RESEARCH NOTE

FEAR OF EVICTION: THE CASE OF SLUM

AND SQUATTER DWELLERS IN DHAKA, BANGLADESH1

Bimal Kanti Paul2

Department of Geography
Kansas State University

Abstract: Nearly one-third of more than 12 million residents of Dhaka, Bangladesh, live in
some 4,500 unauthorized slums and squatter settlements (bustees) dispersed all across the city.
In addition to crowded and non-hygienic living conditions, bustees in Dhaka have turned into a
safe haven for criminals. Considering this, a previous government administration initiated a
bustee demolition program in 1999. Confronted by severe resistance, the government finally
abandoned this program. However, threat of eviction did not completely disappear from the
minds of bustee dwellers. The objectives of this paper are to explore the perceived level of fear
of eviction possessed by residents of bustees in Dhaka and to identify the bases of such fear. Data
collected through a questionnaire survey suggest that the overwhelming majority of respondents
fear eviction and do not want to return to their villages. The survey data reveal that past eviction
and previous bustee experience, length of stay in Dhaka, and having close friends/relatives who
live in Dhaka are important determinants of respondent fear of eviction. Based on the results of
this study, recommendations are made for resettlement of bustee dwellers in Dhaka. [Key words:
Dhaka, slum and squatter settlements, bustees, slum eviction, resettlement and rehabilitation.]

INTRODUCTION

With an estimated population of nearly 13 million in 2005, Dhaka, the capital and
largest city of Bangladesh, has been experiencing rapid growth for the past several
decades (Islam, 2005a).3 Like most large cities in developing countries, rural-to-urban
migration is the dominant component of growth for Dhaka, contributing up to half of its
total population increase (Islam, 2005b). Most of these migrants are poor and live in some
4,500 slums and squatter settlements (bustees).4 The estimated 4 million residents of such

1
I would like to thank three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments on an earlier draft of this
paper. I also thank Mitchel Stimers for drawing the map used in this paper.
2
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Bimal Kanti Paul, Department of Geography,
118 Seaton Hall, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS 66506; e-mail: bkp@ksu.edu
3
Dhaka has at least four different connotations. Throughout this paper, Dhaka refers to the Dhaka Metropolitan
Area (DMA). It has an area of about 139 square miles (360 km2) and it is somewhat larger than Dhaka City
Corporation (DCC; Islam, 2005a).
4
Although “squatter” is a legal concept and “slums” refers to the physical characteristics of the place of
residence, much of the urban literature uses these two terms interchangeably (Berner, 2000). Consistent with
this literature, slum is used broadly in this study to include squatter settlements as well. The local term “bustee”
is used similarly.

567
Urban Geography, 2006, 27, 6, pp. 567–574.
Copyright © 2006 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.
568 BIMAL KANTI PAUL

settlements represent about one-third of the total population of Dhaka (Islam, 2005a).
Most of the slums and bustees are located along railroad lines, vacant lands, sidewalks,
embankment slopes, and on the city’s poorly drained low-lying areas. But slums and
bustees exist throughout the city, including such upper-income residential areas as
Gulshan and Uttara.
About two-thirds of the slum and squatter settlements in Dhaka are located on land
owned by private individuals, with the remaining settlements situated on government
land. Slum and squatter settlements are generally small, with more than 80% containing
only 10–50 households. About 35% of all bustee dwellers live in a mere 10 settlements,
each containing more than 1,000 households (COHRE and ACHR, 2001). Most houses in
slums are non-permanent construction using bamboo, thatch, or mud. About half of all
slum and bustee dwellers have no access to formal sources of water. Because of crowded
and non-hygienic living conditions, the slums and squatter settlements of Dhaka experi-
ence much higher death rates than rest of the city.
Following in the footsteps of governments of many developing countries confronted
with massive growth of squatter settlements, the Awami League (AL) government, which
was in power between 1996 and 2000, initiated a slum demolition program in 1999. This
program was justified by stereotyping the bustees in Dhaka as hubs of antisocial elements
and dens of most illegal and criminal activities such as murder, robbery, illegal arms
smuggling, drug peddling, and female trafficking and prostitution. The government
claimed that criminals use slums and bustees as safe asylums, and regularly extorted pay-
ments from bustee dwellers in the guise of safeguarding their interests. Disagreements
occur among criminals regarding sharing of extorted monies, and such disputes
frequently turn violent, sometimes resulting in murder (Ghafur, 2002).
The move to clear slums and squatter settlements by the AL government was criticized
by leaders of major political parties, concerned citizens, donor agencies, and nongovern-
mental organizations (NGOs), including human rights organizations. Confronted by such
organized opposition, the AL government finally abandoned its bustee removal program.
But the threat of eviction did not totally disappear from the minds of bustee dwellers even
after the Bangladesh Nationalist Party (BNP)–led coalition government came into power
in 2001, because the BNP also sanctioned the demolition of slums and squatter settle-
ments (Nazrul, 2003).
The objectives of this paper are to explore the perceived level of fear of forced eviction
among people living in the slum and squatter settlements in Dhaka and to identify possible
determinants of such fear. Knowledge regarding factors that shape dweller fear of eviction
by the government is critical for establishing any public resettlement scheme aimed at
relocating slum and bustee dwellers in Dhaka, other cities in Bangladesh, and elsewhere.
A brief account of slum evictions in Dhaka and a discussion of rehabilitation programs
aimed at evicting slum and bustee dwellers are presented in the following section.
Research methods utilized in this study are then presented, followed by a discussion of
results and some concluding comments.

SLUM EVICTIONS AND REHABILITATION PROGRAMS IN DHAKA

Evictions from bustees in Dhaka began in the mid-1970s when there were about 125
slums and squatter settlements. At that time, slightly more than 10% of the city’s 1.6
 FEAR OF EVICTION IN BANGLADESH 569

million people lived in these settlements (Nazrul, 2003). Over the years, both the number
of bustees and the proportion of people living in these settlements have steadily increased
in Dhaka, and the city has witnessed eviction of slum dwellers in almost every year since
1975. Most notably, a massive eviction of slums took place when the government demol-
ished 30 bustees between May and August of 1999 (ASK, 2000).
Bustee dwellers protested these forced evictions by forming an advocacy group called
the United Resistance Platform (URP). Members of the URP marched in protest on city
streets, which were supported by many NGOs, concerned citizens, and the media. Several
human rights organizations filed a Writ petition to the High Court to stop forced slum
demolition and the eviction of slum dwellers. A landmark court decision on August 3,
1999, upheld the government’s plan, but ruled that further evictions should be carried out
only after adequate plans for rehabilitation had been made. After this judgment, the
government temporally suspended its eviction campaign. Nevertheless, slum evictions
resumed in the following year and prior to the National Parliament election, 24 slums
were forced to disband in 2001. The election brought the leading opposition party into
power, but this political change did not stop the demolition of bustees in Dhaka.
Several months after the 1999 High Court order, the AL government then in power
announced three rehabilitation schemes designed to encourage bustee dwellers to return
to their villages. By doing so, the government sought to simultaneously halt the influx of
rural migrants into Dhaka, alleviate urban poverty, and improve the city’s environment.
Under the Ghore Phera (return to home) Project, each family willing to go back to their
village was to be given generous loans for the construction of a house and for self-
employment. In all, 1,746 families received these loans and returned to their villages
(COHRE and ACHR, 2001).
The second AL government–sponsored scheme was known as the Asrayan (village
shelter) program. This project offered basic housing in barrack-like tin structures, with
common cooking facilities, use of a common pond for fishing and other needs, and a
community room. Through this project, approximately 300,000 homeless families were
relocated. Most of these families were not, however, evicted slum dwellers. The third
rehabilitation project, the Adarsha Gram Prokolpa (ideal village project), was a housing
credit program. Due to a lack of employment opportunities and inefficient monitoring,
many loan recipients returned to Dhaka (ASK, 2000, 2001).

RESEARCH METHODS

Questionnaire surveys administered among residents of 15 selected squatter settle-

ments in Dhaka between December 2002 and February 2003 provided the major source
of data for this study. Qualitative methods, such as informal interviews with leaders of
bustee dwellers and officers of both NGOs and government organizations, were also used
to collect pertinent information. Due to the non-availability of a current list of all slums
and squatter settlements in Dhaka, it was decided that study sites should be dispersed
across the city. Furthermore, due to financial and time constraints, the decision was made
to select 300 respondents from the 15 selected sites (Fig. 1). These selected sites differ
greatly in size, ranging from 20 to 2,000 households. Most of the selected slums and
squatter settlements have been in existence for more than 20 years, and 60% of them have
experienced eviction at least once.
570 BIMAL KANTI PAUL

Fig. 1. Dhaka metropolitan area and location of 15 selected squatter and slum settlements.

Complete lists of households in all selected slum and squatter communities were not
available prior to conducting the questionnaire survey and no attempt was made to pre-
pare such a list by intensive field survey. This situation compelled the use of a systematic
sampling procedure to select respondents for this study. Prior to survey administration, it
was decided that the number of households to be selected from each sample community
should be proportional to community size. Therefore, the regular sampling interval
differs from one selected community to another.
From each selected household, one individual was interviewed. A total of 300 respon-
dents were interviewed. A structured two-part questionnaire was used to collect informa-
tion from the respondents. The first part contained one key question: Are you afraid of
forced eviction from your current residence by the government within the next 6–12
months? A three-point Likert scale was used to record respondent answers in which 1
equals “not afraid,” 2 equals “somewhat afraid,” and 3 indicates “afraid” of forced evic-
tion. Other questions sought respondent knowledge and opinions regarding the forced
eviction that occurred in 1999 as well as government rehabilitation programs for evicted
bustee residents.
The second part of the questionnaire contained a series of questions regarding socio-
demographic characteristics of the respondents, including household size, length of stay
in Dhaka and present location, presence of relatives/friends in Dhaka, place of work, past
experience with forced eviction, and the number of bustees lived in prior to residing in the
 FEAR OF EVICTION IN BANGLADESH 571

TABLE 1. LEVEL OF FEAR OF EVICTION BY RESPONDENT CHARACTERISTICS

Not fear Somewhat fear Fear Total

Characteristic N (%) N (%) N (%) N (%)

Marital status
Married 87 (84.47) 53 (74.65) 101 (84.87) 241 (82.25)
Otherwise 16 (15.53) 18 (25.35) 18 (15.13) 18 (17.75)
χ2 = 3.719 (d.f. = 2; p = .156)
Gender
Male 74 (71.84) 45 (63.38) 83 (69.75) 202 (68.94)
Female 29 (28.16) 26 (36.62) 36 (30.25) 91 (31.06)
χ2 = 1.467 (d.f. = 2; p = .480)
Literacy
Illiterate 53 (51.46) 42 (59.15) 61 (51.26) 156 (53.24)
Literate 50 (48.54) 29 (40.85) 58 (48.74) 137 (46.76)
χ2 = 1.317 (d.f. = 2; p = .518)
Close relatives/friends in Dhaka
Yes 32 (31.07) 51 (71.83) 108 (90.76) 191 (65.19)
No 71 (68.93) 20 (28.16) 11 (9.24) 102 (34.81)
χ2 = 88.501 (d.f. = 2; p < .001)
Working place close to residence
Yes 68 (68.02) 41 (57.75) 67 (56.30) 176 (60.07)
No 35 (33.98) 30 (42.25) 52 (43.70) 117 (39.93)
χ2 = 2.384 (d.f. = 2; p = .304)
Evicted in the past
Yes 19 (18.45) 42 (59.15) 99 (83.19) 160 (54.61)
No 84 (81.55) 71 (40.85) 20 (16.81) 133 (45.39)
χ2 = 94.157 (d.f. = 2; p < .001)
Previously lived in slum/squatter
Yes 41 (39.81) 52 (73.24) 108 (90.76) 201 (68.60)
No 62 (60.19) 19 (26.76) 11 (9.24) 92 (31.40)
χ2 = 67.476 (d.f. = 2; p < .001)
F-value P-value
Years in Dhaka 41.88 <.001
Years in present location 76.39 <.001
Age 15.12 <.001

present location. No information was sought regarding annual household income because
the income level of bustee dwellers varies little.
Ten variables were selected to examine their influence on the perceived level of fear
of eviction among survey respondents (Table 1). Fear of eviction was considered to be
high for respondents who had already experienced eviction compared to those who had
not. Eviction experience might be associated with length of stay both in Dhaka and/or the
current location. Fear of eviction is perceived to be directly associated with age of the
572 BIMAL KANTI PAUL

respondent, length of stay in Dhaka, and place of residence, indicating that these three
variables are interrelated. Chi-square tests and analysis of variance (ANOVA) were used
to test for differences between perceived respondent level of fear of forced eviction and
the 10 independent variables considered in this study.

RESULTS

Although 300 bustee residents were interviewed, seven questionnaires were discarded
because they were not properly completed. Table 1 shows that slightly over 82% of all
respondents were married at the time of the field survey. Nearly 70% of all respondents
were male, 53% were illiterate, and the mean age of respondents was 39.7 years. Respon-
dent profiles seem to reflect the overall sociodemographic characteristics typical of
bustee dwellers in Dhaka.
The survey data reveal that 54% of all respondents were not aware of the AL govern-
ment’s rehabilitation programs. Interestingly, an overwhelming majority of the respon-
dents who had knowledge of these programs did not support government efforts to
resettle them. The primary reason for not supporting the resettlement program was a lack
of trust in the AL government commitment to fully fund and support it. Respondents felt
the AL government would not keep its promise of incentives associated with its reloca-
tion program once former bustee residents had returned to their villages. Moreover, some
respondents indicated they suspected that the AL government would not be in power after
the next election and the successor government would not support the policies of the
previous administration. However, most respondents indicated they would support any
public relocation and rehabilitation plan if it took place within the Dhaka metropolitan
area.
Survey data further indicated that 35% of all respondents did not feel they would be
evicted from their current community of residence within the next 6–12 months, and thus
were unafraid of forced eviction. Most of these respondents supported the political parties
now in power. However, several respondents who expressed no fear of eviction acknowl-
edged that eviction was not an uncommon occurrence for bustee dwellers in Dhaka. One
respondent claimed: “If the government evicts us from one bustee, we would move to
another bustee. There is no scarcity of bustees in this large city of Dhaka.” Several others
were confident that, unlike the previous administration, the present government would
not evict them from their bustees.
In contrast, nearly 41% of all respondents expressed that they constantly live under
fear of forced eviction, and another 24% of all respondents were somewhat fearful of
forced eviction. Because of the threat of forced eviction, they rarely invested in the acqui-
sition of valuable assets, such as televisions and beds, because such possessions are
difficult to move. They also spend little or nothing to improve the quality of their housing.
As noted, 10 variables, reflecting individual attributes of the respondents, were
considered in this study and were assumed to be related to the three levels of fear of
forced eviction expressed by respondents. Table 1 shows that marital status, gender, and
literacy status of respondents have no significant influence in shaping fear of forced
eviction. This suggests that the selected sociodemographic characteristics of respondents
are not important determinants of fear of eviction.
 FEAR OF EVICTION IN BANGLADESH 573

Information presented in Table 1 supports an inverse relationship between levels of

respondent fear and the presence of friends and/or relatives in Dhaka. The calculated
chi-square value is statistically significant. It reveals that those who have friends and/or
relatives in Dhaka have been living in the city longer than those who have no relatives or
friends living nearby. By residing for many years outside of their native rural areas, the
former group may have lost their roots and could be more fearful of forced eviction than
those who had only recently migrated.
Table 1 shows that there is a difference with respect to respondents’ level of fear of
forced eviction and their place of work, but this difference is not statistically significant.
As expected, fear of forced eviction is high among respondents who have experienced a
past eviction. A similar trend is also observed when past slum/squatter residence status is
considered. The remaining three variables (years in Dhaka, years in present location, and
age) are continuous variables and therefore F-values are calculated to examine whether
these variables are significantly different among the three levels of fear of forced
eviction. The F-values suggest that all these variables are statistically different across the
three fear levels (Table 1). Thus 6 of the 10 variables considered in this study appeared as
statistically significant determinants of respondent level of fear of forced eviction.

CONCLUSION

This study has revealed that most residents of bustees in Dhaka live in constant anxiety
and fear, not knowing if and/or when they might be evicted. It has also shown that not all
bustee residents want to return to their ancestral villages because they have lived in
Dhaka for so long that they have lost contact with their former rural homes. However,
recent migrants to Dhaka are often willing to migrate back to the rural areas from which
they came, provided they receive adequate compensation and incentives. This suggests
that the government should pursue two rehabilitation programs for bustee residents of
Dhaka: one for those who want to return to their villages, and the other for those who are
unwilling to leave Dhaka. For the latter group, a permanent resettlement program should
be undertaken within the fringe areas of Dhaka.

REFERENCES

ASK (Ain O Salish Kendro), 2000, Human Rights in Bangladesh 1999. Dhaka, Bangladesh:
ASK.
ASK (Ain O Salish Kendro), 2001, Human Rights in Bangladesh 2000. Dhaka, Bangladesh:
ASK.
Berner, E., 2000, Poverty alleviation and the eviction of the poorest: Towards urban land
reform in the Philippines. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
Vol. 24, No. 3, 554–566.
COHRE (Centre on Housing Rights and Evictions) and ACHR (Asian Coalition for
Housing Rights), 2001, We Didn’t Stand a Chance Forced Evictions in Bangladesh.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Primavera.
Ghafur, S., 2002, Homelessness in cities in Bangladesh. CUS Bulletin, No. 42, 25–28.
Islam, N., 2005a, Dhaka Now: Contemporary Urban Development. Dhaka, Bangladesh:
Bangladesh Geographical Society.
574 BIMAL KANTI PAUL

Islam, N., 2005b, Natural Hazards in Bangladesh: Studies in Perspectives, Impacts, and
Coping Strategies. Dhaka, Bangladesh: Disaster Research Training and Management
Center (DRTMC), Department of Geography and Environment, University of Dhaka.
Nazrul, I. M., 2003, Slum eviction and housing rights in Dhaka City (1975–2001).
Japanese Journal of Human Geography, Vol. 55, No. 6, 574–589.