Dunu Roy vs the Delhi RWAs

DUNU Roy, grey-haired, jeans-clad director of the Hazards Centre, has been locked in combat with some vocal representatives of resident welfare associations (RWAs) over their right to shape plans for Delhi’s future.

The clash has taken place in cyberspace, with furious emails flying back and forth following the Delhi state government’s proposal to give RWAs the right to be consulted on plans, suggest modifications and perhaps even veto those plans that they find inconvenient.

Roy’s view is that RWAs speak at best for a small minority of Delhi’s middle class. In addition, RWAs representing the posh colonies seem to have a disproportionately large say in decisions taken by the government. If they are now allowed to formally sit in judgement on development plans for the city, they will only seek to push through their own elitist preferences. The concerns and needs of the common man would get overlooked.

RWAs, for instance, have been strongly opposed to the creation of bus corridors in Delhi. Residents of posh colonies like Greater Kailash want more road space for cars and other private vehicles though more than 60 per cent of Delhi’s residents travel by bus.

The RWAs have steadily grown in importance after Chief Minister Sheila Dikshit sought to win middle class votes by encouraging participatory governance through an initiative called Bhagidari. With the Delhi state elections round the corner, it appears freshmoves are afoot to make RWAs feel important.

On the other hand, Roy’s team at the Hazards Centre has been working with slum-dwellers and people in the unorganised sector, who account for the majority of Delhi’s population. It is the Hazards Centre’s mission to build an inclusive city and shape policies so that they serve the needs of everyone.

“There is a big question mark over the legitimacy of the RWAs. For instance, how are their office-bearers elected? Even within their elitist colonies it is not clear who they represent. Retired people monopolise RWAs because no one else has time,” Roy told Civil Society.

“Despite this, RWAs corner space in the media and are pampered by the government. The kind of attention and influence they enjoy are disproportionate to the small numbers they represent,” Roy added.

Roy spoke up after a story in a Delhi newspaper that RWAs would be consulted on projects was put out as an email by the United RWAs’ Joint Action

(URJA), a platform claiming to represent a large number of RWAs. RWAs are also represented by a Delhi RWAs’ Joint Front, which raises questions about the real support that URJA has. The Joint Front has remained silent on the exchanges between Roy and URJA. The newspaper story quoted an official as saying that though the state government was supposed to have ward and beloward consultations on development projects, in Delhi it would consult only RWAs because of their strong presence under Bhagidari. Roy esponded to that saying: “ So instead of experts and babus we will have the RWAs ramming projects down all our throats --- like the gates all round colonies, the guards at the gates, the ID cards for servants and vendors, the removal of auto stands, the proliferating spaces for car parking, and the removal of all poor settlements! Wah, democracy!!

Where 20 per cent determine how the remaining 80 per cent will live (or probably die).” URJA’s Anant Trivedi replied that there was “no need for such despairing thoughts”. He admitted that the consultation process was flawed and there was a need to “all work together to improve the process.” Responding to Trivedi, Roy said: “Tell me who does represent the rest of the community? And where do they get heard? Have you an example of a domestic maids’ organisation? Or a vendors’ association? Who would be able to participate in public hearings? After all, the construction of malls, flyovers, the Metro, and so on affects them as much as anybody else. And if the powerful RWAs occupy the stage, where is the space for the others?” Roy cited the “media-directed venom against the BRT” as a case in point. The proposed bus system has been criticised without allowing 60 per cent of Delhi’s commuters who rely on buses to speak in its defence.

Asked by Civil Society to suggest an inclusive consultation process, Roy said the 74th amendment to the Constitution provided for involvement of citizens at the lowest level. It was possible to create mohalla or locality-level committees. A mohalla could be defined as 200 or 400 families. “In Madhya Pradesh, the government has created such a process of consultation at the ward level. Slum dwellers have been given pattas or official papers recognising their existence and promising them housing when it becomes available. It is possible to do the same thing in Delhi.” But the Delhi government has tried to so far duck the issue. Beyond Bhagidari there is no consultation. “The reason is that in Delhi the government does not want to give slum dwellers their rights,” says Roy. There are 28 public interest writs filed in the high court by RWAs asking for demolition of slums near their colonies because their presence brings down property values.” Roy points out the middle class wants the services of the poor in the unorganised sector but does not want to recognise their right to live with dignity in the city.

There is an attempt to treat the poor as criminals. For instance, people in slums are often accused of stealing electricity, but studies have shown that it is the rich who are actually stealing power. It is the same case with water. “It is the people behind colony gates with their special security who are insecure,” says Roy, “and not the other way around. How long will you continue with such a situation without inviting violence and instability.” Just how cut off the RWAs could be becomes evident from one of the URJA emails entitled Active Citizenship: “Educated classes have effectively disenfranchised themselves in the belief that their vote will not make any difference. Thus the political class manipulates the vulnerable poor residents of JJ clusters, slums and villages who are easily persuaded by money and liquor and criminal elements supporting candidates.”

Roy’s indignant response to this was: “I must protest strongly….It treats almost 60 per cent of our citizenry as drunkards and in the service of criminals, while the ‘educated’ class, by contrast, is portrayed as the morally upright instrument for bringing in ‘good’ and ‘right’ legislators, of being ‘caring’, ‘responsible’ and ‘honest’...” Roy adds that it is “this very educated class” that is in the bureaucracy and the technocracy and makes policy. “This is the class which wishes to exclude the rest of the nation from governance,” he says.

http://www.civilsocietyonline.com/April08/april085.asp