130
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] beigeoat@110010.win 8 points 1 year ago

This is a very hard topic to take a side on.

The razing of these shantytowns has been happening for quite a few years now and has mostly become a part of daily life. In preparation for G20 they have only speed up this in some places.

The reason for razing these places has been simply because of them being built on Unauthorised land and people encroaching on government land.It is also true that the people were being provided basic necessities like electricity and water even when living illegally, with bills in their names address to the unauthorised building.(It is important to note electricity and water bills are controlled by the gov in Delhi)

The Government is correct in their try to reclaim stolen land from illegal occupiers. But it is also true that the residents were promised permanent legal housing right where their houses stood.

The residents were wrong to occupy government land illegally, but it is also morally wrong to remove thousands of people suddenly.

[-] xuxebiko@kbin.social 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The residents were wrong to occupy government land illegally

Govt land is public land. These people are the homeless public. They have no place to live, so they live in slums. Should they just die?

Most of the posh housing societies in Dwarka are also on encroached land. But even their paintwork doesn't get scratched. here homes and livelihoods of the have-nots are destroyed.

[-] beigeoat@110010.win 2 points 1 year ago

Uhm, what? Dwarka's societies don't really have a land encroachment issue. Most of them were built by DDA and other cooperative housing societies. There are other posh areas where land encroachment is an issue but Dwarka's societies aren't one of them.

Government land doesn't mean, you can just show up and build your house there .For example there has been land which was under ASI, which is land under various monuments. There are many monuments whose land is encroached by both the poor and rich. Both are wrong, be they rich/poor, when removing such encroachment it has been fair for the most part (The only really bad cases which come to my mind are, high level government officials just having big mansions built there). This is the case for forest land as well as land coming under various departments of the government.

Many a times the land has been left there for a reason, for future development, parks, forest land, etc. Land encroachment causes a lot of issues. Also being homeless doesn't mean they can just build a house wherever they please. You would not be okay if someone one day just shows up and builds a house on the road right in front of your house.

It is known to the people who are building their homes and livelihoods that what they are doing is illegal and there way of life can be destroyed any day, because what they are doing is illegal. The Government for a really long time had been understanding of their situation and just let them be, providing them with basic services on the encroached land. This doesn't mean that they are right, it just means that they have their house another day.

Also, it isn't technically correct to call these people homeless, most of them are migrant workers that came here to find better work opportunities. they found work and decided it was better to stay on unauthorized land nearby than to find legal housing which may be further away from their work. Rent in these shanties is pretty similar to legally available housing.

[-] xuxebiko@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

and so the voice of the privileged drones on, equating the rich with the poor.

this post was submitted on 04 Sep 2023
130 points (97.8% liked)

World News

38492 readers
2751 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS