ndia's Rural Poor: Why Housing Isn't Enough to Create

Sustainable Communities
Published: August 23, 2007 in India Knowledge@Wharton  
India's desire to become the world's next big economic power is as real as the enormous
challenges it faces in raising the social and economic well being of its rural populations.
According to Abraham George, founder of The George Foundation, an NGO focused on
poverty alleviation in South India, "The issue of adequate housing is integral to poverty
reduction and social justice" in India. In this opinion piece, George describes the living
conditions of the rural poor and argues that government resettlement programs are
inefficient and perpetuate caste-driven schisms. Instead of simply supplying shelter for the
inhabitants of rural villages, he says, these programs need to work towards a larger goal of
building "healthy and sustainable communities."

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as having said, "India lives in the villages." That statement
is as true today as it was more than 60 years ago. Nearly 70% of India's 1.1 billion-plus
population still lives in 600,000 or so villages. If India is to be truly understood, it is the
lives of these people that really count.

Most "outsiders" or urbanites have a nostalgic view of rural India. They think of villages as
peaceful havens where people live simple lives, where the air is pure and the land is green
as far as the eye can see. Some of those images are indeed true, but the realities of day-to-
day life for a great majority of rural people are nothing short of cruel. A living story of
economic deprivation, social injustice and hopelessness has prevailed for centuries. The real
story of rural India must be told with more than five hundred million characters who live on
less than a dollar a day, most of them in terrible living conditions.

Statistics Mask Reality

Many of the rural poor work the fields in agriculture and are employed by the few
landowners who reside in their villages. Several others pursue caste-associated occupations
-- priests, carpenters, blacksmiths, barbers, weavers, potters, oil-pressers, leatherworkers,
sweepers and so on. Lately, with increased economic activity in nearby towns, many
commute outside their villages every day to work as drivers, construction laborers, packers
and in other industrial jobs. Some migrate to cities for months, leaving their families
behind. But despite the increasing demand in cities for labor met by rural migration, and the
income generated by such employment, the living conditions for most rural people remain
far from what can be called "acceptable."

According to the Indian government and the World Bank, less than 30% of the nation is
poor, and 70% of the poor (225 million) live in the villages. These official statistics are
based on a per capita consumption expenditure of Rs. 356 ($8.70) per month, or Rs. 11.70
($0.28) per day. This low yardstick grossly undercounts the number of poor people in rural
India, and certainly does not reflect the living conditions for most of them.

For example, The George Foundation's recent survey of nine villages in Hosur Taluk in Tamil
Nadu state showed that more than 80% of the people live on a daily income of less than
one dollar, the internationally accepted definition for poverty. Given the proximity of the
surveyed villages to the rapidly growing city of Bangalore, this estimate reflects a more
prosperous picture than what is true for most of rural India.
Development of countries is often judged by certain economic and social statistics compiled
by national governments and major international agencies such as the World Bank and the
United Nations. By these aggregate measures, India has made significant progress in recent
years, especially since liberalization measures were introduced in 1991. For example, the
GDP growth rate now stands at 9.4% per year, much better than the less than 4%
experienced during the 1990s. Life expectancy at birth has now improved to 64 years from
56 years 20 years ago; infant mortality has fallen to 5.6% from 8.1%; primary school
attendance has risen to 74% from 65%, and the adult literacy rate is 61% as compared to
50%, all during the same period.

There is no arguing that there has been improvement, but these statistics mask many
realities that paint a far poorer picture of the country, especially in rural India. For example,
consider the following: The rural economic growth rate has been stagnant -- at around 2%
to 2.5% a year -- during the past decade, mainly because of the weak performance of the
agricultural sector. This marginal expansion barely keeps up with the 1.75% annual increase
in rural population, thus offering very little improvement in income and living standards for
most people in the villages.

More than half of all children in the country under the age of four suffer from malnutrition;
this statistic is far higher for rural children. The government has built a vast system of more
than 170,000 primary health centers and sub-centers throughout the country, and more are
added each year, yet most of them are either dysfunctional or do not regularly provide even
the minimal level of basic health care.

Though primary school enrollment is exceptionally good, the education students receive in
most rural schools is unacceptably bad, and less than 10% among them graduate from high
school. While government statistics on national literacy have steadily improved for years,
several independent studies have shown that less than 20% of the rural population can read
or write beyond their own names, and an even smaller percentage can do simple arithmetic.

Our foundation's survey of 17 villages in Hosur Taluk showed that less than 15% of the
"lower caste" people who comprise over 70% of the population could write the number
corresponding to their age. Given these and other realities, one has to wonder what
meaningful progress has been achieved in many important areas, especially among the
rural population.

Rural Living Conditions

National indicators regularly published by governments and international agencies do not

include any statistics on the living conditions as exemplified by the type of housing
available. Nor are there any published statistics on the average space available -- or density
-- for each person in a house.

Housing is one of the top priorities for most people, regardless of their income levels. In my
interviews with many poor village women, practically everyone listed housing as their most
important need -- above food, health care and education for their children. Without the
security and comfort of a home, there is no escaping the difficulties resulting from poverty.
Poor people do not have the financial means to buy or construct houses with their savings,
and therefore they live in their ancestral huts, those rented from landlords (with ensuing
obligations), or government-supplied houses.
Poverty levels measured by monetary expenditures toward food do not adequately capture
the quality of life that is greatly affected by the type of available housing. Adequate housing
is considered by many to be a fundamental human right regardless of income level -- a
basic necessity for all that cannot be denied in a fair and equitable society. It is interrelated
with other aspects of life such as health and education. For example, children cannot study
in a poorly lit house. Respiratory disorders among rural population in India are often the
result of unfavorable housing and poor living conditions. Asthma and bronchitis are caused
by pollen grains, dust mites, animal waste and several environmental factors related to bad
housing conditions. Poor sanitation and hygiene, inadequate ventilation and smoke
inhalation are all associated aspects of poor housing that affect health and social
development.

According to the National Family Health Survey, concluded in 2000 by the Indian
government, only 19% of the rural population lives in pucca (strong) houses, while the
remaining live in kaccha (weak) and semi-pucca houses with mud walls and thatched roofs.
Eighty-seven percent of homes in the villages do not have toilet facilities. Cooking is usually
done inside the house under inadequate ventilation with biomass such as dried cow-dung,
fire wood, dry weeds or crop residue, exacerbating the risk of tuberculosis.

The 2001 Indian Census estimated that 40% of rural houses do not have separate kitchens.
When cooking is done inside the house, it is usually on the floor in the corner of a room,
sometimes separated by a half-wall. Smoke fills the entire house during cooking, but
occupants usually prefer to remain inside. Coughing and spitting are the resulting outcome,
symptomatic of what finally leads to chronic illnesses.

Profile of a Rural Village

A typical Indian village has a resident population of around one thousand. While the layout
of one village is different from another, the following description might be representative of
a vast majority.

Most villages are small and dense, with huts on either side of narrow lanes. Open drainage
usually runs along those lanes, clogged and infested with mosquitoes. Except for those
belonging to "upper castes," homes are usually placed close to each other -- four to five feet
apart -- especially when the government builds housing for the poor.

Landlords have their ancestral homes consisting of several rooms, one of which is set aside
for storing grain and supplies. Often, prominent families of the upper castes live next to a
courtyard and a temple, which is usually set aside for those same upper castes. "Lower
castes" worship at a separate temple, a small decorated room with an idol, in another
section of the village or elsewhere. Most villages have an open well or a bore-well, and
separate times are set for upper and lower castes to fetch water.

Most villages have both lower and upper castes living in separate sections. People belonging
to Scheduled Castes (SC) and Scheduled Tribes (ST) are required to live in an area
designated for them. Those belonging to "Most Backward Classes," "Backward Classes" and
"Other Backward Classes" -- as they are officially categorized -- usually live in the same
area where "Other Classes (Upper Castes)" live, but they do not mix with even lower castes.
When the government builds homes for lower castes, it ensures this caste separation. In
many instances, the government sets up housing colonies exclusively for Scheduled Castes
and Tribes, and hence, an entire new village might consist of families belonging to only
those castes.

Larger villages might have a school, a panchayat (local governing body) office and a small
gathering room for meetings. One or two huts might also serve as a shop-cum-residence,
selling sweets and small household supplies. A somewhat leveled area might serve as a
playground for children. There are no vegetable or flower gardens in the village, and farms
are generally outside on adjacent land owned by landlords or a small number of people who
might have been allocated government land for cultivation.

Paved or unpaved narrow roads connect one village to another, usually separated by a few
kilometers. One paved road (often not well maintained) connects several villages to a rural
town nearby where the government has set up a primary health center to serve 25,000
people or more. These towns have many shops that cater to the daily needs of people living
in the villages nearby.

A Typical Rural House

The rural poor live in huts and government-supplied "houses" that are no more than 150-
200 sq. ft. in floor area. Huts are usually constructed from mud blocks, roofs are thatched
and the floors are covered with a mud and cow-dung paste that serves as a disinfectant.

Houses supplied by the government are constructed with cement blocks or bricks, the floor
is cement, and the roof is made of concrete or asbestos. Usually there is only one room in
the house, but in some cases a half-wall may be built to separate out the kitchen.

These houses do not have their own toilets, but common toilets are made available at some
distance at one corner of the village for several families to share. More often than not, these
toilets do not function nor are they maintained, doors are broken or absent, and there is
limited or no access to water close by. Hence, most people prefer to go into a wooded
section or elsewhere in the village or nearby field where there is privacy.

Our foundation recently completed a field survey of two panchayats consisting of nine

villages in Hosur Taluk with 986 huts and houses for a total population of 4,850 residents.
The average number of people per dwelling was 4.9. Huts are very small in size, often
without windows, and a narrow opening serves as the entrance.

Government-supplied houses are around 190 sq. ft. in floor area which works out to 38 sq.
ft. of floor space per person -- only slightly more space than a full-size bed. Every house
has two small windows, but they are not sufficient to permit cross ventilation or cooking
smoke to escape freely. Those who have domestic animals such as cows or goats usually
keep them inside their houses during the night.

At least a third of all houses included in the survey required major repairs for leaky roofs,
cracks in walls and damaged doors. None of the lower caste residents has the financial
means to spend money on house repairs. While government-built houses are provided free
of cost, residents are required to pay a small tax to the panchayat.
The Tamil Nadu government estimates that a typical house for the poor costs around Rs.
45,000 to build. The state allocates houses to families belonging to scheduled and
depressed castes based on their economic status. However, anyone officially classified as
"poor" is eligible for a government grant of up to Rs. 45,000 (about $1,125) toward
construction, provided that the applicant owns suitable land for the house. The government
offers different financial schemes through banks that permit families to borrow money at
zero to low interest rates (10% to 12%) for purchasing or developing land, and for
construction of the dwelling. It also offers grants of up to Rs. 10,000 ($250) for renovation
of an existing house.

Most poor people do not have the ability to apply for these benefits without the assistance
of middlemen or the direct intervention of government officials. Such intervention is
expensive for the beneficiary because it invites kickbacks, commissions and bribes. Further,
government-built houses are usually substandard because of poor workmanship and use of
defective materials.

A Failing Housing Program

Despite the allocation of considerable funds by central and state governments, the housing
program for the poor is failing for a number of reasons. The plan is ill-conceived, focusing
on offering shelter as opposed to improving living conditions, and executed without
sufficient thought about many inter-related considerations.

While the government is the main promoter of housing schemes, several non-governmental
organizations (NGOs) and social entrepreneurship ventures have also entered the arena. For
the most part, NGOs have to rely on donor funds that are hard to come by, and therefore
their contribution has not been significant. Social entrepreneurs who expect a certain return
on their investment are focusing on lower-middle-class customers who are able to repay a
mortgage or pay adequate rental; these investors have not found a suitable financial
arrangement to offer housing to those who cannot pay the high interest rates (ranging from
18% to 36%) that are usually charged.

Currently, the total supply of new housing is far short of the 100 million units that are
needed at the very least, if the goal is to offer adequate housing for every poor family. Bad
construction and poor maintenance are causing the breakdown of houses that were built
some time ago, adding to the need for substantial home improvement.

Further, many homes were built without considering the size of the family or its likely new
members, and consequently, they are simply too dense or congested. The average floor
space of 38 sq. ft per individual, not including the space taken by cattle, creates a very
unhealthy and uncomfortable indoor environment.

The focus on offering houses as "shelters" has motivated the government to look for cheap
construction without offering even basic necessities. Without a small separate kitchen and
adequate cross ventilation, for example, the entire house is turned into a smoke stack not
suited for human habitation. The absence of an adjacent toilet with each house is
inconsistent with any reasonable concept of meeting minimum human needs. Unless
existing houses are extended to include a separate kitchen with proper ventilation and a
small toilet, they cannot be considered "livable" dwellings.
Additionally, government housing perpetuates the centuries-old practice of separation of
residences based on caste. Instead of trying to break down this discriminatory practice,
houses being built by the government for the "scheduled castes" ensure this separation.
Further, the government has created a number of identical structures in new areas,
effectively creating "scheduled caste colonies." It is hard to reconcile the government's
official position concerning discrimination and human rights, and what it actually practices.

Focus on Community

The housing program as currently implemented will hardly improve the living standards of
the poor, nor will it contribute to social justice. Before more funds are expended toward
public housing, the government is well advised to reconsider its approach to the problem. In
arriving at a new strategy for housing, planners must not lose sight of other, interrelated
goals such as offering basic amenities, preventing diseases and assuring social integration.
The approach must shift from the current focus on offering shelter to developing healthy
and integrated communities. That might imply a departure from a caste-based approach to
assistance based on income levels.

While a great majority of the poor belong to lower castes at the present time, and therefore
would be eligible for assistance under this approach, those belonging to higher castes
should not be denied assistance if they deserve it for reasons of low income. Only then
would it be possible to bring about social integration between different castes. This will also
permit upward mobility for lower caste families who are able to afford better and bigger
homes. Mixed-income housing programs have been successfully implemented in countries
like the U.S. to bring about integration across race and class, and India should not shy away
from taking similar approaches to achieving social equality among all its citizens.

Instead of replacing huts with cemented houses at the same location, a better strategy
might be to develop new communities at another location close by. That would offer
considerable flexibility in properly laying out the entire housing complex. These new
developments may incorporate facilities for sharing water, sewage processing and bio-gas
production, as well as fruit and vegetable gardens and small shops. When resources are
shared instead of wasted, and everyone lives in healthy conditions, overall productivity will
increase considerably.

Community development will certainly call for larger initial investment than what is required
for building shelters. However, the long-term benefits associated with creating healthy and
sustainable communities are likely to be far greater than the short term savings from
building low-cost housing.

It is possible to recover some of the additional costs associated with community

development through innovative financing schemes that require extended repayments by
beneficiaries commensurate with their increasing income levels. An appropriate partnership
between government, donors, investors and financial institutions can pave the way for
financial solutions that make it possible for beneficiaries to carry some of the burden.

The issue of adequate housing is integral to poverty reduction and social justice. It must not
be viewed in isolation, but as part of an effort to develop harmonious and healthy
communities. In all these issues, the real solution lies in good public governance, building
strong human foundations through education and health care, creating economic
opportunity, and ensuring social justice for all.

Here's what you think...

Total Comments: 1

#1    Rural Housing
India lives in its villages, not only now, but for generations to come it will be the same, providing a decent home to
each and every family living in the village or at least a scope to own a home. 
What lacks in our country is a strong working plan supported by conviction. In India we have large business
houses, both Indian and MNCs, who conduct very large scale business for profits but never spend even a rupee for
social development. Even companies indulged in construction, infrastructure, do not spend a rupee for low-cost
housing development programs. 
The Governemnt of India, through legislation in Parliament and also endorsement in the states, should make every
big company commit to this national cause of providing low-cost housing to their fellow men. A clear rule has to be
passed wherein each of these big companies shares the national housing programs' budget along with the
government and fund a portion of the work. Only then would they be allowed to do other businesses for profit. This
is the only way to address this huge social problem.
By: Rammohan Potturi, S.S.Sollutions 
Sent: 08:15 AM Sun Mar.07.2010 - AU