Assessment of Shelter Programmes in
Andhra Pradesh
Darshini Mahadevia
Trishna Gogoi
December 2010
Centre for Urban Equity
(An NRC for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India) CEPT University
Working Paper - 11
Assessment of Shelter Programmes in
Andhra Pradesh
Darshini Mahadevia1
Trishna Gogoi2
December 2010
Centre for Urban Equity (An NRC for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India)
CEPT University
1 Member-Secretary Centre for Urban Equity, and Professor at the Faculty of Planning and Public Policy, CEPT
University. Email:[email protected]
2 Research Associate, Centre for Urban Equity, CEPT University, Email: [email protected]
Working Paper -11
2
Research is funded by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (MoHUPA), as an activity of the National Resource Centre of the MoHUPA. CEPT University is a designated NRC of the MoHUPA and Centre for Urban Equity (CUE) acts as CEPT NRC. This research was funded for the year 2009-2010. Authors are grateful to MoHUPA for this research funding. Authors would also like to acknowledge contribution of Ms. N. Vijaya Kumari for the field work in Andhra Pradesh. Our gratitude to the officials of the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. for making the data available to us. Last but not the least, our gratitude to the people who responded to our survey and made this research possible.
Disclaimer
The comments and opinions in this paper are of the authors and not of the Centre of Urban
Equity or CEPT University.
Acknowledgements
Contents
1 Shelter Security: the Policy Concern in India ...........................................................1
1.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................1
1.2 Shelter Security and Role of State .......................................................................4
1.3 Indian state and policies for shelter provision ....................................................5
1.3.1 Current urban housing scenario in India ..........................................................5
1.3.2 The Housing policy scenario in India ...............................................................7
1.4 Introduction to research locales .......................................................................11
1.5 Methodology ....................................................................................................12
2 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojna (VAMBAY) ......................................................... 14
2.1 Project locales ..................................................................................................15
2.2 Status of case-study sites: VAMBAY ..................................................................16
2.2.1 Availability of basic services ..........................................................................16
2.2.2 Availability of Physical and Social infrastructure ............................................17
2.2.3 Quality of housing .........................................................................................18
2.2.4 Expenditure Pattern ......................................................................................19
2.3 VAMBAY performance in Andhra Pradesh ........................................................20
3 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK) ....................................................................................... 23
3.1 Project locales ..................................................................................................23
3.2 Status of case-study site: RGK ...........................................................................24
3.2.1 Availability of Basic Services ..........................................................................24
3.2.2 Availability of Physical Infrastructure ............................................................25
3.2.3 Availability of Social Infrastructure ................................................................25
3.2.4 Housing Quality ............................................................................................25
3.2.5 Expenditure pattern ......................................................................................26
3.2.6 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa performance in Andhra Pradesh .......................................27
4 Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) ........................ 28
4
4.1 Project locales ..................................................................................................29
4.2 Status of case-study sites: IHSDP ......................................................................30
4.2.1 Availability of Basic Services ..........................................................................30
4.2.2 Availability of Physical and Social Infrastructure ...........................................30
4.2.3 Quality of Housing ........................................................................................31
4.2.4 Expenditure pattern ......................................................................................32
4.3 IHSDP performance in Andhra Pradesh.............................................................33
5 Critical Assessment on the housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh ................... 34
5.1 Post-project situation .......................................................................................35
5.2 Impact of rehabilitation ....................................................................................35
5.3 Absence of Community Participation ................................................................36
5.4 Summing up .....................................................................................................36
Table 1: Housing Shortage as per Socio-Economic Groups, 2007 estimates ................................6
Table 2: Status Update of BSUP and IHSDP (as on September 2010) .........................................6
Table 3: Shelter Programmes and their Coverage, Andhra Pradesh ........................................... 13
Table 4: Sample Selection for Current Research ....................................................................... 13
Table 5: Status of VAMBAY in Andhra Pradesh ...................................................................... 15
Table 6: Availability of Basic Services (% of hh) ...................................................................... 17
Table 7: Availability of Physical Infrastructure (hh in %) .......................................................... 17
Table 8: Status of Housing Structure (hh%) .............................................................................. 18
Table 9: Change in Average Expenditure for Different Items, NTR Nagar ................................ 19
Table 10: Distance travelled to work-place (% of hh), NTR Nagar ............................................ 20
Table 11: Change in the Average Expenditure on Select Items, Nandanavanam ........................ 20
Table 12: Coverage of households by Basic Services under RGK Scheme (% of hh) ................ 24
Table 13: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) ................................... 25
Table 14: Change in Average Expenditure per Household ......................................................... 26
Table 15: Distance to be travelled to the City Centre (% of hh) ................................................. 27
Table 16: Availability of Basic services, IHSDP (% of hh) ....................................................... 30
Table 17: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) ................................. 31
Table 18: Change in the Expenditure Pattern after In-Situ Development ................................... 32
Figure 2-1: VAMBAY Housing, Nandanavanam and Schematic design of Unit* ...................... 19
Figure 3-1: RGK Housing in Mamillaguda and Schematic plan* .............................................. 26
Figure 4-1: Relocated IHSDP housing in Mamillaguda ............................................................. 31
Figure 4-2: Site plan for Nalgonda ........................................................................................... 32
Boxes
Box 1: VAMBAY in the News……………………………………………………………………………21 Box 2: Rajiv Gruha Kalpa in the News……………………………………………………………………27
1
1 Shelter Security: the Policy Concern in India
1.1 Introduction
Housing is a primordial human need, with importance next only to food and clothes. It is
important not only for human well-being but also for the economic benefits to the household and
the nation. This being recognised, Habitat I Conference was held for the first time in 1976 at
Vancouver, which declared:
“The improvement of the quality of life of human beings is the first and most important objective of
every human settlement policy. These policies must facilitate the rapid and continuous improvement in
the quality of life of all people, beginning with the satisfaction of the basic needs of food, shelter, clean
water, employment, health, education, training and social security without any discrimination of race,
colour, sex, language, religion, ideology, national or social origin or other cause, in a frame of freedom,
dignity and social justice. …. In striving to achieve this objective, priority must be given to the needs of
the most disadvantaged people.”1
The Habitat Conference declarations set the tone for domestic policies. But, the policies have to
emanate also from the international treaties on human rights, to which India has been a signatory.
Housing is considered as a basic human right in the international policy making and UN treaties.
India is a signatory to the following treaties:
i) Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948 - This was the first international instrument that
recognised that the right to adequate housing is an important component of the right to an
adequate standard of living.
ii) International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), 1996 – This act
reaffirms and elaborates the right to adequate housing because adequate standard of living
includes adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living
conditions.
iii) General Comment of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) -
The CESCR has provided a holistic understanding of housing through its General Comments:
“In the committee’s view, the right to housing should not be interpreted in a narrow or restrictive
sense, which equates it with, for example, the shelter provided by merely having a roof over
one’s head or views shelter exclusively as a commodity. Rather, it should be seen as the right to
live somewhere in security, peace and dignity. While adequacy is determined in part by social,
economic, cultural, climatic, ecological and other factors, the Committee believes that it is
nevertheless possible to identify certain aspects of the right that must be taken into account for
2
this purpose in any particular context. They include the following seven core elements to
determine the adequacy of housing:
• Legal security of tenure, including legal protection against forced evictions;
• Availability of services, materials, facilities and infrastructure;
• Affordability;
• Habitability;
• Accessibility for disadvantaged groups;
• Location, and
• Cultural adequacy”2
iv) Convention on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination – Article 5 of the Convention
obliges State parties to undertake to prohibit and to eliminate racial discrimination in all its forms
and to guarantee the right of everyone, without distinction as to race, colour, or national or ethnic
origin, to equality before the law, notably in the enjoyment of the right to own property and the
right to housing.
vii) The Declaration on the Right to Development (1986) – This was adopted by the UN General
Assembly in Resolution 41/128 on December 4, 1986, under declares: “States should undertake,
at the national level, all necessary measures for the realisation of the right to development and
shall ensure, inter alia, equality of opportunity for all in their access to basic resources,
education, health services, food, housing, employment and the fair distribution of income. …
Appropriate economic and social reforms should be carried out with the view to eradicating all
social injustices.”
viii) Agenda 21 (UNCED, 1992) – This was adopted at the UN World Conference on
Environment and Development (UNCED), held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, in June 1992. The
aspects covered by this agenda are:
• Safe and healthy shelter is essential to a person’s physical, psychological, social and
economic well-being;
• Provision of housing should be a fundamental part of national and international action;
• All countries should adopt and/or strengthen national shelter strategies, with targets based,
as appropriate, on the principles and recommendations contained in the Global Strategy for
Shelter to the Year 2000;
• People should be protected by law against unfair eviction from their homes or land;
• All countries should, as appropriate, support the shelter efforts of the urban and the rural
poor, the unemployed and the no-income group by adopting and/or adapting existing codes
and regulations, to facilitate their access to land, finance and low-cost building material;
3
• Countries should promote the regularisation and upgrading of informal settlements and
urban slums as an expedient measure and pragmatic solution to the urban shelter deficit;
• States should establish appropriate forms of land tenure, which provide security of tenure
for all land users, especially indigenous people, women, local communities, low-income
urban dwellers and the rural poor.
The issue of shelter security has been covered also in the Millennium Development Goals
(MDG). Goal 1 of the MDGs is about eradication of extreme poverty and hunger and the target is
halving the proportion of people whose income is less than US$ 1 a day. Shelter security is a
means for the urban poor to improve their living conditions, which in turn has potential to
improve their health and by that employment and incomes, all these resulting in coming out of
poverty and transforming their lives (Mahadevia 2010).
The goal 7 of the MDGs is about ensuring environmental sustainability. Two targets within this
goal; target 10 of halving the proportion of population without safe water and basic sanitation
and target 11 of significant improvement in the lives of at the least 100 million slum dwellers by
2020 are directly related to improvement of living conditions of the slum dwellers and the urban
poor. Hasan et al (2005) suggest that meeting of the MDGs would mean (i) doing urban
development in another way than has been done till now, in other words t change the urban
development paradigm, (ii) addressing at the least water and sanitation needs immediately, and
not through privatisation as is being sought to be done now; (iii) addressing land availability for
the poor through either tenure regularisation or through creation of new housing for the low
income groups and (iv) financing alternatives for the slum dwellers.
The Istanbul Declaration (para. 8) and the Habitat Agenda (para. 39), both have, “reaffirmed the
commitment to the full and progressive realisation of the right to adequate housing, as provided
for in international instruments”. Shelter security efforts globally are aimed at reducing poverty
and inequality, focussing on issues of livelihood, health care, gender equality and housing, etc.
In keeping with the global discussions on ‘housing as a human right’, promoted in the UN-
HABITAT declarations (1976, 1996, 2001, 20023), and now with the purpose of meeting the
targets of the MDGs, developing countries around the world have been reformulating their
housing policies. In India also, and for the first time, large-scale housing programme has been
launched, on account of the first ever national urban renewal mission named Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) in 2005. The housing component of the mission is
the Basic Services for the Urban Poor (BSUP) for the mission cities and Integrated Housing and
Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) for the non-mission cities. All the existing public
housing programmes for the Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) or Low Income Groups
(LIG), either of the national government, such as Valmiki Ambedkar Awaas Yojana
4
(VAMBAY) or the state level programmes, wherever they existed, have been subsumed under
the BSUP and IHSDP. There is a need to assess the achievements of the past public housing
programmes and now the BSUP and the IHSDP, wherever implemented. While, the BSUP and
IHSDP were under implementation, the national government, looking at the preliminary results
coming from their implementation, realised that the ongoing efforts were too fragmented and that
probably not reaching the target population on account of non-participation of the slum dwelling
communities. The national government therefore is in the process of launching a national level
urban housing programme named the Rajiv Awaas Yojana (RAY).
As mentioned, the early reports about implementation of BSUP indicated that there was total
lack of community participation and by that neglect of social aspects of housing in the
programme. In some cities in Gujarat, the dwelling units constructed under the BSUP
programme were being used for the purpose of rehabilitating those displaced by city-level
infrastructure programmes (For Ahmedabad see Our Inclusive Ahmedabad 2010 and for Surat
see Mahadevia and Shah 2010). The BSUP as a result has become a programme of rehabilitation
rather than creating housing stock for the slum dwellers and the urban poor on new sites. The
preliminary reports also suggest that the new housing sites have been located outside the city
creating a general overall problem of accessibility for those allotted the new BSUP housing. It is
in this context that this paper takes a critical look at the public housing provisions by the
government in Andhra Pradesh and analyse the impact of housing programmes on the
beneficiary-communities through assessment of pre and post-project conditions.
1.2 Shelter Security and Role of State
Shelter security is a state responsibility. Global experience, both in capitalist as well as socialist
countries, has shown that when the state delivers social security, be it in housing or any other
sector, it enables citizens across income- and social-groups to become independent of the
market-forces. The state can implement uniform standards of social security across all groups,
which is not possible for private, non-formal agencies (UNRISD 2010).
The 1980s saw the developing countries recognising ‘housing as a basic and merit good and a
prominent element of social security’ (Mahadeva, 2006, UNRISD, 2010, UN’s MDGs). But, at
the same time, the countries went ahead with implementing the policy package under the
conditions of Structural Adjustment Programme, which meant the state withdrew from the
provisioning of housing and shifting to just facilitating its households to access shelter/ housing
through deregulating land (with the assumption that this would increase the supply of land),
making finance available and bringing in the private sector to construct housing. In India, the
public agencies gradually withdrew from providing public housing and begun to implement
shelter upgradation and sites and services programmes (Mahadevia 2002).
5
Within the neo-liberal policy agenda, the state policy is seen to be relegated to just providing for
the neediest in the times of crisis, rather than improving the macro-policy scenario and
governance as a whole as is expected of welfare states. Providing respite to target-groups became
an accepted measure of public action and thus created an exclusionary environment even within
the targeted groups. Moreover, social welfare and social security was left to market-forces, with
extension of privatization into healthcare, insurance, education and housing (UNRISD, 2010).
Market-based reforms brought about by liberalization were expected to bring efficient market
systems, from which benefits would trickle down to all sections of the society. The failure to
bridge the gap between vision of efficiency and equity as well as final implementation permeates
all public housing schemes, not only in India, but across the world. Evidence is the failure of
popular approaches to poverty-reduction, namely, Millennium Development Goals (MDG), IMF
and World Bank’s Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers, etc. (Esser 2009, Clemens and Moss,
2005). The various declarations on housing and human settlement (HABITAT I, 1976;
HABITAT II, 1996) have reiterated the importance of an integrated housing market, with active
participation from all stakeholders, including, private sector, NGOs, communities, local
authorities, etc. Non-state and private agencies cannot substitute state’s role in social security
provision and public action. It is only the state which can create conditions for other
stakeholders’ involvement in the development sector – directly, through various subsidies and
regulations, and indirectly, through the design and scope of public interventions (UNRISD 2010,
Mahadeva 2006, Sivam et el, 2001).
The 11th Five Year Plan of India, with “Inclusive Growth” has brought back focus to housing and
shelter security in urban India. However, ironically, the “Inclusive Growth” agenda is moored
within the neo-liberal macro paradigm, leading to vacillation in the role of the state in provision
of housing. India’s urban housing scenario and current policies are discussed in the next section.
1.3 Indian state and policies for shelter provision
1.3.1 Current urban housing scenario in India
The MoHUPA in 2007 commissioned a Working Group on Urban Housing4 with a focus on
Slums to analyse housing situation in the 11th Five Year Plan period. Their final estimate is a
housing shortage of 24.71 million (as in 2007) in the urban sector. This estimate has been arrived
thus. For an estimated 66.30 million urban households, the acceptable housing units are 58.83
million. India’s average family size is 5.1 (as per Census 2001). One important dimension of
housing shortage is congested living, which is defined as atleast one married couple in the house
not having a separate room to live in. The report estimated such congested urban housing to be
nearly 12.67 million housing units. Further, estimated 2.39 million units were considered to be
obsolete; these are dwelling units which are 40-80 years old and require re-building or
maintenance. Nearly 9.78 million existing housing units are semi-pucca or kutcha, of which the
6
kutcha (2.18 million) needs to be upgraded. All these add up to 24.71 million units at the
beginning of the 11th Five Year Plan (2007) and reaching 26.53 million at the end of the period
(2012), in case there is no intervention.
The report has estimated that the nearly 98 per cent of High Income Groups (HIG) and 92 per
cent of Middle Income Groups (MIG) households have pucca housing units; in contrast, only 10
per cent of Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) households and 2 per cent Low Income
Groups (LIG) households live in pucca housing (pp 34). Thus, it is the EWS and LIG sections of
the society who would require housing supply as public housing from the government, while the
HIG and MIG can be serviced by the open markets. The report stated that nearly 88.13 per cent
of all kutcha houses are occupied by EWS households, while 11.39 per cent by LIG households
(pp.34).
Table 1: Housing Shortage as per Socio-Economic Groups, 2007 estimates Socio-economic category Housing shortage in 2007 (figs in mn)
EWS 21.78
LIG 2.89
MIG 0.04
HIG
Total 24.71
Source: MoHUPA 2010
Table 2: Status Update of BSUP and IHSDP (as on September 2010)
Indicators BSUP IHSDP Total Requirement as per
MoHUPA estimates
Budget allocation
(Rs. in Mn) 163,563.50 68,283.10 2,31,846.60 14,71,950
No. of houses sanctioned (units) 1,028,503 512,108 1,540,611 26,53,000
No. of houses completed (units) 244,247 96,029 340,276 -
Source: www. jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/jnnurm/DMU_REPORT_JNNURM.pdf, accessed on 1 December 2010
The funding required to meet the total housing shortage at the beginning of the 11th plan period
(which is 2007) had been estimated at Rs. 1,471,950 million. Another 7.26 million units
requirement will arise during the plan period, for which another Rs. 2,141,231 million would be
required. Since 2005, JNNURM’s second sub-mission on housing; Basic Services for the Urban
Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP), has been
addressing the housing and infrastructure requirements of the slum dwellers in India. The BSUP
is meant for the JnNURM’s mission cities and IHSDP for the non-mission cities. As per
September 2010, the MoHUPA’s status of these projects has been as given in Table 2.
Table 2 clearly indicates the sluggish pace of the current programmes to reach the required
goals. As of September 2010, total new housing stock created has been only 3.40 million units,
7
thereby lagging behind 23 million units more to meet the 11th Plan period deadline. Even the
budget allocation at Rs.2.31 million is way short of the estimated requirement of Rs. 14.71
million. It indicates that in the next 2 years, Rs. 12.4 million will be required to be spent, if India
is to meet the urban housing targets.
1.3.2 The Housing policy scenario in India
Unlike other east and south-east Asian economies, India was not deeply impacted by the Asian
crisis of 1997-1998. But, the economic crises of the late 1980s affected India, and the country
decided to liberalize the economy from 1991. Post-1991 period has seen a landmark paradigm
change in the country’s development policy approach. In the housing sector, the post-
liberalization reforms introduced the provision of housing finance and structured housing market
(UNRISD 2010). As per the Constitution of India, ‘right to shelter’ is included in the basket of
rights provided in Article 21 in the ‘Right to life’. Yet, housing sector has seen critical shortages
in housing stock for both vulnerable and middle-income groups as well as a highly unregulated
overall housing market.
After economic reforms two housing policies were framed but were left in the draft stage. These
were the National Housing Policy (NHP) of 1992, the 1987 draft becoming a full policy and then
National Housing and Habitat Policy of 1998. Both have emphasised increasing the supply of
urban housing and land, mainly by taking care of the supply side factors. In support of that,
Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation (ULCR) Act was repealed in 1999. Other policy changes
with regards to land are introduction of new land management practices, namely, public-private
partnerships for increasing land supply. In Mumbai, a new concept of Transfer of Development
Rights (TDR5) has been introduced to make land accessible for public purposes in those parts of
the city that do not have many vacant lands and where the land prices are high. Besides repealing
ULCR Act, other land deregulations have come. These are introduced through changes in
Development Control Regulations (DCRs) in some cities. For example, in Mumbai, the new
DCRs permit increase of Floor Space Index (FSI6) from 1.33 to 2.5 (Mahadevia 1998).
Relaxations of building bye-laws and zoning regulations have been introduced by taking
minimum penalty and granting indemnity to the violators of these regulations.
The Eighth Plan suggests that housing should be facilitated through removal in legal bottlenecks
in land and housing supply, and increase in formal sector financial flows to the housing sector. It
also implored increasing private sector participation in housing sector, especially for the
development of metropolitan fringe areas. Lastly, it proposed to increase the coverage of credit
for housing through links of formal and informal institutions, NGOs and community
organisations. In shelter programmes, the Urban Basic Services was converted into Urban Basic
Services for the Poor (UBSP) in 1992. The UBSP was discontinued in 1997. In place, National
8
Slum Development Programme (NSDP) was launched in 1996. This also was discontinued
subsequently and replaced by Valmiki Ambedkar Awaas Yojana (VAMBAY).
On the Independence Day on 2001, the Prime Minister of India announced a first-ever subsidy
based housing scheme for the urban slum dwellers worth Rs. 2,000 crores (Rs. 20 billion) and
named it VAMBAY. Half the funds were envisaged to come from the yearly subsidy and another
half from the Tenth Five Year Plan as loan. Expectedly, atleast 0.4 million (4 lakhs) of additional
housing for the poor were to be constructed by HUDCO every year. A component of this scheme
was a new sanitation programme called Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan aimed at providing toilet
facilities in the slums to be maintained by the slum dwellers themselves.
In 2005, the national government came up with its first major urban development programme
named the JNNURM, which has a sub-mission of BSUP, as already mentioned earlier. For the
non-mission cities, IHSDP programme is under implementation. The figures of the achievements
under the two programmes are already presented earlier.
While the JNNURM was being implemented, in 2007, the national government adopted a
National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy (NUHHP). The core of the policy is provision of
“Affordable Housing For All” and increase in supply of the same through bringing more players
into the process, mainly the private sector developers. The policy is incentivising the these
private players to come into this low value low profit margin market to address the severe
housing shortages for the urban poor, especially in the wake of expected increased rate of
urbanisation. The private sector would not be engaged solely as the construction contractors, as
was the case with regards to the public housing till now but also as organisers and managers of
the projects, bringing in the land and finance and also keeping up high rate of construction while
the government would facilitate through various incentives. “This Policy seeks to assist the
poorest of poor who cannot afford to pay the entire price of a house by providing them access to
reasonably good housing on rental and ownership basis with suitable subsidization. The Policy
seeks to enhance the supply of houses especially for the disadvantaged, duly supplemented by
basic services.”
As far as finance is concerned, the Policy seeks to develop innovative financial instruments like
development of Mortgage Backed Securitization Market (RMBS) and Secondary Mortgage
Market. It also seeks to attract Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in areas like integrated
development of housing and new township development. Most importantly, this Policy seeks to
emphasize appropriate fiscal concessions for housing and infrastructure. For example, it states
that it would support development of “suitable fiscal concessions in collaboration with the
Ministry of Finance for promotion of housing and urban infrastructure with special focus on
EWS/LIG beneficiaries combined with a monitoring mechanism for effective targeting. There is
9
also emphasis on use of appropriate technology for reducing the cost of construction. In essence,
it envisages that the demand for affordable housing is so large that finance of the tune mentioned
earlier in the paper would be required and for which new sources would have to be tapped.
The policy is based on the role of the government to be an enabler and a regulator and not a doer.
The policy therefore emphasises on a strong role of the private sector in creating new housing for
the urban poor. There is a great stress in the policy on Public Private Partnership (PPP). The
policy is in a way in tune with the privatisation philosophy of the JNNURM. The policy also lays
stress on creation of new housing, even for the low income households.
The Policy lays out the role of central government, the state government and the local
government in this endeavour. The role of the central government is envisaged as one of being a
facilitator, through encouraging legal reforms at the state government level and bringing about
national level policy changes. The role of the state government is envisaged as that of a direct
facilitator, who would, in coordination with the local government prepare state level housing and
habitat policy, act as facilitator for increasing housing supply by ensuring multiple partners
coming in, ensure suitable flow of financial resources to potential EWS/LIG beneficiaries as well
as undertake viability gap funding of large housing and habitat development projects, bring about
changes in legal and regulatory framework, promote PPP, encourage all community level efforts
of increasing housing supply, and promote in-situ upgradation of existing slums. For increasing
land supply, land management tools such as the TDR and increase in FSI/ FAR, have been
suggested. The states are expected to ensure development of new townships and Special
Economic Zones (SEZs), where new housing stock would be created.
Specific areas of Action are also given in the Policy. Some important ones, that are not already
stated above are listed here:
i) Land assembly, development and disposal will be encouraged both in the public and
private sectors.
ii) Private Sector will be allowed to assemble a reasonable size of land in consonance with
the Master Plan/Development Plan of each city/town.
iii) The feasibility of a National Shelter Fund to be set up under the control of the National
Housing Bank for providing subsidy support to EWS/LIG housing would be examined in
consultation with Ministry of Finance. The NHB will act as a refinance institution for the
housing sector.
iv) States/UTs will be advised to develop 10 years perspective Housing Plans with emphasis
on EWS and LIG sectors.
v) Special financial and spatial incentives would be developed for inner-city slum
redevelopment schemes.
10
vi) The Central and State/UT Governments would develop a special package of incentives
for in-situ slum upgradation.
vii) Rental housing provides a viable alternative option to the home seekers and the house
providers alike. Incentives are to be provided for encouraging lendings by financial
institutions, HFIs and Banks for rental housing. Also, Companies and Employers will be
encouraged to invest in the construction of rental housing for their employees.
viii) Micro-Finance Institutions (MFIs) would be promoted at State level to expedite the flow
of finance to urban poor. In this regard, suitable mechanisms would be evolved to
develop simplified norms for prudential rating and providing finance to MFIs. Adequate
regulation of MFIs would be undertaken to ensure that MFIs do not burden the poor by
charging usurious interest rates and their operations are kept transparent.
ix) Legal measures suggested are in tune with the provisions of the JNNURM.
There are large number of action areas suggested for slum improvement and upgradation, given
that the thrust of the ministry is to minimize rehabilitation:
i) To carry forward the initiatives taken up under the JNNURM, such as slum improvement
as well as in-situ slum rehabilitation along with provision of security of tenure,
affordable housing and basic services to the urban poor.
ii) Inner-city slum redevelopment programmes for creating a better environment, to be
encouraged with cross subsidization and special incentives.
iii) Land pooling and sharing arrangements to be encouraged in order to facilitate land
development and improvement of basic amenities in slums.
iv) To carefully consider the release of TDRs and additional FAR for accelerating private
investment in provision of shelter to the poor. CBOs, NGOs and Self-Help Groups
(SHGs) to be involved in partnership with the private sector.
v) To ensure that the shelter provision for the poor is near their present work place and that
non-transferable land tenure rights are provided to them for atleast a period of 10-15
years.
vi) Only in cases, where relocation is necessary on account of severe water pollution, safety
problems on account of proximity to rail track or other critical concerns relocation of
slum dwellers will be undertaken. In such cases, special efforts will be made to ensure
fast and reliable transportation to work sites.
Like most other developing countries, India has tried to promote social protection and equity in
tandem with economic development throughout all the national plans. However, urban poverty
as a concern in national planning found its roots in the Sixth Five Year Plan (1980-1985) ¬
where for the first time the centrally-sponsored programme, Environmental Improvement of
Urban Slums (EIUS) was established to improve slum environment and for site and services
11
projects in several cities. Post 1990s, the push towards slum development and poverty alleviation
programmes, saw an upsurge in tandem with India’s exponentially growing urbanization, albeit,
the changes being cosmetic in nature. The urban governance framework encompassing
institutions, financial allocations, provision of basic services and infrastructure, etc., has seen a
shift towards decentralization and inclusive planning (Mathur 2009).
Added to this policy scenario is the more recent Rajiv Awaas Yojana (RAY) 2009, which is
putting forward the policy of giving property rights or tenure guarantee to the slum dwellers as a
critical element in shelter security. Studies on-going for appropriate guidelines to implement this
policy have thrown up critical issues like, community participation in - surveys, choice of land
tenure or development model, etc. Another point being emphasised in RAY discussions is the in-
situ development of slums; and in case a slum has to be rehabilitated, it should be within the
same ward. However, housing is still being treated as a commodity which is evident from the
fact that the Government has kept a caveat in the RAY guidelines that states can take the RAY
scheme provided lands, when it deems fit.
1.4 Introduction to research locales
Our research is focussed on assessing public housing programmes for the poor, focussing on the
JNNURM housing schemes currently being implemented across the country. Public housing at
such a large scale has never been implemented in India, thus the schemes already completed can
be studied through a critical assessment of pre and post housing conditions of the scheme
occupants. We decided to select Andhra Pradesh as our research locale keeping in mind that the
state has long established welfare traditions and also a long history of urban public housing
programmes. While undertaking this research on assessment of the BSUP of the JNNURM, we
decided to also assess other urban housing programmes as well to get a comprehensive
understanding of the efficacy of public housing programmes in the urban areas of the state.
In Andhra Pradesh (AP), the slum population is 38 per cent of the total urban population
(MoHUPA, 2010). The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) has indicated that
there are 1,342 slums within Hyderabad, in which the non-notified slums have higher density of
population. Again, nearly 57 per cent of the slums are on private lands of which almost 80 per
cent slums date back more than 20 years (Adusumili 2001).
AP is the first Indian state to establish an organisation to work exclusively towards ‘housing for
all’ – the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Ltd. (APSHCL). Formed post-tsunami in
1979, APSHCL has been mandated with numerous housing programmes like INDIRAMMA in
1983; Indira Awas Yojna 2002-03 and Urban Permanent Housing 2006. Currently, the BSUP,
IHSDP, VAMBAY, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK), are being implemented by the APSHCL. On the
whole, the AP state government has implemented a slew of urban improvement programmes
12
over the years – Slum Clearance Scheme, Slum Improvement Programme, Environmental
Improvement Scheme, Housing Scheme for Urban Poor, Integrated Urban Development
Programme, Hyderabad Slum Improvement Project and the Urban Community Development
Programme.
The legislation supporting housing programmes in the state is the AP Slum Improvement
(Acquisition of Land) Act, 1956. It has facilitated the government to acquire land where the
slums were located and to carry our slum improvement activities. This Act along with the
popular Urban Community Development Programme (UCD) delivered nearly 20,000 ‘pattas’
(land tenure) and upgraded 12,000. Another measure promoting welfare action was the ‘land
sharing’ concept initiated in 1985, which let slum dwellers and land owners to use the privately
owned land as per a legal land sharing agreement. Thus Andhra Pradesh has since long had
established welfare measures, and successfully implemented many programmes for urban poor.
(Adusumilli 2001, CGG 2009)
The objective of this research is to assess the impact of the housing programmes for poor in
urban areas. Research on the resultant changes brought about in the physical quality of life of
slum dwellers, as well as the changes in their expenditure pattern with the change in their
housing conditions is the objective of the study. This study has obtained data on the
beneficiaries’ living conditions before and after the housing projects. The merit of this research
is that it brings on record such an analysis, and also brings out a comparative analysis of different
programmes to learn from them.
1.5 Methodology
The core concern of this research is to understand the status of public housing projects in Andhra
Pradesh. Based on the coverage of these programmes and also their stage of implementation, we
had selected a few programmes for detailed assessment. We selected the VAMBAY project
(VAMBAY has been subsumed with IHSDP currently), the Integrated Housing and Slum
Development Programme (IHSDP) and Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (former housing programme now
converged with the INDIRAMMA) schemes for detailed assessment. Table 3 gives the coverage
of the ongoing shelter programmes in the state in the middle of 2009.
The detailed assessment includes documenting the current stage of implementation of the
scheme in different locations in the state, conducting the Focussed Group Discussions (FGDs)
with the beneficiaries and then canvassing structured questionnaire survey to assess the success
of the programme. The structured questionnaire survey assesses whether there has been reported
gentrification of the schemes, status of basic services and infrastructure provision and the
concerns for rehabilitation.
13
Table 3: Shelter Programmes and their Coverage, Andhra Pradesh Scheme Cities covered Cities selected for assessment
VAMBAY Hyderabad, Vijaywada, Vishakhapatnam
Other municipal corporations Hyderabad
Rajiv Gruh
Kalpa
Anantpur, Chittoor, East Godavari, Karimnagar,
Guntoor, Khammam, Kurnool, Mehbubnagar,
Nalgonda, Nizamabad, Rangareddy,
Srikakulum, Vishakhapatnam, Warangal
Nalgonda
IHSDP All districts Nalgonda
BSUP Hyderabad, Vishkhapatnam, Vijaywada
Hyderabad (not occupied at the time of
survey). But, the site was visited and
general information was collected from
officials – not included in detailed
discussions in this paper
Of the municipal corporations where VAMBAY was implemented, we selected Hyderabad for
our study. In Hyderabad, two VAMBAY housing colonies have been taken up for assessment –
NTR Nagar in Yellamabanda and Nandanavanam in Kukatpalli. The slums were selected on the
following basis: the Yellamabanda slum cluster has three slums with about 2,400 households
(hh) – NTR Nagar (Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Nagar), PJR Nagar (P. Janardhan Reddy) and
Sikh Nagar. In PJR Nagar (1,000 hh), all the residents are rehabilitees from Jubilee hills; in Sikh
Nagar (700 hh) all the residents belong to the Sikh community, and NTR Nagar (700 hh) is
mixed colony of rehabilitees from various locations of the city as well as of those who had
applied for new housing to the APHSLC. Since the NTR Nagar site is of mixed allotment, this
site has been selected as a sample for the study. Nadanavanam was selected as this site is large
with 328 households. In short, assessment of VAMBAY is based on sample drawn from NTR
Nagar of Yellamabanda and Nandanavanam (Table 4).
Table 4: Sample Selection for Current Research
Programme City Site Dwelling Units completed
Sample
VAMBAY Hyderabad NTR Nagar, Yellamabanda 328 67 Nandanavanam, Kukatpalli 700 72
BSUP Hyderabad` Charlapally 1,200 5 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa Nalgonda Mamillaguda 192 49
IHSDP Nalgonda Pangal (in-situ development) 184 54 Mamillaguda (relocation) 194 23
For all other programmes, we have surveyed only the households who had occupied the new
housing. To be able to do so, we had visited all large housing sites in the cities selected for the
research. We will like to put on record that Andhra Pradesh was reeling under severe floods in
the period of our survey. For BSUP, we selected Hyderabad. But, here we found that only 5
14
households had occupied the housing in 2009 when we had visited them. Thus, we could not
undertake any survey here but held discussions with them. We selected Nalgonda for assessing
Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK), where 196 houses were allotted but only 49 were occupied in
Mamillaguda site. We selected all 49 households for our survey. For IHSDP also, we selected
Nalgonda. IHSDP programme in Nalgonda has two sites; one which is a relocation site where
194 units have been constructed and two, which is an in-situ development where 184 units have
been constructed. The former site is at Mamillaguda and the latter at Pangal. At Pangal there are
three settlements, Chaitanyanagar, Sri Krishnanagar and Pangal and we have selected the last
one (Table 4).
Comparative analysis of all the housing programmes has been carried out, assessing their current
living conditions against their former housing (prior to shifting to a new public housing unit).
The living conditions assessed include housing condition, availability of basic services, access to
social infrastructure and access to work. The main criteria for assessment are:
Availability of basic services and infrastructure: All the housing schemes are efforts towards
providing housing and basic infrastructure to all urban BPL families. In this light, the current
study is an attempt to analyze the coverage of beneficiaries under different components of the
programme.
Housing quality: It is not enough to alone provide housing and environmental infrastructure –
the construction materials, size of the unit, living environment, etc., should contribute towards
better living standards.
Expenditure pattern: Availability of basic services and transportation, distance to city centre,
workplace, community centre (markets), etc., impacts the expenses of a household. The change
in the expenses of a household is a direct indicator of the changes brought about by the housing
conditions. Thus, the household expenditure pattern is analysed to gauge the impact the housing
programme has brought about for the communities.
2 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojna (VAMBAY)
Since the launch of BSUP under JNNURM in 2005, VAMBAY in Andhra Pradesh has been
subsumed under it, along with other existing programmes such as National Slum Development
Programme (NSDP) and Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rojgar Yojna (SJSRY) to ensure an integrated
provision of drinking water, sanitation and drainage facilities along with housing. VAMBAY
envisages redevelopment of existing slums and also relocation of slums. VAMBAY
simultaneously had the component of community toilets under Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA)
aimed at providing health services and an enabling urban environment. Nearly, 20 per cent of the
15
total allocation under VAMBAY was to be provided for sanitation and community toilets were to
be built for the urban poor and slum dwellers. (MoHUPA7)
By 2006, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (GHMC) completed more than 33,000
dwelling units along with infrastructure and basic service provision. However, unlike the costing
figures presented in the guidelines from MHUPA, GHMC applied revised costs per unit for
Hyderabad. The Rs. 2.67 lakhs cost per unit as proposed by GHMC was composed of
contributions of 50 per cent by the Government of India (GoI); 20 per cent from the Government
of Andhra Pradesh; 20 per cent from bank loan to the beneficiary and 10 per cent as down
payment by the beneficiary. However, this financial proposal was rejected by the GoI and thus,
GHMC cancelled more than 27,379 units. The increasing cost of providing infrastructure and
housing both has made it difficult for the GHMC to meet the targets set as well as maintain the
quality of construction.
Table 5: Status of VAMBAY in Andhra Pradesh Allocation and physical progress Housing Toilets
Cumulative allocation (GoI subsidy in Rs. lakhs) 10,646
GoI subsidy released (in Rs. Lakhs) 22,867 57
Units sanctioned 99,190 392
Physical Progress – Completed up till December 2006 63,644 138
Source: Data from GHMC officials. 2009
2.1 Project locales
The two project locations selected are: NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam in Hyderabad. Majority
of the residents are living in NTR Nagar since 2002-2003. Some residents are project-affected
people (PAP) – households relocated from Lakdi-ka-pul due to the new Master Plan proposal of
Multi-Modal Transport System (MMTS) train route. Others are relocated from Amirpet – the
quarters of the employees in JJ Government Mental Hospital which were demolished and the
residents were relocated to NTR Nagar. The rest of the households in NTR Nagar are formally
registered allottees under VAMBAY scheme. NTR Nagar is a mixed allotment of people of 700
families with a higher concentration of Hindus, who comprise about half of the occupants.
Average family size in NTR Nagar is 5.5. Almost 50 per cent of the surveyed households fall
within the income bracket of Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 10,000 per month; averaging at an income of
around Rs.7,000 per month. Many of the households are regular job holders at JJ Government
Mental Hospital, Amirpet; remaining residents are construction labour or vendors. Nearly 40 per
cent of the surveyed households migrated to Hyderabad between 5 to 10 years ago. Primary
survey showed that the composition of households in this VAMBAY settlement today stands as
thus – about 60 per cent of allottees have rented out their houses, while about 5 per cent have
sold out their allotted houses; the remaining 35 per cent allottees are continuing to stay here.
16
In the other site, Nandanavanam, Uppal, most of households have been relocated from around
Hyderabad Municipal Corporation – Musarambag near Musi river, Uppal, Champapet, Ajumpur,
Chandarghat, Ramtanpuram, and Pedda Kottapalli. The slum dwellers of Nadanavanam are
predominantly Hindus (80 per cent) of scheduled caste (50 per cent). The household has an
average of 4-5 members and the maximum education level is up to senior secondary level.
Nearly 54 per cent of the surveyed households fall within the income category of Rs.1,500 to
Rs.5,000, averaging at Rs. 3000 per month. The residents are primarily engaged as labour in
construction work, as taxi drivers, auto drivers, while some are regular job holders. Nearly 37 per
cent of the surveyed households migrated to Hyderabad city less than 5 years ago, while 30 per
cent households reported to have migrated more than 10 years ago. Currently the composition of
the households in Nandanavanam is as follows: around 30 per cent of the houses were rented out,
15 per cent were sold out for a price range of Rs 100,000 to Rs.250,000 and about 55 per cent of
the residents here are the original allottees.
People started shifting into Nandanavanam in about 2004 and the process is still on-going. None
of the allottees are satisfied with the housing scheme – when it was opened in 2004, the colony
did not have basic facilities of electricity, water connection and drainage. It was reported that the
officials promised to put up permanent facilities once all the houses were occupied. It has taken
many years to convince people to claim their dwelling units in this colony because of the lack of
basic services.
2.2 Status of case-study sites: VAMBAY
2.2.1 Availability of basic services
In NTR Nagar, individual water supply was reported to cover 100 per cent of slum households
(Table 6). However, water connection provision was completed only in 2008, while the
settlement had started populating nearly 7-8 years ago, in 2003. Individual toilets and sewerage
line have been provided under the Nirmal Bharat Abhiyan (NBA). However, the availability of
both, individual toilets and sewerage lines, have not solved the issue of sanitation in NTR Nagar.
The sewerage lines breaks or clogs frequently. The storm-water drains remain clogged and over
flow onto the streets, creating a very unhealthy environment. Contrary to their older housing, in
NTR Nagar nearly 99 per cent households have reported non-availability of solid waste disposal
service. The Municipal Corporation (that is the GHMC) has remained indifferent to such issues.
Residents here feel their peripheral location is the reason behind the GHMC’s apathy towards
garbage collection from this site. All maintenance issues have to be looked after by individual
households themselves.
In Nandanavanam, individual water supply was reported to cover 90 per cent of the surveyed
households. Before shifting into the VAMBAY colony almost 66 per cent of the households did
not have access to individual water connection. Within this scheme, 100 per cent households
17
have individual toilets. Almost 65 per cent of the households did not have access to individual
toilets in their previous housing. Sewerage line connection is available to all households in
VAMBAY housing. Coverage of sewerage line and storm water drainage is throughout the
settlement. However, the construction of these lines has been very slow because of which many
of the original allottees are apprehensive of shifting into Nadanavanam. No service has been
provided for solid waste management within the colony. There are numerous reported cases of
allottees selling their houses. In 2006, two years after completion of the colony, out of the 96
houses only 30 were occupied. Thereafter, people have very slowly trickled in but are very
unhappy with the basic services provided here.
Table 6: Availability of Basic Services (% of hh) Basic Services available to HHs
(in %)
NTR Nagar Nandanavanam
Previous
Housing
VAMBAY Housing Previous Housing VAMBAY
Housing
Individual Water Supply 78 100 21 90
Individual toilets 90 100 35 100
Sewerage Line 90 96 22 96
Storm water Drainage 87 89 25 100
Solid Waste Management 14 0 N.A.* 0
* Data not available
2.2.2 Availability of Physical and Social infrastructure
In NTR Nagar, VAMBAY scheme provided roads, street lighting and electricity; more than 95
per cent of the surveyed households reported availability of all three facilities (Table 7).
However, the street lights do not work many a times and the roads get inundated with drainage
water. Likewise, in Nandanavanam, physical infrastructure provision has been confirmed by 100
per cent households for roads, street lights and electricity.
Table 7: Availability of Physical Infrastructure (hh in %) Physical Infrastructure available to
HHs (in %)
NTR Nagar Nandanavanam
Previous
Housing
VAMBAY Housing Previous Housing VAMBAY
Housing
Road 41 94 93 100
Street lighting 46 96 93 99
Electricity 31 97 93 100
In terms of social infrastructure, 51 per cent households surveyed in NTR Nagar reported
accessing private hospitals and 39 per cent of the households accessed the Primary Health Centre
(PHC). Very few people access government hospitals as there are no PHC or any hospital for at
least 7-8 km. from this site. Even the most basic medical shop is about 5 km. away. Further, 78
per cent households access both primary and secondary schooling for their children in this
18
settlement. However, children have to travel at least 5 km. for both primary and secondary
schools. In fact, many children have to travel nearly 8 km for their secondary schools in the city.
Nandavanam lacks schools, hospitals, PHCs or community centres around the colony. A hospital
construction just started in 2009. One has to travel at least 3 km. to the nearest bus stop or
community centre. The community can at best afford the government hospitals, with almost 69
per cent households accessing the same for their medical requirements. In general, the residents
of this colony have to travel nearly 8 to 10 km to the city for government facilities.
2.2.3 Quality of housing
All households in NTR Nagar have been built with permanent materials (brick walls, RCC roofs,
tiled floor). However, in spite of the permanency of the material, the overall quality of the
buildings is very poor. Rains and daily wear and tear has already started reducing the buildings
to a state of dilapidation. Nearly 80 per cent of households surveyed in NTR Nagar have 1 room-
dwelling unit (Table 8). NTR Nagar has an average family size of 5.5 members so nearly 20 per
cent households have built extra rooms on their own. As per the scheme, construction each unit
was designed with only 1 room. Before shifting to NTR Nagar, almost 40 per cent of the
surveyed households had three or more rooms per dwelling unit, while they received only 1 room
per family on the rehabilitation site. Almost 82 per cent families have reported availability of
separate kitchen in NTR Nagar. This is again a disadvantage for the community because in their
previous house.
All housing units in Nandanavanam have been constructed with permanent materials. Unlike
NTR Nagar all the houses have 2 rooms with separate kitchen. Nearly 66 per cent of the
surveyed households formerly lived in one-room units and hence, for these households,
VAMBAY has improved their housing condition.
Table 8: Status of Housing Structure (hh%) Housing structure available to HHs
(in %)
NTR Nagar Nandanavanam
Previous
Housing
VAMBAY Housing Previous Housing VAMBAY
Housing
1 room 38 80 66 1
2 rooms 23 15 16 98
3 rooms 11 4 7 0
More than 3 rooms 28 0 3 0
Separate Kitchen 93 87 21 97
19
Figure 2-1: VAMBAY Housing, Nandanavanam and Schematic design of Unit*
*Unit design as per as per AP State Housing Corporation
2.2.4 Expenditure Pattern
The expenditure pattern has been reported to have under gone an increase for most families in
NTR Nagar. The average increase in expenses per household across the community is found to
be almost of 38 per cent as against their expenditure in their older housing conditions (Table 9).
Average transportation expense per household has increased by nearly 65 per cent. The highest
increase is seen in electricity expenditure, which indicates use of more use of electrical
appliances than before as well as metered energy bill collections post-resettlement. Most of the
households also feel that their medical expenses have increased, more than 20 per cent than in
their previous locality, because they are currently staying in a very unhealthy environment in
NTR Nagar. The drainage system is out of order. Waste water flows out into the streets,
sewerage lines are not linked and they have to frequently face medical expenses.
Table 9: Change in Average Expenditure for Different Items, NTR Nagar Expenditure Expenditure in
Previous Housing
(in Rs.)
% share of
expenditure to
total
Expenditure in
VAMBAY Housing
(in Rs.)
% share of
expenditure
to total
% increase in
expenditure due to
relocation
Food 1,397 53 1,827 50 31
Education 456 17 629 17 38
Medical 277 11 340 9 23
Electricity 130 5 229 6 76
Transportation 363 14 600 17 65
Total 2,623 100 3,625 100 38
It is to be noted that although most other expenditures remain the same for the community with
the change of their housing location, their expenses on transportation has increased by 3 per cent,
while food and medical expenses decreased at a similar rate.
From discussions it was revealed that relocation to the city periphery has imposed numerous
problems upon the community’s daily life in NTR Nagar. Majority of surveyed households (61
20
per cent) travelled more than 10 km to their workplace daily; unlike their previous housing
location, from where only 18 per cent families were travelling this distance (Table 10).
Simultaneously, from their previous housing nearly 51 households were travelling less than 5
km., while from NTR Nagar only13 per cent families have this convenience.
Table 10: Distance travelled to work-place (% of hh), NTR Nagar
Distance to work-place Previous Housing VAMBAY Housing
Less than 5 km 51 13
5 to 10 km 31 25
More than 10 km 18 61
In Nandanvanam, on an average, it is seen that households have an increase in overall expenses
by 33 per cent (Table 11). The expense on transportation has seen the next highest raise, that of
47 per cent. This is the most expected item contributing to increased expenditure in
Nandanavanam. This is due to the location of Nadanavanam colony nearly 15 km away from city
centre. Nearly 55 per cent of the surveyed households have reported that they have to travel
anywhere between 5 to 10 km for their jobs. In fact, 18 per cent households in the survey report
that they travel more than 10 km for their daily work.
Table 11: Change in the Average Expenditure on Select Items, Nandanavanam Items Previous
housing
(in Rs.)
% of total
expenditure
VAMBAY
Housing (in
Rs.)
% of total
expenditure
Increase in average
expenditure
(in %)
Food 1,342 51 1,652 47 23
Education 275 10 533 15 94
Medical 426 16 510 15 20
Electricity 170 6 181 5 6
Transportation 433 16 635 18 47
Total 2,646 1 3,511 1 33
2.3 VAMBAY performance in Andhra Pradesh
VAMBAY, envisioned as an answer to housing issues in India, has been disappointing. Andhra
Pradesh, one of the fore-runners in social welfare has been unable to implement and realize the
main objective of VAMBAY – housing for all BPL families in urban areas. News reports claim
VAMBAY implementation to be rife with issues such as non-transparent beneficiary selection,
non-allotment of housing to selected beneficiaries, incomplete services, non-existent social
infrastructure, etc. The allottees have been reported to be staying in incomplete houses, at times
in temporary accommodations in spite of their VAMBAY units being complete. Reports have
also mentioned that the allottees have refused to move to their VAMBAY housing because of
their peripheral locations in areas not served by public transport.
21
Box 1. VAMBAY in the News
HYDERABAD: “Sangaiah’s face is inscrutable. The old man does not know whether to laugh or cry.
Decades after living in a shanty, his dream of living in a modern dwelling is coming true. But, it does not
look much different from his old home! And to think that his small flat in a building of 23 other one-room
tenements was constructed under the Centre-sponsored ‘Valmiki Ambedkar Awaas Yojana’ (Vambay) by
the Andhra Pradesh State Housing Corporation Limited! The building at Netajinagar in Musheerabad was
supposed to be ready for inauguration for the last one year though it is difficult to see how. It has the
hallmark of a poor construction supervised by an apathetic district administration with awful finish, bad
cement work, ramshackle doors, dank interiors and no water or sewerage connection with pipes already
giving way.“I have been living here in a slum for four decades. They took four years to build this and
everyone can see what they have done,” says Sangaiah giving a wry smile. He and all beneficiaries are
from weaker sections.”
The Hindu, Thursday Feb 07, 2008
HYDERABAD: “Beneficiaries of Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (Vambay) on Wednesday took
possession of their house units at Kukatpally Allwyn Colony, amidst allegations that the district
administration was ‘slowing down’ the process of giving ‘ownership’ rights to them. Over 300
beneficiaries, mostly women from weaker sections, welcomed State Bharatiya Janata Party president
Bandaru Dattatreya, who performed Pooja before they took possession of the houses. They said there
were 700 families, which were yet to receive fully constructed houses under the scheme. “For one year,
we have been fighting to occupy our allotted houses. They are intentionally delaying the allotment,”
argued 80-year-old Kantamma, a resident of Indiranagar. Initially, the scheme promised to provide shelter
to all the 1,120 families of this colony.
Under the scheme, 1,100 house units were sanctioned out of which only 330 units were constructed while
the remaining units are at various stages of completion. The district administration had not made any
arrangements to provide basic amenities like roads, water supply, drainage and electricity here. “We paid
Rs. 6,110 in 2003 in addition to Rs. 250 per month to the bank for the home loan. Despite this, the
administration has not constructed our houses. We have decided to live here and fight for our rights,” said
P. Savithri.”
The Hindu, Thursday Nov 1, 2007
In the case-study VAMBAY colonies of NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam in GHMC, it took a
long time to convince the people to shift their houses to the new locations. Even now many of
the allottee households are still living in their previous housing and do not want to shift mainly
because of the distance of these locations from the city activity centre. Only 35 per cent
households in NTR Nagar and 55 per cent in households in Nandanvanam are the original
allottees, and the rest are either new tenants or new buyers of the housing units. This means that
the remaining allottee households continue to live in their former housing or in other locations in
the city. Among the allottees, as high as 60 per cent in NTR Nagar and 30 per cent in
22
Nandanvanam have rented out their houses. Those who have sold out have made about Rs. 1 to 2
lakhs and are back to their original slum locations within the city.
The core concern in shelter security is not only about providing a dwelling unit. Housing
provided away from the place of work and without social infrastructure can never sustain a
community. As seen from the case-studies, more than 50 per cent households travel out more
than 5 km. daily for work. Both NTR Nagar and Nandanvanam have no dedicated social
infrastructure for such huge populations. For schooling, medical attention and day to day needs –
both communities have to travel into the city, which is about 10-15 km away.
At the same time, the survey shows that the availability of physical services such as water
supply, sewerage, storm water drainage, roads, street lights and electricity has improved. The
peripheral location has negatively impacted solid waste management service. The households
have gained with regards to availability of the physical services but the maintenance of the basic
services, in spite of their provision by the Corporation, still remains a big concern in the
VAMBAY settlements. The storm water drains are not paved and hence the water flows out onto
the streets. The sewerage drains get blocked often. It is not enough to just provide the service
infrastructure; without maintenance by the local authority any new housing scheme is more
likely than not to be relegated to slum-like condition. India has in fact seen enormous resources
in such schemes go to waste because of lack of maintenance. Providing toilets without efficient
connectivity with sewerage lines; unpaved storm water drainage system; unpaved approach
roads; lack of street lights, etc.– all such discrepancies in a housing scheme eventually leads to
the formation of a slum.
The third issue is that the households were living in larger houses with more number of rooms in
a slum prior to their rehabilitation in a VAMBAY unit. Across the board, the housing unit size
has declined for majority of the households.
However, failure of schemes is not a one-sided story. As found from this study, the top-down
approach towards such programmes makes them inflexible and accommodative of the
community’s own needs and aspirations. GHMC had proposed for a revised financial plan for
the dwelling units – but it was rejected by the central government. The unit cost decided during
the inception of the VAMBAY scheme, is outdated and needs to be revised. As per revised rates,
GHMC proposed the units to cost Rs. 2.67 lakhs, instead of Rs. 60,000 as conceived during the
programme inception. Any construction calculation basics can prove the validity of GHMC’s
revised costs. Yet, this proposal was rejected and GHMC has decided to ground thousands of
proposed dwelling units. Such bureaucratic obstacles are rampant in the implementation of
programmes in India. This shows that when the government decides to provide a fully
constructed house, the cost goes above the affordable limits, not only of the households but also
23
of the implementing authority. In other studies of EWS public housing, it has been found that the
private contractors do not come forward to construct such dwelling units because the Schedule of
Rates (SORs) are lower than what the market costs of construction materials. In essence, the
entire financing of such shelter programmes need to be re-assessed given that the construction
materials’ costs have been increasing and would continue to increase if India is to have high
economic growth rates.
3 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa (RGK)
The VAMBAY Housing Project as well as the Indiramma Urban Permanent Housing Scheme
could not meet the housing demands existing in the cities of Andhra Pradesh, which led to the
initiation of a new urban housing scheme, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa8 (RGK). It envisioned the
construction of 2 lakh housing units in 2005-2006 for the EWS and LIG classes, with 100,000
houses in Hyderabad agglomeration area alone. Hyderabad was to have 14 projects, and two in
Ranga Reddy district. The ownership of the dwelling unit was to be transferred to the beneficiary
at the end of the 20-year loan period.9
This scheme was grounded in 2006-2007 and only four of the 16 sanctioned projects have been
completed to some degree and handed over to the beneficiaries. The remaining proposed
projects under the programme RGK were merged with the INDIRAMMA programme. In the
lines of RGK, another affordable housing project was initiated by the Government of AP as
Rajiv Swagruha Kalpa in 2007. However, our analysis for this paper is of RGK housing site at
Nalgonda. As of 2009, RGK scheme has sanctioned 23,650 housing units. Of these, 17,168
dwelling units have been allotted, and 15,426 have been completely handed over to the allottees.
3.1 Project locales
For this study, RGK scheme in Mammillaguda, Nalgonda district was selected for analysis.
Nalgonda has a population of 3.24 lakhs of which 13.32 per cent is urban and occupy an area of
14,240 sq. km. as per the 2001 Census. The RGK programme is functioning in 5 divisions of
Nalgonda district: Nalgonda (Urban), Nalgonda (Rural), Suryapet, Bhongir and Miryalguda.
Nalgonda city has allotted and completed 336 dwelling units of which only 196 (58 per cent)
have been actually handed over10. Of the 196 units, only 49 houses (25 per cent of the actual
allotment and 14.5 per cent of the total constructed) have been occupied as of now and a
household survey was conducted in all of them. The beneficiaries in this site have been relocated
from Bottuguda, Rangioil, Ravindranagar, Santinagar, Charllapalli, Pangal and R.P.Road of
Nalgonda city. The beneficiaries are primarily from the EWS class, previously residing in slums
or rental housing. All the beneficiaries had to submit an application for RGK housing. Later all
the received applications were verified by the implementing agency APSHCL, thereafter the
24
final list of beneficiaries were selected. The allotment is by a lottery system after the final list of
beneficiaries is fixed.
The scheme housing costs Rs. 84,500 per dwelling unit, for which each household has given a
down payments of Rs.6,500 and received loan amount of Rs. 84,500, to be repaid over 20 years
period. Each block has received loan sanction from different banks like Andhra Bank, Indian
Overseas Bank, Canara Bank, SBI etc. Nearly, 45 per cent of the families now living in the RGK
Scheme housing have shifted in since 2007-2008, while the rest of the households are less than 1
year old in this colony. Almost 50 per cent male members in the slum are self-employed as
tailors, auto drivers, etc and 38 per cent are occupied as daily wage labour. Very few are
employed in regular jobs, as peons, hospital boys, in the municipality as cleaners, etc. Nearly 50
per cent families have 4-member households. Nearly, 49 per cent households earn less than Rs.
5,000 per month, averaging around Rs. 4,500 per month.
3.2 Status of case-study site: RGK
3.2.1 Availability of Basic Services
All the households in Mamillaguda have reported the availability of the basic services –
individual water supply, individual toilets, sewerage line and storm water drainage, albeit with
maintenance problems. On comparing with their previous housing conditions, it was found that
these households already had all these basic services even in their previous housing.
Table 12: Coverage of households by Basic Services under RGK Scheme (% of hh)
Items Previous housing RGK Housing Scheme
Available Not Available Available Not Available
Individual water supply 90 10 100 0
Individual toilets 98 2 100 0
Sewerage line 98 2 100 0
Storm water drainage 80 20 72 23
Solid waste management 29 71 0 100
Previously, nearly 90 per cent of the households, especially the ones in rental housing, have
reported having access to individual water connections in their rental housing. Sewerage line and
storm water drainage has been provided in this slum but due to their defective construction,
many households were not able to dispose their sewerage waste into these drains. Solid waste
management has been a problem area. The Nalgonda Municipality has not assigned any
scheduled garbage collection in the RGK colony. Residents complain that they are neglected by
the Municipality and any complaints regarding the maintenance of the facilities are not heeded to
on a timely manner.
25
3.2.2 Availability of Physical Infrastructure
In the RGK Scheme housing, the availability of physical infrastructure is poorer than
VAMBAY’s. Non-availability of proper roads and street lights has posed serious personal safety
concerns in the colony. In comparison to their previous housing, the physical infrastructure is
worse in Mamillaguda. This has been one of the biggest impediments in populating the colony
since its opening.
Table 13: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh)
Infrastructure Previous Housing RGK Housing
Available Not Available Available Not Available
Roads 100 0 12 88
Street lights 84 16 6 94
Electricity 96 4 98 2
Other than electricity provision which is available to nearly 98 per cent of the households,
infrastructure is in a poor state. In their previous housing, 100 per cent of the RGK colony
residents had access to paved roads, now only 12 per cent families have reported the availability
of some roads (Table 13). This brings out the lack of access roads within the colony. Again, in
terms of street lights, only 6 per cent families have reported the availability of streetlights in the
colony. For most of the residents now living here, life has deteriorated in terms of security and
quality of living environment.
3.2.3 Availability of Social Infrastructure
There is not much in the name of social infrastructure or networks. There are no schools in the
area; only one anganwadi. There are no hospitals around the colony – they have to travel at least
5 to 8 km. for a school or hospital. There are no community centres either. So even for their daily
requirements, they have to travel into the city. They are happy that at least the site plan is such
that they have open spaces around the colony.
3.2.4 Housing Quality
The housing quality in RGK housing is comparatively better than in the former housing of these
residents. In their previous house, more than 50 per cent households had only one-room dwelling
units. Currently, every family has two-room dwelling units with separate kitchen. House
construction is with permanent materials. All dwelling units have brick walls, RCC roofs and
wooden doors and windows. Nearly 74 per cent households reported tiled floors, while the rest
have cemented floors. Many families reported that when they shifted into the house, doors and
windows were missing and they had to spend out of their own pockets to fix them.
26
Figure 3-1: RGK Housing in Mamillaguda and Schematic plan*
*From the AP State Housing Corporation
3.2.5 Expenditure pattern
In Mamillaguda, the expenditure increased considerably for most households on all the items of
consumption. On the whole, total expenditure has increased by almost 51 per cent (Table 14).
The maximum increase in expenditure has been in education (132 per cent), followed by
transport (81 per cent). It is likely that on shifting to city’s periphery the households have shifted
their children to another school in the new neighbourhood. It appears that the new school in the
neighbourhood is a private school whereas the previous school was a public school, thereby
increasing the cost of education. Distance to all other activities, work place and other social
facilities seems to have increased, which has resulted in such drastic increase in transport
expenditure as compared to what they were incurring in their previous locations. In short, the
households have seen such increased expenses mostly due to the lack of supporting infrastructure
to the community as well as their location away from all other social infrastructure like school,
hospital, community centre or market, etc.
Table 14: Change in Average Expenditure per Household
Expenditure
items
Average expenditure
(Rs.) in previous
housing
% share to
total
Average expenditure
(Rs.) in RGK Housing
% share to
total
Change in
expenditure (%)
Food 1,275 66 1,740 60 36
Education 221 11 512 18 132
Medical 218 11 318 11 46
Transport 120 6 217 7 81
Electricity 99 5 126 4 27
Total 1,933 1 2,913 1 51
Compared to their older location, households have reported that more families have to travel
more than 5 km. for work (Table 15). Prior to shifting to the RGK scheme, almost 55 per cent of
27
the current residents of RGK were residing in the city centre. They had minimal transport
expenses to bear, and school, market, hospital were all within walking distance.
Table 15: Distance to be travelled to the City Centre (% of hh)
Distance to City Centre Previous Housing RGK Housing
1 to 5 km 44 85
5 to 10 km 0 15
More than 10 km 0 0
Residence at City Centre 55 0
Although decongesting the city centre from slum housing is desirable for greater public good,
relocating the low-income households to neighbourhoods lacking in social and physical
infrastructure as well as safety and security indicates lack of understanding of the needs of low
income residents. It also shows apathy of the planners with regards to the urban poor. In the new
location the households’ expenditure have increased to almost double of what they were
incurring in their previous housing location.
3.2.6 Rajiv Gruha Kalpa performance in Andhra Pradesh
RGK’s target of providing 2 lakh housing units for the EWS and LIG has not been met as
envisaged. Only 332 houses were completed in 2008-09, of which only 49 dwelling units have
been occupied. This fails RGK’s vision of providing housing as an answer to the exponential
growth of population in nine districts in and around Hyderabad. Unlike VAMBAY which has the
basic infrastructure in place, RGK has poor infrastructure provision. The scheme has been
reported as a failure from other RGK sites as well3.
Box 2. Rajiv Gruha Kalpa in the News
HYDERABAD “An apology for housing, the much-vaunted urban housing project for the poor at Nizampet under the Rajiv Gruha Kalpa scheme fails miserably in its purpose. To put in the words of an occupant, the houses are “a mockery of our helplessness, because unless for poverty, nobody would have accepted them in their present state”. Though inaugurated five months ago, the complex lacks in everything that is fundamental for a house to be called a house. “There is no water, nor is there drainage connection. Despite having toilets, we are forced to wait till sunset to defecate in open by the lakeside where we are exposed to perils such as snakebites or attacks from outsiders. “How can I have my young daughter going out in search of loo sites at 10 p.m.?” questions G. Kavitha, a resident. Worse is the situation when it comes to daily ablutions. Warned by the officials not to use the toilets till their approval, the residents brush, wash clothes and utensils, and even bathe downstairs in open.”
The Hindu, Friday July 24, 2009
3 Swathi.V, Rajiv Gruha Kalpa: an apology for housing! The Hindu, 24 July 2009, accessed on 3 Dec 2010
(http://www.hindu.com/2009/07/24/stories/2009072459020300.htm)
28
In Mamillaguda, basic infrastructure like road and street-lights are missing even 2 to 3 years
after residents have started living in the colony. In such a case, it is understandable that allottees
would prefer not shifting in, even after they received legal ownership of the house. From
discussions with the residents, it was found that nearly 75 per cent of the allotted houses have
been rented out or are still empty. The primary survey revealed that nearly 46 per cent
households living in the colony are tenants paying rent to the original allottees.
The other problem with the RGK is that the projects are outside the city limits and the
households have been forced to incur more expenditures than earlier on transportation for
various needs. Further, it appears that the families had to put their children in new schools
nearby, and which seem to be more expensive than their earlier schools. In all, the overall cost of
living has gone up for the families that have shifted to the new housing. In short, the residents’
feedback of the households on RGK is not very good.
4 Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP)
Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme4 aims at combining the existing schemes
of VAMBAY and NSDP under the new IHSDP Scheme for having an integrated approach in
ameliorating the conditions of the urban slum dwellers who do not possess adequate shelter and
reside in dilapidated conditions. The scheme is applicable to all cities and towns as per 2001
Census except cities and towns covered under the JNNURM. The scheme seems to enhance
public and private investments in housing and infrastructural development in urban areas.
In Andhra Pradesh, the INDIRAMMA Housing was merged with IHSDP programme. The state
government has designated and notified APSHCL as implementing agency for IHSDP scheme
from 2006. The basic objective of the scheme is to strive for holistic slum development with a
healthy and enabling urban environment by providing adequate shelter and basic infrastructure
facilities to the slum dwellers of the identified urban areas.
In 2006, as per Municipal records development of 4 slums in Nalgonda was approved, at a cost
of Rs. 3.37 crores. The total units to be built was proposed at 378, in four slums of which 194
would be for the relocated community in Mamillaguda, while 184 units are to be redeveloped in-
situ in the slum group of Sri Krishna Nagar, Chaitanya Nagar and Pangal. As per municipality
records, 126 units are completed, while the remaining 252 are all at various stages of completion.
4 More details about IHSDP can be accessed on the Government website
(http://housing.cgg.gov.in/schemes/IHSDP_Urban.html and https://jnnurmmis.nic.in/jnnurm_hupa/index.html)
29
4.1 Project locales
The group of communities selected for the IHSDP in-situ development are Krishna Nagar,
Chaitanya Nagar and Pangal (together called Pangal). From all the settlements, a total of 52
households were surveyed for assessment. All the residents surveyed are the original allottees,
currently living in the scheme housing. Nearly 70 per cent households fall below the income
range of Rs. 5,000 per month. More than 50 per cent of the household head are employed as
daily wage earners, while about 30 per cent are self employed; the remaining 15 per cent are
regular salaried employees. The in-situ redevelopment in Pangal was completed in 2009. Being
an in-situ development, the IHSDP scheme for this locality provided a mix of infrastructure,
basic services and dwelling units, as per requirement. Beneficiaries paid different amounts as per
the scheme allocations – between Rs. 40,000 to Rs. 73,000, as evident from the household
survey. Being a participatory project, nearly 40 per cent of the households reported to have built
their homes by themselves, with the government’s contribution of funds and subsidized building
materials. There was no loan component for this redevelopment. The APSHCL disbursed the
funds for only home improvement to those who had land. Funds were not given for construction
of toilets and hence most households made their own investments to add sanitation and washing
areas as well as other requirements to their two-roomed accommodation constructed by
themselves. Nearly 95 per cent households have reported spending between Rs. 50,000 to Rs.
300,000 from their own pockets on their individual dwelling units.
The other IHSDP colony surveyed is in Mamillaguda near the RGK about 3 to 4 km distance
from the city centre. The colony has about 176 households, of which 23 households were
surveyed for this study. Most residents here are from the surrounding areas of Shivaji Nagar,
Boiwada, BTS and Padmavathi colony. All the residents surveyed are the original allottees, and
renting out houses is not common. Nearly 82 per cent households fall below the income range of
Rs. 3,000 per month. More than 50 per cent of the households are daily wage earners, while
about 35 per cent are self employed; the remaining few are regular salaried employees. Most of
the households shifted into this colony in the last 1 to 3 years. The units have cost an amount of
Rs. 40,000, for which the selected beneficiaries have made down payments of Rs. 3,300. The
APSHCL has granted the loan of Rs. 35,000 to the households, for a repayment period of Rs. 15
years. Toilets were not build as part of this scheme, so most people have made their own
investments to add sanitation and washing areas as well as other requirements to their two-
roomed accommodations. Nearly 95 per cent households have reported spending between Rs. 1,
60,000 to Rs. 200,000 on their individual dwelling units.
30
4.2 Status of case-study sites: IHSDP
4.2.1 Availability of Basic Services
The comparative analysis of situation before and after the in-situ development enumerates a
better standard of living environment for the slum dwellers. In comparison to 42 per cent
households in previous housing, now almost 90 per cent have reported availability of individual
water supply under IHSDP housing. In this period, households invested their own money in
sanitation and now nearly 90 per cent of the respondent households have access to individual
toilets. Storm water drainage and solid waste management are still in a deplorable condition,
with open drains and no system of waste disposal in place.
In the relocated IHSDP site in Mamillaguda, all the households have reported the availability of
the basic services of individual water supply, individual toilets, sewerage and storm water
drainage. However, toilets were built by the individual households, making expenses out of their
pocket. On making a comparative study with their previous housing condition, it was found that
these households already had all these basic services even in their previous housing. Rather in
the relocated colony, the households have complaints against the infrequency of water supply.
Residents also have complaints against the solid waste management system. They have reported
that the municipality does not collect garbage from their colony for weeks at a time. At the time
of project proposal, SHGs were to be involved in the SWM, but nothing is in place as of now.
Table 16: Availability of Basic services, IHSDP (% of hh) Basic Services available to HHs
(in %)
In-situ development Rehabilitation
Previous
Housing
IHSDP Housing Previous Housing IHSDP
Housing
Individual Water Supply 42 90 100 100
Individual toilets 36 90 100 100
Sewerage Line 27 79 100 100
Storm water Drainage 12 65 100 100
Solid Waste Management 27 66 100 60
4.2.2 Availability of Physical and Social Infrastructure
In the on-site IHSDP development, availability of physical infrastructure is not very impressive.
Although electricity provision has increased to 94 per cent households from a former total of 77
per cent households, the other facilities of paved roads and street lights are still in poor condition
in these localities. But, the advantage of in-situ development was that no new social
infrastructure had to be provided. Schools, colleges, etc., are all within easy reach from the
colony. PHC, government hospitals and community centres and halls are easily accessible to all
because of their location within the city area.
31
In the relocated colony also, there are very poor roads and the available roads are unpaved. More
than 91 per cent households have reported the lack of roads within the colony. The colony also
has no street-lights rendering it unsafe for its residents. All the residents have reported the
availability of electricity. In terms of social infrastructure also the situation is poor with no
schools in the area; only an anganwadi. There are no hospitals around the colony. There are no
community centres either. Yet the residents are satisfied with the way the scheme has turned out.
They are happy living in this locality, mainly as they have the ownership of the house.
Table 17: Coverage of Households by Physical Infrastructure (% of hh) Infrastructure available to HHs (in
%)
In-situ development Rehabilitation
Previous
Housing
IHSDP Housing Previous Housing IHSDP
Housing
Road 33 44 100 9
Street lighting 56 64 100 0
Electricity 77 94 100 100
4.2.3 Quality of Housing
In the in-situ development, all the houses now have 2-rooms, but separate kitchen is not
available to almost 25 per cent of the respondents. Many did not change the core design of the
house and kept the kitchen outside the house or within the living room. The construction of the
house has been done with permanent materials. All dwelling units have brick walls, RCC roofs
and wooden doors. For windows, some households have invested in metal frames. Tiled floor
completed in 90 per cent households, while many have kept it only cemented.
In the relocated site of Mamillaguda, the housing quality is comparatively better than in the
previous housing conditions of these residents. Currently, every family has two-roomed dwelling
units with separate kitchens. In their previous house, nearly 65 per cent households did not have
separate kitchens in their house. The construction of the house has been done with permanent
materials. All dwelling units have brick walls, RCC roofs and wooden doors and windows. The
construction material is better than what they had in their previous houses.
Figure 4-1: Relocated IHSDP housing in Mamillaguda
32
Figure 4-2: Site plan for Nalgonda
Source: From Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation office
4.2.4 Expenditure pattern
Being an in-situ development, expenditure increase in transportation is the least. Residents have
experienced an increase of 27 per cent in the total monthly expenses of the households. The
highest expense increase was seen in electricity consumption, as many more households have got
legal connections. With in-situ development, as expected the expenses of the households did not
undergo much change in terms of share of different overheads to total expenditure. Food
expenses have seen a fall by 6 per cent in its share.
Table 18: Change in the Expenditure Pattern after In-Situ Development
33
Items Average expenditure in
previous housing (Rs.)
% share
to total
Average
expenditure in
IHSDP (Rs.)
% share of
total
% Change in
expenditure
Food 1,367 58 1,582 52 15
Education 383 16 522 17 36
Medicines 335 14 498 16 48
Transportation 189 7 254 8 34
Electricity 92 3 165 5 79
Total 2,366 1 3,021 1 27
In the relocated site in Mamillaguda, the expenditure pattern could not be analysed due to the
lack of responses from the community. From the general discussions it was gathered that food
and medical expense increase was experienced by the community but they could not say
anything definitive about the changes in education, electricity and transport expenses.
4.3 IHSDP performance in Andhra Pradesh
In the in-situ development colony, all the households stay within 5 km of the city centre and
have to travel not more than 4 km for work. Thus, most of the respondents have reported to be
satisfied with the development done under IHSDP. The provision of subsidized materials for
constructing permanent dwelling units within the same area where they were originally residing
is seen as a positive development by the community. They are however, not satisfied with the
physical infrastructure provision. Lack of access roads and street-lights have rendered the colony
with the same slum-like condition as before. While in the rehabilitation site, the respondents are
satisfied that they have a permanent house now, but the condition of physical infrastructure in the
colony is poor, whereby the households face the same problems of water-logging in the rains and
lack of safety in the night.
The programme emphasis was on construction of shelter units, either in-situ or on the new site.
But, the services have not improved to the extent expected and consequently, improvement in the
quality of life of the beneficiaries is not as expected. At least for the in-situ development,
services’ improvement should have been done under the programme. It seems that there has been
overwhelming focus on improving the shelter conditions rather than improving service
conditions! There is however, a difference between the responses of the two approaches to this
programme. Those who have undergone in-situ development are happier than the ones relocated
as the latter group of people were shifted out of the city. In the case of in-situ development, the
programme did not have to provide for any social infrastructure, but in the relocated site, the
community has been left to fend for its own. All respondent households in both the developments
were the original allottees to the scheme housing. In the redevelopment site though, group
discussions revealed that many of the houses are unoccupied by the allottees as they are not
satisfied with the location of the colony.
34
5 Critical Assessment on the housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh
For the assessment of housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh we had selected the following
programmes: VAMBAY, IHSDP and Rajiv Gruha Kalpa. VAMBAY has been subsumed under
the BSUP in Andhra Pradesh, yet both the programmes are still on-going in the state as different
projects, so we selected to research upon the status of housing under VAMBAY, where the
dwelling units were occupied. IHSDP Housing in Nalgonda had 2 approaches to redevelopment:
in-situ and relocation; so both type of settlements were selected for analysis. In Rajiv Gruha
Kalpa, a state initiated housing project, the household survey was conducted in all the 49
households who had occupied the project housing in Nalgonda.
VAMBAY programme was studied in NTR Nagar and Nanadavanam of Hyderabad. With the
size of dwelling units fixed, the households have been shifted to 2-room houses of about 24
sq.m. However, this has been a shift from 3 to 4 roomed houses to smaller houses for almost 40
per cent of the residents. The provision of basic services like individual water supply has been
slow. It took more than 5 years for all the residents to get individual connections in NTR Nagar.
However, provision of physical infrastructure and basic services for the whole settlement is seen
only in the VAMBAY projects, amongst all the ones surveyed. Apathy from the Municipality on
issues of maintenance is a major concern for the residents of both Nandanavanam and NTR
Nagar. They experience frequent break-down in their service lines. Also, there is no garbage
collection in both the VAMBAY settlements surveyed for this research.
In Rajiv Gruha Kalpa, the rehabilitation of the Mamillaguda RGK scheme was faced with the
typical problems of lack of physical infrastructure like roads, street lights and social
infrastructure. In this site, the lack of paved roads and street lights is reported as a glaring issue.
Thus, it is not surprising that of the 194 allocated houses only 49 are currently occupied, while
the rest of the allottees are still living in the original locations within the city. In this
development, many households even reported that their dwelling units lacked doors and
windows when they shifted in. They made expenses out of their pockets to remedy this.
IHSDP has in-situ development at the Pangal site, encompassing the settlements of Sri Krishna
Nagar and Chaitanya Nagar. Thus, in the former, the households have continued to live in the
same location, yet with better housing facilities and permanent materials for constructing their
dwelling units. However, in IHSDP coverage of basic services is poorer than the other
programmes. Many households still do not have individual water connections, toilets as well as
connections to sewerage lines, storm water drainage. Roads and street lights have not been
provided adequately.
In case of in-situ development, as the households were provided with money for permanent
material for building houses in their original housing location – most households are satisfied
35
with the better quality of lives now. They have their social networks in place while the
government did not have to worry about providing social infrastructure to these communities. In
the second case, which is relocation under the IHSDP at Mamillaguda, while the shelter
conditions have improved, the residents are facing the lack of storm water drainage, solid waste
management, street lights and paved roads.
5.1 Post-project situation
Physical infrastructure: Other than VAMBAY housing, no other programmes gave cent per
cent coverage to beneficiaries under the schemes. Lack of solid waste management system is the
most glaring across all the scheme settlements. Physical infrastructure provision is also not
satisfactory – other than VAMBAY sites, all the other settlements had complaints about the lack
of paved roads and street-lights across the settlement. Mamillaguda in Nalgonda has both IHSDP
and RGK scheme housing and in both sites, there is lack of proper roads and street lights.
Lack of Social infrastructure: Other than the on-site redevelopment under IHSDP, all other
scheme settlements surveyed faced problems with the lack of social infrastructure. Pangal along
with associated settlements of Sri Krishna Nagar and Chaitanya Nagar are in-situ IHSDP
developments. Thus, they are the only slums which do not have to face problems with regards to
schooling of their children, accessing health services or commuting to their place of work. In all
other settlements, communities have to travel far for schools, markets, hospitals, etc., resulting in
significant rise in expenditures on education, health services and transportation. Expenditure on
education seems to have increased because households may have been forced to send their
children to private schools, given that generally public or municipal schools are not available on
the city periphery.
Lack of maintenance: Although most of the physical infrastructure and basic services are in
place in VAMBAY settlements, NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam, face problems with the
maintenance of these service lines. Choked sewerage and drainage lines, breakdown in networks,
etc., are being managed by the residents themselves. Although VAMBAY has all the basic
services and physical infrastructure in place, there is lack of maintenance, which the residents
believe is on account of the location of settlements on the periphery.
5.2 Impact of rehabilitation
All the rehabilitated settlements across the programmes have faced the problems of travelling
longer distances for every day needs, work place and schools than before. In a mega city like
Hyderabad, peripheral locations mean being more than 10 km away from the established areas of
work. VAMBAY settlements in NTR Nagar and Nandanavanam are in the city peripheries and
the resettled communities have had to rebuild their social networks - with no schools, markets or
health centres nearby. Likewise, RGK and IHSDP (Mamillaguda site) also approached housing
36
through rehabilitation. Housing, when seen as a commodity, means that a full house has to be
provided and which is feasible only where the lands are available. Lands being available in the
city periphery, the governments go for relocation/rehabilitation approach to housing. If housing
is seen as a heterogeneous commodity and as a bundle of services, this pre-occupation with
constructed house would not be there. Also, if housing were to be considered as a basic right,
with at the least guarantee of no eviction and allowing the community initiatives to blossom, we
would not create a situation of creating new set of problems to address old set of problems. In
fact, these case studies indicate that new sets of problems have been created while not solving
the old sets of problems. The selection of resettlement sites showed complete lack of
understanding of the livelihood and lifestyle requirements of the communities to be shifted into
those houses. RGK housing all around the state have failed to provide even humane conditions of
living. Occupants have complained of tenement type settlements, lacking of water and of poor
construction. To top this, as the housing site is in rehabilitated sites in city peripheries, makes
even the allocated beneficiaries wary of owning these units. In most of these schemes, we could
find half of the occupants as tenants of the original allottees indicate the failure of these schemes.
Lastly, many of these schemes remain grossly unoccupied.
5.3 Absence of Community Participation
One critical issue that was observed during our primary survey was that many of the allocated
dwelling units were empty. That inspite of having a house to one’s name had failed to get
families to shift to these schemes is a telling fact of the lack of community consent for these
programmes. Community Participation in planning is mandatory for successful implementation
of programmes. Along with including community contribution in projects through micro-finance,
communities also need to be made aware of the physical transformations within their dwelling
space or of rehabilitation measures. Information dissemination is an important part of community
participation, as well as garnering their consent. It has been seen in this study that in all the
programmes there is a strong presence of tenants. The allottees in many cases prefer to live in
slums within the city, rather than be rehabilitated in the city peripheries. The current RAY
programmes being launched has recognised the importance of on-site rehabilitation of slums,
with the caveat that any rehabilitation would have the slum dwellers’ consent and involvement.
Since the initiation of JNNURM in 2005, the need for community participation has been
mandated, yet all the housing programmes in this research present a poor picture of community
involvement in decision making.
5.4 Summing up
A look at the housing programmes in Andhra Pradesh over time and their performances up till
date paints a disconcerting picture of social welfare. Inspite of being a strong welfare state, the
success of public housing, through various programmes in the state, be these national
programmes like VAMBAY and IHSDP or the state-led programmes like RGK, have not been
37
very successful. The biggest advantage received by the allottees of these programmes is the
ownership of a house. Yet, it has been seen across the programmes that all the rehabilitated
settlements had almost 50 per cent tenants, with the original allottees were still residing
somewhere within the city limits in slum housing. Many allottees have also sold off their houses.
And many allottees had not occupied the housing leaving a chunk of dwelling units constructed
unoccupied. The best option is always in-situ development and in case that is not possible then
relocation on sites nearby their original housing. Locating low-income housing on the city
periphery as a consequence of following market logic to housing supply would create more
deprivations than it is meant to reduce. Lastly, shelter security is an integrated concept, which
included not only house structure, but also availability of basic services, accessibility and social
stability. Only then housing security would lead to inclusive development.
38
Annexure
Box 3. Urban Poverty Alleviation Programmes
S.
No.
Year of
launch
Urban Poverty Alleviation Programmes
1 1958 Urban Community Development (UCD)
2 1972 Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums (EIUS)
3 1981 Low Cost Sanitation for Liberation of Scavengers
4 1986 Urban Basic Services (UBS)
5 1989 Nehru Rozgar Yojna (NRY)
6 1990 Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP)
7 1995 Prime Minister’s Intergrated Urban Poverty Eradication
Programme
8 1996 National Slum Development Programme (NSDP)
9 1997 Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojna (SJSRY)
10 2001 Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojna (VAMBAY)
11 2005 Basic Services for Urban Poor (BSUP)/ Jawaharlal Nehru
National Urban Renewal Mission (JnNURM)
12 2009 Rajiv Awas Yojna (RAY)
39
References
Adusumuli, U. (2001): Regulatory Guidelines For Urban Upgrading: Hyderabad Experience,
India, (practicalaction.org/shelter/.../U%20Adusumilli%20Case%20Study.doc)
Barrientos, A.(2010): Social Protection and Poverty, Social Policy and Development Paper 42,
UNRISD, (www.unrisd.org/.../973B0F57CA78D834C12576DB003BE255?.)
Buckley R. M., Mahavir Singh, and Jerry Kalarickal (2007): Strategizing Slum Improvement in
India - A Method to Monitor and Refocus Slum Development Programs, Global Urban
Development (http://www.globalurban.org/GUDMag07Vol3Iss1/MagHome.htm)
Chandrasekhar, S. And A. Mukhopadhyay (2009): Poverty in India Cities in the Poverty Era,
Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi (ideas.repec.org/p/ind/isipdp/09-07.html)
Hasan, A.; S. Patel and D. Satherthwaite (2005): “How to Meet the Millennium Development
Goals (MDGs) in Urban Areas”, Environment and Urbanization, 17 (3), pp. 3-19.
Housing for Poor in India, 2003, Centre for Good Governance, Working paper 3, CGG website
(www.cgg.gov.in/.../WP-4-PKM-Housing%20for%20the%20Poor.pdf)
Mathur, O.P. (2009): Slum Free Cities: A new deal for the urban poor, NIPFP,
(www.nipfp.org.in/opm_files/.../Final%20Poverty%20Rep.pdf)
Guidelines for JnNURM: BSUP and IHSDP, Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty
Alleviation, New Delhi (jnnurm.nic.in/nurmudweb/toolkit/modified_guidelines.pdf)
‘Statement showing the year-wise project-wise releases to municipalities up to 31-10-2010’, Andhra Pradesh Urban Finance and Infrastructure Development Corporation (APUFIDC) website, (http://www.apufidc.gov.in/JNNURM-releases/JnNURM%20releases-BSUP.pdf)
Mahadevia, D. (2010): “Tenure Security and Urban Social Protection Links: India”, IDS
Bulletin, 41 (4), pp. 52-62.
Mahadevia, D. And P. Shah (2010): Welfare Extension by Local State and Social Protection:
Surat, Working Paper 11, Centre for Urban Equity, CEPT University, Ahmedabad.
Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation (2007): National Urban Housing and
Habitat Policy 2007, Government of India, New Delhi.
Our Inclusive Ahmedabad (2010): Report of the Public Hearing on Habitat and Livelihood
Displacements, Our Inclusive Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad.
40
Sivam, A, et el (2001): “An approach to improved housing delivery in large cities of less
developed countries”, Habitat International Vol 25, pp. 99-113
Mahadeva, M (2006): Reforms in housing sector in India: impact on housing development and
housing amenities”, Habitat International 30, pp. 412-433
Mahadevia, D. (2002): “Urban Poor’s Access to Land and Basic Services: Rhetoric, Reality and
Dilemmas”, Nagarlok, 33 (1), pp. 66-85.
Mahadevia, D. (2010): ‘Shelter Security and Urban Social Protection – Findings and Policy
Implications in India”, Chronic Poverty Research Centre, CPRC publication, accessed on 30 Nov
2010 (http://www.chronicpoverty.org/publications/details/shelter-security-and-urban-social-
protection)
Tiwari, P (2001): Housing and development objectives in India”, Habitat International 25, pp.
229-253
Konduri, V (2009): Right to housing: Context and trends in Contemporary Debates: Struggles
for Homestead land in Andhra Pradesh”, accessed on 30 Nov 2010
(http://indiacurrentaffairs.org/right-to-housing-context-and-trends-in-contemporary-debates-
struggle-for-homestead-land-in-andhra-pradesh-veeraiah-konduri/)
Report of the Workshop on ‘Land Tenure Issues in Slum-free City Planning’, 30-31 August
2010, Centre for Urban Equity, CEPT University (CUE Publication)
UNRISD (2010), Combating Poverty and Inequality: Structural Change, Social Policy and
Politics (UNRISD Publication)
Esser D. (2009): Development as Fiction: The Failure of the MDGs, Danielesser blogs, accessed
on 30 Novemebr 2010 (http://danielesser.org/2009/07/13/development-as-fiction-the-failure-of-
the-mdgs/)
Clemens, M. and Todd Moss (2005): “What’s wrong with the Millennium Development
Goals?”, Centre for Global Development, accessed on 1Dec 2010
(www.cgdev.org/files/3940_file_WWMGD.pdf)
National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy 2007, MoHUPA, Governemnt of India, New Delhi Report of the Technical Group on the Estimation of Urban Housing Shortage, 11th Five Year Plan 2007-2012, MoHUPA, Government of India, New Delhi
41
Report of the Committee on Slum Settlement , (2010), National Building Organisation, MoHUPA (mhupa.gov.in/W_new/Slum_Report_NBO.pdf)
Notes
1 http://www.unhabitat.org/content.asp?cid=924&catid=1&typeid=25&subMenuId=0
2 General Comment 4, Sixth Session, 1991, Paragraphs 7 and 8.
3 UN Habitat Declarations, accessed on 3 Dec 2010 (http://ww2.unhabitat.org/declarations/)
4 Report of the 11th Five Year Plan (2007-12) Working Group on Urban Housing with Focus on Slums, MoHUPA, Government of India, New Delhi
5 It means that if the public authority wants a piece of land for some public purpose, it can grant development rights over a piece of land elsewhere to the landowner. How much of land area would be granted elsewhere would depend upon the formula worked out by the public authority.
6 FSI is the ratio of built-up area to the plot area.
7 Greater details on VAMBAY can be accessed at the MoHUPA website (mhupa.gov.in/programs/upa/nsdp/vambay.htm)
8 More about RGK can be found at the Andhra Pradesh RGK link (http://www.aponline.gov.in/apportal/HomePageLinks/RajivGruhaKalpa.htm and http://housing.cgg.gov.in/schemes/RGK_Urban.html)
9 ‘Sonia launches Rajiv Gruhakalpa scheme, The Hindu, 17 March, 2005, Accessed on 30 Nov 2010, (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2005/03/17/stories/2005031714360500.htm)
10 Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation officials, 2008-2009.
List of CUE Working Papers
WP 1 Subversive Urban Development in India: Implications on Planning Education, by Darshini Mahadevia and Rutul Joshi, December 2009.
WP 2 Approaches to the Lands for the Urban Poor, India: A workshop Report, by Darshini
Mahadevia, Rutul Joshi and Rutool Sharma, December 2009. WP 3 Integrating the Urban Poor in Planning and Governance Systems, India: A Workshop
Report, by Darshini Mahadevia, Rutul Joshi and Rutool Sharma, December 2009. WP 4 Land Reservations for the Urban Poor: The Case of Town Planning Schemes in
Ahmedabad, by the Rutul Joshi and Prashant Sanga, December 2009. WP 5 Housing Options and Mobility of Urban Migrants in India and China, Darshini
Mahadevia, Zhiyan Liu, Xiuming Yuan, April 2010. WP 6 From Basic Service Delivery to Policy Advocacy – Community Mobilisation in
Pravinnagar-Guptanagar, Ahmedabad, by Rajendra Joshi, Pooja Shah, Keren Nazareth, Darshini Mahadevia, June 2010.
WP 7 Mobilizing Women for Change – Case Study of Sanjaynagar, Ahmedabad, by Bijal Bhatt
and Pooja Shah, June 2010. WP 8 Livelihoods for the Urban Poor:A Case Study of UMEED Programme in Ahmedabad, by
C.N. Ray, September 2010. WP 9 Tenure Security through External Agency Intervention – Case of Vasna, Ahmedabad,
Darshini Mahadevia, Rutool Sharma, Pooja Shah, Pavankumar Ankonapalli, December 2010
WP 10 Welfare Extension by Local State and Social Protection: Surat, Darshini Mahadevia and
Pooja Shah, December 2010
Centre for Urban Equity (CUE) advocates a human-centered and equitable
urban development paradigm. The activities of CUE are research, policy
advocacy, training and capacity building and data documentation and
dissemination. The Centre is a National Resource Centre of Ministry of Housing
and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India.
Centre for Urban Equity
(An NRC for Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India) CEPT University
Kasturbhai Lalbhai Campus, University Road, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad – 380009