The great garbage rush
The belief that slum dwellers convert any structure they are given into another slum is thoroughly disproved in Charkop. There is clearly a sense of community, and each cluster feels proud to maintain the cleanliness of its surroundings, writes Kalpana Sharma.
It was a sight for sore eyes. A man came down the lane clanging a big brass bell. Suddenly, as if out of nowhere, old women, young women, young girls and a sprinkling of young boys walked, ran, hobbled carrying plastic bags and buckets. All of them were moving single-mindedly in one direction. For the uninitiated this appeared to be a strange ritual. In fact, it is the daily routine of households carrying their garbage to the municipal garbage truck in an urban poor settlement in Charkop, a suburban locality in northwestern Mumbai.
People laughed when I stopped to ask what was going on. To me it seemed unusual because I know that in India, the practice of collecting and disposing of the garbage we generate is not a natural instinct. The reasons are many. One of them is the absence of a collection system. But the other is our belief that as long as our houses are clean inside, it does not matter what happens outside. So in most parts of India, rich and poor households routinely throw out of their houses what they do not want, caring little where the rubbish lands.
Normal practice
In a city like Mumbai, this could land on someone’s parked vehicle, or even on a pedestrian’s head as the unwanted material is carelessly flung out of a kitchen window or a balcony. If you happen to be the unfortunate target of this garbage attack, you can do little as there is no way of knowing from where it originated. So you are left fuming and cursing at the anonymous ‘thrower’ who also has little knowledge of the unintended target. In any case, the ‘thrower’ does not care. Out of sight, out of mind, is the governing philosophy.
The place I describe above was a resettlement site for slum dwellers 20 years ago. It was part of a ‘sites and services’ scheme that allowed slum dwellers to buy, at a low initial cost followed by affordable monthly payments, plots varying in size from 25 sq m onwards. These plots were part of a proper layout with space left for roads, open spaces, public amenities such as schools, playgrounds, hospitals and shops. The owners of the plot could build as much or as little depending on their economic circumstances and within norms laid down by the housing authority. Many people began with a basic structure and have, over time, improved on it by adding an additional floor. Some have continued with a single storey structure. As every plot was provided with a water connection, sewerage and electricity, each family was assured of such basic amenities.
When people visit slum homes in a city like Mumbai they are always surprised at how clean many of these dwellings are inside.
• Credible low income housing • Cut off by the date Twenty years later, this effort at resettling slum dwellers, and creating middle income housing in the same area, appears to be a successful model. The area is amazingly clean. The belief that slum dwellers convert any structure they are given into another slum is thoroughly disproved here in Charkop. Each settlement of around 40 small houses has a common courtyard in the middle that is kept clean by the residents. There is clearly a sense of community. And this in turn has led to the success of schemes such as garbage collection as each cluster feels proud to maintain the cleanliness of its surroundings.
When people visit slum homes in a city like Mumbai they are always surprised at how clean many of these dwellings are inside. But the surroundings are filthy with open drains, garbage piled high, open defecation, etc. Once you provide the means to keep the outer environment clean, by giving the minimum facilities of running water and sewerage, you transform the quality of life of even the poorest communities. Yet, such an effort remains one of the lowest priorities in urban planning.
Little planning
Mumbai today is pockmarked with seven-storied buildings that are part of a decade old slum redevelopment scheme. But unlike Charkop and a couple of other settlements, little attention has been paid to the areas around these buildings or even between them. There is uncertain water supply, the sewerage system is often inadequate and the garbage collection system dysfunctional. As a result, you have new structures surrounded by filth. And the blame for this situation is laid at the feet of the hapless slum dwellers who are resettled in what have become vertical slums.
At a time of great efforts to recast our cities as ‘modern’ and ‘global’, perhaps our planners should bear in mind certain eternal truths. One, that if you plan for the poorest in your cities, you succeed in making them liveable for all. Two, if you keep the needs of women central - then your cities will be clean and safe. Three, if you ensure that human dignity is imperative, and not just the value of real estate, then you have cities that can breathe, think, play, grow and thrive.
Coming back to Charkop, the striking fact about the garbage rush was that practically all those carrying the garbage were women and girls. Grandmothers, mothers, aunts, daughters, everyone was out in their saris, skirts, salwar kamiz and of course, the ubiquitous ‘nightie’ or ‘maxi’ - that long shapeless dress worn by many women while they do their household chores. So if women inevitably end up taking responsibility to keep the inside and the outsides of their houses clean, shouldn’t their voices and views inform civic planning?
Filed under
Cite this article
Kalpana Sharma (2007) ‘The great garbage rush’, India Together, 27 February 2007. https://indiatogether.org/slumclean-op-ed/
5 reader responses
Add a response
Arun Kumar · 1 March 2007
Let me begin by contragulating you for writing a story of hope and one that provides us with enough reasons to examine some of our exisiting beliefs. In this, based on some of my own reflection and somewhat trite engagement with the slum dwellers in a few small cities and towns, I feel the point that is being made - and not as pointedly as one would have liked - is one that relates to land. You see, people are excellent at taking care of things that belong to them. But over a period of time, excessive privatisation, statisation and a rapidly transforming nature of the 'public' - which is turning into elite 'men's' (in most cases) club has resulted in alienation of the poor, and even the rich; from land. But if land is returned to the 'community' - to whom it rightfully belongs - they will take excellent care of it. Unfortunately, the land sharks and the state are just too unwilling to examine the extent and terms of ownership that they have come to establish. It is time to reset out percepts of space and even the percept of 'us'; because clearly much of the land in our cities does not belong to 'us'. Maybe the city planners need to unlearn some of their lessons; and the politician and bureaucrats - holding vast tracts of land under the guise of 'reserved land' and not to mention the supremely mighty railways and cantonments - as well as the builders and real estate 'developers' learn to break the mould of gated communities and protected and regulated spaces. They must realise that 'we' are capable of looking after and managing spaces ourselves.
Roy · 30 March 2007
Kalpana, I enjoyed reading your article. However, you didn't make mention of the people who may have lost their place of residence when the Charkop slum area was upgraded. In your experience, is that a downside to the implementation of planning control and infrastructure provision? More to the point, do you think that occurred in this case? While the upgrading may have aesthetic benefits, appreciated by today's visitor, from what I understand there is often a human cost to these resettlement sites. The issue arises when the poorest are unable to pay the higher rents, essentially.
Shephali Mehra · 26 May 2007
Dear Ms Sharma, After reading your piece I am curious to know whether this initiative is completely community driven or does the community receive any kind of state support or that of a NGO. This I believe is relevant so as to assess the scope of replication of such an initiative in other slums or hutments in the country. It would also be interesting to know how this practice originated...please enlighten us if you have answers....
Kevin Tayler · 28 July 2008
Dear Kalpana I came across your piece when trying to find out what had happened to the Charkop scheme. I visited it in 1991, shortly after it had been completed, as part of a World Bank 'supervision mission'and was impressed by it then. I wondered how it had worked out in the long term and am pleased to see that it seems to have worked out well. In answer to Roy, it did not involve displacement of people because the scheme was built on reclaimed land. In answer to Shephali, it was not completely community driven although I believe that people had to form themselves into cooperative, something that I am told is fairly common in Mumbai. Houses are built around courtyards, which makes it easier to develop a sense of community. However, the concept and layout were developed by the Government with support from the World Bank
Karthik Rao Cavale · 26 July 2010
Kalpana, I particularly enjoyed the conclusion: "At a time of great efforts to recast our cities as 'modern' and 'global', perhaps our planners should bear in mind certain eternal truths. One, that if you plan for the poorest in your cities, you succeed in making them liveable for all. Two, if you keep the needs of women central - then your cities will be clean and safe. Three, if you ensure that human dignity is imperative, and not just the value of real estate, then you have cities that can breathe, think, play, grow and thrive." "So if women inevitably end up taking responsibility to keep the inside and the outsides of their houses clean, shouldn't their voices and views inform civic planning?" But I am wondering, does the sites and services model deserve unanimous approbation? In Delhi, Trilokpuri was developed for slum dwellers under the same model. I dare say it has not worked. I have read some criticisms about the sites and services model: one of course is that if you give ownership to a slum household, it might sell the land and move back into a slum. The second is that sites and services encourage poorly built homes (because that is all the poor can afford) and also that people in these sites find very little access to jobs and livelihood. Of course, public housing also has its flaws, and I do not think I have sufficient experience to pick one model over the other. But it is critical that we understand and plan for the weaknesses of the models we adopt.