Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

How Villagers in UP Were Extorted in the Name of ‘Geo-Tagging’

“It is the prime minister’s scheme, so we have no choice but to pay.”

An ongoing ‘extortion racket’ in the village of Nivaeech, located in the Tindwari block of Banda district in Uttar Pradesh, is locally called the “geo-tagging wala” scheme/scam.

The last two months have seen villagers being regularly being asked for money by government surveyors in the name of geo-tagging. “They took money from us saying it was their wages; how the officials are refusing to pay out of their own pockets,” said villager Shivdeen, clearly enraged, “We have no option but to pay it.”

He now knows that it is not a mere bribe, but a clear ruse to make money, since he has paid amounts ranging from Rs 100 to Rs 200 not once, but many times over. He added bitterly, “It is the prime minister’s scheme, so we have no choice but to pay.”

What Shivdeen alluded to in the name of Prime Minister Narendra Modi is the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, which incorporates geo-tagging, a system of marking the geographical coordinates of a worksite location and photographing progress.

After being integrated into various government programmes like the MGNREGA and Garv, geo-tagging is being used to reduce instances of malpractice in the implementation of the housing scheme, according to the government.

The PMAY promises beneficiaries financial assistance of Rs 1.2 lakh, an amount released in stages. However, problems such as the granting money to ineligible individuals, fudged funds and poor monitoring have been constant criticisms for this scheme launched in 2016.

Geo-tagging was then introduced as the proposed solution to increase transparency in the process – and so now there are AwaasSoft dashboards that are updated in real time for the rural development ministry. However, on-ground malpractices in the name of geo-tagging remain unaccounted for.

“He had said that he was filling out the paperwork on this colony, and I asked him to fill it out for us as well. He said he’d do it for Rs 100. The first time he came, that’s what he took from most people,” another Nivaeech resident Ramkishore explained, referring to the survey officer who had first visited their area in late December. “But then he came back and asked for Rs 50 more; I paid him that too.”

Geo-tagging is driven by surveyors who collect data with the Bhuvan-PMAY mobile app and supervisors who moderate the collected data. The system that was supposed to cut out middle-men and increase both accountability and transparency has become the source of the problem. This is particularly ironic considering how corruption has been a huge talking point for Modi.

There is also, of course, the age-old problem of a lack of awareness drives. Most Nivaeech residents were clueless about the geo-tagging itself, and what it meant – several people in fact assumed it had to do with yet another Jio scheme for the smartphone. Budhiya, who had paid Rs 150 to the surveyor initially, simply said “I don’t know” when we asked her what she thought the money was for. Chameli, on the other hand, spoke of the “promise of a colony”, which is what she understood the payment had gone towards, “I haven’t got any colony to date.”

Governmental officials, meanwhile, resorted to terming the villagers “liars”. Santosh Kumar, the sachiv of the village, said, “Not a single penny has been taken from these people. They are all lying.” He also added with conviction, “The truth is that no one in our area has been asked for any money ever.”

Higher up the red tape jungle, the response became murkier. Heeralal, Banda’s chief development officer, came up with a jargon-laden response, “This is an issue of misinformation. With the geo-tagging scheme, a new list is being prepared based on geographical identification metadata for welfare schemes. But some people have the wrong idea about the purpose of this scheme. They think that they will get houses because of the geo-tagging.”

He reiterated that the geo-tagging is not a step in getting access to the PMAY, and seemed to contradict himself almost immediately, “The government will use this process to create a proper database for eligibility for the housing schemes.”

Heeralal then decided to list out a step-by-step process, “People are a little worried about the slowness of the process but I would like to ask the people to have some patience. The process takes time. It takes time for individuals to go to every household, crosscheck their identification proof, click the pictures and then upload it to the online database. Even an incredibly productive individual cannot do more than 8-10 houses in a day.”

He was quick to deny the possibility of the existence of a corruption scandal. “As far as we know, there are no such problems. But if you insist that there has been even one such instance, an investigation will be conducted as soon as possible.”

Meanwhile, villagers like Shivdeen, although angry, are all but resigned to their fates, “We’re just going to have to keep paying them with every election cycle. It’s like Rs 100 more, Rs 100 again. Why don’t we just hand over our earnings to them?”

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

Environment Ministry’s Cooling Action Plan Is a Good Start but Not Good Enough

The ICAP alludes vaguely to “targeted programmes to enable cooling” lower income groups without any substantive discussion on the issue, so placing the onus on municipalities and NGOs to lead initiatives.

As global temperatures climb steadily, the increased frequency and intensity of heatwaves is one of the biggest challenges that policymakers must look to address. The effect of heat stress is experienced in a number of different ways, ranging from reduced productivity to morbidity and mortality. Against this backdrop, the release of a draft India Cooling Action Plan (ICAP) by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change (MoEFCC) last month is a significant and positive development.

This is an important document, the first of its kind, “to address the cooling requirements across sectors and ways and means to provide access to sustainable cooling for all.” The plan contemplates a 20-year scenario, from 2017 to 2037, and provides recommendations across sectors like air-conditioning, buildings and refrigeration. The section focusing on space cooling, or cooling energy use in buildings, is particularly notable because this constitutes a significant portion of the demand in the cooling sector.

The ICAP begins by discussing the importance of cooling in the context of health and economic growth in India. But by failing to define what exactly ‘cooling’ means, the focus and framework of the ICAP do not emerge very clearly. Additionally, the document aims to set standards for “adaptive thermal comfort” but does not as much as define this term. Specifically, as far as the cooling of buildings is concerned, the narrative in this policy document is centred predominantly around building standards and, particularly, the Energy Conservation Building Code (ECBC) and efficiency standards for air conditioning.

The need for cooling is universal but by no means homogenous, and for a document called the ‘India Cooling Action Plan’ to avoid addressing the connotations of cooling in the context of a large majority of India’s population is a significant gap.

Space cooling in buildings

The ICAP recommends a two-pronged approach to meet buildings’ cooling needs: first, by improving building and construction norms to reduce the need for active cooling, and second, by improving cooling technologies to reduce the cooling demand. In practical terms, this translates into buildings with improved insulation, resulting in reduced dependence on cooling appliances, and then improving the energy efficiency of the cooling appliances themselves.

This is certainly a sound trajectory, also supported by the latest report from the International Energy Agency. It finds that building codes and appliance standards have been key policy measures for inhibiting energy consumption. In 2017, mandatory energy efficiency policies covered 34% of the global building energy consumption. This is certainly a figure that governments should focus on improving.

But a significant drawback of the ICAP lies in its failure to discuss how best to provide affordable and sustainable cooling to India’s Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Low Income Groups (LIG). For example, slum-dwellers lack access to housing in buildings, in the limited sense contemplated by the ECBC/ECBC-R, on which the ICAP heavily relies. Further, this section of society is most vulnerable to heat stress and lacks access to air-conditioning.

Also read: How a $50 Homemade Sensor Could Change the Way We Fight Urban Heat

The ICAP alludes rather vaguely to “targeted programmes to enable cooling for EWS and LIG”, and without any substantive discussion on the issue, so placing the onus on municipalities and NGOs to lead initiatives such as cool roof programmes. The cooling needs of this section of society have clearly not been prioritised by the policy, and a nuanced discussion on this topic is conspicuous by absence.

The value of behavioural interventions

The ICAP makes important contributions in the field of technology-based energy improvements in appliances for cooling buildings, including institutionalising these improvements, predominantly in the air-conditioning sector. However, one of the limitations of the ICAP is that the potential of demand-side measures to reduce energy consumption through a shift in habits and behaviour is almost completely absent.

The ICAP suggests cursorily that thermostat setting could be mandated in the 22-26° C range, as part of the adoption of the indeterminate “Adaptive Thermal Comfort”. However, there is no discussion on the implementation modalities of such a measure from the perspective of industry standards or state intervention.

The anticipated expansion of cooling through air-conditioning should not allow us to lose sight of the urgent need to address the lock-in effect of a technology with massive global warming potential. The need to disrupt the path-dependencies of air-conditioning must be addressed as urgently as the potential for supply-side technological gains in this sector. While the potential in energy savings from improved efficiency standards in fans and air-coolers has been briefly discussed in the ICAP, there is no discussion about harnessing this potential to diminish the lock-in effect of air-conditioning.

Also read: In Defence of Air-Conditioning

It is important for a comprehensive cooling policy to contemplate measures that can discourage consumers from relying excessively and superfluously on cooling devices. The policy should envisage collaboration with DISCOMs to evolve a cascading pricing structure to monetarily disincentivise excessive demand/overcooling (determined, for example, by the number of hours of usage or the number of devices per household). The mechanism for enforcing, disincentivising and penalising over-cooling should be rigorous.

Cooling as an urban planning goal

A national-level cooling policy must tackle in much greater detail the measures that should be taken to offset heat stress, including the heating effects generated by the cooling sector itself. For example, the emissions from the cooling sector in urban centres are particularly problematic, for leading to the urban heat island (UHI) effect.

The recent Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change also highlighted the significance of heat stresses arising from the UHI effect, especially since some major urban centres are likely to experience devastating heatwaves in the future. The ICAP only mentions in passing that municipal bodies must develop “urban heat action plans”. A truly holistic cooling plan must necessarily address a clear methodology for offsetting the UHI effect. This could include, for example, mandatory afforestation and tree cover rules along with an increase in the number of parks and water bodies.

A goal as broad as cooling cuts across many sectors of the government machinery. The policy document acknowledges this, and notes that “the ICAP implementation will be best served by active collaboration among the relevant ministries as well as private sector entities”. This is crucial to the success of an all-India cooling policy.

While the MoEFCC has taken the lead in formulating the ICAP, the mitigation of heat stress cannot be the domain of this ministry alone. A corollary to the analysis above is that different actors, such as the Ministry of Power and the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs, must collectively meet the needs of a meaningful cooling action plan. These ministries must examine the ICAP and augment its efficacy with their own proposals and commitments.

The implementation of the ICAP should also be streamlined with existing government schemes, such as the Green Rating for Integrated Habitat Assessment (GRIHA) and the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), to further the goal of sustainable and affordable housing.

Additionally, since India’s federal structure has often proven to be a source of weak coordination and poor implementation, policymakers must reassess the domination of a top-down approach by the Centre. An effective cooling policy must envisage a clear framework with greater involvement of state agencies and municipalities, and improved centre-state synchronisation and accountability.

Parul Kumar is a Delhi-based lawyer and policy professional. She blogs at www.indiaenvironment.in.

In Chhattisgarh, Villagers Say Naxals Attacked Them for Using Government Schemes

Villagers in Dantewada told a fact-finding team that they were beaten severely and asked to move to nearby towns.

New Delhi: A fact-finding probe into recent reports of mass-beating of villagers by Maoists in Chhattisgarh’s Dantewada district has found that the locals’ association with the government in varied ways appears to be behind the attack.

The team, comprising Bela Bhatia, Soni Sori, Lingaram Kodopi and Jean Drèze, visited Pulpad village on September 15 and spoke to several villagers, most of whom belong to poor households and depend on farming for their income.

It was learnt that ten days prior to that, at around 3 am on September 5, Maoists arrived in the village and demanded that everyone gather in one place. They allegedly caught hold of nine people, including a woman, and beat them in front of the gathered crowd. Some others were taken away and thrashed.

Villagers told the fact-finding team that the beatings were severe and many had their hands tied behind their back.

According to reports, a total of 35 villagers were injured, ten among them severely. Sixteen were admitted to the Kuakonda community health centre. One villager, who had the most severe injuries and was admitted to Dantewada district hospital, told the fact-finding team from the hospital that he had been made to lie on his stomach with his hands tied behind his back.

He further conveyed that the night of the attack, one man sat on his back while the others thrashed the soles of his feet. The Maoists, he added, had objected to his new motorcycle, saying that he must have made money through dubious means.

The villager says that he now suspects a threat to his life since Maoists had told them not to go to the hospital for treatment.

According to villagers, their association with the government – through building of houses under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana, by going along with the construction of an approach road as well as by participating in activities organised by a local government functionary who is also a BJP leader – is what irked the Maoists and promoted the attack.

Villagers says they had been told to leave their residence and go to nearby towns, which they had declined to do.

In light of the attack, which is a common occurrence in Bastar, the team has appealed to the Maoists that they not repeat such incidents and allow villagers the freedom to choose how they want to live.

Government Schemes: Where are we on Urban Agenda?

An analysis of the pace and progress of major urban government schemes.

Urbanisation is an integral part of the process of economic growth. About one-third (31%) of India’s population lives in urban areas, which is estimated to rapidly increase to 46% by 2025.

As major cities are expanding fast and facing myriad challenges of sustainable development, the government’s claim of having focused strongly on its urban agenda seems to be justified. It is evident from the increase in allocation made in the Union Budget for flagship schemes aimed to address urban poverty and gaps in urban infrastructure.

The Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) got Rs 41,765 crore for the fiscal year 2018–19, a hike of 2.82% over 2017–18. The Smart Cities Mission, under which the ministry has announced 99 cities for central assistance, got the highest hike of 54.22% with Rs 6,169 crore as against Rs 4,000 crore in Budget 2017–18.

In terms of allocation within the ministry, the highest allocation of Rs 15,000 crore was made for ‘Mass Rapid Transit System’ and ‘Metro Projects’, followed by Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) (PMAY(U)) which got Rs 6,500 crore for 2018–19. However, in terms of percentage hike, the magnanimous housing project got a hike of 7.64% compared to the previous year.

All this seems very good and gives hope for the future, but the story stops being so pleasant when one starts delving into the data provided by the ministry.

Scheme-wise fund allocation of total budgetary allocation of MoHUA:

Scheme	Fund Allocated	% share of total allocation
Mass Rapid Transit System/Metro Rail	15000	36%
PMAY	6,505	16%
SCM	6169	15%
AMRUT	6000	14%
SBM	2500	6%
DAY-NUM	310	0.7%
HRIDAY	161.5	0.4%
Others	5119.5	12%
Total	41765	100%

About Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban)

The information provided by MoHUA revealed that under PMAY(U), approximately 40 lakh houses have been sanctioned in the country. In the first two years, only 19% houses were sanctioned which mostly included the subsumed projects of the erstwhile housing scheme Rajiv Awas Yojana. The mission only picked up pace in 2017-18. Andhra Pradesh stands at the top with a share of 17% of total houses sanctioned in the country, followed by Tamil Nadu and Madhya Pradesh with a share of 11% each. Of the 40 lakh houses sanctioned, more than 50% of the total houses sanctioned accrue to the Beneficiary Led Construction vertical of the PMAY(U). This is telling of the large number of Indians who preferred to upgrade their existing homes and already owned a house. The vertical under which the second highest number of houses have been sanctioned (38%) is Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) component.

Majority of these houses (50%) are concentrated in two states, i.e., Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. Two states, Maharashtra and Uttar Pradesh, which account for the highest urban population show grim record with respect to implementation as only 4% and 8% of total houses have been sanctioned in these two states respectively. A total of 3,39,345 houses have been completed so far which is 2.8% of the revised target of 12 million and 1.6% of the original target of 20 million.

States/UTs wise details of Central Assistance Sanctioned & Released and Houses Sanctioned & Constructed during each of last three and current year under PMAY(U):

Year	2014 – 15*	2015-16	2016-17	2017-18 (Current Year)	Total
No. of houses sanctioned	1,41,848	6,03,854	10,26,326	21,56,370	39,28,398
% of total houses sanctioned	4%	15%	26%	55%
* Includes 1,41,848 houses of RAY subsumed under PMAY(U).

State-wise data of houses sanctioned under each component of PMAY(U)

(States are represented in descending order of their urban population)

Smart Cities Mission

The Smart Cities Mission garnered a whopping hike of 54.22% in fund allocation with Rs 6,169 crore allotted for the mission as against Rs 4,000 crore in Budget 2017–18, which indicates that this mission is on priority for the government this year. Out of the 99 cities selected, 39 have received only seed money worth Rs 2 crore each for preparing proposals till now. As no work has started and tenders have not been issued, none of these cities received any funding post 2015–2016. Though Pune tops the list in terms of net worth of project completed, Gujarat was found to be the best performing state. Uttar Pradesh has the maximum number of smart cities (12 in total), but work has not commenced in eight cities yet. As a consequence, no funds have been released for these eight cities since 2015–2016.

About Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban)

The much hyped Swachh Bharat Mission (Urban) got a hike of 8.69% with allocation of Rs 2,500 crore. Under this mission, around 45 lakh Individual Household Latrine (IHHL) toilets have been constructed, 14% of which are in Maharashtra alone. Gujarat stands second with a total of 13% of total IHHL toilets. Madhya Pradesh and Tamil Nadu have completed 11% and 8% of their share respectively. UP and West Bengal lag behind with a meagre 6% share each in the number of IHHL toilets constructed.

Deviating from the general trend where MPs usually questioned the number of toilets constructed and funds released in the budget session, the MPs raised many questions about waste management. The data released by the ministry also revealed that the waste generated by the states is directly proportional to its urban population. For example, of all states and union territories, Maharashtra generates the maximum amount of waste (16%) followed by Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu with a share of 11% each. The only exception is Kerala, which stands as the tenth largest state with respect to its urban population, but generates only 1% of the country’s waste. It was found that smaller states are performing better than the bigger states with respect to processing waste generated. The most efficient state in processing waste is Telangana, as 67% of waste is being processed there. Smaller states like Chhattisgarh and Goa process 60% of the waste generated. Relatively larger states like Maharashtra, Uttar Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh are performing poorly in this index.

Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana – National Urban Livelihoods Mission

Contrary to other schemes, Deendayal Antyodaya Yojana–National Urban Livelihoods Mission (DAY-NULM) scheme faced a budgetary cut of 11.17% at Rs 310 crore, over Rs 349 crore in 2017–18. The data shows only meagre progress compared to its achievements in the previous year. For example, the number of shelters for the homeless remained stagnant at 789 total shelters in the country. For a country with high number of urban homeless, these numbers are seriously inadequate.

The budget allocation shows a downward trend post 2014–2015 with the highest budget cut in 2015–16. The scheme shows an overall utilisation rate of 72%. A total central contribution of Rs 7,865 crore has been released so far which is around 22% of the committed central funds. Maximum contribution has been released to Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu with a share of 13% each followed by Maharashtra which has got 9% of the total funds released.

Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation

Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), a scheme that promised to connect each household with water and sewage by 2020, seems to be moving at snail’s pace as more than 50% of the projects are still under tendering or in the development stage. Even the funding of the scheme paints a dismal picture as only 22% of the committed central funds have been released so far. In terms of utilisation, only 28% of funds have been reported to be utilised so far.

The government launched these urban schemes shortly after coming into power in 2014. At the recent commemoration of their four years in power, the achievements of the government were highlighted. However, if one analyses the data released by the ministry, a general trend of slow progress and under-utilisation of funds has been observed under all urban schemes. The government needs to take urgent remedial steps and strengthen people’s participation and monitoring mechanisms by implementing the 74th Constitutional Amendment in full to ensure its promises to citizens are met.

As the country continues to rapidly urbanise, the government needs to properly implement schemes that increase the standard of living in those areas and at the same time, increase the number of areas where the population can avail the benefits of living in an urban setting, so that the burden on existing urban structures is reduced. Otherwise, this will just seem like another empty election promise waiting to be broken. And today’s children will pay the price for it tomorrow.

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.

PM Awas Yojana Money Delayed, Families Live Without a Roof Over Their Head

While officials claim there are issues related to bank accounts of the beneficiaries, the families state that the delay is due to their refusal to bribe the officers.

Bhaderwah: Forced to live under a temporary shelter for months, a father of six children, including a physically-challenged daughter, is frustrated by the apathy of authorities in Jammu and Kashmir and is cursing his stars.

Showkat Ali Khan has set up a shelter with a polythene-covered roof in the remote Malsu village under Sarna Panchayat. He and his family virtually live under the open sky since the assistance promised under the centrally-sponsored Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) to build a concrete shelter has not yet come.

Expecting the money, Khan had demolished his one-room mud house, which, he said, was a home for his wife and children.

Monsoon rains have compounded their trouble. They desperately want to move into the promised new home before the onset of the unforgiving winter season.

Khan, 50, is not alone in his desperate pursuit of a home for his family. The government had identified 28 beneficiaries under the Awas Yojana in Bhaderwah block, but 17 of them have not even received the first installment of the promised monetary assistance to rebuild their homes.

Nima Devi, a widow from Kharothi village, said that she has paid several visits to the rural development department office but the “indifference” of the officials there has frustrated her.

These homeless people are angry and annoyed that the promises made to them by the authorities have not been kept.

Bhaderwah block development officer (BDO) Mohammad Ashraf admitted that there has been a delay in transferring the money to some of the beneficiaries, including Khan.

Ashraf said that the delay was due to issues related to bank accounts of the beneficiaries, but he gave the assurance that they would receive the money soon.

“We have taken a serious note of the complaint and holding an inquiry, and if anybody is found guilty, appropriate action will be taken against that person,” stressed the BDO.

Khan, however, said that his refusal to bribe officials was the main obstacle stopping the transfer of assistance.

“We dismantled our mud-room structure on the advice of rural department officials after being informed that Rs 1.30 lakh stands sanctioned under PMAY in my favour in April. I borrowed money and completed the first phase (plinth work) on May 9, hoping to get the first installment of Rs 50,000 transferred to my account,” Khan told PTI.

He said that the decision to dismantle the mud structure has left his family homeless and under the open sky. He added that they now share the polythene-roof temporary shelter with the cattle.

Under these trying circumstances, Khan said that he was still quite content with his life. However, he added that the money he has borrowed sometimes gives him sleepless nights.

“I owe money to many people for completing the plinth work. I do not have money to feed my family or take them to a concrete accommodation. How can I pay commission to the officials?” said Khan, a labourer by profession.

His elder daughter, Aafiya, was more direct in holding the rural department officials responsible for their miseries.

“Over the past four months, we have braved rain and threat of wild animals. The village-level worker is seeking Rs 40,000 to clear our case. My father has no money to pay him,” she said.

Nima Devi, a 75-year-old widow, also dismantled her temporary shelter to start the construction of a pucca house.

However, it proved a nightmare for her as she and her mentally-challenged son were forced to either live under the open sky or be at the mercy of the local villagers.

“Everyday, I come to the BDO office with my documents and plead before the officials to release the payment. I want to die under my roof and not in paddy fields to become a feast for dogs. My tears have had no effect (in diluting) the arrogance of the officials. They make fun of my old age,” said Devi.

She said that she urges senior officials to look into the case to enable them to live in peace and liberate them from the miseries.

(PTI)

What is Holding up Modi Government’s Affordable Housing Scheme?

While there are doubts about the government constructing one crore affordable houses by 2022, a recent report has estimated a shortage of houses for the urban population at two crore – which it said can take up to eight to ten years to overcome.

New Delhi: Prime Minister Narendra Modi recently reaffirmed his government’s commitment to providing a roof to every urban household by 2022 while interacting with beneficiaries of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) via video conferencing.

However, slow progress in the implementation of the scheme in urban areas hasn’t inspired much confidence, with data showing that the NDA-II government may be struggling to deliver on its tall promise.

What has sparked scepticism is the fact that in the last year, the Centre has quietly revised the initial target of building 1.8 crore houses for urban areas twice – first to 1.2 crore and then further down to one crore. While the government insists that the initial targets were over-estimates, a new industry report has pegged the lack of affordable houses in urban areas at two crore.

What sops does the government offer?

The government provides interest subsidy on loans availed by beneficiaries for construction or purchase of houses under the scheme which has urban and rural components.

While the ministry of rural development is the nodal agency for the implementation of the affordable housing scheme in rural areas, PMAY-R, the fund for executing the scheme in urban areas is routed through the ministry of housing and poverty alleviation.

Against the target of constructing 46.5 lakh houses under the PMAY-U, only 3.5 lakh houses have been completed as of March 22, according to government data.

In the country’s financial capital Mumbai, not even one house has been built against the set target of 1.97 lakh.

The Centre has targeted construction of 26 lakh houses in 2018-19, 26 lakh in 2019-20, 30 lakh in 2020-21 and 29.80 lakh in 2021-22. But experts say these targets are too ambitious and could be missed by huge margins.

On the supply side, land acquisition has emerged as a major hurdle to expediting the pace of construction of affordable houses in cities.

On the demand side, securing financing for eligible buyers from banks and housing finance agencies has not been easy. The reason: the scheme primarily targets households from economically weaker section (EWS) and low-income groups, who mostly work in the informal sector and lack documentation necessary to avail cheaper financing offered by the government for its beneficiaries.

Delinquencies on repayment of loans taken for purchase of affordable houses are already rising and could deter lenders from sanctioning fresh loans if the current trend continues.

According to rating agency CRISIL, gross NPAs of housing finance companies (HFCs) were close to 1.1% as at the end of March, up from 0.8% a year ago. While the overall sectoral gross NPA trend has been reasonably steady, some HFCs focusing on the affordable housing segment have shown an above-average increase in delinquencies with gross NPA at 4-5%, the rating agency added.

It is not surprising that the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has turned cautious on loan sanctions for affordable houses. “We will consider appropriate policy response such as a tightening of the loan-to-value (LTV) ratios and/or an increase in the risk weights, should the need arise,” the RBI said in its latest bi-monthly monetary policy statement.

While there are serious doubts about the government constructing one crore affordable houses by 2022, a recent FICCI-CBRE report has estimated a shortage of houses for the urban population at two crore, which it said can take up to eight to ten years to overcome.

“The affordable housing segment hasn’t really gained the required momentum to address this gap. A major reason has been the lack of private participation in the segment,” said the FICCI-CBRE whitepaper titled ‘Affordable Housing – The Next Big Thing?’ released in March 2018.

To encourage developers to undertake affordable housing projects in urban areas, the government has announced several incentives for the sector, including infrastructure status. It has also extended interest subsidy benefit of about Rs 2.60 lakh on home loans under the programme for beneficiaries in the middle-income group by 15 more months. Now, the subsidy will be available till March 2019. However, the response from private developers has been less than enthusiastic.

Land availability, relaxation in development norms, faster approvals for affordable housing projects, clear definition of affordable housing and better alignment between central and state policies are the areas flagged by the whitepaper for immediate government intervention to attract private participation.

The government has recently approved revised guidelines for time-bound closure of sick and loss-making central public sector enterprises and the disposal of their movable and immovable assets, which would accord first priority to affordable housing projects in allotment of land. How far this will ease the availability of land parcels for affordable housing projects remains to be seen.

Durga Shanker Mishra, secretary, the ministry of housing and urban affairs, recently admitted that the government plans to build one crore, not two crore, houses in cities by 2022 under affordable housing scheme. But Mishra insists that the higher number was an over-estimate of demand.

“Let me correct that. The number was never two crore. In 2011, a special group in planning commission estimated that around 1.78 crore houses to be built across the nation. But this number has been re-validated from different states and the number comes to around one crore. So, 2022 is the target for completing one crore houses,” Mishra clarified to the CNBC TV earlier this month.

How the PMAY-U is being implemented

There are four main verticals of the scheme. In the first vertical, the beneficiary stays in his or her house and expands existing structure or reconstructs a new one because the available built-up area is not enough or lacks required facilities. The government says it has already granted approval for 25.8 lakh houses under this category of the scheme.

In the second vertical, public or private agencies partner with the government to construct houses for EWS and low-income group customers. The government says it has already given its sanction for building 17.8 lakh houses under this category.

The third one targets redevelopment of slums. Existing houses are demolished and occupants are given temporary houses until new ones are ready. The government says it has already given sanction for 2.4 lakh houses under this category.

The fourth one is the credit-linked subsidy scheme, implemented by National Housing Bank and Housing and Urban Development Corporation Ltd. The government says it has accorded sanction for 1.69 lakh houses.

The real estate sector has been in the doldrums due to a sluggish demand for premium properties. It was expected that the affordable housing scheme would spur activity in the sector. However, it has failed to make a difference. Even the modest target of constructing one crore houses by 2022 now appears to be a tall order.

Smart Cities Mission: Study Points to Lack of Focus on Marginalised Communities

The Mission seeks to cover nearly 10 crore population in 100 cities; but it suffers from lack of consultation, which has resulted in eviction, displacement of the poor and farmers.

New Delhi: The most recent report by Housing and Land Rights Network (HLRN) on the Smart Cities Mission has pointed to the lack of integrated approach and focus on marginalised communities in the scheme. It has called for a more inclusive approach by creating ‘human rights habitats’ that would ensure that the poor and marginalised are not excluded, guarantee their democratic participation in governance, uphold their fundamental rights and also provide improved living spaces to them.

Speaking at the launch of the report titled “India’s Smart Cities Mission: Smart for Whom? Cities for Whom?” in the national capital on June 22, executive director of HLRN India, Shivani Chaudhry, questioned the manner in which these cities have been planned and are being implemented. “Are we headed towards creating ‘smart enclaves’ or inclusive cities? Are ‘smart cities’ the way for India to meet its legal and moral obligations, including implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, or would a more equitable paradigm focusing on the entire country have been a more prudent alternative,” she asked.

Chaudhry said the “mission requires a fundamental re-envisioning exercise that places people, not technology and profit, at the centre.” She also wondered if spending nearly Rs 2 lakh crore on a scheme that would benefit just 8% of the population was really justified. “Housing and Land Rights Network believes that it is important for the Indian government, at both the central and state levels, to adopt a strong human rights approach in all its policies and schemes, including the Smart Cities Mission,” she said.

‘Mission demonstrated an exclusionary and restrictive approach’

The study highlighted several aspects of the Mission including its “exclusionary approach”. It said by focusing on only 100 cities of the country and select areas within those cities, the Smart Cities Mission had demonstrated a “restrictive approach to urban development”. Of the total proposed investment of Rs 2.04 lakh crore in smart cities, 80% will be spent on area-based development (ABD) which is less than 5% for 49 of the 86 cities for which information was available, the report said.

Pointing to the government data on how 99.5 million people will be covered by Mission projects, the report said this amounts to just 8% of India’s total population or 22% of the urban population. Referring to how the per capita investment on ABD varies from Rs 32,159 being spent per person in Bengaluru to Rs 43.3 lakh per person in Naya Raipur, the study noted that “the Mission thus lacks consistency and a clear rationale in choice of projects and investment decisions”.

As for the implementation of the projects, the study quoted a March 2018 report of the Standing Committee of Parliament which had claimed that only 1.83 % of the Rs 9,943 crore released for the Smart Cities Mission had been utilised. Also, as of March 2018, projects worth Rs 4,583 crore (3% of the total cost of identified projects of Rs 139,038 crore) had been completed.

Limited focus on marginalised groups

The study also noted that in the Smart Cities Mission there is limited focus on marginalised groups, including scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and other minorities. “In particular, the silence on caste-based discrimination is glaring. While issues related to women, children, persons with disabilities, and older persons find some mention in most smart city proposals, the Mission does not incorporate a consistent rights-based or substantive equality approach to address structural discrimination and violence against these groups in cities,” it said.

Elaborating on this aspect, Suneeta Dhar, senior advisor at NGO Jagori, said: “Smart cities should be inclusive of women, in all their diversity. A women’s human rights approach would transform the way cities are planned, by addressing structural inequalities and inequities. Women have an autonomous ‘right to the city’, to its opportunities and services, as equal citizens. They have a right to safety at all times, both at work and public spaces.”

Pointing out that in Delhi, the New Delhi Municipal Council area, which had relatively better infrastructure and more funds, has been chosen for the Smart City project, Dhar questioned why the peripheral areas that were in greater need of infrastructure and facilities were not chosen.

With a working group having been constituted to discuss and overcome the Mission’s many shortcomings, Dhar demanded that the smart cities should be seen from the eyes of those who are most marginalised.

New Delhi Municipal Corporation building. Credit: ndmc.gov.in

Mission suffers from inadequate participation, consultation and information

The study said while there was some level of “engagement” with residents in the development of Smart City proposals, the people’s participation, especially from low-income communities, was generally “not adequate”. It said there were also no tools to evaluate if the inputs collated during public consultations had been factored into the final proposals and selection of ‘smart city’ projects in each city.

Further, the study said the lack of adequate standards to guide project development and implementation, including for housing, water, sanitation, health, and environmental sustainability, had raised questions about whether the Mission will be able to deliver on its aims.

Concerns regarding forced evictions, land acquisition and displacement

The HLRN study said while housing for economically weaker sections (EWS) and low-income groups (LIG) has been identified as an area of concern in almost all proposals, none of the cities have recognised housing as a human right or included standards of ‘adequate housing’ for their projects. The goal of several cities to become ‘slum-free’ without including concomitant indicators – such as the number of houses demolished or the number of homeless persons recorded in the city every year – to assess the realisation of this target, could promote evictions and the destruction of low-income settlements, it cautioned.

The report also said evictions have been reported from several ‘smart cities’. In 2017, it recalled, there were forced evictions and demolitions of homes in 32 of the 99 ‘smart cities’. Of these while some were directly linked to ‘smart city’ projects, others were carried out in the name of ‘city beautification’ or ‘slum clearance.’ With eight smart cities also proposing greenfield development, the report said this could increase land acquisition and result in displacement of farmers and other rural communities.

Dilution of democracy and the privatisation of governance

The report said the Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to implement the Mission has been incorporated under the Companies Act 2013 and this was a violation of The Constitution (Seventy-fourth Amendment) Act 1992, which divests power in local governments and urban local bodies. “The SPV’s competing governance mechanism could substantively dilute local democracy with the private sector playing a greater role in city management,” it said.

In this regard, senior fellow at Centre for Policy Research, Partha Mukhopadhyay, said the key to smartness lies in the ability to make decisions. But in the case of Smart Cities, he said it is the SPV which is created to implement the project that takes a call on what needs to be done. In most cases, he said, the decisions are taken by bureaucrats and there are only a few examples, like some in Maharashtra, where the elected representatives are involved closely with the planning and implementation of the project.

He said, thankfully, the Smart City model had initially allowed some level of flexibility to the cities to plan themselves freely while the sustainable development goals provide the baseline or minimum floor for the facilities that needed to be factored in.

“This report is a critical but thorough and extensive examination of the government’s Smart Cities Mission. It brings together a wide array of sources, including a valuable compilation of parliamentary questions related to smart cities, to try and answer some very important questions relating to the nature of citizenship and governance in our cities, and provides a perspective on housing and human rights that link to India’s international commitments. Regardless of one’s position with respect to smart cities, this is a report that should be engaged with,” Mukhopadhyay said.

Environmental concerns regarding e-waste increase and forest cover loss

The report has also raised environmental concerns and stated that smart cities development could also pose threats of increased e-waste and loss of forest cover in the pursuit of greenfield development and city-based infrastructure projects.

It has also referred to apparent lack of convergence of Smart Cities Mission with other schemes such as Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT), Swachh Bharat Mission, the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana

(PMAY) or Housing for All–2022 scheme and the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM). “A review of these schemes reveals a multiplicity of targets and overlapping areas of intervention. Ninety-two of the 99 selected ‘smart cities’ are also covered under AMRUT, while most of the housing projects in ‘smart cities’ are PMAY projects and shelters for the homeless are being funded by NULM. The question then is: What is the value added by the Smart Cities Mission,” the study said.

Some positives too emerge from the Mission

As for the positive developments emerging from the Mission, the report said these include restoration of heritage sites in Gwalior, solar energy achievements in Diu, child-friendly initiatives in Bhubaneswar, a waste management project in Jabalpur, and toilet construction in Kakinada.

‘Mission should comply with international laws, promote human rights’

However, in light of the numerous concerns and shortcomings surrounding the Mission, the study had recommended that there should be a human rights-based implementation and monitoring framework to assess the achievement of targets and to ensure that all ‘smart city’ projects comply with national and international law and promote human rights and environmental sustainability.

The study has also suggested that the Mission should develop a special focus on the needs, concerns and human rights of marginalised individuals, groups and communities, including children, women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, migrants, homeless persons, domestic workers, persons with disabilities, religious and sexual minorities and other excluded groups.

Stating that smart cities should define ‘affordable housing’ with clear income-based criteria, the study has also urged that ‘rehabilitation’ and ‘slum-free city’ projects should not be used as an excuse to demolish low-income settlements. Also, it said measures must be taken to prevent forced evictions, forced relocation and displacement.

It has also sought that the SPV must work within the framework of democracy provided by the Constitution of India and must respect and not circumvent democratically elected local governments and institutions.

On the role of the corporate sector, the study has demanded that it should be “regulated” to ensure compliance with laws and “privatisation of essential services must be prevented”.

Dazzling Government Websites and Untraceable Numbers

An examination of the Swachh Bharat and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana websites show how, despite the promises of Digital India, the government is turning the clock back on meaningful transparency.

Access to information is a key pillar of democracy, especially in times of increased outreach and connectivity. According to the legal mandate of the Right to Information Act, every public authority needs to ensure the cataloguing and computerisation of all records and ensuring access through interoperable networks.

A key pillar for the National Democratic Alliance government’s flagship Digital India programme is also to facilitate the proactive release of data and information of all the ministries/departments for use, reuse and redistribution.

How well has the implementation of this rule been true to the government’s claims? To find out, we conducted a comparative analysis of the information publicly disclosed by three major flagship schemes –the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act 2005 (MGNREGA), Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY (G)), and Swachh Bharat Mission-Gramin (SBM (G)). These three schemes promise employment, affordable housing and sanitation, respectively.

We selected three domains to conduct this study: financial indicators, performance indicators and information accessibility for various stakeholders, beneficiaries and administrators. For the purposes of this study, both the website and management information systems (MIS) of the aforementioned welfare programmes are taken into account. The MIS is a digitised database that stores and disseminates information to support the decision-making of the different stakeholders at every level of management.

The study analysed whether the following empirical parameters were addressed in this system: details of budgetary allocations, specific performance indicators, disaggregated beneficiary information to enable monitoring of entitlements and overall user friendliness. We also examined the proactive disclosure of information from different points of view including: a central administrator analysing the performance of the scheme; a local government body implementing the scheme; and most importantly, a beneficiary accessing the scheme.

Financial Findings

The total budgetary allocation for MGNREGA is available in the MIS financial statement. The statement also contains the total release of funds from Centre and state governments, total availability and total expenditure annually. The annual fund transfer details under MGNREGA are traceable to the panchayat level. The financial sheet also mentions cost analysis of providing job per person, per day along with material and administrative costs incurred under the scheme. In short, every rupee is accounted for.

However, in case of PMAY (G), the only financial indicator available in the public domain is total state-wise allocation and its utilisation statistics.

In Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Gramin) though there are specific stakeholder portals, there is no such information available in the public domain. Credit: PTI

In case of SBM (G), the financial allocation details of both the Centre and the state are not available on the MIS website. Furthermore, there is no information available in the public for tracing fund allocation, release, expenditure, and utilisation patterns for the latter two schemes. On the other side, in MGNREGA, the financial progress is available in the detailed categories traceable even up to the panchayat level.

Physical Performance Indicators

In MGNREGA, the key physical performance parameter is employment generation data. The number of work days generated annually (by financial year) is given along, also disaggregated by categories such as persons with disabilities, Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe people and women. The demand and generation details of employment for every financial year are available and traceable up to the panchayat level. A unique identification number used to track MGNREGA data is job card number/muster roll number. The interface of MIS is such that it is easier for a central administrator to understand the overall picture of employment generation at various decentralised governance systems along with details of areas, where unemployment rates are the highest.

In PMAY (G), the Ministry of Rural Development (MoRD) has a fixed performance target: number of houses. For monitoring these performance indicators, it is possible to see the Central and state targets along with actual performance of construction. Fund transfer history for the constructed houses under PMAY (G) is accessible in various instalments traceable to panchayat level, beyond which it is also possible to find details of beneficiaries who have built house with the scheme.

In SBM (G), the website gives an overall picture of the number of toilets built since 2014 and the number of toilets built in the current financial year. The website, however, does not give a picture of an annual target and gives a vague portrayal on household coverage. There is no information to capture demand and coverage statistics do not go beyond the block level.

Transparency and accountability

The MGNREGA MIS caters to different stakeholders like citizens, gram panchayats, block/district administrations, states, MoRD and other implementing agencies, individually in a streamlined fashion. For a citizen availing the benefits, details of entitlements are clearly available on the website. With a job card as a unique ID, citizens can check demand for work details, work allocation, fund transfer details, and muster roll data. The accountability to citizens here is ensured through the availability of a receipt for demand signed by panchayat secretary, pay slips and the muster roll information.

The muster roll also contains the details of the expenditure incurred for the particular work, mentioned via an asset register that contains specific information like expenditure on material, measurement book and wage list. The fund transfer can also be tracked along with detailed expenditure patterns and wage list number. The single window interface also enables reports made at each stakeholder level accessible to public. The social audit reports traceable to panchayat level are also accessible in the public domain.

In PMAY (G) though there are specific stakeholder portals, there is no such information available in the public domain. However, details of beneficiaries can be tracked via a rural housing report. Unlike MGNREGA MIS, where all citizen-specific information along with cost accountability details are accessible to public, no such accountability measures are linked with PMAY (G).

There are no stakeholder reports and social audit reports available on the Swachh Bharat (Gramin) MIS website.

For SBM (G), details of beneficiaries cannot be tracked in the public domain. There are no stakeholder reports and social audit reports available on its MIS website. However, the Swachh Bharat App has overall household-level latrine coverage details. Based on a unique family ID, toilets constructed are traceable to beneficiary level. Unlike these two welfare programmes, there is unique and easy to access information in MGNREGA MIS in quick-fix method through detailed options.

Beyond the buzzword of transparency

Based on this analysis, it can be clearly seen that MGNREGA stands unparalleled in its proactive disclosure framework. The website and MIS is extremely streamlined and accessible to multiple stakeholders. Its user-friendly nature and accessibility enables a beneficiary, even with a bare minimum knowledge of technology, to access all information under a single umbrella.

Though PMAY (G) has a structured physical and financial progress reports drillable to the panchayat level, the citizen-centric interface is not easily accessible in the public domain. Compared with MGNREGA, which has micro details like cost analysis and expenditure structure incurred by the government to give beneficiary’s entitlements, PMAY (G) and SBM (G) do not give a holistic picture.

Although the SBM (G) website is ‘fancier’, we found it least transparent as there is a significant lack of information as compared to data provided in the other two websites. Even in terms of grievance redressal, MGNREGA has an inbuilt grievance form – which has clearly indicated options and with complete disclosure of individual grievances and intermediate actions taken on them. In the other websites, the grievance is redirected to another external website and there is no disclosure of grievances publicly.

The success story of MGNREGA MIS is the result of efforts of linking each action, to a document which is generated online or else digitised and an investment in human and financial resources to do so. The nature of proactive disclosure in the MGNREGA website makes it easier to track the scheme, using both top-down and bottom-up lens, in a hassle free manner.

Ironically, MGNREGA has been the most complex programme with the largest budget and multiple processes.

Easier programmes to administer, such as Swachh Bharat Mission (one time building of toilet for a family) and Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (one time building of house for a family) that could have a straightforward MIS, should learn from MGNREGA’s transparency success story.

The success of MIS also has been a result of action of civil societies, political and bureaucratic will and citizen awareness. Digital India itself should go beyond dazzling websites and untraceable numbers to add substance and become a method of truly transparent information dissemination.

Anaswara Kovithal, Karna Dileep Vardhan Reddy and Haris T Najib are Young India Fellows at Ashoka University.

Is Indore’s ‘Smart City’ Drive All About Forced Evictions?

The demolitions in Bhuri Tekri, without prior warning, took place just a week after the announcement of ‘Swachhta Sarvekshan 2018’, with the city retaining the number one rank in the list.

To make cities beautiful, forced eviction of slum dwellers amid promises of resettlement have led to massive displacement of working families. In Indore, one such aspiring ‘smart city’, more than 110 houses were demolished on the morning of May 23, 2018, at Bhuri Tekri by the Indore Municipal Corporation (IMC). The houses were demolished for the rehabilitation of people under the in-situ slum redevelopment component of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Urban (PMAY-U). Most of the residents of the slum belong to Dalit community.

In an earlier drive by the IMC in 2017, over 500 houses were demolished and families were forced to live in the tin-shed transit camps with minimal basic amenities. People sarcastically refer to these sheds as “silver palaces”. After the initial demolitions, more than 150 houses had refused to move and struggled to save their houses. They went on an indefinite strike which continued for more than three months. Finally, they got assurance from the local MLA that their houses would not be demolished. Also the executive officer of PMAY assured them that no demolition would take place against the desire of the people. Later, on the day of demolition he said “No one demolishes their house willingly, there has to be some force from outside”. The residents were even threatened to leave their houses, but they refused to do so.

More than 100 police officials, 200 municipal corporation officers and workers, 100 ‘bouncers’ and 10 bulldozers and dumpers deployed on the site of eviction. Credit: Special Arrangement

This time round, the eviction began at 7.30 a.m and ended at to 6.00 p.m, with more than 100 police officials, 200 IMC officers and workers, 100 ‘bouncers’ and 10 bulldozers and dumpers deployed on the site. Three women were detained in the morning as they refused to let IMC demolish their houses and were sent to the Mahila Thana, Palasia. They later got bail. A similar incident took place last year, when a woman was detained and her house was demolished while she was in custody. IMC is committing offences again and again, all in the name of retaining its first rank in this year’s Swachhata Sarvekshan.

Last year, the National Forum for Housing Rights (NFHR) had filed a complaint in the National Human Rights Commission (No 1270/12/21/2017) against the threat by IMC to the people residing in the slums of Indore, one of the major cities in Madhya Pradesh. The NHRC had also issued a direction to IMC on November 3, 2017. The case is still sub judice, yet the IMC has demolished the houses once again. It used all possible tactics (from spurring internal conflicts to black magic and even ‘buying out’ a few residents) to make people vacate the houses, but failed to do so. All this while, IMC claimed that the demolitions were being done to build LIG, MIG and commercial constructions and that the profit-earned would be used for subsidising the dwellings of EWS (economically weaker sections).

Violation of Human Rights

Ironically, the demolitions, without any prior warning to the slum-dwellers, took place just a week after the results of ‘Swachhta Sarvekshan 2018’ were announced, with Indore retaining the number one rank in the list. A report by The Wire last year had also highlighted some alleged irregularities by the Indore municipal authorities to achieve the top rank in the 2017 survey. According to the report, toilets were installed in bastis before the ‘sarvekshan’ (survey) and later uninstalled. In a few cases settlements where they couldn’t install toilets, they demolished the entire unit.

A similar chain of events unfolded this year in Bhuri Tekri, where people have paid for construction of individual toilets and in less than a year their houses have been demolished. A toilet is being considered as the most basic amenity by the present political regime. But, in clear violation of government norms, the IMC has demolished houses that had recently built toilets. As a result, over 100 families are being forced to live in open in the acute heat of the Malwa region, which is a serious case of human rights violation by the IMC authorities.

The Supreme Court of India, in its order in UP Avas Evam Vikas Parishad v Friends Coop. Housing Society Ltd (1996), had stated that right to shelter is a fundamental right, which springs from the right to residence under Article 19 (1) (e) and the right to life under Article 21. The people of Bhuri Tekri have clearly been denied their right to life. According to the UN Guidelines on the Forced Evictions, there shouldn’t be any kind of eviction till a provision of compensation, restitution and rehabilitation has been made to the affected families. But it was found out that during the process of evictions by IMC, there were not enough transit houses to accommodate the affected families. Also, while resisting forced eviction, some residents were also injured. Gopal Rana, one of the oldest resident in Bhuri Tekri fell from atop a wall during the eviction drive and to be in a serious condition. Sharda ji, a female resident, also fainted due to pressure and threat created by IMC. She was taken to the Kanadiya Police station and thereafter to the hospital.

Bhuri Tekri, an Inaccessible Settlement

Situated on hilly terrain, Bhuri Tekri is said to be one of the most inaccessible settlements that was turned habitable only because of its people. It was earlier an extraction unit for stones and pebbles. Most residents said they started by working and ended up living here thereafter. It was part of the gram panchayat and was sparsely dense with around 200 families living there since the past 20 years. The terrain was almost inaccessible, surrounded by wild bushes and an extraction unit. There was no fixed water source and people had to walk at least 3 to 4 km to fetch water. Earlier, there was minimal payment for work, so most people saved wages by living close to their workplace, howsoever unsafe it was. People used to be paid a measly Rs 10 for a truckload of muram (red building material), boulders (for pebbles) and eran (stone). Women were obviously paid less than men. In early 2000, the extraction work came to a halt. For residents of Bhuri Tekri, all basic amenities were quite distant, be it nearest public transport centre and ration shop. The community does have five hand-pumps, one borewell and individual toilets built under the Swachh Bharat Mission (people paid their contribution for more than 800 toilets), a newly constructed Sulabh International community toilet, a government primary school, two Anganwadi centres etc.Several residents said they had well-constructed housing structures, with a few of them taking loans under the Indira Awas Yojana. Bhuri Tekri was among the 29 villages included in the IMC in 2013.

Details of Plan
Bhuri Tekri was selected for in-situ slum redevelopment under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana for providing housing to people under the EWS category. The land is said to be a government-owned and the district collector, in a letter dated October 19, 2016, transferred the land to IMC for rehabilitation of residents. In the site-specific DPR (detailed project report) presented by IMC, which was also finalised by the state and Central government, houses were to be built for 726 people of Bhuri Tekri. Other than the EWS units, LIG, MIG and commercial constructions were also planned for the locality, and IMC claims that the money raised from housing would be used for subsidising EWS units.

About 110 families are living in the open in this scorching heat as the transit camps are not enough to accommodate all the displaced people. Credit: Special Arrangement

As per the DPR, the construction cost of units was proposed to be Rs 8 lakh, of which Rs 1.5 lakh each would be contributed by the Central and state governments, and Rs 3 lakh will be contributed by IMC (which obviously will be raised through profit from different housing units) and Rs 2 lakh by each household. A heavy amount is being spent the authorities on the construction and maintenance of temporary shelters (transit camps). In the first phase of demolitions carried out in 2017, more than 500 houses were demolished and were relocated in transit camps.

The main problem with the plan is that no vertical of PMAY(U) speaks of relocation of several settlements at one place. Since people in Bhuri Tekri have been living together as a community for over five decades, they should be compensated for the loss. Not with just a house but land, too, as it was part of the gram panchayat earlier. Their land is being used as a resource to generate profit by IMC. In-situ redevelopment by definition means ‘redevelopment of the same settlement’. Moreover, questions are being raised whether the residents belong to the EWS category at all?

What lies ahead?

As of now, there is a feeling of uncertainty about the future that’s hanging on the heads of the people of Bhuri Tekri. With their houses turned into debris and transit camps not available, several families are living in the open under . the scorching sun. They do not want to leave the place which they had made liveable. They also do not want to give up hope for a better house on the same land. About 50 to 60 structures are still there and these will not be demolished till new transit houses are made. However, amid the brutality and fear, the police has tried to act like a bridge between the locals and the IMC. When people refused to cooperate with the IMC as there were not enough transit houses, the police saw through the “misdeeds” of IMC, as they allotted one transit house to several families. The police warned IMC and said they would not cooperate till proper arrangements are made for people.

Meanwhile, two more settlements have been selected for in-situ redevelopment under PMAY in Indore, keeping alive the debate on housing problem versus housing crisis. In the IMC’s bid to be the “best” in everything, it is the people of Indore who are paying a heavy price.

Ankit Jha is a journalism graduate and Masters in Social Work. He works on the issues of land and housing rights of urban poor in Delhi, and is a member of the Basti Bachao Sangharsh Samiti. Anand Lakhan is a housing and land rights activist based in Indore. He is the co-convener of the National Forum for Housing Rights.

Government’s ‘Housing for All’ Project Is Running Behind Schedule

The government’s success rate in rural housing schemes is close to 70%.

On November 2016, Prime Minister Narendra Modi launched the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) – Gramin with the aim to build 10.2 million houses in rural areas by March 2019. The target was split equally between 2017-18 and 2018-19. This was meant to be the crowning glory of the Bharatiya Janata Party-led National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s efforts to provide housing for India’s rural poor.

However, data from the ministry of rural development suggest that the scheme’s performance has been less than stellar. In 2017-18 it had a success rate of 57.5%. As opposed to the target of 5.1 million houses, the government was able to complete 2.93 million houses under PMAY (G). The same year it also completed another half a million houses which had been pending under the erstwhile Indira Aawas Yojana (IAY). If both are clubbed together (3.4 million), then the government’s success rate in rural housing schemes rises from 57.5% to 68.6%.

There is no doubt that the speed of construction of houses has picked up in rural areas: About 1.6 million houses were constructed in 2014-15, 1.8 million in 2015-16 and 3.2 million in 2016-17. A total of 3.4 million houses were completed in 2017-18.

Right now the challenge before the government is to double the speed of construction in order to complete the remaining 6.6 million houses before March 2019. To achieve this target, the Centre has to nudge states such as Assam and Bihar, which have been lagging behind in implementing the scheme.

The government seems to be confident of achieving the target before the deadline.“The target of completing one crore PMAY (G) houses by March, 2019, is easily achievable as it is expected that 60 lakh (six million) houses where the first instalment has already been released and work is in progress, will get completed by June 30, 2018. The effort of the department is to try and complete one crore houses by December 31, 2018, even though the target is March 3, 2019,” the ministry of rural development said.

In 2015 the prime minister had also launched a scheme called “Housing for All by 2022” for those living in urban areas. Also known as the Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana – Urban, this scheme is projected to build 12 million houses by 2022.

However, the progress of PMAY (U) has been slow. According to available data, only about 10% of the projected number of houses have been completed. Of the 4.65 million houses which were to be built, 350,000 were completed till March 22, 2018. The government claims that it has built an additional 170,000 houses that were pending under the erstwhile Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) scheme.

Noting the PMAY’s below par performance, a parliamentary oversight committee stated in a report: “With regard to financial performance, it is observed that out of a total project cost of Rs 2.04 lakh crore (Rs 2.04 trillion) and total central share of Rs 57,699 crore (Rs 576.99 billion), as low as Rs 26,162 crore (Rs 261.2 billion) have been sanctioned for release. The Committee is, hence, constrained to note that all is not well with the implementation of the scheme and the progress of PMAY has been disappointing.”

However, officials in the government said the committee’s conclusions are unfair as it takes around 18 to 24 months to complete a house. The scheme picked up momentum post October 2016 following tendering activities, they pointed out, adding that the Centre has already set up a National Urban Housing Fund (NUHF) to raise Rs 600 billion over four years to finance the scheme.

“The success of the housing schemes depends largely on how active the states and urban local bodies are. The Union government provides the funds and they are spent by the states and urban local bodies. Some states are active and some may not be very enthusiastic about it because of political reasons,” said M. Ramachandran, former urban development secretary.

“The scheme was in preparatory stage in 2015-16 and the actual work started in 2017-18. Now that the states and cities are all geared up, implementation should gain momentum now,” he added.

The parliamentary committee has also expressed its displeasure over two other urban schemes – Smart Cities Mission and Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT). It said the government failed to spend and execute projects even though three years have passed since the schemes were launched on June 25, 2015.

The Smart City Mission has had a fund utilisation of less than 2%. Of the Rs 99.43 billion sanctioned for this scheme, only Rs 1.82 billion has been spent so far. Under this programme, the government aims to either redevelop at least 50 acres or retrofit 500 acres or build a new project over 250 acres in a city. Rs 480 billion has been committed for 100 smart cities over a period of five years.

Similarly, fund utilisation under AMRUT – through which the government aims to provide water, sewerage and drainage facilities to a select 500 cities – was 28.74%. Among the two schemes, AMRUT has been allocated Rs 124.47 billion out of which only Rs 24.80 billion has been spent so far.

However, the authorities feel that it is premature to say that these schemes have not made much headway. Jagan Shah, director of National Institute of Urban Affairs, and one who has been closely associated with the Smart Cities Mission, said, “A large number of projects are in the pipeline. The final judgment should be passed on the mission only when it completes five years.”

No doubt, the final picture will only emerge later. For now, though, while the government has certainly made progress in rural and urban housing and development, in many cases execution has fallen short of the targets that were set.

By arrangement with Business Standard