All posts by terraurban

‘Terra Urban’ is envisioned as a Think-Do Tank- an urban forum by Society for Participatory Research in Asia (PRIA) and The Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centres (SPARC) – tracing urban issues, strengthening the voice of civil society towards those and in turn aim to create not just a platform to bring forth various actors, stakeholders and visions but also attempt to create action-research.

India’s urban chaos: Whose responsibility is it anyway?

Bibek Debroy in Policy Puzzles, Economic Times

India has been rapidly urbanizing and will continue to do so. What is “urban”? As is common with many other countries, there is a technical definition of urban in the Census. More accurately, it is a definition of a “town”. A town is (1) “All places with a municipality, corporation, cantonment board or notified town area committee”; or (2) “All other places which satisfied the following criteria: a minimum population of 5,000; at least 75% of the male main working population engaged in non-agricultural pursuits; and a density of population of at least 400 persons per sq km”.

The problem is obvious. If (1) is satisfied, we know who is responsible for urban governance, interpreted as collecting revenue and spending it to provide urban services. In addition, we know the conduit for devolution of public expenditure through assorted schemes. These are statutory towns. If (2) is satisfied, the habitation exhibits urban characteristics. However, since there is no (1), we don’t know who is responsible for urban governance. These are known as Census towns. In addition, though it doesn’t directly concern us, there are definitions of urban agglomerations and outgrowths. Census 2011 tells us there are 7,935 towns – 4,041 statutory towns, 3,894 Census towns, 475 urban agglomerations and 981 outgrowths.

A few days ago, ET did a story, flagging governance problems in Census towns that aren’t statutory towns. 3,895 is a huge number. Let’s take the example of Delhi. There are 3 Census towns in Delhi, Asola (population 5,003), Bhati (population 15,888) and Jonapur (population 7,419). There also happen to be 369 villages in Delhi. I find it a bit odd that there are two “villages” right next to where we live – Mahipalpur and Masoodpur. Why is it odd?

Because there is a Mahipalpur-Masoodpur main road that cuts across the heart of Vasant Kunj, from Chattarpur on one side to the National Highway on the other. The widening and maintenance of this road is the responsibility of MCD. But the street-lights (and assorted other things) along one side of the road are the responsibility of MCD, while along the other side of the road, they are the responsibility of the Panchayats concerned. There are shops along both side of this road and they aren’t dissimilar from each other. However, the Delhi Rent Control Act applies to one side and not to the other. (So I have been told.) But let’s leave the villages aside.

Read more at: http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/policypuzzles/an-urban-chaos-issue/

A Day in Jaipur

by Swathi Subramaniam, PRIA

It was my first visit to Jaipur. Jaipur is a planned city of Rajasthan and one of the most important tourist destinations of India.
Jaipur is one of the better developed cities of India. Here things definitely look organised. The city is very calm and composed,there a clear mix of rural and urban culture in the city. It is not as populated as other metros. It has good roads and easy accessibility within cities. I found many females driving two wheelers and cars. It is safe travelling on own for a woman butshe has to be alert all the time. There are plenty of autos and one does not face difficulty for travelling. However, the condition of buses is very pathetic. You can expect a superior public transport once Jaipur metro is operational from 2015 onwards. I found the food very delicious. There are many autos here,there was no difficulty faced during travel. Jaipur has always been a tourist destination so even if you are an Indian – shop keepers, auto-rickshaw, general public etc. identify just by looking at you whether you are a tourist or a local resident.

It is easy to travel in Jaipur. I had a small conversation with an autowala, he said, “my family used to live in Delhi for many years but it was a struggle based life. We struggled for everything but could not save anything. But after moving to Jaipur we have our own home, decent living, much better than Delhi. He had a Samsung smartphone. Another auto driver I had met had the latest Apple mobile. They have all the facilities and have comfort in Jaipur. He lived with his parents in his own house in Jaipur. They were all well-dressed and have income enough to satisfy their materialistic needs. According to Transport Department of Rajasthan, upto March 2013 – there are 22,248 autorickshaw registered in Jaipur, 8,105 in Kota, 8,222 in Bikaner and 4,758 in Ajmer.This shows high influx of migration to city and growth of informal sector.

The city of Jaipur is very much dominated by hand loom, handicrafts, traditional artisans and other traditional industry. They all can be categorised as medium and small scale industries which is completely labour dependent. These industries in Jaipur flourish only because Jaipur is a global tourist destination. These industries enhance the charm of the city. While the tourists enjoy visiting the monuments in Jaipur, they also enjoy shopping. A tourist is completely delighted looking at the ethnic things around. While shopping in Jaipur the temptation drives you to buy everything possible. The shopkeepers do not leave any chance to hold the interest of tourist. The shopkeepers are very much friendly. The prices appear relatively expensive and is understandable considering that it is a tourist destination.

I did not find slums adjacent to main city areas. Thus there is a big contrast between the JMC areas and walled city of Jaipur.
The Rajasthani context of Urbanization

Growth of urbanization in Rajasthan is very different when compared to urbanization in other states. Rajasthan since historical times is ruled by Rajas, Maharajas, Rajwadas etc. Kota is the most urbanized district of Rajasthan according to a study, followed by Jaipur, Ajmer, Bikaner. Due to high level of migration from rural to urban areas the decadal growth in population is highest in Jaipur. The cities in eastern and northern parts of the state have grown more rapidly than the western parts of the states. The connectivity to Delhi is visible through the National Highway 8 – Delhi- Jaipur – Ahmedabad/Mumbai which is a good example of the impact from neighbourhood state. Other major factors of growth in economy of Rajasthan are agriculture, industry, tourism and crude oil.

Different areas in Rajasthan hadbeen ruled by various kingdoms. During their ruling era they developed their provinces and their ruling cities. There were many small towns built during the era. For example – Ajmer, Mewar, Kota, Jodhpur, Udaipur, Bikaner, Jaisalmar etc. What makes me think is that Rajasthan does not have an industrial base of economic development, but a growth led by Tourism, Hospitality, Ancient culture, Handicrafts industry (traditional industry) when compared to other cities like Gurgaon, Delhi, Noida, Chandigarh etc. This traditional industry which was earlier in rural areas has come into mains cities of Rajasthan to benefit from tourism.

The walled city area is highly congested and chocked and is inflicted by poverty, unemployment, poor health etc. Walled city had streets, chowks, bazars, colonies, walls, temples etc. built in the 18th century itself. I could not visit the walled city areas this time but hope to see it next time.

Private mailmen are mapping Brazil’s slums by hand because Google Maps can’t

Over 11 million people in Brazil, about 6 percent of the country’s total population, live in slums of cities called favelas, according to the latest census figures. Among the myriad challenges that arise in these dense, impoverished urban areas, getting mail may seem to be a surprising one. Yet due to the unique, improvised architecture of favelas — the fact that structures are often created and destroyed rapidly, using a variety of available materials, such as concrete, that are impenetrable to mapping satellites — many buildings don’t have addresses. Further complicating matters is the fact that many streets are called different names by residents in different areas. As a consequence, postal workers haven’t been required to deliver mail in these areas, frustrating residents. Many areas only appear on Google Maps and other digital maps in extremely limited forms, as a single road, for example (controversially, Google also removed the word “favela” from some of its maps at urging from the Brazilian government).

But a group of enterprising friends recently decided to tackle the problem starting in Brazil’s largest favela, Rocinha, using good old pen and paper.

Read more at: http://www.theverge.com/2014/10/14/6974367/private-mailmen-are-mapping-brazils-slums-by-hand

and

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-mailman-mapping-brazils-largest-favela-by-hand

AMENDMENTS ON BUILDING AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION WORKERS ACT

by: Mr Subhash Bhatnagar, Coordinator, Nirman Mazoor Panchayat Sangam

A National Campaign Committee on Construction Laborers has recommended the following additions to the BOCW Act to make it truly comprehensive to ensure regulation of employment and working conditions including safety as well as social security to all Building and other Construction Workers including migrant workers:
1. Definition of BOCW to include Stone Quarry and Brick-Kiln workers and the workers transporting construction materials.
2. To ensure Compulsory Registration of BOCW in the Tripartite Board including migrant workers, by making it a condition in all Tenders and Plans; Registration of workers to be through Trade Unions and provision of Smart Card to ensure portability as well as Work book in which the employer has to make entries, disbursement of benefits according to seniority within 1 month of application.
3. Employees’ Compensation Act, Sector 10 B, to be invoked for all fatal and major accidents and employers made to deposit money with Labour Commissioner, which would be transferred to home-state for dependents’ enquiry and disbursal.
4. Standardization of Benefits to be ensured in all States/UTs – Accident Relief to the tune of 5 Lakh for fatal accidents, Monthly Pension (15 days wage based on minimum wage), ESI medical assistance, Maternity Benefit (90 days minimum wage), Education Assistance to children from 1st Std to Highest Standard, Financial Assistance for chronic and occupational diseases, Crèches and Housing to registered workers at construction sites and in residential clusters.
5. Action Plan for Migrant labour families to include Temporary Ration cards, Education in mother tongue, crèches, Health care and Assistance centers in Migrant Labour areas.
6. Grievance Redress Mechanism at the District level to ensure justice for applicants for registration and claims
7. Dispute Resolution mechanism at District level to resolve disputes between employers and workers, etc

OTHER PERTINENT ISSUES
1. Amendment in the ESI Act to be able to implement ESI scheme through Tripartite Welfare Boards.
2. Amendment of Inter State Migrant Workers Act to change the definition to make it applicable to all ISMW irrespective of whether the contractor and workers are registered in home state or not and to include Action Plan for ISMW registration as beneficiaries of the board.
3. Compulsory registration of Construction Workers as beneficiary like compulsory registration of Construction establishment with the liability to register to be on the employers.
4. To ensure that all State/UTs Boards to authorize trade unions to certify the working of 90 days in last one year since the employers and the Labour officials are not willing to issue such certificate. An amendment in the main Act of 1996 is required in this regard.
5. There is very wide discrimination in schemes which are being implemented through tripartite Boards in different State/UTs formed under Sec 22 of the main Act. There is an urgent need to bring uniformity and standardization of schemes and procedure around the whole country. Many crucial schemes such as immediate assistance in case of accident and financial incentive for the education of children are not being implemented in many States/UTs.
6. Within a week from the issue of this circular a Petition to the Parliament will be prepared on the basis of the discussion that took place in the8th July, 2014 meetingofNational Campaign Committee on Construction Labourersand circulated.
APPEAL FOR PARTICIPATION
7. In the meeting it was decided to collect signatures of construction workers all over the country on the Petition containing Demands and observe Demands Day in all the State Capitals on 27th Nov, 2014.
8. In the meeting it was decided that on 3rd/4th Dec, 2014 a Dharna will be organized at the end of which the signed Petitions would be submitted to Prime Minister, Union Labour Minister and to the Petition Committee of Lok Sabha &Rajya Sabha.
9. All the Central Trade Unions and their affiliates are requested to participate and support the National Campaign of Construction Workers to oppose the anti-Worker amendments moved by the government and to support the pro-worker amendments moved by the independent trade unions of Construction Workers.
10. The Boards need to take the help of actuarian science to allot the funds collected so far for providing long term disbursements under different schemes formed under subsections of sections of Sec 22(1) of the main Act.
11. The meeting was informed about the decisions taken at the meeting of the Coordinators of National Platform of Domestic Workers held on 7th July, 2014 to seek the support of Construction Workers Campaign for the Domestic Workers campaign. The meeting was informed that a National Level Public Hearing will be organized at Delhi between 7th- 12th November, 2014 to high light the conditions of work of Domestic Workers and the need of Comprehensive Central legislation. The meeting assured mutual support of the both the campaigns for each other.

Please ensure your support to the above line of action by responding to this circular to:
Mr SubhashBhatnagar
E-mail: ncccl2010@gmail.com

Towards ‘Inclusive cities’ with poor and non-poor- Bihar

A city needs to be developed at social, economic and aesthetic levels. Ideally in a developed city the poor,non-poor and government should work in tandem. However, in India, poor are left out in the planning process, the non-poor do not act and government is shackled in its own bureaucratic structure.

To address this felt problem and need as expressed by the poor and non-poor a multi-stakeholder dialogue was organized by PRIA Bihar on 15th September 2014 in SBC Hall, Patna. The objectives of the consultation were:
1. To sensitize the people on common problems faced by urban poor, non-poor and government,
2. To provide a platform for interface and dialogue between the poor, non-poor and government

The consultation saw enthusiastic participation from various stakeholders such as Mr. Samrat Choudhary, Ms. Pinki Kumari, Ward 21, Counsellor, Minster for Urban Development, Govt. of Bihar, Amrita Bhushan, President Patna Favorite Lion’s Club, Govind Kumar Bansal, BJP former Chairperson, Jhuggi Jhopari Manch, Dr. C. P Tahkur, Member of Parliament, Rajya Sabha, Gazaffar Nawab, Member, AITUC Patna, Mr. Johagar, Mr. Ranjan Sinha, Chief Functionary, Nidan, Mr. Nikhal Ranjan, WASH, Mr. Vishwa Ranjan, PPP Expert, Plan India, the community members and PRIA and its partner NGO.

Mr. Choudhary and Ms. Pinki, representing the service providers of the city and the State, gave an insight on the ground realities. Mr. Choudhary, a futuristic and visionary officer, has the hope that Patna should one day be compared to Sweden which re-uses 90% of its waste. He highlighted that we need to focus on four aspects in Bihar:
• Political Democracy
• Efficient Bureaucracy
• City Planning
• Single window clearing system

Mr. Ranjan Sinha of NIDAN, discussed at length the fate of various programmes and schemes for urban poor in Bihar such as the un-successful JnNURM and RAY. Land allotment to slum dwellers was and is a major issue in the state and the city. It is obvious that the voices of the poor are not being recognized fully in the current planning and policy environment. However, there have been some initiates such as the pioneering slum policy, vendor policy and upcoming builders act which are positive ray of hope in including the poor. He stressed on the need to have many more of these initiatives to integrate the poor and non-poor in developing an inclusive city.

The ground reality and issues of the urban poor and unrecognized informal workers was raised by many speakers including Bansalji, Nawabji, Johagarji. Other speakers and participants also highlighted how the need of the hour is to concentrate on schemes for water, sanitation, housing and employment for the poor.

The community members also raised many of their concerns such as:
Prakash stated: “Settlement improvement committee has been formed in our slum settlement. We all got collectivized and even mapped our area. However, the maps that we uploaded are not being recognized by the government. The government says that schemes like Rajiv Awas Yojana are not redundant. But they haven’t given us any alternative!’

Shankar Dev Mehato articulated that ‘traditionally the work of cleaning toilets is done by Mehtar caste in Bihar. Today people from other castes are doing this work. We do not have work which is why we are not able to educate our children. Other caste people are given jobs by the government. Today the work done by us is taken over by others. We are not able to do traditional work. We are deprived of our traditional work. The government deprived us of government job. Today in the government we have people from upper class also cleaning the toilets mainly due to corruption. The poor should be asked about the poverty not the rich’

The dialogue led to an exhaustive discussion and concluded with few recommendations for ‘inclusive city building’. Some of these are as follows:

From Poor:
• Availability of basic amenities in slums, water and sanitation facilities as priority needs
• Eviction shared as huge cause of concern and source of insecurity by poor
• Generate avenues of gainful employment in the city for urban poor

From Non-Poor:
• More initiatives from non-poor to be taken up to work for and with poor
• Micro-financing for urban poor to start their own small scale businesses
• Right to land as the basic rights for poor, other needs as house, employment, water, and sanitation will come into picture once the land is allotted to poor in their name
• Computer Literacy Programs for urban poor
• Evaluation of schemes that failed to achieve their objectives like RAY, JNNURUM, slum development programs etc.
• Awareness programme on newly emerged concepts like ‘smart city’
• Conducting survey and researches on issues of urban poverty and urban governance. PRIA conducted a path breaking study to find economic contribution of urban poor has dissolved many myths such as poor spend majority of money on liquor. Instead they spend majority of their income on food.

From Government:
• Need to develop a skilled labour force
• Training need to be identified by the NGOs and logical plans needs to be prepared
• Political Democracy, Efficient Bureaucracy, City Planning and Single Window clearance shared as pillars to achieve city development objective.

Inclusive Cities:Role of Poor, Non-Poor and Government: Rajasthan consultation

PRIA with its local partner Nahru Yuva Mandal is organising a state level consultation in Rajasthan addressing the issue of Inclusive cities on 19 September 2014 at Jaipur, Rajasthan

Rajasthan is the largest state of India in terms of area and 8th in terms of population. The population of state, as per Census 2011, was about 7 crores. About 25% of Rajasthan population reside 184 Urban Local Bodies in the state, including the 6 large municipal corporations. The 23% of urban population in Rajasthan are slum-dwellers. Jaipur city, the state capital, has a population of 31 lakh and accounts for 17% of total urban population of Rajasthan. The decadal population growth of Jaipur city was 32% during 2001 – 11. About 10% of the city population is officially under below poverty line while about 5 lakh populations live in 238 ‘listed’ slums of city. Despite several slum improvement programmes andsocial welfare development schemes, poverty persists unabated and the gap between rich and poor is growing extensively.Urban Poverty is visibly present and perpetuating the state, as reflected by table below.

Status of basic services in slums of Rajasthan and Jaipur (Census, 2011)
Slum Household Characteristics               Rajasthan                                         Jaipur
Total Number                                            3,83,134                                         60,222
Not owning House                                      17 %                                                 16 %
Without Water Source                                31 %                                                 33%
Without Electricity                                        2 %                                                   5%
Without Toilets                                            78%                                                  46 %

All the data and population estimates suggest that India is on the brink of becoming a highly urbanized country. But the country lacks appropriate urban policies and programmes to make cities inclusive and happy place to live in. Available infrastructures in cities are over-stretched and all residents have difficulties of different degrees and orders. As the findings and experiences from different works and studies suggest, cities seems to be fragmented into different social and economic pieces- pulling each other apart rather than joining hands together to march ahead. Urban poor live in pathetic situations, middle class struggle with erratic urban services available to it, and rich and powerful have growing concerns about their safety and securities. Cities have turned into webs of difficult informalities and so, a varying sense of exclusion is felt by all categories of inhabitants. The problem is compounded by the fact that large numbers of people live in cities but very few have sense of ownership for their cities. Unless all residents of a city care for their city, it would be difficult to think of an inclusive city, which ensures minimum basic amenities and social securities to one and all.

Rationale for Collaboration:
• Do people belong to cities and are cities ‘owned by’ people? Society is web of relationship existing in ‘rural’ and ‘urban’ localities. In rural areas the relationships are straightforward, rooted, age old and binding. There is a sense of belongingness among the people. Whereas the relationships in urban areas are individualistic, specific and service oriented. The diaspora of population in urban areas belong to different geographically roots and there is no sense of belongingness towards the city among the urban population.
• Who facilitates relationship between poor and non-poor? A city is inhabited by poor and non-poor. Poor are the service providers and non-poor are manifested as middle class, clubs (lion, sports, rotary) media, academia, business, CSOs etc. The relationships among poor and non-poor are largely defined by services offered by the poor and received by the non-poor section of the society. The emotional part of relationship which is reflected in trust and dependency is often undermined. The mutual service based relationship among poor and non-poor however remains informal and unorganized. Therefore the pertinent question here is who facilitates this exchange of service? Ideally municipality of the city should facilitate this exchange of service but in reality no such facilitation happens. This should get institutionalized in order to develop the city.
• Institutionalized mechanism to promote relationship: A first step to building inclusive institutions is to ensure that the poor are representative of and accountable to all parts of society, and most notably to the middle class. Institutionalization of service exchange between the service provider (poor) and service seekers (non-poor) will lead to healthy functioning of the city. This will benefit both the poor and non-poor. Example: Public health, sanitation, conservancy and solid waste management etc.
An ‘inclusive city’ is a place where everyone, regardless of their economic means, gender, race, ethnicity or religion, is enabled and empowered to fully participate in the social, economic and political opportunities that cities have to offer. (i) the urban non-poor – mainly the urban middle class, civil society and other urban non-poor groups (resident welfare associations, rotary club members, youth groups and so on) should become sensitised towards the problems of urban poor and contribute in making lives of urban poor better. (ii) The urban local bodies are strengthened with appropriate powers and authorities so that they could deliver to the expectation of their people, especially the urban poor. (iii) Converging all the city voices on one platform for collective actions towards inclusive city development.

Aims of the State Consultation:

PRIA works for betterments of living-conditions of urban poor through reforming and strengthening urban local governance and promoting citizens’ participation. With the aim to bring all stakeholders together and evolve a collective thinking and action on urban issue, this state level consultation on “Collaborative Actions for Inclusive Cities: Roles of Poor, Non-Poor and the Governments” is being organized. The purpose of the consultation is to (i) facilitate collaborative actions for improvement in urban services and (ii) promote inclusive city development jointly led by Poor, Non-Poor and the Governments.

Programme Schedule of the Consultation
राज्य स्तरीय चर्चा
‘समावेशी शहरों के लिए साझा सहयोग‘ शहरी गरीब ,गैर-गरीब और सरकार की भूमिका पर
आयोजकः-प्रिया, राजस्थानएवंनेहरू युवा मंडल
दिनंाकः-19सितम्बर , 2014 स्थानः- आई.डी.एस. जयपुर, राजस्थान

समय                                                          विषय                                                                           संदर्भ व्यक्ति
10:00 – 10:30 am                                    पंजीकरण                                                                       प्रिया, जयपुर
10:30 – 10:35 am                                     स्वागत                                                                       श्री प्रणव प्रवीण
वरिष्ठ कार्यक्रम अधिकारी
प्रिया, जयपुर

10:35 – 10:55 am                        राजस्थान में शहरी लोगों की समस्याऐं                                           प्रोफेसर वी.एस.व्यास
सेवानिर्वित, विकास अध्ययन संस्थान, जयपुर

10:55 -11:05 am              राजस्थान में शहरी गरीबी और शहरी प्रशासन पर प्रस्तुतीकरण                          डाॅ. अंशु सिंह
कार्यक्रम अधिकारी, प्रिया, जयपुर
11:05 -12:00 pm                                           लोगों की आवाज                                                कार्यक्रम प्रबंधक, प्रिया, जयपुर

प्रतिनिधि -कच्ची बस्ती सुधर समिति
गैर-सरकारी संस्था -उन्नति और एस.आर.के.पी.एस.
शैक्षिणक समुदाय, निवासी सुधार संस्था, व्यापार मंडल

लाइन्स क्लब डा. रणवीर सिंह (सूत्रधार)

श्री मनोज राय (सह सूत्रधार)
निदेशक, प्रिया, नई दिल्ली
12:00 -12: 45pm                                         विचार प्रस्तुतीकरण

1. श्रीमती ज्योती खण्डेलवाल                                                    श्री मनोज राय
महापौर, जयपुर नगर निगम
2. डा. रतना जैन
महापौर, कोटा नगर निगम

12:45 -13:15 hrs                                           चर्चा                                                                       श्री मनोज राय

13:15:-  13:40 hrs                                        भावी दिशा                                                                श्री मनोज राय

13:40 -13:55 hrs                                         उद्वोधन                                                                  डा. अरून चतुर्वेदी
माननीय राज्य मंत्री
सामाजिक न्याय एवं अधिकारिता विभाग
13:55 -14:00 hrs                                       धन्यवाद ज्ञापन                                                         सुश्री स्वातिसुब्रमण्यम
कार्यक्रम अधिकारी, प्रिया दिल्ली

14: 00 hrs                                                   वदूंतके भोजन

Collaborative action for Inclusive cities: Role of Poor, Non-Poor and Government Bihar

By PRIA Bihar and National Urban Team

PRIA held a State Level Consultation on ‘Collaborative Action for Inclusive Cities’ in Patna, Bihar today. The consultation gave an overview of the existing situation in Patna, the deprivation it is faced with and the urgency of developing an inclusive society through collaborative actions of all stakeholders- poor and non poor.
a
Find below the key points of discussions in this consultation:

Bihar
Bihar is located in the eastern side of India, entirely land locked by West Bengal, Jharkhand, Uttar Pradesh and Nepal. It has total area of 94,163 sqkm, with 98% of area being rural this means urban population resides in the 2% of remaining area. The state comprises 38 Districts in 9 divisions. It has 14 urban agglomerations and 199 towns. Bihar has an overall population of 10.41 crores, with sex ratio of 918 per thousand males. Literacy rate is 73% among males and 53% among females. The decadal population growth has been 25%. Population growth in rural area is 24%, and in urban area 35%. Bihar occupies a place second from the bottom with respect to the level of urbanization which is only 11% compared to the national average of 28%. As against this, urban poverty is as high as 44% against the national average of 24%.
Urban Poverty in Bihar and Patna
Census-2011 has for the first time attempted to enumerate socio-economy data also at household level such as quality of housing, water, electricity, literacy, access to education etc. Bihar state share of slum population to total slum population of India is 1.9%. The status of basic services in Slums of Bihar as a whole and Patna is illustrated below:

Table 1: Status of Basic Services in Slums of Bihar and Patna (Census 2011)
Picture2
b
c
d
e

Rationale for Collaboration:
• Do people belong to cities and are cities ‘owned by’ people?Society is web of relationship and is bifurcated into two ‘rural’ and ‘urban’. In rural areas the relationships are straightforward, rooted, age old and binding. There is a sense of belongingness among the people. Whereas the relationships in urban areas are individualistic, specific and service oriented. The diaspora of population in urban areas belong to different geographically roots and there is no sense of belongingness towards the city among the urban population.

• Who facilitates relationship between poor and non-poor?A city is inhabited by poor and non-poor. Poor are the service providers and non-poor are manifested as middle class, clubs (lion, sports, rotary) media, CSOs etc. The relationships among poor and non-poor are largely defined by services offered by the poor and received by the non-poor section of the society. This mutual service based relationship among poor and non-poor remains informal and unorganized. Therefore the pertinent question here is who facilitates this exchange of service? Ideally municipality of the city should facilitate this exchange of service but in reality no such facilitation happens. This should get institutionalized in order to develop the city.To illustrate an example of informal relation between poor and non-poor in society we see that domestic workers who earn their living by working in rich and middle class households. The tangible economic relationship is visible when in lieu of proving services like cleaning, sweeping, cooking she gets paid in cash. But the immaterial relationship established with the homemakers, children and working couples goes unnoticed and unaccounted. Another example is of waste pickers who provide door to door services and segregates the household and city’s waste without any protective gears in low cost manner.
• Institutionalized mechanism to promote relationship: Institutionalization of service exchange between the service provider (poor) and service seekers (non-poor) will lead to healthy functioning of the city. This will benefit both the poor and non-poor. Example:Public health, sanitation, conservancy and solid waste management etc.

Basing our conversation on above examples we can say that urban poor workers play a pivotal role in making the city. Yet the bigger questions are:
1. Does the poor feel included and respected in the city?
2. Does the non-poor feel included in the city?
3. Does the city belong to them?
4. What are the provisions, platforms and services available with the government for bridging the gap between poor and non-poor?

How this can be done:
1. By identifying the key stakeholders in city:
• Poor (service providers) and people living in informal settlements
• Non-Poor (middle class, clubs (lion, sports, rotary) media, CSOs etc.)
• Local Government
• NGOs
• Media
• Academia
2. What should be their roles and how can it help in institutionalizing relationship of poor and non-poor for developing an inclusive cities?