I referred, last week, to this paper by Ananya Roy which argues that informality and the collapse of rule of law in India is not a result of the disdain that ungovernable masses have for law, but a result of informality amongst the elite sections of society, especially those who hold the reins in the corridors of power. I can give you some oft-cited examples of such informality: First consider the spate of building on the Yamuna floodplain without sufficient deliberation on the environmental impact – and through surreptitious change in land use. Second, consider the Akrama-Sakrama scheme in Bangalore that will “regularize” buildings in violation of building codes for a penalty – we now know it for what it is, a way for the bankrupt municipal corporation to earn some extra revenue. And in the third instance, let me cite the Adarsh housing society scam in Mumbai, in which top politicians and officials got apartments allotted to themselves in a housing society meant for the widows of army men killed in the Kargil conflict.
Even though such news is passe in India, I had a bit of a shock when I read this news report, according to which MMRDA (Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority) – Mumbai’s planning authority – is itself illegally occupying a terrace office. The office does not have an “occupancy certificate” because the planning authority has not been paying property taxes to the municipal corporation. And it turns out that the state has also been defaulting on property taxes for many years – and now the state has very generously decided that it should start paying taxes once again.
When the elite, with vast resources at their command, and with so little “need” to act contrary to the law, still refuse to follow the law in letter and spirit, when even governments pay no heed to their legal obligations, why do we expect poor and incapacitated slum dwellers to adhere to the law, when there is no housing but illegal housing available?
I am a lapsed engineer from 
nice one Karthik. Now that India is ‘finally’ shining and emerged and Obama has endorsed it. We have some very uncomfortable questions to answer.
I agree with Roy’s paper but don’t you think that ‘informality’ is too subtle a word for the rampant illegality promoted and practised by the government(s).
I enjoy reading your blog.
Rutul
Thanks Rutul.
I do agree with your comment about the word informality. I think the usage of the words illegal and informal has been turned somewhat upside down. Initially the word informal was used to describe transgressions on the part of the poor because calling them illegal made it sound like they had a choice to follow the law but chose not to. And now informal is just another way of saying illegal, and Roy uses it to describe the “informality from above”. Which is why the word is in quotes in the title. But I can also see that making a distinction between the two is not a straightforward matter.
Actually, there is a lot about Roy’s paper that I don’t like – I certainly don’t agree that the insurgent city can never be a just city, as she suggests. I think that claim does not do justice to the struggles of slum dwellers and hawkers to reconcile the law with their existence. Nor do I agree that India cannot plan her cities – that sort of fatalism is completely uncalled for.
I agree with your critique of Roy’s paper. The idea of insurgent city is intriguing but the struggle of slum dwellers or hawkers for their daily survival is too subtle and not always self-conscious or organised. It is in fragments with varying degrees of local political patronage… I would like to read more about ‘politics of the poor’…any references?
Yes, India can plan her cities selectively and implement them selectively. This selective-ness in urban planning needs to be further explored with some case studies.
Rutul,
For now, I can think of this book. It is more a historical account, and it is certainly not an easy read. But I think it is a good starting point.
Do tell me what you have been reading – I would like some more references too.
Recently discovered your blog – its heartening to see such writing on India’s cities. I enjoyed reading what I have read so far. Thanks.
Ananya Roy’s article resonates what Upendra Baxi has called one of the many crises of the Indian legal system, that informality and ability to flout the law has now become a power and status symbol. I am not sure of where your disagreeement with Ananya Roy lies, but you mention that slum dwellers’ and hawkers’ attempts to reconcile the law with their existence is a case in point against what she says. My problem with informality is that the boundaries of formal and informal, legal and illegal is but a product of the formal legal world (so that the flexibility of informality comes with the attendant danger that it can be taken away at any time by the application of formal rules), and that world is not some value-neutral, apolitical world. Following on the discussion above, on the marginalization of urban poor and the role of law in this, you may be interested in reading writings of Benjamin Solomon and Swapna Banerjee-Guha. I have come across this recent book – http://books.google.com/books?id=o2CXQgAACAAJ&dq=accumulation+by+dispossession&hl=en&ei=Pd3CTb64L8PsrQePqZXfAw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
Hope this is useful.
Sonam