Dharavi Residents Resist Relocation: A Call for Inclusive Urban Redevelopment

Dharavi residents have firmly rejected relocation proposals, demanding that redevelopment efforts prioritize their community and livelihoods within the existing boundaries of Dharavi.

DharaviUrban RedevelopmentCommunity ResistanceSlum RehabilitationSustainable CitiesReal Estate MumbaiJun 04, 2025

Dharavi Residents Resist Relocation: A Call for Inclusive Urban Redevelopment

Real Estate Mumbai:Dharavi residents have unequivocally rejected proposals that would relocate them outside their community as part of the ongoing redevelopment plan, insisting that rehabilitation must happen within the bounds of Dharavi itself.

With over one lakh structures now marked and numbered, the people of Dharavi are demanding full transparency on how many households will be accommodated on-site and who qualifies for inclusion. They argue that the plan must safeguard their livelihoods, preserve their community networks, and prioritize social equity over commercial interests. At a recent public forum hosted by a citizen-led coalition in Mahim, a collective of residents, legal experts, urban planners, and industrial unit owners voiced deep concerns over what they see as a top-down, opaque, and inadequately consulted process. The redevelopment of Dharavi—one of Asia’s largest informal settlements—has long been projected as a transformative urban initiative. However, locals argue that the current approach risks erasing rather than uplifting their community.

Many residents are demanding the publication of Annexure II, the government-prepared document that defines which households are eligible or ineligible for rehabilitation. Without this list, they say, people remain in limbo—unsure whether they will be provided new homes in the redeveloped Dharavi or forced to relocate to distant, environmentally hazardous areas like salt pan lands or near the Deonar dumping ground. “We are not against development,” said a representative from the community. “But development must mean progress for the people who live and work here—not displacement in the name of beautification.”

One of the most alarming concerns among local business owners is the threat to Dharavi’s vibrant informal economy. The proposed 225 square foot rehabilitation units are far too small, they argue, to accommodate the dual needs of living space and industrial activity. Dharavi’s micro-industries—including leather, pottery, tailoring, food production, and recycling—thrive on proximity to labour, supply chains, and markets. Compressing these functions into confined apartments could destroy the very livelihood that sustains tens of thousands of families. “Many units are not just workplaces,” noted an industry stakeholder at the meeting. “They are also homes and community hubs. A 225 square foot room cannot support a worker and his family, let alone machinery and materials.”

Experts at the event also drew attention to the legal framework governing the redevelopment process. Under Maharashtra’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS), developers are required to construct as many ground-floor units as physically exist in the slum, regardless of eligibility. This provision acknowledges that any resident’s eligibility status may be legally challenged right up until the project’s completion. Therefore, no pretext exists to reduce the number of units constructed. Architects and planners present at the discussion warned against a technocratic approach to urban redevelopment that prioritizes floor space index (FSI) calculations over community input. They stressed that Dharavi’s complex ecosystem requires sensitive urban design—one that understands how people live, work, and interact in tight-knit clusters. Even decisions as granular as toilet placements, they noted, can have lasting impacts on daily life.

Residents are also dissatisfied with the government’s lack of communication regarding key aspects of the project. They claim there has been no information about the saleable portion of the project, the surplus FSI being leveraged, or the commercial gains projected. This perceived secrecy has led many to suspect that the project prioritizes real estate profits over people. Adding to the frustration is the inconsistent survey process. Several residents highlighted that only a fraction of homes were surveyed in many parts of Dharavi, while in others, irrelevant structures such as electric meter boxes and shared toilets were incorrectly included. This patchy approach, residents fear, could lead to wrongful evictions or exclusions from the rehabilitation list.

“If the authorities have time to plan commercial towers and beautification sketches, they should also prepare detailed, transparent plans for any site where people might be relocated,” said a legal advisor working with the citizens’ group. “The same architectural rigour applied to profit-generating zones should be applied to potential resettlement sites, especially those as sensitive as Deonar.” Community groups are pushing back with a clear vision: rehabilitate all of Dharavi’s population within the area itself and use external lands only for commercial purposes to cross-subsidise the project. They argue that this model would allow redevelopment to proceed without displacing thousands or fracturing social and economic networks that took generations to build.

Experts at the forum also underscored that Dharavi represents not just a slum, but an extraordinary case study in grassroots urbanism. Its dense but functional organization, shared utilities, walk-to-work culture, and low-carbon footprint exemplify principles that sustainable urban development aims to achieve. In this context, redevelopment should focus on upgrading living standards without disrupting this organically evolved ecosystem. The growing unrest among residents signals a larger crisis of trust between the state and its urban poor. The demand is not merely for shelter, but for justice, dignity, and the right to remain rooted in place.

Unless the government adopts a participatory and transparent approach in the next phases of Dharavi’s redevelopment, it risks undermining the very promise of inclusive urban transformation that the project was meant to deliver. For now, the people of Dharavi have made their stance clear: they will not accept displacement in the name of progress.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the main concern of Dharavi residents regarding the redevelopment plan?

The main concern of Dharavi residents is that the redevelopment plan may lead to their relocation outside Dharavi, which would disrupt their livelihoods and community networks.

Why are local business owners worried about the proposed rehabilitation units?

Local business owners are worried because the proposed 225 square foot units are too small to accommodate both living space and industrial activity, which could destroy the vibrant informal economy of Dharavi.

What is Annexure II, and why is it important?

Annexure II is a government-prepared document that defines which households are eligible or ineligible for rehabilitation. It is important because without this list, residents remain uncertain about their future.

What is the legal framework governing the redevelopment process?

Under Maharashtra’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS), developers are required to construct as many ground-floor units as physically exist in the slum, regardless of eligibility, to ensure transparency and inclusivity.

What is the community's vision for the redevelopment of Dharavi?

The community's vision is to rehabilitate all of Dharavi’s population within the area itself and use external lands only for commercial purposes to cross-subsidize the project, ensuring that redevelopment does not lead to displacement.