MUMBAI: While most of the city tilted decisively in one direction, the Dharavi slum sprawl was among the few areas which voted differently. Of its seven wards, two went to Congress and four were won by the Uddhav Thackeray–led Shiv Sena UBT. One seat went to the Shinde-led Shiv Sena while BJP failed to breach the constituency.Observers said locals have voted for Opposition parties who can protect their rehabilitation interests during negotiations for the Dharavi redevelopment project undertaken by the govt in a joint venture with the Adani group.With a population of about 3.5 lakh, in which Muslims constitute roughly 40%, Hindus around 30–35%, and Christians, dalits and other communities make up the rest, elections in Dharavi have historically been fought through alliances.“BJP has never managed to get a foothold in Dharavi,” said Deepak Kale, whose wife Asha Kale won Ward 183 on a Congress ticket. For many, Congress is associated with tangible, if incremental, civic interventions.Esai Raja, a coaching teacher in Dharavi, said voters recall the party’s role in addressing basic infrastructure problems such as drainage. He also pointed to welfare-linked schemes offering laptops, scholarships, etc students clearing Class XII.Others like Taufiq Ansari, who is a waste picker, invoked the Congress’s old “garibi hatao” slogan that once spoke directly to Dharavi’s experience of chronic poverty. Residents said Muslim voters largely consolidated behind the Congress, while pockets such as Brahmanwada, home to the potter community, leaned towards the BJP–Shinde Sena candidate.Amita Bhide, professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences who studies local governance, “While there are a lot of issues, the thing which is uppermost in the minds of all Dharavi residents is redevelopment.”She added that electoral choices remain one of the ways residents can articulate their concerns. “The only way in which they can articulate things is through protests, mobilizations or voting. So it is not like ‘no redevelopment’. I would say this is a way of trying to mobilize further so that the redevelopment agenda is tweaked to what local demands are.”
