When you are in our line of work, reading a news item titled “Spend Rs 32 a day? Govt says you can’t be poor” (http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-09-21/india/30183983_1_urban-areas-poverty-line-norms) makes us see red!
New poverty lines suggested by the Planning Commission to the Supreme Court earlier this week suggest that anyone spending more than Rs 965 per month in urban India and Rs 781 in rural India will be deemed not to be poor. This translated to those spending in excess of Rs 32 a day in urban areas or Rs 26 a day in villages no longer being eligible to draw benefits of central and state government welfare schemes meant for those living below the poverty line (BPL). This amount is expected to cover expenditure on food, health and education and the figures are supposed to have taken into consideration revised calorie intake norms as well as June 2011 prices.
To us, the figure sounds low even for these expenditure items. But what about housing, we ask? Shouldn’t shelter be as basic a right as food, health or education?
In the work that micro Home Solutions has done in the resettlement colonies and more recently, slums in Delhi, we have observe first hand the obsession of low income families with cards, identity documents and their corresponding entitlements. Being BPL is a badge many of these families wear with pride as it entitles them to subsidies that enable them to subsist. Since the poverty line estimated do not take access to shelter into account, does it also mean that those just above the BPL status will not be counted when new schemes for low-income housing are unrolled? Will the RAY scheme for a slum free India only give preferential treatment to BPL families? What is the relationship between poverty and housing and why is the Planning Commission not even putting this on its list of considerations for poverty?
These are real questions. As you walk through the lanes of a Delhi slum, you can talk to several slum dwellers whose kids attend school. They will tell you that they manage to scrape together a couple of square meals a day and the government health facilities do attend to most health concerns (after standing in long queues and dealing with menacing staff, or course). Point to the condition of their homes and they shrug. Open drains, poorly ventilated and barely lit homes, roofing constructed from tarpaulin and plastic that can barely keep out the rain, not to mention structurally unsafe walls that can crack and cave in in the event of a strong tremor—these are the conditions in which they live. On the other hand, the rickshaw puller and the daily wage labour living on the streets are not even looking for a home in the slum. They want the cheapest place to rest- which is often on the road divider or under a flyover. Interestingly, even they don’t prioritize their need for shelter.
However, poor living conditions have a direct impact on health and economic productivity. In fact, healthcare costs will be higher if you live in such poor conditions. How beneficial is education when the child does not have enough space or sufficient light in her home to study? The relationship of shelter (as the most important manifestation of living conditions) to poverty is obvious but always overlooked!
The poverty line, we understand, is a tool for the government to decide who is eligible for subsidies. These are, therefore, also related to how much the government can spend on the poor. The new poverty estimates for 2009-10 to be released soon on the basis of NSSO data may actually have a smaller BPL population than 2004-05. Good news for government spending. Maybe the funds saved this way need to go into building the poor decent homes!
Mukta Naik
Urban houselessness or poor housing conditions have their basis in inequitable employment opportunities leading to mass migration of people from their home and hearth to the places of their employment. Needless to say, the more affluent will push the less better off to the fringes of a city, turning the latter into slums or ghettos of homeless.
Govenment’s (including that of Delhi’s) several attempts at making available low cost structures to the poor and marginalised have ended up into greater fiasco- the have-nots would just exchage their shanties with cash and settle at all kinds of public places. The rot has to be stemmed at its source- housing has to viewed as integrated and closely linked with employment potential of a given place. We need an altogether different breed of urban planners who can view a given habitation from a holistic perspective rather than addressing its challenges as stand-alone, each one at a time.
Mukta, the concerned, desperate and out-of-box thinkers like us and a professional on the subject like you have a calling on this. Would like to discuss this, as it is close to my heart- also I have a wee bit exposure to the ideas, activism and projects in the West, on the subject.
Sorry I saw the comment this late, Lalit. Let’s discuss. Catch you on gtalk sometime!