https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5378-9197
![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
This paper addresses the policy encounter between a top-down, national housing programme and bottom-up housing processes in the tribal city of Aizawl, to make two arguments. First, it extends the literature analysing the outcomes of neoliberal housing policies to argue that there are important continuities and differences with Indian and Latin American cities. Similar to other Indian cities, Aizawl was strait-jacketed by national standardised norms into producing large-scale, new housing on the peripheries where dwellers faced multiple exclusions. Ironically, the programme has created slums in Aizawl, which officially had none. Unlike other Indian cities, top-down housing transformation in Aizawl concentrated power in 'modern' state institutions slanted toward individual (property) interests and away from traditional governance associated with indigenous urbanism. The paper's second contribution is the argument that top-down housing transformation was deeply contested in Aizawl because it unsettled a local urbanism rooted in notions of indigeneity. This identity politics contributed to overturning the state's conception of mass housing and selecting a role in subsequent housing programmes that reinforced exclusions based on patriarchal and property lines. The paper reinforces the importance for policymakers of treating housing as process, and supporting tribal community governance institutions while including provisions to redress exclusions.
Acknowledgement
This work was supported by the Indian Council for Social Science Research under Grant RESPRO/25/ICSSR/2012-13/RPS; and the Indian Institute for Human Settlements under Reframing Urban Inclusion IIHS Case. The author would like to specially acknowledge Smita Waingankar, who accompanied the author on field visits and provided many insights along with research assistance for the larger research project.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Notes
1 For this conversion foreign exchange rates for Dec 2005, when the JNNURM was announced, are used.
2 Mizos are categorised as Scheduled Tribe – whose status is acknowledged as indigenous by national legislation and eligible for certain indigenous rights protections. In this paper, I use the term tribal because this is the term commonly used by Mizos to describe themselves. It reflects a certain political appropriation of the official category used for claiming new and consolidating older rights.
3 Indigeneity is a claim made in relation to varied struggles (Xaxa, Citation1999). Its central features are the strong attachment of a group of people to the land in a manner that identifies them as culturally different and the victims of oppression (Wolf & Heidenmann, Citation2014). I use this contested term because of its international resonance and because a number of rights and protections are attached to this internationally recognised status.
4 The northeast region of India is a geographic and political administrative region comprising 8 states with a population of 46 million (Census, 2011). Tribal populations are numerically dominant in 5 of the northeastern states, are more urban than those in other regions and private land ownership of land is not dominant (Khakha, Citation2019). Mizoram has a population of 1.1 million (Census, 2011).
5 Research was conducted during 8 visits of a week each – 1 in 2013, 3 in 2014, 2 in 2015, 1 each in 2016, 2018 and 2019.
6 Elected members range from 3 to 9 members depending on population. In 2014, the Act was amended to include 1 woman member.
7 Customary law in Mizoram typically governs both personal and family life as well as community relations such as tenurial rights over land and other natural resources.
8 This process reveals tensions between Mizo 'outsiders' and non-Mizo 'outsiders' who don't possess introduction letters from their VCs or YMA branches.
9 The Census 2011 and NSS 69th Round (2012) reveal that Mizoram performs better than other states on indicators like housing structure, housing condition, and availability of basic amenities; urban poverty is less than the national average.
10 Mizoram is 51.5% urban with only Goa being more urbanised, if we discount Delhi (Census, 2011). An important reason for high urbanisation was the Indian Government's counter-insurgency warfare called village grouping – a strategy for isolating villagers from insurgents to more easily control the latter – during the period of insurgency (1966-1971). This precipitated large-scale migration to cities.
11 Upto 2005, only INR 20 million had been channeled to 100 households via individual loans (Aizawl Master Plan, 2012).
12 In 2015, the Aizawl Municipal Council became a municipal corporation. For more details on AMC's formation, see Kamath (Citation2018).
13 The LSC issued by the LR&S Department gives the holder inheritable and transferable rights to the land unlike the HP that only confers use rights over the land for the purpose of residence.
14 Interview 13 Dec, 2013
15 Interview, 16 Oct, 2014.
16 Interview, 9 Oct 2014
17 Interview 16 Jan, 2019
18 Interview 30 Oct 2014
19 The YMA is suspicious of ‘outsiders’ (vais) whose activities might pose a threat to the harmony of the tribe; often these are construction workers, truck loaders and domestic workers who have entered without necessary entry and work permits from other parts of India or neighbouring countries.
20 Interview 5 May, 2016
21 State officials estimate that they owned only about 2% of land in the city, perhaps a consequence of state departments forming much later in Mizoram's history.
22 Interview, UD&PA official 13 Dec, 2013
23 Each dwelling unit consists of a living room with a kitchen platform and a separate toilet and bathroom. Each building has tanks for rainwater harvesting, and each site has a community hall.
24 Interview 5 May, 2016
25 Interview LC Chairperson May 5, 2016; Mizoram University professor May 6, 2016
26 Interview Jun 2, 2018
27 This section is substantially built on in-depth interviews with the Lawipu Chairperson (19 May, 2014 and 2 Jun, 2018), and interviews conducted on BSUP site visits.
28 Interview, 2 Jun, 2018
29 Interview 30 May, 2018
30 Seeing this as an illicit activity that harmed social life, the YMA had earlier evicted 3 of these families from the veng. Subsequently, it gave them 3-4 months to reform themselves but in this period didn't allow them to live in the veng.
31 Interview 3 May, 2016.
32 Interview 16 Jan, 2019. See also pg. 211 of ‘Achievement Report of Missions & Schemes under Government of Mizoram UD&PA Department’ dated Jan 31, 2019: http://udpamizoram.nic.in/Documents/Version%203%20-%20Achievement%20Report%20UDPA.pdf
34 The Detailed Project Report, Durtlang, stated that an important reason for constructing mass housing was to safely relocate families who were at risk of disasters.