5 Key Housing Schemes and Policies in India

The student will benefit from reading this blog as they learn about the housing situation and programmes for rural and urban impoverished people. a few options for solving the impoverished people's housing and shelter needs.

Content

Introduction: The Housing Scenario in India
The Approach to Housing in India
Some Key Housing Schemes and Policies in India
Conclusion: What would it take to provide housing to the poor?

Introduction: The Housing Scenario in India

As a fundamental human right and a requirement for access to other social goods like education, health care, and work, housing and shelter must be provided. Due to forced and difficult migration, land grabbing, increased infrastructure and development, escalating conflicts, and coercive evictions, housing-related rights have been increasingly violated in India over the past 20 years. In 2011, 65 million (or 27% of the urban population) of the 377 million people (31% of the overall population) who lived in cities did so in urban slums. Slums, as defined by the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT), are places where households lack stable housing, long-lasting structures, enough living space, or simple access to safe water and functional sanitary services. There are 110,000 slum blocks in the country, according to the 2011 census, containing a population ranging from 1,300 homes in Nochikuppam, Chennai, to 86,000 houses in Dharavi, Mumbai. The majority of these slum blocks lack adequate infrastructure and public services, and the standard of living there is dehumanising. 58% of the slum blocks lack proper drainage, 26% do not have access to safe drinking water, 43% must obtain water from outside their communities, and 34% have no nearby public restrooms (Hindman, Lu-Hill, Murphy, Rao, Shah and Zhu, 2015; Housing and Land Rights Network, 2016). Housing shortages are a problem across the country, not just in urban regions. A subsequent review of the 2011 census and the National Sample Survey housing condition round 2008-09 re-estimated the shortage of rural housing to be 62.01 million, up from the Working group on rural housing for the twelfth five-year plan (2012-17) estimate of 43.13 million in 2012. (Kumar, 2014).

Housing would be a significant obstacle to the realisation of sustainable development, with the average annual growth rate in urban areas being 2.5% and that in rural areas being 0.8%. Goal 11: Create inclusive, secure, robust, and sustainable cities and human settlements. SDG 11.1 aims to ensure that everyone has access to basic services and adequate, secure, and affordable housing (target 11.1). This translates into the following: a) a policy and budgetary commitment on the part of the government to upgrade and improve the slum areas housing the urban poor and the rural poor; b) a critical re-examination of the policy and development approach driving the poor in the country towards homelessness and distress migration; and c) a commitment to help and support poor people's housing.

The Directive Principles of State Policy cover the topics of land and housing. As a result, the housing rights are not legally binding nor enforceable in court. The International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), which states that "The States Parties to the present Covenant recognise the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing, and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions," is one of the international legal instruments that India has ratified. In addition to signing the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, India has also pledged to uphold the right to housing. The Indian government must maintain a consistent policy commitment and take consistent measures to uphold its obligations under international agreements relating to housing rights. In the significant decision of Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Supreme Court of India elaborated on the right to appropriate housing, shelter, and livelihood being a part of the all-encompassing Right to Life under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution (1985). A similar statement was made by the Indian Supreme Court in the case of Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Gulab Khan and Ors (1997): "The State has the fundamental duty to provide shelter to make the right to life relevant." One homeless shelter must be built for every 100,000 people, according to a 2010 Supreme Court of India ruling. This was based on the assumption that 0.1% of people in every given city are homeless. The National Urban Livelihoods Mission created the Scheme of Shelters for Urban Homeless in 2013 to address the need for refuge for the homeless (NULM–SUH). The Supreme Court's Order was transformed by the Mission into a policy directive. Despite past progressive rulings on the right to housing and shelter by the Indian judiciary, courts have recently supported evictions. The Supreme Court of India stated in the case of Almitra Patel v. Union of India (2000) that "the formation of developing slums, it seems, looks to be a successful business and is well organised... Giving a free alternate site as payment to someone who invades public property is equivalent to rewarding a pickpocket. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court released the government from its obligation to facilitate resettlement in 2003, declaring that "no alternative sites are to be supplied in the future for the displacement of those who are squatting on public land." Without a doubt, it is the responsibility of the government to give the poor shelter. The lack of planning and initiative...cannot be replaced by an arbitrary system of offering alternate sites and land to encroachers on public land, since the state officials have admitted they have failed to design housing programmes for people in the economically disadvantaged parts of society. A portion of the court views the right to housing as a fundamental right, while another portion supports the macro policies of slum free communities. This is reflected in the mixed judgements on the right to housing (Mody, 2013; Housing and Land Rights Network, 2016).

The lack of a comprehensive national housing policy or framework makes the situation of inadequate housing worse. Additionally, there are no land laws that acknowledge, safeguard, and supply housing as a human right. Certain plans and procedures aren't always upholdable in court. Because of this, poor people in both urban and rural areas constantly lack sufficient housing, are insecure, and have few options for getting help.

The Approach to Housing in India

Up until the 1990s, the state made an effort to provide homes right after independence. After 1990, the state's role changed from that of a housing supplier to one of an enabler and facilitator of housing activity and financing, with a growing reliance on the private sector to offer housing solutions.

The first five-year plan (1951–1956) saw the government concentrating on constructing institutions and houses for the less fortunate parts. Through the Industrial Homes Scheme, it offered housing to both government and industrial personnel. In order to offer affordable housing and improve infrastructure, the Housing and Urban Development Corporation (HUDCO) was founded in 1979. The state concentrated on resource mobilisation, giving low-income people access to subsidised housing, and land acquisition during the 1990s. During this time, the state delegated responsibility for house construction to the private sector. There have been numerous announcements and phase-outs of urban and rural housing programmes throughout the past 60 years. Instead of having a national housing policy or law, missions and housing programmes are increasingly being distributed. As a result of the central government's successive subsuming or dissolving housing programmes, there has been resource waste, uncertainty, a lack of accountability, and a continuous shortage of suitable housing for both rural and urban poor people (Government of India, 2015; Housing and Land Rights Network, 2016).

Some Key Housing Schemes and Policies in India

National Slum Development Program (NSDP)

The National Slum Development Program (NSDP) of 1996 sought to improve slum conditions all over India. In order to give the population with civic amenities including sewers, broader paved paths, streetlights, clean water, and toilets, NSDP set out to create a model slum. As part of the NSDP, the government invested in constructing amenities while the beneficiaries received loans to upgrade their houses. States received loans and subsidies from NSDP for their slum remediation projects. In general, the NSDP only distributed 70% of its allotted budget and the project due to administrative problems, which caused performance of the plan to vary across different states. Lack of monitoring and delays caused money to be misused and time to be wasted in the NSDP.

Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP)

A bigger component of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission was Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP) (JNNURM: which is a large scale urban renewal mission). BSUP planned to build affordable housing for urban poor people, with an anticipated cost of INR 3,000 per housing unit from government agencies. The government opted to pay an approximate 88 percent housing subsidy for the same, with the beneficiary contributing the remaining 12 percent. Due to their limited capabilities, the government agency's inadequate execution hurt BSUP. The scope of BSUP was impacted by project delays, inadequate bid requirements that caused cost inflation, and poor housing quality as a result. Urban poor couldn't pay the final home costs.

Housing for All, 2015

By 2022, Housing for All, 2015 seeks to house every household in India. The program's main goal is the in-situ rehabilitation of slums, and as part of it, the government encourages and rewards private developers that use land as a resource. By incorporating beneficiary-driven housing building, Housing for All also considers slum upgrading. The scheme's main components are: a) slum rehabilitation using land as a resource to involve private developers; b) public-private partnerships to build affordable housing; c) affordable housing through credit linked interest subsidy; and d) beneficiary-led individual home construction or improvement.

The state will add more floor space index in the slum zones. The slums will become "verticalized," and private developers will use the freed up space for commercial resale. This serves as an inducement for private developers to provide homes for qualified slum inhabitants at no cost (Hindman, Lu-Hill, Murphy, Rao, Shah and Zhu, 2015; Housing and Land Rights Network, 2016). The Housing for All plan ignores the inevitable increase in household density per hectare that would come from its construction. Without supporting infrastructure, community amenities, expanded roads, or open spaces, the quality of life would be worse. Additionally, this type of programme has encouraged among slum dwellers the idea that they are entitled to free housing without making any kind of financial or labour contribution (Patel, 2016).

Indira Awas Yojana (IAY)

A financial grant of Rs 70,000 per dwelling unit in the plains and Rs 75,000 for hilly/difficult locations is granted for the construction of new houses under the 1985 Indira Awas Yojana (IAY), which sought to offer housing assistance to rural poor. The construction of 30 million permanent homes in rural regions is the goal of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY), which the NDA administration said in 2015 will merge with IAY. Additionally, it was promised that the amount of money provided each unit will rise.

The National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007

The National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy of 2007 emphasises "affordable housing for everybody" with an urban-centric vision. To do this, the policy must use a rights-based strategy. In the last two decades, the emphasis on housing in metropolitan areas has shifted from slum upgrading to ex-situ slum reconstruction. Mumbai's approach of redeveloping its slums is regarded as an example that other larger cities can follow. Simultaneously, it is crucial to research and conduct effect analyses of such a model on the inhabitants' quality of life in the rebuilt homes.

Conclusion: What would it take to provide housing to the poor?

India's housing situation is contradictory due to the neo-liberal regime's punitive slants, development initiatives, and anti-poor policies. According to the 2011 Census, there are 11.09 million vacant homes in the same urban areas as there are closer to 19 million housing shortages nationwide. According to India's National Sample Survey 2007-08, 2% of migrant households in urban and rural areas have been forcibly evicted due to construction projects, natural catastrophes, social issues, and political unrest. Neo-liberal policies have harmed agrarian reforms and growth, food security, farmers' rights, ecological balance, and the rights and entitlements of the poor in both urban and rural areas (Housing and Land Rights Network, 2016).

The current housing programmes rely far too heavily on the private sector. These plans maintain the viewpoint that housing is a product of the market, not a fundamental human right. The present housing must follow a rights-based philosophy. The majority of the earlier government of India programmes are focused on residents owning their homes. Rental housing is "appropriate and even a requirement for a considerably wide section of households and individuals," according to the study from the Task Force on Rental Housing, which was established by the Ministry of Urban Housing and Poverty Alleviation (MUHPA). It emphasises that rental housing is the only viable alternative for low-income groups and economically disadvantaged sectors with annual incomes less than one lakh and two lakhs, respectively, and that it is suitable for migratory workers who come to the city for a temporary period (Government of India, 2013).

The Task Force disregarded the lived experiences of migrants who had settled in Mumbai, Chennai, and Delhi over a long period of time. As a result, the poor are further forced into housing insecurity, with the market dictating the rent. Under the Directive principle of State Policy, the state's obligation to provide housing has been gravely violated. With this plan, home would be treated like a good that could be purchased by anyone. Long-term housing instability for the LIG/EWS would persist, and those with the means to pay would only be able to own a home, turning a social benefit into a commodity.

Assistance for disadvantaged urban and rural residents to self-build houses is another strategy that differs from the current housing options used in India. The government offers "basic" and/or "extra" help in the self-build home programme. Basic aid would consist of a plot, a house, and a neighbourhood where the following could be made available: a) a plot at a reasonable cost and pay-off conditions; b) a legal entitlement; and c) an accessible road with adequate infrastructure and civic amenities such as drinking water, electricity, and sewage solution. The additional aid would cover matters related to the development of the home, such as a) the provision of high-quality building supplies b) the accessibility of microfinance options c) technical assistance and a building permit and d) the support of housing cooperatives. Such supported self-help dwelling combines public (help with infrastructure and services) and private components (of owning the house). A pro-poor housing policy that aggressively encourages self-build initiatives with sufficient government aid is required (Bredenoord and Lindert, 2010). This strategy is also suggested by UN-Habitat, which claims that it is the most advantageous and appropriate way to provide sustainable housing.

Because it considers and responds to people's needs and levels of affordability, it is practical. It is acceptable since it adheres to basic requirements and includes a significant quantity of sweat equity (an interest in a property earned by a tenant in return for labour towards upkeep or restoration). People and communities employ their present talents or learn new ones while building the homes, resulting in increased capacities. In addition, the housing units are made to be expandable over time with appropriate provision and suitable supply of fittings, components, and building materials (UNHabitat, 2005). In addition to giving nearly all economic categories equitable access to shelter, this innovative model for sheltering the poor also takes into account the diversity of the impoverished in a given area. With institutional, financial, technical, and political assistance from the government, this model also advocates for self-built homes.

Before drafting a national housing policy, the Indian government might analyse this strategy, confer with all relevant parties to review it, and undertake an assessment. This would necessitate a shift in pro-poor policy toward combining a city-wide strategy with targeted, differentiated housing that supports the self-build initiatives of the urban and rural poor. India currently needs a nationwide public housing strategy with a focus on self-build homes and appropriate rental housing provision that works towards reaching SDG 11 and upholding international commitments.