39
5. Gendered budgets have made their presence but they don’t trickle down to the implementation of
social schemes. This reality was stark in the study of the Indira Awaas Yojana, with women (despite
spending most time in the house) having the least say as the beneficiary.
6. The National Urban Housing and Habitat Policy, instated in 2007, gives ample proof (and impetus)
for a rural equivalent for focused housing capacity building in rural India. The upcoming Prime
Minister Awaas Yojana- Gramin does not create checks and balances sorely needed, as experienced
from IAY.
7. It also remains uncomfortably gender-blind, and does not allow for comprehensive habitat building.
While it has increased the sanction amount, and amenities the scheme ideally provides to the
allottees.
Major Recommendations:
1) Homestead land should be provided to the potential beneficiaries who do not have their own piece
of land/house, as suggested in the National Rural Housing and Habitat Policy.
2) Dissemination of information about the IAY should be made on TV and radio, and also through
NGOs, that can go down into the grassroots.
3) The number of beneficiaries from the non-SC/ST categories, and non-Hindu categories (especially
Muslim minorities) should be increased from the existing 40%.
4) Standardization of plinth size, and the increase from 20 sq. m. to 25 sq. m. under PMAY-G is
welcomed, but functionaries need to make sure it is followed, and need to dissuade people who want
to build bigger houses (and eventually are left with incomplete ones). The construction of more than
two rooms should not be allowed.
5) The materials used by the beneficiaries should firstly be from local sources, and if that is not possible,
the materials should be stockpiled by the Gram Panchayats to make sure the allottees are paying the
correct price for the same.
6) While the increase in the sanction amount by the PMAY-G is appreciated, there needs to be active
budgeting education and dispensation by the functionaries. NGOs should be contracted to help
people understand how to budget their sanctioned money better.
7) There is a severe lack of civil society involvement. NGOs and local bodies should be given a lot more
ability than they have been given yet and they should be harnessed to oversee construction and for
regular safety and quality audits.
8) Though the guidelines demand that local and traditional inputs be taken for the housing work but
there’s an abject lack of the same. While the engineers do come once to explain the construction
work to the labour, they rarely, if ever, do follow-ups. It should be made mandatory for all engineers
involved to do at least 3 follow-ups, one at every sanction stage.
9) Instead of sanction not being given for the lack of construction of sanitary facilities, and the use of
smokeless chullahs, money should be deducted from the beneficiary’s account for non-compliance.
10) The construction of ‘shops-cum-residential housing’, ‘only shops’ and ‘small-scale industry–cum-
residential’ type of houses should also be promoted to support the employment of the beneficiaries.
11) Strict provisions should be made to prevent the beneficiaries from selling their houses.
12) The AWAASsoft software and datasets need to be verified and utilized more often and should be a
prerequisite for disbursement of funds from centre to state.
13) Gendered budgetingmust be introduced at the implementation levels of all rural upliftment schemes.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
