Slum Bombay (final film) (Ralli Jacob, Rafeeq Ellias, P.K. Das)

Slum Bombay (final film)

Director: Ralli Jacob, Rafeeq Ellias, P.K. Das; Cinematographer: Rafeeq Ellias

Duration: 00:38:22; Aspect Ratio: 1.366:1; Hue: 40.906; Saturation: 0.204; Lightness: 0.195; Volume: 0.087; Cuts per Minute: 7.740; Words per Minute: 132.134

A film that explores the various aspects of housing for the poor in the urban context, covering the socio-political, economic and architectural aspects.

It begins with a brief definition of the problem and the seriousness of the housing situation facing the urban poor, with particular reference to the aspirations and dreams of the children. Through a series of interviews with opinion leaders and decision makers, including bureaucrats, architects, planners, environmentalists, social workers and politicians, it brings out the various dilemmas of housing.

The role of organizations like HUDCO, MHADA, P.M.G.P, B.M.C, etc., are stressed. Besides various case histories are cited as pointer to possible solutions.

The film thus covers low-cost housing and alternative technologies, town planning issues including F.S.I., the importance of people's participation.

Produced by:
Indian Institute of Architects, Commincation Board
In conjunction with Commonwealth Association of Architects
and Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO)

VO: Concealed under millions of these roof-tops lies a city under siege, Bombay, a city of 10 million people where no less than 8.5 million live on pavements, in slums and in dilapidated buildings known as chawls.

VO: Everybody dreams of a home.

VO: Unfortunately for most children a home remains just that, a dream, unfulfilled.

VO: The stark reality, 44 years after independence. Mera Bharat mahaan.

This is the real Bombay, covering over 8,000 acres of land, an integral part of the city's economic and political life. A fact the other Bombay can no longer ignore.

Today slum Bombay is the focus of attention of politicians and bureaucrats, architects and environmentalists, lawyers and trade unionists, besides builders and developers for differing reasons and motives of course.

K. Padmanabhaiah (BMC Commissioner): Now of the population of Bombay almost about 55% are people living in the slums. And... this problem was not given adequate attention in the past, and for the first time new provisions have been made under the Development Control Regulations.

S.K. Sharma (Chairman & M.D. HUDCO): Now if everybody wants to live in Bombay, there is no way we can have the type of land available. Then you say that the land is too short, so we say 'okay, everybody should start living in flats, or we go on to have very dense settlements. And poor people who cannot afford land or who do not have access to land - it becomes very expensive - then they are pushed into squatter settlements.

S.K. Sharma (Chairman & M.D. HUDCO): Now as a matter of fact we recognise that slums really are not a problem that way, but a solution, where people have found a shelter solution for themselves.

VO: Call it problem or solution, slums haunt even the nation's capital, New Delhi, otherwise a show place to the world. Inevitably, the housing debate begins here.

Y1: Yet another dimension to the problem is the unprecedented growth of the urban centres leading to congestion, rise in land values, and degradation in human values as the poor in large numbers live in subhuman conditions. What is needed is a balanced, non-exploitative pattern of development in which the people in the backward areas and the poor in other areas share the fruits of economic growth.

VO: Low cost housing and alternative technologies are the buzz words here.

Y1: Special attention is given to re-establish mud as a legitimate building material.

VO: Not all experts agree.

Gautam Bhatia (Architect): Well frankly I don't think mud has any major relevance for mass housing because we tend to have a very romantic notion of using mud.

Gautam Bhatia (Architect): if you look around you'll see that most of the institutions that are involved in doing research in mud haven't really built substantially to make mud a sort of relevant low cost material.

Gautam Bhatia (Architect): I have used the material - but more again out of these romantic notions that architects have, that everyone ought to live in mud.

Gautam Bhatia (Architect): We really ought to start from the top level down. If the prime minister promotes a certain housing idea then the first person on which it ought to be tried is the prime minister himself. Or if HUDCO pushes a certain idea I think the chairman of HUDCO ought to be also part of that scheme.

VO: Even an expert on alternative technology concedes.

Anil Laul (Architect): But one realised at the end of it that one can cut down 30% on the cost of construction which is really chicken feed compared to the land price. The first thing one has to look into apart from low cost housing, you've got to look into low cost land.

Anil Laul (Architect): And the main problem in land cost having spiralled the way it has is primarily to land owning agencies or the government agencies getting into a business, which they had no business to be in.

PPF_housing

VO: Indeed when it comes to the business of land, the government shows remarkable enterprise.

George Fernandes (Member of Parliament): In Delhi for instance, the state itself is the criminal. You have the Delhi Development Authority which is supposed to be responsible for housing and so on and so forth. What they are doing is they are acquiring land from the farmers at let's say a rupee a unit and then selling it at 500 or 700 rupees a unit.

VO: Paradoxically the Janata Govt of Mr. Fernandes could not implement its own legislation, nor could subsequent governments.

Colin Gonsalves (Lawyer): Government's own records show that the government has approximately 2,000 hectares or 5,000 acres of land, available for housing the poor. Under the Urban Land Ceiling Act 1976, government was empowered to take this land at a rupee a square foot. This land could have been given to slum dwellers at a rupee a square foot.

h2
h2
ULCRA

Colin Gonsalves (Lawyer): Now will the government give this land to slum dwellers? Will the government implement the Urban Land Ceiling Act of 1976?

Colin Gonsalves (Lawyer): Government says today that it intends to scrap the Urban Land Ceiling Act, that it does not intend to give any land to slum dwellers and this land which it can give at a rupee a square foot, it is going to sell on the black market, on the open market, for 1,000 rupees a square foot to private builders.

VO: Today vested interests find increasing support among people in power to scrap the Urban Land Ceiling Act altogether. Meanwhile the pressure on existing land, especially in slums takes new dimensions.

Gurbir Singh (Journalist & Political Activist): Just this morning we saw a certain Popatlal Builder from Kurad village sees this land as suitable for shops. They gathered a bunch of goons, paid each 10,000 rupees, paid off the BMC and the police, and are forcefully building here. And then comes unity, struggle, let's all gather.

Gurbir Singh (Journalist & Political Activist): The BMC stated in writing that they will do nothing on this matter, it is not in their jurisdiction, and that we ourselves must protect ourselves. So then we showed that letter to the people, told them how it is, that the BMC is not going to protect them.

Nyay Sagar
Sebastian PA

VO: There are other more subtle forms of land grab,

P.A. Sebastian (Lawyer & CPDR Secretary): The Foreshore Cooperative Housing Society is a society of which members are exclusively members of the High Court of Bombay or the Supreme Court. They have been given this land which had been reserved for housing the dis-housed, at a nominal lease rent of 6.5% of the market rate of 1,050 per metre, which means the land has been given virtually free. In this particular case, the judges went and begged for concession from the Chief Ministers like Antuley and Sharad Pawar who were generous enough to oblige them and give them land that had been reserved for housing the dis-housed.

VO: Even in death some people are more equal than others.

George Fernandes (Member of Parliament): In Delhi the dead have more land than the living. You are creating a massive graveyard in Delhi for the rich, for the rulers. Nothing could be more obscene.

VO: Contrast this with the plight of the living, and our increasing insensitivity.

Colin Gonsalves (Lawyer): We have the famous Olga Tellis case in the Supreme Court where it was argued before supreme court by the govt counsel. They said 'My Lord today these slum dwellers are in the slums, tomorrow they'll come onto the pavements and the streets and the next day they'll be here squatting in the Supreme Court'. And the Supreme Court held in Olga Tellis' case that the right of the middle class person to walk on the pavement and presumably walk his dog on the pavement is a far superior right than the right of the pavement dweller to live on the pavement.

VO: Pavements are meant for walking. But do the poor really have a choice?

Subhash: My name is Subhash Parshuram Pawar, I come from Solapur zilla. We came to Bombay about 20 years back. A few days here, a few days there, and like this we stayed where we could for 20 years. We left our villages for lack of employment. No labour work there. We have no land to cultivate there either. 4-5 rupees earned from labour cannot fill our stomachs.

Marathi

VO: The fact is that the city of Bombay needs its pavement and slum dwellers. Dharavi, Asia's largest slum is an island of small industry. Not only does it contribute to the city of Bombay, it earns valuable foreign exchange as well.

VO: Yet the authorities continuously unleash their might on the hapless slum dweller. But when it comes to unauthorised construction by the rich, the same authorities look the other way.

Pratibha Building, Breach Candy

Om Chambers, Babulnath

VO: Slum dwellers however are now fighting for their rights.

Gurbir Singh (Journalist & Activist): On the one hand, demolitions were continuing. On the other hand the Supreme Court had denied us our rights. Because of this we decided that if we lost here too, then it will be difficult for the Nivara Hak Suraksha Samithi to get back on it's feet again. But if we won here, it may give all slum dwellers new enthusiasm.
Gurbir Singh recounts the context and circumstances that prompted NHSS members to sit on hunger strike. (filmed a couple of years later at the Dindoshi plot that was allotted to the Sanjay Gandhi Nagar residents, and what would eventually be called Sangharsh Nagar.

Gurbir SIngh

Anand Patwardhan
Anand Patwardhan recalls the days of the hunger strike. Hamza Ali, K Bhaskaran and Gurubai Koli, the three residents from Sanjay Gandhi Nagar are next to him. This interview was taken some years later in the new Sanjay Gandhi Nagar when they were finally given the land in Dindoshi, Goregaon.

Anand Patwardhan: My companions and I sitting here have begun a hunger strike. Shabana Azmi joined us in the strike on its second day. At the end of 4 days we were successful. The government asked us to end the hunger strike saying they would give us a piece of land elsewhere.

Shabana Azmi: It came as a complete surprise that we could actually achieve results. Because at a point the government stance was so hard, they were saying that there is no land available so how are you going to make it available? And then at 3 o'clock in the afternoon they realised on a Friday that on Saturday and Sunday - because the newspapers were paying it enough attention and on Saturday and Sunday it was going to be carried in all the papers and so they ought to do something for it. And hey Presto! Within 15 minutes this land was available. So it came as a surprise and it also brought in a great spirit of optimism that we struggled and we achieved results.

Shabana Azmi

Bhaskaran: But the government has planned nothing for the future in terms of providing us amenities. Its become very clear that to move forward this struggle must continue.

Anand Patwardhan: This is a precedent for us. And that's the message we're spreading, that just as we got this land after so much struggle, those who struggle and fight will reap some benefits. That's the only way to get anything in Bombay, not by being quiet.

Gurubai: If we hadn't done all this, they wouldn't have given us any land. In fact they would've made living here hell for us.

Gurubai Koli
Hamsa

Hamsa: Some people think this way - now that we've come here, we struggled and got this land, must we continue struggling and fighting further?

Hamsa: I feel that's not the right way of thinking. Just as we got this land after a struggle, we must continue the struggle for the sake of our bastis (neighbourhood slums) too.

VO: In the '80s major World Bank and prime minister's grant projects were announced for slum Bombay amidst the usual fanfare.

Prabhakar Kunte (Ex-chairman MHADA): The 100 crores of rupees which Mr. Rajiv Gandhi when he was the prime minister allocated to... for Bombay's development, some plans were made by the then state government. The PMGP has done excellent work in urban renewal. They have done some good work in Dharavi also. But, there is definitely some scope for improvement in all that.

Ranjit Naik (Architect): Of course under the current system we can't expect completely clean things to come out. There is an element of malpractice, there is an element even from society's side, slum dweller's side, as well as bureaucratic system is so bad. Our prime minister's grant project is nothing but a political gimmick. It doesn't solve problems for 100 crores.

Sharad Mahajan (Architect): Now what has happened, what is getting implemented is strictly a governmental housing with government financing. The money comes from PMGP, they get it from HUDCO, the contract is awarded by PMGP, the people's participation is not there at all. This is the reality.

Sharad Mahajan (Archistect): As far as the approach is concerned, the planner is concerned or the architect is concerned, I think they are utter failures.

Jockin A.: The PMGP government sponsored scheme itself - completely in-built scheme - to throw people out from Dharavi so that these people go and create one more Dharavi whereby government will create one more PMGP - continue to exist. Plus people will be thrown out continuously out of their own residence and out of their survival also. This is the strategy of the government.

Jockin Arputham
Slums are planned by the state, a theory the Jockin Arputham has always maintained, going back to the 1950's when the first two "poor-mans" Janata Colonies were formed. Here a young Jockin argues that the government's slum redevelopment/housing schemes are designed to eventually displace the inhabitants who are compelled to move out for a number of structural and bureaucratic reasons, causing them to constantly move and settle (into) one slum after another.

VO: While vested interests squabble over the spoils of a mega project, a new set of rules with far reaching consequences have just been announced.

K. Padmanabhaiah (BMC Commissioner): Crux(?) is something like this - the government and public authorities have tried to improve slims in the past through various schemes, but they could only scratch the surface. The most important problem is the finance. The amount required to construct 11 lakh tenements is about 5,930 crores of rupees. Firstly forget about the government trying to put in this type of money because its not there. Two - is this type of money available even in the economy as a whole? Even that is doubtful. So realising this for the first time we thought we must bring in the private sector very much into this.

Bal Thackeray (Shiv Sena Chief): I am of the opinion the privatisation or 'privating' is going to be a best solution.

privatisation
Two architects, concurring points of view. Bal Thackeray, articulating his scheme for "free housing", by allowing privatisation and builders to re-develop slum land, and Hafeez Contractor saying we need more liberalisation of land in the real-estate sector.

Hafeez Contractor (Architect): I feel that they are very progressive and they will help the city tremendously. But I feel that they should have been much much more liberalised.

VO: Suddenly the builder has acquired new respectability.

Hafeez Contractor (Architect): We've always been criticising a builder - okay yes, in each and every field, in each and every community, in each and every caste creed everything there are some black sheep. Okay. We're not talking about that. But, considering that every time a person feels that 'oh a builder makes so much of profit' - Yes, I would say, why not. He has to make profit. He is investing a hell of a lot of money.

K. Padmanabhaiah (BMC Commissioner): Basically raised by people who are not very knowledgeable is that builders are going to make a big packet out of this.

Bal Thackeray (Shiv Sena Chief): Question is - the builder - the builder before those people, the builder before we people, or before me - a lot of difference. There my builder is not going to have any profit. No profit. Their builders are like sharks.

Bal Thackeray

VO: Meet one of India's most successful builders.

Sushil Ansal (Developer and Builder): Generally the private builders are clubbed for development of houses for the affluent only. But it is not a correct position because now the times have changed.

Sushil Ansal (Developer and Builder): It is quite true when you say that normally private sector is recognised for making houses for the affluent and for the rich people. But now the trend has changed and there are developers who are developing houses for the poor and for the masses. And the change is that private initiative or private corporate sector can also be motivated to develop houses for the economically weaker section. Not only houses, even sites and services. Why should the government alone take upon itself the responsibility? Why can't they also involve the private sector to do this? And they are willing to do it.

Charles Correa (Architect): The real responsibility of course lies with the chief actor on the stage and that's government, its not the developers. Developers don't create demand. They are just panderers to demand.

Charles Correa

Colin Gonsalves

VO: Opposition is mounting against international and domestic pressure to privatise.

Colin Gonsalves (Lawyer): First of all it means that the 40 year old policy of government to provide housing to the poor, cheap or free of charge is being jettisoned. It means now for the first time builders will enter slums, builders will make houses, and those houses will be made principally for the upper classes. Government is now saying that poor people will no longer get any money for housing from government or government agencies. That's the first thing.

Colin Gonsalves (Lawyer): The second, and this is more disturbing, is that earlier whereas government used to enter slums and bulldoze slums, now the government is going to allow private builders to enter slums, they will start building in slums, they will bring their private armies in, their private gunda gangs in, and these gangs will by a combination of persuasion and force push the slum dwellers out and build in the places of slums high rise apartments.

George Fernandes (Member of Parliament): We should not forget that the state itself is owned by a private chap today and he is utilising the state in whatever way possible, in his own style for his own purpose. Just now of course the catch word is privatisation. And in the next 6 months to one year if you do not roll back this whole IMF World Bank and privatisation fraud that is being perpetrated on India then you could as well say that we are back to the company days.

VO: An offspring of privatisation is a new set of development control rules with increased FSI on slum land as a bonus.

P.A. Sebastian (Lawyer & CPDR Secretary): The government had a statutory duty to lay the new DC rules before the legislative assembly, but it was not done. The representatives of the people were not given an opportunity to discuss it, debate it and pass it. It was done in a very undemocratic way.

P.A. Sebastian (Lawyer & CPDR Secretary): One of the important features of the new DC rules is that it raises FSI in slum areas from 1.33 or 1 to an FSI of 2.5 - the developer who develops the slum gets a surplus of 1.5 because he normally needs an FSI of 1 to accommodate all the people who already stay there. This means making a profit of about 400% because the cost of construction today may be about 300 rupees while the market price is about 1,200 rupees.

VO: The new DC rules represent a real estate bonanza for the mill owners in Bombay, while directly affecting the very existence of over 3 lakh textile workers and their families.

Hunger Striker: The new DC rules in Bombay city is out to destroy livelihood of all mill workers.

Hunger Striker 2: This is only catering to mill owner's desires to sell their land at exorbitant rates. This is not a struggle for raise or bonus, its a struggle for our identity.

Meena Menon (IFTU): Now the government is openly manipulating DC rules to enable selling of land at high rates. Effectively they not only intend to eradicate mills, but entire mill workers' neighbourhoods too.

VO: The increase in slum FSI has sparked off debate among professionals too.

Ranjit Naik (Architect): This FSI increase is the main.... I have been fighting with the government for the last 8 years. And additional FSI is required to create a grassroot study(?)

Hafeez Contractor (Architect): Give that area an additional FSI so that you give them such an additional FSI that he can make a real good building. He doesn't make another sort of slum which is the main thing that is happening in a lot of areas like Dharavi. Ground and one upper structure is being replaced by ground and 6 upper structure. You make it so liberalised that you have nice towers of 20 storeys high or 25 storeys high.

Charles Correa (Architect): This whole idea of putting them into high rise buildings to my mind is absolutely crazy unless you have a great subsidy per family. I think that even goes for a 4 or 5 storey building, forget about a 20 storey one.

anti-people
Charles Correa
high-rise

Charles Correa (Architect): We're going to invest more and more money over here and its going to take us further and further into high rise and high - very expensive solution and therefore further and further away from doing anything real about the poor.

Charles Correa (Architect): Any solution which improves the buildings at the cost of lowering the standard of amenities is going to be counter productive as far as amenities go.

Shyam Chainani (Environmentalist): We keep saying that higher FSI will accommodate more people. This is totally wrong, because what about the amenities? FSI is not just a numbers' game. FSI is a tool of design, its a tool of planning to regulate the number of people living in a particular area having regard to the services that you can provide them. Is it the intention that you just house these people like rats in a cage? Or do you want them to have schools, open spaces, fire brigade stations, you name it - the whole range of civic amenities.

K. Padmanabhaiah (BMC Commissioner): There can't be hard and fast rules, really. And if every city in the world can cope with high rise buildings in the sense 20 floors and all that, I don't know why we should feel so shy of this.

Shyam Chainani (Environmentalist): May I react to this? We are against high rise buildings. The trend the world over incidentally is against high rise buildings. Number 2, let us remember that high rise buildings are by and large much more costly than low rise buildings. Number 3, they are much more energy intensive. In a world that is crying out for energy these are 3 strikes against high rise buildings.

Shyam Chainani (Environmentalist): However, one sees the point that the higher you go the more open spaces you can get. But let me take you to some high rise areas like Cuffe Parade, Nariman Point and I will be very grateful if you showed me some open spaces which have been kept.

VO: The debate over high rise, FSI and alternative technologies are all very fine, but are our design solutions truly relevant and humane?

Anil Laul (Architect): At the moment our objective is to provide a comprehensive shelter. If the man, once he can introduce a comprehensive window, let him introduce the window as he likes. There would be separate articulation by that - somebody would provide a big window, somebody a smaller window, somebody will provide an arch - let that be his own expression.

Slum Dweller (Delhi): This is impossible, its too small. Our children will grow, not become smaller. Where will our growing families live? After our children marry and have their own children, where will the elders live? Where will the grand children live? Better than this is the slum.

Slum Dweller (Delhi): The slum dwellers don't like these tenements that the director has made, because this is more congested than their previous dwelling. No open spaces or ventilation here. They're locking us in cages. Even pigeons in zoos get more air and open space than this!

Anil Laul (Architect): We're very close to the norms laid down by the UN. The UN says that you have to give... it was worked out that you have to give about 25 sq metres for a family unit. But the law was that they are allowed to only build 75% which is 18 sq metres. What we've given is 15 sq metres as the liveable space, the toilet is common. So if you take all that its about 17 sq metres per family unit. Now this entire exercise is being done on the assumption that all the people that live in this camp have to be housed as is where is. And the density happens to be 630 dwelling units per hectare. So how can I adopt the UN norms? I have a problem to solve, not norms to meet.

Madhav Deobhakta (Architect): Just as food and health is an important personal requirement, shelter also is a requirement. And of course even though we find that all the socialist systems are crumbling, in one area the socialist system had definitely scored as far as housing is concerned. Because their planning in public housing or social housing was need based. And they tried to provide housing for example as the family grew the person got a bigger and bigger accommodation. Whereas what we are trying to do is because of the financial limitations we're shrinking standards. At one time we were thinking that 360 sq.ft.was the minimum dwelling size. Now when we couldn't provide 360 sq.ft. we got it down to 200. Now we're talking of 180. Or it may be 100. Now that's no way of solving people's problems.

VO: Is there then another way to solve this complex problem?

Prabhakar Kunte (Ex-chairman MHADA): I must tell you that though I headed that agency here, my own personal opinion is that housing is an individual subject. Housing cannot become a government or semi- government actiivity even.

K. Padmanabhaiah (BMC Commissioner): Perhaps this is one of the mistakes we made in this country - the government trying to do everything including manufacturing bread and manufacturing condoms, manufacturing you say what.

Hafeez Contractor (Architect): If I was in the government making laws then yes I can assure you that I can change the city in a matter of four years into one of the most beautiful cities of the world. Or I can at least lay the ground work to make into one of the most beautiful cities in the world.

Bal Thackeray (Shiv Sena Chief): With my program I think I will be giving free housing to 40 lakhs of people.living in hutments.

remote control

Prabhakar Kunte (Ex-chairman MHADA): I am against giving free houses which some people are talking about. I am totally against that, because again it is a part of that privatisation.

Bal Thackeray (Shiv Sena Chief): I've been criticised by a good many people about this permit system and all that. What about the people coming from the other parts of the states? That is also equally important. Even in Russia there is a permit system. A Bandra man, you see when he comes to Dadar actually his name is written his address is written, he's been asked where you're going to put up, how many days. And immediately they will check up whether the man has gone back or not. That's in Russia. But the communists here, they criticise my scheme. 'Oh we are Indians!' I say Yes we are Indians, but not Anglo-Indians.

VO: In contrast, more down to earth housing efforts have been made by people themselves with mixed results.

D.G. Parab (Architect): This particular effort is mutual self help. In fact in every slum people build their own house. So there is self help. But it is not mutual self help. That is bringing the community together. It is not necessary that your house should be built by a professional builder. What happens - the financial agency gives the loan when it is built by professional builder. Municipal authority gives a sanction when the plan is prepared by a professional designer. For designing a simple house you don't need an architect. If we give site and services with common facilities, the land will be within the reach of the people.

Meera Deobhakht (Architect): I think many such projects can be taken up with the help of professional people who are willing to give their time and willing to contribute by way of this kind of service.

Meera Deobhakht (Architect): They would be very happy to take advantage of such schemes and the housing situation can be improved to a certain extent - of course its no solution.

VO: Born out of struggle and sacrifice however, another slum continues its efforts undeterred.

Arvind Adarkar: Regardless of differences in our financial status, we shall continue to live together. And as our conditions imrpove we'll continue improving our house too.

Z: We should have uniform housing. We, united have struggled so far, for amenities like water, electricity, etc. That's how we should continue, together.

A: If one is weak and 4 people can carry him, support him and not let him fall. So we should all have uniform homes. And we should get to rest soonest.

Arvind Adarkar: We will go ahead only once you all decide on the plan.

P.K. Das: Make the plan real. But the main objective of this plan was such - each home is made individually on separate plots, each home would have an open space and 2 toilets and 2 taps would be provided common to 4 houses to begin with, in future these could also be 4. With this minimum requirement in mind we can begin work on this basti right away.

VO: Can any meaningful change take place without recognising the very right to housing?

George Fernandes (Member of Parliament): I believe that just as education is one of my rights just as the right to life is there, the right to live is there. If I don't have a house and you do not conceive my right to a house then in other words you create conditions in which I cannot have a house then my right to live also is questioned. If housing is my fundamental right then my fundamental right cannot be a matter of profiteering somebody else. So therefore the state has to intervene. The public bodies like the municipal corporation have to intervene. And you need to go in for a wholly new kind of legislation for this purpose. This has to become a major movement in the country. Housing as a fundamental right and a struggle to make housing a fundamental right.

Shabana Azmi: The perception of the slum dweller as the scum of the earth must change. I am not going to accept that because he is poor he has less a right to live than you and me. Its apartheid of the worst kind. The same kind of argument that says that a white has a greater right to live than a black, or that a man has more right to live than a woman. Its a violation of human rights and it cannot be accepted.

VO: The real solution then depends on the people's own struggle and sacrifice.

Gurbir Singh: Friends, we must continue the struggle with our hearts and souls. Our goal is still far, not too far, but far. We must make a strong society and stand on our own feet. We're aware that amongst us too are some vermin - we won't let them go. We must all take an oath.

Pad.ma requires JavaScript.