Elites view encroachers as disruptors of property rights system, and oppose regularisation. But that’s what India needs to free up capital held in slums.
It suggests to the Indian mind that there are individuals who are pursuing wealth for the sake of wealth; and in the process, throwing in names of two sons of politicians.
The reach and impact of influencers are so significant that even politicians such as Prime Minister Narendra Modi have recognised their value—the National Creators Award is proof.
Economists say there are weaknesses in India’s GDP data. But statisticians claim the accusations are based on flawed understanding, saying while GDP has problems, the economists are looking in the wrong places.
Coaching centres for Army aspirants in Jhunjhunu are shutting down due to plummeting admissions in the face of a lack of job guarantees under Agnipath Scheme.
On the surface of it, the argument made in this article is a very sound one in all respects — financial, social and political.. But, and this is the all important but, the columnist seems to ignore a point , which i think is rather important.
Simply put, WHO ‘owns’ the properties in a slum, vs, who resides in those properties.
If the goal is to empower the slum ‘dwellers’ (of a 30 year old slum, no objection to that stipulation!) in becoming property owners of ‘their’ dwellings, then everything said in the above article makes perfect sense.
But the ground realities show that most slum dwellers, are renting their hovels from slumlords (the local goonda, history sheeter, oftentimes also the local corporator, and at times the kin of the local mla)…..So any well-intentioned policy decision mirroring the above stipulations alone would not serve the mentioned purpose.
Unless it is that particular slum dweller, residing at the time of documentation in ‘that’ particular unit for the stipulated minimum tenure, this policy of slum regularization will lose all meaning.
This seems to make sense. In my opinion, this kind of regularization should be restricted to those who have encroached on government property, and not on private property.
This restriction is merely accounting for one important reality: sometimes, the squatters have greater local power (political and extra-legal) than the rightful private title-holder. The prospect of such regularization will incentivize these encroachers to intimidate private title-holders into relinquishing their rightful claims. This is not a danger when government is the owner.
Very right.After getting this they will sell it and encroach somewhere in Delhi again.GDP GROWTH?
It is a good idea in a general sense. However, just giving marketable title to the property may not quite enable all the title holder to get loans from a bank. The reason is banks have their own serious problems of NPAs that have hampered their ability to lend. So, that problem needs to be fixed too.
This is the type of article I like. ThePrint is on right track. Write more and more articles giving suggestions. These types of attempts would get the best of present governments. I request ThePrint authors to do more ground research and present real stories of India struggling to come out of poverty. Highlight gaps in implementation of various government schemes but avoiding politicing.
On the surface of it, the argument made in this article is a very sound one in all respects — financial, social and political.. But, and this is the all important but, the columnist seems to ignore a point , which i think is rather important.
Simply put, WHO ‘owns’ the properties in a slum, vs, who resides in those properties.
If the goal is to empower the slum ‘dwellers’ (of a 30 year old slum, no objection to that stipulation!) in becoming property owners of ‘their’ dwellings, then everything said in the above article makes perfect sense.
But the ground realities show that most slum dwellers, are renting their hovels from slumlords (the local goonda, history sheeter, oftentimes also the local corporator, and at times the kin of the local mla)…..So any well-intentioned policy decision mirroring the above stipulations alone would not serve the mentioned purpose.
Unless it is that particular slum dweller, residing at the time of documentation in ‘that’ particular unit for the stipulated minimum tenure, this policy of slum regularization will lose all meaning.
This seems to make sense. In my opinion, this kind of regularization should be restricted to those who have encroached on government property, and not on private property.
This restriction is merely accounting for one important reality: sometimes, the squatters have greater local power (political and extra-legal) than the rightful private title-holder. The prospect of such regularization will incentivize these encroachers to intimidate private title-holders into relinquishing their rightful claims. This is not a danger when government is the owner.
Very right.After getting this they will sell it and encroach somewhere in Delhi again.GDP GROWTH?
It is a good idea in a general sense. However, just giving marketable title to the property may not quite enable all the title holder to get loans from a bank. The reason is banks have their own serious problems of NPAs that have hampered their ability to lend. So, that problem needs to be fixed too.
This is the type of article I like. ThePrint is on right track. Write more and more articles giving suggestions. These types of attempts would get the best of present governments. I request ThePrint authors to do more ground research and present real stories of India struggling to come out of poverty. Highlight gaps in implementation of various government schemes but avoiding politicing.