Tag: Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

Hundreds of Trinamool Supporters Arrive in Delhi to Protest Non-Release of MGNREGS, PMAY Funds

Samirul Islam, a Trinamool Congress MP, said that people were moving out of West Bengal due to the unavailability of the MGNREGS and that poor people were being deprived of houses due to the non-release of PMAY funds for the state.

New Delhi/Kolkata: Krishna Dule from Goghat, Mafij Sheikh from Malda and Murselim Gazi from South 24 Parganas share a common grievance: they have not received payment for their labour for work done as part of the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MGNREGS) for over a year. They believe that the Narendra Modi government has unjustly withheld their payments, possibly to settle a political score.

Local politicians have told them so. Interestingly, their job cards, which were usually kept by local leaders of the ruling party, were also returned.

Kader Sheikh from Murarai in Birbhum shared his frustration, “If Modi withholds our share, how can didi (referring to chief minister Mamata Banerjee) provide us with our money? We are going to Delhi to demonstrate to Modi the extent of our struggles caused by his actions.” 

Kader is among the hundreds of Trinamool Congress supporters currently agitating at Jantar Mantar in the national capital, demanding the release of MGNREGS and PM Awas Yojana (PMAY) funds for West Bengal.

This is a strategic move by the party to shape a narrative highlighting the Centre’s perceived neglect, which has led to rural hardship and the migration of thousands of people from Bengal in search of employment opportunities.

During the most recent round of ‘Duare Sarkar’, which concluded on September 30, approximately 1.5 million migrant workers registered at camps established throughout Bengal. Duare Sarkar is an outreach campaign initiated by the Mamata Banerjee government for delivery of some state government schemes at people’s doorsteps, conducted at gram panchayat and municipal ward level.

“Villagers in Bengal are being forced to move out of the state due to non-payment and unavailability of the MGNREGS programme. Poor people are also being deprived of houses due to the Centre’s discriminatory attitude,” said Samirul Islam, the Trinamool Congress MP who is also the chairman of the newly formed West Bengal Migrant Workers’ Welfare Board.

Safiq Sheikh from Nauda in Murshidabad joined the agitation hoping to be in the good books of the newly elected panchayat members in his area. “I am getting old, I don’t want to go back to Mumbai to earn my living. If Modi releases the fund, work would again start under [the] 100 day job guarantee scheme.”

Also Read: Once a Maoist Hotbed, Bengal’s Jungle Mahal Is Now Battling Hunger and Anger

Among these protesters is the grieving father of three young children, aged between three and five, who lost their lives when the mud wall of their house collapsed. The incident took on a political dimension when Trinamool Congress general secretary Abhishek Banerjee attributed the tragedy to the non-payment of funds under the PMAY.

Since 2021, the allocation of funds from the Union government has come to a halt due to a dispute between it and the West Bengal government concerning alleged corruption by the latter in the MGNREGS.

Ajit Dolui, a labourer from Hooghly, shared his frustration, “Many of us villagers were tasked with cleaning the hospital grounds for a rally addressed by the chief minister. The panchayat also assigned us to repair a few things. However, when we asked for payment, they informed us that it was under the MGNREGS. It has been two years, and I have not received any money.”

“I didn’t go to Delhi. I am disgusted,” he added.

The Delhi agitation, a brainchild of Mamata’s nephew and heir apparent Abhishek Banerjee, is also viewed as a platform to establish him as a prominent national leader. Abhishek has been actively participating in meetings of the opposition’s INDIA bloc alongside his aunt.

He is currently under investigation by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) in connection with the alleged teacher recruitment scam in the state. In August 2023, the ED conducted a raid at the office of Banerjee’s company, Leaps and Bounds Pvt Ltd, in connection with the scam. He was also summoned by the agency for questioning on the same day as the alliance’s last meeting.

The Trinamool Congress has consistently labelled these actions as political harassment.

“Central discrimination has remained a burning issue for a long time. The Left used it to garner sympathy during their rule. Trinamool has taken the same tactics. Despite many instances of malpractices and corruption, they’re going to use this as an election issue and might actually get people’s support. This will work in favour of the Trinamool in the election,” said political analyst Biswanath Chakraborty. 

“The people of West Bengal are very sensitive to the issue of elections,” he continued to say.

The Union government has alleged corruption in West Bengal’s MGNREGA and housing schemes, accusing the state government of issuing 25 lakh fake MGNREGS job cards, resulting in the misappropriation of significant government funds.

According to a press release by the Press Information Bureau, despite multiple requests, the state failed to provide a comprehensive action taken report, which could lead to the withholding of funds under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005.

On Monday (October 2), Union rural development minister Giriraj Singh claimed that the Union government provided over Rs 2 lakh crore for Bengal’s development in the past nine years. 

The Trinamool Congress denied these allegations on its official handle on X (formerly Twitter).

An investigation by the Indian Express has revealed that in districts like Purba Bardhaman, North 24 Parganas and South 24 Parganas, the list of beneficiaries includes a deputy pradhan of a TMC-controlled panchayat, a member of the party’s core committee and another party member who also serves as a panchayat member, despite all of them owning concrete houses.

“I do not support the economic policies of the Modi government. However, it is undeniable that there is corruption within the MGNREGS and PM Awas Yojna schemes in West Bengal. It’s worth noting that in the Congress-ruled state of Chhattisgarh, the BJP government has not halted the funds,” said economist Ratan Khasnobis.

He continued: “In fact, Chhattisgarh has excelled in implementing these schemes. Critics argue that if West Bengal has issued such a large number of job cards, there should be corresponding evidence of substantial work completed. Where are the tangible results?”

Translated from the Bengali original by Aparna Bhattacharya.

Six Years On and Despite the Praise, the PM Awas Yojana Is Still Riddled With Faults

As of November, 2021, over 2.77 crore houses remain eligible for allocation under PMAY-G, and the ministry had only given target of 50.99 lakh houses to states/UTs.

Amaravati: The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), a flagship scheme of the Modi government, has been dubbed a major administrative success of the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government.

In April this year, Prime Minister Narendra Modi tweeted, in Hindi, that over three crore houses had been delivered under the scheme and that, “These houses with basic facilities have also become a symbol of women empowerment today.”

The question of whether these houses stand as symbols of “women empowerment” is moot and merits another piece. However, a deeper look at the several problems nipping away at the PMAY indicates that its success withers under a searing gaze; its avowed efficacy dangerously wobbling on the three planks of rickety infrastructure, a rigid bureaucratic network that spans the Union as well as states, and a helpless situation of tied hands when it comes to allocation of funds to the scheme.

The 16th report of the Standing Committee on Rural Development & Panchayati Raj shines a spotlight on the many ills hobbling the fruitful execution of the PMAY-Grameen. The comments made by the standing committee show that the PMAY-G remains a work-in-progress; one that necessitates committed and honest participation from varied stakeholders, like state governments, gram panchayats, low-level bureaucrats, banks, as well as non-banking financial companies (NBFC).

Juggling several stakeholders results in a dynamic with too many variables in the air, where the intended benefit often does not reach the right recipient; or worse, the subsidy is pocketed by the gram panchayat and low-level banking officers.

Let’s dive into what ails the PMAY-G.

Identification of beneficiaries

In a casteist and deeply stratified socio-economic matrix of a village, identification of beneficiaries is scuttled by a “biased and politically motivated approach” by the gram panchayat. It isn’t as if the PMAY-G does not provide a grievance redressal appellate mechanism, but given its complexities, technical and logistical, it is of little consequence to the rural beneficiaries.

“The Committee are not fully convinced with stance and feel that if the primary concern of proper selection of the beneficiaries is not addressed properly, the whole initiative of bringing improvement in the living conditions of the rural poor may be ineffective. In a scenario where the centrally sponsored scheme is implemented at the District/Panchayat level and monitored at the central level, it becomes utmost important to downsize the role of Gram Sabha and to rope in private organizations and non-government bodies for identification/authentication of the beneficiary list and the responsibility is fixed on the Block Development Officers by making them accountable for factual verification of the details and progress of PMAY-G unit for fairer results, (sic)” the 16th report of the Standing Committee reads.

As of November, 2021, over 2.77 crore houses remain eligible for allocation under the PMAY-G, and the ministry had only given target of 50.99 lakh houses to states/UTs. In the meanwhile, there is still no resolution to the bottleneck of identifying the right beneficiaries under the scheme. The gram panchayat, despite its flaws, biases and prejudices, gets to have a say in the identification process.

Also read: Affordable Housing Is Only for Those Who Can Afford a Bribe in UP’s Sarumal

Inflationary pressures

The PMAY-G was launched in April, 2016 and had a provision of loan facilities of Rs 70,000 and unit assistance of Rs 1.2 lakh in plains and Rs 1.3 lakhs in hilly states, difficult areas and integrated action plan (IAP) districts. Considering the overwhelming inflationary pressures hovering over the economy, the committee members pointed out that there was an urgent need to review the existing financial assistance being doled out under the scheme.

Accompanying the inflationary concerns are the numerous challenges faced by those from the economically disadvantaged sections when it comes to accessing formal credit from banking channels. Given the predicament that an overwhelming majority of the beneficiaries of the scheme find themselves in, the committee had recommended for an increase in unit assistance on the basis of the present-day price index.

However, the replies submitted by the Department of Rural Development categorically stated that “increasing the unit assistance at such a juncture may not be feasible”, while adding that the Finance Ministry had also recommended the continuation of the same PMAY-G framework, shooting down any possibility of enhancement in per unit assistance.

Quite naturally, this response made the committee see red and it added, for good effect, that the Department of Rural Development seems to be “lacking empathy” towards the beneficiaries who belong to marginalised and deprived sections of society.

Given the ratcheting-up of the costs of cement, steel, paints and other goods that go into the construction of a house, a loan of Rs 70,000 amounts to a pittance, but the Finance Ministry, evidently, is obstinately against demands for a revision of the loan provision.

Landlessness

The report points out that despite the efforts undertaken by the rural development department, 2,79,321 (65.26%) out of the total of 4,27,975 landless beneficiaries are yet to be provided land, thereby putting a serious question mark on the full success of the scheme. Maharashtra accounts for 81,193 of these landless ‘beneficiaries’; Odisha, 52,731; Tamil Nadu, 43,718; and Assam, 29,591; besides other states constituting the total number of landless beneficiaries yet to be provided land.

Also read: How The PM’s Affordable Housing Scheme Went From Promising To Dysfunctional

In response, the Department passed on the blame to state governments and Union Territories, claiming that it had directed them to provide land to landless beneficiaries on priority. The committee was far from impressed, and emphasised the need to develop novel mechanisms to take on this seemingly intractable problem.

“The Committee find the reply of the Ministry routine in nature, devoid of any concrete measures which could yield desired results in a short span of time. Details of various written communication with the States since 2018 have been given which in itself proves that such practice has not borne the required solution and it is high time that a modified and novel approach be created for the speedier allocation of land to the landless beneficiaries across the country, (sic)” the report said.

Budget 2021: No Lessons Learnt From the Disproportionate Impact of the Pandemic on Women?

With seemingly no attempt to address the disparities related to women’s livelihood, education and nutrition, the Centre’s endeavour towards economic recovery might not be inclusive.

With “inclusive development for aspirational India” being a pillar of the 2021-22 budget, there was no better opportunity to take on the gender disparities that resulted in making women more vulnerable to the ripple effects of COVID-19. With seemingly no attempt to address these disparities, India’s supposedly bold endeavour towards economic recovery, might not be inclusive and for this reason not resilient either.

The 2021-22 gender budget estimates (BE) saw a modest rise of 6.8% from last year’s BE. However, there is a steep 26% decrease in allocation from the 2020-21 revised estimates (RE). One can say that 2020-21 was unprecedented and hence the RE was much higher due to increased spend on welfare and direct benefit programmes. But are we out of the crisis yet?

Vulnerable women’s livelihoods not a priority

Bridging the gender inequality in employment and domestic time use is key to women’s economic empowerment. Female labour force participation rate in India is only 23.6% and about 94% of women workers in India are employed in the informal sector.

COVID has hit informal work and women-dominated sectors hard. The impact on the livelihood of Indian women has not been acknowledged in the budget. While we did not see many sector-specific revival measures, even MGNREGS, which was a lifeline for women affected by the lockdown, has seen its allocation reduced by 34.5% from the RE of 2020-21. Since a majority of beneficiaries of MGNREGS have been women over many years, this step will hit women hard at a vulnerable time. Allocation towards NRLM (National Rural Livelihood Mission) and NULM (National Urban Livelihoods Mission) would not provide immediate livelihood security.

Since the textiles industry is a women-dominated sector, the proposed launch of seven ‘Mega Investment Textiles Parks’ over the next three years is the only proposal that seems to help the cause of women’s employment. The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) would also strengthen women’s economic empowerment by continuing to enable asset ownership. The women specific component for PMAY-urban has been increased from 32.4% of total outlay in BE 2020-21 to 90.7% in BE 2021-22. Additionally, Rs 1,000 crore has been allocated to the welfare of tea workers, especially women and children, in Bengal and Assam. Although the political motivation behind this allocation is clear, this funding will be beneficial for the female tea workers that comprise more than 50% of the tea estate workforce.

The MSME sector has been provided Rs 15,700 crore in the budget, more than double 2020-21’s BE. Given that about 20% of MSMEs, more specifically micro enterprises, are owned by women and women face significant constraints in access to finance and skills, a gender-targeted component would have prevented women from being crowded out of such credit schemes. 

Also read: Activists Slam Reducing Budget Allocation for Critical Women and Child Nutrition Schemes Amid COVID

Lack of infrastructure support and safety to seek paid work

One of the major reasons keeping Indian women from paid work is their unrecognised domestic and care work which is considerably more than men. COVID-19 has induced a 30% rise in this. An additional one crore Ujjwala beneficiaries and launching of the Jal Jeevan Mission (Urban) are welcome measures and will help women both in terms of health and also by reducing their burden of domestic work. 

However, this year’s budget has reduced the provision for schemes now grouped under Saksham Anganwadi and Poshan 2.0 by 18% as compared to BE 2020-21. Removing essential child care and child development infrastructure funding that help women in making the choice towards paid work is a step back. This has been done when calls for a woman-led recovery are gaining momentum globally.

Net allocation for ‘schemes for safety of women’ under the Ministry of Home Affairs is only Rs 100 crore as compared to Rs 855.23 crore in 2020-21 BE. This 88.3% decline seems to run contrary to the budget announcement that “women will be allowed to work in all categories and also in the night shifts with adequate protection”.

Female education heading towards generational losses

School closures due to COVID-19 will lead to a decline in educational attainment, particularly for girls. And as warned by UNESCO, many girls might drop out. In this scenario, the overall outlay for education has been slashed by 8.3%. There are no substantial provisions for incentivising girls’ return to schools or covering up for the loss in educational attainment, which could lead to generational losses to the cause of women’s education. This funding is even insufficient for the roll-out of the National Education Policy that was to begin in 2021.

Also read: A Gender-Discriminatory Crisis Requires a Gender-Responsive Union Budget

Not only that, the flagship Samagra Shiksha programme’s overall and gender allocation has been reduced by 19.8% as compared to BE 2020-21. In fact, the budget for the National Scheme for Incentive to Girl Child for Secondary Education has been cut by 99%. While the allocation to mid-day meals has increased from BE 2020, it is a decline of 10.8% from RE 2020-21. A slight nod to the importance of digital literacy in the post-pandemic era has been given in the form of a small allocation towards PMGDISHA.

Nutrition ignored and frontline women workers unrewarded

A 137% rise in health and well-being budget was a big announcement. Upon closer look, a key component – nutrition – has seen a reduction from Rs 3,700 crore to Rs 2,700 crore i.e. by 27% from 2020-21 BE (table 1). It is also unclear how much funding the nutrition components of anganwadi, creche and scheme for adolescent girls will receive. Healthcare budget 2021-22 is a lost opportunity to go beyond mere symbolism of banging thalis and clapping, by meaningfully recognising the frontline ASHA, anganwadi and auxiliary nurse midwife workers, by formalising their work and providing them with better terms of employment and wages. 

Adding to the pandemic-related woes of women is the shadow pandemic of violence and abuse that the COVID-19 induced lockdown and distancing has exacerbated. Given this realisation, it was hoped that the government would do more to address these issues. On the contrary, budget on protection, safety and empowerment schemes, now grouped under Mission SHAKTI as SAMBAL and SAMARTHYA, has gone down.

Gender-neutral initiatives have a gender skewed impact. We can no longer work on the assumption that women will automatically benefit. The time for affirmative action is now and the implementation of the budget should happen with this aspect in mind.

Shagufta Gupta is a senior fellow at CUTS International, Poulomi Ghosh is research associate at IIM Calcutta and Shalu Bindal is an independent researcher.

Rajya Sabha Passes Bill to Protect Delhi’s Unauthorised Colonies

The Bill provides protection to unauthorised developments in Delhi from punitive action where adequate measures are yet to be taken.

New Delhi: The Upper House of parliament on Tuesday passed the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Bill, 2021 to regularise unauthorised colonies in Delhi.

The Bill replaces the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Ordinance, 2020 which was promulgated by President Ram Nath Kovind on December 30, 2020 to extend the validity of the Act of 2011 for a period of three years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023.

“1.35 crore people of Delhi, those living in unauthorised colonies, will get their ownership right,” minister of state (independent charge) of housing and urban affairs Hardeep Singh Puri said in Rajya Sabha.

The Bill provides protection to certain forms of unauthorised developments in Delhi from punitive action where adequate measures are yet to be taken.

Puri said that tenders have been floated for “Jahan Jhuggi Wahan Makaan”. He added, “Delhi will not only benefit from the improvement in living conditions of 1.35 crore people but the Central Vista project will also make Delhi one of the finest cities in the world.” The minister said that the number of 1.35 crore is expected in the next census later this year.

Also read: Central Vista Project Will Cement Bureaucratic System That Badly Needs Revamping

Participating in the debate, Communist Party of India leader Binay Viswam expressed concern over the ordinance route being adopted by the government bypassing parliament and taking away people’s right. He requested the chair to give “strict instruction” to the government to not make ordinance route a practice.

Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP Bikash Ranjan said, “Is it an ordinance raj that we are living in? The Bill has such a laudable purpose, but it has not been executed. Why has it not been executed within time is not explained. The ordinance was brought in just a day before the terminal period of the earlier Bill. Repeatedly extension through ordinance is condemnable.”

Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh said that as informed in the house 40 lakh people live in slums. He said that the government had promised last year that people in unauthorised colonies will be given ownership rights and demanded that it should be executed now.

Before moving the National Capital Territory of Delhi Laws (Special Provisions) Second (Amendment) Bill, 2021, Puri said the government would have brought a law had there been a winter session of parliament. “The urgency was that if we had not enacted in the interim period, the process of sealing, demolition, etc. would have started. I am sure no member of this house would like Delhi to be subjected to that kind of uncertainty and chaos,” he said.

Also read: A New Central Vista, and the Political Conceit of the Ruling Classes

The Bill aims to extend the validity of NCT Delhi special provisions for three years from January 1, 2021 to December 31, 2023, he added.

The minister shared that in 2006, parliament had enacted Delhi laws special provisions Act to protect certain forms of encroachment and unauthorised development from punitive action namely demolition, sealing and displacement etc. “These provisions were on previous occasion extended through various ordinances and acts in 2007, 2009, 2014 and 2017,” he said.

Stating that there has been a sharp rise in population in Delhi from 8 lakh in 1947 to 1.6 crore in 2011, the minister said, “Exponential growth has led to serious stretch on resources leading to vast gaps in demand and supply.” However, the government has followed a three-pronged approach to address the urbanisation needs of Delhi through three schemes that will benefit a total of 1.35 crore citizens, he said.

About 50 lakh people are expected to benefit from the Pradhan Mantri Unauthorised Colonies in Delhi Awas Adhikar Yojana (PM-UDAY), 10 lakh people from ‘Jaha Jhuggi Wahi Makan’ under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana and 75 lakh people from land pooling which are under various stages of implementation, he added.

Highlighting the progress made under these schemes, the minister said the PM-UDAY was launched at the end of 2019. “In spite of the fact that we lost one year due to the pandemic, I am happy to inform that 3,82,499 registrations have been done. Authorisation and conveyance receipts have been issued to 4,035 households.”

Also read: The Folly and Vanity of the Project to Redesign Delhi

Delhi Development Authority has also finalised controlled norms which are expected to trigger redevelopment in these colonies, he said, adding that JJ clusters in Kalkaji Extension, Jallianwala Bagh and Kathputli colony are in advanced stages of completion.

Congress leader K.T.S. Tulsi said over 30% of Delhi population lives in slums or unauthorised colonies and asked the government if it would make an effort to find a solution to this problem and provide a life of dignity in the city. He said there can be a beginning of a solution if the government adopts the United Nation’s target given to developing nations to set up cities without slums.

Expressing concern over slow progress made in implementation of smart cities and PM-UDAY, Tulsi said, “If priorities were right, instead of spending Rs 20,000 crore on Central Vista, the government could have built housing colonies and given 1 crore houses with this money.”

Bahujan Samaj Party MP Ramji requested the government to identify Dalits living in slums in Delhi and provide them houses with basic amenities. He also asked the government to ensure that land mafias are not benefitted from implementation of the bill.

Biju Janata Dal MP Amar Patnaik, Yuvajana Sramika Rythu Congress Party MP Subhash Chandra Bose Pilli, Samajwadi Party MP Vishambhar Prasad Nishad, Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam MP M. Shanmugam, Telangana Rashtra Samithi MP Banda Prakash, BJP leader Ashok Bajpai and Anil Agarwal also participated in the debate.

After the Lockdown Relief Package, What Comes Next for the Indian Economy?

The core issue of the state acting to generate demand as the lockdown eases will, however, not go away. It is increasingly likely that some sectoral relief packages will be required in the coming months.

In his address to the nation on May 12, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a relief package of Rs 20 lakh crore, six weeks into the national lockdown. At 10% of GDP, and of the same order as that of the relief package of the US, Modi appeared to have finally taken the big decision that was the need of the hour.

The cautious mindset committed to containing the fiscal deficit within the government seemed to have been finally set aside. After all, a  consensus had emerged among prominent economists and commentators that a large relief package was the need of the hour. Even monetising the deficit was fine to most as long as it was for a short period and this was made clear at the outset.

Relief measures were, in fact, announced in the developed countries at the same time as the lockdowns were imposed. In a radical shift, conservative governments jettisoned their long standing commitment to a minimalist role of the state and fiscal prudence and assumed the responsibility of using public money for  payment to workers and  to keep enterprises going.

Rishi Sunak, the Indian-origin UK Chancellor of the Exchequer, put it well:

“This is not a time for ideology  and orthodoxy…We will support jobs, we will support incomes and we will support business…”

In the US, about half of the relief package is for payment to workers, directly if they are unemployed, and through firms if they retain their workers.

Most of the other half is for direct support to enterprises, state governments and municipal authorities. As a result though these economies are contracting,  ordinary people are being able to sustain themselves. There is public discussion on the  adequacy of the health care response and the extent of lockdown required,  but not of the relief measures.

Also watch: India Faces a Major Economic Catastrophe, PMO Can’t Handle By Itself, Says Raghuram Rajan

We had these examples before us and needed to adopt an equivalent approach. Most of our workers, including migrant workers, in the urban economies are either casual workers or are self employed. They needed state support through payments to subsist till their livelihoods returned with the easing of the lockdown and not the pittance that is currently being given.

A reasonable benchmark for payment to workers who lost their livelihoods would be the prevailing minimum wage. This is as affordable in India as the equivalent relief to workers has been elsewhere. The monthly expenditure on this would have been about Rs 1 lakh crore, approximately 0.5% of the GDP. With this India would not be having the unique distinction of causing so much avoidable hardship and hunger to so many.

The poignant images of the poor from the metros walking with their children and belongings to their villages would weigh heavily for a long time on the nation’s conscience.

Migrants travelling from Gurgaon to reach their native place Bulandshahr being stopped at Delhi- UP border, in New Delhi, Tuesday, May 19, 2020. Photo: PTI

The mass exodus to rural India with the state, finally driven to facilitating it, has other unintended adverse consequences. Many are carrying  infection to villages in the weaker states of India where the capacity to test, quarantine and treat is inadequate. The benefit of containment from the prolonged lockdown is being partially undone specially when the total number of cases are still rising. Workers are now leaving in larger numbers in buses and trains.

The absence of workers would make restoration of economic activity that much more difficult. It is still not too late to give adequate relief to urban workers and  prevent their exodus. This should be done immediately. The absence of ‘lists’ is a difficulty of such a clerical nature that it should never come in the way of governments doing what they have to do. As a classical fiscal stimulus, this would also moderate the collapse in aggregate demand, economic activity and government’s tax revenues.

Enterprises are in deep trouble; no revenues as yet for most, continuing fixed costs and depleting reserves. Survival is the issue for most. Imposing pay cuts and laying off better paid regular employees has begun to happen. This would gain momentum in the coming weeks and months.

Also read: Despite Official Appeal, Most Migrant Workers Staying Back in Gurgaon Have Not Been Paid

A wave of bankruptcies is  imminent. The daunting challenge is to revive the economy as much as possible in the coming quarters. Faster recovery would  lower the decline in tax revenues and the increase in the fiscal deficit. This only strengthens the case for a fiscal stimulus. The expectation was that the Finance Minister’s series of announcements would give a plausible road map and hope for early recovery. This has been belied.

To begin with, the arithmetic has turned out to be problematic. The  RBI had been infusing additional liquidity into the financial system. To include this quantum now as over 60% of the Rs 20 lakh crore relief package has needlessly undermined credibility. The direct fiscal stimulus is around 1.5 % of GDP.

The positives in the Finance Minister’s announcements only buy some time. Bankruptcy proceedings have been kept in abeyance till the next financial year. Loan guarantees of over Rs 3 lakh crores for MSMEs without collateral is the most substantial and welcome part of the relief package.

This should  enable SMEs to borrow to cover their fixed costs and survive in the short run.  Getting banks to actually lend with no credible revenue streams to be able to repay debt, even if there is a government guarantee and no need for collateral, may still be a challenge in the present circumstances. Government may still need to push this  administratively with the public sector banks. But this at best enables survival and does nothing for recovery.

In the series of announcements of the Finance Minister there are a large number of well sounding small ticket items cutting across the spectrum. Strong on rhetoric, they have modest implications and could well be part of a Budget speech. Then there are a large number of ‘reform’ announcements. These are a surprise. So many items on the wish lists of so many for so long have suddenly become government decisions.

Also watch: Korona: An Animated Reminder of the Real Indian Lockdown

Without going into their merits and possible benefits, there can be no doubt that these have implications only for the medium and long term and none for the present crisis of a sinking economy. One can only hope that this focus on reforms and a new India is not the result of an internal acceptance that nothing more can be done for the present except to wait and see. If this is so, this is indeed unfortunate and unnecessary.

The core issue of the state acting to generate demand as the lockdown eases will, however, not go away. The case for an immediate larger fiscal stimulus rests on the fact that only the government through its actions and expenditures can now create additional demand.  Where can government expenditure, tax or other policy interventions generate additional demand with the maximum multiplier effect?

Here are some illustrative options:

> Increasing  hospital bed capacity across the country on a war footing and making good the neglect of decades.

> The government providing a 50% GST rebate for the trade in of any BS 1,2,3 and 4 vehicle and the purchase of an equivalent new one. The  traded in vehicle is physically scrapped. This  would amount to a 10% reduction in price  for the buyer who trades in his old vehicle and would generate demand for the auto sector with its positive backward linkages. There would be no budgetary expenditure.  50% GST would also come in instead of none. Further,  government could finance the replacement of all old buses and trucks with government and municipal agencies. Air quality, a critical public good, would improve substantially.

>The completion cost of all the incomplete housing projects with developers in distress has been estimated at about Rs 1.75 lakh crores. A take over of all these projects, government guaranteed bank financing for completion, and immediate recommencement of work with completion targeted in 12-18 months would generate employment and demand for cement , paint, electrical fittings etc. This would amount to a fiscal stimulus of 1.75% of GDP.

> By announcing an attractive feed in tariff at which Distribution Companies would buy solar power up to 1 MW from decentralised small units in rural India, something announced in the FM’s Budget speech, there would be a surge in private investment enhancing farmers incomes. By doing so, the Distribution Companies would actually save money as their cost of delivery with conventional power is much higher today. With 6 lakh villages, there is a potential of 6 lakh MW of solar power.

> Getting industrial investment into India from global supply chains seeking some diversification from China would have a realistic chance only if the state invested with great speed in creating large industrial parks with quality infrastructure, including rental housing for workers, along with expressway connectivity to the National Highway network and on to ports and airports.

The government has a large menu of choices which it can begin seeing only if it starts thinking out of the box . It needs to focus on possible results in this financial year and think of achieving a critical mass in whatever it attempts and ignore  fiscal deficit concerns  till recovery commences. Even after best efforts, some sectoral relief packages may be unavoidable in the coming months. The alternative to doing nothing more now is much greater economic distress. Job losses would hit the middle classes in increasing numbers. The fiscal deficit would balloon as tax revenues, which have collapsed, would not rise. Greater human misery that seems imminent is avoidable.

Ajay Shankar was Secretary, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) in the government of India. He was part of the core team which worked out the 2008 stimulus package for India.

Food Grain for Migrants, Loans for Farmers in Modi Govt’s 2nd Economic Package Worth Rs 3 Lakh Crore

While Nirmala Sitharaman said eight crore migrant workers will be provided food grains, that number is considerably less than the number of people who now face food insecurity.

New Delhi: Union finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman on Thursday unveiled the second round of the Atmanirbhar Bharat Abhiyan scheme, which contained over Rs 3 lakh crore worth of announcements aimed at migrants, tribals, farmers and the poor. 

The most significant measure announced was that the migrant workers would be provided five kg food grains and one kg chana (per family) even if they don’t hold ration cards and are thus not covered under the National Food Security Act (NFSA). 

This, Sitharaman said, will reach an estimated eight crore migrant workers and will cost the Centre Rs 3,500 crore. 

“The figure of eight crore has been arrived at through consultations with states. The states will be in charge of implementing this,” she said. 

However, the figure of eight crore is considerably less than the number of people who now face food insecurity. According to Reetika Khera, who is professor at IIM Ahmedabad, the expansions announced by Sitharaman is not really an expansion beyond the scope of the NFSA. 

“We were already under-covering by 10 crore as required by the NFSA. So this expansion will not even bring up the coverage to the 66% mandated by the NFSA, let alone go beyond NFSA, towards universal which is what is required, especially given excess stock,” she said. 

Also read: Explainer: Why Modi’s MSME Push Won’t Actually Cost the Centre Too Much This Year

Another measure announced by the Centre to deal with food insecurity issues was a focus on the existing one nation one ration card scheme under which holders of a ration card can avail of ration under the PDS even if they are not in their home districts. She said that 67 crore of the almost 81 crore beneficiaries under NFSA, will be enrolled by August this year and 100% coverage will be achieved by March 2021. 

Another step, which the finance minister said will benefit the migrant workers is an affordable rental housing scheme under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana for migrants and urban poor. This will be done in the public private partnership (PPP) mode she said. Manufacturing units, industries and associations will be incentivised to build affordable housing complexes on their private land. 

In a move to provide credit to small entrepreneurs, under the MUDRA scheme shishu loans (upto Rs 50,000) will be provided with an interest subvention option if prompt payment is made. 

Referring to Prime Ministers Narendra Modi’s promise of helping the street vendors, Sitharaman announced that within a month the government will launch a scheme which will provide them working capital of upto Rs 10,000. This is expected to benefit 50 lakh street vendors at a cost of Rs 5,000 crore. 

“We look at COVID-19 as an opportunity. Yes, people are suffering. They are walking back to their homes. The prime minister had requested them to stay where they are. But nevertheless, emotions being what they are, they started moving. And we will extend benefits to them,” she said. 

Also read: India Needs Fiscal Stimulus, Not Liquidity Infusion

In an attempt to boost the real estate sector, Sitharaman announced that the credit-linked subsidy scheme for middle-income families (those earning between Rs 6 lakh and Rs 18 lakh per annum) will be extended by a year to March 2021. This, she said, will lead to investments worth Rs 70,000 crore. 

In measures directed at helping farmers, the Centre said that an additional 2.5 crore farmers will be included under the Kisan Credit Card (KCC). Sitharaman said that of the nine crore PM Kisan beneficiaries, 2.5 crore do not have a KCC. These will now be provided concessional loans under the KCC. 

In addition, small and marginal farmers will also be able to avail additional Rs 30,000 crore loans through NABARD. This will be in addition to the Rs 90,000 crore emergency capital funding that NABARD provides. 

At the press conference, a journalist asked the finance minister what provisions the Centre is making for those who are already on the move, some on foot. Sitharaman said that it is up to the states to look after them. “There is a tug in my heart when I see those pictures. State governments should provide cooked food. In any case, people who are moving can’t benefit from dry ration. State governments and NGOs have been given ration under the OMSS (Open Market Sale Scheme),” she said. 

The Intriguing Case of a Massive Slowdown in the Auto Sector

Did the auto sector’s woes go hand-in-hand with the boom in affordable housing segment under PMAY?

Sales in the auto sector and in related industries have fallen considerably in India. Maruti-Suzuki, the country’s leading car manufacturer, has reported a 32.7% decline in its total vehicle sales. There is a similar situation across the sector, including the two-wheeler industry. The sector has already lost over 300,000 jobs.

What explains the massive slowdown in the auto sector in a short span of time? The usual explanations run in terms of factors like the general slowdown in the economy, the disruption caused by the Ola and Uber facilities, difficulties in getting a loan for purchasing a car or two-wheeler in the aftermath of the IL&FS crisis (and more generally in the NBFC sector since then), the competition from electric vehicles in the coming years and the confusion around BS6 emission standards. 

There is indeed merit in such explanations. But they cannot explain the severity of the problem. Indeed, it is all very intriguing.

Why then has so much happened so quickly?

The answer possibly lies in something which has escaped our attention for sometime. It is the massive growth in the affordable housing segment under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) in the last few years. On one hand, spending in the auto industry has declined. On the other hand, spending on affordable homes has gone up substantially. There is some reason to believe that spending has shifted to a significant extent from purchase of cars and two-wheelers to affordable homes in India in the last few years. 

Also read: Affordable Housing Is Only for Those Who Can Afford a Bribe in UP’s Sarumal

In a normal course of events – that is, in the absence of a big slowdown – consumers would have spent on cars or two-wheelers. Given that the slowdown has occurred, it is important to ask the question – what did people spend on, if not in the auto sector? In this context, it is also reasonable to consider spending on the down-payment for getting a loan for affordable housing (some data is provided later).

This is not to say that cars and affordable homes are substitutes. That is obviously not the case. However, if a low-income person needs to shell out, what is for her, a large sum for housing (or for the downpayment to qualify for a home loan), it is likely that there will be a cut in, what is for her, a bulky expenditure on a car or even a two-wheeler. It is the budget constraint at work. But of course, consumer preferences matter too. Let us consider these next.

Though ownership of homes is emphasised in many parts of the world, it is particularly important in a country like India. So long as ownership of a home is out of reach, a household that is otherwise well-to-do by Indian standards may comfortably spend on ‘comforts and luxuries’ like cars, including relatively expensive cars. This is particularly true where we have male dominance in main budgeting. However, once an affordable home is in sight, then the emphasis within a household can unanimously and quickly shift from the auto sector to the housing sector.

In 2015-16, the Government of India (GOI) launched PMAY. This includes PMAY-urban and PMAY-rural. Under PMAY-urban, the number of houses sanctioned is 85 lakh, number of houses under construction is 50 lakh, the number of houses completed is 26.30 lakh. The total investment in the scheme is 5.03 lakh crore, and central assistance released is Rs 51,611 crore. The goal is to achieve housing for all by 2022. While some of these claims may be exaggerated, there is nothing short of a boom in the affordable housing segment.

Also read: Econ Wrap-Up: GST Collections Fall, Auto Firms Report Mixed Sales and S&P Cuts India GDP Estimates

It is true that there has been a serious recession in, what is usually viewed as, the real estate sector in India for a while. This may appear to contradict the idea that there is a boom in the housing under consideration. However, the affordable housing segment under PMAY is very different and, in a sense, new. It is interesting that there is a big boom in India in this (subsidised) segment alongside a recession in the other parts of the real estate industry. The dominant theme in the media, policy circles, business meetings, chambers of commerce, academic seminars and financial markets is the recession in the real estate sector other than the affordable housing segment. Such views tend to ignore the boom in the affordable housing segment of the real estate sector.

It is interesting that while the boom in the affordable housing segment is not well known, the recession in the auto sector is all too familiar. This may be due to the organised voice that the auto sector has in Mumbai and Delhi. This is in contrast to the scattered beneficiaries of affordable housing. These beneficiaries include the ‘aam aadmi’. Even the real estate firms engaged in the affordable housing business tend to be relatively small and low profile ones.

Returning to the auto sector, it is important to note that the slowdown in the automobile sector was not as sudden as it is usually made out to be. The slowdown has been happening for a little longer. It is just that it did not show up because the manufacturers were continuing to sell to the distributors who were piling up inventories for a while. Having said this, it is important to add that it was indeed a quick change, even if it was not a sudden change. 

The question is – did the recession in the auto sector go hand in hand with the boom in affordable housing segment under PMAY? It did not quite happen that way but the substantive point above about why the recession happened in the auto sector remains. Let us see how.

Also read: How the PM’s Affordable Housing Scheme Went From Promising to Dysfunctional

Though PMAY was officially launched in 2015-16, naturally it took some time before it could take off. Even after it took off, it is possible that initially it was the people who had relatively comfortable money and/or better awareness who bought affordable homes. These people did not need to cut down on spending on cars/two-wheelers in a significant way. So, there was no recession in the auto industry in the early stages of PMAY.

Subsequently, other less affluent people saw the possibility more clearly and cut down spending where they could meaningfully; this was the spending on cars/two-wheelers (and possibly other things as well). They used their money (and possibly some money borrowed from family/friends) on affordable homes or on the downpayment in case of a home loan. So, this can explain why the slowdown in the auto sector lagged behind the official launch of and even the initial boom in the affordable housing sector. Once it was realised on a somewhat large scale that it was a good idea to shift from the auto sector to affordable housing, the change was quick.

Prices are obviously low for affordable homes under PMAY. For example, in September 2019, a project by Signature Global was launched at a price of Rs 4,000 per square foot, and the starting price of a unit is Rs 20 lakhs. The downpayment for getting a housing loan, even if it is 20%, in this context is easily comparable to the price of a car.

To conclude, there has been a massive slowdown in the auto sector. However, there is also a big boom in the affordable housing segment. So, is this merely an issue of a change in output mix rather than an issue of the level of aggregate output, or is there more to it? Could the policy towards affordable homes have been different? That could be an altogether different story.

Gurbachan Singh is a visiting faculty member with the Indian Statistical Institute (ISI), Delhi Centre

Affordable Housing Is Only for Those Who Can Afford a Bribe in UP’s Sarumal

Paying the bribe – almost 20% of the cost of the house to be built – is depriving families of housing under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin.

Lalitpur, (Uttar Pradesh): In Sarumal village in Uttar Pradesh’s Lalitpur district, residents claim that they are being deprived of housing under the Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) because of their inability to pay the pradhan a bribe of Rs 20,000.

Among the claimants is Hariprasad Kushwaha, who has a family of ten that has been waiting for an allotment for a long time. But the only thing standing between them and a safe and permanent home, they say, is the bribe.

“They say just get the money and you will get your allotment, otherwise forget it,” he says. The bribe, which is almost 20% the cost of the house to be built, can be financially crippling for families.

This prerequisite laid by the pradhan certainly contradicts the ambitious goal of ‘Housing for All’ set by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s affordable housing scheme, which aims to put a roof over the head of every Indian by 2022, to coincide with India’s 75th year of Independence.

One of the main highlights of the scheme was to use the SECC (Socio-Economic and Caste Census) data to ensure that the benefits reach those who really need it. With accusations of corruption and bribery, right from the lowest levels of bureaucracy at the village level, the question arises whether the system created to deliver it is really as transparent and fair as it is made out to be.

There are other layers too to the scam going on in Sarumal. When the list of eligible beneficiaries comes out, the ones who can afford to deposit the bribe get the funds and build their houses in the name of others.

Sarumal villagers report how “those who have tractors and vehicles are getting new houses built with the PMAY-G funds, but the poor still live in run-down tenements”.

The situation gets worse in the monsoon. Kuccha houses in Sarumal are made of mud walls with tarpaulin sheets as a roof. Badi Bahu, a resident, says, “If it rains, our houses get flooded and we place buckets to collect water leaking from the roof. But when it gets too much, we have to move out. We currently live in a makeshift tent made of sticks and plastic sheets.”

She doesn’t really have an answer as to why they haven’t received their housing benefit yet. “We have lived here for over 30 years. My children have filled the forms but we still aren’t getting the houses, and nobody listens to us. What can be done now?”

Even food has to wait, because the constant drip of the rain puts out the chulha cooking fire. “I can’t make food whenever it rains. Even though we’ve put plastic sheets above, they give way eventually and have to be replaced,” says Morabai, whose stove lies outside her home.

Also read: How the PM’s Affordable Housing Scheme Went From Promising to Dysfunctional

There are many more residents who say that they would have built a house by themselves if they could afford hefty bribes in the first place. “If we want a house we have to pay Rs 20,000,” says Hari Prasad. “If you can’t pay the money, you won’t get a house. And if you object to this system, you will be left out of the scheme.”

The scheme offers support for house construction at Rs 1.2 lakh per house. There is an allotted budget of Rs 19,000 crore for 2019-2020 to achieve its target of 1.95 crore houses by 2022. However, a report by the Accountability Initiative notes that 35% of the sanctioned houses have not been completed, even after two years.

As per the ministry of rural development’s latest progress report, over 1 crore houses have received their first instalment. UP, Madhya Pradesh, West Bengal and Odisha are the leading PMAY-G beneficiaries, having received over 50% of the funds disbursed by 2018.

Of the 12 lakh plus households in UP, Lalitpur has 32,343 households eligible to receive benefits and Sarumal should have 86 houses that have been finished or are near completion under the scheme.

Also read: No Place to Call Home for Residents of Rural Uttar Pradesh

Sonu Rajak, a representative of pradhan Zubeida Bano, denies the accusations about bribe. “These are all false accusations. Till now, 66 houses have been built in the village under the scheme and seven more are pending.”

According to him, a new list of 425 names for affordable housing has been drawn up for the village but is still awaiting government sanction. “No money has exchanged hands. Till the government does not sanction the house, we cannot do anything,” he claims.

Recently, in Odisha, the state government admitted to rampant corruption where officials were exploiting rural housing schemes to extract money in exchange for housing sanction. Here in Sarumal, the villagers who have spoken out against these corrupt practices face the wrath of the pradhan with their allotment being blocked, rejected or given to another. They continue to live in temporary homes, with a hope that someone higher up takes notice and takes their allegations seriously.

Khabar Lahariya is a rural, video-first digital news organisation with an all-women network of reporters in eight districts of Uttar Pradesh.

Discriminatory ‘Vikas’ in Modi’s Adopted Village Speaks Volumes of BJP’s Disregard for Minorities

In Uttar Pradesh’s Jayapur village, development is confined to the edges while the settlements belonging to the Dalit community are in shambles. 

“We now have 24-hour electricity supply. This was not the case before the Modi and Adityanath governments,” said a resident of Jayapur village in Uttar Pradesh’s Varanasi district, adding: “Our crop production has increased because of the power supply for irrigation.” The village is hardly 30 kilometres away from the holy city of Varanasi, renowned for its sacred ghats at the banks of river Ganga, and also for being Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Lok Sabha constituency.

Another resident excitedly pointed to the newly set-up offices of Syndicate Bank and Union Bank of India in the village, and the steel benches in open spaces, inscribed with ‘Narendra Modi.’ Jayapur is one of the four villages adopted by Modi during a drive which began in 2014 under the Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojana. The other three are Nagpur, Kakarhia and Domaria villages, all located within Varanasi district.

While those residing on the edges of Jayapur village admired Modi’s adoption drive, claiming that everyone now has a toilet and pucca house, the interiors had a different story to tell: of broken down mud huts, toilets and kutcha roads.

Harishankar, a local residing here, had this to say: “There are no roads, drains or water supply facilities. Development has touched only the edges of this village where the Patel, Kumhar and Lohar (OBC) communities reside. Visitors need to also enter and explore the insides. Look at the state of the Harijan Basti. Even the toilets are non-functional here.”

The Harijan Basti is the area earmarked as the settlement belonging to the Dalit/SC community. Jayapur village is a case in point for the BJP regime’s disregard for Dalits and minorities. Nationwide, it has been more visibly documented through instances of extreme violence such as mob lynching and murders. There have been 90 recorded deaths due to mob violence since 2015 – targeted at both Dalits and Muslims.

However, not enough attention is being paid to the fact that entire communities are being overlooked when it comes to development and welfare schemes.

Also read: How Social Media Drove and Repressed an Election Boycott in UP’s Chitrakoot

We spoke to more residents at the basti. Premlal, another resident here, admitted: “I felt hopeful when the works were initiated. But most of it was left unfinished or was stopped midway because [the money] went into the pockets of officials.”

The most striking sight here is of the mud houses falling apart. Suman, who has been residing in one such half-broken house, said: “This could break down even more, fall on us, but we’re still living here for the past three years – when the damage first began. Not once has my name come on the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana lists despite having requested the pradhan.”

Mud houses in Harijan Basti of Jayapur. Credit: Khabar Lahariya

Sanjay Kumar, whose kutcha house is in a similar state, and who has also been applying for the same scheme, says: “My name has appeared on the list three times but the money never came. Once some officials arrived and said that I’ll receive the funds if I make a payment of Rs 10,000.”

Wasn’t this a shameful occurrence, especially in the PM’s adopted village, we asked him. He fired up in response, “Yes, Jayapur is adopted but the village exists only at the Patel and Thakur bastis for Modi ji. Even this area is a part of Jayapur, but he and his people don’t look at our side. As for vikas here, you can see some run-down toilets that now resemble a graveyard”.

They indeed did. Rajesh Kumar, another resident, said, “The toilets that were put up were of a portable box-type, ready-to-fit variety sent from Gujarat. They got damaged after the first rains.” These made-in-Gujarat toilets, made of fibre-reinforced plastics had been laid-out, without bias, for all the village households.

Now, most of them have broken down and some subsequently removed from their spots. Kishani, an aged resident of the village, showed us the pit left behind by the bathroom that has been long removed from her household compound. She now washes utensils at the same spot. Usha, another resident, admits that her family has gone back to the old ways of open-defecation in the fields. As for the non-Dalit households, they have managed to construct better quality brick toilets through funds provided by the Adityanath government.

The verdict regarding Modi’s development work may vary among communities in Jayapur. But indisputably, the work that may have begun in earnest years ago is now half-done or on the path of destruction – most evident in defunct toilets and solar panels. As for water supply, Rajesh Kumar had this to add: “There were three bore wells constructed under the Jal Nigam scheme. But the connecting pipes were of poor quality and it’s of no use.”

Most importantly, development initiatives had ignored an entire section of the populace in this ‘model’ village. It deeply resonated in Harishankar’s remark: “Whether you are a pradhan mantri or a grameen mantri, you need to look at everyone with the same regard.”

Some like Ramraj, however, question his entire model of ‘adopting’ a village: “Close all these schemes and start a factory for gainful employment for all underemployed labourers and farmers, instead of a model like throwing bread to the dogs near election time”.

Khabar Lahariya is a rural, video-first digital news organisation with an all-women network of reporters in eight districts of Uttar Pradesh.

How the PM’s Affordable Housing Scheme Went From Promising to Dysfunctional

The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana was once a promising decentralised scheme expected to solve India’s ‘housing shortage’, but since a majority of the urban slum households did not own land, they were automatically excluded from availing its benefits.

This is the first article of a four-part series on India’s urban schemes.

At the launch of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) [PMAY(U)] in June 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said that a house is not just four walls and a physical structure but is also a means for social transformation as it provides aspirations for a better life.

He added that by 2022, when the nation celebrates its 75th year of Independence, the government will provide every houseless family with the means to own a house.

Amidst these promises, the PMAY(U) was launched as a unique scheme to solve India’s ‘housing shortage’ by offering four different housing options (verticals) for those belonging to the economically weaker section (EWS) and low-income groups (LIG). The scheme guidelines were amended in 2017 to include the middle-income group (MIG) as well.

The four verticals include:

  1. In-Situ Slum Redevelopment (ISSR) which means rehabilitation of slums by building houses through private participation for the eligible slum dwellers on the land under the slums.
  2. Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) with the extension of central assistance of INR 1,50,000 for affordable housing projects done by states, either through its agencies or in partnership with the private sector for the EWS.
  3. Beneficiary-led Individual House Construction/Enhancement (BLC) with the extension of direct central assistance of INR 1,50,000 to families belonging to EWS categories to either construct a new house or enhance the existing house on their own.
  4. Credit-Linked Subsidy (CLS), the provision of loans ranging from INR 6–12 lakh at lower rates of interest, to weaker and mid-income sections for the construction of new homes or renovation of existing homes.

Status so far: houses sanctioned and completed

In 2012, the Technical Group on Urban Housing Shortage (TG-12), constituted by the erstwhile ministry of housing and urban poverty alleviation (MoHUPA) stated that there was a shortage of 1.88 crore housing units over the period 2012–2017. Of these, the EWS alone accounts for 1.06 crore units or 56% of the total shortage.

The LIGs require 74.1 lakh housing units or 39.4% whereas middle and above income groups have a deficit of 8.2 lakhs or 4.4% of the total. The gap is mostly in the affordable sector, i.e., EWS and LIG segments.

Also read: How Feasible Are Visions of Congress and BJP for India’s Urbanisation?

The PMAY (U) initially set up a target of constructing 2 crore houses by 2022, which was later reduced to 1 crore (according to the demand survey conducted in different states). However, only 65 lakh houses had been sanctioned by the MoHUA by December 2018. The sanctioning of these 65 lakh houses is a recent development. Between 2015 and 2017, 32 lakh houses were sanctioned.

Of the total houses sanctioned, construction work had started in 54% (35,92,656) houses till December 2018. The construction of 12.5 lakh houses had been completed. Approximately 3.5 lakh houses were completed each year between 2014 and 2017. A sharp rise was seen between 2017 and 2019, adding almost 70% more houses.

The year-wise details of houses constructed are depicted in Graph 1. This includes the subsumed projects of the erstwhile housing scheme under the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) implemented by the UPA government.

The data indicates, therefore, that four years into implementation there has been only a 12% completion rate against the target of building one crore houses, and 6% against the original target of two crore houses.

Houses sanctioned across verticals and states

Of the four verticals of the mission, the maximum number of houses (55%) were sanctioned under the BLC component (see Graph 2), which can be availed by fulfilling terms and conditions, including presenting proof of ownership of land and the means to bear the full cost of construction after availing government subsidy. Maximum houses have been sanctioned in Uttar Pradesh (17%) followed by Madhya Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh (12% each) (see Table 1).

The AHP vertical has the second highest number of houses sanctioned (33%). The sale of these houses will eventually depend on the price of the housing unit and the buying capacity of the buyers. Till December 2018, the highest number of houses have been sanctioned in Andhra Pradesh, followed by Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka. These four states account for 60% of the houses sanctioned under this component.

Table 1 Houses sanctioned under each component of PMAY(U), state-wise

The percentage share of the other two components, ISSR and CLS, is significantly low—these two components combined make only 12% share of the total houses sanctioned.

Under the ISSR vertical, state governments are considering only notified slums to be redeveloped. According to the Census of India, out of the total slums households, 36.1% are notified. Till December 2018, only 4,52,137 houses have been sanctioned under the ISSR component, out of which 49% of houses are sanctioned in Maharashtra alone, making its share the largest among all states.

Other states where a significant number of houses have been sanctioned under this component, include Gujarat, Karnataka and Rajasthan (see Table 1). Under CLS, certificate of ownership of land in addition to the creditworthiness of the beneficiary in the eyes of the lending bank is a prerequisite.

Also read: What the Last Five Years of Urban Policies Reveal About Our Cities

The total share of this component remains the lowest among the four components. CLSS could attract only 5% of the total demand of houses sanctioned. Gujarat, Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh were among the top performing states under this component. These four states together account for 70% of the total demand under this component (see Table 1).

Scheme funds sanctioned and released

A total of Rs 100,271.38 crore has been sanctioned under the scheme, although only 33% was released over the last four years. Of the amount released, 62% was reported to be utilised by the states. In comparison to the total amount sanctioned, the utilisation rate is only 21%. Graph 3 shows the annual comparison between central assistance sanctioned and released.

An opportunity lost?

This is not the first time that a housing project is being implemented by the central government. Similar attempts were made by past governments as well. From Indira Awas Yojana (IAY) launched in 1990 to Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) in 2009 and a host of different housing schemes in between this period, attempts were made by successive governments to improve basic services, provide tenure security, upgrade existing infrastructure and create new housing units with a vision of creating a ‘Slum Free India’.

Although similar in vision, the PMAY(U) adopted a much more decentralised system in financing the construction and development of housing. This generated a hope that the PMAY(U) would overcome the challenges of previous schemes and would introduce new ways of providing ‘affordable houses’.

However, data depicts that PMAY(U) has performed sluggishly across the four years of implementation. It has failed to take practical challenges into account. As a YUVA and IHF report ‘Housing Needs of the Urban Poor in Nagpur‘ discovered, ‘there is a glaring gap between people’s aspirations, their capabilities and state imagination of housing provision’. Therefore, there is a mismatch between the people’s needs and what the housing mission has to offer.

The other issue is that in spite of the availability of flexible and low-interest housing loans, people are not coming forward for housing projects due to the high costs of land, particularly in urban areas. In addition, as ownership of land is a prerequisite for availing two of the four options (BLC and CLSS), a majority of the urban slum households that do not own land are automatically excluded from availing the benefits under the scheme. According to the report, in Nagpur only 8.8% of the surveyed households had property tax receipts, thereby making access to upgradation under the PMAY an impossibility.

Moreover, the report revealed that ‘to access certain verticals (BLC and CLSS) of the PMAY it is essential to possess a host of identity documents. While the Aadhaar card is a document which almost all individuals possess, there is a variance in the possession of other required documents to access housing.’

Also read: India’s Unplanned Urbanisation Is Far from ‘Smart’

Another major drawback of the scheme, especially the AHP component, is that in the bigger metros, it appears that affordable housing projects can only be built on the outskirts of the city, far away from people’s workplaces. If location is not taken into account, there will be very few takers for these houses as some of the biggest factors influencing people’s decision to purchase a home are based on travel time to workplace and affordability.

For example, in dense metropolises such as Mumbai and Delhi, where real estate is notoriously expensive, affordable housing projects under the scheme seem to be restricted to suburbs and satellite towns far from the city. Can PMAY(U) then really serve as a solution for metro cities?

An under construction slum relocation site for Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana at Bhuri Tekri in Indore. Credit: Special Arrangement

Although affordable housing has been given infrastructure status (easing of governmental norms to promote the growth of infrastructural sector) in the National Budget of 2017, which gives housing developers additional benefits to boost their interest in these projects, the delivery of house construction has not moved at a fast pace as expected from these reforms. For a common man, the timely delivery of the house still remains a distant dream.

Recommendations for the way forward

As the election season proceeds and tall claims of providing Housing for All by 2022 are again inserted in party manifestos, it is imperative that political parties learn from their previous experiences and look beyond just creating new infrastructure under the garb of housing, and people drive advocacy measures for inclusive habitats with a knowledge-based approach.

A civil society memorandum submitted to MoHUA in 2018 highlighted suggestions for making the Mission effective for ‘all’. Some of the major points are presented below:

Upgrade existing slums as a financially viable model 

The upgrading  of existing slums by providing them with basic amenities and improving physical and social infrastructure such as roads, sewage and drainage systems, parks, waste disposal and management, hospitals, schools, etc. is critical as it would be the most economically viable option to improve the living conditions of over one crore households living in slums. This will also avoid their displacement to far-off locations.

Encourage and promote the provision of land tenure rights among state governments 

State governments should promote the provision of land tenure rights. In Nagpur, select cities in Odisha, Guwahati and Vishakhapatnam, the state government has provided or is in the process of providing land tenure rights or pattas to individuals living in slums.

The ownership of land in these areas has led to higher human development indices and better quality of life for the poor (Durand-Lasserve & Selod, 2007). People who are safe from eviction, with a sense of long-term stability – whether they own the land or not – are much more likely to invest in their housing or community.

Therefore, different types of tenure should be explored so that the beneficiaries can take advantage of the BLC and CLSS verticals as well, since these require the ownership of land. Most importantly tenure rights should preferably be given in the name of the women in the family to promote women’s empowerment.

Also Read: Does Data Tell Us the Truth About Urban Informal Settlements?

Enhance people’s participation and implementation of the 74th Amendment Act 

People’s participation in making an informed choice is pivotal, and under components such as ISSR it should be extended to ascertaining the design and size of the house as well. The participation of communities should be promoted by strengthening the implementation of the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act.

Explore alternative options such as social rental housing 

Although the emphasis was on the construction of houses under PMAY(U), other potential housing solutions such as rental housing have not been included. In today’s times, with high rates of migration to urban areas for work, the concept of large-scale rental housing equipped with basic amenities can come to the rescue. Additionally, this also suits the income volatility and high-risk profile of low-income households working in the informal sector.

Strengthen BLC by upgrading the overall settlement 

Households across the country are demanding support for self-construction and overall upgradation of the settlement. A fifth vertical for in-situ upgradation should be detailed outlining BLC with upgradation and provision of basic services such as water supply, sanitation, sewage, various social amenities etc. Along with this, BLC should be allowed for individual households. Currently, the scheme guidelines prohibit individual applications for BLC.

A man rides his cycle rickshaw past newly-constructed residential buildings on the outskirts of Kolkata December 29, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Rupak De Chowdhuri

A man rides his cycle rickshaw past newly-constructed residential buildings on the outskirts of Kolkata December 29, 2010. Credit: Reuters/Rupak De Chowdhuri

Build greater synchronisation between MoHUA and other central ministries 

Many urban development schemes such as Swachh Bharat Mission and Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) are not being implemented in majority slums as they are non-notified or untenable, although the primary goal of these schemes is to provide basic services and improve living conditions in slums. Therefore, urban schemes should work in synergy with each other.

Also read: When it Comes to Urban Planning, India Suffers From a Poverty of Imagination

Similarly, as there are multiple land-owing agencies in the country, true and complete convergence will be realised when there is a coordination between state governments and central authorities – railways, defence, forests and ports – to use their resources and reach the Housing For All goal together

Monitor qualitative aspects of new housing construction, not just the number of units constructed 

The current data available on the scheme is limited to the number of constructed and under-construction projects in different states. The government must ensure the monitoring of qualitative indicators of housing such as material quality assessment, adequacy, accessibility, etc. In addition, there is a need for real-time data on location, vertical, targeted population and funding, which will enable transparency and accountability. It will also ensure cooperation and participation from the wider civil society.

Develop a shift in perspective 

Lastly, the government’s perspective of seeing ‘land locked under slums’ as an unused asset that needs to be ‘monetised’ needs to shift towards ‘land availability to provide housing’, else the real beneficiaries will be builders who buy land at concessional prices under the scheme and use a major chunk of the land to build houses for middle and high-income groups and make gigantic profits under the garb of these schemes.

It is imperative that we find more viable and creative solutions that address specific local needs to reduce the scale of the housing crisis in the country, strengthen monitoring mechanisms and encourage the participation of citizens in decisions considering their housing.

Shaguna Kanwar works with Youth for Unity and Voluntary Action (YUVA) as a Project Coordinator – National Programmes. Among other things, she works on data analyses of parliamentary sessions and advocacy with MPs on issues of urban poverty and informal labour.

YUVA has conducted an in-depth analysis of the questions raised in the Indian parliament during the Budget Session 2018 and you can read the complete report here. The article highlights the current state of each scheme in brief.