■4
JERRY B. BANNISTER
SYRACUSE UNIVERSITY MAXWELL INTERN
“■
j'
t
9i
•
U.S. AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT,
/
NEW DELHS, INDIA
r
♦THE VIEWS PRESENTED IN THIS PAPER SHOULD NOT BE
NECESSARILY ATTRIBUTED TO USAID. USAID MAKES THESE
PROFESSIONAL STUDIES AVAILABLE AS AN AID
TO DISCUSSION IN THE DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY
URBAN DEVELOEMENT AND HOUSING THE URBAN POOR:
THE CASE OF INDIA*
Jerry B. Bannister
This paper prop js to examine the ove.
ization thesis with
its corollary of rural push-factors of urban migration as the background
of Indian urbanization against which to assess the Indian housing of
the urban poor. The paper’s organization is as follows:
I.
INTRODUCTION
II.
ANALYSIS OF OVERURBANIZATION
A. Introduction
B. Definition
C. Barrier or Catalyst
III.
ANALYSIS OF RURAL-URBAN MIGRATION
A. Introduction
B. Urban Growth Components
C. Push-Pull
D. Urban Migrant Profile
E. Refugee Dimension
IV.
INDIA: URBAN HOUSING PROBLEMS AND PROGRAMS
A. Introduction
B. Finance as a Limiting Factor
C. Plan Expenditures vs. Urban Needs
D. Social vs. Economic Rental Payments
E. Housing Policies--Ideal ism vs. Realism
F. The Case for Slum Rehabilitation and Resettlement
G. Outlook for the Future Housing of the Urban Poor
V.
CONCLUSION
VI.
APPENDIX
VII.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
*This paper was written under the auspices of the Syracuse University
Maxwell Internship in South Asia and the U.S. Agency for International
Development, New Delhi, India (Feb.-Dec. 1971). The views and conclusions
Syracuse University
expressed by the writer are not necessarilv^bd
or USAID/India.
J.
>>
ano
C.........
E N Tp f
2
I.
INTRODUCTION
The focus of this paper is upon Indian urbanization and planning
for urban housing in relation to slum and squatter poverty.* The twin
concepts of overurbanization and rural-poverty induced urban migration,
have formed the background perspective for Indian urban planning and
housing programs, despite the increasing criticism by urban academicians,
as N.V. Solvani, of the utility of this conceptual framework. Although
overurbanization specifically relates a larger percentage of urban
(.
population with a smaller percentage of industrial population (as
against the total population), it generally connotes low standards of
living which act as a barrier to development. The influence of this
concept has encouraged the view that the slum and squatter population
is essentially an excess and uneconomic population, best dealt with.
if at all, through slum clearance and idealized schemes of urban
* The annual household income of the Indian urban slum and
squatter population is generally stated as below Rs. 100G (see
discussion herein. Rs. 7.50 to U.S. $1.00, 1971). The slum dweller
is a legal resident in crowded, old and dilapidated housing with
limited utility services, particularly water; the squatter
appropriates whatever private or public space possible in order to
build a katcha hut or shanty (without utilities); and the street
squatter claims a space from the public right of way, usually
without any shelter except, possibly, roll-up bedding and mat, or
occasionally, a roughly constructed lean-to along a high-walled
sidewalk or pavement shoulder. Migrant low-paid construction
laborers (usually family units) also live in shanties (without
facilities) on or near construction sites, shifting their housing
to follow new sites.
3
decentralization.
Discussions regarding housing the urban poor
invariably call for the clearance of slums and increased construction
of government subsidized pukka housing (brick-concrete-electricity plumbing), at best a slow process and at worst financially impossible
for any large-scale effort.
The enormity of this population’ s housing
problems has tended to discount efforts to rehabilitate existing housing
of the poor.
Al though there exists a goodly amount of housing plans, some
of which are quite realistic in conception, implementation has been
minimal•
Most of the writing which touches upon Indian urban housing problems
or the high population density rates of Indian cities,
Bombay, is couched
in
as Calcutta and
moralistic and emotional terminology and is
thoroughly pessimistic (see, for example, Segal 1965).
In large part
it. appears that much of the moralistic perspective on Indian cities
arises out of a marked anti-urban bias found in much of the past urban
scholarship.
Emphasis had been placed almost exclusively upon urban
social disorganization.
Out of this scholarship came the overurbanization
concept.
Wirth (1938) and, to a degree, the early writing of Redfield (1941)
present the basic hypothesis for urban social disorganization.
Wirth
focusses upon social relationships in his contrasting traditional
rural
life with rational urban life.
Traditional rural areas (defined by
Wirth as having low density population) are seen to have primary, face-
4
to-face, personal contacts (based on sentiment) between group members
who know each other fully.
Urban areas (high density population) are
seen to have secondary or impersonal and utilitarian contacts between
individuals.
Traditional group norms are displaced in urban areas
by individual decisions; traditional informal social control gives
way to the less effective formal or legalistic social control which
leads to urban problems, as crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, suicide,
mental disease, social unrest, political instability--the list is endless.
Without doubt, there is value in Wirth’s hypothesis,* but its almost
complete emphasis on social disorganization makes it a decidely lopsided
view of the city, rooted
in the strained, particularistic American
urban experience during World War I, the large-scale South European
immigration of the 1920’s, and the Great Depression.
There are
numerous anthropological and sociological studies which provide evidence
that the Wirth-Redfield perspective is far too simplified and over
generalized (Dore 1.967; Kaiser 1969; Karve 1965; Lewis 1952; Plotnicov 1967;
Young and Willmott 1957).
It is disappointing to see this same hypothesis
oftentimes offered as Indian urban sociology (see, for example, Madan 1966).
* Guterman (1969), for example, presents a defense of Wirth. He
examines the qualitative differences in the social relations of hotel
employees in urban and rural northeastern USA, concluding that a
negative correlation exists between size of locality a person lives
in and the intimacy of his friendship ties.
5
Social disorganization certainly exists in Indian cities, but so
also does organization.
Indian cities are noted for their patch
work patterns of settlement and interaction based on caste, language
or religion.
As a result of such patterns there is limited integration
of these diverse groups, especially the poor; and, often
the observer
notes a village quality in various sections of even large cities. As
discussed later, urban migrants tend to follow kin or village-mates,
or search out their own kind in language or religion.
This pattern
apparently accounts for the relatively high degree of social control
evident in most Indian cities.
There is, however, a persistent anti-urban bias in much of the
analyses of Indian urbanization.
Slum residents and squatters are
often considered as indicators (or as results) of a too-rapid
urbanization or overurbanization; i.e
a larger urban population
than justified by the degree of economic development.
The primary
cause of overurbanization is usually implicitly or explicitly placed
upon rural-urban migration.
The presumed results of overurbanization,
foremost being slum formation, crime, unemployment, political instability
and a failure in urban health, are viewed as obstacles to the develop
ment process. Notably, overurbanization is usually stated as "pathological”
to the western model, as a "break-down" or "disturbance" in modernization,
or as "disordering" the sequence of western development (see^for example,
Lerner 1958).
It is this aspect of the urban poor being considered
6
an obstacle to development which leads to the emphasis of slum clearance
and squatter removal in government housing policy.
The present Five
Year Plan for 1969-74 indicates that rural-url^an migration to cities
like Bombay and Calcutta should be prohibited in order to prevent further
urban flooding of illiterate, unskilled ruralites who only increase
urban unemployment.
An alternate view of the slum and houseless population is that they
often are made the scapegoats for conditions largely aggravated and
intensified by tremendously unrealistic urban planning, particularly
in housing.
According to this perspective, urban slum residents and
squatters do not necessarily represent a cancerous, destructive force
within the city; but in fact contribute (even if marginally) to urban
economic growth through their providing labor which presently commands
little, if any, social overhead outlay in return.
That there are
severe urban problems related to slum and squatter settlements is not
denied by this point of view; rather, it insists that the analyses of
the problems must be sharpened.
The development strategy suggested by this viewpoint emphasizes
government cooperation with the social and economic needs of the urban
poor, instead of its usual policies of eradicating squatter settlements,
and lack of stress upon intensified agricultural development. The
increased agricultural production of the Green Revolution, even though
uneven and halting, does in fact make possible employment oriented
7
programs without the inflation and accompanying political backlash
which characterizes such an approach in an agriculturally stagnant
economy (Lele and Mellor 1971; also , Mellor and Lele 1971).
The
importance of increasing employment and income among the poor
(through, for example, small industries development and urban-rural
works) in relation to housing, can hardly be overstated#
ANALYSIS OF OVERURBANIZATION
A. Introduction: Table 1 indicates the decennial variations of
the Indian population growth and the urban percentage of the total
population from 190] to 1971 (see appendix).
The 1921-1971 data
underscore that rapid population growth is an all-India phenomena.
Rapid urbanization is evident, if not in the level of urbanization,
certainly, in its scale.
The 1971 urban percentage of the total
population is only 19.9, but that figure represents some 109 million
persons; similarly, the 10% of the total population which reside in
cities having a population size of more than 100,000 (the largest allIndia urban category in the census), constitutes about 55 million
people.
The 1971. census data reaffirm that Greater Calcutta is
indeed a super-giant with a population of 7 million with Greater Bombay
close behind, having 5 million.
If the concept of overurbanization
were to refer only to large population sizes, there would be no
academic contest with it as attempted in this paper.
8
Indian overurbanization was first widely postulated in reference
to the growth/of urban areas during 1941-1951, officially stated as
an intercensal increase
of 41.36%
Population growth for this
period, however, reflected the urban influx of Pakistani refugees
fleeing the violent bloodletting of the Indo-Pakistan partition in
1947 (see Table 3, appendix); and the increase in size of many
administrative cities, as Delhi, partly as a result of the enlarging
of state and central government bureaucracies after Indian independence
in 1947
In addition, the change of definition of urban in the 1961
census, if applied to the 1941-1951 data, yields a lowered intercensal
increase of 36.76% (Bose 1970b).
Nonetheless, the absolute increase
in numbers of the urban population does in fact point to rapid
urbanization; furthermore, census data indicate an urban growth for
1951-1961 of 26.40%; and for 1961-1971, 37.66%, as compared to the
lower rural growth increases of 19.82% and 21.64% for 1951-1961 and
1961-1971, respectively.
The problem, therefore, is to determine
whether rapid urbanization is in fact overurbanization.
B.
Definition; The concept of overurbanization appears quite imprecise.
The definitional criteria vary according to the perspective or focus
of analysis.
There is debate as to whether urbanization should be
measured by standards attractive to the western world, or by standards
common to the developing country.
9
One of the. most widely noted definitions of ove.rurbanii3a.tion is
that of Davis and Golden (1954), which correlates the percentage of
urban to the total population with the distribution of the total labor
force as between agricultural and non-agricultural occupations.
Overurbanization occurs, in this view, when the degree of urbanization
is greater than the degree of industrialization (non-agricultural
occupations) .
The norm for comparisons of overurbanization and
underurbanization is set by the correlations found among developed
countries in and around 1950.
In a 1954 study Solvani (1966)
toward defining overurbanization.
sharply criticizes this approach
Ho investigates the two indices of
urbanization and industrialization for two subsamples: one of 1.7 highly
industrialized countries and another of 24 developing countries
(excluding those countries not having cities of 100,000 or more).
He
found a higher correlation between industrialization and urbanization
for the developing countries than for the industrialized countries. A
similar correlation calculated by Solvani for 13 presently developed
countries using 1891 data, compares closely with that of the 24
developing countries.
His conclusion is that, contrary to the over
urbanization hypothesis, the rate of urbanization in developing
countries is more closely dependent upon the rate of industrialization
than in developed countries.
10
He further notes that behind the concept of overurbanization is
the notion that rapid urbanization results in obstacles to economic
growth.
Solvani’s answer to this implication is that
It will have to be proved that in the absence
of rapid urbanization, or at a slower pace of
urbanization, ’developing] areas would have
been able to
progress more rapidly than they
actually have so far (Solvani 1966: 122).
This writer agrees with Solvani’s additional comment that such proof
will be most difficult, if not impossible, to come by.
An examination and extension of Solvani’s criticism of over-
urbanization is given by Kamerschen (1969).
He uses data from eighty
countries, primarily for the years 1955-1956 to test the over
urbanization hypothesis in a more comprehensive fashion than Solvani.
His conclusions support Solvani* s thesis in that he finds lower
correlations between industrialization and urbanization in developed
countries as opposed to developing countries.
Another critic of the overurbanization concept is Sjoberg
(1960; 1965) who maintains that the concentration and visibility of
poverty in urban areas has led social scientists, particularly
American to over emphasize the overurbanization hypothesis.
He
points out that, in comparison with the city, ”tbe misery of the
countryside, though often greater, is inevitably more diffuse and
less transparent” (Sjoberg 1.965: 213).
He further writes that the
11
visible poverty in cities encourages attempts to deal with urban
problems, thus ” intensifying the industrial-urbanization
process”
(Idem),
C.
Barrier or Catalyst: Overurbanization also forms
a point of
development policy contention as to whether urban
economic or not.
concentration is
The present Indian Five Year Plan for 1969-74,
for example, states that
The social and economic costs of servicing large
concentrations of populations are probhibitive.
Beyond a certain limit unit costs of providing
utilities and services increase rapidly with
iicrease in the size of the cities. In the
ultimate analysis, the problem is that of
planning the spatial location of economic
activity throughout the country. A beginning
must be made by tackling the problem of larger
cities and taking positive steps for dispersal
through suitable creation of smaller centres in
the rest of the area (Fourth 1969: 399).
Alonso* (1968) cautions against
assertations, as in the Fourth Five
alonso is a major advocate of the advantage of urban scale in
economic development, essentially a minority point of view in the
development literature. His main thesis is that early development
is characterized by increasing economic disparity between urban centers
an hinterlands with an eventual tendency toward--as the economy becomes
more self-sustaining--equalization of this economic growth polarity. In
his view urban concentration appears to be the most desirable path to
T flcien^y in the short-run with long-term equity possibilities.
He criticizes regional dispersal not only as lacking in efficiency, but
also as not necessarily representing an achievement of an equity in
na lonal development as there is a tendency for territorial disparities
m relation to uneven regional growth. A contrary view stressing a
regional focus in Indian development can be found in J.P.Lewis (1962).
Friedmann (1966), quite rightly, suggests that the dichotomy in the
debate of urban vs. regional scale is overdrawn and artificial;
nonetheless, it is illustrative of the impact of the overurbanization
oncept in social science analysis of urbanization in developing
countries.
F 5
12
Year Plan, that overurbanization occurs when per capita costs.
particularly for infrastructure investment, rise after a certain
urban size.
He stresses that costs per capita do not reveal much
unless measured alongside productivity per capita; and, further,
that in the developing nations insufficient data exists with which
to make a comparison.
At the time of Alonso’s article in 1968, Mathur, Morse and Swamy
were attempting to obtain such data for India.
Their analysis includes
18 cities (including a detailed investigation of 5 cities), ranging in
population size from 48 thousand to one million; its purpose is to
determine costs of urban infrastructure for industry as related to
urban scale.
Specifically, their hypothesis stated that
unit costs of incremental infrastructure for new
industry tend to be relatively high in smaller cities,
to decrease significantly over some intermediate range
of city sizes, and to rise significantly beyond some
large city size (Mathur, et al., 1968: 1).
Their conclusion:
o
Beyond a city size of about 130,000 population, unit
cost differences for the projected volume and types of
industrial infrastructure are insignificant. The results
substantiate the first part of the cost hypothesis--that
unit costs decline from the smallest to the next size
city--but do not support the hypothesis of rising unit
costs in large cities, at least for the range of cities
and cost elements studied (Ibid.: 7)•
13
This study--apparently the only presentation of data* to date on
Indian urban scale and infrastructure costs--both supports and modifies
Alonso’s position.
Within the framework of its limited data. it
suggests that there is not necessarily an automatic cost escalation
with urban scale, as in the overurbanization thesis; at the same time,
it presents a well-supported statement for regional development in
terms of specific industries in relation to specific physical
infrastructure and local cost factors.
This specific-oriented planning
for regional development, however, is hardly the same as the often
suggested massive resettlement of the slum and squatter population of
large cities in presumably pukka housing built in smaller ring-cities
or satellite developments.
Such solutions are grounded on the
assumption that the slum and squatter population of large cities is
a totally excess and uneconomic population.
Rapid urban growth in
India is a certainty for the next several decades; and, in fact, urban
economic interlacing is the very basis of regional development. The
notion that dispersal efforts will reduce the size, or even slow
------------------------------------- —
■"
--------------------------------------------------- ------ --------------------- -
—
down significantly the growth of urban centers is completely misplaced,
Prakash (1969) underscores that the ring towns program of India is a
clear example of a premature '’new towns” policy resulting in excessive
costs and wastes in scarce capital with little social and economic
returns visible.
* The infrastructure units studied are power,water,sewage,roads,
transport,housing,schools,hospitals,labor,communication and floor space.
Land costs are excluded on the grounds that they
are sc peculiar tc each
local situation as to have little general relevance for comparison of
facility costs.
14
Although noting such arguments as Solva.ni’s the general trend of
the literature on urbanization in developing countries, appears to be
toward the continuance of the overurbanization concept, however defined.
It is often indicated that, according to western standards, urbanization
in developing countries is not associated with ”appropriate" increases
in "levels" of living (see Breese 1967*, Hauser and Schnore 1965). The
Pacific Conference on Urban Growth held in 1967 in Honolulu, however,
has contributed a significant conceptual distinction in urbanization
theory.
The Conference report distinguishes between "prior doctrines"
which "all are meant to reverse, divert, arrest, regulate urbanization"
and the "unorthodox, functional doctrine" which "regards rapid
urbanizat Lon as of central importance in the national development process.
a condition, which when properly organized, is to be encouraged rather
than discouraged" (as quoted i
III.
jikobson and Prakash 1971: 21).
ANALYSIS OF RURAL-URBxiN MIGRATION
A. Introduction: In i960 several eminent scholars, demographer
Kingsley Davis among them, predicted disastrous over-urbanization of
Indian cities due to rural-urban migration ( see the widely noted
anthology edited by Roy Turner, 1962).
At this writing 9 the editors
of one of the latest books on Indian urban slums maintain that ruralurban migration is the basic cause of overurbanization and its
symptomatic slum formation (Desai and Pillai 1970: 3).
• • ni
15
B.
Urban Growth Components: In regards to rural-urban migration it is
interesting to note the controversy concerning the growth components of
the urban population for the period 1941-1961.
In his 1960 projection
of Indian urban growth Davis emphasizes that characteristically urban
natural increase is lower than rural natural increase; thus, he sees
urban growth for 1941-1961 as necessarily accounted for by rural-urban
migration (Davis 1962).
However, Robinson (1961) maintains that rural-
urban differences in fertility exist in India but are insignificant.
Similarly, Zachariah and Bmbannavar (1967) state that between 1951 and
1961 urban natural increase is not significantly lower than rural
increase; furthermore, they note that rural-urban migration statistics
for 1951-1961 indicate a decline of 37% compared to rural-urban migration
for 1941-1951.
N.B. Rao’s estimate of migration to Indian metropolitan
cities for the periods 1941-1951 and 1951-1961, as indicated in Table 2
(appendix), has differential figures for natural increase and net
migration, which clearly illustrate a decline in net migration in
1951-1961
as against 1941-1951 (Rao 1965).
It is difficult, therefore,
to accept without some reservations the view that rural migration is
engulfing Indian cities,
which is not to say that absolute, all-India
population increases do not pose social, economic and political problems
* The data available from the Indian census for 1971 are provisional
and cannot be closely analyzed at this writing. There is indication,
however, that rural migration to some cities, Calcutta in particular, is
continuing to decline.
16
for India.
Depictilons of such problems, however, as solely due to
rural-urban migration provide an incomplete and misleading analysis.
C.
Push-Pull: Discussion of migration from rural to urban areas has
long centered upon the "push" and "pull" controversy.
This type of
analysis examines what pulls people out of old (rural) areas; and what
pushes them into new (urban) areas.
Push-factors are associated with
the place of origin; and pull-factors with the place of arrival. Quite
often this analysis depicts a typology of push-pull factors
(see
Breese 1968).
The controversy as to whether push or pull factors predominate in
explaining rural-urban migration is directly related to the over
urbanization hypothesis.
Arguments for overurbanization, as in the
oft-quoted UNESCO report (Hauser 1957) on urbanization in Asia, view
push-factors as most important in rural urban migration patterns and
vice versa.
Hoselitz (1957) is
noted for his position that Asian
urban growth results from rural-poverty induced migration; i.e., a
rural push.
It is quite true that many, if not most, rural areas of
India are indeed poverty zones; however, the inquiry here is upon the
utility of "push-pull" as a method of explanation.
Several studies of unemployment among urban migrants and urbanborn residents illustrate the artificiality of the push-pull dichotomy
as an explanation of rural-urban migration (Balakrishna and Sonachalam
1961; Lakdawala 1963; Malkani 1957; Mukherjee and Singh 1961; 1965;
17
Rao and Desai 1965; Sen 1960).
Common to these studies is the finding
that unemployment is lower among migrants than urban-born residents,
indicating that migrants tend to return to rural areas (or other urban
areas) when they are unable to find work.
Migration, thus, appears
calculated and reversible
jie, rather than simply a blind mass movement,
pushed into urban poverty.
In short, what is important about rural-
urban migration is the differences between rural and urban employment
opportunities.
D.
Urban Migrant Profile:
Zechariah’s outstanding studies (1960;
1965; 1968) on internal migration in India provide an interesting
profile of the rural-urban migrant, as does also the astute political
analysis of Calcutta migrants by Weiner (1967). Urban migrants tend not
to stay in the city if they cannot find sufficient em ployment.
They
generally take the lowest paying jobs as compared to urban-born residents.
concentrating in manual labor or “simple* work, often in irregular
stretches.
Close ties are maintained with their family village
as they
return to it often and also send (when possible) remittances* to family
members still there.
Urban migration is not usually random, but along
kin and village-mate social networks which probably account for much of
the orderly life noted in Indian slums--despite continuing stereotypical
assertions of lawlessness (Siddioui 1970).
* In his study of Calcutta, Mitra (1963) suggests that village
remittances drain the city of some Rs, 287 million annually in small
postal orders. Perhaps a less harsh judgement on village remittances
might comment upon the positive aspects of fostering economic inter
dependence between rural and urban areas, as providing one source of
working capital for rural peasants.
18
Political relationships among the urban migrants are not highly
dissimilar from village politics: the role of the village headman is
taken by the ubiquitous labor entrepreneur or foreman, a person who
speaks the same language as the migrant laborers he contracts for work.
/ifter the contractual arrangement is made the workers are, essentially,
his clients; and he, their patron» as in the village jajmani system of
caste service inter-changes which follow and reinforce power relationships
between caste groups.
The migrant’s relationships to the larger political
system are directed by their foreman; they participate in strikes.
demonstrations, etc. as he suggests.
Migrants generally come to the city with the belief that they will
return to the village or town from which they
come; accordingly, males
predominate among the migrants, often forming ’’messing groups ;i (i.e.,
sharing food expense and preparation).
They live in whatever shelter
they can afford, or simply sleep on the sidewalks of city streets. Most
of the migrants are noted ns expressing a dislike for the city,
preferring their home village instead.
No doubt, the transitory nature
(supposed or actual) of rural-urban migration contributes to inefficient
productivity, as the migrant feels little loyalty to his employer, and
often sees himself as nothing but cheap labor without any stake in
19
urban society*.
Nonetheless migrant contributions to urban economic
growth appear positive, even if marginal.
In the case of Bombay,
Zachariah (1965) maintains that the migrant labor role is significant
in that city’s economic growth.
E.
Refugee Dimension; Obviously, the refugee (primarily Pakistani)
and the repatriate (primarily from Burma and Ceylon), also an important
factor in Indian urban immigration, particularly of Delhi, Calcutta
and Madras (see Table 3), do not fully conform with the rural-urban
migrant profile cited above.
Unlike rural-urban migration, refugee
migration takes place in an uncontrollable situation where individual
decisions have little, if any, role.
The majority of the 7.5 million Hindu and Sikh refugees from West
Pakistan, after the Indo-Pakis.tan partition of 1947 have successfully
entered the Indian economy, but not without difficulties which certainly
had an impact on Indian urbanization, especially in housing and employment
* N.K.Bose writes vividly of cheap labor in Calcutta:
Foreigners complain wrongly of the sacred cows or bulls
that graze from garbage bin to garbage bin in every part
of town, including the central commercial districts.
The cattle that interfere with traffic are far less
numerous than human beasts of burden whose life work is to
carry heavy loads on their heads or to haul them in carts.
In their struggle to survive the man have driven the animals
from the city. z\s an acquaintance of mine remarked: ”It is
dearer to maintain cattle in Calcutta; one has to pay rent
for stabling them, and when they die it is all loss to the
owner. But a coolie can be hired without the charge of
stabling him, and when he dies he dies at his own expense. ii
(Bose 1965: 95).
20
(Keller 1970; Randhawa 1954)«
The apparent exception to the Pakistani
refugee success in achieving economic integration is that of some
4 million hast Pakistani refugees which came to India during the period
1946-1956 with another 800,000 between 1964 and 1970.
The depressed
economic condition of a large part of these East Pakistani refugees is
reflected in the general economic problems of West Bengal and, especially,
Calcutta (Rao 1967).
Reasons for the differences in the experiences of these two refugee
groups are linked to regional differences during partition in the
exchange of Indian and Pakistani refugee populations, property transfers,
reluctance of East Pakistanis to leave the Bengali cultural and language
region, and differential government assistance due to the political
factionalism of West Bengal (Rao 1967).
The recent entry into India of
7 to 8 million additional East Pakistani refugees between March and
August 1971, threaten further deterioration of economic conditions in
West Bengal•
It is this category of migrant population--the refugee--which
appears to lend some credence to the concept of overurbanization; however 9
it is important to note that (1) refugeeism affects specific urban centers
as opposed to all India urbanization, and (2) there is little data
available to suggest the relationship between rates of rural-urban
migration and of refugeeism in the sane locality.
21
The general literature on Indian urbanization continues to stress
that rural poverty is pushing an uncontrollable flood of migrants to
the cities.
Several reports, as the housing report for the Government
of India (Report 1965), the Fourth Five Year plan and conferences on
housing held in New Delhi in 1969 and 1971, have recommendations
prohibiting rural to urban migration for major cities like Bombay,
Delhi and Calcutta.
Ring or satellite city development about major
cities is urged as a solution to slum and squatter housing problems
and general
social problems of the city proper.
Heavy citation is
made of urban ills, as lack of sanitation, floor space, unemployment,
low productivity of labor, and a decrease in law and order.
Unclear
in these citations, however, is the precise .relationship between
such problems and rural-urban migration; nor has it been shown how
alternatives to the present urbanization process, as ring cities, are
either economically viable in terms of housing the urban poor or free
of social problems.
IV.
INDIA: URBx-iN HOUSING PROBLEMS AND PROGRAMS
Introduction: It is widely noted that India has an acute bousing
shortage which, if defined, is usually given in terms of 200 to 250
square feet of brick-concrete pukka units with electricity and plumbing.
Reliable statistics on housing are difficult to formulate; however,
the Government of India has attempted to calculate the extent of the
rking group on the Fourth Five Year
national housing short
INFORM -- r ION
CEMi-C
101 , J J
22
Plan estimated in 1968 that nearly 71.8 million rural and 11.9 million
j’
I
urban pukka housing units were needed immediately with the shortage
increasing by about 860 thousand rural and 350 thousand urban units
annually (Report 1968).
Contrast these figures with the approximately
200,000 pukka units, rural and urban, being built yearly in the public
sector and about 100,000 units in the private sector (Report 1969; 1970).
Pukka housing construction in the private sector is largely that of
luxury units; i.e., Rs. 30,000 or 50,000 per unit and upwards (Report
-k
1965: Part II; Bose 1970a).
The Indian housing shortage has two fundamental sources. Obviously,
poverty--incomes too low to afford pukka housing--is the major source.
It is estimated that over 60% of the population falls into this category
(Report 1965: Part I).
The second source of the housing shortage is
that of the rapidly growing middle income sector who are the actual and
potential house buyers overwhelming the inadequate credit facilities
and supply of houses.
The upper range of this middle income sector is
officially defined--somewhat artificially to be sure--as •’low” and
* No doubt these figures are underestimates of the actual units
being built. Practically every government ministry and many private
sector businesses have housing programs buried in their budgets which
are never entered in housing construction figures. Even luxury house
building has a low income housing spin-off in servant’s quarters.
Nonetheless, the significance of these omissions from official statistics,
in face of the all-India housing deficit, is nil.
23
’'middle'1 annual
!
income groups of Rs. 4201 to 7200 and Rs. 7201 to
★
15,000 or 18,000 respectively (Report 1971).
Two indices may be used to measure the degree of the Indian
housing shortage: housing need and housing demand.
A housing need--
pukka or otherwise-- is implied by data from the Indian census of 1961
which indicates an urban houseless population of 374 persons per
100,000; and that one out of five urban residents live in slum areas
with little, if any, sanitary facilities.
Floor space surveys reveal
that about 19% of urban families of 5 persons have a living space of
i
less than 108 square feet and 54% have less than 215 square feet
• (Mirchandani 1971).
The demand pressure for pukka housing is demonstrated through
applications from the middle income sector to state housing boards for
occupancy in newly completed public housing projects.
Two housing
projects in Bombay of 170 units and 200 units drew 3500 and 6000
applications, respectively.
In Ahmedabad a 100-unit project received
1000 applications; and in Madras some 1500 applications were filed
for 60 lots of urban land (Report 1965; Part II, Appendix Note VIII).
* The public sector housing provided these ’’low" and ’’middle”
income groups, together with government employees, account for over
50% of all the housing projects to date. It is not far from the
mark to state that the government has been giving much of its
subsidies and other assistance to the groups who, relatively, need
it much less than 60% of the population. The proposal to place
this middle income sector under the self-financing revolving-fund
scheme, discussed below, would appear to be a corrective measure to
the inequity of present policies (see Bose 1970a). It is instructive
to compare the official definitions of "low” and "middle” income
groups with the income data provided in Table 5, appendix.
24
Zinother index of the housing shortage is evident in the demand
for developed urban building lots (i.e., lots with roads, electricity.
water and sewage)9
Despite much careful planning in regards tc urban
land development, the slowness of the process has mitigated against
most of the supposed planning benefits.
The Delhi Development
Authority (DDzl), for example, endowed with 17,000 acres drawn from the
34,000 acres acquired since 1962 under the Delhi Master Plan, is unable
to keep pace with the demand for developed land.
The DDA utilizes a
lottery system for certain housing and land allotments, and partly
for development financing.
Nearly 50,000 applications have been filed
for a lottery scheduled in September 1971 for only 1236 building lots,
each applicant having deposited from Rs. 5000 to Rs. 500 with the DDA.
(Times of India, July 12, and August 30, 1971).
B.
Finance as a Limiting Factor: There are many impediments to the
rapid expansion of pukka housing.
Among the most important factors
relating to the high cost of construction in both the
public and
private sectors are shortages of infrastructure as developed land,
building materials, skilled labor and managerial skills.
All of these
factors result in delays which, in turn, are reflected in the high cost
of financing.
Indian banks .and other financial institutions have limited
resources while faced with competitive demands for capital. Government
of India economic priorities stress “productive” industrial development.
25
Government restrictions, for example, prevent the Reserve Bank of India
which exerts control over Indian banks nation wide, from contributing
any substantial funds for housing (Bhat 1969).
has plentiful short-run, quick-return,
An expanding economy
investments which are more
attractive to private sector investors than long-term, slow-return
investments in housing.
Poor mobilization of savings is also a prime cause of the limited
institutional resources available for housing.
There is a public
preference for physical savings as opposed to financial savings.
Traditionally, savings have taken the form of land, silver and gold.
This savings pattern continues to be favored as inflation and taxation
discourage financial savings (Mohsin 1969).
The government managed Life Insurance Corporation (LIC), has been
the major institutional source of loans to state governments for housing,
since its entry into housing finance during the Second Five Year Plan
for 1956-1961, with an aggregate value of outstanding loans amounting
to Rs. 114 crores as of March 1970
(one crore equals ten million). The
value of outstanding LIC mortgage loans for housing during the same
period aggregates an additional Rs. 30 crores.
Most of these loans were
granted to the states as subsidies for public housing
schemes, pr imari1y
the Middle Income Housing Scheme which accounts for 36,7% of the loans
(see Table 4, appendix).
In 1961 policy ..holders became eligible for
26
LIC "Own Your Own Home” loans; however, by March 1970 only some
6,000 loans had been granted (Progress 1971).
la an effort to overcome inadequate and expensive credit as a
limiting factor in private housing construction, the present Fourth
Five Year Plan stresses that middle-income housing should be self
financed through a revolving fund administered by the newly formed
(1970) Housing and Urban Development Finance Corporation.
The
revolving fund, presently some Rs. 10 crores, :has a target goal of
Rs, 200 crores, possibly to be accomplished through international
assistance (Report 1968, 1971; also, Fourth Five Year Plan 1969).
It appears possible that future self-financing of middle-income
housing through the proposed revolving fund credit facility would tend
toward partially relieving at least one aspect of the Indian housing
problem.
C.
Plan Expenditures vs. Urban Housing Needs: Indian planning in
regards to public low-income housing is not noted as being integrated
or as comprehensive; but, rather, as being a series of diverse housing
subsidies, severely limited in scope when set alongside the national
pukka housing shortage.
Housing for the middle income sector, and
especially government employees, account for over half of the units
built.
There is, however, an increasing emphasis in present planning
upon focussing assistance toward slum rehabilitation (Fourth Five Year
Plan 1969; Report 1971; also discussion in Report 1965: Part I).
27
Government responsibility for providing low cost housing was
explicitly stated in India’s First Five Year Plan (1952) and in each
of the subsequent three five year plans.
In fact, small scale public
housing schemes existed during the British rule, the earliest being
Bombay tenements in 1921.
Nonetheless, housing receives a low
priority in the development planning of India as indicated by the
percentage of the total public sector outlay for housing expenditures,
exclusive of LIC funds, in the. four five year plans which hover about
1.6, 1.8, 1.6 and 1.5, respectively.
In 1969 central government
assistance to the states took the form of ’’block loans” and ’’block
grants, ” which allows the state government to use the housing allotment
according to their own priorities (Report 1971: 38).
Even before
1969 state governments were noted for diverting housing funds disbursed
by the central government to other projects deemed more important
(Report 1969: 30).
Public monies expended for the various social housing schemes
from 1951 to 1965 under the first three five year plans, exclusive of
LIC funds, are Rs. 24.1 crores, Rs. 72.6 crores, Rs. 87.7 crores,
respectively, and Rs. 19.5 crores during the plan holiday period of
1966-1968 (Report 1969: 95; see Table 4, appendix).
The Fourth Five
Year Plan for 1969-1974 proposes an outlay of Rs. 63.1 crores for
housing (Report 1970: 27).
However, a 1964 survey of Bombay’s low
cost housing needs indicate that that city alone requires more than
28
Rs. 200 crores for pukka housing construction (Ramachandran and
Padmanabha 1966: 51).
Estimates in 1966 of Calcutta’s pukka housing
needs top Rs. 600 crores (Calcutta 1966: 86).
Another estimate
reports that only about 45% of the houses in urban India are of
pukka construction (Mirchandani 1971)e
It is not without substance
that the third and fourth five year plans state that alongside the
magnitude of the pukka housing shortage, government housing-scheme
efforts at amelioration are negligible.
D.
Social vs. Economic Rental Payments:
Most important of the
constraints upon the Indian government’s efforts to meet the pukka
housing shortage is the large gap between ’’social rent” or the
capacity of low income groups to pay rent, and the economic rental
payment required for such housing units to be amortized (see
Calcutta 1967a; 1967b; 2-3; also Ramachandran and Padmanabha 1966;
43-48).
National Sample Surveys of all-India household expenditure
for 1952, 1960-1961 and 1963-1964 show an almost unchanging 80% of
the population with a per capita expenditure of less than a rupee
($0.13) a day.
The National Sample Survey for 1963-1964 indicates
that about 78% of the urban population has an average monthly
per capita expenditure of less than Rs. 31; 48%, Rs. 19; 27%, Rs.14;
and 10%, Rs.10.
29
Indian economists Dandekar and Rath calculate that in 1967-1968
30 to 40% of the urban population of India, as against 40 to 50% of
the rural population, had a monthly per capita consumer expenditure of
about Rs. 19, while 10 to 20% had Rs. 13 (Dandekar and Rath 1.971: 25,29).
Although Dandekar and Rath dispute the data of the National Sample
Survey for 1967-1968 as presenting underestimates of the per capita
expenditure for the upper 50% of the population, their calculations for
the lower 50% of the population are in essential agreement with the
NSS data^e.g., 30 to 40% of the urban population have monthly per capita
expenditures of Rs. 17; 10-20%, Rs. 12.
Ignoring variations in per capita expenditure in specific cities.
on the assumption that living cost variations tend to keep the
disparity between social and economic rental payments constant, the
maximum national level of consumer expenditure for an urban family of
six at the very top of the 40% category, using Dandekar*s urban income
analysis, is Rs. 1343 per year.
Assuming 15% of their total
expenditure should be for rent, such a household can afford a rental
payment of approximately Rs. 17 per month.
In-contrast with
this
■
/
30
figure, even the low estimate* of Rs. 30 per month as the economically
feasible rental payment for approximately 200 square feet of pukka
housing with plumbing and electricity (amortized** over 20 to 30 years)
becomes prohibitive for at least 40% of the urban population which in
1971 represents over 43 million persons.
The present housing programs of the Indian government, representing
1.5% of the public sector outlay projected for the Fourth Five Year Plan,
obviously do not contribute significantly toward ending the disparity
between the financing required for India’s pukka housing needs and the
* The Slum Clearance and Improvement Scheme of the Government of
India indicates that its two room, single story pukka structures
(Rs. 4850 total estimated cost) built on government land outside of the
Bombay and Calcutta industrial regions, require an economic rent of
Rs. 40 per month. Identical housing within Bombay and Calcutta
(Rs. 6750 total estimated cost) have economic rental payments of Rs.62
per month (Note 1969: 3-4). A recent cost analysis projection by
Kingsley and Kristof postulates that housing costs in Calcutta can be
reduced if reforms are introduced into housing programs as proper land
planning, use of new technology in low-cost construction forms and
methods, improved mortgage terms and a good hire-purchase plan. Based
on these assumptions, their bottom monthly payment scale is Rs. 40
(Kingsley and Kristof 1971: Part III, 19). The Slum Clearance Board
of Tamil Nadu state projects an estimated economic rental payment of
Rs. 30 per month per unit of four-storey tenements (Rs. 9000 total
estimated cost including land) if financed by a proposed 30-year
hire-purchase plan (requiring Rs. 500 deposit without interest) in
place of present financing authorized by the central government with
an economic rental payment of Rs. 45 per month (Note 1971: Annexure B,2),
** Obviously, longer amortization periods, for example, 99 years,
would lower economic rental payments. Social benefits of housing,
difficult to demonstrate statistically but real nonetheless, may well
justify such an extension of amortization. Often the proposal for
amortization extension is stated alongside proposals to nationalize
house ownership.
31
actual amount provided.
However, a government housing subsidy of
the difference between social and economic rental payments for pukka
housing on a scale commensurate to urban needs--not to mention rural
housing needs--would require a tremendous increase in the public
sector outlay for housing.*
It is doubtful that such an outlay could
be made acceptable, politically or economically, to the Government of
India.
Indeed, it is precisely this dilemma--an emphasis upon pukka
units to meet the housing shortage while faced with inadequate
resources with which to build them--that has contributed so greatly
to the widely prevalent pessimism regarding Indian urbanization.
E.
Housing Policies-- Ideal ism vs. Realism: J.C. Turner’s crit icisms
regarding Latin AmBrican government housing programs appear appropriate
to the Indian scene.
Official housing policies and projects... attempt to telescope
the development process by requiring minimum modern standard
structures and installations prior to settlement--such ”instant
development ” procedures aggravate the housing problem by
disregarding the economic and social needs of the mass of urban
settlers in modernizing countries .... Unattainable standards
increase the demand for and the cost of slum housing and worsen
slum conditions (Turner 1970: 1-3).
* Manohar, an official of the Town and Country Planning Organization,
maintains that before India could catch up with its backlog of both urban
and rural housing shortage, a minimum of 30% of the nation’s capital
investment would be required (Manohar 1969). The working group on housing
cites Rs. 33,000 crores as the necessary expenditure for ending India’s
pukka housing shortage (Report 1968). A recent (1971) working paper by
an urban development consultant for USAID/India tentatively projects a
cost of Rs. 43,970 crores over 30 years for a housing program judged
extensive enough to meet basic urban necessity standards.
pe v - i 7-0
10969
32
It is interesting to note that almost identical statements
concerning the unrealism of public housing schemes, occur in the
recent extensive urban planning of the Calcutta Metropolitan
District (see, for example, Calcutta 1965; 1966; 1967a; 1967b;
Ford Foundation 1967; Kingsley and Kristof 1971; and Van Huyck 1968).
Public housing construction in recent years has met only
a very small share of the total need and generally has not
been oriented to those sections of the population where the
need is greatest .... The share of public financial resources
which has been devoted to housing is extremely small and is
likely to remain so in the future .... In light of these
circumstances, a new and dynamically expanded public housing
policy must ;be adopted. Its central objective must be to
provide of the maximum possible number of decent basic living
accommodations, rather than to produce housing of highest
quality (Calcutta 1967b: 3).
The consequences for Calcutta (and by implication for all major
Indian cities) of this past failure to meet the housing needs of the
people are depicted as follows:
Everywhere the picture so far as housing is concerned is one
of deficit congestion, insanitation, inadequate water supply,
extensive bustee fslum*) areas, high rents and premiums.
Everywhere there is a great deal of illegal occupation and
squatting on public and private lands--whether of refugee
colonies built cut of necessity on the vacant lands of
absentee landlords, or of pathetic clusters of squatters
in tattered and improvised shelters on public pavements, on
the municipal refuse dumps, and indeed on any vacant site.
The urban environment in Calcutta is probably deteriorating
faster through the sheer inadequacy of housing, with its
attendant evils than through any other single cause (Calcutta
1967b: 13).
There have been attempts in the past to undertake realistic
approaches to India’s housing needs.
Much of the semi-pukka, open
33
lot housing and slum improvement philosophy of the recent Calcutta
reports, now reflected in the Fourth Five Year Plan and in. the special
legislation in 1970 and 1971 by the Government of India for the Calcutta
Metropolitan Development Area, can be found in the rural-oriented
Community Development Programme started in 1952 which has as one emphasis
in its block development projects the improvement of the village
environment by building latrines, drains. paved lanes, drinking-water
wells ,etc,.
The Delhi Pilot Project (Vikas Mandal or Neighborhood Council)
for community self- improvement begun in 1958, and the Delhi Master Plan
which became effective in 1962, also contain examples of an early concern
with self-help, sanitation and water supply (see Clinard and Chatterjee
1962; Kavoori and Singh 1967; Lamba 1969; Sen 1971).
The Government of India Slum Clearance and Improvement Scheme,
formulated in 1956, provides the classic examples of environmental concern
with improvements of existing slum shelter or open-lot resettlement
for the urban poor.
The slum improvement or rehabilitation provisions
of this scheme stress sanitation: i.e., drainage, water supply, latrines,
paved streets or lanes, etc.
The scheme’s resettlement provisions
center upon government land subdivided into lots of about 1000 or 1200
square feet.
with
Rs. 150 to Rs. 200 worth of construction material.
Clusters of lots share pukka latrines and washing platforms.
34
The emphasis of the scheme is upon state participation and
tenant self-help both in the rehabilitation of an existing slum area
or in the construction of a katcha hut or semi-pukka house on an
open lot.
The scale of this program, however, is greatly limited*
apparently because of legal complications (as delays caused by
unfavorable court decisions) and an unwillingness to execute the scheme
by a number of state governments, like Tamil Nadu, which see it as
simply creating future slums rather than eradicating the problem. The
open-lot aspect of the scheme officially is considered unfeasible for
large, crowded cities like Calcutta and Bombay (see Note 1969; 1971;
also, Singh 1969).
The largest weakness of the open-lot approach is indeed that the
availability of low-priced urban land is practically nil.
The slum
clearance resettlement projects, for example, are located relatively
far from urban centers and employment.
Location as well as the amount
of rent is a major housing concern of the low-income groups, and
accounts for the illegal squatter settlements and concentrations of
street squatters near urban centers and areas of employment (Wurster 1962).
* Since its inception in 1956, only 81,487 ’’dwelling units” are
reported as completed under the Slum Clearance and Improvement Scheme
as of November 1970 (Report 1971: 57). Approximately three-fourths of
the old walled-city of Delhi, for example, was officially declared as
slum areas in 1957 (list 1957). To date none of these areas are
cleared or rehabilitated. In addition new construction in official
slum areas is severely limited by restrictive statutes and myriads of
building permits. The results are seen in the continuing decay of
these areas, although illegal construction partially rectifies the
situation.
35
In addition, there is little support for--or, until recently,
even acceptance of--the open-lot scheme.
In 1956 the Institute of
Town Planners’ report stated:
The Open Plot Scheme is merely a housing scheme for
the very low income groups; i.e., those that can only
pay Rs. 2 or Rs. 3 per month as rent, and does not
help to clear slums (Brief Report 1957: 23)•
Nor is the focus upon slum improvement and rehabilitation, as
suggested to the states by the Fourth Five Year Plan, particularly
well supported.
The Mayor of Calcutta, for example, sharply
criticized recently the Government of India legislation and
budgetary allotment of some Rs. 13 crores for land acquisition and
slum environmental improvements in the Calcutta Metropolitan
Development Area.
Specifically, his comments included the
following:
A lot of money is being wasted on the so-called bustee
improvement scheme
It is an attempt at tinkering
with a problem which needs a drastic remedy. An attempt
is being made to whitewash one of the basic causes of
the trouble in Calcutta. The Bustees are the breeding
grounds of lawlessness. Mere palliatives will not be of
much use (Times of India,August 7, 1971).
However, the aitBrnative to slum rehabilitation and open-lot
resettlement is invariably the "drastic remedy" of slum clearance
with supposed relocation in pukka tenements which for
reasons
already detailed is not economically feasible for India at this time.
36
It would appear obvious that slum clearance has been a totally
ineffective method of dealing with the social and economic needs of
urban settlers.
Madras, for example, is widely noted for its
vigorous slum clearance and relocation program with 180 slum areas
cleared between 1950 and 1966
However, in 1950 Madras had
approximately 300 slum areas with some 300,000 people; in 1971 there
were about 700 slum areas with roughly 700,000 people (Calcutta
1967b: 44; Note 1971).
Nonetheless, the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance
Board recently reiterated its position of rejecting completely slum
rehabilitation and of emphasizing slum clearance.
The Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu stated that :’the aim of the Government is to replace
all of the slums of the City
Hindu, June 25, 1971).
|of Madrasj
with modern houses" (The
The Board’s ten-year plan for tenement
construction has a target goal falling between 76,000 and 79,000
household units--this target in face of their own estimation of
some 700,000 persons living in slum areas at present (see Note 1971).
F.
The Case for Slum Rehabil itatic-n and Resettlement : Al though s 1 urn
rehabilitation and open-lot resettlement have many weaknesses, they
do have one major strength: they attempt to cope with the fundamental
housing needs of the urban poor.
In contrast with the planner’s
presently unattainable ideal of pukka housing for all, the urban poor
themselves realistically indicate that their needs center upon water
supply and drainage, location and transportation to employment
37
opportunities, and security of settlement.
Quality of housing
ranks at the bottom of their stated list of priorities (see
Calcutta 1967a; Van Huyck 1968; Wurster 1962),
A mass all-India
urban housing program focussed upon these limited but essential
and (importantly) economically achievable goals would represent
a major breakthrough in the present pattern of uncontrolled slum
formation.
A United Nations report (1965) observes two different patterns
of tenant behavior in two ’’sanitary slums” (open-lot settlements) of
Delhi.
Housing authorities maintain that open-lot residency is
temporary, with a shift to pukka housing planned at the end of a
20-year period.
The two patterns of observed behavior were based
upon the beliefs of those tenants who looked upon their residence
as temporary, and those who felt that 20 years of occupancy would
give them de facto ownership to the lots.
The first group hardly
maintained their housing lots, while the second group built
considerable lot improvements.
It would appear from this report
that government housing efforts which focus upon squatters and their
basic needs, as settlement security, instead of urban planning-ideal
are in a good position to contribute positively toward the
urbanization process•
In many areas, notably Bombay, illegal squatter settlements
generally remain beyond the pale of even proposals for rehabilitation.
These settlements are usually ignored by the authorities; and, if
38
noticed, their eradication is advocated and sometimes executed (see
Nakhooda 1970).
The Delhi Development Authority, however, began
attempts in 1960 to deal with squatters through the Jhuggi and Jhonpri
(squatter shanties) Removal Scheme.
This scheme, similar to the
Government of India Slum Clearance and Improvement Scheme, stresses
open-lot resettlement with 720 square feet lot rentals for squatters
surveyed in Delhi on July 1960 (some 50,000), and 225 square feet of
camping sites for squatters entering Delhi after 1960.
A vigilance
unit guards against the erection of new squatter settlements although
somewhat ineffectively with the result that the DDA has begun on a
limited scale the policy of rehabilitating (termed ’’regularising”)
illegal squatter settlements by building latrines, drains, tube wells,
once a population of roughly a thousand persons or so is reached
(Note 1964; Report 1971).
In relation to Indian squatting, it is interesting to note Mangin’s
interpretation of the illegal act of squatting in Latin America as a
'’self-help” measure undertaken by the individual squatter.
He emphasizes
that governments would have better success in dealing with squatter
settlements if they followed policies of cooperation in place of the
usual policies of legal eviction.
In short, hia
proposed approach
is ”to rehabilitate rather than to eradicate most existing squatter
settlements” (Mangin
1967: 76).
0'^
i:/
39
McGee, writing on squatters in Southeast Asia, views housing
shortages, slum crowding and illegal squatting as part of the rapid
urbanization in developing nations; thus, he contends that clearance
and resettlement schemes are wasteful , piecemeal efforts, as regards
over-all development.
He notes that squatter evictions have a high
potential for increasing social and political instability.
He
concludes that governments are well advised "to accept the fact that
the best solution is to give squatters legal ownership of their land"
(McGee 1967: 169).
G.
Outlook for Future Housing of the Urban Poor: Although the
Government of India has yet to come fully to the position of Mangin
and McGee, it has in fact accepted--at least at the level of national
planning--that slum rehabilitation is a major priority in housing the
poor.
To date, however, noshing has been done to reorganize the
disparate housing schemes which now subsidize primarily a middle income
group, in order to consolidate and mobilize expenditure toward urban
slum rehabilitation.
In addition, it is not at all clear whether the
state governments have accepted this priority of slum rehabilitation
to the degree that the central government has accepted it.
It is
important to note in this regard that the states have wide discretionary
powers in the execution of plan provisions and in redefining or shifting
the emphasis of such provisions.
40
Legal entanglements of urban land, ownership and urban real
estate prices loom large against efforts to rehabilitate slum areas*
and to acquire land for open-lot resettlement.
At this writing the
Congress Party (R) of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, following its
sweeping majority in the 1971 national elections on an end-poverty
campaign, is leading a controversial attempt (which has every
likelihood of success) to place, laws relating to the government
acquisitions of private property in the public interest beyond the
jurisdiction of the courts, whose past rulings^ as the famous Golak
Nath case in 1967, have strictly limited the government in this
respect.
It is possible (perhaps remotely so) that such legislation
may work toward ending legal difficulties and toward regularizing
land prices which have prevented, slowed or provided the excuse
against implementation of slum rehabilitation and open-lot settlements.
However, unless the central government and the state governments agree
upon the necessity for slum rehabilitation and the futility of attempting to replace slums with pukka housing (without drastic changes in
funding), there is no doubt that the housing problem in India will not
only fail to show improvement but will continue deteriorating.
* A brief of court decisions regarding the Slum Act of 1956 (as
amended by Act 43 of 1964) may be found in Gupta and Poplai (1966).
Court litigation has rendered the Slum Act ineffective for all
practical purposes.
i
41
An additional pressing reason ‘for the Government of India to
insist upon state execution of slum rehabiliatation and consolidation
of existing housing scheme funds for that purpose, as well as the
mobilization of additional funds, is the increasing pressure to
utilize a larger share of India1s scarce resources for military
preparedness, as in the current Indo-Pakistan crisis.*
Since the
beginning of the East Pakistan civil war in March 1971, some 7 to 8
million refugees have entered India, a tremendous and tragic uprooting
of people showing little sign of abatement.
A USAID/India report in
June 1971 estimates that 5 million refugees, staying in Indian refugee
camps for one year, will cost the Indian economy between Rs* 189
and Rs. 201 crores (TOAID A-398).
V.
CONCLUSION
There is a profound anti-urban bias in the literature on Indian
urbanization, although important exceptions exist.
The roots of this
bias are traceable to that urban scholarship which centers primarily
upon social disorganization.
Gandhi also desired "factories without
cities"; and, although highly unrealistic, the sentiment appears
strong
even today.
Much of the investigation of urbanization in
* An example of India’s use of its scarce resources for military
hardware is the recent decision to build a second model for super
sonic jet fighter production. The air-frame prototype (without engine)
is estimated in cost at about Rs. 200 crores (Times of India, September
6, 1971).
^2
developing nations is concerned with rapid urban growth as representing
obstacles to development, for example, overurbanizaticn.
A great deal
of emphasis is placed upon population dispersal through regional develop
ment as the solution to urban problems; but as such decentralization, if
it is to be economically successful, must be highly specific-oriented
in terms of infrastructure costs, it is necessarily much too slow and
limited to be an immediate catch-all solution for urban problems; rather
it is simply wishful thinking.
Indian urban studies and policy formation generally are done within
the perspective of the overurbanization concept with its supposed pattern
of rural migration overwhelming the city.
Squatters, in particular, as
well as slum residents. are considered in this view as an excess and
uneconomic population.
Attempts to provide assistance for them, as
housing, is criticized as (1) only encouraging more migrants to come to
the city and as (2) detracting from the investment effort for industrial-
ization.
Widespread pessimism, if not hostility, has discounted efforts
to rehabilitate existing slum housing as only a waste of money.
Imbued with idealistic notions of what cities should be like
(affluent cities at that) > Indian urban planners toe often appear unable
to deal with the realities of the rapid urbanization underway in their
country.
Certainly, rapid urban growth is by no means a tidy process,
but rather a complex set of changes--mostly unpredictable--resulting
in problems for which clear-cut solutions are hard to come by. Nonetheless,
I Mil
Hill
HI! I Ul
I II
43
it is these existing and real problems which must form the starting
place for planning and policy-formation ; whereas, Indian planning
almost always is directed toward forming the ideal city.
Invariably, the public housing policy most commonly followed
is that of proposed slum clearance, seldom executed, with supposed
resettlement in pukka housing, yet to be done on any meaningful scale.
The lack of success with such a policy reinforces the notion that
I
rapid urbanization or overurbanization is antithetical to development,
and encourages the planning of idealized regional dispersal of
populations.
It is the insistence upon pukka construction* which
underscores the past and present failure to assess realistically the
immediate and urgent problems presented by urbanization in India.
Pukka construction with its emphasis upon idealized minimum standards,
is far too costly and too slow in implementation; and, most importantly,
due to the wide disparity between social rent or the capacity to pay
rent and amortization requirements, it is not directed toward the
urban poor.
The failure of Indian public housing programs to focus upon the
basic housing needs of the urban poor is a decisive factor in the
increased growth of urban slums and squatter settlements. Entrepreneurs
*Pukka construction refers to a low-rent housing unit (200 sq.ft.)
costing no less than Rs. 5000, with the lowest monthly economic rental
payments estimated at Rs. 30, compared with the more common low-rent
ranges of Rs. 40 to 60. See Tables 5 and 6, appendix.
45
in developing nations, but also have been and continue to be undertaken
in India, primarily in community and slum improvement activity although
on an extremely limited scale and with little official or unofficial
approval.
There is no doubt that the utmost priority for Indian public
housing should center upon water supply, sewage and self-help construction
incentives.
As long as there is insufficient urban housing, slum clearance
must be halted, as it only intensifies the problem.
Slum rehabilitation
must be undertaken, not so much to end slums but to make slums at least
sanitary.
Where at all possible, as in Delhi, open-lot resettlements
should be accelerated, with locations within the city; or, at least, with
more than the token transportation provided most official encampments
/
now existing on the fringes of cities. To be sure, these proposals are
net programs for creation of the ideal city, but they at least attempt
to deal with the realities now existing in Indian cities.
It is ironic that in face of the ineffective Indian public housing
programs, the Madras and Delhi pilot projects in slum rehabilitation
are noted as textbook examples of planning for the fundamental housing
needs of the urban poor.
Van Huyck’s observation cf these pilot
studies provides a further irony.
Officials in both cities / Madras and Delhi_/ do not
point with any particular pride to these projects,
even though they seem to be reasonably popular with
the people who are living in them. The most apparent
reason for this is the belief that, somehow, the
government should be providing better housing and not
creating new slums, no matter how much improved the
standard of living in them may be (Van Huyck 1968; 107).
46
The Green Revolution, assuming that it can be sustained, is
i
a breakthrough not only in increased agricultural production, but
also in the usual pattern of stressing large-scale. urban-based
industry at the expense of agricultural development.
Larger food
supplies will act as a counter balance to inflation resulting from
increased incomes of workers in an urban works program (which would
give much needed additions to urban infrastructure).
A development
program focussed upon increasing agudxultural production and raising
income levels of the rural and urban poor will go far toward replacing
the "sanitary" or '•controlled slum" with housing having basic urban
necessity standards.
In the meantimej emphasis in urban housing must
be placed upon making even controlled slums a reality.
IV APPENDIX
Table 1: Population Growth in India*
Percentage
Total Pop.
Decennial
Variation
Percentage
Urban
Decennial
Variation
Percent
Urban
Total
Population
Year
Total
Population
(Million)
1901
236.3
1911
252.1
5.73
25.9
1.13
10.29
1921
251.4
0.31
28.1
8.36
11.18
1931
279.0
11.01
33.5
19.14
12.00
1941
318.7
14.22
44.2
31.92
13.86
1951**
361.1
13.31
1961
439.2
21.50
62.44
(60.41)
78.9
41.36
(36.76)
26.40
17.29
(16.72)
17.98
1971
547.0
24.66
108.7
37.66
19.87
*
Urban
Population
(Million)
10.85
25.6
Census of India, 1961; India: A Statistical Outline 1970; Census of
India, 1971> “Provisional Population Totals: Paper I of 1971 “ and
“Supplement to Paper I of 1971“.
** The definition of urban in the 1961 and 1971 censuses of India is more
exclusive than in previous censuses. The writer uses Ashish Bose’s
adjustment for comparability of the. 1951-1961 census data which calculates
the 1951 urban percentage of the total population according to the 1961
census definition of urban, shown in parentheses (Bose 1970b : 117).
Table 2Components of Population Growth Estimated
for Metropolitan Cities of India,
1941-1961*
Metropolitan
city: ranked
by rate of
growth 1941-61
1941-1951(thousands)
Total
Natural
Net
growth increase migration
1951-1961(thousands)
Total
Natural
Net
growth increase migration
Delhi
741
296
+ 445
921
430
+ 491
Bangalore
465
123
+ 342
236
230
+
Bombay
1193
320
+ 873
1157
584
+ 573
Madras
534
111
+ 423
313
245
+
Ahmedabad
254
112
+ 142
328
223
+ 105
Hyderabad
389
138
+ 251
121
251
130
Calcutta**
531
164
+ 367
230
305
75
4107
1264
•+2843
3306
2268
+1038
•st
Rao 1965:13.
method.
Net migration estimates calculated by the survival ratio
** Calcutta as delimited in the 1961
census of India.
6
68
Table 3: Distribution of Displaced Persors
(Partition Refugees) 1948-1958*
State/Territory
No. of displaced persons (Lakhs)**
Urban
Rural
Total
Andhra Pradesh
0.0
0.04
0.04
Assam
3.33
1.54
4.87
Bihat
0.17
0.50
0.67
Bombay
0.54
3.61
4.15
Madhya Pradesh
0.54
1.59
2.13
Madras
0.01
0.08
0.09
Mysore
0.02
0.05
0.07
Orissa
0.10
0.02
0.12
Punjab
16.11
11.26
27.37
Rajasthan
1.64
2.09
3.73
Uttar Pradesh
0.54
4.32
4.86
West Bengal
15.91
15.70
31.61
Andaman and Nicobar Islands
0.04
0.0
0.04
Delhi
0.30
4.71
5.01
Himachal Pradesh
0.01
0.04
0.05
Manipur
0.01
0.01
0.02
Tripura
2.36
1.38
3.74
41.63
46.94
88.57
* India 1959:124.
•
** One lakh equals 100,000.
Table 4; Expenditure of Government of India for
Housing Sc’ ernes and Urban Development*
I.
*
Date
Initiated
(2)
Units
Built
(3)
Total
Exoenditure
(4)
Lakh s
Rs S .'ores
A. Housing Scheme for Industrial
Workers (1952) and Economi
cally Weaker Sections of the
Community (1962). Income
ceiling Rs. 4,200 per year
Amalgamated
1966
1.72
67.05
Nov.1970
B. Low Income Group Housing
Scheme
1954
1.34
94.78
Nov.1970
C. Subsidized Housing Scheme
for Plantation Workers
1956
0.02
0.54
Mar.1969
D. Village Housing Projects
Scheme
1957
0.47
. 9.78
Dec.1970
E. Middle Income Group Housing
Scheme. Income ceiling
Rs.18,000 per year. Scheme
financed primarily by loans
from Life Insurance
Corporation of India (LIC)
to state governments.
Maximum loan Rs.25,000 per
house
1959
0.22
45.47
Dec.1970
Scheme
(1)
Housing Budget
Report 1969, 1970, 1971; Jagmohan 1971.
one crore, 10 million.
Date of
Data
(5)
One lakh equals 100,000;
Table 4t p. 2
(2)
3)
(4)
(5)
F. Rental Housing Scheme for
State Government Employees.
Financed by LIC
1959
0.19
24.23
Dec.1970
G. Land Acquisition and Develop
ment Scheme. Financed
primarily by LIC.
1959
0.23
(acres)
33.37
Sept.1970
H. House Building Advances to
Central Government Employees.
1956
1.24
Nov.1970
(1)
II. Urban Development Budget
:Lakhs
Rs.crores
A. Slum Clearance and Improvement 9
Income Ceiling Rs.4,200 per
1956
year,
0.81
34.32
Nov.1970
0.15
May 1971
B. Bustee Improvement in Calcutta
Metropolitan District.Target
Population of 800,000 people
10/1970
C. West Bengal Slum Areas Improve
1/1971
ment and Clearance
D. West Bengal Improvement Laws.
Authorization Act to undertake
projects
14 1971
E. Scheme for Large Scale
Acquisition, Development and
Disposal of Land in Delhi
1969
0.34
(acres)
Dec.1970
Table 4, p.3
(1)
(2)
(3)
1. Housing" Schemes. All income
levels. Misc. urban
improvements.
1962
f0.07
2. Unauthorized colonies;27:
of which 13 are being
’'regularized” (sanitation,
water, etc.); also 111
villages incorporated by
Delhi, of which 53 are
*
being regularized
1962
3. Jhuggi and Jhonpri Removal
Scheme; resettlement of
Delhi squatters, with
differing provisions for
pre-1961 and post 1961
squatters
1962
(4)
(5)
F. Delhi Development Authority:
i.OO
Dec.1970
Dec.1970
0.03
0.46(lots)
8.15
Mar.1970
Table 5: Distribution of Population by Expenditure-size
Class in Rural and Urban India for 1960-1961 and
1963-1964*
(Monthly per capita expenditure)
Exp.-size
Class (Rs.)
Av. Per Capita
Exp. (Rs.)
1960-r" 1963-64
Av. Per Capita
Exp. (Rs.)_____
1960-61 1963-64
Urban___________
Per cent of
Population____
1960-61 1963-64
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
0- 8
6.60
6.73
6.38
3.28
6.46
6.93
2.15
1.14
9.76
11.95
9.43
9.85
9.64
5.49
3.34
6-11
*
Rural
Per cent of
Population
1960-61’ 1963-64
12.26
12.10
9„88
8 .83
12.08
12.00
7.19
5.14
11-13
13-15
14.23
13.99
9.82
10.43
14.14
14.07
6.86
6.78
15-18
16.66
16.41
13.79
14.87
16.70
16.43
10.71
10.78
19.77
19.44
11.44
12.46
19.64
19.44
11.40
10.25
18-21
21-24
22.78
22.45
9.03
10.24
22.64
22.43
9.68
10.49
24-28
26.08
25.80
7.72
9.20
26.28
25.91
11.03
10,77
28-34
31.25
30.65
7.66
8.79
31.13
30.90
9.34
11.55
38.40
37.78
5.93
5.93
38.66
37.81
9.61
9.68
34-43
48.61
47.93
3.12
3.66
49.35
48.09
7.04
7.25
43-55
83.75
174.99
3.28
2.94
36,04
180.10
9.50
12.83
55 and above
21.77
22.31
100.00
ICO.00
29.93
32.96
100.00
100.oc
All Classes
National Sample Survey 1960-1961 and 1963-1964.
Table 6: Estimated Number of Families in Calcutta Metropolitan
Area with /ability to Pay for New Hire-Purchase Pukka
Housing Under Prices and Housing Expenses Shown in
Table 7*
Pukka Housing Type (Table 7)
Number of
Housing
Type of new
multi-unit
expense
housing that
capacity
could be
Number of
households
(Rs./mo.
(lakhs > #
afforded
square feet
Income range
Less than rs. 100
Less than Rs.15
Rs. 100
199
Rs. 15
Rs. 200
299
Rs. 30 - 44
1
Rs. 300
399
Rs. 45 - 59
1
Rs. 400
499
Rs. 60 - 74
Rs. 500
599
Rs. 75
Rs. 600
29
None
2.33
None
4.27
250
250
2.42
2
250
350
1.45
1
2
250 - 350
0.86
89
1
3
250
450
.66
699
Rs. 90 -104
1
4
250
350
.46
Rs. 700 - 799
Rs.105 -119
1
4
250
550
.34
Rs. 800
899
Rs.120 -134
1
5
250
650
.26
Rs. 900
999
Rs.135-149
1
5
250
650
.20
Rs.1000 -1099
Rs.150-164
1
6
250
750
.16
Rs.1100 -1199
Rs.165-179
1
6
250
750
.13
Rs.1200 & above
Rs.180 & above
1
7
250 -1000
.78
*
See Kingsley and Kristof (1971: Part III, 9; Table 14).
** Based upon a housing expense to family income ratio of 15 percent.
#
One lakh equals 100,000,
V.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
/Abrams, Charles
1964 Man's Struggle for Shelter in an Urbanizing World. Cambridge,
Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Alonso, William
1968 "Urban and Regional Imbalances in Economic Development'.'
Economic Development and Cultural Change, 17, No.l, pp. 1-14
Balakrishna, R. and K.S. Sonochalam
1961 Repott on the Economic Survey of Madras City. New Delhi:
Planning Commission, Government of India.
Bhat, P.S.
1969 ’’Role of State Guarantees and Insurance in Promoting Housing
Finance”, Symposium on Pole of Housing in the National Economy:
.^elected_Papers and Reports. New Delhi: National Buildings
Organization, Government of India and United Nations Housing
Centre (ECAFE). Mineograph.
Breese, Gerald
1967 Urbanization in Newly Developing Countries. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
1968
Modernization and Urban Life.
Prentice-Hall.
Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Bose, Ashish
1970a ’’Urban Development with Social Justice” Economic and Political
Weekly, 5, Special Number for 1970, pp. 1247-1250.
1970b Urbanization in India: An.,Inventory of Source Materials, ^ew Delhi:
Academic Books Ltd.
Bose, Nirmal Kumar
1965 ’’Calcutta: A Premature Metropolis”, Scientific American, Issue
entitled Cities, September 1965, pp. 91-102?
’’Brief Report and Recommendations of the 1956 Seminar”
1^57 Journal of the Town Planners, India» No. 9 (Jan.), pp.21-29.
Calcutta Metropolitan Planning Organization
1965 Regional Planning for West: Bengal. Calcutta: Government of
West Bengal,
1966
Basic Development Plan. Calcutta: Government of West Bengal..
1967a Bustee Improvement Scheme. Calcutta: Government of West Bengal.
Mimeograph.
Bibliography, p. 2
1967b
Interim Report: Housing. Calcutta: Government of West Bengal.
Mimeograph,
/
Census of India
New Delhi: Registrar-General, Government of India.
1961
1971
’’Provisional Population Totals: Paper No. 1 of 1971”and
•'Supplement to Paper No.l of 1971“, New Delhi: Registrar-General,
Government of India.
Clinard, Marshall 3. and B. Chatterjee
"Urban Community Development in India " in Roy Turner (ed.)
1962
India’s Urban Future, Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, pp. 71-93.
Dandekar, V.M. and Nilakanth Rath
______________
States’ People Press (Reprinted from
Poverty in India. Bombay:
1
1971
Economic and Political Weekly, VI, Nos. 1 and 2, Jan. 2 and 9,
1971).
Davi s, Kinsley
"Urbanization in India: Past and Future" in Roy Turner (ed.)
1962
India’s Urban Future, Birkeley and Los Angeles: University of
California Press, pp. 3-26.
Davis, Kinf ley and Hilda H. Golden
"Urbanization and the Development of Pre-Industrial Areas’ ,
1954
Economic Development and Cultural Change, III, No. 1 (October),
pp. 117-138.
Desai, A.R. and S. Devadas Pillai
Sluras and Urbanization. Bombay:
1970
Dore, R.P.
City Life in Japan.
1967
California Press.
Popular Prekashan.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of
©
First Five Year Plan,, 1951-56
1952
1New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.
Ford Foundation Advisory Planning Group
Development Planning in Calcutta.
1967
Delhi: Ford Foundation.
Four th Five Year Plan, 1969-74
New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.
1969
i
Bibliography, p.3
Friedmann, John
Regional Development Policy.
1966
Press.
Cambridge, Mass: M.I.T.
Gupta, Desh B. and O.P. Poplai
Law on Slum Areas. Delhi: The Yugantar Press.
1966
Guterman, Stanley S.
"In Defense of Wirth's’Urbanism as a Way of Life’"
1969
The American Journal of Sociology, 74, No.5, pp.492-499.
Hauser, Philip M. (ed.)
Urbanization in Asia and the Far East. Calcutta: UNESCO
1957
Research Centre on the Social Implications of Industriali
zation in Southern Asia. Proceedings of the joint
United Nations/UNESCO Seminar at Bangkok, august 8 to 18, 1956.
Hauser, Philip M. and Leo F. Schnore
Th^ Study of Urbanization. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
1965
Hoselitz, Bert F.
'•Urbanization and Economic Growth in Asia".
1957
ment and Cultural Change, Vol. VI.
Economic Develop-
India: A Reference Annual, 1959
New Delhi: Ministry of Information and Broadcasting,
1959
Government of India.
India: A Statistical Outline, 1970
New Delhi: Oxford and I.B.H. Publishing Company.
1969
Jagmohan
"Housing and Slum Clearance." National Seminar on Housing
1971
and Slum Clearance: Background Papers, New Delhi: Institute
for Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies. Paper No.2
Mimeograph.
/Jakobson, Lee and Ved Prakash
"Urbanization and Urban Development: Proposals for an
Integrated Policy Base" in Leo Jakbson and Ved Prakash
(eds. ) Urbanization and National Development.
Hills: Sage Publications, pp 15-38.
Sever1y
■
Bibliography, p.3a
o
Kaiser, R.L.
The Vice Lords. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
1969
Kamerschen, David R.
’’Further Analysis of Overurbanization” Economic Development
1969
and Cultural Change, 17, No.2, pp. 235-253.
Karve, I.
Kinship Organization in India. Bombay: Asia Publishing
1965
House.
Kavoori, J.C. and Singh, B.N.
History of Rural Development in Modern India. Vol.I, New
1967
Delhi: Impex India.
9
*
Bibliography, p.4
Keller, Stephen L.
l?70
Uprooting and -Social Change: The Role of Refugees in
Development. M.I.T.: Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
Kingsley, G. Thomas and Frank S. Kristof
1971
A Housing Program for Metropolitan Calcutta. Calcutta
Ford Foundation Advisory Planning Group, Parts I, II, Ixi
Lakdawala, D.T.
1959
Report onthe
_______
_
Economic
Survey of Greater Bombayy
University of Bombay.
z 1963
Bombay:
jjprk, Wages and Well-being in an Indian Metropolis: Economic
Survey of Bombay City. Bombay: University of Bombay.
Lamba, Amrit Prakash Singh
1969
"Urban Community Development and Housing Management" Seminar
on Housing and Management: Selected Papers, New Delhi: School
of Planning and Architecture. Mimeograph.
Lele, Uma J. and John W. Mellor
1971
’’The Political Economy of Employment Oriented Development”.
Occasional Paper No. 42, Department of Agriculture Economics,
Cornell University - USAID Employment and Income Distribu
tion Project. Mimeograph.
Lerner, David
1958
The Passing of Traditional Society: Modernizing the Middle
East. Glencoe, Ill: Freee Press.
List._pf_,Areas Declared as Slum Areas By the Delhi Development
1957
Authority. Delhi: Delhi Development Authority. Mimeograph.
Lewis, John P.
1962
Quiet Crisis in India: Economic Development and American
Policy. Washington, D.C.: The Brookings Institute.
Lewis, Oscar
1952
’’Urbanization without Breakdown: A Case Study1' The
Scientific Monthly, 75: 31-41.
Madan, G.R.
1966
Indian Social Problems: Social Disorganization and Recon
struction. New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
Malkani, H.C.
1957
A Socio-Economic Survey of Baroda City. Baroda: M.S.
University of Baroda.
Bibliography, p.5
Mangin, William
“Latin American Squatter Settlements: A Problem and A
1967
Solution", Latin American Research Review. Austin (Texas):
University of Texas, II, No.3, pp. 65-98.
4
Manohar
"An Approach to Realistic Housing Policies and Programs",
1969
Symposium on the Role of Housing in the National Economy:
Selected Papers and Reports. New Delhi: National Buildings
Organization, Government of India and United Nations Regional
Housing Centre (ECAFE). Paper No. 15. Mimeograph.
Master Plan for Delhi
Delhi Development Authority. Vol. 1.
1961
Mathur, 0m P., Richard Morse and M.C.K. Swamy
Costs of Urban Infrastructure for Industry as Related to City
Z 1968
Size in Developing Countries. Prepared under Memoranda of
Understanding between Stanford Research Institute, School of
Planning and Architecture (New Delhi) and Small Industry
Extension Training Institute (Hyderabad) under contract with
the U.S. Agency for International Development. Lithograph.
Mellor, John W. and Uma J. Lele
"A Labor Supply Theory of Economic Development". Occasional
Z 1971
Paper No. 43, Department of Agriculture, Cornell University.
USAID Employment and Income Distribution Project. Mimeograph.
J*'
Mirchandani, G.G.
"Housing Problem in India", National Seminar on Housing and
1971
Slum Clearance Background Papers. New Delhi: Institute of
Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies. Paper No. 9.
Mimeograph.
Mitra, As ok
Calcutta: India* s City. Calcutta: New Age Publishers.
1963
1970
Delhi: Capital City. New Delhi: Thomson Press, Ltd.
Moh s in, Mohammed
•'Institutional Financing of Housing Development in India",
1969
Synposium on Role of Housing in National Economy: Selected
Papers and Reports. New Delhi: National Buildings Organisation,
Government of India and United Nations Regional Housing Centre
(ECAFE). Paper No. 35. Mimeograph.
Bibliography, p.6
Mukerjee, R.K. and Baljit Singh
Social Profile of a Metropolis: Social and Economic Structure
1961
of Lucknow, Capital of Uttar Pradesh, 1954-1956. Bombay: Asia
Publishing House.
1965
A District Town in Transition: Social and Economic Survey of
Gorakhpur. Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Nakhooda, Zulie
’’Focus on Slums in. Bombay”, Social Welfare, XVII, No.l
1970
(April), pp- 15-18; 28.
National Sample Survey. 1952, 1960-1961, 1963-1964, 1967-1968.
New Delhi; Indian Statistical Institute, Government of India.
Note for the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board
1971
Madras: Tamil Nadu State Government. Mimeograph.
Note on the Clearance of Slums and Removal of Jhuggis and Jhonpris in
1964
Delhi.. New Delhi: Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of
India. Mimeograph.
Note on the Slum Clearance and Improvement Scheme
New Delhi: Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India.
1969
Mimeograph.
Plotnicov, L.
Strangers to the City: Urban Man in Jos, Nigeria.
1967
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Pittsburgh:
Prakash, Ved.
New Towns in India. Charlotte, N.C.: Duke University Program in
1969
Comparative Studies on Southern Asia.
’’Progress o2 Social Housing”
1971
Bank of India Bulletin, 9 No.3, pp. 34-41.
Ramachandran, P. and A. Padmanagha
Social and Economic Rents and Subsidies for Low-Income Groups
1966
in Greater Bombay. Bombay: Lalvani Publishing House.
Randhawa, M.S.
Out of the Ashes.
1954
Punjab: Public Relations Department.
Rao, N. Baskara
1965
1Estimate of Migration to Metropolitan Cities of India.
Bombay: Demographic Training and Research Centre. Mimeograph.
Bibliography, p.7
Rao, U.B.
Story of Rehabilitation. New Delhi: Ministry of Information
1967
and Broadcasting, Government of India.
Rao, V.K.R.V. and P.B. Desai
7 1Q
6S
The City of Greater Delhi: A Study in Urbanization, 1940-1957
1965
Bombay; Asia Publishing House.
>
Redfield, Robert
1941
The Folk Culture of Yucatan.
Press.
Chicago: University of Chicago
Report 1968-1969
New Delhi: Department of Works, Housing and Urban Development,
1969
Government of India.
Report 1969-1970
New Delhi: Department of Works, Housing and Urban Development,
1970
Government of India.
Report 1970-1971
New Delhi: Department of Works, Housing and Urban Development,
1971
Government of India.
Report of the Seminar on Slum Clearance
Bombay: Indian Conference of Social Work.
1957
Report of the Working Group on Housing for the Fourth Five Year Plan
1968
1969-1974. New Delhi: Department of Works, Housing and Urban
Development, Government of India.
Report on India’s Urban Housing
New Delhi: Ministry of Works and Housing, Government of India,
1965
Parts I and II. Mimeograph.
Robinson, Warren C.
’’Urban-Rural Differences in Indian Fertility”, Population
1961
Studies. XIV, No.3 (March) pp. 220-231.
Second Five Year Plan, 1956-1961
New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.
1956
Segal, Ronald
The Anguish of India.
1965
New York: New American Library.
Sen, A.K.
’’Growing Pains: A Mid-term Appraisal of the Delhi Master
1971
Plan”, Sunday World. A Hindustan Times Publication, July 25.
Bibliography, p,8
Sen, S.N.
1960
The City of Calcutta: A Socio-Economic Survey, 1954-1955 to
1957-58. Calcutta: Bookland Press.
Siddiqui, M.K.A.
1970
“Calcutta Slums”, Struggle: The Weekly Calcutta, 3: No.5,
pp. 5-12, and No.9. pp. 5-13.
Singh, Satwant B.
1969
“Rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers”, Seminar on Housing
Management: Selected Papers. New Delhi: School of Planning
and Architecture. Mimeograph.
Sjoberg, Gideon
1960
The Preindustrial City: Past and Present.
Free Press.
1965
New York: The
“Theory and Research in Urban Sociology” in Philip M. Hauser
(ed-)* The Study of Urbanization. New York: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc.
Solvani, N.V.
1966
Urbanization and Urban India.
Bombay: Asia Publishing House.
Third Five Year Plan, 1961-1966
1961
New Delhi: Planning Commission, Government of India.
Turner, John C.
1970
’Barriers and Channels for Housing Development in Modernizing
Countries” in Willi.m Mangin (ed.). Peasants in Cities:
Readings in the Anthropology of Urbanization. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin Company.
Turner, Roy (ed.)
1962
India's Urban Future.
of California Press.
Berkeley and Los Angeles: University
United Nations
1965
Social Aspects of Housing and Urban Development.
New York.
Van Huyck, Alfred P.
1968
“The Housing Threshold for Lowest-Income Groups” in J.D.
Herbert and A.P. Von Huyck
(eds.).• Urban Planning in the
.
Developing Countries. New York: Frederick A. Praeger
Publishers, pp. 64-107.
Bibliography, p.9
Weiner, Myron
1967 Party Building in a New Nation: The ~Indian
'
national Congress.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Wirth, Louis
1938 "Urbanism as a Way of Life", American Journal of Sociology
XLIV, No.l (July), pp. 1-24.
i
Wurster, Catherine. Bauer
1962 "Urban Living Conditions, Overhead Costs, and the Development
Pattern" in Roy Turner (ed.). India's Urban Future. Berkeley
and Los Angeles: University of California Press, pp. 277-295.
Young, M. and Willmott P.
1957 Family and Kinship in bast London. London: Penguin Books.
Zachariah, K.C.
1960 Internal Migration in India 1941-1951• Bombay: Demographic
Training and Research Centre.
1965
Historical Study of Internal Migration in the Indian
Subcontinent 1901-1931. Bombay: Demographic Training and
Research Centre.
1968
Migration in Greater Bombay,
and Research Centre.
Bombay: Demographic Training
Zachariah, K.C. and J.P. Ambannavar
1967 ’’Population Redistribution in India: Inter-state and ruralurban" in Ashish Bose, (ed.). Patterns of Population Change
in India, 1951-1961. New Delhi: Allied Publishing.
Zielinski, E. Zenon A.
1969
The Role of Prefabrication in Low-Cost Housing", Symposium
on Role of Housing in National Economy: Selected Papers and
Reports. New Delhi: National Buildings Organization,
Government of India and United Nations Regional Housing
Centre (ECAFE). Paper No. 39. Lithograph.
Position: 4700 (1 views)