Behind Bengaluru slums, growth and demolition drives

Bengaluru, often celebrated as India's 'Silicon Valley,' stands as a beacon of economic growth and technological advancement. However, beneath its gleaming facade of glass and steel, lies a stark reality of burgeoning informal settlements and repeated demolition drives. These actions, targeting what authorities describe as “undeclared” settlements, underscore deep-seated challenges in India's rapid urbanization, urban governance, and the quest for inclusive development.

**Background Context:** India's journey since independence has been marked by significant internal migration, particularly from rural areas to urban centers, driven by the promise of better economic opportunities. Cities like Bengaluru, with their booming IT and service sectors, act as powerful magnets for millions seeking livelihoods. However, this influx has far outpaced the capacity of urban planning and infrastructure development. The result is an acute shortage of affordable housing, pushing a significant portion of the migrant population into informal settlements – slums, shantytowns, and unauthorized colonies – which often spring up on vacant government land, lakebeds, or private properties. These settlements, though 'undeclared' by official standards, are vibrant hubs of economic activity, housing the essential workforce that keeps the city running, from construction laborers to domestic helpers and informal sector workers.

**What Happened:** The recent series of demolition drives in Bengaluru highlights an ongoing administrative response to these informal settlements. Authorities, primarily the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP) and the Bengaluru Development Authority (BDA), justify these actions by citing illegal encroachment on public or ecologically sensitive land, lack of proper permits, and concerns over sanitation and safety. While these concerns are valid from an urban planning perspective, the manner and frequency of these demolitions often leave thousands of residents, many of whom are daily wage earners, homeless overnight, destroying their meager belongings and disrupting their livelihoods. These drives are not isolated incidents but a recurring pattern, indicating a systemic failure to address the root causes of informal housing.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:** Several actors are directly impacted or involved. The **Urban Local Bodies (ULBs)** like BBMP and BDA, along with the **State Government of Karnataka**, are the primary implementers of these drives, tasked with maintaining urban order and land sanctity. The **residents of these informal settlements** are the most vulnerable stakeholders – primarily migrant workers, economically weaker sections, and marginalized communities – who face displacement, loss of livelihood, and a constant threat to their right to shelter. **Civil society organizations and NGOs** often step in to advocate for the rights of these slum dwellers, providing legal aid and humanitarian support. **Landowners and developers** also play a role, sometimes indirectly benefiting from the clearing of 'encroached' land, or directly involved in the land disputes that precede such demolitions. The **Judiciary**, through Public Interest Litigations (PILs), often becomes an arena for challenging or upholding these actions, balancing development needs with human rights.

**Why This Matters for India:** This situation holds profound significance for India's future. Firstly, it underscores the critical **urbanization challenges** the nation faces. India is projected to have one of the largest urban populations globally in the coming decades, and how it manages informal settlements will define its urban future. Secondly, it highlights a severe **social justice deficit**. The right to shelter and a dignified life, implicitly part of Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (Right to Life and Personal Liberty), is often denied to the most vulnerable. Landmark judgments like *Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation (1985)* affirmed that the 'right to life' includes the 'right to livelihood' and implicitly the 'right to shelter,' emphasizing the need for rehabilitation before eviction. The **Directive Principles of State Policy (DPSP)**, particularly Article 38 (social order, minimize inequalities) and Article 39(a) (adequate means of livelihood), also guide state policy towards ensuring social welfare. Thirdly, it impacts the **informal economy**, which is a significant contributor to urban GDP and provides essential services. Displacing this workforce without alternatives can cripple urban services and create economic instability. Finally, it reflects on **governance effectiveness** and the implementation gaps in national policies like the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U), launched in 2015 with the aim of 'Housing for All' by 2022, and the National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy, 2007.

**Historical Context:** Informal settlements have been a feature of Indian cities for decades. Post-independence, various policies, such as the Slum Areas (Improvement and Clearance) Act, 1956, attempted to address the issue, often with a focus on clearance rather than rehabilitation. Over time, the approach has shifted towards in-situ slum rehabilitation and affordable housing, recognizing the social and economic contributions of slum dwellers. The 74th Constitutional Amendment Act of 1992, which institutionalized Urban Local Bodies, was meant to empower them for better urban planning, but resource constraints and political will often hinder comprehensive solutions.

**Future Implications:** The continued reliance on demolition drives without robust rehabilitation plans risks creating a cycle of displacement and poverty. It could lead to increased social unrest, further marginalization of vulnerable groups, and hinder India's inclusive growth agenda. The way forward necessitates a multi-pronged approach: strengthening urban planning to anticipate growth, investing massively in affordable housing, implementing existing slum rehabilitation policies effectively, ensuring participatory planning with slum residents, and providing secure tenure. Integrating informal settlements into the formal urban fabric through basic services and upgrades, rather than outright demolition, aligns better with the principles of sustainable and equitable urban development and the 'Smart Cities' vision.