Haripriya Tiwari :

The concept of the Right to the City, introduced by Henri Lefebvre, claims that all individuals should have a say in the management of their surroundings, have access to resources, and have a right to various benefits. Yet, for lakhs of individuals living on the margins of the city, this right remains a distant dream. Our recent field visit to Bhalswa and Bawana, two of Delhi’s resettlement colonies, provides an unfiltered perspective on who truly has a right to the place they call home.

A city of contrasting experiences, Delhi is home to 11,73,902 people as per the 2011 Census. It hosts some of the most posh areas and huge shopping complexes, often built at the expense of numerous informal settlements. Slum demolitions are a common occurrence. Our visit to the resettlement colonies of Bhalswa and Bawana aimed at understanding the lived experiences of those pushed to the city’s periphery in the name of development projects, which poses the question of development for whom and at what cost.

Both colonies were established as a result of government-led slum clearance initiatives around 20 years ago. The inhabitants were not only stripped of their homes but their social connections and livelihoods. In Bhalswa and Bawana, there aren’t many livelihood alternatives. On our field visit, we met with home-based piece rate working women who are engaged in various types of precarious work like cutting fabric, stitching gloves, making bangles and bindis, upturning socks, and extracting chickpeas, among others. The common thread that ties the two places together is the manifestation of the effects of systemic exclusion in different areas of their life: precarity of livelihood, environmental impacts, and psycho-social effects. 

Collectively, both areas had piece rate work limited to women. When asked why, they said – “Mard ye kaam kahan karta hai? Batayie karega kya?” highlighting the sexual division of labour and the social conditioning that follows. Since piece rate work is largely home-based, it is considered women’s work. Feminist scholars claim that women tend to opt for those jobs that offer lower security and wages because of societal conditioning and largely because they do not have adequate options to turn to. It can also be agreed that in both settlements, the nature of piece rate work was inconsistent, and so the earnings were quite erratic. 

A comparison between the two colonies on economic lines suggests that even though both colonies did not have a variety of economic opportunities, there was a wider income gap in Bawana than in Bhalswa. I think this can be attributed to the fact that the former is in close proximity to factories, and the type of piece rate work determines their wages.  In addition, there is less transparency in home-based work, thus, a greater possibility for exploitation in terms of wage rates.

A common characteristic of all types of piece-rate work is its repetitive nature. The same task has to be performed countless times. It is mentally fatiguing and forces the workers to assume the role of a machine. They get alienated from their work and also from themselves, for which the system is to be held accountable. 

Being a privileged individual in a world that neglects the underprivileged doesn’t mean one has to live with the constant guilt of having access to more opportunities; rather, one should be able to recognize and use that privilege to ensure equitable distribution of resources and treatment of all individuals with dignity.

Sources: https://dmnewdelhi.delhi.gov.in/demography/