What If Mumbai Implemented Different Slum Redevelopment Strategies?

The Actual History

Mumbai, India's financial capital and one of the world's most populous urban agglomerations, has long struggled with the challenge of informal settlements. With over 40% of its 20+ million residents living in slums that occupy just 6-8% of the city's land, Mumbai represents one of the most acute cases of urban housing inequality globally. The city's slums, particularly Dharavi—often described as Asia's largest slum with approximately one million residents in 2.1 square kilometers—emerged as a consequence of rapid industrialization, rural-urban migration, and insufficient affordable housing policies.

Mumbai's approach to slum redevelopment has evolved significantly since India's independence in 1947. Initial policies in the 1950s and 1960s focused primarily on slum clearance and relocation, viewing slums as urban blight to be eliminated. By the 1970s, faced with the failure of these approaches and growing slum populations, the Maharashtra state government established the Slum Improvement Program, which began providing basic amenities to slum dwellers without addressing land tenure.

A watershed moment came in 1995 with the establishment of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) and the introduction of the Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SRS). This market-based approach incentivized private developers to build free housing for eligible slum dwellers (those who could prove residence before January 1, 1995, later extended to January 1, 2000) in exchange for valuable development rights they could use elsewhere in the city. The scheme utilized a high-density, high-rise model where slum residents were typically provided with 269 square feet (25 square meters) apartments in multi-story buildings.

The Dharavi Redevelopment Project (DRP), launched in 2004, aimed to transform the infamous slum into a modern urban township through a public-private partnership model. After multiple failed tenders and revisions, the Maharashtra government approved Adani Realty's ₹5,069 crore (approximately $61 billion) bid in 2023 to redevelop a portion of Dharavi, with implementation beginning in 2024.

Despite these efforts, Mumbai's slum redevelopment programs have faced significant challenges. By 2025, the SRA had completed only about 200,000 rehabilitation units—far short of the need. Implementation has been plagued by eligibility disputes, corruption allegations, delays, poor construction quality, and inadequate maintenance of rehabilitated buildings. Many completed projects have suffered from social disruption as vertical living destroyed community networks, and maintenance costs became unsustainable for low-income residents.

Most critically, the market-driven approach prioritized developer profits over community needs, often relocating residents to peripheral areas disconnected from livelihoods and social networks. The high-rise model frequently failed to accommodate the mixed residential-commercial use typical in slums, where many residents operate home-based enterprises. Environmental concerns, inadequate community participation, and the neglect of rental housing options further undermined the effectiveness of Mumbai's slum redevelopment efforts.

By 2025, despite decades of intervention, Mumbai's housing crisis remained acute, with slum populations continuing to grow and many rehabilitation projects facing significant problems within years of completion. The city's approach had produced isolated successes but failed to achieve the systematic transformation of informal settlements into sustainable, inclusive neighborhoods.

The Point of Divergence

What if Mumbai had adopted a fundamentally different approach to slum redevelopment in the early 1990s? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where a combination of political vision, civil society pressure, and international partnerships led Maharashtra state to implement a community-centered, multi-faceted strategy rather than the primarily market-driven SRA model.

The point of divergence occurs in 1992-1993, in the aftermath of the devastating communal riots that shook Mumbai. In our timeline, these riots led to soul-searching about the city's future but ultimately resulted in business-as-usual urban policies. In this alternate reality, however, the riots catalyzed a deeper rethinking of urban inclusion and inequality.

Several plausible mechanisms could have driven this change:

First, the political leadership might have shifted. Perhaps Chief Minister Sharad Pawar, facing the aftermath of the riots and recognizing the connection between urban inequality and social unrest, embraced a more progressive urban vision. Alternatively, a different election outcome might have brought to power a coalition more committed to equitable urban development.

Second, civil society movements could have gained greater traction. In this timeline, grassroots organizations like SPARC (Society for the Promotion of Area Resource Centers) and Slum Dwellers International formed a more effective coalition with middle-class reformers, creating political pressure for comprehensive slum policies rather than piecemeal interventions.

Third, international influences might have played a different role. The early 1990s marked India's economic liberalization and increased engagement with global institutions. Perhaps Mumbai became an early pilot site for the UN-Habitat's emerging best practices, bringing greater resources and expertise to bear on its housing challenges.

Fourth, a combination of legal interventions might have altered the trajectory. The Bombay High Court, instead of merely ordering slum improvements, could have issued more far-reaching judgments recognizing housing rights and mandating participatory approaches to redevelopment.

Whatever the specific trigger, by 1994-1995, instead of creating the profit-driven Slum Rehabilitation Authority, Maharashtra established a more comprehensive Mumbai Housing Transformation Authority with a mandate to implement diverse, context-sensitive approaches to slum upgrading and affordable housing development throughout the city.

Immediate Aftermath

Policy Formulation and Institutional Reform (1995-1998)

The newly established Mumbai Housing Transformation Authority (MHTA) marked a radical departure from previous approaches to slum redevelopment. Unlike the SRA with its one-size-fits-all model, the MHTA adopted a flexible, multi-pronged strategy that recognized the diversity of Mumbai's informal settlements.

The MHTA's founding legislation established several core principles:

Security of tenure: All slum residents received immediate protection from eviction while long-term solutions were developed
Community participation: Slum dweller organizations became formal partners in planning and implementation
Incremental development: Recognition that transformation would occur gradually rather than through "overnight" redevelopment
Mixed approaches: Different strategies for different contexts rather than a single model
Cross-subsidy: Using valuable urban land to generate funds while ensuring affordable housing

Perhaps most significantly, the MHTA's governance structure included representatives from slum dweller federations, ensuring that beneficiaries had a voice in decision-making. The authority also established Community Resource Centers in major slums to facilitate participation and information sharing.

Pilot Programs and Early Interventions (1998-2000)

Rather than launching citywide programs immediately, the MHTA began with pilot projects in different types of settlements:

In-situ Upgrading in Established Slums: In parts of Dharavi, rather than full redevelopment, the MHTA implemented infrastructure upgrading with minimal disruption to existing structures. This included laying water pipes, constructing sewerage systems, creating paved pathways, and establishing electricity connections. Residents received transferable long-term leases rather than ownership titles, reducing speculation while providing security.

Partial Redevelopment in Transit Camps: For settlements on critical infrastructure land, such as those along railway lines, the MHTA piloted a hybrid approach. Approximately 60% of residents received medium-rise apartments (3-5 stories rather than high-rises) on the same site, while 40% received apartments in nearby locations, freeing land for essential public infrastructure.

Community-Managed Rental Housing: Recognizing that many slum dwellers were renters rather than structure owners, the MHTA established a pilot program for community-managed rental housing. Using a community land trust model, land was held collectively while housing units could be owned or rented, maintaining affordability over time.

Political and Public Response (2000-2002)

The initial response to these pilots was mixed. Developer lobbies, which had anticipated windfall profits under the previously proposed SRA scheme, mounted significant opposition. Several legal challenges were filed, arguing that the MHTA approach violated property rights and failed to maximize land values.

However, the visible success of the pilot projects—particularly the rapid implementation compared to the bureaucratic delays typical of Mumbai's urban projects—generated considerable public support. International organizations, including the World Bank and UN-Habitat, praised Mumbai's innovative approach and provided additional technical assistance and partial funding for scaling up successful pilots.

Local elections in 2000 became a referendum on the new housing policies. Despite intensive lobbying from real estate interests, parties supporting the MHTA approach secured a mandate to continue and expand their work, though with some compromises to address middle-class concerns about land values and city aesthetics.

Dharavi: A Different Approach (2002-2005)

Rather than treating Dharavi as a single redevelopment project as in our timeline, the MHTA divided it into 12 sectors based on existing neighborhoods (nagars), each with its own community-led planning process. The resulting sector plans reflected Dharavi's diversity:

Industrial sectors with leather, pottery, and recycling businesses received upgraded workshops with improved environmental controls and worker housing above
Mixed-use developments maintained the integration of living and working spaces crucial to Dharavi's economy
Community facilities including schools, health centers, and public spaces were designed with resident input
A network of improved streets and pedestrian pathways preserved Dharavi's human scale while improving connectivity

The first sector redevelopment began in 2003, with residents temporarily housed in transit accommodations within Dharavi itself. By 2005, three sectors had completed their initial upgrading phase, demonstrating the feasibility of transforming Dharavi without destroying its social and economic fabric.

Financial Innovation (2000-2005)

To fund this ambitious agenda, the MHTA developed innovative financing mechanisms:

A dedicated Affordable Housing Fund funded through a 1% surcharge on property transactions throughout Mumbai
Land value capture mechanisms that recouped some of the increased value generated by public investments
Cross-subsidies from commercial development rights in select locations
Microfinance programs enabling incremental home improvements for those preferring to upgrade existing structures
International development loans with generous terms based on the program's demonstrated effectiveness

Unlike the SRA model, which relied almost entirely on private developer financing (and thus developer profit motives), the MHTA approach blended public investment, private capital, community savings, and international support—creating a more sustainable financial foundation.

Long-term Impact

Housing Outcomes (2005-2015)

By 2015, the alternate approach to slum redevelopment had produced dramatically different outcomes compared to our timeline:

Scale of Transformation: Approximately 600,000 housing units had been improved or newly constructed under various MHTA programs—roughly triple the number achieved in our timeline. The variety of approaches—from in-situ upgrading to incremental housing to mid-rise apartments—allowed for faster implementation tailored to different contexts.

Quality and Sustainability: The inclusion of residents in design and implementation resulted in housing better suited to their needs. Mid-rise buildings (typically 4-7 stories) rather than high-rises reduced maintenance costs and preserved community connections. Building quality improved as community oversight committees monitored construction, reducing corruption and cut corners.

Tenure Security: Different tenure options—including ownership, long-term leasehold, cooperative ownership, and regulated rental—provided security while accommodating different needs and income levels. This diversity prevented the speculation and reselling that undermined many SRA projects in our timeline.

Community Preservation: By rejecting the wholesale clearance and high-rise approach, neighborhood social networks remained largely intact. Community spaces and facilities designed with resident input fostered social cohesion. Mixed housing typologies allowed extended families to remain in proximity, preserving important support systems.

Economic Transformation (2005-2020)

The alternative approach had profound economic implications:

Livelihood Protection and Enhancement: By integrating workspace into redevelopment plans, home-based enterprises and small businesses continued to thrive. In Dharavi, improved infrastructure for the leather, pottery, garment, and recycling industries increased productivity and working conditions while reducing environmental impacts.

Formal-Informal Integration: Rather than attempting to formalize all aspects of the informal economy immediately, the MHTA created progressive pathways. Simplified registration processes, basic safety standards, and incentives for environmental improvements brought many enterprises into partial formality without destroying their economic viability.

Skill Development Centers: Each major redeveloped area included skill development facilities co-managed by industry associations and educational institutions. These centers provided targeted training for neighborhood industries, helping residents advance economically while maintaining community connections.

Property Values and Investment: While land value increases were less explosive than developers had hoped under the SRA model, they proved more sustainable. Neighborhoods with MHTA interventions saw steady appreciation without the boom-bust cycles that characterized other parts of Mumbai. Local banking institutions developed specialized products for these areas, increasing formal investment.

Spatial Transformation (2010-2025)

By 2025, Mumbai's urban form had evolved differently than in our timeline:

Decentralized Density: Rather than isolated high-rise colonies amid slums, Mumbai developed a pattern of medium-density, mixed-use neighborhoods. The rigid distinction between "slum" and "non-slum" areas gradually blurred as formerly informal settlements became integrated parts of the urban fabric.

Improved Connectivity: The incremental approach allowed upgrading to coordinate with transportation planning. New and improved streets created better connections between formerly isolated neighborhoods, while transit-oriented development clustered around metro and rail stations, improving access to employment centers.

Environmental Resilience: Unlike our timeline where concrete expanses replaced the organic layout of slums, this alternate Mumbai incorporated green infrastructure from the beginning. Permeable surfaces, urban forests, and water management systems reduced flooding during monsoons. Building designs incorporated passive cooling and solar elements, reducing energy demand.

Public Space Network: The negotiated planning process preserved and enhanced public spaces rather than privatizing them. Each neighborhood featured community-managed public areas reflecting local needs—from cricket grounds to community gardens to street markets—creating a distinctive sense of place lacking in homogeneous redevelopment projects.

Governance Innovation (2005-2025)

Perhaps the most significant long-term impact came in governance:

Participatory Planning Institutionalized: What began as an experiment became standard practice across Mumbai. Neighborhood committees gained formal roles in local planning decisions, creating ongoing accountability rather than one-time consultation.

Transparent Information Systems: Community mapping initiatives evolved into sophisticated public information systems tracking housing conditions, infrastructure needs, and implementation progress. This transparency reduced corruption and created pressure for continuing improvements.

Co-production of Services: In many neighborhoods, service delivery became a partnership between municipal authorities and community organizations. Local groups took responsibility for maintenance and monitoring, while the city provided technical support and capital investments—improving both efficiency and quality.

Policy Diffusion: By 2015, Mumbai's approach influenced housing policies in other Indian cities. Pune, Ahmedabad, and later Delhi adapted elements of the Mumbai model to their contexts, creating a national learning network on inclusive urban development.

Global Influence (2015-2025)

As Mumbai's alternative approach demonstrated success, it gained international recognition:

South-South Knowledge Exchange: The "Mumbai Model" became a reference point for cities across the Global South facing similar challenges. Delegations from Jakarta, Nairobi, Rio de Janeiro, and Manila studied Mumbai's approach, adapting elements to their contexts.

Revision of Global Best Practices: International organizations revised their urban development guidelines based on Mumbai's experience. The UN-Habitat's "New Urban Agenda" (2016) incorporated many principles pioneered in Mumbai, particularly regarding participation, incremental development, and mixed tenure options.

Professional Education: Universities in India and abroad developed urban planning curricula highlighting Mumbai's approach. A generation of planners, architects, and policy analysts emerged with new perspectives on informal settlement upgrading and inclusive urban development.

Investment Patterns: Development finance institutions created new funding instruments based on Mumbai's integrated approach, moving away from single-sector projects toward comprehensive neighborhood transformation initiatives.

Challenges and Limitations (2020-2025)

Despite its successes, this alternate Mumbai continued to face significant challenges:

New Informal Settlements: While existing slums transformed successfully, continued migration to Mumbai led to new informal settlements in peripheral areas. The MHTA struggled to extend its approach to these emerging communities, which lacked the strong social organizations of established slums.

Climate Vulnerability: Though more resilient than in our timeline, low-lying areas remained vulnerable to sea-level rise and increasingly intense monsoons, requiring difficult decisions about managed retreat from some coastal settlements.

Gentrification Pressures: As formerly stigmatized neighborhoods became desirable places to live, market pressures threatened affordability. While tenure protections prevented wholesale displacement, subtle forms of gentrification emerged as higher-income residents moved into improved areas.

Political Sustainability: Maintaining political commitment to inclusive development required constant vigilance. Economic downturns and changing political alignments periodically threatened to revert to more market-driven approaches, necessitating ongoing advocacy from civil society organizations.

Nevertheless, by 2025, this alternate Mumbai stood as a dramatically different city—more inclusive, more resilient, and more vibrant than in our timeline, demonstrating that different choices in urban development can produce profoundly different outcomes over time.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Sheela Patel, Founder-Director of SPARC and former Chair of Slum Dwellers International, offers this perspective: "What's remarkable about the alternative Mumbai trajectory isn't just the physical transformation, but the shift in power relations. By making slum dwellers partners rather than beneficiaries, the entire dynamic changed. Solutions emerged that experts alone could never have designed. The patience to allow incremental improvement rather than demanding instant transformation proved crucial. In our actual timeline, the desire for quick, visible results often undermined sustainability. I believe the alternate approach would have created not just better housing but more capable, confident communities with greater capacity to address future challenges."

Professor Amita Bhide, Urban Policy Specialist at Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, provides this analysis: "The market-driven SRA model implemented in our timeline was fundamentally flawed in treating housing as a product rather than a process. The alternate scenario recognizes that slums are not just housing problems but complex socio-economic systems requiring nuanced interventions. By diversifying approaches rather than applying a uniform solution, this alternative Mumbai could have accommodated the incredible diversity of its informal settlements. Most importantly, by maintaining the spatial connection between living and working, it would have preserved the economic ecosystems that make slums functional survival spaces for the urban poor despite their physical deficiencies."

Richard Burdett, Professor of Urban Studies at the London School of Economics and Political Science, observes: "The real innovation in this alternate Mumbai scenario is the rejection of false dichotomies—formal versus informal, traditional versus modern, public versus private. Instead, it embraces hybridity and transition. Contemporary urban thinking increasingly recognizes that successful cities thrive on precisely this kind of adaptive, contextual approach. Had Mumbai pioneered this path in the 1990s, it might have leapfrogged decades of urban theory and practice. The city's particular circumstances—its extreme density, vibrant informal economy, and strong civil society—created perfect conditions for such innovation. The tragedy of our actual timeline is not just missed opportunities in Mumbai but the global learning that never occurred."