Law, Urban Policies and the Role of Intermediaries in Delhi

Milbert, I (2008) "Law, Urban Policies and the Role of Intermediaries in Delhi:  From "New forms of Urban Governance in Delhi"

• Cities of South critiques for uncontrolled growth and that public authorities and internatioal donor agences not invervened son enough due to anit-urban bias. Lack of planning, land-managemen,t funds and baitat polices seem to explain. NOT the case in Delhi- which has benefits from laws and regs as the coveted capital and pearl of British Empire and centere of political and admin power of India. Over 60 years any innovative urban polices have been teested in Delhi. as benefited from funding. Question is whether the capital citiy as an automonous institutional body is emerging through transformation of local power or through organisation of local elites and moderized public action. Hypothesis is that delhi the relationship between central govt, state, local and pol evolving towards new framework of governmance. Not clear if all stakeholders and social movements will facilitate equal access to citizenship - esp for slum dwellers.
• Delhi , goverment of capital city - Has become both admin and business capital. Annual growth 4%. Pop was 9.42 ml in 2001.  Powerful middle-imcome group. Per capital include 2.5 times national average (rougly $4500 AUD).  All negatve caracteristics of capital city. Sum colonies for example. influenced by int norms and practices - modernization, management, environment, decentralization and privatization. They still comply with western standards in transportation, building, environment, green spaces, definiton of slums etc. They do this to get international support for Commonwealth games etc. However central govt eager to keep fudning indpendant of international -> Vast control of its lands, pubic housing and goal of optiising space to ensuree better services.
• Complex Admin set up -  Dupont and Houssay-Holzchuch (2005) showed how social and spatial residential seg and vertical management inherant parts of the concept of colonial city - clear in Delhi. Capital city often most advanced for urban policies however last where local perogatives and functsions are transfered to decentralized body. National capital territory of delhi is one of the largest in the world at 1,483 sq kms. NCT - three local bodies - Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), New Delhi Municipal Council (NDMC) and Delhi Cantonment Board (DCB). MCD is one of largest in the world. Delhi Development Authority (DDA) works under Ministry for Urban Development - frames policies for urban planning and land management - complex interaction with political authorities at central govt. DDA role has become a major issue of conflict and negotiation. As many as 120 bodies are working in the same territory. Political tension over power of city councillors -> retention of controll and funding.
• Public policies, a formalization of strong political will -   Until 1990's none of Delhi's policies were result of strong social demand from bottom of social pyramid. Policies often the fruit of negotiation and colllaboration between Delhi admin and central government . Things have changed since with growing power of Delhi govt, and increasing organization and concern of groups of city dwellers.
• Urban Planning -  Delhi is forerunner in town planning, land management and urban policies. Image of "city beautiful" is underlyiung justification fo most policy. Wanted Delhi to be the model for setting up and managing town planning,. First Master Plan 1962 focused on managing pop growth via large scale public land acquisition. REviewed in 1981 trying to manage also surrounding regions in a  coordinated manner. The third revision for 20201 tried to take into accunt reality of numerous private stakeholders, to overcome difficulties related to zoning and illegal settlements, and encourage private invfestment via land pooling. 
•  Land policies -  Land acquisition act has been used most in Delhi which has show strength, possibilities and difficulties of land controlling public authorities when confronted with  strategies of private sector or efforts of poor to secure shelter. Original plan that 60% of the land should go to the poor - DDA could never fulfil this obligation (Acharya 1987). 
• Conflicting issues around habitat -  Very segmented markets. Only 23.7% live in planned colonies. Rest resided in unauthorised colonies, Juggi-jhomori (JJ) Clusters, designated slums and resettlement colonies. Two public policies explain segmentation - one is Rent Control Legislation and other is DDA housing policies.  Fixed rents were in place to avoid speculation and arbitrary eviction however this had perverse consequences -> lack of maintenance and scarcity. 1992 a new bill (Model rent bill) was prepared in consultation wiht citizen groups, lobbies and NGO's. Purpose was to exclude commercial, high standard housing and new construction. Since 1980's increasing  % of funds for housing from private sector, mostly for illegal development. Continued growth of illegal hosing settlements (1080 officially acknowledged settlements as per 1993). As they house 350,000 families without amenities. Govt repeatedly obliged to regularize them which means provision of water, sanitation and electricity on payment of development changes and approval of building plans. Several committees such as the Tejinder Khanna tried to be more coordinated by consulting with national, state, municipal govt . A summary of the position is that despite DDA best efforts over 35 years many still live in inadequate conditions.
• Slums -  Number of squaters in 200 1,100 with 600,000 households. Jhuggi-Jhompi clusters serve the poorest - unlike colonies they have no land and are poorly constructed no amenities. 1956 Slum area (improvement and clearance) Act provided power to put end to practice. Act premise was to improve improve slums and protect dwellers from eviction. Have always been eviction but now must include resettlement - but these resettlements have been slow and difficult. Has been confirmed that majority still occurs without resettlement. 
• Multiplication of stakeholders and mediators of public policies -   From above seems that Delhi history based on public authorities and vertical management - there are intermediaries. outlined below
• Slum Pradhans - Do not have associations or a group of associations able to be formalized as a lobby. Would often gather based on common objectives such as gender, caste or country of origin. E.g Nepali community able to organise micro finance. MOst are isolated. Prahans (or slumlords) often looked down on but are often unavoidable intermediaries in the slums. Need to have minimum level of education to engage with admin, NGO, private bodies and international ors such as UNICEF. They are paid by slum dwellers to act for them. Usually not elected but they must have influence and capacity to negotiate wiht and leverage both sides. Bribing the police is a major role as it is only way of protecting slum dwellers - good contacts with local and influential politicians also essential. THey can also influence voting direction of slum dwellers. Often intro themselves as social workers however they are often self serving. They often try to keep others at a distance and can exploit poverty and isolation. NGO's often avoid slums in delhi as the unauthorised nature means that the project could be cancelled, they are illegal, and they would have to act in accord wiht rules of pradhan.
• Local brokers and middle men - Unclear game in terms of resettlement. Well informed and know when slum dweller conferred title through political networks - exert pressure to buy the land after dweller has obtained the title. This is when slum dweller can -> legal title . The pradhans would help slum dwellers grasp documents to prove existence. Middlemen acting as low level real estate agents try to buy land right by offering high prices - they profit from cross subsidies of land and speculation.
• NGOs - Liberalisation -> administration now see NGO's as low-cost means of running most marginal, informal and unmanageable zones . Some believe the gov should facilitate and give them funds. Several in areas of child welfare, health, sanitation, education, etc. Support a mix of foreign doners, UN dev, secular, an from govt.  In many cases however slum people left to themselves and can be deeply divided. Groups who are relatively better off and those that are isolated form subgroups.  Even some recognised NGO's criticized for lack of regularity in interventions. UNICEF in Delhi even said NGOs sometimes obstacle to local action groups. 
• Middle Income Group Networks - leading role in issues related to env and transport and become key politica target in policies. MIGs connected to slums through informal economics of slums - servants, drivers watchmen etc. Rejection of proximity of slums.  MIG networks have een included into bhagidari scheme - the citizen - government partnership initiative of Government of Delhi with mixed success.
• Lobbies and interest groups -  Over past 50 yrs powerful lobbies built networks and secured access to political parties. REpresent builders, real estate, propery owners, deregulation private corporate sector and trader pressure groups. Ability to influence crosses  politis. 
• Intermediate level of admin - Indian Administrative Service (IAS) officers constitute best link and network to facilitate communication at highest level. Very fragmented with little inks between units. It has direct contact with public. Reforms have been attempted to ensure quality and control corruption.
• The Judiciary - As of writing Urban India at crossroads with laws being repealed and new regs voted for. Lawyers are holders of knowledge and play critical role in real estate ventures. Dupont and Ramanathan (2007) show role of judiciary in shaping urban policies especially via public interest litigation.  
• Political networkers  - There has been disingenuous campaigns where slums are catered to for a week proceeding elections. Originally  slum   dwellers were bemused but now angry -> some prominent members of Parliament loosing their seats. May be new level of political conciousness where they had become concious that politics can help locally. New forms of co-operation being established. In slums faith to family caste and religion remain but mitigated by realistic monitoring of managerial capacity and influence of candidateds.