The destruction of homes in India has become a subject of significant national and international debate. Recent data and reports highlight a trend that goes beyond routine urban planning and into the realm of punitive action, prompting a need for more precise language to describe the phenomenon.
Data from the Housing and Land Rights Network indicates a sharp increase in forced evictions and house demolitions in recent years. Their report states that 46,371 houses were demolished in 2022, a figure that more than doubled to 107,449 in 2023. While more recent comprehensive data is not yet available, the trajectory suggests the numbers have continued to rise. Reports from organizations like Amnesty International have also documented these demolitions, often noting their disproportionate impact on minority communities and dissenting voices.
This has led to the coining of a more specific term to describe the practice: "domicide." The word, introduced by scholars J. Douglas Porteous and Sandra E. Smith, combines the Latin domus (home) and caedere (to kill). They define domicide as the deliberate destruction of a home, an act that causes immense suffering to its inhabitants. The term moves beyond the physical act of demolition to encompass the destruction of a place of safety, memory, and dignity—a living entity integral to its inhabitants' identity and well-being.
The concept of domicide is characterized by a power imbalance, where the political interests of a dominant group or the state clash with the basic need for shelter among marginalized communities. In the Indian context, this manifests as a phenomenon often referred to as "bulldozer politics," where governments have used home demolitions as a form of summary punishment.
Scholar Fahad Zuberi, who researches the intersection of architecture and violence in India, frames this punitive destruction of homes as a clear case of domicide. The pattern typically unfolds after a provocative incident: a protest or communal clash occurs, followed by a political narrative that calls for punitive action. Subsequently, local development authorities, citing municipal regulations, execute the demolitions. This process has been observed in various locations, including Jahangirpuri, Prayagraj, and Nuh.
The use of demolitions as a punitive tool has been challenged at the highest judicial level. In November 2024, the Supreme Court of India issued a significant ruling against "bulldozer justice." The court declared that the executive cannot demolish properties solely because the owner is an accused or a convict, calling such actions unconstitutional and a violation of the fundamental right to shelter. Despite this judgment, concerns remain about the continued practice.
Beyond punitive actions, demolitions are also carried out for large-scale urban development projects. Indian cities have seen mass clearances of informal settlements ahead of major international events, such as the 2010 Commonwealth Games in Delhi and the 2023 G20 summit. These actions, while framed as development, result in the displacement of thousands, often from the poorest sections of society.
The argument for adopting the term "domicide" is that it more accurately captures the severity of the act. The word "demolition" is a technical term that describes a process, but it fails to convey the profound human cost—the trauma, displacement, and loss of community that follows the destruction of a home. Using "domicide" reframes the act not as an administrative procedure, but as a form of violence against people.
A more precise vocabulary is essential for understanding and addressing the evolving patterns of violence and displacement in India. Therefore, a case can be made for Indian media and public discourse to adopt the term "domicide." It provides a comprehensive framework to discuss the destruction of homes, recognizing it not just as a loss of property, but as a fundamental violation of human dignity and security in a democratic society.
---
*Journalist based in Chennai
Comments