Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected People

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project:
Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected

People
Student Report,
Development and Planning Unit, University College London,
June 2007.
Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project:
Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected People
Student Report by:

Katherine Batanova, Adrian Fenton, Konstantinos Grigoratos,
Takuya Hashizume, Peter Hutchinson, Kiriko Ikeya, Eulaine Ouseley,
Gabriela Sauter and Madhurima Waghmare.
Development and Planning Unit, University College London, June 2007.

Index
Contents
Acronyms ................................................................................................................................................. 5
Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................... 6
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................................................. 7
Background.................................................................................................................................... 8
Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 10
Transformation: Diagnosis and Proposals........................................................................... 10
Limitations................................................................................................................................. 12
Diagnosis ....................................................................................................................................... 13
Problems and Constraints ..................................................................................................... 13
SPARC, MM and NSDF....................................................................................................... 13
MMRDA and Private Developers .................................................................................... 14
PAPs ...................................................................................................................................... 14
Opportunities........................................................................................................................... 15
PAPs ...................................................................................................................................... 15
The Alliance......................................................................................................................... 16
Governmental Sphere ...................................................................................................... 16
Private Sector...................................................................................................................... 17
Understanding the Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalization ......................... 17
Proposal Ia. Strategic Resource Centres ................................................................................ 19
Context ..................................................................................................................................... 19
Proposal.................................................................................................................................... 19
Motivations and Impacts ...................................................................................................... 20
Resources ................................................................................................................................. 21
Monitoring and Evaluation. .................................................................................................. 21
Proposal Ib. Shopkeeper Cooperatives.................................................................................. 23
Context ..................................................................................................................................... 23
Proposal.................................................................................................................................... 23
Resources ................................................................................................................................. 24
Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................... 24
Understanding proposal Ib through the web of institutionalization ............................. 24
Proposal II: Housing Competition ............................................................................................. 26
Context ..................................................................................................................................... 26
Proposal.................................................................................................................................... 27
Resources ................................................................................................................................. 28
Monitoring and Evaluation ................................................................................................... 29
Understanding proposal II through the web of institutionalization ............................... 29
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................... 31
Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 32
Appendix A: Schedule of Lectures, Workshops, Presentations .......................................... 32
Appendix B: Elements of Transformation ................................................................................ 33
Appendix C: The “Web of Institutionalisation” ...................................................................... 34
Appendix D : Sub-Criteria and Indicators .............................................................................. 36
Appendix E: Limitations ............................................................................................................. 40
Appendix F: Additional Findings............................................................................................... 41
Appendix G: Semi-structured PAP Interviews ........................................................................ 42
Consulted Texts ................................................................................................................................ 66
Index
Tables
Table 1: Research Objectives p. 9
Table 2: Transformation Criteria p. 11
Table 3: Proposal II – Outline p. 26
Boxes
Box 1. Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 18
Box 2. Understanding Proposal Ia through the criteria p. 20
Box 3. Proposal Ia. Monitoring and Evaluation p. 21
Box 4. Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 22
Box 5. Understanding Proposal Ib through the criteria p. 24
Box 6. Understanding Proposal Ib through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 25
Box 7. Understanding Proposal II through the criteria p. 27
Box 8. Proposal II. Monitoring and Evaluation p. 29
Box 9. Understanding Proposal II through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 30
Figures
Figure 1: Report Structure p. 11
Figure 2: Mumbai a ‘World Class City’ p. 16
Figure 3: Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalization p. 17
Figure 4: Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 22
Figure 5: Understanding Proposal Ib through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 25
Figure 6: Understanding Proposal II through the Web of Institutionalisation p. 30
Acronyms
Acronyms
Alliance Combination of SSNS, NSDF, MM and SPARC
BMC / MCGM Brihan Mumbai Corporation /
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
CBOs Community-Based Organizations
CLIFF Community Led Infrastructure Finance Facility
FSI Floor Space Index
GOM Government of Maharashtra
HI Homeless International
MHADA Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority
MM Mahila Milan
MMRDA Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Agency
MTSU Mumbai Transformation Support Unit
MUIP Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project
MUTP Mumbai Urban Transport Project
NGO Non Governmental Agency
NSDF National Slum Dwellers Federation
PAP Project Affected Person/People
SHGs Self Help Groups
SPARC Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres
SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority
TDR Tradable Development Right
ToR Terms of Reference
Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People -5

Executive Summary
Executive Summary
Mumbai is a city of many contradictions. On the one hand it is the financial capital of India,
generating 5% of its GDP, whilst on the other hand, half the population reside in slum areas
that foster substandard living conditions, and which are at constant risk of demolition.
However, there are aspirations to turn Mumbai into a ‘world-class city’, which has seen major
investment in infrastructure projects, such as the Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (MUIP).
This project seeks to increase Mumbai’s transport capacity through a large-scale road-
widening scheme in order to facilitate economic growth and the transformation of Mumbai.
However MUIP will displace 35 000 slum and pavement dweller families located along
roadsides. Under current government policy, the implementing body of MUIP, MMRDA, is
obliged to relocate eligible families to free relocation housing under Slum Rehabilitation
Authority (SRA) policies. This report examines the effects of the relocation process on the
livelihoods of project-affected persons (PAPs) and to make recommendations as to how this
process can be transformative in a way that suits the needs of the urban poor. These
recommendations are made considering the involvement of particular actors, namely the
implementing body, MMRDA; a local NGO, SPARC; community-based organizations, MM and
NSDF; and the affected persons themselves.
Through secondary research and a two-week fieldtrip in Mumbai, the report team
constructed a diagnosis of the situation. Apparent in the analysis of the relocation process
are multiple forms of disconnection at social, economic and spatial levels. This was due to
numerous reasons, including:
I. PAPs being under prepared for relocation causing a disruption of social and
economic networks.
II. A relocation process that does not take fully into consideration the needs of PAPs.
III. Pre-constructed relocation sites unsuitable to the needs of PAPs.
Based upon this diagnosis, proposals have been formulated that seek to aid the
transformation of this situation that would allow the PAPs to actively determine the relocation
process in such a manner that would better suit their needs. They consist of:
I. The creation of strategic resource centres which seeks to better prepare PAPs for
relocation.
II. The establishment of shopkeeper cooperatives to build capacity and support the
livelihoods of a pivotal group within the relocation process.
III. The holding of a housing competition to facilitate the needs of PAPs in the design of
the built environment in a manner that will decrease isolation and disconnection.

Acknowledgements
Acknowledgements
We take this opportunity to thank all those who have helped us to produce this report. Most
notably, the hospitability and guidance of the SPARC, NSDF, MM and NIRMAN in Mumbai
was invaluable to our efforts. Especially, we would like to thank Mr. Sundar Burra, Sheila
Patel, Celine d’Cruz, Aseena Viccjee and Jockin Arputham. We are also thankful to
Shekhar, Sangeeta, Riya, Sapna, Shenaz and the rest of the SPARC team for their constant
support during the field work.
We would also like to thank the faculty at the Development Planning Unit, UCL, Caren Levy,
Eleni Kyrou, Pascale Hoffman and Chris Jasko for their consistent guidance and support. We
are extremely grateful to Professor Nigel Harris, David Satterthwaite and Ian Morris for giving
us lectures on various aspects of Mumbai. We are especially thankful to Nadia Taher for her
valuable guidance regarding field research during the workshop at the DPU.
We are thankful to Mr Jain, project manager of MTSU; Swadheen Kshatriya, principal

Secretary, Govt. of Maharashtra (GOM); and Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Joint Metropolitan
Commissioner, MMRDA; for their valuable presentations and time. The presentations and
fruitful discussions with Shirish Patel; V.K. Phatak; Mr S.K. Joshi; Mr Abhisek Khanna, Chief
Manager, ICICI Bank; Neera Adarkar Pankaj Joshi, gave us deeper understanding of the
context. We feel grateful to Mr. D.R. Hadadare, chief engineer of MHADA; Ms. Kalpana
Sharma; and various officials at MMRDA, Mr. Palit, Mr. Patil, and Dr. Madhav Rusekar for
giving us personal interviews and their valuable time.
We are extremely thankful to The Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra, Mr. U.P.S. Madan
for his important comments on our presentation in Mumbai. Last but not the least, we thank
all the people at Gautam Nagar, Mankurd for the warm welcome and also for openly
participating in our surveys.
*The photographs presented in this report were taken by students of the DPU, unless otherwise stated.

Background
Background
Mumbai is the commercial and financial capital of India and home to
over 16 million people. It generates 1/3 of the country’s tax revenue
and 5% of its GDP. However, of the entire population, approximately six
million live in slums, alongside roads, railway tracks and on pavements.
Sixty percent of Mumbai’s slum dwellers also operate a large and
robust informal market economy. The lack of housing provision has
occurred in Mumbai for many reasons, however decades of rising
migration has not been met by a governance system or a housing
market that can provide for a large proportion of the urban poor. A
local rent control act, a policy of free housing for slum dwellers that is
cross-subsidized by an inflationary housing market, and political
expediency, it can be argued, has led to rising property prices that
surpass those of more developed cities such as London. These prices
mean that a large proportion of Mumbai’s population has been priced
out of the housing market and have ended up illegally squatting on
private and government owned land.
Governance and the economy in India have undergone structural
adjustment since the early 1990s which has affected Mumbai. The
central government initiated policies to liberalize economic practices
and decentralize power to local government bodies and although it
has sought investment from international monetary institutions, central
government has retained a relatively strong position. In parallel,
decentralization has been implemented in a somewhat limited
manner.1 In Mumbai this has resulted in the State of Maharashtra
having control over much policy, planning and implementation that
affects the city. This has led to problems of duplication of roles
between state and municipal levels and often competition between
different bodies.2 There also appears to be a clear democratic and
accountability deficit; MCGM’s executive arm is run by a state
appointed civil servant; the mayor plays a largely ceremonial role.
Therefore there is not a direct link between the electorate and parts of
local government leading to often unresponsive governance.
Within this context groups in Mumbai3 are attempting to turn it into a
world class city and an even greater financial hub. However due to its
narrow geographical location and an increasing population Mumbai’s
transport systems are under pressure to the detriment of developing the
city. Therefore MMRDA, a parastatal planning body, has implemented
MUIP. This involves widening existing roads and constructing flyovers to
cater for the increasing vehicular and pedestrian population. However,
this road widening scheme will cause the direct displacement of some
35,000 slum and pavement dweller families who live along the road,
and will have consequences for those newly exposed to dangers due
to increased proximity of widened roads. Under Mumbai’s SRA the
1
For discussions of India regarding globalisation and structural adjustment see: Dreze J., and Sen A,
(2002), India Development and Participation, second edition, Oxford University Press, pp.307-310.
2
For example MMRDA and MCGM both have planning roles within the city and have completed
their own plans, the Regional and City plan respectively, within these plans the roles of each group
are not always entirely clear. Likewise with regards to housing policy in Mumbai there is a state
body MHADA and a more local body SRA who have less than complementary policies within the
same jurisdiction.
3
For example MMRDA, MCGM and MTSU along with political parties.

Background
policy for relocating PAPS involves the provision of free houses for those
affected in a given site 4. This policy is funded by the market with a FSI
program and TDRs5. MMRDA has completed the construction of some
27,524 6 tenements and has relocated approximately 15%7. This report
analyzes the effect this relocation process has on the livelihoods of
PAPs and how the process can potentially be improved through the
working relationships between Government and an NGO, SPARC, who
seeks to provide assistance to PAPs through the capacity building of
the CBOs: MM and NSDF within the affected communities.8
The terms of reference for this research were provided through a
consultation between the Development and Planning Unit’s academic
staff and members of the NGO SPARC. The main objectives are
threefold (table 1).
Table 4: Research Objectives
Research Objectives
To explore the im pact on livelihoods of the relocation of households and
Objective I communities from poor and vulnerable locations to more secure housing in the
city.
To identify the s trengths and weaknesses of the strategies pursued by the

Objective II
different actors involved in this case.
To explore with the different actors involved proposals which will strengthen
Objective III the relocation of slum and pavement dwellers in the future in a manner which
will contribute to their transformative intentions.
4
It must be noted that of the 35,000 affected people only 21,000 are eligible under the project due a
cut off date of 2000, which stipulates that people are only eligible for relocation if they can prove
they have been resident prior to 2000. This leaves 14,000 people potentially homeless. (Mr. Milind
Mhaiskar, May 7, 2007, Appendix A.
5
The FSI system works by requiring developers construct the required free housing for PAPs in return
for extra land to develop the amount of which is dependent on the sites location in the city. If the
extra land is not available on the current construction site a TDR is made available which is
tradable in a market system.
6
MMRDA presentation: Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, May 7th 2007, Appendix A.
7
Oral statement made by Jockin Arputham, President of the national Slum Dwellers Federation of
India and President of Slum/Shack Dwellers International, to the group on 5th May 2007,
Appendix A.

Methodology
Methodology
Research Techniques
Research was performed using secondary sources in the pre-fieldtrip
phase through lectures and readings9, whilst during the fieldtrip the bulk
of the primary research was collected through officials’ and experts’
presentations, transect walks, focus groups with community leaders,
semi- and unstructured interviews of PAPs, MM and NSDF leaders, and
SPARC employees. 10 Fundamental to an understanding of the change
in livelihoods of the affected persons were the interviews and focus
groups; these were key for grounded comprehension of the impacts of
the relocations on PAPs11. The term PAPs has been used throughout the
report, yet it is crucial to understand that this is not a homogenous
group and various differences are present in terms of age, gender,
race, religion which asymmetrically affect their reflexive interpretations
of reality.
Transformation: Diagnosis and Proposals

Taking into consideration the ToRs, it was considered critical to
formulate a definition of transformation with regards to relocations to
set an ideal standard for the process; it has been used throughout this
report in order to guide research, understand the case study and to
evaluate the extent to which the process is transformative.
A transformative process is one that will:

“Strengthen the ability of the affected people to actively
determine the processes and outcomes of relocation, through the
capacity building of actors and of the creation of synergistic and
sustainable links that will live beyond the project.” 12
Criteria were generated from a breakdown of the definition of

transformation. This enabled an assessment of the extent to which the
definition has achieved its transformative intentions. These criteria
elucidate the role of groups of actors13 in what may be considered
transformative processes and outcomes, as demonstrated in Table 2
below.
9
Please refer to Consulted Texts for more detail.
10
Please refer to Appendix G for PAP semi-structured interviews and Appendix A for a schedule and
list of actors consulted.
11
27 of such interviews were performed.
12
Please refer to Appendix B for an elucidation of the logic of the definition.
13
Actors identified in MUIP: PAPs, the Alliance (SSNS, MM, NSDF, SPARC), the Governmental Sphere
(which incorporates GoM, parastatal agencies such as MMRDA and municipal corporations such
as MCGM) and Private Institutions (i.e. private developers and banks such as ICICI).
Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 10

Methodology
Table 5: Transformation Criteria
Transformation Criteria
Outcome Procedure
Improved quality of life of project affected Ability of affected persons to actively

Project Affected
persons concerning economic/ social/ determine the process of relocation
People
political/ physical/ environmental aspects through meaningful participation .
Strengthenin g the Alliance’ s working Capacity building of the Alliance and

Alliance (SPARC, relationship with PAPs, government, private creating synergistic links between the
SSNS, MM, NS D F ) institutions in o rder to increase the ability to Alliance, PAPs, government, private
affect changes in the relocation process and international institution s
An enduring institutional framework that is Responsible, accountable, democratic

Governmental
inclusive and responsive toward the needs of and transparent practices regarding
Sphere
affected persons in the relocation proces s the relocation process
Offering adapted products and services that Learning the needs and developing
Private Institutions are meaningful and suit t he needs of the trust of the urban poor and promoting
urban poo r innovative practices
The formulation of criteria and indicators14 have provided a framework

for structured research, both in secondary and primary source
collection, and have enabled a diagnosis of compiled findings (refer to
Figure 1 below). The diagnosis represents a prioritization of findings
which were then analysed through the use of the ‘Web of
Institutionalisation’15 to identify key opportunities and constraints from
which proposals for future actions may be derived. In this way,
proposals brought forward may help achieve this concept of
transformation.
Figure 5: Report Structure
Definition
Criteria &
Indicators
Research
Diagnosis
Proposals
14
Please refer to Appendix D for a list and brief explanation of sub-criteria and indicators used.
15
Please refer to Appendix C for an explanation of the Web of Institutionalization.

Methodology
Limitations
Inevitable in field research are many forms of limitation. These include
time constraints, sample locations and size, interpreter mediums,
interviewer and interviewee biases, and often conflicting information.
Noteworthy, however, is the female-oriented gender-bias encountered
16
due to the time of interviews as well as the difficulties in
communicating via an interpreter medium. Appendix E provides
greater detail.
16
PAP interviews and focus groups were performed in the afternoon. Few males were present. This
may be due to employment responsibilities

Diagnosis
Diagnosis
Problems and Constraints
Apparent in the analysis of the relocation process are multiple forms of
disconnection at social, economic and spatial levels,17 which shall be
discussed through a prioritization of findings. The lack of preparation
and attention to the needs of the affected households prior to the
relocation has created the disruption of social networks, shop-keeper
cooperatives and livelihoods, and a sub-optimal built environment has
added to isolation within the site and from surrounding areas.
Processes unsuitable to the needs of PAPs have resulted in these three
forms of disconnection which shall be discussed with reference to the
criteria previously established and according to the actors involved in
order to assess the extent to which the relocation process is
transformative.
SPARC, MM and NSDF

However different the context and reasons for involvement, the role of
SPARC in MUIP can be seen as an attempted extension of its role in
18
MUTP . Since funding remains internal to GoM in MUIP, the relationship
between SPARC and MMRDA is largely informal and began when
19
SPARC approached the latter. The prioritization of the efficiency of
20
the project’s implementation over the ‘soft parts’ meant MMRDA
would more quickly achieve its goal, and SPARC’s involvement is
therefore only post-relocation. As a result, there was a lack of
community organization and affected families were under-prepared
for the relocations. Many relocated families became aware of the
Alliance only post-relocation and even then, only some were involved
in savings schemes and few, in group meetings. SPARC’s post-
relocation involvement – at which the point of entry is least effective –
stretches resources and capacity which dilutes its ability to effectively
help other areas concerning the urban poor and strengthening their
21
working relationship with other actors.
17
Please refer to Appendix G for PAP interviews.
18
MUTP is another infrastructure project in Mumbai whereby SPARC was hired as a conditionality for
the WB loan to ensure relocated families were given choice in their relocation sites (and in some
cases, design), communities were identified (in the Baseline Economic Survey) and organized with
the help of MM and NSDF, help was given in the relocation process, all what Sundar Burra has
described as the ‘soft stuff’, ( conversation with Sundar Burra, 10th May 2007, Appemdix A).
19
The motivation behind this was to serve the needs of the (approx.) 5000 pavement dweller
households (of a total 35 000 households), for which the NGO was originally established.
20
‘Soft Parts’: identification, organization, preparation and relocation of the affected families.
21
The organization’s desire to maintain its working size means expansion to work in other areas (i.e.
pre-relocation in MUIP) can only occur if resources are freed up elsewhere. The lack of
organization of project affected individuals seems to have created a dependency on SPARC for
organization and amenity provision in post-relocation sites, as in premise waste collection in
Gautam Nagar, advancing the stretch of resources and capacity of SPARC. Many complaints
were also related to site management, especially in terms of overall cleanliness. Waste collection
was initially managed by SPARC, but the transfer of responsibility to the housing cooperative
appears ineffective.

Diagnosis
MMRDA and Private Developers

These outcomes have resulted from the lack of support and
organization of MMRDA’s practices, which lack transparency and
accountability, as well as from imperfect building environments
produced by private developers. Eligibility and notification
inconsistencies have resulted in a current 1200 households in transit
22
accommodations, increasing pressures on the government and
SPARC in dealing with grievances and inevitably prolonging the
process. The involvement of private institutions has not changed
drastically during the process. The NIRMAN precedents, Oshiwara I/II,
have demonstrated the ability to keep costs low yet to serve the needs
of the poor, and according to Sundar Burra, various designs have been
taken on by private developers. It is however unclear to what extent
the latter are enthusiastic to adapt the designs and to what extent this
is solely an official requirement delivered by the government. This may,
however, also represent an opportunity to meaningfully incorporate the
needs of the poor into their outputs, potentially decreasing the
23
incidence of sub-letting amongst relocated households.
PAPs
PAPs were insufficiently prepared in the relocation process, and choice
was not given to PAPs in terms of their ability to actively determine,
through meaningful participation, the location of permanent housing,
24
the design or layout of the housing, the scheduling of the relocations
or the groups with whom the families shall be relocated. The
unsuitability of the process to the needs of the PAPs has not resulted in
an overall improved quality of life. The multiplicity of outcomes and
differing affected persons’ perceptions meant the only generalization
that can be made relates to disconnection at various levels. How the
processes described above have affected the PAPs shall now be
elucidated.
Firstly, the breakup of social networks and in some cases the impeded
ability of such groups to integrate into their new communities have
been key factors in the dissatisfaction amongst many relocated
families. Secondly, the built environment has not been conducive to
22
Three general cases were found in terms of the relocation process and the project affected
persons. It was found that approx. 14 000 families were not deemed eligible for relocation. Many
who were eligible were not sufficiently prepared with respect to proper documentation to prove
their establishment prior to the year 2000 due to the lack of support and organization of MMRDA in
the relocations, consequently requiring the transference of many families in transit
accommodations. The third case refers to those families eligible, but not at the site at the time of
demolition, thus unable to prove eligibility and as a result the destruction of their property.
Although many were given warnings years in advance, little notification was given in the medium
term to allow for the organization of project affected families. Please refer to Appendix G for PAP
interviews.
23
12 of 37 households visited.
24
PAPs were treated as individuals, not communities, causing an unnecessary disruption of social
networks. Due to the untimely nature of relocation, children were not able to change school mid-
year and were forced to continue at the same school despite great travel distances (and costs) or
else lose an academic year.

Diagnosis
25
an environment accommodating the needs of the poor. The
introverted nature of the layout both within the site and with the
surrounding environment, the high-rise building structures and the
absence of attention to the use of spaces has created secluded
islands, re-enforcing the concept of isolation. Thirdly, the absence of a
ration shop near Gautam Nagar resulted in the travelling to previous
areas for the purchasing of cooking fuel and to markets for vegetables,
creating a two-fold disadvantage, including increased expenditure for
26
the travel costs , and decreased sales in site shops hoping to sell their
goods to residents. The assumption that relocations would inherently
27
cause a loss of employment has been rejected , however, significantly
affected were entrepreneurs whose markets were disrupted. Shop
owners previously located along major arterial roads were dependent
on the strategic location, be it for general stores, auto-part shops,
mechanics, tailors, etc. The relocations destroyed markets for many
shopkeepers due to the location of sites, as well as the introverted
nature and layout of sites and the un-strategic situation of shops within
the sites. Networks created by commercial cooperatives were
destroyed in the relocation process, creating a second major
disadvantage to this group.
Opportunities
Despite evidence of multiple problems and constraints, numerous
opportunities exist which can enhance various actors’ room for
maneuver.
PAPs
Precedents set by community organization such as through the
28
construction and maintenance of toilet blocks demonstrate the ability
of the urban poor to address their own problems and needs. This
opportunity has not been realized in the context of MUIP and can
explain the causality behind the various problems highlighted above.
Various opportunities exist for the fortification of communities post-
relocation through the formation of housing cooperatives and the
expansion of MM and NSDF both pre- and post-relocation.
25 For Example high rise housing was considered to be unsuitable by : Mr. Sundar Burra,
(converstation 10th May 2007 and by Mr. U.P.S. Madan, The Chief Electoral Officer of Maharashtra,
(feed back on group presentations, 11th May 2007, see Appendix A).
26
This includes the need for a taxi to carry the cooking fuel which is prohibited on public
transportation.
27
The relationship between keeping employment and relocation challenges assumptions on two
levels. Firstly, it was found that many relocated persons were able to keep their positions of
employment for two reasons: there was no significant change in the distance to work and those
who had to increase their travel time were able to deal with the extra travel time and costs.
Secondly, for those families whose source of income was disrupted due to reasons including
excessive travel time/costs to work, there was a similar impact on both genders’ employment.
28
Patel, Sheela and Diana Mitlin (2004) “Grassroots-driven development: the Alliance of SPARC, the
National Slum Dwellers Federation and Mahila Milan” in Mitlin, D and D. Satterthwaite (eds.)
Empowering Squatter Citizen, Earthscan, London, pp. 216-41.

Diagnosis
The Alliance
SPARC can utilise its experience and proven capacity from MUTP to
strengthen its rapport with MMRDA in MUIP and future projects; the
voluntary involvement of SPARC presents an opportunity to further build
this working relationship with MMRDA. Where community mobilization is
concerned, the expansion of MM and NSDF in pre-relocation sites may
provide an opportunity to aid the preparation of communities in the
process of relocation, as well as in post relocation through the capacity
building of PAPs to adapt to a new living environment. Finally,
increasing awareness at the international level through the creation of
links with various institutions such as the DPU represents a key
opportunity for the development of research and theory building in
anticipation of impacting methodologies.
Governmental Sphere
Notwithstanding the numerous constraints within the governmental
sphere listed above, four clear opportunities have become evident in
the research. Firstly, the existence of a policy, SRA, for the provision of
formal housing requires MMRDA to fulfill its obligations as the
implementing body of MUIP. Secondly, the existence of TDRs provides
a resource for the resettlement of PAPs. Thirdly, MMRDA’s drive to
29
create a ‘world class city’ seeks the development of improved
infrastructure, but also a solution to the apparent housing problem, as
demonstrated in Figure 2 below; it seeks to be identified as a brand
30
standing by these principles. Fourthly, the involvement of SPARC in
the relocation process can help deliver can help deliver MMRDA’s goal
31
and ensure ‘soft parts’ are taken into consideration which may
potentially lead to a more sustainable outcome.
Figure 6: Mumbai a ‘World Class City’
Source: Presentation by Mr. Milink Mhaiskar, Jt.
Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA
29
Mr Jain, project manager of MTSU, (presentation 7th May 2007, Appendix A).
30
Mr. Milind Mhaiskar, Joint MetropolitanCommissioner of MMRDA. (Presentation 7th May 2007,
Appendix A).
31
As demonstrated through the involvement of SPARC (through MM and NSDF) and its proven
capacity in MUTP.

Diagnosis
Private Sector
The main opportunities from the private sector involve both private
developers and financial institutions. The adoption of Oshiwara housing
designs taken on by private developers has set a precedent for future
designs being incorporated into private sector development for SRA
32
housing. Market opportunities for financial institutions such as ICICI
Bank are constrained by risk adversity. However, these constraints can
be overcome through the promotion of innovative practices and trust
building between the bank and PAPs through projects such as
Oshiwara II. A second opportunity exists for the involvement of banks in
the formation of SHGs or cooperatives post relocation such that a new
33
market could be ‘tapped’
Understanding the Diagnosis through the Web of
Institutionalization
The web (Figure 3) illustrates the potentials and constraints of elements,
and relationships between elements in the process of institutionalization
and shall be analysed through the criteria established in the
methodology. As many elements, and links between elements may
represent both opportunities and constraints, both characteristics have
been demonstrated in red and blue in order to demonstrate their
diversity, rather than through the use of ‘weak’, ‘medium’ or ‘strong’
elements and links, which have a tendency to conceal their
multidimensionality (refer to Box 1 for a detailed analysis).
Figure 7: Diagnosis through the Web of Institutionalization
OPPORTUNITIES Mainstream
& PROBLEMS/ Resources Responsibility for
Social Justice
CONSTRAINTS 4
D
5
I Political
Policy/Planning Procedures
Commitment
A 3
6
G Pressure of Representative
Political Political Staff
N Constituencies Structures Development
7
O 2
Women Men and
Children’s Experience Delivery of
S andInterpretation
Reality
of Programmes
and Projects
Methodology
I
1
S Research Theory
Opportunities
Problems/Constraints
32
As mentioned in the constraints section, it is unclear whether this was through an increased
understanding of the needs PAPs or through the requirement by the government. Whichever way,
the result means products are more innovative, meaningful and suitably tailored to the relocated
PAPs. For more detail on SRA and housing for the poor, refer to: Burra, Sundar (2003), Combining
top-down and grassroots land approaches in Mumbai, UN-Habitat, Habitat Debate 2003, Vol. 9,
No4.
33
Mr Abhisek Khanna, Manager, ICICI Bank, (presentation, 9th May 2007, Appendix A).

Diagnosis

Proposal Ia
Proposal Ia. Strategic Resource Centres
Context
An overview of the salient points in our diagnosis highlights that there
has been a change in the practice of relocation from the MUTP project
to that of the MUIP project. The absence of World Bank funding and
their consequent stipulations for the conduct of relocation have left the
process devoid of the ‘soft parts’. This absence has been filled by
MMRDA’s understandable drive to efficiency in road widening. SPARC
is consequentially in a relatively weakened position within its
relationship with MMRDA. It is considered that this has had three major
ramifications:
I. PAPs have been under-prepared for relocation which has led to
socioeconomic problems post relocation.
II. It has created a situation whereby the eligibility and ineligibility
of many PAPs has been brought into question, this has seen a
large number of PAPs being moved to transit camps.
III. The resources of SPARC are being stretched as it has to place
the emphasis of its work on mitigating post relocation problems.
In order to transform this situation it is considered necessary that SPARC
act in a more strategic manner. The fact that MMRDA are not utilising
SPARC as a resource pre-relocation, means that SPARC needs to prove
its utility to MMRDA and set a precedent for a potential new working
relationship that benefits the goals of all parties. It is considered that this
can be done through the introduction by SPARC of strategic resource
centres.
Proposal
The basic logic of a SPARC pre-relocation resource centre
concentrates on building capacity of affected people to deal with
change through facilitating the work of NSDF and MM. Under MUTP,
SPARC had a long period of embedding their ethos and the work of
MM and NSDF in given communities however; this is not the case under
MUIP. Therefore SPARC should concentrate its efforts on groups who
have been identified for imminent relocation and work consecutively
34
with affected groups until MUIP is completed.
The resource centres should seek to:

1. Introduce the affected communities to the workings, logic
and potential of SPARC, MM, and NSDF.
35
2. Create Community Building Committee
36
3. Initiate group formation.
34
Once one group has been relocated SPARC’s resource centre will move to the next affected group.
35
A Community Building committee should consist of members of SPARC, MM, and NSDF who have has
experience of relocations, as well as members of the local communities. It role should be to guide
capacity build and monitoring and evaluation.
36
Under MUTP groups of 50 strong households were considered the optimum size to facilitate
meaningful capacity building and cooperation: Burra, Sundar, (2005), “Towards a pro-poor

Proposal Ia
37
4. Data and document checking.
5. Facilitation of knowledge sharing-and strengthening the
natural gravitation of social networks to develop coping
abilities.
6. Organise logistics of actual relocation.
38
7. Prepare those who have to go to transit camps .
39
8. Introduce shopkeepers’ cooperatives
Motivations and Impacts

For MMRDA this process has the potential to make the relocations more
efficient and sustainable. Potentially, it can reduce the number of PAPs
unnecessarily entering transit camps thus reducing the long-term
commitment of MMRDA. It can also help MMRDA achieve its desired
positive social branding.
SPARC has the potential to implement positive changes in the lives of
affected people in a more meaningful way and introduce a new
working relationship with MMRDA that has the possibility to set a
precedent of a new more flexible practice. They will also be utilising
resources more strategically.
Affected people can mitigate potential relocation problems by
building capacity, social networks and strengthening their negotiating
position with MMRDA.
framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol.15, No.2,pp.67-
88.
37
This has the potential to reduce the number of people being unnecessarily moved to transit camps
and reducing the number of grievances.
38
The majority of these points have been outlined by SPARC on previous occasions as goals of pre-
relocation work, see, See, Burra Sundar, (2005), “Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading
in Mumbai, India”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol.15, No.2,pp.67-88.
39
Please see strategy 1b for details of this proposal.

Proposal Ia
Resources
This process will require man power and time; taking into consideration
SPARC’s desire not to expand, resources will have to be redirected from
elsewhere. SPARC can effectively achieve two goals at once by
creating timetables for disengagement from suitable communities
already relocated under the MUTP and MUIP and redirecting resources
towards this new strategy. This is an opportunity to legitimise such a
process and lessen the dependency of certain communities on them.
Time is a crucial element in this strategy as in order to be of benefit to
MMRDA it must work within their timetable. Therefore the practices
outlined above must be flexible enough not to hinder the progress of
MUIP and adversely affect the efficiency of MMRDA which would
reduce the feasibility of the strategy.
Monitoring and Evaluation.

It is envisaged that this process will have three stages of monitoring and
evaluation stages (refer to Box.3 for further information).
1. A comparison with relocations that have already taken
place under MUIP.
2. Monitoring the effectiveness of each strategic resource
centre.
3. The accumulation of information over the duration of the
project in order to assess needed changes and new
directions.

Proposal Ia
Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalization

In this instance we can utilise the web of institutionalisation (Figure 4) to
highlight the methodology and theory behind how such a strategy can
potentially be institutionalised changing the current situation (refer to
Box 4 for further analysis).
Figure 8: Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalization
P Resources
Mainstream
Responsibility for
Social Justice
R
O Political
Commitment
Policy/Plannin
g
5
Procedures
P
Pressure of
Political Representativ 1
O Constituencie
s
e Political
Structrures
Staff
Development
S 6
Women and
2 Delivery of
A Men’s experience
and interpretation
of reality
Programmes
and Projects
Methodology
4
L
3 Research Theory
Ia Outcome and Procedures
Impacts

Proposal Ib
Proposal Ib. Shopkeeper Cooperatives
Context
Infrastructure projects like MUIP, which deal with the strategic
networks of the city, are also home to important commercial outlets
within the city. The diagnosis exemplifies the issue of the disrupted
economic networks of shopkeepers which is a critical drawback in
terms of the sustainability of the relocation process. Therefore, within
this context a specific area which needs to be concentrated on is the
formation of shopkeeper cooperatives.
Proposal
As an extension of the first strategy of organizing the communities, the
following strategy deals with the formation of shopkeeper co-
operatives in order to strengthen their economic networks. The
proposal is as follows:
I. The resource centres, NSDF and the Community Building
Committee (which has representatives of the shopkeeper
community) together help form the cooperatives.
II. The Community Building Committee further strengthens
these cooperatives at the post relocation sites.
The scale of the proposal depends on each site and the size of the
cooperatives will vary accordingly. The process should be flexible
enough to seek the involvement of actors such as financial institutions
to help determine gaps in the market, and help create investment
opportunities.
The process is initiated at the pre-relocation stage to be most
effective. The process develops further at the post relocation stage
where these local cooperatives can potentially link to area and also
regional cooperatives.

PAPs and project affected shopkeepers should be motivated to
participate as it helps them organise and build community strength
which in turn helps them to actively choose more economically viable
relocations. It also has the potential for local communities along with
shopkeepers to better manage the amenities and enterprises that suit
their areas’ needs in a way that benefits both producer and
consumer. The permanent nature of the enterprise should help
shopkeepers create further links with larger economic networks and
other financing institutions like banks.
SPARC should be motivated by this strategy as it has the potential to
create communities that are less dependent upon them in the long-
term. Moreover, SPARC has already expressed their will to act as a
catalyst for community development in the relocation process, with
Mahila Milan being its greatest example.

Proposal Ib
The Government can largely benefit from a sustainable relocation

process40. This proposal also helps the government in the building of a
more integrated city contributing to their vision of a future ‘world-
class city’ and dealing with issues related to the urban poor.
Resources
In terms of resources, the initial instigation of building cooperatives
would derive from the same redirected resources as in Proposal Ia. A
shopkeeper cooperative by its inherent nature has the possibility to be
more financially viable than other community-based organizations.
This can then be fortified by building relationships with financial
institutions for investment opportunities.
Monitoring and Evaluation

The main actors involved in the monitoring and evaluation are the
Resource centers and Community Building Committee. The process
will be done mainly in lines with the strategy 1a41.
Understanding proposal Ib through the web of

institutionalization
The methodology and theory behind the formulation of strategy Ib
can be presented through the web of institutionalisation (Figure 5).
However, the arrows follow the logic of the proposal through the web
(refer to Box. 6 for further analysis) and should not be considered
prescriptive.
40
This links to the fact that stronger economic networks are directly linked to sustainability.
41
Please see Box 3 for further details on monitoring and evaluation for this strategy. The procedures
outlined in Box 3 can be easily manipulated to monitor the shopkeepers co-operatives utilizing the
same logic with slightly different indicators.

Proposal Ib
Figure 5: Understanding Proposal Ib through the Web of Institutionalization

Proposal II
Proposal II: Housing Competition
Context
Taking into consideration the GoM’s desire to transform Mumbai into a
‘world class city’ it is postulated with some certainty that Mumbai will
under go future infrastructure and road widening projects that will
displace additional slum and pavement dwellers, this will require the
construction of future relocation sites. This proposal seeks to influence the
construction phase of future MMRDA housing/relocation projects in order
to improve the living conditions of affected people and the livelihoods of
shopkeepers.
The proposal is based on the experiences gained by the previous
42
practices of NIRMAN in the Oshiwara project , and SPARC and MM’s
43
experiences in creating housing exhibitions . The outcome of both cases
was the provision of better housing solutions and the setting of a
precedent that influenced practices to suit the needs of PAPs.
The proposal (refer to table 3 for an outline) attempts to build upon the
above experiences in order to:
I. Improve the livelihoods of PAPs through an enhanced built-
environment44.
II. Set-up a new precedent for future relocation projects.
III. Bring the needs of PAPs to the forefront of future relocation
projects.
Table 6: Proposal II - Outline
Proposal II - Outline
Entry point NIRMAN is contracted to build a relocation site for people affected by a MMRDA project.
A competition for the best proposal is launched; PAPs and their organizations (MM, NSDF),
Phase I SPARC and MMRDA are invited to form a committee responsible for the ToRs and for
selecting the best proposal .
Phase II Submitted proposals by universities are presented in an exhibitio n .
Phase II I A demonstration is set-up when the project has been implemented.
42
NIRMAN was able to produce a housing complex that is regarded to be of a higher standard by all
actors than other relocation sites in terms of a built environment better suiting the needs of the poor
and which enhances connectivity with the surrounding area and city at large.
43
SPARC and MM were able to set-up housing competitions that draw the attention of the
government officials and the public in general.
44
By built environment we mean the set-up of the residential, communal and commercial spaces and
the connections of the complex to the surrounding area.

Proposal II
Proposal
The diagnosis revealed that the sub-optimal built environment is one
element causing isolation within the site and from surrounding areas,
45
affecting the livelihoods of shop-keepers through decreased revenue ,
and the feeling of social and spatial disconnection of PAPs from the city.
The introverted use of space has been a major factor in this sense of
disconnection and it is therefore considered that if this proposal seeks to
address this issue in its ToR, many associated problems may be
alleviated.
The formulation of the committee is crucial for the proposal since the
committee is responsible firstly for setting up the ToRs for the competition
and secondly for choosing the most appropriate proposal. The
committee consists of representatives of PAPs and their organizations
(MM, NSDF), representatives of SPARC, NIRMAN, and MMRDA. PAPs,
CBOs, SPARC and NIRMAN should work together to create an exhibition
and demonstration, to which MMRDA shall be invited. The actors
involvement is as follows:
I. PAPs and their organizations (MM, NSDF) and MMRDA present their
priorities regarding the ToRs.
II. SPARC facilitates using its understanding of both sides (PAPs and
their organizations and MMRDA) towards the goal of creating
common ToRs.
III. NIRMAN as a constructor sets up the financial limits regarding the
feasibility of the project.
IV. University faculty and students involved in the competition and
submission of proposals
45
One shopkeeper reported a decrease in revenue of 2/3 from the previous location, see Appendix G.

Proposal II

In order for different actors to work together in such a situation, each
must be motivated and believe the project will help achieve their goals.
PAPs, MM and NSDF’s participation in the setting of ToRs and in
participating in choosing the winner, will allow them to influence the
outcomes that will suit their needs, thus improving their living conditions in
the future. The structure of the whole process allows PAPs to interact with
the various actors building their capacity and contributes to a better
understanding of their needs.
SPARC’s main goal within relocation processes is the improvement of the
livelihoods of PAPs. This proposal increases the capacity of SPARC by
strengthening its links with MMRDA and academic bodies. NIRMAN’s
goals are similar to that of SPARC; however, they will also potentially
receive the best possible design solution within their budget. The extra
publicity and strengthening of relationships with governmental and
private institutions could promote their future growth.
MMRDA has the opportunity to promote its own brand image by
participating in the creation of a better housing stock that will benefit
PAPs and the city at large. This process will be at no extra cost to their
relocation projects.
University faculty and students have the opportunity to heighten their
prestige and enrich their research field by working with clients on a real
case.
The ICICI bank has already shown commitment towards NIRMAN by
providing finance for the Oshiwara II project. There are further investment
and publicity opportunities within this proposal.
Resources
The organisation and manpower required for such a proposal will
necessitate resources. However NIRMAN has already proven that it can
implement programs under SRA that are financially viable. With the
potential help of suitable bank loans this project should also make a
profit and previous funds made under Oshiwara projects have the
potential to be directed into it. Most of the CBOs work on a voluntary
basis and universities through the nature of the project should have other
motivations beyond monetary incentive.

Proposal II
Monitoring and Evaluation

The design of the proposal which introduces a competition
committee seeks a continual practice of monitoring and evaluation
throughout the project, from constructing the ToRs to judging the
winner and the suitability of the constructed design. The long term
success of the project will need to be measured this should be carried
out by practices already in place. Please see box 8 for further details.
Understanding proposal II through the web of institutionalization

The methodology and theory behind the formulation of strategy II can
be presented through the web of institutionalisation (Figure 6).
However, the arrows follow the logic of the proposal through the web
(refer to Box. 9 for further analysis) and should not be considered
prescriptive.

Proposal II
Figure 6: Understanding Proposal II through the Web of Institutionalization
P Resources
Mainstream
Responsibility for
Social Justice
R
O Political
Commitment
Policy/Planning Procedures
3
P 4
Pressure of Representative
O Political
Constituencies
Political
Structures
Staff
Development
S
Women and Delivery of
A Men ’s experience
and interpretation
of reality
Programmes
and Projects
Methodology
2
L 1
Research Theory
Outcome and Procedures
II Impacts

Conclusions
Conclusions
By creating a definition of transformation in order to asses the relocation process, a high

standard has been set and it must be questioned whether transformation can occur through the
implementation of any given proposals. It may be argued that these strategies should be
considered ameliorate, rather than transformative. However, by placing these strategies within
the contextual situation in Mumbai whereby infrastructure to provide economic growth appears
as important, if not more so than attempts to meaningfully transform the living conditions of
much of its urban poor, it has become evident that transformation cannot be achieved in the
short-term or through a singular comprehensive strategic solution. The purpose of these
proposals could therefore be considered; the incremental progression toward transformation.
However, to take incremental steps towards transformation one must be sure that they are
going in a transformative direction. Therefore it is considered necessary that a continual re-
assessment of the general direction of policy, power relationships and planning in the context of
Mumbai should be taken on board by all actors involved. Taking this into account, it would be
recommended that each actor reconsider its relationships and strategies pursued regularly in
order to assess whether these are mutually beneficial and meet their own transformative
intentions.

Appendices
Appendices
Appendix A: Schedule of Lectures, Workshops, Presentations
Pre-Fieldtrip
2 February The development of the Economy of Mumbai
Professor Nigel Harris
9 February Collective Strategic Action: Some Observations on
Policy and Planning by the Alliance, Caren Levy
16 February The Development and Operation of the Federation in
Mumbai
David Satterthwaite
23 February Community-Led Infrastructure Financing Facility
Homeless International
24 April “Interviewing Techniques and Field Data Recording”
Nadia Taher
Fieldtrip
4 May Sheila Patel, Sundar Burra - briefing/orientation
5 May Celine d’ Cruz – SPARC - strategy, history, position.
Meeting with Jockin Arputham, President of NSDF India and President
of Slum/Shack Dwellers International
7 May Presentations by senior government officials and discussions:
1) Mr. Jain, project manager of MTSU
2) Mr.Swadheen Kshatriya, IAS, Principal Secretary, Govt. of
Maharashtra (GOM): Housing Policy of GOM
3) Mr. Milind Mhaiskar,IAS,Joint Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA,
and Project Director,MUTP: Rehabilitation under MUTP and MUIP
8 May Presentation by Shirish Patel: “Urban Layouts, Densities &
Housing Policies for Mumbai”
Meeting with Sundar Burra: MUIP Clarifications
Discussion with Shirish Patel
Presentation/discussion V.K. Phatak: Metropolitan planning
in Mumbai and Slum Policy.
Meeting with Kalpana Sharma, Journalist from Hindu newspaper
9 May Presentation/discussion Mr S.K. Joshi: Principles of slum
rehabilitation and Transfer of Development Rights
Presentation/discussion by Mr. Abhisek Khanna, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank:
Lending to the poor
Presentation/discussion Ms. Aseena Viccjee, SPARC Finance Manager
10 May Presentation/discussion Neera Adarkar: Mill lands in Mumbai – past,
present, future; exploring power relations across
Presentation/discussion Pankaj Joshi: Situation analysis of
the Eastern Sea-Front of Mumbai; exploring interplay of Central and
State Government powers
Meeting with officials at MMRDA: Mr Palit, Grievences redressal
cell; G.C. Mangale additional collector and joint project director
R&R, MUTP; Dr. Madhav Rusekar, deputy collector R&R, MUTP.
Meeting with D.R. Hadadare, chief engineer of MHADA.
Visit to Oshiwara, meeting a representative of “Genesis Architects”,
Aseena and other members of NIRMAN team. Introduction by and
discussion with Mr S.K. Joshi.
11th May Presentation made by DPU students to, SPARC, Mr. U.P.S Madan Chief
Electoral Officer Maharashtra State and Mr. Abhisek Khanna, Chief
Manager, ICICI Bank: Lending to the poor

Appendices
Appendix B: Elements of Transformation
Elements of Transformation
To “actively determine“ refers to the ability of affected people to not only input into
the R&R process but also have directly influenced the final outcome.
The “processes and outcomes” relates to the procedures of resettlement of PAPs and
the effects of rehabilitation on their livelihoods.
”Capacity building” is a term relating to a positive change in the ability of actors to

undertake actions through the enhancement of knowledge and skills.
“Synergistic links” describe relationships whereby the value of cooperation is greater

than the sum of the values of individual entities working separately. It is also known as
the ‘multiplier effect’.
“Sustainable links” a term which signifies that any created links should not cease at
the end of the project but live beyond the length of the project and continue to
function in the R&R process for the affected people of future projects

Appendices
Appendix C: The “Web of Institutionalisation”
The “Web of Institutionalisation”
Source: Levy, C, 1996
The “Web of Institutionalisation” was created by Caren Levy head of the Development and
Planning Unit UCL. It has been used as a critical tool for analysis and strategy construction in this
piece of research. The basic logic behind the tool of analysis is that to affect meaningful change in
a given society or situation change must be solidified into the institutional mechanisms of society.
The web seeks to highlight the areas that this needs to take place within, the change that is
needed and the necessary relationships that need to exist between each area. Therefore the tool
can be used as a diagnostic analytical tool, helping to highlight in a given situation areas of
weakness and potential that can direct and guide future strategies. The “Web of
Institutionalisation” was designed to propose conditions under which changing gender relations
can be institutionalised46, however for this report it is being used as a tool to help affect change
towards our definition of transformation with regards to the relocation process under MUIP.
There exist typically 13 elements to the web each of which represents a site of power47. After one
has analysed each element and the linkages / casual relationships between them they can
“indicate room for manoeuvre for change and can provide a means for directing action to
promote institutionalisation”48. The framework can only be used to analyse snap shots of time since
power relations, economic, social, political conditions may change over time (therefore results
yielded by the web may change over time). The elements can be analysed individually or grouped
together for instance such as the Community, Delivery, Policy and Organisational sphere before
being expanded to include the whole web in order to look at the “big picture”49. The “Community
sphere” encompasses Women’s and men’s experience and interpretation of their reality, Pressure
of political constituencies and Representative political structures. The “Delivery sphere” contains the
46
Levy, C. (1998) ‘Institutionalisation of Gender through Participatory Practice’ in Gujit, I. and M. K. Shah (eds.)
The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development. Intermediate Technology Publications,
London.
47
Ibid.
48
Ibid.
49
Ibid.

Appendices
elements research, theory building, methodology and Delivery of projects and programmes; the
“Organisational sphere” includes the elements staff development, procedures, policy and
planning, mainstream location of responsibility; finally the “Policy sphere” includes the elements
political commitment, resources, policy / planning. Actors are placed in the most appropriate part
of the web but can not influence every part of the web for example communities may not have
such a sphere of influence to target changes in resources, therefore understanding the limitations
of each actor and its power relations in relation to other actors is important50.
50
Ibid.

Appendices
Appendix D : Sub-Criteria and Indicators
Sub-Criteria and Indicators
Outcome
PAPs Economic
• income before (income/expenses/savings)
• income after (income/expenses/savings)
• Changes in employment patterns
o What jobs?
o How long to find alternative employment?
• Expenses – changes in:
o utility bills
o transport
o Education (private? Public?)
o health
o miscellaneous (public services)
o food
Social – with respect ethnic/cultural mix
• Physical health – incidence of rates if diseases (diarrheal, air, water,)
• Mental health
• Access to services
• Personal security/safety
• Access to recreational space
• Quality and availability of:
o Public healthcare
o Education
o Water and Sanitation
Political
• Security of Tenure
• Ration Cards
• Voting Rights
• Access and ability to interact with formal government institutions
• Access and ability to interact with financial institutions
Physical
Suitability and Quality of Built Environment
• Housing
• Stairs, etc
• Common Areas
• Maintenance
• Infrastructure
o Access(links) to
transport/sanitation/water/waste/energy/communication
Environmental
• Resources – Availability
• Pollution
o Air
o Water
• Degradation
o Pathogens/Vectors
o Drainage

Appendices
Appendix D : Sub-Criteria and Indicators (continued)
Alliance • Ability to set a precedent

o Have a product
o A precedent better than others
o What are future negotiations for new relocations?
• How many trained staff?
o Internally trained upwards
o Externally – Ex-government officials
o Quality of Staff
o Areas covered (experts with PAPs, government, maps)
• Transparency and democracy in Alliance’s process
• Accountability
• Resources:
o Land
o Floor Space
• International Links for Capacity Building
Future links (DPU, SDI)
Government • At what level of government, time in the process of planning/policy
Sphere formulation are project affected individuals asked? (when, where,
who, how)
• What proportion of plans is derived from the input of the urban poor?
• How frequently is the agenda set by the urban poor?
• Who determines who is a PAP?
• What is the criteria to determine ‘affected by the projects’
• What happens to the 14 000 not eligible for relocation?
• What is the reasoning behind picking a date for eligibility?
• What is the criteria for projects getting financed – efficiency of the city,
beauty?
Private sector • Number of bank accounts open to urban poor
• Loans, Mortgages
• Interest rates the urban poor can pay back and extended payback
periods
• Type of Collateral (employment or assets)
• Incorporation in banks’ future plans
• Increased willingness of banks to provide loans for community
developers/developments

Appendices
Procedure
PAPs • How many people voted to be relocated?

o Ethnic/Political/Cultural breakdown?
• Can they choose where they are relocated?
• Can they choose when they are to be relocated?
o Which area
o Which building
o Which room
• To what extent can they choose the layout? Are they happy with that?
• Are they in control of the management of the tenements?
• What are their priorities? Tradeoffs?
• In what way are the PAPs involved throughout the whole process of the
project?
o Political Negotiation
o Future in terms of management of process
o Financial resources
o Actual Implementation –how
• Do you feel involved in the decision-making process in the Alliance?
• What is the position of the PAPs in the decision making process of the
Alliance?
o # meetings
o Agenda of meetings
• How were the PAPs involved in the determination of project priorities
o building, shops, high-rise
What are the criteria/process to become a member of the NSDF/MM?
Alliance • Inclusion in formal government structures (i.e. SRA)
• Increased recognition
o Reputation across city
o Media coverage
o Governmental Agencies
o Respect
• Institutionalizing relationships within government (Practices,
methodology, procedures rather than personal relationships)
• Formal loan from financial institutions
International Links for Political Pressure (ie. USAID now involved, who else?
Potentials?)

Appendices
Government • Access/Availability of city and project plans and reports

Sphere • Dissemination of updates on developments
• Mediums of communication: diversity, quality, quantity
• How much practices abide by the law
• How responsive they are to the needs of the urban poor
• How actions are monitored (frequency) and by whom
Private sector • Community consultations on what urban poor need
• Workshops specifically for urban poor (to work both ways)
• Open-mined bank managers and policies
• Precedent setting (the more the better – i.e. Oshiwara)
o Synergistic relationships with Alliance to bridge the gap
In order to analyse the criteria, sub-criteria and indicators were devised to enable the
determination of the extent to which transformation was achieved in the relocation process. For
example the criteria for PAPs relating to the improved quality of life of affected people is analysed
by sub criteria covering the physical, economic, social, political and environmental. An example of
the political aspect was the ability to interact with formal government institutions; the
environmental aspect by the existence of adequate drainage; the social aspect by the existence
of social networks; the economic aspect by income; and the physical aspect by transport
infrastructure links. The ability to actively determine was measured by indicators such as the ability
of PAPs to choose the location and time of relocation. Capacity building was measured by the
indicators such as: the existence of networks / potential networks and the institutionalization of links
with government through practices, methodologies and procedures rather than personal
relationships. Synergy was measured by indicators such as international links for political pressure
and the mutual benefits of created links. Sustainability of practices was be indicated by the
amount of policies which are institutionalized and last beyond the life of the project.

Appendices
Appendix E: Limitations
Time Constraints As a result of the relative brevity of the field visit in Mumbai (three
afternoons for field visits), the questionnaire focused mainly on
indicators related to a change in the quality of life relocation
process of PAPs, perhaps not dealing with each element of the
criteria to the optimum level.
Sample location It is obvious that situations will be different depending on types of
and size relocation sites. However, actual time spent in a transit camps was
insufficiently long to gain a thorough understanding of PAPs quality
of life. The diagnosis, however, deals mainly from Gautam Nagar
interviews and focus groups, and is based on an insufficiently large
sample size to achieve a holistic view of the situation.
Interpreter Mediums Interpreter mediums are a common problem in interviewing with
local people through interpreters in the field. Often it was
understood that translations were not word-for-word, incorporating
into the findings additional biases. Thus, secondary influence has
affected the accuracy of obtained information.
Interviewer Biases derived from both interviewers and interviewees are also an
and Interviewee biases unavoidable problem in primary research. Interviewer biases may
include loaded or leading questions. Interviewee prejudices may
be present in the form of overly negative complaints about the
situation in the hopes of someone helping change the situation.
Interviewees were mostly female; this may have created a slight
gender-bias in the diagnosis.
Conflicting Information Although conflicting information is a common problem in fieldwork,
the discrepancies between answers in the Mahila Milan focus group
and the individual PAPs was significant. It seemed negative
attitudes by some respondents were amplified as the session
progressed, demonstrating an overall and comparatively negative
attitude toward the relocation process and site next to individual
PAPs interviews.

Appendices
Appendix F: Additional Findings
There has been a reported increase in expenses for families in relocation sites due to fixed
maintenance costs (300 Rupees/month/tenement), although it has become apparent that the
tradeoffs of increased expenditure meant higher stability of water and electricity provision.
Bank involvement was inexistent in the relocation process. Since banks are keen to ‘tap a new
51
market’ and if this can be achieved through the formation of SHGs, as well as through an
understanding and trust-building of the urban poor, it is evident that this was not included in the
processes of the MUIP relocations.
With respect to private institutions, there is no change in the relationship between project affected
persons and formal mechanisms such as access to bank accounts. There have been reports of
private developers retaining tenure papers to accumulate the most possible TDRs as the market
value increases, although this may be related to the lack of formal registration of housing
cooperatives.
52
Unapparent were many changes in the governmental sphere, including political representation
and, according to some sources, formal tenure. As cooperative registration was not completed, it
became apparent that there was no transfer of titles to the cooperatives. This evidence may lead
to the conclusion that little has changed to create an enduring institutional framework that is
inclusive and responsive toward the needs of affected individuals in the relocation process.
51
Mr. Abhisek Khanna, Chief Manager, ICICI Bank: Lending to the Poor.
52
Representative political structures may be connected in various ways, such as through patron-client
relationship, however not in the sense that would be transformative to the relocation process in MUIP

Appendices
Appendix G: Semi-structured PAP Interviews
APPENDIX 1 Interview Details to Project Affected People (1)
NUMBER 1
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Indu Singh
Location Gautam Nagar
Date 8/5/07
Time 15:00
Household Composition 2
Current Job Housewife(W), Driver(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Golibar road, Ghatkopar
2. Distance from previous location? 20 minutes by bus
3. Was the social network preserved? Yes
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? No choice
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 15 days in advance of the survey list published on the site. 2-3 month
prior to relocation
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? NSDF- Yes, not MM before relocation
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF now
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? No
10. Distance to the jobs changed? 30 more minutes by bus
11.Change in income? No
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300Rs per month for maintenance, and more amount spent for
the transportation.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Difficult to manage
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better cleanliness at overall level but more mosquitoes and bad water
still give an unhealthy environment
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Keep previous
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Bad quality now, probably due to stored water supply from the
overhead water tank.
17. How are you able to access water now? Not available for 24 hours as earlier. 2 times a day
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Better
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?)
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much, as they are new in the area.
POLITICAL/PHYSICAL/ENVIRONMENTAL:
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but for the previous location.
22. Security of tenure?
23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you?
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Self-respect increased
24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? No change
25. Do you have access to market or other services? Not so convinenient as earlier.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)?
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Mixed feeeling. Better for the kids in terms of overall cleanliness but
still it has issues of mosquitoes and garbage dumps.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Don’t get the ‘homely’ feeling here due to a 30 year association with
the earlier location.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Safety, hygiene, good society around.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditures and no 'homely' feeling.
Note: In the column of Current job, W refers to wife, H refers to husband, GM refers to grandmother, GF refers to grandfather, and B refers to brother.

Appendices
NUMBER 2
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Savita Jadhav
Location Gautam Nagar, Mankurdh
Date 8/5/07
Time 15:50
Household Composition 4
Current Job Tailoring business from home(W), Bank employee(H), College(2 kids)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
2. Distance from previous location? 30 min travel by bus
3. Was the social network preserved? Relocated with other 160 people but are located in different flats & in
different buildings.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? No
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 year in advance
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation?
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Not because of the relocation.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, husband has to travel 30 more min. bu bus. No change for the
wife.
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300Rs per month for maintenance, and major amount is spent
for the transportation.to kids college.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? No
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Closer now
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Yes, more satisfactory now.
17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 min, more then previously.
20. Do you feel safe/secure now?
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card?
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you?
25. Do you have access to market or other services?
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Built a partition in the room, to improve the layout.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general?
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Quite satisfied.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Safety, hygiene, water quality improved.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditures

Appendices
NUMBER 3
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Santosh Tupe
Date 8/5/07
Time
Household Composition 5(Wife, Husband, 1 kid Husband’s mother, father, brother
Current Job Housewife(W), No(H), Housewife(GM), Watchman(GF), Company(B)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
2. Distance from previous location? 30 min. by bus
3. Was the social network preserved? No, was divided in two different sites.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2-3 years prior to relocation
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? No
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF now.
ECONOMIC:
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300Rs per month for maintenance, high electricity charges and
more amount spent for the transportation.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? After coming here mother’s health deteriorated.
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Keep previous doctor
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Not much
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Better.Toilets inside the house
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but for the earlier location.
22. Security of tenure? House allotment letter
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Self-respect increased.
24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? No
25. Do you have access to market or other services? Keep previous markets
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Bettter
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? ‘Dislocated’
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? No tension here - fear of evictions.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditures, distance from jobs and markets

Appendices
NUMBER 4
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Pandurang, Khedekar
Date 8/5/07
Time
Household Composition 5 (wife, husband, 2 sons, daughter-in-law)
Current Job Housewife(W)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
2. Distance from previous location? 6 Rs for one way bus. 20 min distance
3. Was the social network preserved? yes
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Choice about the flat in the building was given
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 year prior to relocation
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM and NSDF now
ECONOMIC:
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes.

Increased by approx. 1000-1500 Rs per month
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, but difficult sometimes
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation?
16. Has the quality of the water changed? No
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much difference.
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Yes, positive change.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Better here
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Fine
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Good social bonding
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase in expenditure

Appendices
NUMBER 5
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Nanda Bhanudas Sadigne
Date 8/5/07
Time
Household Composition 5 (Wife, Husband, Wife's mother, 2sons)
Current Job Housewife(W), VT office electricial(H), 1 kid going to college, the

other kid disabled
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
2. Distance from previous location? 30 minutes by road
3. Was the social network preserved? Relocated together but seperated now in different buildings.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 5 years with notice 3 times prior to relocation
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Wife has lost the flower business done at earlier location.
10. Distance to the jobs changed?

30 more minutes by bus
11.Change in income? Substantianlly reduced
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes.300RPs per month for maintenance, and 800 Rs. Spent on
transportation.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, but with great difficulty.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better, except initial adjustment. Related physological dissatisfaction.
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Yes, have to boil and drink.
17. How are you able to access water now? Not available for 24 hours as earlier. 2 times per day
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much
23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you? Because of the existence of M.M., relationship is somewhat getting
stronger.
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Self-respect increased.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Bettter due to good sanitation facilities
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Getting adjusted.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Social life, No hassle here
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Increase expenses and job loss

Appendices
NUMBER 6
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Noor Amina
Date 8/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Hosband, 4 daughters, 1 son
Current Job Housewife(W), owner of private car(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar
2. Distance from previous location? Half an hour by bus
3. Was the social network preserved? Yes, part of it is relocated at the same site.
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? Themselves
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move?
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No
ECONOMIC:
10. Distance to the jobs changed? No
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes, mainly because of transportation (plus 150rp) and utility bills.
SOCIAL:
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Better
17. How are you able to access water now? All, but specific hours.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep previous
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? more criminality
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes
22. Security of tenure? Yes
23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you? No
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? No
25. Do you have access to market or other services? reduced
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Insufficient garbage collection
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here?
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? More secure
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? More expenses

Appendices
NUMBER 7
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Hirabai Jadhav
Date 8/5/07
Time 15:00
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2 kids
Current Job Housewife(W), Watchman in a bank(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Siddhart Nagar, Chembua
2. Distance from previous location? One STATION AWAY
3. Was the social network preserved? 20-25 households moved to Gotam Nagar out of 200-300 relocated.
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA negotiated with Assistant Metropolitan Commissioner to
change the site of the relocation.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? The family given a different site first, where they refused to go as it
was too far from their previous location.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 3-4 notices in advance in 2-3 month prior to relocation
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Were aware of SPARC, but did not have a formal interaction.
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are members of the MM.
ECONOMIC:
10. Distance to the jobs changed? One station further
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300RPs per month for maintenance, and some amount spent for
the transportation.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better because of the hygiene.
17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 min, more then previously.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Yes, school is even closer now.
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes, safety increased.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Better for the kids.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 8
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Krishna Patil
Date 8/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 1 Kid
Current Job Lab technician, but does not work presently(H), Also in pharmacy(W)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Shelacam - different place in a same area
2. Distance from previous location? 10 minutes away
3. Was the social network preserved? Entirely kept, all community in the same building.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Yes
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 year in advance, every 2-3 months
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Member of the MM.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Not because of the relocation.
the transportation.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Closer now.
17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 minutes, more then previously.
24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? Not influenced by relocation.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Built a partition in the room, to improve the layout.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 9
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Jahana Hakimmuddin
Date 8/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 5 Kids
Current Job Mechanic in the garage(W)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Shelacam - different place in a same area
2. Distance from previous location? Relocation site - 10 minutes away , Transit Camp - 10km away
3. Was the social network preserved? Entirely kept, all community in the same building
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA negotiated with them in order to obtain a house, while
staying in a Transit Camp.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Given no notice, so spent a week after the demolition of their house
on the road and then 6 months in a Transit Camp.
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them?
ECONOMIC:
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Closer
the transportation.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, mentioned that 25% of people living in the same building
cannot afford to pay bills.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Yes, better. Comparable to the transit camp. Kids get sick less often.
17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 minutes, more then previously.
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes, more secure here.
24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? Not influenced by relocation
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Better than in transit camp.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Comfortable, as social networks kept.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Safety, hygiene, cleanliness.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Protracted relocation process, i.e. transit camp.

Appendices
NUMBER 10
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Salina
Date 8/5/07
Time
Current Job Housewife(W), Technician, works in Saudi Arabia(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Kurla
2. Distance from previous location? 15 minutes by train
3. Was the social network preserved? No, most people left in Vashinaka.
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA. But negotiated themselves relocation to Gotam Nagar from
Vashinaka.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Vashinaka was a previous relocation site where they stayed for a year
and then moved to Gautam Nagar due to a water scarcity in
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2-3 months
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Knew SPARC before.
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No, husband is responsible for the finances.
ECONOMIC:
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. Expenditures on transport to school + maintenance.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Consider 300Rs too much to pay for the maintenance.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Yes, comparable to the transit camp. Kids get sick less often.
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? More convenient now.
16. Has the quality of the water changed?
17. How are you able to access water now? 2 times a day 20 minutes, more than previously.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) No, not convenient to reach school now.
24. Do you have access to financial institutions now? Not influenced by relocation
25. Do you have access to market or other services? Was much better before.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Better in terms of amenities being inside the room.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Would prefer to go back to initial place if they were able to leave.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Amenities inside the room.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Social network not kept.

Appendices
NUMBER 11
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Santosh
Date 9/5/07
Time
Current Job Irons clothes(W)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkupor living in new residence now for 8 months
2. Distance from previous location? 30-40 minutes by bus
3. Was the social network preserved? Approx 25% of people of community moved, however they were
moved singularly.
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? Relocated through MMRDA.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? No choice as they had problems with papers, transit accommodation
not offered.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? No notice but was on list.
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Yes
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? MM
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes husband lost job due to time needed to chase MMRDA for a
home. Wife now irons for a living.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Lost job but wife works from home.
11.Change in income? Income much less now
12. Is there any changes in your expenses?
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Difficult as income is very low at the moment. Complains that they
had to pay bills not belonging to them.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation?
17. How are you able to access water now? More frequent but is concerned.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.)
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes not transferred.
24. Do you have access to financial institutions now?
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? No jobs close by.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation?
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Job prospects in surrounding area.

Appendices
NUMBER 12
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Nelson
Date 9/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2 sons married
Current Job Housewife(W)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chembur
2. Distance from previous location? 5km
3. Was the social network preserved? Yes, 200 people are relocated into two different areas.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? They requested different site and they got it.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2 months
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Yes. One of the members were a member of NSDF.
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? H+W, NSDF and MM member after coming.
ECONOMIC:
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, 5Km, 18 minutes by walk.
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? 4000-5000rp per month for transportation.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Deteriorated due to mosquitoes.
17. How are you able to access water now? All but specific hours.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Better. Clean.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep Previous
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? More criminality
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Better
25. Do you have access to market or other services? Reduced
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? More polluted.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Ill, miss the old way of life.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? All facilities of the market.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Criminality. They want one police station, school, and hospital.

Appendices
NUMBER 13
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Shantaram Panben
Date 9/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2 girls, 2 sons
Current Job Housewife(W), Taxi Driver(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chembur in road side
2. Distance from previous location? 5km
3. Was the social network preserved? Yes, 200 people are relocated into two different areas.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? They requested different site and they got it. Then are told to go to
Gautam Nagar.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 2 months
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? H+W, NSDF and MM member after coming.
ECONOMIC:
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? 1500rp per month for transportation.
SOCIAL:
16. Has the quality of the water changed? No
17. How are you able to access water now? All but 1 and half hour.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Confortable, but they have to make a queue. Dirty in midnight.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep Previous
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? No. Do not feel safe.
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Better
25. Do you have access to market or other services? Reduced. Market is Very far away.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? More polluted.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Proud they own a house. Room is sufficient.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Maintenance. Market is far.

Appendices
NUMBER 14
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Usha Gudino
Date 9/5/07
Time
Current Job Housewife(W), Temporary worker(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chembur
2. Distance from previous location? 5km, One station away by bus
3. Was the social network preserved? No
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Were sent to transit camp at Vadala for a year prior to relocation.
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? NSDF- yes, Not MM before relocation.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes, due to being in transit camp before for a year economic network
strongly weekned.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? N/A as husband gets only temporary jobs.
11.Change in income? Substantially
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 300RPs per month for maintenance, and more amount spent for
the transportation.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Manage with great difficulty.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Kids fall sick more here.
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Bad quality - oily water here.
17. How are you able to access water now? Not available for 24 hours as earlier. 2 times a day.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Children changed their school.
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Not much.
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? No
22. Security of tenure? House allotment letter.
25. Do you have access to market or other services? No change
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Better
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? OK
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? They don’t want to go back.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? They are still getting adjusted here.

Appendices
NUMBER 15
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Rajni Pawas
Date 9/5/07
Time 14:50
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2kids, father in law, 2brothers in law
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar - kanjumar
2. Distance from previous location? 30 minutes by bus
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated?
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? MM savings account.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes, now husband is a driver.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? No as it changes all of the time.
11.Change in income? No.
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. Vegetables are more expensive here.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Yes, but annoyed they had to pay maintenance bills of construction
workers.
SOCIAL:
17. How are you able to access water now?
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) No.
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but no ration shop close by.
23-1. Is there any change in perceptions and treatments of GOM towards you? Still feels government should be involved more.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Cleaner in previous location.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Doesn’t like the area.
Would like more transport and social infrastructure.
OTHERS:
29. Negative aspect of the relocation?

Appendices
NUMBER 16
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Vandana Sadu
Location Transit Camp
Date 9/5/07
Time
Current Job Housewife(W), Officer(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? City centre, 1 & half year before
2. Distance from previous location? Half an hour by train
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA, SPARC helped their relocation process.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Survey is conducted 2~3 years before for ID number.
As soon as possible in relocation.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, by train.
11.Change in income?
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes, market and hospital increased, travelling decreased.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills?
SOCIAL:
17. How are you able to access water now?
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep previous
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Yes
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Not good
OTHERS:
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Environment, water

Appendices
NUMBER 17
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Sharada Kamat
Date 9/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 3 kids, grandmother
Current Job Sell water(W)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar
2. Distance from previous location? Half an hour by bus
3. Was the social network preserved?
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? themselves
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? No notice
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes. Lost his shop.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, by train.
11.Change in income? Reduced, because the space of shop do not capture as many
customers as before.
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes. 200RPs per month for utility bills and transportation (highway)
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Can not pay electricity bill.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Suffered at first when they came here.
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Worse
17. How are you able to access water now? Have to walk 5 minutes.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Dirty, not maintaining, mentioning that who is responsible for that?
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Changed school, 20 minutes away.
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? No, feel difficult to secure because surrounded by strangers.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Feel difficult to secure.
OTHERS:
28. Positive aspects of the relocation? Acquired shelter.
29. Negative aspect of the relocation? Job has been lost.

Appendices
NUMBER 18
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Vanita
Date 9/5/07
Time
Household Composition Wife, Husband, 2kids, 1brother in law, 1sister in law
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Siddhart colony Chembur to transit camp.
2. Distance from previous location?
3. Was the social network preserved? 27 families moved into transit together, 16 got permanent rooms in
full-accommodation.
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process?
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Wadala and here (shown the places).
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 3 notices, 7,8,15th of dec.
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Knew SPARC.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes, Wife had to leave job.
Husband still has job.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Distance for husband has increased (+1hour).
11.Change in income? Yes due to wife losing job.
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Yes here is more expensive.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before yes, after no (has to travel back to original doctor).
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Little water.
17. How are you able to access water now? SPARC brings round tanker every 3-4days.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Community Toilets.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Keep previous & has to travel further (+30minutes) (45 / 15).
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes but have to use other place.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Not good, environment not good.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Atmosphere not good.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 19
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Bhimrao
Date 9/5/07
Time
Household Composition Husband, Wife, 4 SONS
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Ghatkopar (in transit for 1 year)
2. Distance from previous location?
3. Was the social network preserved? Out of 52, 41 already has housing – community moved to 3 separate
locations goatham nagar, indira, kanjumar.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? No notice.
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? SPARC - A couple of days before the demolitions.
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? No.
11.Change in income? No.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? Much less. Water is 50 rupees a day.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before he was close to a doctor but now there is no doctor.
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Less water availability.
17. How are you able to access water now? SPARC send water tanker every 3-4 days.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Community toilets.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Go to new school, had to drop out of old school.
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes but has to go to old place.
25. Do you have access to market or other services? Getting closer. Kerosene is distributed.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Dirty there is a garbage dump close by and lots of flies.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Bad smell.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 20
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Chandralekha Hagade
Location A household now closer to widened road after MUIP
Date 9/5/07
Time
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Cembur
2. Distance from previous location? 15 minutes on foot
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation?
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? 10 RPs monthly for toilet. 10 - 500 RPs for water.
13. Are you able to pay utility bills? No. Did not pay for electricity in last 5 years.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Kept previous
17. How are you able to access water now? Tap from BMC. Quantity is sufficient.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) They have community toilet, but have to walk 5 - 6 minutes.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) 10 minutes walk.
20. Do you feel safe/secure now? Quite secure in area.
25. Do you have access to market or other services? No change. 10 - 15 minutes walk.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Dangerous, because road is quite close to their house.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Very much scared about relocation.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 21
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Habiba
Date 8/5/07
Time 15:30
Household Composition 7 (2 females, 2 males, 3 children)
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chuna Bhati
2. Distance from previous location? 3 stations away, half an hour by train
3. Was the social network preserved? 6 families from the slum were moved together into the same building.
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA without explanation, surveying names of people and told
them to move.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 15 days notice. Hadn’t heard anything before.
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? No. They knew 1 – 2 months after relocation.
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? Are member of MM.
ECONOMIC:
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Was closer to job before.
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Expenses before was Rs120 now Rs160. Consumption increased.
SOCIAL:
14. Is there any change in your health since relocation? Better
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before – private clinics (more expensive). Now – Doctor in compound
(cheaper)
17. How are you able to access water now? Water is stored in overhead tanks and released for 1 hour (decided by
the committee) per day – 2 hours for some buildings.
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but ration card not transferred so have to purchase groceries at
previous location.
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? People have more respect for both husband and wife.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Like it here. Didn’t like it before.
26-2.How do you feel about the quality of environment in general? Cleaner environment. safer for kids to play on balcony and in
compound.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 22
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Deepak Shelar
Date 8/5/07
Time 15:55
Household Composition 6 (5 males, 1 female)
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chembur, Eastern Express Highway
2. Distance from previous location? 10 – 15 minutes
4. Who conducted the actual relocation process? MMRDA, not mentioning that there were 2 different relocation sites.
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Had a choice about the area but not of the building.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 3 months notice
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? No (2 – 3 months after)
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? Yes. Husband kept the same job. 3 kids were able to get jobs after
relocation.
10. Distance to the jobs changed? Yes, increase in distance (30 minutes).
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? Before expenses were less, Now – RPs 300 for maintenance plus food.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Yes. Before - had a family doctor (cheaper). Now -This doctor more
costly.
16. Has the quality of the water changed? Water is more consistent now.
17. How are you able to access water now? 1 – 2 hours per day from storage tanks.
18. Are you satisfied with the sanitation facilities provided? (toilet etc.) Very satisfied – have own toilet.
19. Education satisfied? (were children able to continue previous school?) Kids finished school. 1 children will attend college.
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but food is more costly now because ration card is not
transferred.
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Get more respect now.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? It is better than before.
27. How do you feel psychologically about environment here? Kids played around slum but have no friends here now.
OTHERS:

Appendices
APPENDIX 1 Interview Details to Project Affected People (23)
NUMBER 23
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Jahana Begum
Date 8/5/07
Time 16:15
Household Composition 5 (2 kids, 3 adults – 3 female, 1 male)
Current Job
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chembur, Eastern Express Highway
2. Distance from previous location? 30 minutes
5. Were you given a choice as to where you would like to be relocated? Protested – given choice of transit camp.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? Heard rumours of the relocation for about 2 years; given 2 weeks
before actual relocation.
7. Had you heard SPARC, MM or NSDF prior to the relocation? Heard about SPARC at transit camp.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation?
12. Is there any changes in your expenses? More or less the same.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Keep previous.
17. How are you able to access water now? Before 10 family shared one pipeline so cost was shared (cheaper).
Now – no family to share cost with (expensive).
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Before - discriminated. Now - status has improved.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Like it better here, quieter, more peaceful.
OTHERS:

Appendices
NUMBER 24
FACE SHEET
Name of interviewee(s) Waheeda Shakil
Date 8/5/07
Time 16:35
Household Composition 4 (2 males, 2 females)
Current Job Dress maker(W), Road construction(H)
QUESTIONS
PROCESS:
1. Where were you previously located? Chembur (6 months in transit camp)
2. Distance from previous location? 10 – 15 minutes
3. Was the social network preserved? 15 – 20 households came but not at the same time - all relocated
here.
6. How much notice were you given prior to the move? 1 week (sufficient time)
8. Are you currently a member of any one of them? No. Not interested.
ECONOMIC:
9. Were there any change in family jobs as a result of the relocation? No. Both kept job and no effect on customer.
SOCIAL:
15. Did you have access to doctors prior to and after the relocation? Before - more expensive. Now - cheaper, nice.
17. How are you able to access water now? Before - Water was shared. Now - More expensive here.
21. Do you have a ration card?/Election card? Yes, but no ration shop here.
23-2. Change of self-perception and perceptions of society in general towards you? Remained the same – the say I got a house free of cost.
26-1. How do you feel about the quality of the built environment (layout etc.)? Feel much better here.
OTHERS:

Consulted Texts
Consulted Texts
Appadurai, Arjun (2001), “Deep Democracy: Urban Governmentality and the Horizon of Politics”,
Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 13, No. 2, pp. 23-43.
Bartlett, Sheridan (n.d.), The work of the Alliance in Mumbai and other cities: an alternative
model for responding to urban children in poverty, Save the children Sweden.
Burra, Sundar (2005), “Towards a pro-poor framework for slum upgrading in Mumbai, India”,
Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 67-88
Burra, Sundar (2003), Combining top-down and grassroots land approaches in Mumbai, UN-
Habitat, Habitat Debate 2003, Vol. 9, No4.
Burra, Sundar (1999), SPARC Housing Exhibitions, November 1999, DPU working papers No 104.
Chaplin, Susan E. (1999), "Cities, seweres and poverty: India’s politics of sanitation", Environment
and Urbanization, Vol.11, No.1, April.
Das, S.K. (1980), "Bombay", in Mahdu Sahrin (Ed.), Policies Towards Urban Slums, ESCAP, Bangkok,
pp. 101 113.
Deaton, Angus and Kozel, Valerie (2005), “Data and Dogma: The Great Indian Poverty Debate”,
World Bank Research Observer, Vol. 20, issue 2, p.177
Desai, Vandana (1999), “Anatomy of the Bobay NGO sector”, Environment & Urbanization, Vol.
11, No. 1, pp. 247-265.
Dreze J., and Sen A, (2002), India Development and Participation, second edition, Oxford
University Press, pp.307-310,
Government of Maharashtra (1997), Guidelines for the implementation of slum rehabilitation

schemes in Greater Mumbai, Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai.
Grant, R. and Nijman, Jan (2002), “Globalization and the Corporate Geography of Cities in the
Less-Developed World”, Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 92 (2), pp. 320-
340.
Harris, Nigel (1995), "Bombay in a global economy; structural adjustment and the role of cities",
Cities, Vol.12, No.3, June, pp. 175 184.
Harris, N. et al. (1996), “Bombay and the international experience”, in Harris, N. and Frabricius, I.,
Cities & Structural adjustment, UCL Press, London, pp. 80-92.
Homeless International (2005), An Interview with Anil Kumar, Assistant General Manager, ICICI
Bank.
Levy, C. (1998) ‘Institutionalisation of Gender through Participatory Practice’ in Gujit, I. and M. K.

Shah (eds.) The Myth of Community: Gender Issues in Participatory Development.
Intermediate Technology Publications, London.

Consulted Texts
McKinsey (2003), Vision Mumbai - Transforming Mumbai into a World Class City, A Summary of
Recommendations, Bombay First, Mumbai and McKinsey and Company, Mumbai.
Mitlin, Diana (2003), “A Fund to secure land for shelter; supporting strategies of the organized
poor”, Environment & Urbanization, Vol. 15, No. 1, pp. 181-192.
MMRDA (n.d.), Regional Plan for the Mumbai Metropolitan Region 1996-2011
Mutatkar, Rohit (2005), Social group dispartities and poverty in India, Indira Gandhi Institute of
Development Research, Working Paper Series No WP2005-004, Sept. 1.
Mumbai Property Exchange (n.d.) Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Projects – MUIP Report.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (n.d.), City Development Plan.
Neuwirth, Robert (2004), 'Shadow Cities: A Billion Squatters, A New Urban World', Routledge,
London, ISBN 0 415 93319 6, Chapter 3: Mumbai: Squatter Class Structure, pp.101-142
Nitti, Rosanna and Shyamal Sarkar (2003), Reaching the Poor through Sustainable Partnerships:
The Slum Sanitation Program in Mumbai, India, Urban Notes, WB.
Patel, Sheela, Celine d’Cruz and Sundar Burra (2002), “Beyond evictions in a global city: people-
managed resettlement in Mumbai”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol 14, No 1, April 2002,
pp 159-177.
Patel, Sheela and Diana Mitlin (2001), The work of SPARC and its partners Mahila Milan and the
National Slum Dwellers Federation in India, IIED Working Paper 5 on Urban Poverty Reduction,
London.
Pugh, C. (1990), Housing and Urbanisation: A study of India, New Delhi and London, Sage.
Chapter IX: Bombay, pp. 253-286
Ruet, Joël, Saravanan V. S. and Zerah Marie-Hélène (2002), The water & sanitation scenario in
Indian Metropolitan cities, Centre de Sciences Humaines Occasional Paper No6.
SPARC (2003), Cities Alliance Project on Pro-poor Slum Upgrading Framework for Mumbai, India,
Revisited Report Submitted to Cities Alliance/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements,
June 2003.
SPARC Society for the promotion of Area Resource Centres (n.d.), Bringing citizens’ voice and
client focus into service delivery, case study Low Cost Housing in Urban Communities, India.
Institute of Development Studies, University of Sussex, Brighton, UK.
SPARC, NSDF and Mahila Milan Alliance (2005), Citywatch: India, selected articles.
Swaminathan, Madhura (1995), "Aspects of urban poverty in Bombay”, Environment and

Urbanization, Vol.7, No.1, April, pp. 133 143.
Tiwari, Piyush and Parikh, Jyoti (1999), “Housing paradoxes in India: is there a solution?”, Building
and Environment, vol. 35, issue 1, pp.59

Consulted Texts
Patel, Sheela (1990), "Street children, hotels boys and children of pavement dwellers and
construction workers in Bombay: how they meet their daily needs", Environment and
Urbanization, Vol. 2, No. 2, October, pp. 9-26.
Patel, S., (2004), “Bombay/Mumbai: globalisation, inequalities and politics”, in Joseph Gugler
(ed), World Cities Beyond the West: Globalization Development and Inequality, Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge pp.328-349.
Patel, Sheela and Celine D'Cruz (1993), "The Mahila Milan crisis credit scheme; from a seed to a
tree", Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 5, No. 1, pp. 9-17.
Patel, Sheela and Mitlin, Diana (2004), “Grasroots-driven development: the Alliance of SPARC,
the National Slum Dwellers Federation and Mahila Milan”, in Mitlin, D. and Satterhwaite, D.
(Ed.), Empowering Squatter Citizen, Earthscan, London, pp. 216-241
SPARC (1990), “Developing new NGO lines”, Environment and Urbanization, Vol. 2, No. 1, April,
pp. 91-104.
SPARC (2003), Cities Alliance Project on Pro-poor Slum Upgrading Framework for Mumbai, India,
Revisited Report Submitted to Cities Alliance/United Nations Centre for Human Settlements,
June 2003.
SPARC (2004), extracts from Citywatch:India 2004 and Citywatch: India 2005.

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected People

Cargado por

Información del documento

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected People

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project:

Relocation and Rehabilitation of Project Affected

Student Report by:

Development and Planning Unit, University College London, June 2007.

Alliance Combination of SSNS, NSDF, MM and SPARC

BMC / MCGM Brihan Mumbai Corporation /

Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

CBOs Community-Based Organizations

CLIFF Community Led Infrastructure Finance Facility

FSI Floor Space Index

GOM Government of Maharashtra

MHADA Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority

MMRDA Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Agency

MTSU Mumbai Transformation Support Unit

MUIP Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project

MUTP Mumbai Urban Transport Project

NGO Non Governmental Agency

NSDF National Slum Dwellers Federation

PAP Project Affected Person/People

SHGs Self Help Groups

SPARC Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres

SRA Slum Rehabilitation Authority

TDR Tradable Development Right

ToR Terms of Reference

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People -5

III. Pre-constructed relocation sites unsuitable to the needs of PAPs.

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People -6

We are thankful to Mr Jain, project manager of MTSU; Swadheen Kshatriya, principal

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People -7

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People -8

Table 4: Research Objectives

To identify the s trengths and weaknesses of the strategies pursued by the

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People -9

Transformation: Diagnosis and Proposals

A transformative process is one that will:

Criteria were generated from a breakdown of the definition of

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 10

Table 5: Transformation Criteria

Improved quality of life of project affected Ability of affected persons to actively

Strengthenin g the Alliance’ s working Capacity building of the Alliance and

An enduring institutional framework that is Responsible, accountable, democratic

The formulation of criteria and indicators14 have provided a framework

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 11

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 12

SPARC, MM and NSDF

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 13

MMRDA and Private Developers

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 14

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 15

Source: Presentation by Mr. Milink Mhaiskar, Jt.

Metropolitan Commissioner, MMRDA

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 16

N Constituencies Structures Development

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 17

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 18

Proposal Ia. Strategic Resource Centres

The resource centres should seek to:

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 19

Motivations and Impacts

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 20

Monitoring and Evaluation.

Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project: RnR of Project Affected People - 21

Understanding Proposal Ia through the Web of Institutionalization