News Comment: Chennai Slums: Who Created Them?
CHENNAI: Houses of about three lakh people living along the city's waterways are facing demolition. It is a grand move by the civic authorities to displace the living place and modify the life of perhaps half a million people. The intent to clear the city water ways of encroachment looks commendable though one cannot but fell sorry for those who settled in these places without being aware of its status. But, the more important question is what happens next, let's say in the next 3-4 years?
I am a witness to the way slums are created in the city and can say that the initiative has never been from the ordinary people, it is always the nexus between criminals and politicians who create and formalize the slums. Whenever a group of people create a temporary settlement in a vacant land, it is the 'bleeding heart' of the politician who rushes to legitimize them with a party flag and name board (or even better a statue of a leader long since dead) which provides the place with an identity. Later, the provision of every single civic amenity becomes a negotiation between the politician and those who dwell in these settlements, they end up serving each others' purpose. As many of the slum dwellers are not registered voters and live in the proximity of the 'highly educated and hence we won't vote' category of people, they can easily cast a vote in someone else' name. The rather small street structure of a urban slum also provides for other anti-social possibilities, the lack of proper lighting for other possibilities and the need for security among the inhabitants makes them easy prey for the Tamil politician.
Today, the Chennai slum has seen a couple of generations in some cases and with passing times there are I am sure innocent victims who have no choice to serve the city but undergo the torment of living in the slum just to be in the proximity of their working areas. The slums of Chennai have provided much content and context for the Tamil cinema industry (and perhaps the entire 'Chennai Tamizh' was developed in these hamlets) and a convenient photo opportunity for many of the politicians and socialites in Chennai. In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami 2004, it was some of the coastal slums in the Chennai city that were most visited by the disaster tourists and perhaps most photographed before they are discovered Nagapattinam.
The Judge in the apex court who has commented (how glib can our judges be) that these slums have made Chennai 'unlivable' should have probed a bit more to understand as to who sold these lands to those who inhibit them, who legitimised these places and provided those who reside with ration cards, since when and at what cost? Can those who promoted these dwelling units be made to pay compensation to those who are living there now? Can the government departments that recognized these units be called to explain why they did so if these place are illegal any way? What guarentee is there that the same elements which made money selling these places will not resort to the same trickery in the next few years. What about the multi-storeyed dwelling units that have sprung up violating all CRZ rules bang on the estuary? Would the authorities dare to rip them down too? Does the court ruling include them too?
What can the apex court do in its ruling to ensure that such situations do not occur henceforth, that innocent poor are not exploited? But, I guess that is expecting too much of thinking from our judiciary!
I am a witness to the way slums are created in the city and can say that the initiative has never been from the ordinary people, it is always the nexus between criminals and politicians who create and formalize the slums. Whenever a group of people create a temporary settlement in a vacant land, it is the 'bleeding heart' of the politician who rushes to legitimize them with a party flag and name board (or even better a statue of a leader long since dead) which provides the place with an identity. Later, the provision of every single civic amenity becomes a negotiation between the politician and those who dwell in these settlements, they end up serving each others' purpose. As many of the slum dwellers are not registered voters and live in the proximity of the 'highly educated and hence we won't vote' category of people, they can easily cast a vote in someone else' name. The rather small street structure of a urban slum also provides for other anti-social possibilities, the lack of proper lighting for other possibilities and the need for security among the inhabitants makes them easy prey for the Tamil politician.
Today, the Chennai slum has seen a couple of generations in some cases and with passing times there are I am sure innocent victims who have no choice to serve the city but undergo the torment of living in the slum just to be in the proximity of their working areas. The slums of Chennai have provided much content and context for the Tamil cinema industry (and perhaps the entire 'Chennai Tamizh' was developed in these hamlets) and a convenient photo opportunity for many of the politicians and socialites in Chennai. In the immediate aftermath of the tsunami 2004, it was some of the coastal slums in the Chennai city that were most visited by the disaster tourists and perhaps most photographed before they are discovered Nagapattinam.
The Judge in the apex court who has commented (how glib can our judges be) that these slums have made Chennai 'unlivable' should have probed a bit more to understand as to who sold these lands to those who inhibit them, who legitimised these places and provided those who reside with ration cards, since when and at what cost? Can those who promoted these dwelling units be made to pay compensation to those who are living there now? Can the government departments that recognized these units be called to explain why they did so if these place are illegal any way? What guarentee is there that the same elements which made money selling these places will not resort to the same trickery in the next few years. What about the multi-storeyed dwelling units that have sprung up violating all CRZ rules bang on the estuary? Would the authorities dare to rip them down too? Does the court ruling include them too?
What can the apex court do in its ruling to ensure that such situations do not occur henceforth, that innocent poor are not exploited? But, I guess that is expecting too much of thinking from our judiciary!
Comments