The Ruin of Mumbai(asteriskmag.com)
asteriskmag.com
The Ruin of Mumbai
https://asteriskmag.com/issues/05/the-ruin-of-mumbai
39 comments
INR 59,954 crore is around 7 Billion USD.
I was going to say... for a city with a population almost that of the entire state of California, this is hardly anything. To put that in perspective, California spends 200-300 billion each year.
By purchase parity, 1 dollar is about 23 rupees while exchange rate is around 80. So roughly 4x multiplier is needed to .
In purchase parity, it's 27 billions dollar vs 200-300 billion of California. Still 10x less.
I wanted to complain about bangalore garbage and traffic but it will take too much space.
In purchase parity, it's 27 billions dollar vs 200-300 billion of California. Still 10x less.
I wanted to complain about bangalore garbage and traffic but it will take too much space.
Many people seem to struggle with the difference between absolute and proportional values.
Something similar in my country (Nigeria). Many people keep pointing out that Lagos, our most crowded and number one commercial city, has an annual budget of roughly $1 billion, meaning there should be world-class infrastructure.
Until I point out that $1 billion is roughly $50 annually per person. Even accounting for labor and cost of living differences, you need at least 20x that before you start expecting world-class infrastructure.
Sure, labor is cheaper, but power plants, buses, and trains are mostly imported and cost a damn lot. No way you’re getting first-world infrastructure with third-world budget and taxes.
Something similar in my country (Nigeria). Many people keep pointing out that Lagos, our most crowded and number one commercial city, has an annual budget of roughly $1 billion, meaning there should be world-class infrastructure.
Until I point out that $1 billion is roughly $50 annually per person. Even accounting for labor and cost of living differences, you need at least 20x that before you start expecting world-class infrastructure.
Sure, labor is cheaper, but power plants, buses, and trains are mostly imported and cost a damn lot. No way you’re getting first-world infrastructure with third-world budget and taxes.
> Until I point out that $1 billion is roughly $50 annually per person.
I wanted to make a comparison with New York Metropolitan Area and they spend 20 billion only in traffic stuff.
I wanted to make a comparison with New York Metropolitan Area and they spend 20 billion only in traffic stuff.
Possibly, but things like roads and waterways are much fewer/smaller/shorter, as Mumbai is geographically an extremely small city for its population. It becomes even more obvious statistically once you remove the national park in the north from land area calculations.
In any case, there are lots of factors, but I think most Mumbaikars would agree that the city could be run much better with similar/the same resources.
In any case, there are lots of factors, but I think most Mumbaikars would agree that the city could be run much better with similar/the same resources.
How do you figured that? Average salary in california is around 10 times that of mumbai and population of greater mumbai is slightly more than half california. That adjusts the comparison to roughly 140 billion mumvai vs 200 billion california. So mumbai is marginally more efficient than one of the worst run us states by roughetrics. I suspect it should be considered worse because corruption at 8k a year average income cuts a lot worse than equivalent percentage corruption at 80k income
PPP doesn't really translate to municipal budgets, and it's also painfully clear from the grandparent that the huge budget doesn't translate to much, even after PPP comparisons.
> the BMC (Municipal Corporation) is considered quite ineffective/corrupt/lazy by most citizens, despite being the richest municipal body in the world
Well when one divide total budget by population per person won't be much. Economist and even politicians mentioned as much that Indian tax revenues per person are 1/20th of first world but regardless they do think they deserve facilities comparable to developed nations.
Well when one divide total budget by population per person won't be much. Economist and even politicians mentioned as much that Indian tax revenues per person are 1/20th of first world but regardless they do think they deserve facilities comparable to developed nations.
Yep that’s a fair point, the tax burden in India in general is pretty skewed, however worth noting that Mumbai pays a fairly significant amount of it (especially when factoring in indirect and non income taxes). Iirc BMC’s budget is very directly from taxes (very little/no loans or other handouts, though I could be wrong about this).
(Edit: quick googling shows property tax to be the biggest current revenue stream since octroi has gone away after the introduction of a national GST.)
(Edit: quick googling shows property tax to be the biggest current revenue stream since octroi has gone away after the introduction of a national GST.)
Well the flip side of spending all tax revenue of city like Mumbai locally instead of statewide or nation wide there will be even more lopsided development which turns to ever more people coming to Mumbai making infrastructure, pollution and so many other problems worse.
Municipal Government in India answer to and get funded directly by either State Level planning authorities or Central Government IAS.
Municipal Corporations all over India have minimal autonomy outside of PWD procurement [0].
[0] - https://www.impriindia.com/insights/urban-governance-in-indi...
Municipal Corporations all over India have minimal autonomy outside of PWD procurement [0].
[0] - https://www.impriindia.com/insights/urban-governance-in-indi...
₹59,954 crore is roughly USD $7.2 billion.
I have never lived in Bombay, but my parents grew up there, and our family history there goes back to before it was even a city. Indians have an insatiable appetite for centralized economic planning that has done nothing but hurt the country. For me, it's inexplicable, but it's often like trying to talk at a wall. It makes American NIMBY's look like transit advocates.
And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is never efficient. My aunts and uncles who landlorded there for a while had so much trouble evicting tenants for things that would be trivial in America, such as failure to pay. Courts, municipal officials, just drag their feet. It's a cultural problem, and shocks the American conscience.
Such a sad squandering of potential and a good case study in how culture absolutely affects outcomes.
And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is never efficient. My aunts and uncles who landlorded there for a while had so much trouble evicting tenants for things that would be trivial in America, such as failure to pay. Courts, municipal officials, just drag their feet. It's a cultural problem, and shocks the American conscience.
Such a sad squandering of potential and a good case study in how culture absolutely affects outcomes.
> evicting tenants for things that would be trivial in America, such as failure to pay
Evicting tenants is a MASSIVE pain in the ass in many American states.
Evicting tenants is a MASSIVE pain in the ass in many American states.
> our family history there goes back to before it was even a city
Same - my Pathareprabhu ancestors have been in the area since about the 13th century, when the only other people in the region were the Koli fisherfolk.
Same - my Pathareprabhu ancestors have been in the area since about the 13th century, when the only other people in the region were the Koli fisherfolk.
> And for all the fascination with bureaucracy, the bureaucracy is never efficient
Isn't that perhaps the point? Corruption allows everyone to get their hand in the till for money, power, etc. Maybe this drives the "central planning" so that the elites get their graft too.
Isn't that perhaps the point? Corruption allows everyone to get their hand in the till for money, power, etc. Maybe this drives the "central planning" so that the elites get their graft too.
This comment is almost entirely ahistorical.
India as a country is about 75 years old. It’s ridiculously young.
India is the largest democracy in the world despite having half as many official languages as American states, and an order of magnitude more spoken languages, cultures and religions.
Despite this India has remained a largely integral state, has seen authoritarian rule and seen it off in a few years, unlike nearly every other democracy formed around the same time has never been ruled by the military for even a moment.
The greatest economic miracle in the history of human civilization, the growth of China was a product of almost complete central planning to the point that the state also coercively controlled the number of kids you could have. Central planning is clearly no barrier to growth.
India, on the other hand has a highly federal system of government. Arguably the last few years have seen a lot more top down management but that’s a result of the party in federal government also being in power in most state governments.
The current debate playing out in the world is the exact opposite of what you’re claiming. China’s success has made central planning and authoritarianism appear highly desirable. India’s slower growth has made it appear that federalism and democracy are not popular.
However, as the pandemic is showing, when authoritarians mess up they tend to cause irreparable harm whereas democracies are able to absorb a lot more hits.
Your vision of India is a mirror house vision of a 50 year old India at best.
(Btw, even the court and municipal problems you’re referring to is clearly not cultural. India’s slow legal system is very clearly a result of sticking to an antiquated British system and not modernizing it to allow, for example, out of court settlements, which has led to massive backlogs that are now being addressed.
And in terms of municipal actions the Indian state is addressing those issues to the point where there are many functions where the Indian equivalent are significantly faster than the U.S. Try getting a passport in the U.S. today vs India.
Try making payments. India is far ahead of the U.S. which is frankly shocking considering the massive head start the U.S. has here.
Try IDs. While Apple is celebrating something like 4 states doing a pilot system of digital IDs which hasn’t even grown in the 5 years or so, nearly every municipal ID in India today is digital.
Most civil functions can now be done online.
India has also drastically improved government distributions. While the US government was sending literal checks through the mail over COVID Indian monetary benefits are now directly deposited in a bank account.
India as a country is about 75 years old. It’s ridiculously young.
India is the largest democracy in the world despite having half as many official languages as American states, and an order of magnitude more spoken languages, cultures and religions.
Despite this India has remained a largely integral state, has seen authoritarian rule and seen it off in a few years, unlike nearly every other democracy formed around the same time has never been ruled by the military for even a moment.
The greatest economic miracle in the history of human civilization, the growth of China was a product of almost complete central planning to the point that the state also coercively controlled the number of kids you could have. Central planning is clearly no barrier to growth.
India, on the other hand has a highly federal system of government. Arguably the last few years have seen a lot more top down management but that’s a result of the party in federal government also being in power in most state governments.
The current debate playing out in the world is the exact opposite of what you’re claiming. China’s success has made central planning and authoritarianism appear highly desirable. India’s slower growth has made it appear that federalism and democracy are not popular.
However, as the pandemic is showing, when authoritarians mess up they tend to cause irreparable harm whereas democracies are able to absorb a lot more hits.
Your vision of India is a mirror house vision of a 50 year old India at best.
(Btw, even the court and municipal problems you’re referring to is clearly not cultural. India’s slow legal system is very clearly a result of sticking to an antiquated British system and not modernizing it to allow, for example, out of court settlements, which has led to massive backlogs that are now being addressed.
And in terms of municipal actions the Indian state is addressing those issues to the point where there are many functions where the Indian equivalent are significantly faster than the U.S. Try getting a passport in the U.S. today vs India.
Try making payments. India is far ahead of the U.S. which is frankly shocking considering the massive head start the U.S. has here.
Try IDs. While Apple is celebrating something like 4 states doing a pilot system of digital IDs which hasn’t even grown in the 5 years or so, nearly every municipal ID in India today is digital.
Most civil functions can now be done online.
India has also drastically improved government distributions. While the US government was sending literal checks through the mail over COVID Indian monetary benefits are now directly deposited in a bank account.
> Your vision of India is a mirror house vision of a 50 year old India at best.
Well realistically, this is when my family left, but the article seems to cite the same pain points today.
Also, I think this comment exemplifies some of the issues with Indian society. The moment one levels a criticism, suddenly, the rather pointed criticism is taken as a criticism of society as a whole.
At no point did I criticise India's democracy or accuse it of authoritarianism. There are many centrally planned economies without authoritarianism. Nor is central planning associated with military juntas / coups. At no point did I say anything negative about India's growth story, which as you point out, is astronomical, but slower than China.
Overall, I think India's great. I'm just pointing out some issues that I see. It would behoove you, and Indians more generally, to listen to the criticism without getting confused over what's being criticised.
Also, the existence of centralized planning in a more concentrated form in China does not mean the centralized planning in India cannot be criticized. Again, we must stay tuned to exactly the criticisms I've outlined, not strawman.
> India, on the other hand has a highly federal system of government. Arguably the last few years have seen a lot more top down management but that’s a result of the party in federal government also being in power in most state governments.
The US, Australia, Canada, etc all have federal systems. This is hardly an excuse.
> And in terms of municipal actions the Indian state is addressing those issues to the point where there are many functions where the Indian equivalent are significantly faster than the U.S. Try getting a passport in the U.S. today vs India.
How long does an Indian passport take?
> India has also drastically improved government distributions. While the US government was sending literal checks through the mail over COVID Indian monetary benefits are now directly deposited in a bank account.
Again, however ahead India is of the US in terms of bank deposits, does not detract from the criticism that the Indian state and Indian culture as a whole is very into central bureaucracy. Actually, I think the check thing is yet another good example. Checks are an extremely distributed form of payment. Basically anyone can write a check on a piece of paper and banks will accept it (within reason). I can have anyone print my checks, and as long as my information is correct, the bank will cash it. Moreover, check fraud is taken very seriously, so that people aren't just doing this willy nilly. As a whole, the US is fairly high trust, so this distributed model works well, and has certain advantages, such as being able to cash checks anywhere, the ability to easily transfer a check to another payee (just write a new endorsement), etc. I'm not sure what Indian system you're referring to, but for me personally, I like being able to hand over money without having to give my life's information to private brokerages.
Well realistically, this is when my family left, but the article seems to cite the same pain points today.
Also, I think this comment exemplifies some of the issues with Indian society. The moment one levels a criticism, suddenly, the rather pointed criticism is taken as a criticism of society as a whole.
At no point did I criticise India's democracy or accuse it of authoritarianism. There are many centrally planned economies without authoritarianism. Nor is central planning associated with military juntas / coups. At no point did I say anything negative about India's growth story, which as you point out, is astronomical, but slower than China.
Overall, I think India's great. I'm just pointing out some issues that I see. It would behoove you, and Indians more generally, to listen to the criticism without getting confused over what's being criticised.
Also, the existence of centralized planning in a more concentrated form in China does not mean the centralized planning in India cannot be criticized. Again, we must stay tuned to exactly the criticisms I've outlined, not strawman.
> India, on the other hand has a highly federal system of government. Arguably the last few years have seen a lot more top down management but that’s a result of the party in federal government also being in power in most state governments.
The US, Australia, Canada, etc all have federal systems. This is hardly an excuse.
> And in terms of municipal actions the Indian state is addressing those issues to the point where there are many functions where the Indian equivalent are significantly faster than the U.S. Try getting a passport in the U.S. today vs India.
How long does an Indian passport take?
> India has also drastically improved government distributions. While the US government was sending literal checks through the mail over COVID Indian monetary benefits are now directly deposited in a bank account.
Again, however ahead India is of the US in terms of bank deposits, does not detract from the criticism that the Indian state and Indian culture as a whole is very into central bureaucracy. Actually, I think the check thing is yet another good example. Checks are an extremely distributed form of payment. Basically anyone can write a check on a piece of paper and banks will accept it (within reason). I can have anyone print my checks, and as long as my information is correct, the bank will cash it. Moreover, check fraud is taken very seriously, so that people aren't just doing this willy nilly. As a whole, the US is fairly high trust, so this distributed model works well, and has certain advantages, such as being able to cash checks anywhere, the ability to easily transfer a check to another payee (just write a new endorsement), etc. I'm not sure what Indian system you're referring to, but for me personally, I like being able to hand over money without having to give my life's information to private brokerages.
> but the article seems to cite the same pain points today.
The issues raised by the article are a result of colonial era policies. And it’s not clear what the author means by “Mumbai” because they don’t link or reference most of their claims but I suspect they’re talking about Mumbai proper which is fully built out. The growth of Mumbai is happening in the “suburbs” (very different from American suburbs in that they’re denser than Mumbai proper) and connecting them through a newly built subway system.
> At no point did I criticise India's democracy or accuse it of authoritarianism.
You claimed Indians have an insatiable appetite for central planning and this has led to a massive waste of human potential. I showed through the Chinese example that Central Planning does not necessarily lead to any waste of human potential and almost certainly is responsible for the greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization. But more so, India is an extremely federal state, maybe behind only the U.S. and the EU if you consider the EU a state.
> It would behoove you, and Indians more generally, to listen to the criticism without getting confused over what's being criticised.
I agree Indians don’t take criticism well and that’s a problem. My comment was not because I can’t take criticism. I can write a critique of India today where the footnotes would be longer than the original blog post. Heck I’ve written that (I won’t post because I don’t want to lose my anonymity).
The problem is that your criticism is completely wrong and worse backwards. India’s problem has nothing to do with an insatiable appetite for central planning. If anything India’s problem arises from a lack of sufficient central planning.
Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc.
My issue isn’t with you criticizing. My issue is with you criticizing based on knowledge from 50 years ago where the criticism isn’t just wrong but actually backwards.
The issues raised by the article are a result of colonial era policies. And it’s not clear what the author means by “Mumbai” because they don’t link or reference most of their claims but I suspect they’re talking about Mumbai proper which is fully built out. The growth of Mumbai is happening in the “suburbs” (very different from American suburbs in that they’re denser than Mumbai proper) and connecting them through a newly built subway system.
> At no point did I criticise India's democracy or accuse it of authoritarianism.
You claimed Indians have an insatiable appetite for central planning and this has led to a massive waste of human potential. I showed through the Chinese example that Central Planning does not necessarily lead to any waste of human potential and almost certainly is responsible for the greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization. But more so, India is an extremely federal state, maybe behind only the U.S. and the EU if you consider the EU a state.
> It would behoove you, and Indians more generally, to listen to the criticism without getting confused over what's being criticised.
I agree Indians don’t take criticism well and that’s a problem. My comment was not because I can’t take criticism. I can write a critique of India today where the footnotes would be longer than the original blog post. Heck I’ve written that (I won’t post because I don’t want to lose my anonymity).
The problem is that your criticism is completely wrong and worse backwards. India’s problem has nothing to do with an insatiable appetite for central planning. If anything India’s problem arises from a lack of sufficient central planning.
Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc.
My issue isn’t with you criticizing. My issue is with you criticizing based on knowledge from 50 years ago where the criticism isn’t just wrong but actually backwards.
> I showed through the Chinese example that Central Planning does not necessarily lead to any waste of human potential and almost certainly is responsible for the greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization.
Hold your horses. I agree that Chinese central planning has done wonders for China. However, American-style distributed planning is still clearly superior. American GDP growth has been continuous for years, and America is currently completely outpacing China. Many economists predict China's decline over the next few decades as the centrally planned demographics cliff hits. I think it's foolish to be overly impressed by China, and I think your characterization of it as the 'greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization' is completely off point.
> Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc.
Hmm... well certainly some are, but the highway system is distributed planning. The feds centrally fund it, but individual states are responsible for actually planning the highway's routes, as long as certain conditions are met. The majority of American highways existed before the interstate acts. The acts simply brought them up to standards and ensured a consistent numbering system. For example, before I-5 was designated, there was the 'Pacific highway' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(United_States...) built in a distributed manner by three states acting together at the behest of groups of individuals.
Moreover, a lot of American infrastructure is private: hospitals, banking, energy, rail. This was even more true in the developing years of the American economy. By the time the federal highway funds came in, America was already a 'developed' country, and had developed without much central planning.
Hold your horses. I agree that Chinese central planning has done wonders for China. However, American-style distributed planning is still clearly superior. American GDP growth has been continuous for years, and America is currently completely outpacing China. Many economists predict China's decline over the next few decades as the centrally planned demographics cliff hits. I think it's foolish to be overly impressed by China, and I think your characterization of it as the 'greatest use of human potential in the history of human civilization' is completely off point.
> Let’s talk about the U.S. The US is extremely federal but almost all the useful infrastructure in the U.S. is still a result of central planning around World War 2. The highway system, the massive series of dams and other energy projects, land grant colleges, etc.
Hmm... well certainly some are, but the highway system is distributed planning. The feds centrally fund it, but individual states are responsible for actually planning the highway's routes, as long as certain conditions are met. The majority of American highways existed before the interstate acts. The acts simply brought them up to standards and ensured a consistent numbering system. For example, before I-5 was designated, there was the 'Pacific highway' (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Highway_(United_States...) built in a distributed manner by three states acting together at the behest of groups of individuals.
Moreover, a lot of American infrastructure is private: hospitals, banking, energy, rail. This was even more true in the developing years of the American economy. By the time the federal highway funds came in, America was already a 'developed' country, and had developed without much central planning.
> How long does an Indian passport take?
I'd applied for a passport in the summer of 2020, during the height of the COVID lockdown. I could get an appointment at the passport office within a week (socially distanced, reduced capacity), and had my passport in hand the next week. Prepandemic I'd say the average was about 10 days, for passport renewal. A fresh passport takes more time since it requires 'police verification', where a cop from your local police station goes physically to your address to verify you actually live there, and gets attestations from your neighbors on how long you've lived at this address.
I'd applied for a passport in the summer of 2020, during the height of the COVID lockdown. I could get an appointment at the passport office within a week (socially distanced, reduced capacity), and had my passport in hand the next week. Prepandemic I'd say the average was about 10 days, for passport renewal. A fresh passport takes more time since it requires 'police verification', where a cop from your local police station goes physically to your address to verify you actually live there, and gets attestations from your neighbors on how long you've lived at this address.
> I'd applied for a passport in the summer of 2020, during the height of the COVID lockdown. I could get an appointment at the passport office within a week (socially distanced, reduced capacity), and had my passport in hand the next week
So no different than America? The official site says 8 - 16 weeks, but in my experience, they come promptly within a week or two at most. Unless you have confusing circumstances that require manual review. I had a friend going to Ireland and his entire family had the passports within days but he filled out his form wrong and it took the full eight weeks, including a visit.
I mean, we just renewed a passport last week, and got it this week.
I'm happy the passport process is so streamlined, but again that wasn't the point of the article. Nor is passport processing times at all related to government intervention in the economy.
So no different than America? The official site says 8 - 16 weeks, but in my experience, they come promptly within a week or two at most. Unless you have confusing circumstances that require manual review. I had a friend going to Ireland and his entire family had the passports within days but he filled out his form wrong and it took the full eight weeks, including a visit.
I mean, we just renewed a passport last week, and got it this week.
I'm happy the passport process is so streamlined, but again that wasn't the point of the article. Nor is passport processing times at all related to government intervention in the economy.
The height restrictions and rent control are overstated.
If they were a blocker to slum redevelopment, then similar cities like Delhi (or even neighboring Thane and Navi Mumbai, or nearby Pune) would be equally as decrepit, which they are not.
The major issue is land procurement and failure to minimize encroachment.
India, being a democracy, is limited by public demands. As cities became economic growth engines, a lot of people migrated, but were unable to get housing, and then autarkic India had (and in a lot of cases, still has) socialist style "Development Authorities" manage housing construction within the Tier 1 cities.
The development authorities were notorious slow at developing new property, so migrants were forced to encroach land and build slums.
As the first generation of slum dwellers succeeded economically, they began moving out of the slums, but rented out the slum property to newer migrants, and kept a hold on the slum properties waiting for a government to eventually legalize those slum holdings and transfer the land rights to the "basti" owner (this kind of transfer has happened before - most recently in Odisha, Delhi, and Punjab).
Unlike in China, India's democracy (no matter how flawed it is) prevents severely underfunded urban local governments from preventing this encroachment, and politicians actually liked this, as slum dwellers formed voting blocks, and would de facto collateralize their land to grey market financial institutions, which themselves worked under the auspices of those local politicans.
And finally, slum dwellers would organize and place political minefields. There's a reason why tiny temples, mosques, and other religious institutions dot urban India - they aren't just for veneration but also tools to prevent demolitions, as dwellers can rally around protecting the temple or mosque from being demolished (along with the neighborhood), and politicians would have to back down, as Indian elections are won on extremely small margins.
This economics of encroachment occurs in similar developing country like Brazil, Phillipines, and Vietnam as well as former developing economics like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Slum dwellers are not idiots - just poor. They know they land they are on is worth millions, and most governments are not going to use force to kick them out, and if they do, they WILL fight back. The land they encroached is the closest thing they have to a nest egg.
If they were a blocker to slum redevelopment, then similar cities like Delhi (or even neighboring Thane and Navi Mumbai, or nearby Pune) would be equally as decrepit, which they are not.
The major issue is land procurement and failure to minimize encroachment.
India, being a democracy, is limited by public demands. As cities became economic growth engines, a lot of people migrated, but were unable to get housing, and then autarkic India had (and in a lot of cases, still has) socialist style "Development Authorities" manage housing construction within the Tier 1 cities.
The development authorities were notorious slow at developing new property, so migrants were forced to encroach land and build slums.
As the first generation of slum dwellers succeeded economically, they began moving out of the slums, but rented out the slum property to newer migrants, and kept a hold on the slum properties waiting for a government to eventually legalize those slum holdings and transfer the land rights to the "basti" owner (this kind of transfer has happened before - most recently in Odisha, Delhi, and Punjab).
Unlike in China, India's democracy (no matter how flawed it is) prevents severely underfunded urban local governments from preventing this encroachment, and politicians actually liked this, as slum dwellers formed voting blocks, and would de facto collateralize their land to grey market financial institutions, which themselves worked under the auspices of those local politicans.
And finally, slum dwellers would organize and place political minefields. There's a reason why tiny temples, mosques, and other religious institutions dot urban India - they aren't just for veneration but also tools to prevent demolitions, as dwellers can rally around protecting the temple or mosque from being demolished (along with the neighborhood), and politicians would have to back down, as Indian elections are won on extremely small margins.
This economics of encroachment occurs in similar developing country like Brazil, Phillipines, and Vietnam as well as former developing economics like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan.
Slum dwellers are not idiots - just poor. They know they land they are on is worth millions, and most governments are not going to use force to kick them out, and if they do, they WILL fight back. The land they encroached is the closest thing they have to a nest egg.
What do you make of the DDC trying to demolish the mosque in Delhi currently then?
Mixed bag.
They shouldn't have demolished the historic Akhondji masjid (it is truly ancient), but the slum built around it was built on land that was encroached on.
Delhi is ruled by the opposition AAP.
It's not like Temples don't get demolished either [0], and 4 temples were demolished along with the Akhondji Masjid [1] during the Mehrauli demolishment drive.
If it was truly egregious Islamophobia, Indian allies like the UAE and KSA would have called it out like they did Nupur Sharma's extremely insensitive statement 2 years ago.
[0] - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/delhi-...
[1] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/mosque-temp...
They shouldn't have demolished the historic Akhondji masjid (it is truly ancient), but the slum built around it was built on land that was encroached on.
Delhi is ruled by the opposition AAP.
It's not like Temples don't get demolished either [0], and 4 temples were demolished along with the Akhondji Masjid [1] during the Mehrauli demolishment drive.
If it was truly egregious Islamophobia, Indian allies like the UAE and KSA would have called it out like they did Nupur Sharma's extremely insensitive statement 2 years ago.
[0] - https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/videos/city/delhi/delhi-...
[1] - https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/delhi-news/mosque-temp...
https://thepatriot.in/heritage/experts-historians-object-to-...
NDMC is 80% controlled by Central Government, not Delhi government. (Sorry I should have written NDMC instead of MCD (which is what I meant by DDC above)).
NDMC is 80% controlled by Central Government, not Delhi government. (Sorry I should have written NDMC instead of MCD (which is what I meant by DDC above)).
Sunehri Bagh Masjid hasn't been demolished: it's still there.
Also it appears you are confusing different cases.
It's going through the court system, as it should.
Hindu temples go through the cycle as well, and as I noted above, 4 Hindu temples neighboring the Akhondji Masjid were demolished as well.
Look, I won't deny that it sucks being Muslim in India, but not every act is explicitly done out of Islamophobia.
If I wanted to, I could say the same thing about Hindu Mandirs being demolished in Karachi's slum redevelopment program as well (not out of Hinduphobia)
Finally, I've never heard of "The Patriot" before. The primary newspapers in Delhi are The Tribune's Delhi Edition and The Hindustan Times, and it's been that way for over a century.
Also it appears you are confusing different cases.
It's going through the court system, as it should.
Hindu temples go through the cycle as well, and as I noted above, 4 Hindu temples neighboring the Akhondji Masjid were demolished as well.
Look, I won't deny that it sucks being Muslim in India, but not every act is explicitly done out of Islamophobia.
If I wanted to, I could say the same thing about Hindu Mandirs being demolished in Karachi's slum redevelopment program as well (not out of Hinduphobia)
Finally, I've never heard of "The Patriot" before. The primary newspapers in Delhi are The Tribune's Delhi Edition and The Hindustan Times, and it's been that way for over a century.
[deleted]
I 100% clicked the link expecting an article about how the open source PBX software Asterisk was being used in some nefarious way.
[deleted]
In fraught issues like rent control and housing, I often see claims like the one in the article that people moving to cities can see up to a 30% increase in income, but they never seem to factor in the increase in costs, which could be far higher than 30%, leading to a net loss.
Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to cold. I am not claiming the point is invalid - just that a fuller picture can make the conversation richer.
Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to cold. I am not claiming the point is invalid - just that a fuller picture can make the conversation richer.
Rent control and Height restrictions aren't enforced in India.
Property contract disputes in India follow the principle of "Jiski lathi, uski bhains" (might makes right // That cow belongs to the guy with the bamboo or iron rod).
The landlord or the tenent can enforce their ideal level of rent based on who can force the other to comply, and civil courts have decades long backlogs so nothing will get done - property disputes make up the majority of cases in India.
Property contract disputes in India follow the principle of "Jiski lathi, uski bhains" (might makes right // That cow belongs to the guy with the bamboo or iron rod).
The landlord or the tenent can enforce their ideal level of rent based on who can force the other to comply, and civil courts have decades long backlogs so nothing will get done - property disputes make up the majority of cases in India.
> Same story with global warming claiming additional deaths due to increased temperatures without the corresponding statistic on deaths due to cold. I am not claiming the point is invalid - just that a fuller picture can make the conversation richer.
Studies on this definitely account for both. Of course, given that cold related deaths are already significantly fewer than heat deaths there isn't much to talk about beyond noting the fact that they're essentially irrelevant.
This of course highlights why if one sees something "obvious" that experts miss the response should be to dig into why they're not accounting for it versus assuming they're idiots or malicious.
Studies on this definitely account for both. Of course, given that cold related deaths are already significantly fewer than heat deaths there isn't much to talk about beyond noting the fact that they're essentially irrelevant.
This of course highlights why if one sees something "obvious" that experts miss the response should be to dig into why they're not accounting for it versus assuming they're idiots or malicious.
Not sure where you see my comment assuming they are idiots or malicious. I just note that they don't mention it, where they might reference the study that supports your assertion that they are significantly fewer.
There are some pitfalls in comparing percentages like this. Net profit (or disposable income - it’s weird how different the connotations of these terms are) is a much better measure. Consider a farm worker who’s paid $10/day, and pays $1/day for bread and board. They move to the city where they’re paid $13/day and pay $3/day in living expenses. That’s 30% more pay but 300% higher costs. Assuming all else is equal (quality of life etc) are they better off?
You can also have situations (especially in poor countries) where you go from your $10/day but able to survive if work stops, because you can just grow some food for yourself, survive on very little, etc to being absolutely dependent on a salary or social support if work fails.
if finances remain equal-ish, then I'd say it depends on the individuum and exact circumstances.
For example I hate living in the countryside or small village - I'd always pick the densest/urban/modern area I can afford to live, just because I crave the buzzing energy and constant novelty and stimulating options around. But other people can be the exact opposite.
For example I hate living in the countryside or small village - I'd always pick the densest/urban/modern area I can afford to live, just because I crave the buzzing energy and constant novelty and stimulating options around. But other people can be the exact opposite.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brihanmumbai_Municipal_Corpora... has more info including controversies.
Also, regarding housing specifically, due to a perpetual population growth and inflation, many buildings sit empty because builders know that people will cave in, even if property is temporarily overpriced and no one is buying them in the short term. Additionally legal disputes often block up other buildings, resulting in large dilapidated buildings sitting in the middle of busy/high-value areas but providing no benefit.