1

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND THE URBAN DEPRIVED COMMUNITIES:

A critique of the Bangalore Revised Master Plan 2031

Introduction

This document lays out a critique of Bangalore’s planning process – starting from
the recent Revised Master Plan – 2031 (RMP). This particular critique comes from a
social justice perspective, developed from the viewpoints of communities who have
been historically and are currently oppressed within the city. The document was
developed by a core team, who facilitated a discussion with various activists and
organisations, representing or working with sections of Bangalore’s residents who
are marginalised and deprived under the current regime of the Bangalore urban
planning process. The perspectives and suggestions that came from this
discussion, and subsequent discussions amongst the core team, shaped the
critique outlined in this report.

Several groups were consulted before the preparation of this report, and they
include Samarthanam Trust for the Disabled, Slum Janara Sanghatane, Sadhana
Mahila Sangha, Karnataka Kattada Karmikara Sangha (AICCTU), Bengaluru Jilla
Beedhi Vyapari Sanghatanegala Okkuta, BBMP Guttige Pourakarmikara Sangha,
Asha Ankura, Maarga, former residents of Ejipura EWS colony, Karnataka
Janaaroyga Chaluvali, Alternative Law Forum, Association of People for Social
Change, Slum Jagatthu, EQUATIONS, Forum for Urban Commons and
Governance, among others.

Urban Planning and Bangalore

Conventional urban planning practices are technical and made up of jargon, which
only planners and architects can comprehend. If a layman were to pick up a
Comprehensive Development Plan or a Revised Master Plan of a city, what are they
to make of how their city will be built? One can see maps, graphs, statistics and
words. But, where do we find the people in Master Plans?

In the recent Revised Master Plan - 2031 that has been drafted for Bangalore, three
scenarios for the growth of Bangalore have been suggested. Therefore, the planning
of the city can be decided according to which scenario the people choose to be the
best. The three scenarios are the ‘containment scenario’, ‘corridor-driven scenario’
and the ‘differential-strategy scenario’. These scenarios talk about how population
can be accommodated, what the transport situation will be like, where the water
will come from, how the garbage can be managed, along with traffic. However,
questions on migration, access to safe and affordable transportation, cutting down
of trees in Bangalore to make way for roads and flyovers, among other socio-
economic issues in the city? This only goes to show that urban planning is
sanitised of people and their experiences, and becomes an easy process to increase
land value and develop real estate interests.

Urban planning does not take into account the perceptions and imaginations of
what a city should be like for the urban deprived communities. In this context, this
 2

report will look at the social justice and access to the city for the urban deprived
communities, while intentionally not making ‘suggestions for’ the mainstream
planning processes as they are exclusionary by practice. We have proposed
alternative means of planning which is inclusive of all communities who build and
service the city.

Bangalore city caters to the global market with not just its Information Technology
Industry, but also through the various small-scale industries like that of garments,
manufacturing units, assembling units etc. However, the city seems recolonised by
having to prove its investor-friendliness through credit ratings and development
projects in order to build on its ‘Silicon Valley’ tag, overriding the basic needs of its
residents. Thus, as we witness alarming levels of inequality in the city, the question
about who is making profits in the city and how, becomes an important one. This
will become more apparent in the coming years with the city being declared as one
of the 100 Smart City locations which seem to be simply a means of spending large
financial resources in an extremely small portion of the city in order to achieve
illusory, borrowed standards of an ideal city. The private contractors take up huge
loans from public money. As they enjoy themselves with the money that they
corrupt and make huge turnovers, thus turning it into private capital, tax payers
have to replenish banks with their money, so that loans can be given out again.
Thus, the process and objective of the planning process in the city is one that is
insistent on increasing land value and its monetary exchange, rather than focusing
on human necessities and the actual use to which land can be put. This is what we
choose to reverse in this report, by suggesting ways through which planning can be
inclusive and unique for the city.

Urban Deprived Communities in the City

The never-ending race to make Bangalore a conduit for global investment, to make
it ‘world-class’ has meant depriving a majority of the population in the city from
accessing its resources. Be it in terms of accessing space, financial resources or
using democratic means of shaping a city as per their needs and aspirations, the
people who toil for the city by providing it their grossly devalued, mostly physical
labour, are often kept out of key processes that affect their everyday lives. The
planning process of the city is one such example. The city’s plans are reduced to a
set of colourful maps, a muddle of graphs and numbers which completely disregard
the experiences and needs of the people who make the city and work towards its
reproduction from one day to the next. Most of the people belonging to the urban
deprived groups live in deplorable conditions, without access to even basic
amenities such as housing and drinking water, and reside in the many slums of the
city. Where is there place in the city’s vision for the aspirations of pourakarmikas,
domestic workers, street vendors, construction workers, sex workers, nomadic
tribes and other numerous groups who provide physical and emotional labour for
the city’s daily regeneration?

The answer to this question perhaps becomes obvious in the everyday experiences
of a street vendor, a pourakarmika, a slum dweller or a homeless person. The first
causalities of large infrastructure projects such as the metro rail or road
 3

construction/widening are trees and people whose lives are directly dependant on
the streets of the city. There have been numerous instances when street vendors
have been disallowed from vending due to an infrastructure project. Roads are
approved which cost more than ten times the value of what it takes to build a
regular road and contracted out to corporate groups, but pourakarmikas who
sweep these very roads are denied regular payment of their salaries. They do not
even have public drinking water taps to quench their thirst and are often made to
experience untouchability when they request drinking water from a shop or a
house. Land demarcated for housing the economically weaker sections, as soon as
it becomes prime property, is razed to the ground rendering thousands of people
homeless overnight and bill boards of a real estate developer stand in its place,
where once homes were. Weighed down by the burden of servicing the loans taken
for the various ‘development’ projects in the city and forced to prove its credit-
worthiness in the financial market, any expenditure of the city corporation that
does not yield ‘returns’ is frowned upon and this simply means that expenditure on
public goods and services either need to start generating revenue or have to be
gradually withdrawn. Therefore, it is not a mere coincidence that planning and
governance in a city excludes taking into account the experiences of the most
marginalised, because it is by trampling on their aspirations and entitlements that
the edifice of a ‘dynamic’ city such as Bangalore is built.

In restricting spatial mobility and access, along with the systematic denial of
resources from the already deprived, cities are becoming spaces of severe caste
discrimination. Following the idea of purity/pollution, caste discrimination takes
various forms in the city and one of them is by keeping away groups of people who
cause visual pollution i.e. slums, slum dwellers, street vendors, sex workers etc.,
who probably disturb certain imaginations of a city modelled after a Singapore or
Paris. Street Vendors have been evicted due to reasons such as dominant caste
residents being unable to bear the smell of non-vegetarian street side food. The
urban poor are experiencing a form of slavery in the city which uses them for the
cheap labour they provide but are kept out of claiming any of its resources.
Citizenship entitlements of people have made way for market mechanisms and
people are reduced to being mere consumers. This can be noticed in some of the
words that have become a common feature in policy documents - affordability,
public-private partnerships, targeted interventions, beneficiaries etc. Newer
markets which capitalise on the deprivation of people and the commercialisation of
everyday needs are seen all around us. One example is of the proliferation of micro-
finance institutions which post enormous profits while their mostly women clientele
work two or three jobs a day in order to pay off the loans. What does the RMP 2031
do in order to address these issues of the deprived, of the increasing privatisation of
basic needs? What guarantee can the various parastatal organizations provide in
ensuring that services such as water, housing, electricity, transport, education,
health will be provided to the people who are denied it? It is only when the planning
process and vision for the city take into account the lived realities of the people who
are most marginalised can these processes and outcomes become truly
participatory and just.
 4

Our Response
Any city comprises of various communities following different cultures. It is vital to
facilitate a process of planning that will offer spaces for every community to actively
participate in the development of a city that commits to social justice and human
development for all. But after years of living in this city which has been ‘planned’ by
the Bangalore Development Authority at periodic intervals of time, why is it that the
experiences of people belonging to marginalised communities reflect an increasing
sense of insecurity, deprivation and vulnerability? These experiences make it very
clear that the planning process and its ultimate goal is not towards creating a just
city; a city that fosters cooperation, participation and most importantly guarantees
a good quality of life for the most deprived. For instance, is it of any relevance for
the planners of the city that the density of slums in Bangalore is more than eight
times the average density of the city? What plans does the current planning
mechanism have for residents of slums living in conditions that are dangerous and
inhuman to provide adequate resources, finances to better their living conditions?
It is several similar experiences of Bangaloreans which make us critique the
planning process and its outcomes. Below are a few fundamental questions before
we go on to offer an alternate vision and goal for planning Bangalore:
● What are the basic principles on which the plan has been evolved?
● Why is land in the city primarily understood in terms or its exchange value
i.e. the monetary value at which it can be bought and sold and not in terms
of its use value i.e. the various uses to which land in the city can be put for
its equitable utilization, for example, social housing, homeless shelters,
playgrounds, parks, cultural spaces, etc.
● What kinds of preliminary information has been gathered, both quantitative
and qualitative, for a need based assessment of various communities in
order to make a plan that is based on real needs and aspirations of people?
● Were there sociologists, geographers, urban planners, researchers,
environmentalists, community based organisations, who are cognizant of the
local socio-economic fabric of the city, who participated in the planning
process?
● Was there collaboration between the various government departments such
as the Labour Department, Social Welfare Department, Women & Child
Department, Slum Development Board, etc., in this important process of
planning for the city?
● And most importantly - when it is the Metropolitan Planning Committee
(MPC) that is the constitutionally mandated body with the responsibility to
plan for cities such as Bangalore, why is that the BDA takes it upon itself to
continue to plan for the city?

Planning processes in the city have often exclude urban deprived communities.
This has been the case even in the recent Revised Master Plan - 2031 that has been
drafted by a Bangalore Development Authority (BDA), along with a Dutch
Consultant, Royal Haskoning DHV. As one of the women members who does sex
work for a livelihood quizzically asked in our discussion, ‘Why do they [government]
need a company from outside India to plan for our Bangalore? Don’t we know what
is needed for this city?’. It is in order to reject this exclusionary, narrow vision of
 5

planning that is once again going to be thrust on the people of Bangalore by the
BDA, that various groups in the city came together to make suggestions and
comments about how the planning process of a city can be inclusive and what it
might consist of. After compiling responses from various communities who are an
integral part of the city and its functioning but are deprived of its resources, we
offer a picture of what the city must look like ideally. It also speaks to how the
urban deprived communities imagine their city and how they would like to access
it.

Revised Master Plan – 2031: Our Critique

The Revised Master Plan – 2031 (RMP) differs from the Comprehensive
Development Plan – 2015 in a way that it speaks of Bangalore as a burgeoning city
which has several needs, rather than talk about its land use, land value and
zoning. It raises all the issues that the city faces, thus hitting the right chords with
certain sections of the society. It speaks about water, environment, pollution,
affordable housing, among others, and goes on to propose three scenarios, one of
which can be adopted to ensure reasonable growth and development of the city.
However, the tone and tenor of the RMP reflects the neoliberal agenda of
development which has the country in its grip. This only says that the idea of
development is not one that is inclusive, but caters only to the wealthy section of
the society in their economic betterment.

To begin with, the term ‘conurbation’ is an epitome of this idea of neoliberal

development. The word refers to an urban area which has usurped several towns
and villages that are on its peripheries to form the suburban of a city. This single
word connotes how development and Master Planning processes occur, which is
that it is devoid of any inclusivity. This only comes to show that an urban city is
ever expanding and taking into its fold its rural parts to expand on its industrial
and economic growth, while leaving the latter dry of its resources for the people
who occupy these areas. This is so, because the population projection estimate of
the RMP stands at three times the present population. With this in mind, the RMP
has suggested three scenarios, namely – containment, differential and corridor-
driven – which speaks of how the cosmopolitan nature of the city can be retained in
its core, while also providing it with an intensive supply of resources, leaving its
periphery depraved. The containment scenario is an exception, but continues to
speak of high-density development within the core area. In any case, the entire
Master Plan speaks to its audience with the differential-strategy as the bas growth
scenario. Thus, questions on how they are going to provide for the 3-crore
population, expected to migrate to the city, where are they going to live, where will
the resources to provide them with a good standard of living come from, etc. goes
unanswered.

The below table has been provided in the Vision Document of the RMP, on page 32,
which talks about the various aspects of development the Master Plan envisions for
the city. The comments on each of the aspect has been given in the right-most
column.
 6

Guiding Goals Strategies Our Comments

Principle

Mobility Comprehensive 1. Transport • The need for a Unified

and Network and Metropolitan
streamlined Hierarchy Transport Authority
mobility 2. Land Use- has been voiced by
Transport several citizens, in
Integration order to have a good
3. Increase in public transport
Public Transport system, which is well
share coordinated between
4. Promoting various State
Transit Oriented agencies. This could
Development have been added in
5. Incentivising the RMP.
Battery • Additionally, there has
Operated been no mention of
Vehicles/Non- infrastructure to
Polluting increase accessibility,
Vehicles affordability, efficiency
and safe public
transport system in
the city.

Ecological Protection and 1. Mapping of All

sustainability Conservation of Lakes, Tanks
Lakes, Tanks and Streams
and Streams 2. Earmarking
Buffers for
Protection
3. Lake
Rejuvenation

Access to large 1. More Regional

green open Parks
spaces to all 2. Avenue
citizens Plantation
3. Plantations in
institutional,
government and
forest lands

Decrease in Air 1. Environmental

and Noise Controls for
Pollution Construction
Activities
2. Ban on Mining
Activities
3. Incentives on
Green Buildings

Streamlined Balanced 1. Retaining • There is no mention of

 7

Governance integrated Bengaluru as a ward committees,

development thriving which are a
investment and democratic form of
economic urban governance
destination • Most laws on urban
2. Efficient governance are
infrastructure exclusionary by
provision nature. What
3. Equitable remedies will be taken
distribution of to ensure inclusivity
work centres in urban governance?
4. Self-explanatory
Zoning
Regulations

Viable 1. Engaged wards

implementation and ward
framework committees
2. Institutional
Framework for
co-operation of
line agencies
3. Implementation
& Enforcement
Mechanism
4. Financial
Strategy

Improved 1. Heritage and

urban form Cultural
Conservation
2. Urban design
guidelines and
Area
Development
guidelines

Inclusive Maximising 1. Segregation of • How is the section on

Growth waste recovery waste at ‘maximising waste
potential Household/ recovery potential’, a
Ward/ Zonal/ part of inclusive
City Level growth of the city?
2. Reduction in • While the sections on
Landfill Waste ‘provision for safe
3. Safe Disposal of drinking water’ and
Solid Waste ‘housing for all’, falls
4. Waste to Energy in this category, there
has been no
Provision for 1. Reduction of deliberation on how
safe drinking Losses this will be achieved.
water 2. Rain Water Moreover, inclusive
Harvesting development does not
3. Reuse of Grey
 8

Water begin and end with

4. Mandatory Dual safe drinking water
Pipe System for and housing for all. As
all New has been elucidated in
Developments this report, inclusive
development is much
Housing for All 1. Promotion of more than this.
Affordable • The entire RMP
Housing speaks of land use
through PPP and value. However,
2. Earmarking there is no mention of
Land for where they will
Affordable provide ‘housing for
Housing all’, what land is going
to be used, etc.
• In addition, the fact
that they are speaking
of ‘housing for all’
through public-private
partnership, speaks of
how the State is
shirking off its
responsibility to
provide dignified
housing to all its
citizens.

The RMP speaks of development through the State Urban Development Policy,
which will remain Bangalore centric. This only makes migration a harder reality,
with no safeguards and dignity of life provided to the migrant labourers. Moreover,
there needs to be focus on developing other cities in the State, where more
employment can be provided to the residents there, and raise the standard of
living.

Even if one were to look at the RMP in a single lens of ‘housing’, it can be seen that
no details of where the slums are, what provisions will be made to the existing
slums, where will lands be identified to provide for dignified housing, what facilities
will be given to the slum dwellers, what slums will be declared, etc. have not been
detailed. The demographics of the city, as to where there is a concentration of
residences, including slums is unclear. In the Master Plan Document, although the
Census 2011 data has been used to plan the city, it can be seen that the data that
they want to use has been chosen selectively. It is stated that the total number of
establishments are concentrated in the ‘Petta’ area of Bangalore. There are several
workers who are employed in these establishments. However, there is no mention
of where these workers come from, where they reside, what their wages are, and
the kinds of establishments that are concentrated here. Secondly, the details of the
working class has been provided in a tabular format (Table 7-9) in the same
document. However, there is no mention of what is the class of workers, what
wages they draw, what is their nature of work, or what their purchasing power is. It
 9

is essential to have such data, which will help identify the nature and culture of a
city for better planning purposes.

In the corridor-driven growth scenario, it has been mentioned that high-density

development will be provided along the ‘Namma Metro’ route, along with the radial
roads, ORR, PRR and IRR. It promotes commercialization of the core city, which is
limited within the peripheries of the city, thus leaving the peripheries
underprivileged. The entire Bangalore Metropolitan Area (BMA) will be opened up
for development, which only comes to show that this is no city for the poor. There
will be an increase in slums and street vendor evictions, while slums will be
relocated to the periphery of the city with minimal access to the core city and no
basic facilities for the dwellers. This can be substantiated with the point that has
been made in the same document, which states –

The major share of slum population (75%) can be provided the housing through
redevelopment of the existing land to cover up for the existing slum population
and the balance about 25% of the total slum population would require
relocation/rehabilitation at alternate locations due to unsuitability of land for
residential purposes.

This only means to say that slums will be relocated on the pretext of unsuitability
of land, while such lands will be used for real estate development by private parties.
Additionally, the existing slums will be demolished to build multi-storeyed houses,
which is of low quality and is susceptible to collapse, rendering thousands of lives
in danger.

Thus, this scenario can be said to increase urban sprawl if adopted.

Chapter 9 of the Master Plan Document needs special focus, as it talks about
Housing and the need for land for the same. It has been said that there has been a
decrease in the household size since the last Census (2011) and is projected to
further decrease by 2031. This is due to the nature of migration that the city has
invited. Which is, that very few families are migrating to the city, as opposed to
single workers looking for jobs in Bangalore. This is the reason for a decrease in the
household size. However, such rate has been look at only quantitatively, and no
details on accommodating such workers and basic facilities for them has been
omitted. On the other hand, it is appalling if workers migrating to Bangalore in
search of employment feel that they cannot afford to shift their families to the city.
This only shows the kind of inequality that the city is breeding.

The Chapter states that Bangalore is not known to be a city of slums. However,
there are over a thousand slums in Bangalore, with a population of approximately
10,000 people living in them. Even while recognizing some slums that are within
city limits, the RMP states that they are in low-lying areas and affordable houses
must be built for such slum dwellers, and in turn stating that they have to be
relocated to such housing facility. They do not note the fact that the underground
 10

drainage system needs to be repaired and made efficient so that these slums do not
get inundated.
Even though the RMP – 2031 speaks of affordable housing and ‘housing for all’, it
leaves out the human aspect of people occupying such housing facilities. A mere
mention of consideration, does not mean the creators of the Master Plan intend to
take into consideration the real needs of the low-income groups or slum-dwellers in
the city.

Data Compilation
One of the most significant aspects that emerged during our discussions with each
other was the lack of easily available data regarding people belonging to various
deprived communities in the city. Be it latest population figures of the various
communities, apportionment of resources, schemes by the city corporation or the
various state departments to cater to the aspirations of the communities and its
implementation status etc., there is a glaring deficiency of basic data which can
allow for any future planning. What kind of data sets have been compiled by the
planning authority for this process and why is this information not made public? If
there is no data pertaining to the living conditions of the homeless, migrant
workers, informal sector workers, of slum dwellers, of street vendors, trans people,
children in vulnerable situations etc., how can planning be done to cater to the
needs of these populations? Of what use is it to have a planning document that
elaborately explains what colour a particular road should be (as per the zoning
regulations) but does not think it important to plan for the fulfilment of basic
necessities of the most marginalised.

At the same time, several statistics are available about people’s living conditions
and situation with regards to Bangalore. For instance, as of 2011, over 5 lakh
households do not have potable water, 4.7 lakhs households do not have a ‘pukka’
roof, and 2.8 lakh households do not have a UGD (underground drainage)
connection. These are matters of grave concern to our city. However, it is
despicable that none of these kinds of statistics were taken into account in a
planning process of Bangalore. A proper planning process would have taken as a
priority the need to bring the standards of all people in the city up to a minimum
standard. Instead, the planning process that we see is focused much more on
indicators such as traffic, parks, footpaths and flyovers. Some available statistics
are listed below.

Total SC/ST Urban poor

Total 90,36,0161 998,5152 (‘SC Total 212,6724 (‘Slum population’, BBMP

Population (BBMP M Corp, Population’, Bangalore M Corp, Urban only, 2011)
Urban only, 2011) district, Urban only, 2011)

1
SECC 2011, Population Count (Urban) - http://secc.gov.in/townPopulationCountUrban
2
Census 2011, Primary Census Abstract Data for Scheduled Castes (SC) (India &
States/UTs - District Level) (Excel Format), Cell G1720
 11

6,9935 (‘Houseless’, BBMP M Corp,

161,8243 (‘ST Total Urban only, 2011)
Population’, Bangalore
district, Urban only, 2011 7,8866 (‘Living in Shelter’, BBMP M
Corp, Urban only, 2011)

Total 23,06,8097 221,5198 (‘SC Headed 196,47810 (‘Slum population’,

Households (BBMP M Corp, households’, Bangalore
Urban only, 2011) district, Urban only, 2011)
38,9519 (‘ST Headed
households’, Bangalore
district, Urban only, 2011)
BBMP M Corp, Urban only, 2011)
2,709 (‘Houseless’, BBMP M Corp,
Urban only, 2011)11
1,770 (‘Living in Shelter’, BBMP M
Corp, Urban only, 2011)12

Households (HH) in single room - No Room = 102,747

- One Room = 664,42413 (BBMP M Corp, Urban
only, 2011)

HH with access to potable water within the 17,96,45114 (BBMP M Corp, Urban only, 2011)
premises

HH with ‘pukka’ roof 18,35,55715 (‘concrete + machine made tiles’,

BBMP M Corp, Urban only, 2011)

HH with ‘semi-pukka’ roof 108,29816 (‘handmade tiles + burnt bricks +

stone + slate, BBMP M Corp, Urban only 2011)

4
SECC 2011, Slum Population (Urban) - http://secc.gov.in/townSlumPopulationUrban
3
Census 2011, Primary Census Abstract Data for Scheduled Tribes (ST) (India &
States/UTs - District Level) (Excel Format), Cell G1642
5
SECC 2011, Population Living Status (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townPopulationLivingStatusUrban
6
SECC 2011, Population Living Status (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townPopulationLivingStatusUrban
7
SECC 2011, Slum Household Status (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townSlumHhdStatusUrban
8
Census 2011, Primary Census Abstract Data for Scheduled Castes (SC) (India &
States/UTs - District Level) (Excel Format), Cell F1720
9
Census 2011, Primary Census Abstract Data for Scheduled Tribes (ST) (India &
States/UTs - District Level) (Excel Format), Cell F1642
10
SECC 2011, Slum Household Status (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townSlumHhdStatusUrban
11
SECC 2011, Household Living Status (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townHhdLivingStatusUrban
12
SECC 2011, Household Living Status (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townHhdLivingStatusUrban
13
SECC 2011, Dwelling Room (Urban) - http://secc.gov.in/townDwellingRoomStatusUrban
14
SECC 2011, Availability of Drinking Water Sources (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townAvailOfDrinkingWaterUrban
15
SECC 2011, Predominant Material of Roof (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townPredominantMaterialOfRoofUrban, concrete + machine made tiles.
16
SECC 2011, Predominant Material of Roof (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townPredominantMaterialOfRoofUrban, handmade tiles + burnt bricks +
stone + slate
 12

HH with UGD connection (sanitation) 20,31,72817 (‘close drainage’, BBMP M Corp,

Urban only, 2011)

Zero eviction policy

Prior to all discussion of what planning should entail, it should be underlined that
planning of Bangalore must be first based on a zero eviction policy. That is, at no
point should there be any eviction of people from their places of residence, such as
slum-dwellers or homeless people, nor should there be any eviction of people who
depend on public spaces for their livelihood, such as street vendors and sex
workers. This assumes extreme importance in the wake of undeterred
commercialisation and financialisation of city spaces, especially those that form
part of commercial hubs or fetch very high real estate prices. The people who eke
out a livelihood on the streets are the first ones to be cleared in order to build a
sanitized image of the city and it needn’t be emphasized that this reeks of colonial
and casteist preoccupations. It is these populations which have become
impoverished in order to pave the way for speculative real estate activities or to
help the city corporation earn some revenue in order to pay off debts that are
borrowed to make the city ‘world class’. Moreover, the demand for a zero eviction
policy is not only a people’s demand, but is also concomitant with Article 21 of the
Constitution - the Right to Life, which incorporates the fundamental Rights to
Housing and Livelihood. Thus, evictions needs to be considered as a human rights
violation.

Homelessness in the city

When components as basic as provision of adequate housing and basic amenities
for all people does not form part of the planning priorities and the subsequent plan
document, but plans for mega developments (usually funded through loans from
IFIs) finds space the ends to which such plans cater to become clear. It is the
outcome of such planning that the city has expensive flyovers to cater to the ever-
increasing movement of (mostly private) vehicles, but has failed to provide basic
housing for the numerous individuals, families who are shooed away from below
the flyover - their only access to a roof over their heads. All people in the city have
the right to a home, and thus the planning process of Bangalore should prioritise
for the planning and provision of housing to all those who are homeless. At an
international level, the right to adequate housing is incorporated in the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights, the UN Habitat Agenda and several other declarations.

As the first step towards this, a survey of all homeless families and individuals
must be carried out ward-wise as part of the planning process, in order to assess
the number of homeless people, causes for their homelessness and barriers to
housing in the city and effectively overcome these hindrances. People with special
needs must be offered care services from public resources. Homeless individuals

17
SECC 2011, Household HAving Waste Water-Outlet Connections (Urban) -
http://secc.gov.in/townHhdHavingWasteOutletConnUrban
 13

and families should be provided land and housing in the same ward in which they
are residing or the same ward in which their livelihood occurs - whichever they
prefer.

Most construction workers who work in Bangalore are either from northern parts of
Karnataka or from northern states in India. These workers build numerous homes
and other kinds of buildings but ironically are forced to live in extremely poor
conditions while they work in the city. The city must make plans in co-ordination
with the Construction Workers Welfare Board and the Labour Department to
provide them decent housing facilities and utilise the resources in the Board in
order to understand the conditions and needs of the workers. Building and Other
Construction Workers Act, 1996, along with Interstate Migrant Workmen’s Act,
1979 should be complied with, where the liability of ensuring dignified housing for
the migrant construction workers lie with the contractors and the builders. The
government must also provide short term staying facilities with a minimum
provision of beds and bathroom for those people/families who might migrate to
Bangalore for short periods of time in order to earn a livelihood during lean periods
of employment in agriculture etc.

These people who contribute labour to the development of the city should not be
expected to live in dismal conditions. The city administration should ensure that
every resident of the city is provided with dignified housing.

Nomadic Tribes in the City

The population of Schedule Tribes in Bangalore Urban stood at 1,61,824 as per
records of the Karnataka Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development
Corporation Ltd. The total population of STs in Karnataka stands at 34,45,996,
which is about 5 per cent of the total population of the State. Forty-five kinds of
tribes live in Bangalore, with the most population being that of Nayakas, and the
least being of Kuknas. When compared to the total population of STs to the State, a
mere 2 per cent of them live in Bangalore. Which means to say that a total 98 per
cent of them live across Karnataka. And in comparison to the Bangalore
population, a mere 1 per cent of the population consist of STs. The point to
decipher from this is that the RMP 2031 has been selective in chosing its
demography and target population to which it wants to cater.

There are Hakki Pikki settlements that can be found in pockets of the city, who all
live in slums or by the roadside. They most find jobs of street vending, sweeping
streets or of construction labour in the city. A document by the Karnataka
Maharshi Valmiki Scheduled Tribes Development Corporation Ltd., states that a
large number of ST households continue to be deprived of productive assets and
income earning avenues. It is unfortunate that the RMP – 2031 has failed to take
cognizance of a minority population which is on the decline thanks to the
modernization of the city. There are no facilities or infrastructure created for this
section of the population, which makes it difficult for them to survive in Bangalore.
 14

Slums in Urban Planning

The lack of empathy to slum dwellers and the narrow comprehension of slums by
the various state agencies becomes clear in some of the grand plans that are made
to solve the problem of slums in the city. Announcements of slum free cities have
only resulted in removing slums and slum dwellers from the city and pushing them
outwards to the periphery, far removed from the social ties of the people and their
access to basic necessities. In offering market based solutions to the slums
problem, the already deprived are further used as instruments for profiteering out
of poverty, following the capitalist logic of tapping ‘fortune at the bottom of the
pyramid’. Slums represent not merely a quantitative shortage of housing but point
to larger injustices that of uneven distribution of land in the city, structural
exclusion of nomadic tribes, dalits, minorities and backward communities from
accessing resources that would have led to their overall human development, and
the sheer lack of political will to deploy resources that would lead to slum dwellers
reaching better standards of life. In recent decades, thanks to neoliberal urban
reforms and the financialisation of land, slum lands have become lucrative sites for
tapping the ‘unleashed potential’ of land by real estate developers who work closely
with state actors. This has led to slum dwellers being evicted, uprooting them from
their lives simply in order to make way for domestic/global capital investment.
Being cognizant of this reality, we urge that the planning process of the city should
take into account the following demands of slum dwellers
● The Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976 must be restored.
● A comprehensive survey of slums, houseless, landless and excluded
communities must be completed, before the beginning of the planning
process. The same data must be made public, so that if anyone has been
excluded in such a survey, can apply for the same.
● Sale deeds (land patta) must be given to all existing houses in slums
● Majority of the slums in the city remain undeclared, thus do not have access
to basic necessities. Therefore, all slums in the city should be declared under
the Karnataka Slum Clearances and Improvement Act and basic necessities
provided immediately as its deprivation amounts to violating the
fundamental right to life of every person.
● Multi-storeyed buildings as part of rehabilitation schemes should not be
built as the design has proven to be a failure. Single storey houses must be
built with good quality material along with handing over ownership of land
to slum dwellers who have historically been deprived of land ownership.
● Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, Railway Encroachments Act,
among other legislations must not be applicable to slum dwellers. Instead, a
comprehensive slum dweller-friendly legislation (Housing Rights Act) must
be passed.
● A white paper report on access to basic amenities as specified in the UN
Habitat Agenda, i.e., transport, security, education, health, sanitation, etc.
for slum-dwellers who have been “resettled”, “relocated”, “rehabilitated” must
be prepared and made public.
● The State must undertake a detailed study - a White Paper - studying the
living conditions of slum dwellers who have been relocated, resettled and
rehabilitated. The study can follow parameters as per the Human
 15

Development Indicators and this would give a true picture of the facilities
and resources that relocated slum dwellers have been able to access and
how this impacts their overall quality of life. This paper could then be used
as material to frame legislations and policies but also to ensure that systems
that currently obstruct delivering services have in their place more efficient
and just mechanisms.
● Integrated and inclusive housing should be mandatory in all new housing
projects, with allocation of at least 25 per cent land to the urban deprived
communities.
● The communities have been deprived from centuries without land
reservation in Rural and Urban areas, so it is important to reserved land as
proportionate to their population.
● Implementation of the relevant recommendations of the Public Hearing on
Slum Evictions in Karnataka held in January 2016 including the treatment
of demolition/evictions as a criminal act.

Street Vendors in Urban Planning

Street Vendors are essential to the operation and function of a city like Bangalore.
Without their work, countless people would not have easy access to low cost and
healthy food and other goods. Furthermore, they are fully residents of the city and
workers within it, and their concerns should be seen as such. The following
demands on the Bangalore planning process are made with reference to street
vendors:
● Vending zones, restriction-free vending zones must be identified by the Town
Vending Committee, as per the Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and
Regulating Street Vending) Act, 2014. Enough vending zones must be
created to accommodate existing street vendors in the city, along with space
to accommodate more, in proportion to the growing population of the city.
● At least two per cent of the total public lands must be allocated as vending
zones.
● About 2.5 per cent of the city’s population must constitute street vendors,
and ID cards must be disbursed to all such street vendors in the city.
● Basic amenities such as public drinking water kiosks, public toilets
(especially for women vendors), over-night storage facilities, shelter from the
sun and the rain, sufficient lighting, and other such facilities must be
provided.

Manual Scavengers in Urban Planning

Manual scavenging is a deadly and degrading practice imposed on Dalit
communities of Madigas, Arundhatiyars, Balmikis, Chakkaliyars, etc. If workers
are forced to clean or handle human excreta in any manner whatsoever, it is
manual scavenging. This takes various forms. In cities with UGD system, workers
are forced to clean manholes and sewer pipes in which human excreta flows. In
areas where there is no UGD, where human excreta from toilets are collected in
septic tanks, workers empty these tanks manually. The same holds good for
community toilets constructed and maintained by the urban local bodies and
 16

government departments. In town and cities across the State where UGD is not
absent, human excreta is discharged directly from both individual and public
toilets into open drains, which are cleaned by pourakarmikas with their bare
hands. In cities, manual scavenging has taken a new form, where STPs have been
made mandatory for residential complexes with more than 50 units. Including the
scores of STPs and waste-water treatment plants across Bangalore maintained by
the BWSSB and private STPs, there are about 2,000 STPs in the city that are being
cleaned manually by these workers. All of this is manual scavenging.

Although the employment of persons to perform manual scavenging is an offence,

and has been exclusively prohibited by the Prohibition of Employment as Manual
Scavengers and Their Rehabilitation Act, 2013, the occupation of manual
scavenging continues to exist in Bangalore. It is to be noted here that it is an
offence to ‘employ’ persons to perform manual scavenging. Therefore, the employers
are liable for engaging persons to perform manual scavenging.

Since 2008, there have been 34 reported instances of manual scavenging, in which
75 persons have died. Even when the Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board
(BWSSB) is in-charge of construction and maintenance of underground drainage
system, there are several instances of BWSSB officers employing their ‘contract’
manual scavengers to unclog/clean manholes and drains. Cleaning of manholes
and drainages have been contractualised to private contractors, who also enter into
informal contracts with persons belonging to the Madiga community to clean drains
and unclog manholes. This has become rampant in the city of Bangalore.

The Karnataka State Pollution Control Board (KSPCB) has recently notified
residential complexes that have more than 50 units to construct Sewerage
Treatment Plants (STPs). There are no guidelines issued regarding the maintenance
of these STPs and which authority is responsible for the same. Therefore, this new
form of manual scavenging is going escalate the number of deaths of persons
involved in manual scavenging.

Therefore, we make the following demands for the workers:

● Manual scavenging must be completely abolished in Karnataka, and instead
has to be fully mechanised. The BWSSB has to purchase many more jetting-
and-sucking machines to maintain underground drainage system.
● Guidelines must be issued to maintain STPs, and the responsibility must
rest with the BWSSB
● Most importantly, Bangalore has a total coverage of about 40% of
underground drainage system. The planning process must ensure that the
coverage reaches a 100%. This will also eradicate manual scavenging
altogether.

Pourakarmikas in Urban Planning

Like the community who performs manual scavenging, pourakarmikas are a
community employed to keep the city clean - by sweeping our streets and collecting
our garbage. Their caste-based occupation attracts nothing but discrimination from
 17

the elite residents of Bangalore. Their work also amounts to manual scavengining,
as they are made to clean faeces of animals, and dead animals on roadsides, with
their bare hands. Here are the demands -
● The State Government rule that states there has to be one pourakarmika for
every 700 residents. This has to change and the number be reduced to one
pourakarmika for every 500 residents.
● BBMP has to be directly in-charge of solid waste management and to rid
themselves of the garbage contractors.
● Safety equipment must be provided to the workers by the BBMP
● Garbage segregation and plastic must be enforced a 100%, so that
pourakarmikas are not forced to segregate waste with their bare hands. The
responsibility of garbage segregation must lie with the individual generating
the waste (i.e., from the source). Wet waste must not be handed over to the
pourakarmikas, and instead be composted in every household.
● Dry waste and e-waste collection centres must be set up in each ward, so
that the disposal of such waste is not the responsibility of the
pourakarmikas
● A proper system to dispose medical waste must be instated
● Sweeping and maintenance of highways and main roads must be
mechanised to avoid vehicular accidents of the workers
● More number of auto-tippers and garbage trucks must be bought by the
BBMP to ensure proper collection of waste.
● Pourakarmikas must be provided mechanised pushcarts to collect waste in
residential areas.

Construction Workers in Urban Planning

City is growing both horizontally and vertically. They need construction workers to
build their residential complexes, malls and MNCs, but they don’t care about the
workers. Therefore, we demand:
● Dignified housing to be provided by employers, with basic amenities
● Utilise Construction Workers Fund for the welfare of the workers
● It is the employer’s responsibility to provide safety equipment to the
construction workers
● Socioeconomic and life security for migrant workers, by the agents and
employers, to be protected against local thugs
● Migrant workers scam through agents must stop. There must be a legal
process to ensure migrant workers aren’t cheated. This is for their social
security

Domestic Workers and Urban Planning

Invisible labour - service all households - but no dignity of work or life. Therefore,
we demand:
● Dignified housing to be provided by employers with basic amenities
● Affordable public transport

Gender in Urban Planning

 18

Master Plans sweepingly ignore the needs of women and transgenders in planning
the city. Be it access to toilets, housing or public transport, basic necessities for
women and transgenders are overlooked. Safety in public spaces is a major concern
as well. Single women and transgenders are looked down upon by landlords while
renting out houses. Access to public transport after nightfall is worrisome for
working women. Access to public toilets, especially for women street vendors and
pourakarmikas, as well as menstruating or pregnant women should be an essential
criteria while planning a city. With this is mind, we make the following demands:
● Public toilets must be built in each street for women and trangenders, which
is brightly lit to ensure safety.
● Streets must be well lit, and spaces for street vendors must be allocated on
every street, as street vendors act as “eyes on the street”, thus enhancing
safety of the street. This has been documented in the Justice Verma
Committee report, after the December 16th Delhi gang-rape case.
● The UN Habitat 2003 released a report titled ‘Conditions of Slums Involved’
which spoke of how women-headed families are the poorest in a city.
Therefore, access to housing is an essential element of urban planning.
● The government and its agencies must stop looking at CCTV cameras as a
solution to making streets safer. CCTV cameras only help identify the
perpetrators of violence, but do not prevent violence on the streets.
● Homeless women, sex workers, transgenders must not be taken away by
authorities to Beggar’s Colony or Shelter Homes without the consent of the
person.
● Women, who access streets as a working place (street vendors, sex workers,
transgenders begging or soliciting for sex work, or pourakarmikas) or women
accessing streets for commute or leisure, must not be looked at as immoral.
Since sexual morality and patriarchy works in tandem in such scenarios,
initiative must be taken to prevent sexual violence on streets.

Children in Urban Planning

Access to public spaces and safe cities should be an essential element of urban
planning. Children must be able to walk safely on streets, and not fall into drains
as most often is reported in Bangalore. Therefore, we make the following demands:
● Access to water must be made easier, as there are several children in slums
who are sent to fetch water for their homes
● Access to toilets must be made easier, as there are several households which
do not have toilet facilities
● Access to public transport easier and must be child-friendly
● Land must be allocated for playgrounds for children, within the walkable
distance of a child, as this is a shrinking space in the city
● There has to be more number of government/municipal schools and colleges
opened in the city to ensure easier access to education
● There has to be shelters for homeless children, which provides them with
basic amenities and scholarships for education
● There has to be stronger regulation on control of drugs and narcotics in the
city
● Child labour must be abolished
 19

● Steps must be taken to curb air, water and noise pollution levels
● Public health care centres for children must be present in every area

People with disabilities

People with disabilities should be fully a part of the city that that is Bangalore,
however they are in many ways currently prevented from being so due the the way
the city has been designed. In order to address these concerns, the planning
process must from the start be taking into account the needs of people with
disabilities. Demands are as follows:
● Any plan and any planning process needs to adhere at minimum to the
Rights of Persons with Disabilities Act 2017. The city must be configured in
such a way as to ensure ‘access, inclusion and participation’ of all people
with disabilities, and that they are provided with the same rights as any
other citizen, as they are entitled to.
● All public infrastructure and mobility infrastructure should be made
inclusive to persons with disabilities. This includes roads and footpaths,
hospitals and PHCs, schools, government offices etc.
● People with disabilities come from all classes, genders, castes and creeds,
and live all throughout the city. Retrofitting of existing infrastructure should
be given priority across the city - any attempt to create separate ‘disability
friendly areas’ will not be tolerated and will be seen as an violation of the
right to inclusive participation in society.
● The planning process should understand and take into account specific
needs for those with intersecting concerns, such as women with disabilities
who live in slums.

Infrastructure for Urban Deprived Communities

In order to provide for a just society and a flourishing life for all residents of
Bangalore, the planning process should prioritise the development and
maintenance of well-functioning, accessible, inclusive, publicly-provided and
publicly-run public infrastructure to all people. This includes anganwadis, PHCs,
mental health facilities, schools, drinking water, electricity, sewerage, public
transport, public parks, libraries and so on. All these facilities should be easily and
freely accessible to all people, prioritising urban deprived communities, and other
marginalised people. Construction workers and pourakarmikas pointed out that
they hardly have access to free public toilet facilities and drinking water facilities
during the course of their work every day. Another extremely crucial aspect in the
demand for basic infrastructure is towards those kinds of hazardous work which
are made to be performed by people without any regard for their safety and dignity.
It is despicable that so many people are forced to do manual scavenging work in
order to ensure the flowing of Bangalore’s current system of sewerage - over 2.8
lakh households do not have a UGD connection. It is ironic that a city which boasts
of technological prowess still depends on dalit men to get inside sewers to clean
them, facing risks of injury and even death - which is not at all uncommon. This is
another example of caste discrimination in the city. A planning process for
 20

Bangalore should prioritise financial, logistical and land requirements such that
adequate facilities are provided as above.

Employers’ Liability
City planning cannot exempt basic necessities for the working class at the
workplace, which includes drinking water facilities, toilet, storage, creche, among
others. This enhances the minimum standard of living in a city. The existing lack of
facilities is due to apathy for the working class, who also belong to the depressed
castes. In realisation of this, the following demands are made on the city planning
process:
● Every employer must be responsible for providing dignified housing facility
to their employees. They must ensure that House Rent Allowance, Travel
Allowance, Health Insurance and Provident Fund is provided to them over
and above the basic pay that the employee is entitled to.
● The responsibility of providing for drinking water facilities, toilet, storage,
creche and other facilities must lie with the employer, to ensure equitable
access and dignity of the worker.
● Government should guarantee that every employer should provide Living
Wages based on Consumer Price Index - that is, every person’s work should
be able yield enough to provide for their water, food, shelter, healthcare,
transport, recreation.
● Basic amenities for toilet, eating, resting must be provided by employers
● Employers should provide full social security as mandated by state and
central legislation.

The planning process itself

The process by which Bangalore is planned at current is top down, fragmented
throughout different bodies who do not coordinate when public interest is
concerned, highly technocratic, and oriented towards the priorities of powerful
sections in the cities - the rich, the upper castes, the politically connected. Any
people’s participation which does occur is tokenistic at best, and involved
fabricating consent with whatever ideas are preconceived by those same
departments - who have by now been reduced effectively to the scribes of the
powerful. In hiding this, planning departments bring in ‘foreign consultants’ to
present an image of a process of turning Bangalore into a ‘Singapore’ or a
‘Shanghai’ - in reality these consultants are just there to provide a face for
government departments to hide behind when they are scared of popular
participation, and who can simply claim ‘non-cooperation’ of government
departments when pressed for answers as to why various plans are so poorly
conceived. The Bangalore Development Authority, currently conducting the Revised
Masterplan process, also has no legal authority to plan.

In contrast to this, the planning process of the city must be reconfigured to be truly
a plan of the people. Real popular participation must be imagined, in which people
are educated about the nature of the city as it currently is, and meaningfully
contribute to designing the city as it should be. This should involve at a minimum,
 21

public sharing of data in multiple formats and languages in multiple areas around
the city, public workshops and lectures on the city as part of the planning process,
and open ward level planning processes that substantially involve all residents,
prioritising the most marginalised sections of society, to form the future of the city.
These events should be held at times and venues which are accessible to working
people, people with disabilities, people with children, and other sections. Material
allowances for people’s participation should be integrated into the process - eg
enforcing city wide paid leave on days in order that people can take part in the
process. All currently existing data that has been generated as part of the current
planning processes from organisations like BDA, BWSSB, KSDB, and other
departments should be made open and easily publicly accessible in order to
support future attempts and planning the city.

Legal Rights and Urban Planning

A Master Plan, while being drafted, must ensure that the Fundamental Rights and
the Directive Principles of State Policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution are
abided with. A Master Plan will naturally become inclusive if these rights are
granted to the citizens who are going to be affected by the Master Plan. We will take
a look at all the Fundamental Rights and aspects of Directive Principles of State
Policy that can be applied in an urban planning process.

The land tenures that are often termed as illegal under the gaze of land legislations
mostly relate to the tenures that ensure access to housing. These include the
pavement dwellers and the slums besides some of the revenue layouts. The so-
called illegal status often results in the denial of basic services to the populations
including drinking water, sanitation, schools, health services, etc. This is one
perfect example of the inescapable link between housing and the standard of life
ensured to the occupants. This obvious yet often unrecognized link has been time-
and-again reiterated in the various judgments of the Court and in covenants and
resolutions of International Human rights bodies. It must be understood that these
rights are a direct result of the claims staked by these citizens. 


Indian Constitution
The Indian Constitutional scheme very broadly distinguishes between civil and
political rights and social and economic rights. Civil and political rights are deemed
enforceable and one can approach court in cases where these rights are violated.
Social and Economic Rights which are listed under the Directive Principles of State
Policy are non-justiciable but deemed to be fundamental in the governance of the
country.

However, due to judicial interpretation by the Supreme Court of India, many of the
Directive Principles which were previously deemed unenforceable have become
enforceable rights. The law laid down by the Supreme Court forms a part of the
enforceable law of the land as per Article 141 of the Constitution. It is in this
context that one needs to understand the regime of socio-economic rights in the
Indian Constitution.
 22

The primary mode through which socio-economic rights have become enforceable is
through the expanded interpretation and meaning given to the Fundamental Right
to Life and Personal Liberty given under Article 21 of the Constitution. Some of the
dimensions of this expanded notion of the Right to Life and Personal Liberty are:

Regarding Quality of Life:

The Court has expanded the dimension of right to life arguing that it does not mean
mere ‘animal existence’ but living with ‘human dignity’. In Francis Coralie’s case
the Court noted, ‘But the question which arises is whether the right to life is limited
only to protection of limb or faculty or does it go further and embrace something
more. We think that the right to life includes the right to live with human dignity
and all that goes along with it. Viz. the bare necessities of life such as adequate
nutrition, clothing and shelter over the head...Of course the magnitude and content
of the components of this right would depend upon the economic development of
the country, but it must, in any view of the matter, include the right to the basic
necessities of life and also the right to carry on such functions and activities as
constitute the bare minimum expression of the human self.’

In Bandhua Mukti Morcha, the Court elucidated upon the expanded interpretation
of Art 21 by noting, ‘It includes protection of health and strength of workers, men
and women and of the tender age of children against abuse...just and human
conditions of work and maternity relief. These are the minimum conditions which
must exist in order to enable a person to live with human dignity. No government
can take any action to deprive a person of the enjoyment of these rights.’
In Chameli Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh, The Supreme Court noted, ‘In any
organized society, right to live as a human being is not ensured by meeting only the
animal needs of man. It is secured only when he is assured of all facilities to
develop himself and is freed from restrictions which inhabit his growth. All human
rights are designed to achieve this object. Right to live, guaranteed in any civilized
society implies the right to food, water, decent environment, education, medical
care and shelter. These are basic human rights known to any civilized society.’

Regarding Right to Livelihood:


The Supreme Court has held that the right to life includes the right to livelihood. In
a case involving pavement dwellers right’s which were affected by their eviction by
the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Court noted, ‘the question which we have
to consider is whether the right to life includes the right to livelihood. We can see
only one answer to that question, namely, that it does. The sweep of the right to life
conferred by Article 21 is wide and far reaching. It does not mean, merely that life
cannot be extinguished or taken away, as for example by the imposition and
execution of the death penalty, except according to procedure established by law.
That is but one aspect of the right to life and equally important facet of that right is
the right to livelihood because no person can live without the means of livelihood.’

Regarding Slum Dwellers:

In Olga Tellis’s case the Supreme Court ruled that the eviction of persons from
pavement or slum not only results in deprivation of shelter but would also
 23

inevitably lead to deprivation of their means of livelihood, which means deprivation

of life in as much as the pavement dwellers were employed in the vicinity of their
dwellings. ‘The conclusion, therefore in terms of the constitutional phraseology is
that the eviction of the petitioners will lead to deprivation of their livelihood and
consequently to the deprivation of life.’

Regarding Access to Roads:

In State of Himachal Pradesh vs Umed Ram, the Supreme Court emphasized upon
the importance of roads in the hilly regions for the enjoyment of life. The Court
observed, ‘We accept the proposition that there should be road for communication
in reasonable conditions in view of our constitutional imperatives and denial of that
right would be denial of the life as understood in its richness and fullness by the
ambit of the Constitution. To the residents of the hilly areas as far as feasible and
possible society has constitutional obligation to provide roads for communication.’

The Directive Principles of State Policy also speaks about rights that are to be
rendered by the State to its citizens, even if they aren’t enforceable by the courts.
The State must ensure the following:

Article 38: State to secure a social order for the promotion of welfare of the people
Section 2 of this Article says that the State must strive to minimize inequalities in
income, as well as inequalities of status, facilities and opportunities, for both
individuals and groups of people who reside in different areas and are engaged in
different livelihoods.
This, however, is not reflected in the urban planning process, as the urban
deprived communities are generally ignored when it comes to including them and
their needs in urban planning, as has been elucidated in this report.

Article 39: Certain principles of policy to be followed by the State

This Article says that the State shall direct its policy towards securing adequate
means of livelihood for all citizens equally, that the ownership and control of
material resources are distributed to subserve common good, that the operation of
the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of
production to the common detriment, that there is equal pay for equal work, that
the health and strength of all workers (including children) are not abused.
When looked at such provisions, the urban planning process, goes against this
Article as the basic necessities such as housing, nutrition, livelihood and access to
resources are not equally distributed, and in fact, concentrated with one minority
section of the society.

Conclusion
The Revised Master Plan – 2031 is a good document to understand the perspective
of the State when it comes to development of a city with its neoliberal agenda. This
is to say that the State wants to retain the cosmopolitan culture of the city to
attract more investments, to continue to be an IT city, rather than to create a city
 24

which is inclusive not just in its planning process, but also of urban governance,
spatiality, access to amenities and entitlements. An inclusive city caters to the
needs of the urban deprived communities, who provide invisible labour for the city
to grow. There seems to be no people’s element to the Master Plan.

The groups involved in putting together of this document unanimously agree that a
Master Plan must contain most of the above demands that has been put together, if
not envision for more. It has to be done through BBMP Ward Committees, in
guidance of the Bangalore Metropolitan Planning Committee, which is a more
democratic and inclusive manner of planning for Bangalore. Therefore, since the
RMP – 2031 does not have an iota of this reflection, we condemn and disregard
such a Master Plan.