Explained: How Adani Plans To Revive The Long-Delayed Dharavi Redevelopment Project

Asia's biggest slum, Dharavi, is located in the centre of Mumbai. It is one of the world's most densely inhabited regions. Nearly 58,000 families reside in Dharavi, which also has 12,000 businesses.

Maharashtra's successive governments have discussed revitalizing Dharavi for the past 18 years. Devendra Fadnavis, the deputy chief minister of Maharashtra, and Ashwini Vaishnav, the minister of railways for the Union, inked a "definitive agreement" for this reason on October 18.

Almost 20 years after it was first suggested, the Maharashtra government on Wednesday approved new tenders for the Dharavi redevelopment project. We describe the project's objectives, significance, and reasons for its current delay.

AFP/Representational Image

What is Dharavi Redevelopment Project?

Mumbai's Dharavi slum district is being renovated as part of the Dharavi Redevelopment Project. The project was first proposed in 2004, but for a variety of reasons, it was never carried out.

Earlier last week, the Dharavi redevelopment plan's winning bidder was the Adani Group. The conglomerate led by Gautam Adani offered Rs 5,069 crore as opposed to Rs 2,025 crore from the DLF group in order to win the bid.

The formation of a special purpose vehicle (SPV) with Adani as the principal partner is planned. The state government will own 20% of the SPV while Adani would own 80% of it. The SPV would build free houses with services like water and power supply, sewage disposal, piped gas, etc. for qualified slum dwellers.

AFP/Representational Image

The Kurla-Bandra and Mahim are just a short distance away from the Dharavi slum clusters, which are thought to be the biggest in all of Asia. As a result, it is prime real estate, making this a substantial project with high commercial value.

In the 2.8 square kilometer slum region of Dharavi, there are over 100,000 people working in the massive informal economy. Over a lakh, people work in its unorganized leather and ceramics industries. The state had planned to turn this sprawl into a collection of high-rises with better urban infrastructure. 68,000 individuals, including those who lived in slums and those who owned businesses, had to be relocated.

Those who could show that their slum structure was constructed before January 1, 2000, and those who moved to Dharavi between 2000 and 2011, respectively, were to receive 300-square-foot dwellings for free from the state. The project was first proposed in 2004, but for a variety of reasons, it was never carried out.

When was the redevelopment plan first proposed?

BCCL/Representational Image

The BJP-Sena government first suggested developing Dharavi in 1999. After that, in 2003¨C2004, the Maharashtra government chose to redesign Dharavi as an integrated planned township. A government resolution approving a redevelopment proposal was issued.

In order to develop Dharavi, it was determined to divide the land into sectors, choose developers for each, and use the land as a resource to cross-subsidize the cost of construction through a selling component based on the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme. The administration has planned to create a Special Planning Authority and declare the whole Dharavi zone an underdeveloped area.

The government created a master plan in 2011 and cancelled all bids. A Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) for Dharavi was established by the BJP-Sena administration in 2018 and a reconstruction plan was unveiled.

What are the concerns arising from the redevelopment plan?

BCCL/Representational Image

The biggest challenge is rehabilitating such a large number of people with various needs. Slum dwellers and small business owners are concerned about being evicted from Dharavi, despite the authorities' claims that redeveloping the area will transform Central Mumbai.

For example, a person who owns a pottery store in Dharavi would not want to live on a level that was far high. Cottage industries might have more room than they do now, but they would also have their own restrictions. Some experts have also called attention to the bid documents' omission to provide information about the proportions of rooms, bathrooms, kitchens, etc. that can be deemed sufficient for decongesting.

Parties involved raised questions at the pre-bid conference regarding the rehabilitation component's fixed seven-year period and all related requirements. They had requested 10¨C12 years for the project's rehabilitation and commercial construction phases.

The SRA stated that mitigating causes for delays will be taken into consideration but did not extend the deadline. A pre-bid sticking point involved the SPV's need to defend the railroads and the state government for missing the deadline for transferring the former's land for the project. The pertinent language in the tender form was left alone by the SRA, nevertheless.