CHAPTER-II

HOUSING PROGRAMMES IN INDIA

Introduction

The idea of welfare state is of modern origin. This concept was conceived not only in

material terms of human freedom and progress but also in terms of the state being an

institution of human welfare, which is supposed to endeavor for a free and full development

of human personality. The welfare state is a system where in government agrees to under

write certain levels of employment, income, education, medical-social security and housing

for all its citizens. The welfare state adopts schemes of public health, maintenance of hospitals

and dispensaries. It guarantees schemes of social insurance and for this takes upon itself

responsibility of compensating the individual as well as family in the event of an unfortunate

accident. For the sake of proper and healthy dissemination of knowledge, it fights against

ignorance and open schools, colleges, and other institutions so as to enable the citizens to

acquire capacity of creative self-expression. Above all, it fights against the monstrous evils of

mass poverty and unemployment. By pursuing the goals of social justice, it seeks to remould

the pattern of national economy, so that the vast dispensaries of wealth are diminished to a

fair and an equitable extent.

In this chapter, an attempt is made to discuss firstly the importance of housing in

Indian Economy, secondly the shortage of urban and rural housing and various housing

programmes by the government of India, and finally the objectives of National Housing

Policy.

39
2.1 Origin and Growth of Human Settlement

Ever since the dawn of civilization shelter has become the most essential need after

food and clothing for all human beings. The primitive man lived in caves, tree-holes and tree

tops and fed themselves b hunting animals and plucking fruits from the trees. They used to

wear the barks of the tree. When their number increased and their food requirements became

enormous they came out of forests to live in the plains to cultivate and make more food

materials. But after overcoming the barbaric stage, man gradually learnt the art of agriculture

and started living in groups b the side of rivers, making arrangements for shelter to protect

themselves from the adverse natural forces. According to scientists, this happened about

10,000 years back and this was the beginning of the human settlements. Thus it was a

transition from cave to village.

2.2 Formation of Livelihoods

The main purpose of house is to protect man from the vagaries of climate and wild

animals. He built houses with mud, reeds, boughs, leaves etc., for better protection and mutual

help; he used to live in groups surrounded by the cultivated lands which invariably were

selected where water was available throughout the seasons. This gave rise to villages or small

human settlements near perennial sources like rivers and lakes.

2.3 Formation of Towns and Cities

Later when transportation of men and materials became necessary, sea coasts and river

banks were selected for settlements. Villages grew into town and towns into cities and that is

the history of human settlement and human civilization. Inter-relations and interactions

between settlements both near and far off developed gradually and gave rise to social,

cultural, political economic and many other institutions. In the process, some settlements

40
prospered becoming larger and larger like our present day giant cities, which we call

metropolis, etc.

2.4 Human Settlements

―Human settlements are organized spaces irrespective of their varying densities and

levels of infrastructure. From this perspective both a tented camp of nomads and a modern

city are human settlements as they both reflect the dynamics of a group of people who shelter

themselves, work and interact. This complex process is both bounded and modified by such

factors as climate, traditions skills and natural resources. To sum up, human settlements are

far more than housing; they include the facilities of schools, hospitals, recreation centers, and

water supply and transportation services. The human settlements particularly belonging to the

low income group in developing countries are generally characterized by lack of adequate

planning and basic services.

2.5 Shelter

Shelter means providing shelter on a site under secured land tenure facilities like pure

water and sanitation at basic level which are affordable b both the government agencies and

the members of low income groups.

Ensuring adequate decent accommodation with security of tenure and providing basic

service and crating living environment are basic objectives of shelter. The components of

shelter include plot and land with security, built up structure including services and

infrastructure consisting of essential and recreational services.

41
2.6 Housing beyond Shelter

Housing does not begin or end with the provision of dwelling units and the attendant

amenities. An ideal housing design is one where huge will function as a single and coherent

entity conducive to a care free purposeful co-operative life well witness the future of a

―socialistic pattern of society‖. Housing for a community, be it urban or rural, will thus

envisage a consideration of such issues as:

i) Rationalization of space planning standards which affect housing costs;

ii) Conserving land resources by disallowing ‗plotted‘ developed, to achieve

appropriate and proper densities;

iii) Ceiling covered area per unit, disburse benefits of development more equitably;

iv) Regulation of planning, design and construction through building codes and

building due laws, to conserve space, materials, labour and energy; and

v) Controlling profiteering in building materials and house building components.

2.7 Importance of Housing

Well-noted ancient sage and philosopher Buddha described housing as the ―Root of

happiness‖. Without a home, according to Buddhist philosophy, human beings can‘t fully

develop emotionally, intellectually and spiritually. Therefore housing provides many kinds of

services such as shelter, security, comfort and feeling of independence, privacy and social

status depending upon nature and quality of services rendered. As such housing is a non-

homogenous entity.

In India, housing is the second largest employment generating sector. Among all the

major sectors of economic activity, construction recorded the highest growth in employment

of over 10% per annum. According to an estimate every Rs 1 crore worth of investment in

42
housing sector has a potential of generating 1086.75 man years of employment. As such

housing forms an important part of the strategy for the alleviation of the poverty and

employment generation and thus has to be viewed as integral part of overall improvement of

human settlements and economic development.

The importance of housing is revealed through the fact that in low income families,

after food, housing is the largest item of household expenditure.it constitutes 20 to 30 percent

of the total household expenditure. The poor who fail to meet their housing requirements

resort to illegal squatting.

Finally, as appreciated by the United Nations Organization, in all the developed as

well as developing countries, housing helps to achieve a major socio-economic objective of

improvement in the quality of human life by providing a habitable dwelling with basic

facilities and access to health care, family welfare, education and employment opportunities.

It is therefore, necessary to provide good houses to the people, especially weaker sections.

2.8 Global Shelter Strategy (GSS)

In order to harness the human, technical and financial resources of the international

community, national governments, local authorities towards the amelioration of the

deteriorating shelter conditions of the poor and the disadvantaged in the world. The UNO

General Assembly in December 1988. Proclaimed the global strategy for shelter in the year

2000, as envisaged in Commission of Human Settlements Resolutions 10/1 and General

Assembly Resolution 42/191.

The global strategy for shelter calls for a combination of International and National

efforts in the context of political, social and economic and cultural needs of the society. The

fundamental policy change enunciated by global shelter strategy is the adoption of an

43
‗enabling‘ approach where by the full potential and resources of all sectors in the shelter

production and improvement process are mobilized. According to GSS, adequate supply of

land, public infrastructure services and building materials through the removal of bottlenecks

to their supply is fundamental to the success of national shelter strategies.

Despite the universal declaration of human rights and the international conversant of

economic, social and cultural rights, recognizes of right to shelter as a fundamental right of a

man several countries does not came forward to initiate efforts in this direction.

2.9 Housing in India

India is primarily rural in character where about 75 percent of the population lives in

villages. Though there is no unanimous view about the magnitude of poverty, it is a fact that

the vast majority lives below the poverty line. A vast majority of the poor either do not have a

house or live in a squalid kutcha house. Housing shortage nevertheless is a major concern.

Data on housing shortage in urban and rural areas are presented in table -2.1.

Table 2.1: Housing Shortage in INDIA (unit in million)

Year Housing Shortage

Rural Urban Total
1951 6.5 2.5 9.0
1961 11.6 3.6 15.2
1971 11.6 3.0 14.6
1981 16.3 7.0 23.3
1991 14.6 8.2 22.8
2001 13.5 8.9 22.4
2011 17.4 9.1 26.5
Source: (i) Census of India 2011 as per 11th plan (2007-12) planning commission, Govt. of India (ii)
National Building Organization Ministry of urban affair and Employment-Govt. of India
Housing shortage in 1951 was 9 million units comprising of 6.5 million units (72.2

percent) in rural areas and 2.5 million units (27.8 percent) in urban areas has increased to 23.3

44
million units in 1981 which consist of 16.3 million units (69.9 percent ) in rural areas and 7.0

units (30.1 percent) in urban areas but declined during last two decade i.e. 1981-91and 1991-

2001 into 22.4 million units which consist of 13.5 million units in rural areas and 8.9 million

units in 2001 and has increased up to 26.5 million units in 2001-2011 which consist 17.4

million units ( 65.7 percent) in rural areas and 9.1 million units ( 34.3 percent ) units in urban

areas in 2011.

2.10 Urban and Rural Housing Scenario in India

As per 2011 census, the country had a population of 1,210.98 million, out of which

377.10 million (31.16%) lived in urban areas during 2001-2011; the urban population of India

grew at CAGR of 2.8% regulating the increase level of urbanization from 27.81% to 31.16%.

The estimates of housing shortage reveal that in the urban sector according to the

N130, on the basis of 2011. Census, there was a shortage of 8.23 million housing units in

urban sector. It is hoped that the shortage would decline to 26.5 million units in urban sector.

Some other estimates indicate that housing shortage will increase to 33.5 million units in

2021.

Urban Housing Scenario

agencies In the urban housing scenario there are innumerable agencies both public as well as

private, in operation. Among the public housing Central Governments and State Governments

and between these State PWDs, State Public undertakings, Housing Boards and City

Improvement Trusts are involved. In the Central Sector, Central Construction Agencies such

as Central PWDs Central Public Undertakings, Military Engineering Services, Post and

Telegraphs and Railways are involved. In addition to these massive housing schemes are

implemented by Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) under the Ministry

45
of Urban Affairs and Employment, National Co-operative Housing Federation, and public

institutions, such as LIC, GIC and Banking sector are also contributing to their might through

promotion of loans and advances to the ernployees and the promotion of the Co-operative

Sector on a advances to the ernployees and the promotion of the Co-operative Sector on a

construction of massive scale housing are being encouraged by the provision of

adequate finances by National Housing Bank, RBI, Commercial Banks in the private sector,

corporations like HDFC and specialized institutions set up by Nationalized Banks, also

provide adequate finances in this area.

In spite of the entire tremendous boost provided for the housing sector in recent times, the

housing shortage continues to be alarming. State Governments have encouraged specific

programmes and policies in the public and private sectors in construction activities and the

new Housing Policy indicates the promotion of housing by way of providing adequate

finances in the housing activity. The magnitude of housing shortage in urban and rural areas is

evident from the following Table No. 2.2.

Table No. 2.2

Households, Usable Housing Stock and Housing Shortages in 2001 and 2011

Population Households
S.No Census Year 2001 2011
Rural Urban Total Rural Urban Total
1. HouseHolds 1,135 471 1,606 1,370 722 2,092
Usable Housing
2. 929 367 1,296 1,115 567 1.682
Stock
3. Housing Shortage 206 104 310 255 155 410
212 V(6) 306 265 143 408

Source: The Handbook of Housing Statistics- Part 1,2010

Projected population. Table No. 2.2 shows the number of households and estimates of

housing shortage in India 1991 and 2011. As per the NBO estimates there was a shortage of

46
104 lakh houses in urban area and this figure was projected to rise to 155 lakhs in 2011.

Figures recomputed on the basis of 1991 Census show that in 2001 urban areas will have a

shortage of 143 lakhs houses, while there had a shortage of 96 lakhs houses in 2001. Thus

during the decade, housing shortage in urban areas will increase by 47 lakhs. It may be noted

that the extent of shortage has been worked out considering certain minimum standards. It

does not imply that an equivalent number of families are entirely shelter less The problem of

urban housing is felt much more acutely with the immigration of population from the

neighbouring areas. All sorts of working population, literate, semi-literate, etc., flow to the

urban centres in search of employment. This undue concentration in urban areas has to be

tackled through proper and effective urban housing policies and with the adoption of proper

programmes and policies by way of providing basic civil amenities and environmental

improvement programmes in semi-urban and rural areas. The future of the urban centres leads

only to the liquidation of housing shortage as well as elimination of all urban slums and

provision of adequate amenities and facilities in the region.

Rural Housing Scenario

Rural housing is qualitatively different from urban housing in the sense that the

housing activity a not very much based on the cash economy but depends to a considerable

extend on land rights and access to resources. In rural housing also there is need to provide

house - sites to the poor so that they are able to erect housing units over them

India is primarily rural in character where about 64.3 per cent of the population lives

in villages (2011 Census). Though there is no unanimous view about the magnitude of

poverty, it is fact that vast majority lives below the poverty line. A vast majority of the poor

either do not have a house or live in a sqalid Kutcha house.

47
Status of Rural Housing

The share of rural households facing a housing shortage has increased from 18 per cent in

2001 to 26 per cent in 2012 (Table 2.3). The working Group of Rural Housing for the Twelth

Five Year Plan estimates a total rural housing shortage of 44 million units in 2012 (planning

commission 2011a). The 15 per cent that are homeless or live in temporary housing face the

most accrue shortage temporary shelters are of as much concern as no shelters since then

because the household exposed to natural calamities and severe weather conditions.

Table 2.3
Estimate of Rural Housing Shortage (millions)

2001 2012
Households without houses 3.22 4.15
Temporary Houses 11.5 20.21
Shortage due to congestion 5.0 11.30
Shortage due to obsolescence 4.3 7.47
Additional housing shortage arising in next five years 0.55
Total housing shortage 24 43.67
o.w.BPL (assuming 90% of households are BPL) 21.6 39.30
Source : Census (2011), Planning Commission (2006b,2011a).

Note : There were 137.7 million rural households in 2001 and 167.8 million rural households in 2011(census
2011) and assuming yearly growth rate of 2.1 per cent to determine rural households in 2012. Units in 2012
(Planning Commission 2011a. the 15 per cent that are homeless or live in temporary shelters are of as much
concern as no shelters since they leave the household exposed to natural calamities and severe weather
conditions.

According to National Family Health survey only 19% of the rural population lives in

pucca houses while the remaining lives in kacha and semi pucca houses with Mud walls and

attached roots. Eighty seven percent of homes in the villages do not have toilet facilities over

the years the no of rural house living in pucca houses increased from 36 per cent in 2002 to 55

per cent in 2009. While this increase has been across all income groups, the disparity among

48
groups has decreased with the lower. Monthly per capita expenditure MPCEP group covering

towards the national average ratio of non pucca (including semi pucca and katcha to pucca

faster than any other group.

The gap between supply and demand is over widening, defying the resource

capabilities of individuals as also the Government of India is committed to the establishment

of welfare State, Governments at in Indicate the center and states have been striving to create

a multiple agencies, institutes and organizations such as Housing Development Boards, the

Housing Finance Corporation etc.

The total housing shortage at the end of December, 2012 has officially been assessed

as 24.71 million dwelling units for 67.4 million Households, where 98% of this shortage was

in the low income and Economically weaker sections (EWS), segment. This situation even at

the end of 11th plan, despite efforts envisaged to be implemented, is also not projected to

improve, but rather this shortage is expected to escalate to 26.53 million houses or 75.01

million households. The following table shows the housing shortage among the states.

Table 2.4

State Wise Distribution of Housing Shortage 2007-2012

State/UTs Housing Shortage 2007 Housing Shortage 2012

Andhra Pradesh 1.95 1.27
Arunachal Pradesh 0.02 0.03
Assam 0.31 0.28
Bihar 0.59 1.19
Chhattisgarh 0.36 0.35
Goa 0.07 0.06
Gujarat 1.66 0.99
Haryana 0.52 0.42

49
Himachal Pradesh 0.06 0.04
Jammu & Kashmir 0.18 0.13
Jharkhand 0.47 0.63
Karnataka 1.63 1.02
Kerala 0.76 0.54
Madhya Pradesh 1.29 1.10
Maharashtra 3.72 1.94
Manipur 0.05 0.08
Meghalaya 0.04 0.03
Mizoram 0.04 0.02
Nagaland 0.03 0.21
Orissa 0.50 0.41
Punjab 0.69 0.39
Rajasthan 1.00 0.15
Sikkim 0.01 0.01
Tamil Nadu 2.82 1.25
Tripura 0.06 0.03
Uttrakhand 0.18 0.16
Uttar Pradesh 2.38 3.07
West Bengal 2.04 1.33
A & N Islands 0.01 0.00
Chandigarh 0.08 0.02
D & N Haveli 0.01 0.05
Daman & Diu 0.01 0.01
Delhi 1.13 0.49
Lakshadweep 0.00 0.01
Puducherry 0.06 0.07
All India 24.71 18.78
Source : Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report, government of India, New Delhi

Shortage of housing is very high in nine states viz. A.P, Bihar, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh,

Maharastra, Rajastan, Tamil Nadu, U.P. and West Bengal. In some states, housing shortage
50
in 2012 has increased when compared to 2007. These states are Arunachal Pradesh, Bihar,

Jharkhand, Manipur, Nagaland, Rajastan, U.P. Dadra and Haveli, Lakshadweep and

Pandichery. The largest increase was recorded in U.P. (69 lakhs) followed by Bihar (60 lakh).

Dimensions of the Problem

There are many reasons behind houselessness and low quality houses in rural areas. The

major factors are:-

1. Poverty / Low income

2. Population growth

3. Westernization / Value changes and

4. Environmental factors

The poor lack all basic facilities. For them food is the most important need. The rural poor

pay greatest attention to satisfying hunger and then clothing needs, and unable to bear the cost

of building materials, they remain houseless or live in inadequate and congested houses. The

poor people also lack in other facilities such as drinking water (Table No. 2.5). They are the

people who need special assistance for house construction. They can certainly provide labour

but left to themselves they cannot arrange for construction materials. They also need to be

informed about alternative construction technologies that can be low and effective. It is

doubtless the urban- rural divide in housing will continue to prevail for a long but the degree

of differences certainly calls for intervention in rural areas.

51
 Table No. 2.5

Details of households having provision for drinking water and toilet facilities (2011)

Sl.No State Safe Drinking water Toilets

1. Andhra Pradesh 48.98 48.98
2. Assam 4128 4128
3. Bihar 56.55 56.55
4. Gujarat 60-04 60-04
5. Haryana 67.14 67.14
6. Himachal Pradesh 75~51 75~51
7. Karnataka 67.31 67.31
8. Kerala 2`1.00 2`1.00
9. Madhya Pradesh 45.56 45.56
10. Maharastra 54.02 54.02
11. Orissa 35.32 35.32
12. Punjab 92.09 92.09
13. Rajastan 50.62 50.62
14. Tamilnadu 64.28 64.28
15. Uttar Pradesh 56.62 56.62
16. West Bengal 80-26 80-26
17. All India □ 55.54 55.54
Source : Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report, government of India, New Delhi

The shelters should be provided with basic amenities such as access to drinking water, toilets,

electrification and general sanitation.

52
 Table No. 2.6
Rural Households Typology
House Typology
Sl.No State (In Percentage)
Pucca FSemi-Pucca Kutcha
1. Andhra Pradesh 29.77 25.24 44.99
2. Arunachal Pradesh 9.76 10-63 79.71
3. Assam 10.53 13.37 76.09
4. Bihar 24-07 38.33 37.56
5. Goa 41.58 52.36 6.06 i
6. Gujarat 43.42 51.61 4.97
7. Haryana 41.46 41.32 17-32
8. Himachal Pradesh 49.75 43.86 6.39
9. Karnataka 30.45 49.34 20-21
10. Kerala 61-56 20,55 27.89
11. Madya Pradesh 20.93 73.79 5.28
12. Maharastra 35.37 47.36 17.27
13. Manipur 2.46 35.90 61.46
14. Meghalaya 9.33 28.17 62.50
15. Mimoram 2.86 35.68 61.45
16. Nagaland 9.33 28.17 62.50
17. Orissa 13.00 22.63 64.37
18. Punjab 72.14 12.26 15.60
19. Rajastan 47.04 27.46
20. Sikkim 22.13 40.43 25.50
21. Tamilnadu 34.60 19.63 45.77
22. Tripura 1.91 17.35 80.74
23. Uftar Pradesh 32.70 33.60 33.70
24. West Bengal 15.74 34.17 50.10
25. Delhi 86.63 5.87 7.50
26. Union Territories 43.98 24.02 32.00
27. All India 39.59 35.65 33.76
Source : Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report, government of India, New Delhi

Table No. 2.7 indicates typology of houses at all India level in rural areas. There are

30.59 per cent Pucca houses, 35.66 per cent semi-Pucca houses and 33.76 per cent Kutcha

houses, which in true sense should not be called 'a house'. These houses are built with mud

walls, roofs covered with straw and leaves supported by bamboo poles. They are known for

poor sanitation and in many part of rural India, it is observed that both human beings and

cattle live together in the 'house'. The unhygienic cohabitation is the root cause for several

53
diseases. Apart from sanitary facilities, our rural houses are characterized with poor quality of

building materials, unmatched building technology and unsuitable to village social structure.

Moreover, reasons to the houses constructed under several housing programmes are not

occupied by the beneficiaries, misused, or deserted. This is particularly true in the case of

housing colonies specified for Scheduled Caste and Schedule Tribes.

Housing: Role of State and Society

Even in a welfare and developed society, it is neither reasonable nor possible for the

state to construct and provide housing facility to every individual through Governmental

funds and efforts. At best such a responsibility may be confined to the poorest of the poor of

the society. Even then A is the primary responsibility of both the society and the State to

ensure and create condition under which every individual of the society could acquire proper

housing facility which include not only providing shelter but a package of minimum amenities

like drinking water, sanitation, ventilation, etc., and that too within environmentally healthy

surroundings. As a matter of fact, it should be a partnership between the state and those who

can afford on their own as well as the community to achieve above-mentioned objectives.

This involves five functions such as:

1. Acquisition of land;

2. Development of land;

3. Financial assistance;

4. Construction; and

5. Putting limits on disparities.

The main responsibility of the state lies in acquisition of land and its development to enable

the community to construct the houses of its own. To ensure that, under well-set norms,

54
housing is being provided to the weaker sections with the availability all the file objectives are

integrated in the primary duty of the State. For the remaining sections, the State should

depend on and encourage private parties, mutual savings society, builders, corporations.

The National Housing Policy calls for a progressive shift from a subsidy based housing

schemes to cost sharing or cost recovery cum subsidy scheme for rural housing. It also

emphasizes a progressive shift of rural housing strategies from target orientation to demand-

driven approach. So far as the middle and high income groups are concerned, this approach

may considered acceptable but for the low income groups, like landless labourers and persons

living below poverty line, this approach fails to appreciate the fact that the capacity of these

vulnerable sections to build a reasonably safe pucca house is that without State subsidy is

extremely limited with such an approach, the goal of achieving ''shelter to all'' wifi continue to

recede the horizon. It is therefore necessary that the government should change its basic

approach to National Housing Policy towards weaker sections.

2.11 Housing Schemes

Social housing for special groups and for various income categories has been

operationalised from 1952 onwards. Initially the central government provided loans and

subsides to the states to induce them to take up the schemes social housing schemes were

designs to uplift the low middle-income groups and economically weaker sections of society

both in rural and urban areas. The following are the various types of schemes introduced by

government.

1. Integrated subsidized housing scheme for industrial workers and economically

weaker sections (EWS).

2. Low group housing (LIG) scheme.

55
3. Subsidized housing scheme for plantation workers, 1956 and 1967.

4. Village housing project scheme (1957).

5. Land Acquisition and development scheme (1959).

6. Schemes for provision of house sites to landless workers in rural areas(1971)

7. Minimum needs programme (1993-94).

8. Housing schemes for the weavers / basket makers.

9. Housing schemes for Beedi workers.

10. Housing scheme for coolies.

11. Housing schemes for fishermen.

12. One lakh housing scheme

13. Subsidized aided self-help housing scheme.

14. Indri Awaz Yozana.

15. Credit-cum-Subsidy Scheme (CCSS) for Rural Housing

16. Samgra Awas Yojana (SAY)

17. Two million housing programme.

18. Cluster Housing Programme

19. Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana(VAMBAY)

20. Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)

21. Housing And Slum Development Progremme (IHSDP)

22. Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY)

56
2.12.1 Integrated subsidized housing scheme for industrial workers and economically

weaker sections (EWS)

Introduced in 1952 for eligible industrial workers having an income of up to RS.500

(1us$--rs12.50 roughly) per month. In April 1966, the housing programme for EWS or

persons having an income of up to Rs: 4,200 per annum was integrated with the scheme. It

was meant to provide open developed plots or small two-roomed single or multi-stored houses

on a rental basis subject to certain ceilings.

The houses for industrial workers could be built by the state housing Boards, local

bodies. The central government at provided a 50 per cent loan and a 50per cent subsidy to the

state government with a lesser subsidy for the employer housing. Till the end of 1977, about

R 1,250 million was spent on the scheme and over 185000 houses were constructed. It was

decided in 1979 to transfer the tenements to the occupiers at actual cost on a hire-purchase

basis in view of the maintenance problem.

2.12.1 The Low Income Group Housing Scheme

Introduced in November 1954, it provided for a loan by the state governments to

individuals with incomes from Rs: 4201 up to Rs: 7200 per annum and to cooperative. It also

provided loans to state governments housing agencies for the construction of houses on a

rental or sale for the LIG. Loans could be granted for houses costing up to Rs18000. Until the

middle of 1981 Rs 2,340 millions were spent.

2.12.2 Subsidized Housing Scheme for Plantation Workers, 1956 and 1967

The Plantation Labor Act 1951 enforces that every planter should provide rent free

houses to the resident workers. Since all plants are not in a position to extend this facility, a

scheme knows as ―plantation Labor housing scheme‖ was introduced in 1956. This was

57
revised in 1966 and renamed as ―subsidized housing scheme for plantation workers‖. The

central government provides financial assistance to the states directly outside the plan

allocations. About 45,000 houses have been constructed so far.

The main features of this scheme are:

1. It put a ceiling on the cost of the house at Rs.3, 200/-.

2. The planters are given 37.5 per cent subsidy and 50 per cent loans of the ceiling cost.

3. It provided a subsidy of 25 per cent loan up to 65 per cent for co-operative housing

colonies.

Under this scheme planters in south India were given a maximum for Rs.3,200/- per

house while north India planters got Rs.4,000/- per house. Central government assistance up

to 90 per cent of the approved cost of the house was available to plantation workers through

housing co operations.

2.12.3 Village Housing Projects Scheme

The first housing programme for rural areas, namely, the village housing projects

scheme was initiated in 1958 by the central government. It was introduced as a part of the

total rural reconstruction programmes. The scheme was aimed at rebuilding or substantially

improving the 54 million houses in rural areas.

The scheme emphasized on self-help with government assistance in the shape of

technical advice, provision of improved design and layouts, special assistance to weaker

sections. In this scheme, the landless agriculture labors are given house sites either free of cost

or at a nominal price. Under this scheme they were also given loans to construct houses

through self-help process and expected to use locally available materials to build their houses.

Monetary assistance is given to the extent of 80 percent of the construction cost subject to a

58
maximum of Rs.4000/- per house over 11 million workers were provided sites under this

programme.

The government used to provide loans and subsidies to construct dwelling units to the

beneficiaries. The scheme has been integrated with providing of amenities under rural

development employment scheme. Unfortunately the programme could not achieve the

anticipated results. This is evident from the fact that the expenditure on rural hosing was very

low for the first 2 ½ decades ending March, 1974.

During the second and third five year plans hardly 37% and 33% of the meager

allocations of Rs. 10 and Rs. 12.7 crores were spent and only about sixteen thousand houses

were constructed all over the country. Future because of the withdrawal of grants by the

Central government during the fifth plan a large number of states have also dispensed with the

scheme. Therefore the rural housing projects were virtually come to a grinding halt.

2.12.4 Land Acquisition and Development Scheme (1959)

Introduced in 1959 to encourage the large-scale acquisition and distribution of plots to

various income groups, this was primarily taken up by state housing boards and local

development authorities and often the agencies themselves so constructed houses on the

acquired land. It was designed to stabilize land price and to promote the growth of self-

contained composite with all the community facilities in accordance with the city master plan.

2.12.5 Schemes for Provision of Houses Sites to Landless Workers in Rural Areas

(1971):

The allotment of house sites cum construction assistance scheme was introduced in the

central sector to provide house sites to landless agriculture workers including SCs and STs

free of cost in October 1971. The objectives of the scheme is to provide free house sites of

59
100sq.yards to eligible agriculture landless workers in rural area and assistance of Rs 250 per

site, which has been later increased to Rs 500 for development of houses sites per family and

construction assistance of Rs 2000 per family.

This programme was based on the division of labor concept. The theory was that

there were certain activities which an individual household could do on its own and other

activities where public intervention was necessary. The acquisition of large areas of land, its

subdivision and the provision of community facilities such as roads, open spaces, schools

clinics and community halls and centralized services such as water supply drainage and

electricity were thought of as areas where public intervention was necessary.

This list was later extended to include finance for individual house construction supply

of building materials and technical support programme. However, it was thought that the

individual household would be able to build its own house, or at least manage its construction

using small contractors or direct labor in the form of masons and carpenters.

These programme meant potentially, that the main roles of the housing boards would

change from designing and supervising house construction to assembling and subdividing

land, installing infrastructure and services were often, and in some cases still are, thought of

as the solution to the housing problem for low-income group families. The scheme was later

transferred to state sector in 1974 and was included in the minimum needs programme.

The scheme of allotment of house sites-cum-construction assistance has been in

operation for a long time in many states. Common land or land rendered surplus by the

application of ceiling laws is visually the source for distribution under this scheme.

Under this programme house sites were provided to 13.07 million landless families

and construction assistance given to 14 lakh families. At the end of the 6th plan 0.72million

60
landless families had been left uncovered. House sites were given to 26.44 lakh and

construction assistance given to 12.85 lakh families up t 31th march 1988. The scheme had

tremendous impact and it is s matter of deep satisfaction that the rare percentage of rural land

less families had been allotted house sites and also provided construction assistance in various

states and union territories.

This scheme received a fillip during the seventh plan. It is during this period that a high

level of performance in respect of scheme implementation achieved. A large percentage of

rural poor among the village have shown positive appreciation of objective and considered it

as a concrete measure of government‘s initiative in alleviating the rural poverty.

A study pointed out that the standards for roads and access as well as for infrastructure

is predominantly high. The evaluation of the worlds bank‘s sites and services projects have

revealed similar conclusions most of the official of the state governments who are concerned

with the development of projects are by training and practice used to execute building projects

of high standard they are unable to implement housing projects using low-cost materials that

are affordable by the majority of the people. What is most urgently required is to train the

officials concerned to use the minimum standards of construction and materials appropriate

for the majority of the people of the country.

Further, the scheme is not very successful mainly because, many of these sites are far

away from the village core and second, they were also devoid of provision to basic amenities

like water supply and sanitation. Further the house sites allotted to schedule Castes and

scheduled tribes are not such quality where in these people can develop their own housing

colonies. Hence it is observed that the programme has not made much headway in the case of

61
scheduled castes/ tribes. In several cases the allotment of house sites to the members of these

communities was only national and the sites were not suitable for house construction.

2.12.6 Minimum Needs Programme

Minimum needs programme give high priority to the rural house sites and construction

assistance to rural landless workers and artisans including schedule cast, schedule tribe. The

scheme was earlier part of central sector scheme and was later transferred to state sector in

1974. The minimum facilities to the same time disperse economic activities and make the

benefits of development reaches as large section of the rural sector as possible.

The maximum size of house site allotted is to be 100sq.yards. The scheme also

envisages provisions of infrastructural facilities like access to roads drinking water, and wells.

Initially a sum of Rs 250/- per family was given as subsidy for construction of shelter on

allotted house site. After some time the financial assistance have been raised from Rs 2500/-

to Rs 500/- per family for acquisition and development of land from Rs 500 to Rs 2000 for

construction of house.

While allotting the house site to landless workers, belonging to different castes,

communities and religions, the state government has to ensure that it leads to integrating of

social and economic spheres of life, efforts are to be made to see that the allotment of house

sites does not results in segregating of families of families belonging to scheduled cases and

scheduled tribes.

The scheme was implemented in 19 states and 6 union territories. During the year

1987-88 5.50 lakh families have been allotted house sites and construction assistance has been

extended to 3.65 lakh families.

62
 The centre has decided to complete the task of allotting housing sites to all the needy

rural poor families by the end of the Eighth five year plan.

Accordingly the state governments has been requested to take necessary action to

ensure that the allotment of house sites to the rural poor families was speeded up so that the

objective was achieved with in the stipulated time frame.

The state government has also been asked to furnish time bound action plans for this

purpose. While allotting house sites to landless workers belonging to different castes,

community and religious stress would be laid on ensuring that the step led to integrating in

social and economic spheres of life. The efforts would be to see that allotment of house sites

does not results in the segregation of families belonging to the SCs and STs and that they are

suitably interrupted with other families settled in the same locality.

The funds provided for housing schemes in the annual plans were diversified to other

development projects at several places. The states had been requested to ensure that to other

development projects at several places. The states had been requested to ensure that the funds

meant for the housing sector were not used for other schemes. Regrettably there was no

separate organization in most states to look after the housing needs of the rural areas. At the

state level it there was no nodal department dealing with rural housing and the different

aspects were dealt by a multiplicity of departments.

Housing boards and the organization as they now existed in the states were mostly

urban oriented. It was, therefore, necessary to create appropriate rural housing networks in the

states to look after the needs of rural housing.

The national building organization has also evolved a typical design of houses for the

landless agriculture workers based in the concept of basic needs and also keeping in view of
63
the constraints of cost. Efforts are also being made to take care for the environmental

improvements which includes orderly development of the village so that the future growing

can be accommodated.

2.12.8 Housing Schemes for the Weavers/Basket Makers

The ministry of textiles launches centrally sponsored work-shed-cum-housing scheme

for various categories of artisans and handloom weavers in 1974-75. The scheme is

continuing till date. It has been implemented in 12 states and 35,779 dwelling units have been

sanctioned, however, concentration of activities, by using the criteria of number of units built

till July 2003, has been found on Tamil Nadu followed by Andhra Pradesh, Kerala, Orissa,

Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan.

The ministry of textiles had also lunched a housing scheme for basket makers;

however, it has been implemented only in Tripura, Tamil Nadu and Manipur. Under the

scheme till July 2003, only 323 houses have been sanctioned/ constructed.

2.12.9 Housing Scheme for the Beedi Workers

The ministry of labor launched a housing scheme for the economically weaker

sections and the total cost of the house was initially fixed at Rs.2500 of which, the subsidy

amount was Rs.9000 inclusive of implementation in eight states and major beneficiary states

are Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Madhya Pradesh and Kerala.

2.12.10 Housing Scheme for the Coolies

Another centrally sponsored scheme launched by the ministry of labor for housing

the HAMALS (persons engages in carrying head-load at public places such as Railway

station, bust terminal, market yard, etc for piece rate remuneration) had taken up in 1991.The

basic criteria adopted for selection of beneficiaries for the scheme was that a person having

64
license to operate at public places, does not have a house and workers at piece rate. The

central government contributes 50 per cent of the total cost of the actual tenement having 200

square feet total plinth area with one room, kitchen, bathroom and latrine. The ceiling of

subsidy component was fixed at a maximum of Rs 20,000 in the total cost of the unit. The

scheme has been implemented in four cities in Karnataka and in one city in Andhra Pradesh.

In 1995 the ministry of labor had also taken up the jousting scheme for the mathadi

workers working in different market places like grocery market, onion and potato wholesale

market, cloth and cotton market, iron and steel market and railway yards. The focus of

housing has been mainly for the non-poor.

2.12.11 Housing Scheme for the Fishermen

The socio-economic conditions of fisherman in India are very poor. It is evident from

the saying that the fisherman ―born in debt and die in debt‖. Therefore, the central ministry of

agriculture promoted the fisher man housing scheme in 1985-86 to encourage construction o f

houses both in rural and urban areas for the low income community among the fisherman.

The scheme has been implemented in 19 states and four union territories and up to July 2003,

45564 dwelling units have been sanctioned. HUDCO has also been funding the houses

schemes for the fisherman from 1976-77 onwards and only 5 coastal states has been

benefited. Under HUDCO funded schemes, 42,315 swelling units have been sanctioned up to

July 2003.

2.12.12 One Lakh Housing Schemes (OLHS)

One of the most important efforts in serving the rural poor has been the ―one lakh

housing schemes (OLHS)‖. Which was implemented during 1972-76. This scheme essentially

to support the central schemes of provision of house site of landless workers in rural areas

65
launched in 1972. Developed house plots were to be given free to eligible beneficiary through

grants from the central govt. however, additionally, the state government ―decide to give a

house practically free of cost‖. Each family had to pay only Rs 100 towards a house built at a

cost of between Rs. 1250 to Rs 1500. The main effort by the state government was to turn the

opportunity into a popular mass movement to boost the central scheme. Besides the

governmental grants, efforts are made to mobilize the resource from public a large through

donations also. Out of these massive efforts, about 60000 houses were completed over a

period of about 5 years, averaging about 12000 units per annum. The major lacuna in this

scheme was non participation of beneficiary in construction of the houses and they kept

complain about the quality of construction of the houses and their pressurized the government

for grants to repair houses year after the year.

2.12.13 Subsidies Aimed at Self Help Housing Schemes (SASH)

This scheme was based on the feedback on a few schemes implemented earlier by

reputed voluntary agencies. These results led to the introduction of a totally new and path

breaking scheme popularly referred to as SASH, towards the end of 1983. The innovative

features of SASH include:

 Rather than a standard type designed followed in OLHS ―17 designs of various plinth

areas were selected based on minimum cost, maximum efficiency and use of improved

building material and better construction techniques‖, through a material level

competition, exhibition and seminar on low cost housing.

 Programme for masons and semi skilled laborers to be trained in new construction

techniques and cost saving.

66
 Unlike OLHS, the share of subsidy in a total cost of Rs 6000. Was reduced to a one third

with one sixth being the contribution of the beneficiary of has loan from HUDCO.

 Most important innovation for the use of over 1200 voluntary agencies in the process of

beneficiary selection, resource mobilization, loan disbursements and supervision of house

construction. This helped to inculcate user participation in the entire process, which

would help to eliminate the sense of alienation common in Govt given house.

 Starting of Nirmithi Kendras to both manufacture low cost materials and disseminate

information and run training programme to support SASH

2.12.14 Indira Awas Yojana (IAY)

Indira Awas Yojana is the new scheme of construction of low cost houses for the

poorest of the poor belonging to the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes and indentured

laborers in rural areas. This is fully funded by the central government the genesis on this

programme can be traced to the programmes of rural employment which began in the early

1980‘s construction of houses was one of the major activities under the National Rural

Employment Programme (NREP) which was launched in 1980 and Rural Landless

Employment guarantee programme which was launched in 1983.

The scheme operates as 100% subsidized centrally sponsored independent programme

with the resources being shared on 80 : 20 basis by the central and state. In the case of union

territories, the entire resources under the schemes are provided by the government of India,

funds under the scheme allocated to the state are further distributed to the districts in

corporations. At the district level Indira Awas Yojana funds are operated in the district rural

agencies, zilla parishads(ZPs).

67
 There is some proportion of the squalid kutcha houses requiring upgradation in the

rural area. The exiting scheme of Indira Awas Yojana had a limited scope of construction of

new houses. As the need for the upgradation of unliveable kutcha house in the rural areas is

actually felt, the exits patterns of construction of new houses is not necessary the most

efficient and in principle it was felt that it would be cost effective to provide part financing for

up gradation of exiting houses.

In view of this Indira Awas Yojana has been suitably modified by the government for

implementation in two components, 1) construction of new houses and 2) up gradation of

kutcha houses of the allocated funds , minimum 80 % will be spent on new construction and

up to 20% on up gradation and for providing subsidy under the credit com subsidy scheme.

The State Government has been allowed flexibility to utilize the funds either in up gradation

or entire funds on IAY depending up on the requirement. The budget under the Indira Awas

Yojana has been increased from Rs 19000 crores to 25000 crores.

Objective

The objective of Indira Awas Yojana is primarily to help in the construction of

dwelling units by members of scheduled caste/scheduled tribes, free bounded labor and also

non – SC/ ST rural poor below the poverty line by providing them in grant in aid.

Target group

The target group for houses under Indira Awas Yojana is people below the poverty

line(BPL) living in rural areas belonging to scheduled castes / scheduled tribes , free bonded

laboures and non-SC/ST categories. A maximum of 40% of the total IAY allocation during a

financial year can be utilized for the construction dwelling units for non- SC/ST BPL

categories.

68
 From 1995-96 IAY benefits have been extended to windows or next-of- kin of

defense personnel and Para military forces killed in action irrespective of the income criteria

subject to the condition that (i) they reside in rural areas;(ii)they have not been covered under

any other scheme of shelter rehabilitation; and(iii)they are houseless or in need of shelter.

Benefits have also been extended to ex-servicemen and retired members of the paramilitary

forces as long as they fulfill the normal eligibility conditions of the Indira Awaas Yojana and

have not been covered under any other shelter rehabilitation scheme.

The priority in the matter of allotment of houses to the ex-servicemen and paramilitary

forces and their dependents will be out of 40% of the houses set apart for allotment among the

non SC/ST categories of beneficiaries. Funds to the tune of 3% are year marked for the

benefit of disabled persons below poverty line.

Identification of Beneficiaries

District rural development agencies (DRDAs) Zilla Parishads on the basis of

allocations made and targets fixed shall decide on the number of houses to be constructed

panchayat wise under IAY during a particular financial year. The same shall be intimated to

the gram panchayat. Thereafter, the gram Sabah will select the beneficiaries from the list of

eligible house hold according to IAY guidelines and as per priorities fixed, restriction this

number to the target allotted. No approval of the panchayat Semite is required. The panchayat

Semite should however, be sent a list of selected beneficiaries for their information.

Priority in Selection of Beneficiaries

The priority in the selection of beneficiaries will be as follows:

 Freed bonded laborers.

 SC/ST households

69
  SC/ST households who are victims of atrocity

 SC/ST households headed by widows and unmarried women.

 SC/ST households affected by flood, fire ,earthquake, cyclone and similar natural

calamities

 Other SC/ST households

 Non-SC/ST households.

 Physically handicapped.

 Families/windows of personnel from defense services/para-military forces, killed in

action, ex-servicemen and retired members of the paramilitary forces.

 Displaced persons on account of development projects, nomadic, semi-nomadic and de-

notified tribes and families with disabled members, subjects to the condition that these

households belong to below poverty line category.

 The selection of the beneficiaries will be subject to the condition but the households of

all the above categories except those families/widows of personnel from defense

services killed in action are in the below poverty level category.

Allotment of Houses

Allotment of dwelling units should be in the name of female member of the

beneficiary household. Alternatively, it can be allotted in the name of both husband and wife.

Location of Indira Awas Yojana

Indira Awas Yojana dwelling units should normally be unit on individual plots in the

main habitation of the village. The houses can be also be built in a cluster with in a habitation,

so as to facilitate the development of infrastructure such as internal roads, drainage, drinking

water supply etc.., and other common facilities. Care should always be taken to see that the

70
houses under IAY are located close to the village and not far away so as to ensure safety and

security, nearness to work place and social communication.

Upper Limit for Construction Assistance

Grant of Rs. 20,000/- per unit is provided in the plain areas and Rs. 22,000/- in

hilly/difficult areas for the construction of a house. For conversion of a kutcha house into in

pucca house, Rs. 10,000/- is provided. Sanitary latrines and chulahs are integral part of the

house. In construction/up gradation of the house, cost effective and environment friendly

technologies, materials and designs are encouraged. The household is allotted in the name of a

female member of beneficiary household.

In case the house are not built in cluster/ micro-habitat approach, Rs2500/ provided for

infrastructure and common facilities should be given to the beneficiary for construction of his

house.

Involvement of beneficiaries

The beneficiary should be involved in the construction of the house. To this end, the

beneficiaries may make their own arrangements for construction material, engage skilled

workmen and also contribute family labor. The beneficiaries have complete freedom as to the

manner of construction of the house. This will results in economy in cost, ensure quality of

construction, lead to greater satisfaction of the house will thus be on the beneficiary

himself/herself. A committee of the beneficiaries may be formed, so desired to coordinate the

work.

Ban on Contractors or Ddepartmental Construction

No contractor is to be engaged for the construction of dwelling units under IAY, by

the DRDA/ZP. If any case of construction through contractor comes to notice, government of

71
India will have a right to recover the allocation made to the state for those IAY houses. The

house should also not be constructed by any / government department. Government

departments organizations provide technical assistance or arrange for coordinated supply of

raw materials such as cement, steel or bricks on the other hand, the house is to be constructed

by the beneficiary himself/herself.

Appropriate Construction Technology and Local Materials

Efforts should be made to utilize to the maximum possible extent, local materials and

cost effective technologies developed by various institutions. The implementing agency

should contact various organizations / institutions for seeing expertise and information on

innovative technologies, materials, designs and methods to help beneficiaries in the

construction of durable and cost effective house.

The state government may also arrange to make available information on cost

effective houses. Environment-friendly technologies, material, designs or at blocks/ district

level. Technologies suing bricks, cement and steel on large scale should be discouraged. As

far as possible, cement should be substituted by lime and lime surkihi manufactured locally.

Bricks manufactured by beneficiaries themselves instead of its purchase may also be

undertaken to reduce costs an increase opportunities for wage employment.

Type Design

No type design should be prescribed for IAY dwelling units, except that the plinth area

of the houses should not be less than 20 sq mts. The lay out, size and type design of IAY

dwellings units should depend on the local conditions and the preference of the beneficiaries.

The houses, should be designed in accordance with the desire of the beneficiaries keeping in

the view of climatic conditions and the need to provide sample space, kitchen , ventilation,

72
sanitary facilities, smokeless chulha, etc. and the community perceptions, preference and

cultural attitude.

The barrier free concept may be incorporated in the construction of houses meant for

the disable with a view to facilitate is smooth and free movement in the house. In areas

frequent by natural calamities such as fire, flood, cyclones, earth quakes etc incorporation of

disaster resistant feature in the design to be encouraged.

Fuel Efficient Chula

It should be ensured that all Indira Awas Yojana dwelling units are provided with a

smokeless chulha, which are fuel efficient and smoke free and healthy and more convenient to

use.

Drinking Water Supply

The availability of drinking water supply should be ensured but the agencies

responsible for the implementation of the Indira Awas Yojana. Where necessary, from the

funds available under rural water supply or other similar programmes. A hand pump should

be installed on the site before the work is started.

Sanitation and Sanitary Latrines

Construction of sanitary latrine forms an integral part of Indira Awas Yojana

dwellings unit. It has however been observed that in a large number of cases, that the sanitary

latrine in this houses are not constructed. The govt of India attaches considerable importance

to the construction of sanitary latrines. As sanitation measure and therefore sanitary latrine

should be ensured. A system of drainage from the house should also be provided to overflow

from the kitchen, bathroom etc.

73
 Inventory of Houses

The implementing agencies should have a complete inventory of houses constructed

under IAY, giving details of the date of start and date of completion of construction of

dwelling unit, name of village and block in which the house is located : name , address,

occupation and categories beneficiaries and other relevant particulars.

Display of Indira Awas Yojana Board and Logo

On completion of an IAY dwelling unit, the DRDA concerned should ensure that for

each house constructed, a display board is fixed, indicating the IAY logo, year of

construction, name of the beneficiary

Transparency in Implementation of Indira Awas Yojana

It is of utmost importance that centrally sponsored scheme and mis-utilization and other

irregularities are minimized. This requires greater transparency in the implementation of IAY.

At various level and hinges as the assumptions that people should have access the

implementation about the pogrammes in all aspects. The disclosure of information should be

the rule and with holding of information and expectations

List of items (illustrative not exhaustive) on which information should invariable be

made available to people to bring great transparency at village, block and district level is

given below.

Village level

1) List of people below poverty line in the village

2) List of beneficiary identified during presiding year and current year including the

details of SC/ST women beneficiary and disabled persons under Indira Awas Yojana.

3) Allocation made to the village under Indira Awas Yojana

74
 4) Guidelines of Indira Awas Yojana and criteria for selecting beneficiary

5) Display of Indira Awas Yojana sign board on the allotted house.

Block level:

a. Details of houses block level with cost, sources of funds, implementing agency.

b. Access to muster rolls.

c. Distribution of funds village- wise for the scheme.

d. Allocation/ availability of funds and progress in implantation of Indira awas yojana.

District Level

a. Distribution of IAY funds block-wise for the scheme.

b. Criteria for distribution of funds to villages including selection under IAY.

Planning and implementation

Planning and execution of this scheme is through the state governments. The state

rural development department is the mandal department. The district rural development

agencies will be implementing the projects through the block development officer BDO/

mandal development officer.

In order to ensure that the scheme is implemented as per the concept, a course of action

is prescribed. Project planning is the basis for effective implementation. The projects are

formulated by the states or UT‘s with all qualitative and quantitative inputs required. These

projects are approved by the central sanctioning committee chaired by the secretary (RD).

Project appraisal is made to ensure that all the inputs and resources required are duly-

provided in the project as per the detailed check.

Construction of houses be done by beneficiaries themselves. But, in some states, the

nodal agency, such as state housing corporation in Andhra Pradesh and Utter Pradesh, land

75
Development Corporation in Karnataka are implementing this scheme. Whatever may be the

implementing agency, the instruction to induct the beneficiaries as workers to the maximum

extent possible No contractor is permitted in the implementation of the scheme.

Some states have set up abhor committees headed by the district collector as chairman.

In some states, the composition of this committee provides these integrated and co ordination

committee headed by the chief secretary provides a mechanism of co ordination.

Monitoring, review and evaluation

The programme is reviewed on the basis of the monthly reports from the states/UTs.

Senior officers of the rank deputy secretary and above in the ministry have been appointed as

area officers for different states/UTs. These area officers visit the allotted states/UTs from

time to time and inspect the actual implementation of the programme in the field.

The programme is also reviewed at the meetings with the state secretaries of rural

development and with the project directors of DRDA as every year. Every DRDA has a

monitoring committee which comprises of parliament (MPs), legislative assemblies

(members) and other public representatives. In addition to regular monitoring of the

programme by the ministry, the programme has been evaluated by the programme evaluation

organization of the planning commission.

The allocation of budget to IAY is increasing year after year. In 2007-08. It Rs.

5374.19 crores was allocated but it increased to 13181.32 during 2010-11. The achievement

to target is fulfilled during the 2008-09, but the implementation machinery was able to

achieve only 83.55% during 2009-10. But during the 2011-12 90.64% achievements are

recorded.

76
 Since inception of the scheme till 2011-12, 24.71 lakh houses had been constructed

under the IAY by incurring an expenditure of 12920.36 crores Table 2.7.

Table 2.7

IAY During 2007-08 to 2011-12 is depicted in the performance in following table (2.7)

Total Total Total Physical

Utilizat- % Physical %
allocation Releases Available Achieve-
Years ion(in Utilizat target achieve
( C+S) (C+S) Funds(in ment(in
crores) - ion (in lakhs) ment
(in crores) (in crores) crores) lakhs)

2007-08 5374.19 5175.10 6527.17 5464.54 83.72 21.27 19.92 93.65

2008-09 7523.85 11727.04 14460.35 8348.34 57.73 21.27 21.34 100.32

2009-10 11131.59 11316.90 15852.34 13292.46 83.85 40.52 33.86 83.55

2010-11 13181.32 13295.22 17956.54 13465.73 74.99 29.09 27.15 93.36

2011-12 12436.47 12920.36 19159.30 12926.33 67.47 27.27 24.71 90.64

Source : Ministry of Rural Development, Annual Report, government of India, New Delhi, 2011-12

The scheme has been received very well by almost all the states/UTs. There is also

enthusiasm and active involvement of the beneficiaries. Some states have contributed

additional funds from their own resources to improve the quality of the houses. In many

states, beneficiaries have made additional contribution for improving the quality of the houses

by way of additional space, better finishing.

With the time bound implementation of Indira Awas Yojana, this scheme is popular

in most of the states. Some of the states are taking up this scheme with an outlay much higher

than the earmarked allocation. There are many positive indicators of the socio-economic

change due to this scheme, such as:

77
 a. Beneficiary has acquired a social status being the owner of the house and becomes

credit worthy.

b. Housing promotes the habit of saving by generating the new propensity to seek

material advance.

c. It is fulfilling the objective employment.

d. It is providing equality I terms of minimizing urban-rural differences, inter-personal

differences and inter-regional differences.

e. Education has improved since the beneficiaries children are reportedly sent to school,

better schools.

f. It is effectively checking the migration of population from rural to urban areas.

Rural housing in this magnitude and concept is taken up for first time. It has emerged

as an important scheme and tool for bringing about the socio-economic change.

Criticism

Despite rising allocation and beneficiaries, the scheme has not made a significant dent

in reducing the housing shortage or providing quality, permanent shelters. Key

problems are:

1. Lack of Design Standards and Basic Amenities:

IAY does not specifcally outline the standard for housing construction, except for mandating

permanent plastered walls and a roof. State governments approve the designs of IAY houses.

A variety of designs are supposed to be collated and handed over to the GPs for reference. But

IAY houses have been poorly constructed, with sagging foundations and kaccha roofs

(Planning Commission 2011e). The creation and quality of basic amenities also are not

always ensured. Although the IAY guidelines state that houses should have a toilet, smokeless

78
chullah and electricity connection, the IAY has provided few such amenities. Only 27 per cent

of IAY houses had convergence with the TSC in 2010–11 while the smokeless chullah

programme saw 24 per cent convergence, and RGGVY convergence was even 1.1 per cent.

2. Poor Training and Spreading of Local Practices and Resources:

Beneficiaries are expected to be involved in, and be solely responsible for, housing

construction, including material procurement and type of construction. But beneficiaries may

not have the expertise to make these decisions. Rural Building

Centres (RBCs), aimed at offering skill training and know-how on technology and cost-

effective and environmentally friendly building materials, were initially supposed to be

created in each district in 1986, but these have not picked up well except in Kerala. Even the

help assigned to them by the IAY guidelines, through the zilla parishads (ZPs) and

District Rural Development Agencies (DRDAs), leaves too much scope for corruption. Such a

neglect of developing or spreading knowledge of locally suitable material use and building

practices, resource efficiency or training of labourers has resulted in poor quality housing and

inadequate funding. Semi-constructed housing is sometimes declared as fully constructed.

3. Inadequate Attention to Landless Households:

Until recently, policy measures have ignored the landless. Accessibility to land still shows

little improvement. A scheme was introduced under IAY in 2009 to provide a homestead site

to beneficiaries through the DRDAs. Landless households currently are given Rs 20,000 to

purchase a homestead site of 100–250 sq m. But only Andhra Pradesh, Bihar, Karnataka,

Kerala, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Sikkim and Uttar Pradesh, in which only 700,000 sites have

been purchased between 2009 and 2011, have requested funds for this purpose (Planning

Commission 2012c). PRIs generally have been unable to provide land on the scale required to

79
meet landlessness, or to reserve land for public utilities due to encroachment on panchayat

land. Plots that PRIs do make available for landless households are rarely located nearby so

the households cannot easily access common infrastructure.

4. Lack of Bank Access:

Te scheme requires funds to be transferred to the beneficiaries‘ post office or bank

accounts. But many households face problems in opening bank accounts (Planning

Commission 2013). There are also limits for households from accessing the scheme‘s

additional benefits of low interest credit.

5. Payment Delays, Low Utilisation and Poor Monitoring:

Although grants are supposed to be disbursed to beneficiaries on a staggered basis,

ideally in two installments, the significant payment delays—a common feature of public

welfare schemes—often leave house construction incomplete (Planning Commission 2013).

Actual utilisation of funds has been lower than official statistics show because funds have

been diverted to other uses such as administrative expenses or have been misused

(Comptroller and Auditor General of India [CAG] 2003). Monitoring of housing construction

also has been poor under the IAY. District- and block-level governments are responsible for

inspecting work sites, but such inspections are not always enforced.

At the village level, a register is supposed to track progress but this too is often not done.

6. Identification of Bbeneficiaries :

The states create IAY waitlists from which the Gram Sabha (GS) is supposed to select

beneficiaries. Te GS has not always followed through. About 20–50 per cent of beneficiaries

were not selected during the Eleventh Plan, PRIs and Members of Legislative Assembly

(MLAs) influenced the allocation instead and the neediest households were left out (Planning

80
Commission 2011e). Beneficiary lists at times include people who are already listed as

beneficiaries of other schemes, such as military personnel, and persons displaced by other

development projects. Such redundancy further hurts the neediest.

To address these issues, the MoRD released new guidelines for the IAY in March

2013, aiming to ‗revitalise‘ the scheme by providing beneficiaries a supportive framework

with increased stakeholder participation. The GS will be involved in selecting beneficiaries

and conducting social audits for the scheme. States will have the discretion of encouraging the

use of traditional technologies and locally available construction material in addition to using

prefabricated structures, such as doors and windows, if volumes are high enough. Technology

Facilitation Centres (TFCs) will be created to encourage and disseminate information on

alternative, cost-effective and environment-friendly practices, such as using bamboo for

housing construction, or fly ash and rice husk to make bricks. Community resource persons

(CRPs) and master masons also will be trained to aid beneficiaries in construction; the costs

for maintaining these resources will be covered under administrative expenses, made up of 4

per cent of total funds released. Whether states will adopt and effectively implement these

guidelines remains to be seen.

State Government : State governments also have not been able to make a major impact on

enhancing rural housing. In addition to their required 25 per cent and 10 per cent contribution

to the IAY in plain and hilly states respectively, 15 states have set up their own rural housing

schemes. These schemes constructed 3 million homes under the Eleventh Plan, with some

innovations. Andhra Pradesh provides subsidised construction material and supplementary

funds for strengthening foundations in low-lying and weak-soil areas, especially important to

avoid forcing households to repeatedly rebuild houses if topography and climatic conditions

81
are overlooked. Gujarat promoted earthquake-resistant housing designs and construction;

given the destruction earthquakes have caused in the state, this is valuable to ensure resistant,

permanent shelters. Tamil Nadu recently launched the ‗Green House Scheme‘ through which

households will be given grants to construct 300,000 solar-lit homes between 2012 and 2016.

This is an important ‗green‘ initiative to counter poorly electrified rural areas.

The Way Forward

Te design of the IAY can be further improved in at least the following ways:

State and district governments should design rural housing prototypes that identify mandatory

design elements and promote local construction material and building practices, tailored to

rural lifestyle, topography, climate, local resources and vulnerability to natural calamities.

Cost-effective, environment-friendly building design elements, such as using renewable

energy and rainwater harvesting, can be suggested. The IAY should adopt the use of waste

materials, as in Andhra Pradesh where the use of rice husk as a fuel in brick manufacturing,

and of fly ash as brick material led to 10–35 per cent savings in school building construction

(MoRD 2012a). To ensure that the designs are made public, IAY fund releases to the DRDA

or ZP can be made conditional on transparency initiatives, such as wall paintings. Homeless

families and those living in non-permanent structures could register for housing grants with

PRIs instead of the state for better identification of the target group. To improve transparency

and to check political misuse of authority, the GSs, responsible for selecting beneficiaries,

should make the process public (Planning Commission 2011e).

Beneficiaries should be selected on the basis of economic weakness rather than social status,

and priority should be given to the homeless over upgrading existing housing. Financial

assistance could be enhanced by using SHGs to facilitate access to bank accounts and avail

82
the differential rates of interest offered by financial institutions. If banks are absent, the

business correspondence model should be enabled to help households obtain grants. For

households that do not meet the banks‘ income requirements, SHGs could extend credit

services by providing loans from revolving funds, allowing easily monitored repayment

(Planning Commission 2013).

The formation of central and state-level inter-departmental committees could better provide

basic amenities. Te various departments in charge of rural development schemes must

coordinate their work and delivery.

Local and state governments should work together to identify unproductive land so that it can

be allotted as homestead sites to landless households. Land also can be purchased from

private landholders at reasonable prices. An alternate model under the IAY can be tried, by

which the state, with financial and technical support from Centre, could create a fund and

execute the construction of new houses and upgradation. Given the poor quality of past

government construction, such a model would need o be carefully crafted, with special

measures for monitoring and quality control.

2.12.15 Credit-cum-Subsidy Scheme (CCSS) for Rural Housing

The credit-cum-subsidy scheme for rural housing was launched with effect from April

1, 1999. The scheme targets rural families having annual income up to Rs.32, 000. This

scheme envisages only Rs.12, 5000 as subsidy and remaining amount as loan. The subsidy

portion is shared by the centre and the state in the ratio of 75:25. The loan portion to be

disbursed by the commercial banks, housing finance institutions. A provision of Rs.100 cores

has been kept under this scheme for the construction of 1, 33 lakh hoses during the year 2002-

03.

83
 The first installment totaling Rs 46.77 crore has been released to the state of Andhra

Pradesh , Assam, Bihar ,Goa Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya

Pradesh, Assam, Bihar, Goa, Haryana hibachi Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh,

Punjab, Tamil Nadu , Tripura, Uttar Pradesh ,west Bengal and Orissa to implement the

scheme. Since inception of the scheme up to 2001-02, against the central allocation of Rs

288.00 crore, about 85564 houses were constructed by incurring an expenditure of Rs 77.79

crore,. From the year 2002-03, the central allocation under IAY and CCSS has been

combined. From 2005 this scheme has been merged with IAY but the state governments can

spend up to 20 percent of the annual allocation on this component or on up-gradation.

2.12.16 Samagra Awas Yojana (SAY)

Samagra Awas Yojana is a comprehensive housing scheme launched recently with a

view to ensuring integrated provision of shelter, sanitation and drinking water. It has been

decided to take up Samagra Awas Yojana on pilot basis in one block each of 25 districts of 24

states and one up on territory which have been identities for implementation the participatory

approach under the accelerated rural water supply programme. The existing schemes of

housing, drinking water and sanitation will follow the normal funding pattern. However a

special central assistance of Rs. 25 lakh will be provided for each block for undertaking

overall habit development and IEC work with 10% contribution coming from the people.

During 2002-03 an amount of Rs0.43 crore has been released. Since inception of the scheme

33 proposals have been approved.

2.12.17 Two Million Housing Programme

In line with the ‗National agenda for Governance‘ identifying housing as a priority

areas, the government launched the 2 million Housing Programme in 1998.The programme

84
envisages provision of 20 lakh houses every year-13 lakh houses in the rural areas and 7 lakh

houses in the urban areas ,with special emphasis on the low – income group and the

economically weaker sections of this ,HUDCO, the premier public sector techno-financing

institutions in the country ,has been assigned an annual target of facilitating 10 lakh units in

rural areas. The cooperative sector and other housing finance institutions would enable taking

up the balance one of million housing units in the rural and urban areas.

As part of this specific programme, meant to address the shelter requirements of the

weaker sections, HUDCO alone has supported 4.11 million housing units against the assigned

target of 4 million housing units during the period 1998-2002. This includes financial

assistance to 1.76 million units in the urban areas and 2.35 million units in the rural areas.

The Two million Housing programme has been identified as one among the 100 best practices

for the year 2002 by UN Habitat.

2.12.18 Cluster Housing Programme

This programme was taken up by the regional rural housing wings for construction of

over 91 clusters of demonstration houses in different parts of the country. The houses have

been designed for improved durability and livability employing maximum use of local

materials and skill. The emphasis is on construction of houses having a floor area of 17 to 20

sq.mts costing less than Rs 6,000 for kutcha houses and Rs 10,000 for pucca houses in rural

areas. Environmental improvements are also carried out. These clusters of low –cost houses

serve the basic objective of demonstration of rural people.

2.12.19 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY)

With a view to ameliorate the shelter conditions of urban slum dwellers living below

poverty line, the Government of India launched a new scheme called Valmiki Ambedkar

85
Awas Yojana (VAMBAY) in December 2001. The VAMBAY programme envisages

construction and up gradation of dwelling units for the slum dwellers, which Nirmal Bharat

Abiyan ,which is a sub component of VAMBAY, aims to ensure 100 percent coverage of

sanitation facilitates through community toilets in all state capitals and million plus cities

under the scheme , 50 percent subsidy is contributed by the government of India while the

balance programme funding is to be arranged by the state government from its own resources

of through loan/ subsidy from HUDCO or any other agency. In the year 2001-2002, a

government subsidy of over RS 73.5. Crore was related to states /union territories under

VAMBAY scheme. During the year 2002-2003 it is envisaged to facilitate construction of

over one lakh slum houses with a central subsidy allocation of over Rs 2.50.crore.

2.12.20 Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM)

JNNURM was launched in December 2005 with an aim to encourage and expedite urban

reforms in India. For the housing sector in particular, its main aim was construction of 1.5

million houses for the urban poor during the mission period (2005-2012) in 65 mission cities.

Table 2.8

Table 2.8
Financing of Projects under JNNURM

Grant Central State/ULB /

Category of cities
Share Parastatal Share
Cities with above 4 million population as per 2001 50% 50%
census
Cities with above 1 million population but less than 4 50% 50%
million population as per 2001 census
Cities / towns in north-eastern states and Jammu and 90% 10%
Kashmir
Other cities 80% 20%
Source : Modified Guidelines for Submission on BSUP, Feb, 2009, MHUPA

86
 Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) : The scheme is managed by the Ministry of

Urban Development. It seeks to provide seven entitlements or services – security of tenure,

affordable housing, water, sanitation, health, education and social security to low-income

segments in the 65 mission cities.

Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programm (IHSDP) – Integrated Housing

and Slum Development Programme aims to combine the existing schemes of Valmiki

Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY) and National Slum Development Programme (NSDP)

for having and integrated approach in ameliorating the conditions of the urban slum dwellers

who do not possess adequate shelter and reside in dilapidated conditions. The scheme in is

applicable to all cities and towns as per 2001 census except cities/towns covered under BSUP.

The sharing of funds would be in the ratio of 80:20 between Central Government and State

Government and State Government /ULB/Beneficiaries.

A minimum of 12% beneficiary contribution is stipulated, which in the case of

SC/ST/BC/OBC/PH and other weaker sections is 10%

Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHHIP) – The scheme of Affordable Housing in

Partnership aims to promote various types of public private partnerships amongst the private

sector, cooperative sector, cooperative sector financial service sector, state, parastatals and

urban local bodies, for realizing the goal of affordable housing for all. This scheme is a part

of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and takes into account

the experience of implementing Basic services to the Urban poor (BSUP) and integrated

87
2.12.21 Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP).

Modification in the guidelines of JNNURM (BSUP) to facilitate and incentivize land

assembly for affordable housing,.

Central assistance of 25% for the cost of the provision of civic services at an approximate cost

of INR 5,000 crores

Support the construction of 1 million affordable dwelling units in phase I, with a minimum of

.25 million EWS dwelling untits.

Disbursement of funds linked to the actual provision of amenities. A normative cap per

EWS/LIG dwelling unit is fixed in consultation with the states for the purpose.

Interest Subsidy Scheme for Housing the Urban Poor (ISHUP)

 Modification in the guidelines of JNNURM (BSUP) to facilitate and incentivize land

assembly for affordable housing.

 Central assistance of 25% for the cost of the provision of civic services at an

approximate cost of INR 5,000 crore.

 Support the construction of 1 million affordable dwelling units in phase I, with a

minimum of .25 million EWS dwelling units

 Disbursement of funds linked to the actual provision of amenities. A normative cap

per EWS/LIG dwelling unit is fixed in consultation with the states for the purpose.

Rajiv Awas Yojana

Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) for the slum dwellers and the urban poor envisages a ‗Slum-free

India‘ by encouraging states and union territories to tackle the problem of slums in definitive

manner.

88
RAY will provide the support to enable states to redevelop all existing slums in a holistic and

integrated way and create new affordable housing stock. The existing schemes of Affordable

Housing in Partnership and Interest Subsidy for Housing the Urban Poor(ISHUP) would be

dovetailed into this scheme. No new projects under the BSUP and IHSDP scheme of the

Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) will be sanctioned once

implementation of RAY scheme is taken up except to consume existing 11th Five Year Plan

allocations that may be left uncommitted.

The scope of RAY envisaged is as follows

Integrated development of all existing slums, notified or non notified, i.e development of

infrastructure and housing in the slums or rehabilitation colonies for the slum dwellers or

urban poor, including water supply, sewerage, drainage, solid waste management, approach

and internal roads, street lighting, community facilities such as community toilets and baths,

informal sector markets and livelihoods centeres.

Other community facilities like preschools, child care centres, schools, health centres to be

undertaken in convergence with programmes of respective ministries.

2.13 Critical Evaluation of Housing Development Programme

Rural housing programmes have been criticized on several grounds. In general,

sufficient fund is not available to meet the demand in rural areas and many a time funds are

released without looking into expenditure pattern. These programmes are structured and

implemented without any effective linkages with the on-going housing scheme on the one

hand and rural development schemes on the other. Finance is provided through these schemes

for a new house and in all cases a ready-made house is given to the beneficiaries. But in many

89
cases rural poor want only up gradation or improvement of their existing house instead of a

new one, which is usually situated away from the main settlement.

Many of these schemes are implemented through contractors which does not allow the

beneficiary to participate in the construction and related activates. As a result houses usually

do not to provide adequate air and light, protection from rain and heat. Technology and

material remained urban as brick and cement are usually used while people use locally

available materials other than bricks and cement for their own construction. When local

material like, Mud, agricultural waste, bamboo, palm trees are used people‘s participation is

quite high.

In the matter of identification of the beneficiaries political executives from minister to

mandal president are given some quota for exercising discretion. This is viewed as counter

active to the implementation of the scheme. The process is politicized instead as extending the

benefit based on socio-economic criteria. Often, voices were raised about extending the

benefit to not so poor or not so deserving cases. The political consultations also consume too

long a time thus, delaying the process of implementation and demoralizing the administrative

personnel.

The other problem confronted in the implementation process is escalation of costs of

materials not matched by corresponding increase in the scale of assistance resulting in the

greater liability on the beneficiary to contribute on his own or in a few cases reduction in the

quality of construction by usage of cheap and substandard material .Secondly ,the

administrative officials feel that their jurisdiction is too large and in a few case those who

were associated with the implementation are on ad hoc basic awaiting regularization of

service for more than a decade leading to administrative indifference to the problem of

90
beneficiaries. Coordination between revenue department and the corporation in the acquisition

of land also is far from optimal.

Unfortunately, some of the schemes are being implemented independently and in a

separate manner. Different schemes of the government needs to be rationalized and should

from an integral part of the overall development planning at the national level .At the field

level, these schemes can come from different Ministries /Department of the Government but

they should converge and complement and supplement each other, so that along with shelter

the rural poor is ensured the much needed quality of life.

To ensure people‘s participation the use of appropriate local material along with new

technology is necessary, but homestead land is very limited .Usually the division of the family

and natural growth of population is responsible for creating a demand for homestead land. But

the limited land requirement becomes complicated as the cultural network and social

stratification based on the caste system prevent mobility of the households. As a result people

try to adjust themselves within their neighborhood and also prevent entry of other castes in the

adjoining plots.

Purchasing and selling of land is also to extent governed by caste association and as a

result it becomes a very closed system. Due to all these reasons, the nature of the land

problem for housing is completely different from what is happening in the urban land market.

In fact the notion of land market is absent in rural areas for housing activities.

The settlements size and type is another important element of rural housing .As

rural settlements are small and there are regional differences like isolated farm based

settlements spread over a large area with a low density needs different institutional network

to meet various requirements. The service network for infrastructure like roads, drinking

91
water will vary and affect and financial requirements and institutions for maintenance of

various services. Again the problem of land for housing is closely related to settlement size

and type.

Financial requirement is also different as type of housing cost of material used

varies from urban to rural housing. Finance is more important as agriculture remains the

main source of income, which does not match with the procedure followed by the formal

financial institutions. As villagers do not have regular income, it is not easy to calculate the

affordability of household income. The standard procedure of loan sanctioning and mode of

repayment is not suitable in the rural context. So, calculation of financial requirement along

with process and repayment has to be reformulated so that it can take care of rural situation.

Both the government programmes and formal financial institutions have not given

enough thought in this matter and it should respond positively to the local situation. There

are many other areas where the uniqueness of the rural situation should be given adequate

importance. One thing that is clear in the above discussion in those rural housing schemes

cannot be implemented in isolation. What is important is that such schemes should be

affordable and sustainable. Thus planning of rural housing schemes should carefully

integrate rural, social and cultural fabric. Location can sometimes play a very crucial role

and therefore may lead to success or failure.

A scheme cannot be said to be successful unless it is sustainable and has sufficient

cases of replication. In order to obtain this it is necessary to bring these schemes within

affordable limits of the beneficiary .poor loan recovery is an indicator of degree of

unpopularity of such schemes. Therefore ,it should be mandatory for the beneficiary to bear a

part of the capital cost as well as depreciation cost. This calls for linking Rural Housing

92
schemes with employment generating schemes as envisaged in the 18 five year plan this will

also have an impact on rural urban migration as rural employment generation will support

local population. Consequently vacancy rate of rural housing will also go down which in turn

will solve housing problem in urban areas.

Housing restoration and up gradation forms an integral part of any housing

programme. Revitalization of old houses not only saves scarce financial resources but also

provides housing in a comparatively shorter of time and in user-friendly location

Taking into account Government‘s policy to promote decentralization of activities

and strengthening Gram Panchayats, rural housing demand is likely to go up in near future.

With mammoth target on the one hand and limited resources on the other, it is imperative to

promote and propagate low cost and user-friendly, appropriate technologies .This in other

words means involving community from planning through implementation stages. The near

future will, therefore, assign dynamic roles to building centers and other voluntary agencies.

Similarly, the development of the rural habit linked with village based employment /economic

support programmes are also necessary which enhance the family income base. This will in

fact mean a rational approach in terms of integrated development and provision of support

infrastructure .Successful implementation of Rural Housing programme could also alleviate

the serious problems in urban areas.

2.14 Summing Up
Housing was often seen as a social welfare and not a development activity and as such

the government‘s intervention was very less until 1980s. After 1980s the Government of India

began to interfere in the housing sector by designing various policies and scheme. Further, the

Central Government have given full to power to areas but centers of employment.

93
 This is precisely why people concentrate on and around metropolitan cities and not

rural areas Housing the state governments and union territories to formulate its own housing

Policies and schemes suitable to the local needs. A number a rural housing programmes have

been undertaken by central government for weaker sections of the population. Among these,

Village Housing Project Scheme, Minimum Needs Programme, Indian Awaz yozana, The

Prime Minster Awaz Yozana and Jawahar Rozgar Youzana are very prominent. The

programmes were started with laudable objectives such as providing Shelter to all the poor,

provision of house sites, and providing health and congenial atmosphere to live in, but in

practice the picture becomes very bleak.

For instance, under the House sites to Land Less Workers Programme the sites allotted

the beneficiaries are very congested. The localities were not provided with any basic

amenities like drinking, toilet, electricity and drainage etc., Further the colonies have been

situated far away from the villages which added a new set of problems to the beneficiaries.

They have not been provided with any economic support schemes although it was included as

a part housing policy.

This indicates that the programme has been a half-hearted attempt. Hence there is a

need to reconsider the whole housing policy and reacted so that the poor can better avail the

benefits of a welfare programme like housing .The main loophole in the Indira Awas Yojana

is the does not give any consideration to the fact people tend to concentrate not around

housing.

Further the government went on formulating different schemes for different types of

houseless based on their caste, occupation and poverty instead of strengthening, the

implementation process of the existing ones. In our country, the caste system and

94
communalism are very deep and higher caste people would not like to stay with lower caste

people even though the cost of the house is low. This requires a lot of education and to

change the present situation, it will take pretty long time

Different programmers were entrusted to the different administrative organization

for implementation .This is an inevitable consequence of the system where political parties

are not fully developed and people are unorganized and the officials are untrained. As a result

housing programme suffered-severe setback. In future the housing programme should be

supported and implemented by solid efficient, well trained administrative machinery. Political

will and organizational coordination will be crucial towards an appropriate development

strategy.

The note worthy feature of all the development programme are providing

provision for people participation. But in housing programme it is lacking. Hence, there is a

need to initiate steps to encourage the beneficiaries so as to enable them to participate in the

construction of their own houses so that the role of middle men can be restricted to some

extent. The implementation of the weaker sections housing schemes should be taken on the

basis of participatory approach. The self help group, the religious institutions of social

communities, implementing agencies and local nongovernmental organizations should be

evolved in the planning and implementation of the projects. Such mechanism should be

institutionalized and given high priority. It is only then that poor households would

experience improvement in their housing conditions in the real sense of the term.

From the review of the past and present housing programmes, it transpires that

Indian‘s National concern with the housing problems has been essentially dominated by

botched and piece meal solutions rather than understanding of the problem. The solutions of

95
the housing problems does not lie merely in giving plots and developing sites for the weaker

sections of the rural houses and badly where are the houses to come is a must if one wish to

find the real cause of housing crises. Rural poverty, unemployment and illiteracy are three

basic realities which should be born in any effort of solving the housing problems.

96
References
1. Moges (1 990) A new country of Social Housing. Stuart Law and David Hughes (ed)
London
2. C.A. Grubb. M. I. Phares (1980) 'Industrialization a new concept for housing. Praeger
publishers Newyork, Washington. London, p.36
3. Hamilton. R. (1 978) Policy, Planning and local Government Hutchinson London
4. David Clapham (1990) Assistant Director Centre for Housing Research Glasgow.
'Public Housing; current trends and future development Ch.9. the new face of public
housing.
5. Hadely R. and Hatch.S. (1 981) Social welfare and the failure of the state, Allen and
Undwind London.
6. J.T. Dunlop and D. Mills (1968) Man power in construction; A profile of the industry
and projections to 1975. P.245.
7. C.Swan (1971) Labour and material requirements for housing Washington, Brookings
Institution P.358.
8. C. Arand (1973) Direct and indirect employment effects of Eight Representative types
of Housing in Mexico, in C. Arand et al. Studies on employment in the Mexican
Housing Industry.
9. G. Schechter et al., (1963) Report on co-operative housing and related activities,
prepared for the agency for imitational Development, Washington Foundation for co-
operative housing P.10 and L.N. Bloomberg and C.Abrams, U.N. Mission to Kenya on
Housing (Newyork.1964).
10. Roofer ―Organization for economic co-operation and development, committee for
invisible transaction‖ Capital market study general report pairs (1967) P.125.
11. Leland S. Burns and Leo Gerber (1 977) "The Housing of Nations - analysis and policy
in a comparative framework - Macmillan press.
12. Ministry of Rural Development Government of India, New Delhi, p.15.
13. Government of India Planning Commission, 10th Plan, 2002-2005
14. Government of India, Ministry of Urban Development National Housing Policy, 1994
15. Krishna s. Vastava, ―Post- Disaster Housing Assistance in India, Yojana, June, 2009,pp
27-29.

97
16. Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited, Hyderabad, Annual Report, 2009-
2010.

98