Myrthe Hanckmann The right to housing and an argument against forceful eviction in the case of Mumbai slums 05-01-13

Human Rights Law & Politics

Introduction On February 28, 2000, over 1,500 families and near to 2,500 people were left homeless (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2002). Along the Harbour Railway line in Mumbai, many of these families had lived for years, but the Indian Railways chose to evict the site anyway. Without information about or hope for a resettlement the people remained on ruined site their previous home. Not only was this eviction a serious violation of the human right to housing, it compromised many other human rights such as the right to employment, privacy, education and health (Dickson, 2004). The importance of the right to housing and its legal basis, in international as well as Indian law, is the first step into arguing against forced eviction, in particular in the case of Mumbai slums. Secondly this paper will explain how moving the problem, or forcefully evicting the inhabitants of an informal settlement, will not solve the problem of the surplus of inhabitants, nor the problems the slum dwellers faced. The last paragraph will contain an explanation of the vicious circle between the illegal character of the slum, and the inhumane housing situation as well as offer a possible alternative to forced eviction. These arguments all serve to explain and strengthen the main point: that forced eviction, specifically in Mumbai slums, is a preventable violation of the human right to housing. Right to Housing Internationally The right to housing, or adequate housing, was recognized in 1948 to be a part of an adequate standard of living in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Art. 25) and was more importantly included in the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of 1966. In the course of time the right to adequate housing has been recognized by, or included in, several other human rights treaties. According to the UN Habitat (2009) this makes the right to adequate housing relevant to all States, because they have all, at one point, ratified at least one international treaty that referred to it. The International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights is generally considered to be the main instrument for the protection of the right to adequate housing as it is referred to in Art. 11.1 of the Covenant: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent. India acceded to the ICESCR on 10 April 1979 and according to the UN Habitat the right to housing specifically includes the protection against forced eviction and the arbitrary destruction of ones home (UN Habitat, 2009), which is why the right to housing is a crucial factor in arguing against forced eviction, because it is a violation of a basic human right.

India First it is important to note the manner in which the Indian Constitution requires the State to play an interventionist role in the human rights sphere in India. The Constitutional structure states: Whether the individual asks for his rights or not, the state must secure them to him. The state must know that the people have rights irrespective of their demand for them and that not only has it to honour them by non-interference but has also to secure them to each and every person by positive action." (Singh, 2007) Second, the Indian Supreme Court admits and supports the right to life and its link to the right to housing, as it is established in the Indian Constitution under Art. 21 (Peng, 2007). Additionally the right to housing can be argued to have a close connection to more human rights. These rights include but are not limited to: the right to employment, health, security, privacy, and education (UN Habitat, 2009). All these are not only closely linked to the position and availability of adequate housing. Hence a violation of the right to housing, for example through forced eviction, is almost certain to also violate other basic human rights. The situation of a violation of the right to housing and forced eviction is particularly interesting and complex in the case of slums. Included in Indian regional law is The Slum Areas Act which formally recognizes that slum and pavement dwellings represent more than shelter, as they are also the base for economic activity and community. (Hohmann, 2010). The right to adequate housing is therefore crucial to protect, it forms a base for other basic human rights. The legal framework as explained above provides a legal basis for the protection of the right to housing in India, as it has acceded to the Convention in 1979. Additionally it has been interpreted by the Indian Supreme Court to be included in the Indian Constitution under Art. 21. Additionally the connection between the right to adequate housing and other human rights is of the central arguments against forced eviction as this would mean a series of serious human rights violations. Forced eviction Moving the problem The slum dwellers in Mumbai have a right to housing, just like you and me, as explained before. Forcefully evicting the dwellers from their settlements will not make the problem of the illegal settlement, or the bad living conditions go away. Probably they will worsen because the little improvement the inhabitants of the slum made over time, will be annihilated. In Mumbai the informal settlements lack security, safety and the stability that is embodied in the concept of adequate housing. In June 2005 the India Peoples Tribunal reported that: more than 80,000 houses have been demolished by the state government since December 2004 (Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights, 2005). The key to improving the situation that has been described is to protect the slum inhabitants from forced eviction. Forced eviction, according to the

United Nations Human Settlements Programme, can be defined as permanent or temporary removal against their will of individuals, families and/or communities from the homes and/or land which they occupy, without the provision of, and access to, appropriate forms of legal or other protection (UN Habitat, 2009). Forced evictions can be performed for a large variety of reasons but in the case of Mumbai it often has to do with the slums having to make way for development. Due to the city growing and becoming Indias financial capital there is an increasing need for more and better infrastructure as well as urban redevelopment (Hohmann, 2010). However, international human rights law, to which India is subject due to acceding to the ICESCR, requires Governments to first investigate all other reasonable options before considering any type of eviction, especially focussing on a limiting or, better yet, avoiding the use of force. International human rights law also obligates governments, in case of an eviction, to provide them with effective remedies and procedural guarantees, which will possibly alter the outcome of the planned eviction (UN Habitat, 2009). Improving the situation So forced eviction is not only a violation of a human right, it also leads to further deterioration of the living circumstances in the informal settlement. Both destroying the improvements made by the inhabitants, and increasing the reluctance to invest in their home again, even the threat of forced eviction can have a negative effect on the housing circumstances in the slums. Yet the living circumstances cannot be improved significantly and no long-lasting developments, even by NGOs or other organizations, can be made because of the uncertain future of the slums. Due to the reluctance of local or national authorities to extent certain services to the slum and thus improving their situation, the informal settlements often remain without access to clean drinking water and sanitation, access to electricity and have to make due without any or barely any waste collection. Because the slums in Mumbai are not connected to the water-network the water they do have access to often comes at a relatively high cost. The lack of access to basic things as water and sanitation, show how important the protection of the right to adequate housing is (Hohmann, 2010). New projects pursuing the improvement of housing circumstances of slum dwellers are called slum-upgrading. Slum-upgrading can be defined as any: physical, social, economic, organizational and environmental improvements undertaken cooperatively and locally among citizens, community groups, businesses and local authorities and is the main goal of the CitiesAlliance, a global initiative founded by the World Bank and UN Habitat in 1999, with which Mumbai has a partnership. According to the UN Habitat (2009) the slum-upgrading projects can help realize the right to adequate housing for slum dwellers if they assure the legalization of the slum or the offer of a reasonable alternative. If eviction is necessary, than at least the law should provide for the evicted slum dwellers. Currently the national law requires to legalize or provide an adequate alternative to any slum (home) built before 1 January 1995 (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2002), and even though this means that a large part of the inhabitants that came to the city after that are supposed to return to their former

villages, or as it happens in reality, move to another illegal slum, it is a decent start. However the local authorities in Mumbai tend to ignore the rules that were set up on a national level in order to speed up their ideas of development for the city (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions, 2002). Conclusion All things considered, the forced eviction of slum dwellers is never a solution to the problem. Currently around 50% of the people in Mumbai reside in inadequate housing and in less than half a year more than 80,000 houses were annihilated, and even more people left homeless. The dilemma is that the forced evictions are taking place in such rapid speed because the State Government is persistent in its goal to become the new Singapore of Asia in the global economy, but this expansion of economy needs people to drive it, and the people living in the slums, are an important driving force. This leads to a serious opposition of interests between the state government, other local authorities and the slum dwellers. To improve the situation of the slum dwellers, which will only add to the ultimate development of the city, it is of the utmost importance that the existence, continuation and improvement of the slums is legally established. The protection of the right to adequate housing will in the end prove to protect much more than just that. It will protect the ability to work and it will give inhabitants and organizations the space they need to make the necessary adjustments to improve the overall quality of life in the slum. And when all is recognized and safe, maybe one day there wont be any slums anymore. Or at least, not in Mumbai.

Bibliography

Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions. (2002). Forced Evictions: Violations of Humand Rights - Global Survey No. 8. Geneva: COHRE. Dickson, E. (2004). Community Participation in Resettlement: And Alternative to Forced Evictions, The case of Mumbai, India. London: London School of economics and Political Science. Hohmann, J. M. (2010). Visions of Social Transformation and the Invocation of Human Rights in Mumbai: The Struggle for the Right to Housing. 13 Yale Hum. Rts, & Dev. L.J. 135. Indian People's Tribunal on Environment and Human Rights. (2005). Bulldozing Rights: A Report on Forced Evictions and Housing Policies for the Poor in Mumbai. Peng, W. H. (2007). A brief look at housing rights in the Asia-Pacific Region . Habitat for Humanity. Singh, M. P. (2007). Constitutionalization and Realization of Human Rights in India. Human Rights, Justice & Constitutional Empowerment , 40. UN Habitat. (2009). The Right to Adequate Housing. Office of the United Nations, High Commissioner for Human Rights.