Section I The Real Conditions and Scale of Slums in Mumbai and New Delhi

India is one of the fastest-urbanizing countries in the world, and slums—far from being marginal anomalies—constitute a central feature of its urban landscape, supporting the lives and aspirations of over a hundred million people. According to UN-Habitat data from 2024, approximately 100 million Indians live in slums, representing more than 30% of the urban population. Among all cities, Mumbai and New Delhi exhibit the most striking scale and complexity, reflecting both the achievements and contradictions of India’s urbanization.

Mumbai’s Slums:

Mumbai, India’s largest city, had a population of around 21 million in 2025, and an astounding 40–50%—some 8.4 to 10.5 million people—live in slums. Dharavi, Asia’s largest slum, spans merely 2.1 square kilometers yet houses nearly one million residents, with a staggering population density of 476,000 people per square kilometer. Although located in the heart of the city near the airport and major commercial districts, Dharavi is characterized by dense concrete dwellings, labyrinthine lanes, and open drainage channels. According to the 2011 Census, slums occupy only 12% of Mumbai’s land area but accommodate 55% of its population.

Slums are divided into “notified” and “non-notified” categories; approximately 45% are non-notified, meaning they lack government recognition and therefore cannot access basic services such as water, electricity, or sanitation. For example, 78% of public toilets in Dharavi lack running water, and 58% have no electricity. Residents often purchase water from private vendors at inflated prices.

New Delhi’s Slums:

New Delhi, with a 2025 population of roughly 19 million, has about 2 million slum residents—10.5% of the city’s total. Unlike the relatively contiguous slums of Mumbai, Delhi’s slums are dispersed, often located on the city’s periphery. Settlements such as Ravi Das Colony and Lalbagh each concentrate hundreds of thousands of residents within a single square kilometer.

A 2022 report by the Housing and Land Rights Network revealed that 25,800 slum homes were demolished in Delhi that year alone, affecting 100,000 people and highlighting the precariousness of slum residency under “beautification” and eviction drives. Common features include single-room dwellings, crowded households (5–7 people per room), shared toilets (often 50 households sharing one facility), and health hazards caused by open defecation.

Living Conditions:

Housing conditions are harsh. Typical dwellings in Dharavi measure around 10 square meters, often without windows and doubling as workspaces for leather production, pottery, recycling, or tailoring—creating unsafe and noxious environments. Delhi’s slums face additional seasonal dangers: monsoon flooding and severe winter chills, which in 2023 resulted in hundreds of cold-related health incidents due to lack of heating.

Access to education and healthcare is limited. The school enrollment rate for children in Mumbai slums is around 60%, and only 50% in New Delhi. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed vulnerabilities: infection rates in Mumbai’s slums reached 57% in 2020, compared with 16% in non-slum areas.

Trends:

Slum populations have doubled over the past two decades—from 43 million in 2001 to 93 million in 2021—and are projected to reach 120 million by 2030. Migrants drawn by economic opportunities are priced out of formal housing and pushed into informal settlements. Government programs such as “Smart Cities Mission” and “Housing for All” have made limited progress: as of 2023, only about 10% of slum residents had received new housing.

Yet despite these challenges, slums are also centers of economic dynamism. Dharavi’s recycling industry alone generates an estimated USD 1 billion annually, creating tens of thousands of jobs and showcasing the resilience and productivity of slum communities.

Section II A Paradoxical Reality: Filthy Environments but Remarkably Low Robbery and Nighttime Crime

Despite their overcrowded and unsanitary conditions, India’s slums exhibit an unexpectedly low rate of violent crime—especially robbery—and maintain better nighttime safety than many formal urban districts. This paradox challenges common stereotypes and reflects distinctive social mechanisms that underpin order.

According to 2024 Mumbai Police statistics, Dharavi’s annual robbery rate is only 0.1% (1 per 1,000 people), significantly lower than Mumbai’s citywide average of 0.5%. Similarly, New Delhi’s Lalbagh slum reported a violent crime rate of 0.8 per 1,000 in 2023, compared with the citywide average of 2.3 per 1,000. Residents routinely report feeling safe walking through narrow lanes even late at night; women who work in recycling or textile trades often travel after dark with minimal fear of assault.

Non-violent property crimes such as pickpocketing do occur, mostly at the border areas between slums and wealthier neighborhoods, but serious violent crimes remain rare.

Factors Behind This Phenomenon:

Tight-knit community structure:
The dense layout of slums fosters perpetual “eyes on the street.” Residents know one another intimately, and outsiders are easily noticed. A 2023 sociological survey found that 90% of Dalit residents in Dharavi believed “robbery within the community is almost nonexistent because everyone knows everyone.”

Economic interdependence:
Dharavi’s estimated 20,000 small manufacturing and recycling units provide employment for tens of thousands, creating a mutually dependent economic ecosystem. Stable, if modest, incomes reduce incentives for violent crime.

Religious and moral frameworks:
Hindu, Muslim, and Sikh institutions promote generosity, nonviolence, and mutual aid. Temples and mosques in Dharavi distribute free meals to around 5,000 people daily, alleviating desperation. Religious leaders frequently mediate disputes.

State and NGO involvement:
While infrastructure is lacking, policing in slum areas has increased. As of 2023, Mumbai deployed 5,000 police personnel and installed 1,500 security cameras in major slum zones. NGOs such as YUVA Urban run community patrols that have reduced minor crimes by about 20%.

Persistent Issues:
Domestic violence, drug activity, and sexual harassment—especially near public toilets—remain concerns. However, these issues do not negate the strikingly low rates of robbery and violent assault, which highlight the unique resilience of slum communities.

Section III A Stark Contrast with Crime in U.S. Inner-City Black Neighborhoods (Including the Author’s Personal Experience in 1980s Brooklyn)

Crime dynamics in Indian slums contrast sharply with those in U.S. Black urban neighborhoods during high-crime eras, especially the 1980s. The author’s personal experience of being robbed in Brooklyn reflects a broader reality of that time.

The U.S. Context in the 1980s:
Areas like Brownsville and Bedford–Stuyvesant in Brooklyn faced surging crime driven by deindustrialization, racial segregation, unemployment, and the crack epidemic. According to NYPD data, Brooklyn’s 1985 robbery rate reached 10 per 1,000 residents, with homicide rates of 25 per 100,000—far higher than anything seen in Indian slums.

Unemployment among African Americans in these neighborhoods exceeded 20%, and gangs and drug markets became major economic and social forces. Police–community relations deteriorated, fostering mistrust and reducing reporting of crimes. Many neighborhoods were considered unsafe even during daytime, let alone at night.

This historical experience in Brooklyn during the 1980s sharply contrasts with the social reality of Indian slums today. While poverty, overcrowding, and inadequate public services characterize both environments, their internal social dynamics have produced remarkably different outcomes.

In Indian slums such as Dharavi in Mumbai or Lalbagh in New Delhi, violent crime remains unexpectedly low despite harsh living conditions. Residents—men and women alike—often move freely at night, and robberies or assaults within the community are rare. This sense of safety is rooted in dense social networks and long-term settlement patterns: families have lived alongside each other for decades, and strangers entering the neighborhood are immediately noticed. Disputes are commonly resolved by community elders, religious leaders, or informal associations before they escalate, reflecting an embedded culture of consensus and relational accountability. Economic interdependence also reinforces social order. The micro-industries of Dharavi—ranging from recycling to leatherwork and small-scale manufacturing—create webs of cooperation in which trust is an economic necessity. Religious traditions further strengthen moral discipline: temples, mosques, and gurdwaras distribute free meals, offer counseling, and promote nonviolence, buffering residents against desperation-driven crime.

By contrast, the deterioration of economic structures and social networks in 1980s Brooklyn produced the opposite pattern. Manufacturing collapse led to mass unemployment; the crack epidemic fueled violent gang conflicts; and years of racial discrimination eroded trust both within the community and between residents and law enforcement. Public spaces were widely perceived as dangerous, and violent crime became a daily reality. The author’s own experience of being robbed in Brooklyn exemplifies the climate of insecurity and fragmented social cohesion that characterized the period.

This comparison demonstrates that social order is not determined solely by material conditions. Indian slums illustrate how strong communal bonds, shared cultural norms, and informal governance can generate stability amid poverty. The American case shows how the breakdown of such networks can transform economic hardship into widespread violence. The resilience of Indian slums thus offers an important lesson for understanding urban social cohesion.

Section IV Internal Mechanisms Sustaining Social Order in Indian Slums: Community Norms, Religion, and Interpersonal Networks

The comparatively low crime rates and stable social order in India’s slums are sustained by an intricate set of internal mechanisms involving community norms, religious constraints, and dense interpersonal networks.

Community Norms:
Slum communities often resemble traditional villages transplanted into urban space. In Dharavi, around 40% of residents are fifth-generation inhabitants. Informal leaders—shop owners, elders, or industry coordinators—mediate disputes and enforce norms. Violations of accepted behavior may lead to social ostracism, which serves as an effective deterrent. Shared responsibilities, such as collective payment for water or electricity, foster mutual reliance.

Religious Constraints:
Religions such as Hinduism, Islam, and Sikhism play central roles in shaping ethical behavior. Hindu notions of karma and dāna (charity), Islamic concepts of zakat and community solidarity, and Sikh principles of seva (service) encourage moral restraint and sharing. Temples and mosques function as welfare hubs; in Dharavi alone, roughly 5,000 people receive free food daily. Religious leaders also act as mediators and moral authorities.

Interpersonal Networks:
Economic interdependence strengthens trust and cooperation. With over 20,000 micro-enterprises, Dharavi is a dense web of production chains: leather workers depend on recyclers, who depend on transporters, who depend on artisans. Such networks reward reliability and punish antisocial behavior. Extended families and neighbor-based mutual aid groups provide support during crises; 70% of slum residents in a 2023 survey reported relying on relatives or neighbors for emergency assistance.

Women’s groups and self-help collectives play a particularly vital role. In Mumbai alone, such groups helped an estimated 100,000 households improve their financial stability in 2024 through shared savings and microloans.

External Support:
NGOs and government programs complement internal governance. Organizations like YUVA Urban promote community policing, youth engagement, and education, reducing juvenile crime by around 15% in certain districts. Government slum rehabilitation programs, while uneven, provide security for some residents through formal housing allocation.

Continuing Challenges:
Despite robust informal order, structural issues such as poor sanitation, flooding, disease outbreaks, and gender-based violence persist. Non-notified slums lack legal status, making residents vulnerable to eviction and exploitation.

Nevertheless, the overall picture is clear: the resilience and stability of India’s slums emerge not from state capacity but from a dense web of community relationships, religious ethics, and economic cooperation—foundations that enable millions to survive, and even thrive, under extraordinarily difficult conditions.