5/18/2020 Density, Distancing, Informal Settlements and the Pandemic | Economic and Political Weekly

-A A +A
Exit Reader Mode

Density, Distancing, Informal Settlements and the

Pandemic
Sarani Khatua (saranikhatua@gmail.com (mailto:saranikhatua@gmail.com)) is a researcher at the
Centre for Urban Economic Studies, University of Calcutta.

Demographic density, particularly in the low-income settlements in urban India, is posing some
unprecedented challenges to governance for containing the COVID-19 contagion. Through a case-
based discussion of density, it is argued that the idea of containment through distancing is rather
paradoxical. On the one hand it pushes for more proximation or clustering of the poor in congested
urban spaces, while on the other it deepens a sense of estrangement in an already fragmented social
milieu.

In recent times we have frequently come across the usage of the term “social distancing” in
healthcare advisories and o cial mandates, as a possible precaution against the spatio-temporal
diffusion of the COVID-19 contagion. The term social distancing, which is commonly used in social
sciences to indicate a practice of maintaining distance between different social groups, is used with a
very speci c connotation in the parlance of medical sciences and/or healthcare recommendations in
the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. It refers to the maintaining of a physical distance between two
persons in order to prevent transmission of the virus. Notwithstanding whether or not this is the only
viable choice at this hour, an emerging debate is around the interchangeable usage of the term
“social” distancing for “physical” distancing that is likely to exude a sense of isolation and thereby
create psychological repercussions (Gale 2020).

When Disease Follows Density

Right from its rst reported outbreak in China till its spread in India since late February, the contagion
has dominated the urban scenario, more precisely in the million cities experiencing much international
movements. In such a context, to arrest horizontal spreading of the infection, the Indian government
has implemented complete “lockdown” of the country, commencing from 25 March 2020. This kind of
lockdown, though not exclusive to India, has propelled a series of reactions and questions on the
practicability of implementing distancing in high density spaces.

While the last decade witnessed a higher decadal growth rate of population in the smaller urban units
compared to the million cities (Census 2011), population density remains a perpetual cause of
concern for governance in the latter. This concern assumes more prominence when one looks at the
proportion of the population that resides in slums and informal settlements of these cities. Let us
consider the case of the Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) as an example. As per the 2011
Primary Census Abstract of Slum, the slum population in the KMC constitutes about 31% of its total


https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/20/commentary/density-distancing-informal-settlements-and.html# 1/5
5/18/2020 Density, Distancing, Informal Settlements and the Pandemic | Economic and Political Weekly

population. In fact, the 2011 Census data reveals that 27% of the 2,613 urban units in India reporting
slums, recorded proportional slum population between 30% and 60%, while 6% of the urban units
reportedly have more than 60% people living in the slums.

However, the census data do not provide information on the area occupied by the slums in these
urban units. For such information the urban local bodies are possibly the only source.

Slum population density in KMC: Consolidated data on noti ed and recognised slums in Kolkata (also
called bustees), as obtained from the KMC, provides insights into the high population density in these
constricted areas. For instance, 31% of the total population in the KMC, which as per the 2011 Census
data is the share of the slum population in KMC, occupies only 14% of the total area of the city or an
area of 25.95 square kilometres (sq km). There are around 1,236 premises in the KMC area holding
1,460 slum pockets constituted by a total of 3,17,767 families. So, the average area available per slum
pocket is around 0.02 sq km with an average of 97 hutments.

At the ward level, the scenario seems more staggering with some wards of the city municipal area
reporting 90% or more of the total ward population to be constituted by slum population. The highest
number of hutments in a single slum pocket in a ward is recorded at 4,410, while the highest number
of families in a single slum pocket in a ward is at 8,470, much above the city-level average of 217. The
average slum population density for the overall city slum area is estimated to be at 60,505 per sq km.

Slum structure and distancing: Besides demographic gures, understanding the structure of a typical
slum is crucial in the discussion of density and distancing. Several small rooms within a low-roofed
hutment, aligned either in a linear way or arranged closely around a small common space, is what is
seen mostly in noti ed and recognised slums. The common space is used for the provision of toilets,
or taps for water supply, or for carrying out various sorts of work. This condition depicts a somewhat
better picture compared to those slums that are neither noti ed nor recognised, like the ones along
the railway lines or the canal banks, and are covered through various projects. These hutments could
best be described as small shacks stacked one after another with one community toilet for four to ve
families and common water supply facility located outside the premises.

Usually the rooms are between 7.4 and 9.3 square metres (sq m) in size, devoid of any windows, and
accommodating at least ve persons on an average. The narrow inner lanes, corridors and pavements
within the slum neighbourhoods act as the open spaces for the inhabitants. Multiple uses of open
spaces are frequent in most slums with many having a denser accommodation or other forms of
overlap. For instance, the outdoor spaces are used for different forms of work during daytime, and
simultaneously as community balconies by the inhabitants in the evenings to escape the congestion
inside their rooms, and/or as places to sleep at night during the hot, dry seasons, etc. Irrespective of
their location in the core city area or at the periphery, the neighbourhood spaces in informal settlement
are auto-constructed as a space for freeing oneself from the closed overcrowding within the rooms.

There is no exception even in the case of the vertical housing that is coming up under various
redevelopment and resettlement projects in the low-income neighbourhoods. To illustrate, in
resettlement colonies in Kolkata, completed almost a decade back, each vertical housing is a four-
storeyed building, consisting of ats, each with an average oor area of 17.65 sq m (190 sq ft) that
holds one room, one bathroom and a balcony that would also be used as the kitchen space. In some
areas, there is just a single room without any demarcated space for the kitchen and the bathroom is in
the balcony area. The ats were allotted irrespective of the size of the family to those displaced from

the banks of the Tollygunge-Panchannagram, Keorapukur, Charial, Monikhali basin under the canal

https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/20/commentary/density-distancing-informal-settlements-and.html# 2/5
5/18/2020 Density, Distancing, Informal Settlements and the Pandemic | Economic and Political Weekly

rehabilitation initiative of the Kolkata Environment Improvement Project. While these ats are formal
settlements and comparatively spacious than the informal accommodations, yet overcrowding
remains a persisting issue.

In the given scenario, the scope of executing physical distancing successfully in the low-income
settlements is grim. Practising physical distancing behind closed doors is elusive. While the open
space in a slum neighbourhood remains the only space for executing physical distancing, this is also
the space for livelihoods for many of the inhabitants.

Paradox of Distancing

Distancing here creates a paradoxical situation. While it is perceived as essential for stopping the
spiralling of the virus, in the congested urban settlements like the slums it actually increases the
inhabitants’ exposure to the contagion by forcing them to live in a condition of extreme proximity in
overcrowded dwellings where the lack of basic infrastructures like water supply and drainage
facilities is conspicuous.

The difference between the current circumstances and the everyday crowding of such urban spaces is
that in the latter case, the same density gets dispersed across various spatio-temporal networks.
When inhabitants of slums and other informal low-income settlements move out of their houses to
engage themselves in wage earning opportunities, they also free themselves of the congestion of their
houses. With the lockdown being imposed on the middle-class and low-income neighbourhoods alike,
these two spatial categories, which would otherwise remain connected through the demand and
supply of a variety of household services, are now cut off from each other. Such positioned distancing
among social groups has further aggravated spatial proximity and its associated risks for those living
in low-income settlements.

While overcrowding or congestion is also common in the smaller middle-class formal settlements,
distancing, especially when called “social distancing,” carries different meanings for different sections
of the population and hence, the way to govern it should also be different. Social scientists and
psychiatrists have expressed concerns about social distancing in creating a sense of isolation, parti-
cularly during this restrictive phase. Therefore, there is a constant urge for social proximity in the time
of physical distancing. In the case of slums and other low-income dense settlements, however, it is the
opposite. The concern is about physical proximity in the time of social distancing.

Policy Quandary

The state is aware of the fact that though the disease did not originate in the low-income settlements,
if it reaches the same, then the increase in the density of the infected will not be far behind the density
of the slums themselves. As pointed out by Harvey (2020), “in any exponential growth, there is an
in exion point, beyond which the rising mass gets totally out of control.” While one may argue that
increased surveillance, identifying and sealing of hotspots, closing down of interstate borders, etc, by
the government is for mitigating the spiralling of infection, there can also be no denying of the fact
that such restrictive measures have not only made the future of thousands of labourers bleak, but also
threatened their present more. Moreover, in India, the informal sector forms the base of the economy
(Kanan 2020), and its crashing down would inevitably bring down the economy.

The process of restraining movement, which has culminated in the total lockdown is pushing the poor
and the vulnerable sections away from the network that enables their livelihood. Social distancing and

the lockdown have, in fact, magni ed class differences. While this lockdown is looked at as “me time

https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/20/commentary/density-distancing-informal-settlements-and.html# 3/5
5/18/2020 Density, Distancing, Informal Settlements and the Pandemic | Economic and Political Weekly

or family time” by one class, for another it has evoked fear of hunger and destitution. While there are
efforts on part of the administration, non-governmental organisations, and civil society groups to
provide support to the vulnerable class, neither these efforts guarantee sustainability in the long run
nor do they mitigate the fear of an unpredictable future even after the country goes for a gradual
relaxation. While the virus itself does not make any distinction between classes, governance for
disease mitigation certainly proliferates the same.

The sudden declaration of the lockdown with four hours’ notice has been followed by the repeated
mass outpouring of the labourers on the streets in various Indian cities, thereby bringing to the fore
two key issues. First, it exposed the criticality of population density in the Indian cities. Second, this
dense mass, despite contributing signi cantly to the economy, remains mostly invisible. They are
invisible up to the point where they are not counted as urban citizens. Their spilling over on to the
roads amidst the lockdown did not merely expose their own helplessness but made them detectable
to the state. The situation, in fact, is no better for the people living in the low-income urban
settlements for decades, in general. For instance, slum dwellers in extended urban spaces adjacent to
the KMC, like that in Howrah and North 24 Parganas, who would commute daily to the metropolis to
work either as industrial or daily wagers, face similar precarity due to the lockdown. Simultaneously,
the vulnerability of these urban poor multiplies several times: rst, owing to the increased risk of
exposure in their congested living spaces; and second, due to the loss of livelihoods that delimits their
ability to access healthcare if contaminated.

However, it would probably be too simplistic to assume social distancing as a middle-class

prerogative, especially when the lockdown affects all those networks and linkages through which the
economy and the society functions. While the distortion of these networks and linkages affects the
population in general, those at the bottom layer of the economy are the worst affected. In this context,
the pandemic has not only thrown up unprecedented challenges for planning and governance, but will
also reshape various aspects of socio-economic life, such as demographic density, social grouping,
and social relations, in a way not imagined before.

References

Census of India (2011): “Towns and Agglomerations Classi ed by Population Size Class in 2011,”
http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.html
(http://censusindia.gov.in/2011census/population_enumeration.html).

Gale, Rebecca (2020): “Is ‘Social Distancing’ the Wrong Term? Expert Prefers ‘Physical Distancing,’ and
the WHO Agrees,” Washington Post, 26 March.

Harvey, David (2020): “Anti-Capitalist Politics in the Time of COVID-19,” 19 March,

http://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/anti-capitalist-politics-in-t...
(http://anticapitalistchronicles.libsyn.com/anti-capitalist-politics-in-the-time-of-covid-19).

Kannan, K P (2020): “COVID-19 Lockdown: Protecting the Poor Means Keeping the Indian Economy
A oat,” Economic & Political Weekly, 3 April, https://www.epw.in/engage/article/covid-19-lockdown-
protecting-poor-mean... (https://www.epw.in/engage/article/covid-19-lockdown-protecting-poor-
means-keeping-indian-economy-a oat).

More 

https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/20/commentary/density-distancing-informal-settlements-and.html# 4/5
5/18/2020 Density, Distancing, Informal Settlements and the Pandemic | Economic and Political Weekly

Updated On : 18th May, 2020

https://www.epw.in/journal/2020/20/commentary/density-distancing-informal-settlements-and.html# 5/5