|
India's desire to become the world's next big economic
power is as real as the enormous challenges it faces in raising
the social and economic well being of its rural populations. According
to Abraham George, founder of The George Foundation, an NGO focused
on poverty alleviation in South India, "The issue of adequate
housing is integral to poverty reduction and social justice"
in India. In this opinion piece, George describes the living conditions
of the rural poor and argues that government resettlement programs
are inefficient and perpetuate caste-driven schisms. Instead of
simply supplying shelter for the inhabitants of rural villages,
he says, these programs need to work towards a larger goal of building
"healthy and sustainable communities."
Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as having said, "India lives
in the villages." That statement is as true today as it was
more than 60 years ago. Nearly 70% of India's 1.1 billion-plus population
still lives in 600,000 or so villages. If India is to be truly understood,
it is the lives of these people that really count.
Most "outsiders" or urbanites have a nostalgic view of
rural India. They think of villages as peaceful havens where people
live simple lives, where the air is pure and the land is green as
far as the eye can see. Some of those images are indeed true, but
the realities of day-to-day life for a great majority of rural people
are nothing short of cruel. A living story of economic deprivation,
social injustice and hopelessness has prevailed for centuries. The
real story of rural India must be told with more than five hundred
million characters who live on less than a dollar a day, most of
them in terrible living conditions.
Statistics Mask Reality
Many of the rural poor work the fields in agriculture and are employed
by the few landowners who reside in their villages. Several others
pursue caste-associated occupations -- priests, carpenters, blacksmiths,
barbers, weavers, potters, oil-pressers, leatherworkers, sweepers
and so on. Lately, with increased economic activity in nearby towns,
many commute outside their villages every day to work as drivers,
construction laborers, packers and in other industrial jobs. Some
migrate to cities for months, leaving their families behind. But
despite the increasing demand in cities for labor met by rural migration,
and the income generated by such employment, the living conditions
for most rural people remain far from what can be called "acceptable."
According to the Indian government and the World Bank, less than
30% of the nation is poor, and 70% of the poor (225 million) live
in the villages. These official statistics are based on a per capita
consumption expenditure of Rs. 356 ($8.70) per month, or Rs. 11.70
($0.28) per day. This low yardstick grossly undercounts the number
of poor people in rural India, and certainly does not reflect the
living conditions for most of them.
For example, The George Foundation's recent survey of nine villages
in Hosur Taluk in Tamil Nadu state showed that more than 80% of
the people live on a daily income of less than one dollar, the internationally
accepted definition for poverty. Given the proximity of the surveyed
villages to the rapidly growing city of Bangalore, this estimate
reflects a more prosperous picture than what is true for most of
rural India.
Development of countries is often judged by certain economic and
social statistics compiled by national governments and major international
agencies such as the World Bank and the United Nations. By these
aggregate measures, India has made significant progress in recent
years, especially since liberalization measures were introduced
in 1991. For example, the GDP growth rate now stands at 9.4% per
year, much better than the less than 4% experienced during the 1990s.
Life expectancy at birth has now improved to 64 years from 56 years
20 years ago; infant mortality has fallen to 5.6% from 8.1%; primary
school attendance has risen to 74% from 65%, and the adult literacy
rate is 61% as compared to 50%, all during the same period.
There is no arguing that there has been improvement, but these
statistics mask many realities that paint a far poorer picture of
the country, especially in rural India. For example, consider the
following: The rural economic growth rate has been stagnant -- at
around 2% to 2.5% a year -- during the past decade, mainly because
of the weak performance of the agricultural sector. This marginal
expansion barely keeps up with the 1.75% annual increase in rural
population, thus offering very little improvement in income and
living standards for most people in the villages.
More than half of all children in the country under the age of
four suffer from malnutrition; this statistic is far higher for
rural children. The government has built a vast system of more than
170,000 primary health centers and sub-centers throughout the country,
and more are added each year, yet most of them are either dysfunctional
or do not regularly provide even the minimal level of basic health
care.
Though primary school enrollment is exceptionally good, the education
students receive in most rural schools is unacceptably bad, and
less than 10% among them graduate from high school. While government
statistics on national literacy have steadily improved for years,
several independent studies have shown that less than 20% of the
rural population can read or write beyond their own names, and an
even smaller percentage can do simple arithmetic.
Our foundation's survey of 17 villages in Hosur Taluk showed that
less than 15% of the "lower caste" people who comprise
over 70% of the population could write the number corresponding
to their age. Given these and other realities, one has to wonder
what meaningful progress has been achieved in many important areas,
especially among the rural population.
Rural Living Conditions
National indicators regularly published by governments and international
agencies do not include any statistics on the living conditions
as exemplified by the type of housing available. Nor are there any
published statistics on the average space available -- or density
-- for each person in a house.
Housing is one of the top priorities for most people, regardless
of their income levels. In my interviews with many poor village
women, practically everyone listed housing as their most important
need -- above food, health care and education for their children.
Without the security and comfort of a home, there is no escaping
the difficulties resulting from poverty. Poor people do not have
the financial means to buy or construct houses with their savings,
and therefore they live in their ancestral huts, those rented from
landlords (with ensuing obligations), or government-supplied houses.
Poverty levels measured by monetary expenditures toward food do
not adequately capture the quality of life that is greatly affected
by the type of available housing. Adequate housing is considered
by many to be a fundamental human right regardless of income level
-- a basic necessity for all that cannot be denied in a fair and
equitable society. It is interrelated with other aspects of life
such as health and education. For example, children cannot study
in a poorly lit house. Respiratory disorders among rural population
in India are often the result of unfavorable housing and poor living
conditions. Asthma and bronchitis are caused by pollen grains, dust
mites, animal waste and several environmental factors related to
bad housing conditions. Poor sanitation and hygiene, inadequate
ventilation and smoke inhalation are all associated aspects of poor
housing that affect health and social development.
According to the National Family Health Survey, concluded in 2000
by the Indian government, only 19% of the rural population lives
in pucca (strong) houses, while the remaining live in kaccha (weak)
and semi-pucca houses with mud walls and thatched roofs. Eighty-seven
percent of homes in the villages do not have toilet facilities.
Cooking is usually done inside the house under inadequate ventilation
with biomass such as dried cow-dung, fire wood, dry weeds or crop
residue, exacerbating the risk of tuberculosis.
The 2001 Indian Census estimated that 40% of rural houses do not
have separate kitchens. When cooking is done inside the house, it
is usually on the floor in the corner of a room, sometimes separated
by a half-wall. Smoke fills the entire house during cooking, but
occupants usually prefer to remain inside. Coughing and spitting
are the resulting outcome, symptomatic of what finally leads to
chronic illnesses.
Profile of a Rural Village
A typical Indian village has a resident population of around one
thousand. While the layout of one village is different from another,
the following description might be representative of a vast majority.
Most villages are small and dense, with huts on either side of
narrow lanes. Open drainage usually runs along those lanes, clogged
and infested with mosquitoes. Except for those belonging to "upper
castes," homes are usually placed close to each other -- four
to five feet apart -- especially when the government builds housing
for the poor.
Landlords have their ancestral homes consisting of several rooms,
one of which is set aside for storing grain and supplies. Often,
prominent families of the upper castes live next to a courtyard
and a temple, which is usually set aside for those same upper castes.
"Lower castes" worship at a separate temple, a small decorated
room with an idol, in another section of the village or elsewhere.
Most villages have an open well or a bore-well, and separate times
are set for upper and lower castes to fetch water.
Most villages have both lower and upper castes living in separate
sections. People belonging to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled
Tribes (ST) are required to live in an area designated for them.
Those belonging to "Most Backward Classes," "Backward
Classes" and "Other Backward Classes" -- as they
are officially categorized -- usually live in the same area where
"Other Classes (Upper Castes)" live, but they do not mix
with even lower castes.
When the government builds homes for lower castes, it ensures this
caste separation. In many instances, the government sets up housing
colonies exclusively for Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and hence,
an entire new village might consist of families belonging to only
those castes.
Larger villages might have a school, a panchayat (local governing
body) office and a small gathering room for meetings. One or two
huts might also serve as a shop-cum-residence, selling sweets and
small household supplies. A somewhat leveled area might serve as
a playground for children. There are no vegetable or flower gardens
in the village, and farms are generally outside on adjacent land
owned by landlords or a small number of people who might have been
allocated government land for cultivation.
Paved or unpaved narrow roads connect one village to another, usually
separated by a few kilometers. One paved road (often not well maintained)
connects several villages to a rural town nearby where the government
has set up a primary health center to serve 25,000 people or more.
These towns have many shops that cater to the daily needs of people
living in the villages nearby.
A Typical Rural House
The rural poor live in huts and government-supplied "houses"
that are no more than 150-200 sq. ft. in floor area. Huts are usually
constructed from mud blocks, roofs are thatched and the floors are
covered with a mud and cow-dung paste that serves as a disinfectant.
Houses supplied by the government are constructed with cement blocks
or bricks, the floor is cement, and the roof is made of concrete
or asbestos. Usually there is only one room in the house, but in
some cases a half-wall may be built to separate out the kitchen.
These houses do not have their own toilets, but common toilets
are made available at some distance at one corner of the village
for several families to share. More often than not, these toilets
do not function nor are they maintained, doors are broken or absent,
and there is limited or no access to water close by. Hence, most
people prefer to go into a wooded section or elsewhere in the village
or nearby field where there is privacy.
Our foundation recently completed a field survey of two panchayats
consisting of nine villages in Hosur Taluk with 986 huts and houses
for a total population of 4,850 residents. The average number of
people per dwelling was 4.9. Huts are very small in size, often
without windows, and a narrow opening serves as the entrance.
Government-supplied houses are around 190 sq. ft. in floor area
which works out to 38 sq. ft. of floor space per person -- only
slightly more space than a full-size bed. Every house has two small
windows, but they are not sufficient to permit cross ventilation
or cooking smoke to escape freely. Those who have domestic animals
such as cows or goats usually keep them inside their houses during
the night.
At least a third of all houses included in the survey required
major repairs for leaky roofs, cracks in walls and damaged doors.
None of the lower caste residents has the financial means to spend
money on house repairs. While government-built houses are provided
free of cost, residents are required to pay a small tax to the panchayat.
The Tamil Nadu government estimates that a typical house for the
poor costs around Rs. 45,000 to build. The state allocates houses
to families belonging to scheduled and depressed castes based on
their economic status. However, anyone officially classified as
"poor" is eligible for a government grant of up to Rs.
45,000 (about $1,125) toward construction, provided that the applicant
owns suitable land for the house. The government offers different
financial schemes through banks that permit families to borrow money
at zero to low interest rates (10% to 12%) for purchasing or developing
land, and for construction of the dwelling. It also offers grants
of up to Rs. 10,000 ($250) for renovation of an existing house.
Most poor people do not have the ability to apply for these benefits
without the assistance of middlemen or the direct intervention of
government officials. Such intervention is expensive for the beneficiary
because it invites kickbacks, commissions and bribes. Further, government-built
houses are usually substandard because of poor workmanship and use
of defective materials.
A Failing Housing Program
Despite the allocation of considerable funds by central and state
governments, the housing program for the poor is failing for a number
of reasons. The plan is ill-conceived, focusing on offering shelter
as opposed to improving living conditions, and executed without
sufficient thought about many inter-related considerations.
While the government is the main promoter of housing schemes, several
non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and social entrepreneurship
ventures have also entered the arena. For the most part, NGOs have
to rely on donor funds that are hard to come by, and therefore their
contribution has not been significant. Social entrepreneurs who
expect a certain return on their investment are focusing on lower-middle-class
customers who are able to repay a mortgage or pay adequate rental;
these investors have not found a suitable financial arrangement
to offer housing to those who cannot pay the high interest rates
(ranging from 18% to 36%) that are usually charged.
Currently, the total supply of new housing is far short of the
100 million units that are needed at the very least, if the goal
is to offer adequate housing for every poor family. Bad construction
and poor maintenance are causing the breakdown of houses that were
built some time ago, adding to the need for substantial home improvement.
Further, many homes were built without considering the size of
the family or its likely new members, and consequently, they are
simply too dense or congested. The average floor space of 38 sq.
ft per individual, not including the space taken by cattle, creates
a very unhealthy and uncomfortable indoor environment.
The focus on offering houses as "shelters" has motivated
the government to look for cheap construction without offering even
basic necessities. Without a small separate kitchen and adequate
cross ventilation, for example, the entire house is turned into
a smoke stack not suited for human habitation. The absence of an
adjacent toilet with each house is inconsistent with any reasonable
concept of meeting minimum human needs. Unless existing houses are
extended to include a separate kitchen with proper ventilation and
a small toilet, they cannot be considered "livable" dwellings.
Additionally, government housing perpetuates the centuries-old
practice of separation of residences based on caste. Instead of
trying to break down this discriminatory practice, houses being
built by the government for the "scheduled castes" ensure
this separation. Further, the government has created a number of
identical structures in new areas, effectively creating "scheduled
caste colonies." It is hard to reconcile the government's official
position concerning discrimination and human rights, and what it
actually practices.
Focus on Community
The housing program as currently implemented will hardly improve
the living standards of the poor, nor will it contribute to social
justice. Before more funds are expended toward public housing, the
government is well advised to reconsider its approach to the problem.
In arriving at a new strategy for housing, planners must not lose
sight of other, interrelated goals such as offering basic amenities,
preventing diseases and assuring social integration. The approach
must shift from the current focus on offering shelter to developing
healthy and integrated communities. That might imply a departure
from a caste-based approach to assistance based on income levels.
While a great majority of the poor belong to lower castes at the
present time, and therefore would be eligible for assistance under
this approach, those belonging to higher castes should not be denied
assistance if they deserve it for reasons of low income. Only then
would it be possible to bring about social integration between different
castes. This will also permit upward mobility for lower caste families
who are able to afford better and bigger homes. Mixed-income housing
programs have been successfully implemented in countries like the
U.S. to bring about integration across race and class, and India
should not shy away from taking similar approaches to achieving
social equality among all its citizens.
Instead of replacing huts with cemented houses at the same location,
a better strategy might be to develop new communities at another
location close by. That would offer considerable flexibility in
properly laying out the entire housing complex. These new developments
may incorporate facilities for sharing water, sewage processing
and bio-gas production, as well as fruit and vegetable gardens and
small shops. When resources are shared instead of wasted, and everyone
lives in healthy conditions, overall productivity will increase
considerably.
Community development will certainly call for larger initial investment
than what is required for building shelters. However, the long-term
benefits associated with creating healthy and sustainable communities
are likely to be far greater than the short term savings from building
low-cost housing.
It is possible to recover some of the additional costs associated
with community development through innovative financing schemes
that require extended repayments by beneficiaries commensurate with
their increasing income levels. An appropriate partnership between
government, donors, investors and financial institutions can pave
the way for financial solutions that make it possible for beneficiaries
to carry some of the burden.
The issue of adequate housing is integral to poverty reduction
and social justice. It must not be viewed in isolation, but as part
of an effort to develop harmonious and healthy communities. In all
these issues, the real solution lies in good public governance,
building strong human foundations through education and health care,
creating economic opportunity, and ensuring social justice for all.
|
