‘Bole the jahan jhuggi wahan makaan, kahan hai vo ab?’: Three slum clusters near PM’s residence get eviction notices – The Indian Express

Report on Eviction Notices and Sustainable Development Goal Implications for Slum Clusters in New Delhi

1.0 Executive Summary

This report details the issuance of eviction and rehabilitation notices to three informal settlements (jhuggi jhopri clusters) located near Lok Kalyan Marg, New Delhi. The action, undertaken by the Land and Development Office (L&DO), Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, has significant implications for several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities), SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities).

2.0 Background of the Action

On October 29, eviction notices were issued to residents of three clusters following a joint survey conducted by the L&DO and the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in January 2024.

• Affected Communities: DID Camp (90 homes), Bhai Ram Camp (70-80 homes), and Masjid Camp (approx. 50 families).
• Directive: Residents classified as “illegal occupants” were directed to vacate the government-owned land within 15 days.
• Rehabilitation Plan: Eligible residents were offered alternative accommodation in the DUSIB Colony, Savda Ghevra, located approximately 40 km from their current location.

3.0 Conflict with SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

The eviction and relocation plan directly challenges the objectives of SDG 11, which aims to make cities inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

3.1 Target 11.1: Access to Adequate and Affordable Housing

1. Inadequate Housing: The proposed rehabilitation flats in Savda Ghevra are reported by residents to be uninhabitable and require further work, failing the “adequate and safe” housing criteria.
2. Forced Displacement: The action constitutes a forced eviction rather than an in-situ upgrade or relocation that preserves community and economic ties, contradicting the goal of upgrading slums.
3. Unaffordable Alternatives: The inability of residents to afford local market rent (Rs 10,000-15,000) highlights the failure to provide affordable housing solutions, pushing them towards housing precarity.

4.0 Broader Socio-Economic Impacts and Contradiction with SDGs

The displacement of these communities creates severe socio-economic disruptions that conflict with multiple SDGs.

• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth): The relocation threatens the livelihoods of residents, many of whom are employed as labourers and trainers at the nearby Race Course and Jaipur Polo Grounds. The 40 km distance makes commuting unfeasible, jeopardizing stable employment and pushing families towards poverty.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): The plan fails to account for the health needs of vulnerable residents. An elderly, bedridden man receiving treatment at the nearby Safdarjung Hospital faces a critical disruption to his continuity of care.
• SDG 4 (Quality Education): Families have expressed concern over the disruption to their children’s education, as their current schools are located near their homes. The relocation will likely interrupt or terminate their schooling.
• SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities): The policy disproportionately affects a marginalized urban population. The stringent eligibility criteria for rehabilitation, based on specific documentation and voter list records, systematically exclude many long-term residents, including renters, thereby exacerbating inequality.

5.0 Issues of Governance and Institutional Accountability (SDG 16)

The implementation process raises concerns regarding justice, transparency, and the accountability of institutions, which are central to SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

• Lack of Participation: Residents’ requests to be relocated within a 7-km radius to maintain access to livelihoods and essential services have been ignored.
• Transparency Deficit: The L&DO and DDA did not respond to requests for comment, indicating a lack of public accountability in the process.
• Policy Discrepancy: Residents noted a contradiction between the government’s stated policy of “jahan jhuggi wahan makaan” (a house where the slum is) and the current action of distant relocation.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article discusses issues of forced eviction, inadequate housing, poverty, and access to essential services for residents of slum clusters in Delhi. These issues are directly connected to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

• SDG 1: No Poverty: The article highlights the economic vulnerability of the residents. Asha’s statement, “We’ve looked for rooms to rent but they cost around Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000. We can’t afford that,” points to poverty and the inability to afford basic needs like housing. The residents’ jobs as labourers and horse trainers also indicate their low-income status.
• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being: The health of the residents is a significant concern. The case of Rooplal, a 65-year-old bedridden man, and his family’s reluctance to move because he “is receiving treatment at Safdarjung Hospital” shows the critical link between their location and access to healthcare services.
• SDG 4: Quality Education: The potential disruption of children’s education is mentioned. A resident expresses concern, stating, “The children’s school is nearby,” implying that the eviction and distant relocation would negatively impact their access to education.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The article connects the residents’ housing to their livelihoods. It states that “Many residents work at the Race Course and Jaipur Polo Grounds as horse trainers or labourers.” Relocating them 40 km away threatens their employment and economic stability.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The situation described in the article exemplifies inequality. Vulnerable groups, including the elderly (Rooplal), the poor, and those without proper documentation, are disproportionately affected by the eviction notice, highlighting their social and economic exclusion.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire narrative revolves around the living conditions in “jhuggi jhopri (JJ) cluster,” the threat of eviction from these informal settlements, and the debate over adequate rehabilitation and affordable housing.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article touches upon issues of governance and legal identity. The eviction notices, the process of determining eligibility based on documents like “Aadhaar, ration and voter ID cards,” and the reasons for being marked ‘ineligible’ (e.g., “name not found in any voter list”) relate to institutional processes and the importance of legal identity for accessing rights.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the issues discussed, several specific SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 11.1: “By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services and upgrade slums.” The article is a direct case study of this target. The residents live in a “jhuggi jhopri (JJ) cluster” and are facing eviction. The proposed rehabilitation flats are described by a resident as “not habitable” and “not ready yet,” questioning the adequacy of the alternative housing.
2. Target 1.4: “By 2030, ensure that all men and women, in particular the poor and the vulnerable, have equal rights to economic resources, as well as access to basic services, ownership and control over land and other forms of property…” The eviction notice labels residents as “illegal occupant[s] situated on government land,” highlighting their lack of secure land tenure. The unaffordable cost of alternative rental housing (Rs 10,000-15,000) further illustrates their limited access to economic resources and property.
3. Target 10.2: “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status.” The eviction process disproportionately affects vulnerable individuals like the 65-year-old, bedridden Rooplal. The distinction between ‘eligible’ and ‘ineligible’ residents based on documentation creates a clear division and potential for exclusion of the most marginalized.
4. Target 3.8: “Achieve universal health coverage, including… access to quality essential health-care services…” The family of Rooplal is unwilling to move to the rehabilitation site 40 km away because it would disrupt his ongoing treatment at a nearby hospital, demonstrating a clear challenge to accessing essential healthcare.
5. Target 8.5: “By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all…” The residents’ proximity to their workplaces, such as the Race Course and Jaipur Polo Grounds, is crucial for their livelihoods. The proposed distant relocation threatens their ability to maintain their jobs.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article provides several quantitative and qualitative data points that can serve as indicators to measure progress.

• Indicator for Target 11.1 (Proportion of urban population living in slums): The article explicitly mentions the existence and size of three slum clusters: DID Camp (90 homes), Bhai Ram Camp (70-80 homes), and Masjid Camp (around 50 families). The number of people facing eviction and the quality of the proposed rehabilitation housing (“the flats in Savda Ghevra are not habitable”) are direct measures related to this target.
• Indicator for Access to Affordable Housing: The cost of rental housing (“Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000”) compared to the residents’ likely income (as labourers) serves as an implicit indicator of the affordability gap in the housing market.
• Indicator for Access to Basic Services: The distance to the proposed rehabilitation site (“around 40 km away”) is a key quantitative indicator. This can be used to measure the potential disruption of access to healthcare (Safdarjung Hospital), education (“children’s school is nearby”), and employment (Race Course). The residents’ request to be relocated “within a 7-km radius” provides a benchmark for accessible relocation.
• Indicator for Secure Tenure and Legal Identity (related to Targets 1.4 and 16.9): The criteria for rehabilitation eligibility serve as an indicator. The article mentions that eligibility was determined by a survey checking documents like “Aadhaar, ration and voter ID cards” and specific voter list records (“voter list of the year — 2012, 2013, 2014 and till January 2015”). The number of residents marked ‘ineligible’ due to “No valid mandatory document submitted” can be used as a metric to assess challenges related to legal identity and its impact on housing rights.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: indianexpress.com