In a 1995 research paper, psychologists studying ‘counterfactual thinking’ analysed video footage of the 1992 Barcelona Games to deduce that the knowledge of ‘almost winning a Gold medal’ ruined the moment for a silver medallist, while the bronze winner was contented by the thought: ‘I at least won a medal’.
Richard Carapaz of Ecuador, centre, who won the gold medal, fist pumps bronze medal winner Tadej Pogacar of Slovenia, as silver medal winner Wout van Aert of Belgium watches, after the men’s cycling road race at the 2020 Summer Olympics, Saturday, July 24, 2021, in Oyama, Japan. (AP Photo/Thibault Camus)
ATIKH RASHID
During a newspaper interview he gave almost 70 years after he clinched a silver medal at the Stockholm Olympics of 1912, mid-distance American runner Abel Kiviat described the race as a “nightmare”.
His silver medal had come after a photo-finish — a first in Olympic history — in which he had just got past fellow American Norman Taber in the 1500m race.
“That race was the biggest disappointment of my life. I never saw Jackson,” he said while referring to Great Britain’s Arnold Jackson who had secured by the slimmest margin of 0.1 seconds. “I wake up sometimes and say, ‘What the heck happened to me?” Kiviat said.
The final moment of 1500 m race in 1912 Games in which Great Britain’s Arnold Jackson beat USA’s Abel Kiviat (third from left) by 0.1 seconds.
Kiviat, who died in 1991, showed that the disappointment of losing out narrowly lingers, but he was no exception in this regard. Most silver medallists end up tormenting themselves by imagining the alternative possibility if they had pushed a little harder.
Ravi Kumar Dahiya, the Indian wrestler who secured a silver medal for India in 57 kg freestyle on Thursday in the ongoing Tokyo Olympics, voiced a similar disappointment.
“What’s the point of this?… I had come here with only one target, a gold medal. This (silver medal) is okay, but it’s not gold,” he told reporters.
A 1995 research paper published by psychologists Victoria Medvec, Thomas Gilovich (both from Cornell), and Scott F Madey (University of Toledo) has an answer to why silver medallists may be feeling the way they are.
They studied this phenomenon to conclude that on a happiness scale, silver medallists fair poorly owing to the human tendency to indulge in ‘counterfactual thinking’ — the propensity to think of alternative circumstances to real-life events, especially those with far-ranging consequences.
The study, “When Less Is More: Counterfactual Thinking and Satisfaction Among Olympic Medallists”, deduced that bronze medallists score much better on the happiness scale when compared to silver medallists who had outperformed them in the game.
Mean Happiness Ratings: Bronze medalists fared better on the happiness scale immediately after the event as well as at the medal stand compared to the silver medalists (Medevec et al, 1995)
Medvec and colleagues analysed visible expressions of the bronze and silver medal-winning athletes at the 1992 Summer Olympics immediately after the finish of the event when the winners stood at the medal stand.
The study aimed to determine how counterfactual thinking and the psychology of “coming close” affects the feeling of satisfaction and the degree of well-being. Medvec et al chose the domain of athletic competition outcomes to study the subject because it throws up results with an unusual precision with competitors finishing first, second, or third with a fractional difference and earning distinctly different rewards of gold, silver, and bronze medals.
“We were interested in whether the effects of different counterfactual comparisons are sufficiently strong to cause people who are objectively worse off to sometimes feel better than those in a superior state. Moreover, we were interested not just in documenting isolated episodes in which this might happen, but in identifying a specific situation in which it occurs with regularity and predictability. The domain we chose to investigate was athletic competition,” said Medvec and his colleagues in the paper published in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
As part of the study, the researchers collated the video footage from the Barcelona Olympic Games held three years ago and edited them in three different master tapes. One showed the medallists’ reaction immediately after the results were announced, another showed them receiving the medals at the stand, and a third one comprised of the interviews they gave to media persons about their performance.
In the first study, the university students, who were blind to the results, were asked to judge the immediate reaction of 41 athletes on a 10-point ‘agony to ecstasy’ scale. After assessing athletes’ reactions, silver medallists received a mean rating of 4.8 while bronze medallists received a mean rating of 7.1 on the happiness scale. When examining the athletes’ reaction on the medal stand, participants assigned the bronze medallists a mean rating of 5.7 and a 4.3 for silver medallists.
In the second part of the same study, the participants reviewed television interviews of 22 silver and bronze medallists to see what was the predominant feeling expressed by each athlete: Was he/she happy with what was achieved, or was he/she preoccupied with a feeling of regret. The participants judged the expressed feelings on a 10-point scale which had “At least I…” on one end and “I almost…” on the other.
It was found that the silver medallists focused more on “I almost” than bronze medallists who expressed a feeling of achievement and satisfaction for getting a medal. Participants assigned silver medallists’ thoughts an average rating of 5.7 and bronze medallists’ an average rating of only 4.4 on the 10-point “At least I… ” to “I almost…” scale.
Explaining the findings, the researchers wrote, “To the silver medallist, the most vivid counterfactual thoughts are often focused on nearly winning the gold. Second place is only one step away from the cherished gold medal and all of its attendant social and financial rewards. Thus, whatever joy the silver medallist may feel is often tempered by tortuous thoughts of what might have been had she only lengthened her stride, adjusted her breathing, pointed her toes, and so on. For the bronze medallist, in contrast, the most compelling counterfactual alternative is often coming in fourth place and being in the showers instead of on the medal stand.”
Social psychologists have long held that an individual’s wellbeing in any given circumstance depends on how these circumstances compare with those with whom he tends to compare them.
Such counterfactual thinking also has a functional value as those who ruin their happiness by thinking about the missed opportunity often strive to improve their future performances.
“Downward comparisons (i.e., thinking about a worse outcome) are thought to provide comfort, whereas upward comparisons (i.e., thinking about a better outcome) are thought to improve future performance. Indeed, it has been shown that people who expect to perform again in the future are more likely to generate upward counterfactuals than those who expect to move on,” said the study.
While the masses loved it, the elite were riled up by Jugnu’s provocative framing of sexuality and depiction of college as a space for free intermingling of sexes. Several provincial governments banned the film, forcing the distributors to chop it drastically to rid it of ‘vulgarity’.
The singing star Noor Jehan’s depature for Pakistan with her husband Shaukat Hussein Rizvi, who was the producer-director of Jugnu, may have contributed to lack of sympathy for the film among decision makers in India.
ATIKH RASHID
Jugnu (Firefly, 1947) was an important film in many respects. It was the first box office success for Dilip Kumar, then a newbie in the industry, and the last film of singing star Noor Jehan before she permanently left Bombay for Karachi. Jugnu was peculiar in another regard. It was among a few films that were conceptualised and made in pre-independence India but were released in theatres after the dawn of Independence and the pain of Partition.
The response to Jugnu – the love it received from the masses, the ‘moral panic’ it evoked among the elite, and the punitive action it invited from the young government – was an outcome of the time of transition that the country was going through. It also set the tone for the censorship project that Independent India would embark on –aiming to protect the ‘fragile morality’ of the ‘gullible masses’ – and continues to obsess itself with even today.
The present-day audience would likely judge Jugnu as a run-of-the-mill romantic comedy (which like many latter films of Dilip Kumar ends in a tragedy) that ticks some boxes and misses a few. The film produced and directed by Shaukat Husain Rizvi, then-husband of Noor Jehan, has a simple story. Dilip Kumar’s Suraj and Noor Jehan’s Jugnu study in separate colleges located on the same campus and fall in love. Jugnu is an orphan and Suraj is the only son of an ostensibly rich raisaheb who has accumulated debt. The family has planned to marry Suraj to a girl from a wealthy family hoping to receive dowry that will end their financial troubles. The circumstances mean that the lovers can’t marry each other and must feign unfaithfulness. The mutual heartbreak, ultimately, leads the couple to their tragic ends.
Those against the film objected to, among other sequences, this scene in which Jugnu and Suraj indulge in a flirtatious chit chat hiding behind a sofa in the latter’s home.
Although a mixed bag in terms of performances, the film is salvaged by the comedic episodes in the first half and a couple of good songs in the latter.
While the newspaper advertisements from the time tell us that the film, branded as ‘The Song of the Youth’, was celebrating ‘Silver Jubilees’ in multiple cities, it was also evoking an adverse response from the elite for depicting ‘college’ as a place of the intermingling of the sexes, and its provocative framing of youthful sexuality. It portrayed Indian youngsters as carefree romantics for whom the only thing that mattered was the success and failure in love.
Another topic of contention, repeatedly raised by its critics, was its depiction of a romance between the ladies’ hostel matron, played by Ruby Myers, and a professor from the boys’ college. There were still others who blamed it for slandering India’s higher education institutions by not focussing at all on learning activities that, ideally, should go on in a college.
The song ‘Loot Jawani Phir Nahin Aani’ performed by Latika in the film as part of the college drama was a major point of criticism. Many objected to the lyrics as well as “vulgar”, “nude”, “courtesan-like” performance by Latika.
A peek into the archive tells us that popular periodicals like Filmindia were routinely receiving letters from its English speaking readers complaining about Jugnu. While some wondered how such a ‘vulgar film’ was cleared by the Censor Board. Others demanded that it should be re-examined. Readers would reproduce the lyrics of an entire song (Loot Jawani…) to prove their point of Jugnu’s indecency and its portrayal of college girls as ‘courtesans’. Even Indians residing in Singapore and Colombo wrote with angst that the film was spreading the “wrong impression about college life in India”.
“Believe me, Mr Patel. The whole audience was exasperated – barring a few perhaps – when they saw a college girl dancing with the full garb of vulgarity in a drama staged in the college… Patrons of Indian films here like good stories with melodious songs and not historical distortions and semi-nude dances,” wrote M T Piyaseela from Colombo, in a letter published in the October 1948 issue.
Shiv Das Singh, a student from Jodhpur, feared that Jugnu might affect his educational prospects. “What would be the effect on our parents’ minds seeing the film…Will our parents then be ready to allow us to continue our studies further?” he wondered.
After a successful north India run, Jugnu was released at Bombay’s Capitol Cinema on October 1, 1948 but was pulled off the theatre within four weeks “in the midst of its triumphant run” after Filmindia editor Baburao Patel wrote a scathing review headlined ‘Jugnu: A dirty, disgusting, vulgar picture!’.
“Jugnu…tells us that college life in India is nothing more than a long sex hunt in which boys chase girls, explore their hand bags, rob their tiffin boxes and sing suggestive love ditties while making vulgar gestures; while girls sigh about heavily, seduce boys to tea, pimp for their friends, puncture their cycle tyres and sing songs of frustrated love,” Patel wrote in the review, adding, “no decent exhibitor with any pride for his profession or any self-respect should exhibit it in his theatre.”
Interestingly, Patel was Noor Jehan’s neighbour in Oomer Park, Warden Road, Bombay.
In fact, Patel informs us in the review, that he had sent an ‘advanced copy’ of the write up to the then Bombay Home Minister Morarji Desai who watched the film on October 26 and issued a ban three days later under Section 21 of General Clauses Act of 1897. This led to a lot of protests from the film producers and distributors for the ‘arbitrary action’ by the Home Minister on a film already cleared by a ‘full board’ of the censors, but to no avail.
The romance between hostel matron played by Ruby Myers and a professor from boy’s college was a major cause of the films popularity among the youth. It, on the other hand, also added to Jugnu‘s trouble with the government.
After Bombay, several other provincial governments banned the film. The distributor – Bharat Pictures, Akola – was forced to re-submit the film for certification where it was chopped off significantly. Records show that when the film obtained its first Censor certificate from the Bombay Board of Film Certification on July 7, 1947, its total length was 14,093 feet. After revisions made following the ban, it was reduced to 11,559 feet. In terms of the run time, the film lost 28 minutes of its original duration of 156 minutes. The film returned to the screens after a few months in truncated form.
In many ways, the extent of criticism that Jugnu received seems disproportionate to the provocation contained in the film. This response can be understood in two contexts. Firstly, the elite discourse in the newly-Independent India was focused on ‘nation building’, a project that would require the energies and services of the youth. Jugnu’s celebration of youngsters as carefree lads inclined to shrug off responsibility in favour of romantic pursuits did not go well with the government and others with a say.
Secondly, the decision by the film’s female lead Noor Jehan and producer-director Rizvi to choose Pakistan over India left little sympathy for them and their product among the Indian elite. For example, in its review of Jugnu, Patel made a misplaced and far-fetched connection between director Shaukat Rizvi and Qasim Rizvi, the head of extremist, separatist Razakar movement in Hyderabad.
In the pages of Filmindia, which was the most powerful film magazine at the time, Muslim filmmakers who were travelling between India and Pakistan in the fog of the Partition (some of which decided to stay back in India) are repeatedly referred to as ‘fifth columnists’ who need to be watched to ensure that “they do not use the powerful medium of the films” for nefarious purposes.
“The censors must watch carefully such anti-social and anti-religious activities of these fanatic producers who live with us to stab us from day to day,” warns an editorial in the November 1948 issue of Filmindia.
Notwithstanding the legal and circumstantial impediments, Jugnu went on to become one of the biggest films of the time and launched Dilip Kumar’s career in the true sense. In fact, it was a large poster of Jugnu put up in Bandra that broke the news to Ghulam Sarwar ‘Agha’, the fruit seller from Peshawar, that his son Yusuf had entered the film business and had become a star.
Slight rise in mortality in state in 2020; marked uptick in Pune, Mumbai hints at uncounted Covid deaths
ATIKH RASHID
As the second wave of the Covid-19 pandemic subsides, the extent of loss of life caused by the virus remains contested. There have been claims – by politicians and infectious diseases experts – that the number of deaths caused by the pandemic could be many times higher than the officially reported numbers.
One important way to arrive at a more realistic death toll, as per the experts, is to gauge the ‘excess deaths’ recorded in pandemic year after comparing them to pre-pandemic years and factoring in the natural growth trend. For this, deaths registered by the Civil Registration System (CRS) of the state governments act as a reliable data source.
While some states have created dedicated portals for the distribution of certificates and real-time data collection, in Maharashtra the process remains cumbersome. Most agencies responsible for recording births and deaths– municipal bodies or panchayats –send the death registration data to the state authorities manually. This means that the state-level agency, State Bureau of Health Intelligence Vital Statistics, responsible for collecting the data and reporting to the Registrar General of India, completes data collection three months after a calendar year came to an end. It reports the same to the Registrar by end of July, every year.
The Indian Express spoke to officials at the Bureau to find out that, so far, agencies in only 25 districts have submitted the record about the birth and date that happened in the year 2020 in the respective jurisdiction. Data is awaited from 10 other distsricts.
Govardhan Gaikwad, Deputy Director, Health Services, and Deputy Chief Registrar of Birth and Death in the state, says that every year the birth and death reports are sent for publication by end of July. This year, since the receipt of data has slowed down from the agencies issuing the certificates, it may take a bit longer. This means that data pertaining to all-causes deaths registered in the state for 2020 may be available only after a few months, and that pertaining to mortality in the second wave during February-May 2021, can only be available halfway through the next year.
“Government offices of three different types are involved in recording the births and deaths happening in the respective jurisdiction. While some submit the data using online means, most still depend on the manual method. This delays the receipt of the data by us, and we have to process and send it further,” explained Gaikwad.
Although Maharashtra does not have a portal of its own -like Rajasthan’s Pehchan for this purpose – it could use the national portal crsorgi.gov.in.
“Many agencies don’t use the online medium for real-time reporting of the data because it’s not mandatory as per the extant law. Also, some offices may be discouraged by the connectivity issues,” added Gaikwad.
Out of 35 districts in the state, birth and death registration data for only 25 has been recieved by the state Bureau so far. (Picture: Arul Horizon for The Indian Express)
Slight rise in mortality in state in 2020; marked uptick in Pune, Mumbai hinting at uncounted Covid deaths
The data that has been so far compiled by the state CRS shows a slight uptick in the number of deaths in 2020, the year in which the first Covid-19 wave hit the country, when compared with the previous year. The CRS data is not yet available for the more devastating second wave which hit the state between February and May 2021.
However, significantly, cities like Mumbai and Pune, which were the worst affected by the pandemic, show significant ‘excess deaths’ in 2020 when compared with registered deaths in 2019 and 2018.
Data submitted by 25 out of 35 districts to the state CRS shows that 5,78,912 deaths were registered in these districts in 2020. In the previous year, ie 2019 (the pre-pandemic year), these 25 districts had registered 5,16,138 deaths from various causes. (Cumulative deaths in all 35 districts for this year were 6,93,800.)
In 2018, another pre-pandemic year, these 25 districts had recorded 4,88,599 deaths. (Cumulative deaths for all 35 districts for this year were 6,67,900.)
Thus, considering only 25 states for want of data for the entire state, the year 2020 saw 62,774 additional deaths compared to 2019 which, in turn, had seen 27,539 more registered deaths than in 2018.
As per the state health department, a total of 49,521 Covid deaths occurred in the state in 2020. Of these, 35,450 were reported from the 25 districts that we are considering.
Cities like Mumbai and Pune showed a marked increase in the registered deaths during 2020, hinting at the possibility of uncounted Covid-19 deaths.
Mumbai had recorded 88,852 and 91,223 deaths in 2018 and 2019 respectively. The number rose to 1,11,942 in 2020, thus recording a jump of 20,719 deaths over the previous year. As per the Health Department records, Mumbai saw 11,125 Covid deaths in 2020.
In Pune, which had recorded 61,824 and 63,630 deaths in 2018 and 2019 respectively, the CRS recorded 79,683 deaths in 2019. While the rise in recorded deaths was 16,053, the Health Department counted only 7767 Covid deaths in Pune in 2020.
It was American political scientist Samuel P Huntington who proposed the concept of ‘Waves of Democracy’ and ‘Reverse waves (of autocratisation)’ to map the periods of surges and declines of democracy across the world.
Political scientists say the world is in the grasp of a third wave of autocratisation which is deceptively invisible. The new autocrats have given up on the old tactics of dramatic and violent coups, rather they rely on slow erosion of democratic processes and weakening of institutions that keep a check on their power.
ATIKH RASHID
Last month, V-Dem Project (Varieties of Democracy), a Sweden based independent research institute, released its annual democracy report making a key observation that India, the world’s largest democracy, has turned into an ‘electoral autocracy’.
Apart from this humiliating demotion of India, which has invited the ire of the Narendra Modi government, the report points to an accelerated autocratisation in several countries including United States, Brazil and Turkey that indidcate a trend that decline of democracy has hastened globally.
As per the report, 87 countries are now electoral autocracies that are home to 68 per cent of the global population. Liberal democracies, the group says have diminished and are home to only 14 per cent of the people.
The report says that with the backsliding of democracy in Asia-Pacific region, Central Asia, Eastern Europe, and Latin America, the level of democracy enjoyed by the average global citizen in 2020 is down to levels last found around 1990.
This decline in democracy is, the report says, is part of the “third wave of autocratization” accelerates – 25 countries, home to 34% of the world’s population (2.6 billion people), are in democratic decline by 2020. At the same time, the number of democratizing countries drop by almost half down to 16 that are home to a mere 4 per cent of the global population.
What are the waves of democratisation?
The concept ‘Democracy Wave’ was first introduced by the American political scientist Samuel P Huntington in his book ‘The Third Wave’ published in 1991. In the book, he argues that since the early nineteenth century, there has been three major surges of democracy as a political systems and two brief periods of decline. He calls the surges as ‘waves of democracy’ and the ebbs as the ‘reverse waves.’
Huntington defines a ‘wave of democracy’ as the “transition of a group of nations from non-democratic to democratic regimes during a specified period of time in which such transition to democratic regimes are significantly outnumbered by transitions in the opposite directions”.
As per Huntington, the first ‘long’ wave of democratization began in the 1820s, with the widening of the suffrage to a large proportion of the male population in the United States, and continued for almost a century until 1926, bringing into being 29 democracies including France, Britain, Canada, Australia, Italy and Argentina.
He argues that this ‘long and slow wave’ was followed by a ‘reverse wave’ leading to weakening of democratisation process. Between Mussolini’s rise to power in 1922 and 1942, the number of democratic states in the world to was brought down to a mere 12.
The triumph of the Allied Fources in World War II initiated a second wave of democratization taking the number of democratic countries to 36 by 1962. This was, says Huntington in the book, was followed by a second reverse wave (1960-1975) that brought the number of democracies back down to 30.
The third wave of democratisation, Huntington proposes, began with the Carnation revolution in Portugal in 1974 and continued with a number of democratic transition in Latin America in the 1980s, Asia Pacific countries and, saliently, in Eastern Europe after the collapse of the Soviet Union. He points out that this democratic wave was so strong that in Latin America that out of 20 countries in the continent, only two countries (Cuba and Haiti) remained authoritarian by1995.
A graph from Anna Lührmann and Staffan I. Lindberg ‘s article showing three democratisation waves and three autocratisation waves as defined by Huntington and by them.
In 1991, when he published the book, he observed that there were already sign of commencement of a third reverse wave were already there, with nascent democracies like Haiti, Sudan returning to authoritarianism.
What are waves of Autocratisation?
Following Huntington’s lead, a number of political scientists have used these concepts to explain the ebbs and flows in the march of democracy.
For example, in March 2019, Anna Lührmann and Staffan I. Lindberg published a research article, ‘A third wave of autocratization is here: what is new about it?’ in which they mapped the strengthening and weakening of democracies across the globe in over a century and ‘identified’ a distinct third wave of autocratisation that commenced in 1994.
Luhrmann and Lindberg define an autocratization wave as “the time period during which the number of countries undergoing democratization declines while at the same time autocratization affects more and more countries.”
They used V-Dem’s data on 182 countries from1900 to the end of 2017, or 18,031 country-years to demonstrate the a third wave of autocratisation. They do this by identifying ‘autocritisation episodes’ which push a country away from democratic practices. A total of the 217 autocratization episodes taking place in 109 countries from 1900 to 2017.
The dates for the first two reverse waves presented by them are very similar to Huntington’s despite the conceptual and measurement differences. As per them during the first reverse wave 1922–1942 a total of 32 autocratisation episodes took place; they identified 62 episode in the second reverse wave between 1960–1975; during the ongoing ‘third wave’ of autocratisation they located 75 episodes starting from 1942 (until 2019).
“By 2017, the third wave of autocratization dominated with the reversals outnumbering the countries making progress. This had not occurred since 1940,” they say in the paper.
“In sum, an important characteristic of the third wave of autocratization is unprecedented: It mainly affects democracies – and not electoral autocracies as the earlier period – and this occurs while the global level of democracy is close to an all-time high. Hence, for now at least, the trend is manifest, but less dramatic than some claim,” they say.
Auotocratisation has become less dramatic!
Political scientists like Micheal Coppedge note that a key contemporary pattern of autocratisation is the gradual concentration of power in the executive, apart from the more “classical” path of intensified repression.
The latest V-DEM report points to an accelerated autocratisation in several countries including United States, Brazil and Turkey that indidcate a trend that decline of democracyhas hastened globally.
Although various observers including V-Dem, Freedom House, point to substantial autocratization over the last decade in countries as diverse as United States, India, Russia, Hungary, Turkey, and Venezuela, the democratic breakdowns have become less conspicuous. This, political scientists say, is because the contemporary autocrats have “mastered the art of subverting electoral standards without breaking their democratic façade completely.”
“Democratic breakdowns used to be rather sudden events – for instance military coups – and relatively easy to identify empirically. Now, multi-party regimes slowly become less meaningful in practice making it increasingly difficult to pinpoint the end of democracy,” write Luhrmann and Lindberg.
“A gradual transition into electoral authoritarianism is more difficult to pinpoint than a clear violation of democratic standards, and provides fewer opportunities for domestic and international opposition. Electoral autocrats secure their competitive advantage through subtler tactics such as censoring and harassing the media, restricting civil society and political parties and the undermining the autonomy of election management bodies. Aspiring autocrats learn from each other and are seemingly borrowing tactics perceived to be less risky than abolishing multi-party elections altogether,” they argue.
As per Luhrmann and Lindberg, the ‘erosion model’ has emerged as the prominent tactic in the third wave of autocratisation. The first and second waves, on the other hand, were dominated by blatant methods such as military coup (39% of episodes) or foreign invasion (29%), and by autogolpes, where the chief executive comes to power by legal means but then suddenly abolishes key democratic institutions such as elections or parliaments (32%).
“Democratic erosion became the modal tactic during the third wave of autocratization. Here, incumbents legally access power and then gradually, but substantially, undermine democratic norms without abolishing key democratic institutions. Such processes account for 70% in the third reversal wave with prominent cases of such gradual deterioration in Hungary and Poland. Aspiring autocrats have clearly found a new set of tools to stay in power, and that news has spread,” write Luhrmann and Lindberg.
As per the latest V-DEM report, in 2020, the third wave of autocratisation has accelerated considerably. “…It now engulfs 25 countries and 34 per cent of the world population (2.6 billion). Over the last ten years the number of democratizing countries dropped by almost half to 16, hosting a mere 4 per cent of the global population,” says the report.
As per PMC officials, of the total 2918 flats constructed to be allotted under PMAY(U) for deserving poor families, about 850 flats still remain unsold, after two rounds of allotment and opening up for the general public who had not made the application initially.
ATIKH RASHID
After failing to find customers from among the common citizens to buy the flats constructed by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) under Pradhan Mantri Aawas Yojana -Urban (PMAY-U), the civic body has now decided to allot the about 850 unsold flats to the staffers of Pune Mahanagar Parivahan Mahamandal Limited (PMPML).
As per PMC officials, of the total 2918 flats constructed to be allotted under PMAY(U) for deserving poor families, about 850 flats still remain unsold, after two rounds of allotment and opening up for the general public who had not made the application initially.
Of the three sites – namely, Hadapsar, Kharadi and Vadgaon Khurd – most of the unsold flats are at Hadapsar (three proposed buildings in Hingane Mala) and Vadgaon Khurd areas.
The unsold flats will now be allotted to PMPML staffers and the civic body has also received about 1300 applications from the hopefuls, of which 661 applications were found eligible for allotment.
“There are about 150-200 applications of the PMPML staffers which have minor deficiencies and can become eligible for allotment after we receive supplementary documents,” said Dinesh Rokade, Joint-Director in-charge of implementation of PMAY (Urban) in PMC.
Under Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) vertical of PMAY(U), PMC has taken up the development of five housing projects comprising of 2,918 apartments at three different locations in the city namely Hadapsar, Kharadi and Vadgaon Khurd. When the civic body started receiving the applications in 2017, over 40,000 hopefuls from EWS families had applied to benefit from the scheme. In October 2020, PMC announced the first list of beneficiaries by drawing a lottery, and asked them to book the homes – cost ranging between Rs 8.4 lakh to Rs 10.2 lakh – by paying 10 per cent booking amount within a month. However, at the end of this period, only 731 individuals claimed the homes (although about 1400 of them had collected the provisional allotment letters from the PMC) while the rest gave the opportunity a pass.
On December 7, the PMC published another list of 2187 fresh allottees from the waiting list. By January 6, when the deadline to book the home came to an end, only 357 of them had booked the offered home.
At the end of the second round of allotment by the end of January 2021, a total of 1830 homes still remain unbooked as allottees did not come forward to book the flat by paying 10 per cent of the cost.
Following this, the PMC opened up the homes to anyone who fulfils the EWS criteria (income less than 3 lakh per annum and not owning a house anywhere in Maharashtra) and had not applied to benefit under the scheme. Even after the end of this round, about 850 apartments remained unbooked.
As reported by The Indian Express earlier, under the vertical of affordable housing in partnership (AHP) under PMAY(U), the PMC has taken up the development of five housing projects comprising 2,918 apartments at three different locations in the city, namely Hadapsar, Kharadi and Vadgaon Khurd.
A beneficiary who has been picked through the lottery drawn by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) at the construction site in Kharadi. (Photo Credit: Atikh Rashid)
HOUSES BEING constructed by the PMC under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) for economically weaker families are finding few takers. At the end of the second round of allotment, as many as 1,830 houses have still not been booked as allottees selected via the lucky draw have not come forward to book the flat by paying 10 per cent of the cost.
As reported by The Indian Express earlier, under the vertical of affordable housing in partnership (AHP) under PMAY(U), the PMC has taken up the development of five housing projects comprising 2,918 apartments at three different locations in the city, namely Hadapsar, Kharadi and Vadgaon Khurd.
When the civic body started receiving applications in 2017, more than 40,000 hopefuls from economically weaker families applied for the scheme. In October 2020, the PMC announced the first list of beneficiaries by drawing a lottery, and asked them to book the homes –ranging between Rs 8.4 lakh and Rs 10.2 lakh – by paying 10 per cent of the booking amount in a month. At the end of this period, however, only 731 applicants claimed the homes, although about 1,400 of them collected the provisional allotment letters from the PMC). The rest gave the opportunity a pass.
On December 7, the PMC published another list of 2,187 fresh allottees from the waiting list. By January 6, when the deadline to book the home ended, only 357 of them booked the offered home. Thus, at the end of two rounds, 1,830 (62 per cent) were not allotted.
According to officials, most of the dwelling units (DU) that have not been booked are at three sites in Hadapsar’s Hingane Mala. In this area, which already has over a dozen slum rehabilitation buildings and do not have proper access roads, the PMC is constructing 1,024 DUs in three different projects.
Also, unlike the two other sites, namely in Kharadi and Vadgaon Khurd, the work has not physically commenced and allottees are finding it difficult to envisage how the building and the apartment would look. At these sites, however, beneficiaries are visiting the ongoing work and can take a look at the sample flat and possible amenities in the building and the locality.
“Most of the apartments that have not been booked are from the Hadapsar sites,” said a staffer at the PMC’s PMAY(U) cell.
While the allottees of the two other sites are satisfied, the difficulty in getting a home loan is proving to be an issue for many families, especially in those where the income comes from unorganised sectors. Major banks are turning them away for lack of income proof, compliance with income tax rules and good credit history and private finance firms are charging a hefty interest rate.
A rickshaw driver, who has been allotted a home in the Kharadi project, said, “Nationalised banks charge 6.9 per cent interest on home loans. They are refusing us loans for lack of documentary evidence of income, and the interest rates offered by private finance companies are too high – ranging from 9 per cent to 12 per cent. These firms are also notorious for harassing and abusing customers even if there’s a minor issue in repayment. Considering everything, I’m confused if I should go ahead and book the home or let it go.”
Dinesh Rokade, joint-director in-charge of PMAY(U) in the PMC, said Additional Commissioner Rubal Agarwal held a meeting with representatives of nationalised banks, requesting them to make the process of getting loan easier for EWS beneficiaries.
“The bank officials, however, conveyed that they are bound by guidelines of RBI (Reserve Bank of India) and won’t be able to lend to those without requisite documentation or with default on a previous loan,” said Rokade.
Rokade said the civic body was considering giving another chance to applicants in the primary list or the waiting list but could not make the booking within the deadline due to logistical reasons. “We are still compiling the lists of allotments and vacancies and, once that gets finalised, senior officials will take a call in this regard,” he added.
The correspondence between Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), obtained by The Indian Express using the RTI, shows that there has been little progress towards resolving the issue although both the agencies acknowledge that poor families are badly suffering due to the delay in release of central subsidy.
Naseem Bano, a widow from Parbhani district, is among the PMAY(U) beneficiaries who are awaiting release of the central subsidy to complete the construction of their houses. (Pic: Atikh Rashid)
As Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana (Urban) beneficiaries in Maharashtra, especially those from Economically Weaker Sections (EWS), continue to suffer due to the delay in the release of central subsidy, the state and central agencies are blaming each other, documents obtained by The Indian Express under the Right To Information Act show.
As reported by the Express earlier, a total of 2.19 lakh houses have been sanctioned in the state under Beneficiary Led Construction (BLC) vertical of PMAY(U), in which each beneficiary family receives Rs 1.5 lakh from the Centre and Rs 1 lakh from the state.
In Maharashtra, of the total sanctioned houses since 2016-17, only 18,665 have been completed, while construction of 63,415 is stuck in various stages owing to non-release of subsidy funds by the Centre. In most cases, the construction has reached up to lintel level and the dwelling units are standing roofless.
In the remaining 1.2 lakh sanctioned cases, no progress has been seen despite the release of the first instalment of funds. This state officials reckon, could be because of financial hardships caused by Covid-19 to the EWS families, who may have diverted the funds towards basic needs.
As reported earlier, many BLC beneficiaries in the state, who had started the construction a year or two ago, have given up hope of finishing the work, owing to the prolonged delay in the release of Rs 1.5 lakh central subsidy. They have laid old tin sheets over the newly constructed walls so they can move in. In the most precarious condition are those who had demolished an existing kutcha house and had moved into a rented home.
Express spoke to many such families in Parbhani, Hingoli and Beed districts, who have spent a considerable amount on rent and are now repenting their decision to demolish the existing house in the hope of a better house.
While both the agencies – the Union Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), the nodal agency for implementing PMAY(U) in the state – told the Express that the delay was caused by the pendency in the submission of Utilisation Certificates (UCs) by Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) and the issue will soon be resolved, documents obtained under RTI Act show that the two agencies have been corresponding since March 2020, but the issues causing the delay in the release of pending funds are far from resolved.
Letter from Maharashtra Principal Secretary (Housing) SVR Srinivas to PMAY(U) Mission Director Amrit Abhijat on November 2 2020.
On March 4 2020, Rishi Kumar (Director-HFA-IV) had written to Sanjay Kumar, Additional Chief Secretary (Housing), Maharashtra, informing him that senior officials in MoHUA and Finance Ministry were in favour of halting the release of central funds in light of non-submission of UCs by states for funds released earlier.
The MoHUA followed up on October 7, 2020, when Amrit Abhijat, Mission Director, Housing For All, wrote to SVR Srinivas, Principal Secretary (Housing), Maharashtra. “So far, an amount of Rs 803.55 crore has been released to Maharashtra against which we have received UCs for Rs 127.16 crore only. As per General Financial Rules, UCs for amounts released prior to 31.3.2019 have become due and without the receipt of these, further release of funds is held up,” wrote Abhijat.
In his response dated November 2, Srinivas blamed the MoHUA for not following PMAY(U) guidelines, and releasing only a part of the amount it owes to the state towards the first instalment of houses sanctioned under BLC and AHP (Affordable Houses in Partnership) and ISSR (In-Situ Slum Rehabilitation) components in the state. He said that since ULBs were busy in Covid-19 management for the better part of the year, they should be given time to submit the pending UCs.
As per him, with a total of 7.40 lakh dwelling units sanctioned in the state under BLC, AHP and ISSR components of PMAY(U), the state should have received 40 per cent (Rs 4433 crore) of the total subsidy amount for these DUs as the first instalment.
“Contrary to the PMAY (U) guidelines, instead of releasing the entire first instalment of Rs 4,433 crore which is due to the state, the MoHUA has insisted the utilisation certificates for the 70 per cent for the partial amount released from the first instalment,” wrote Srinivas.
He said that the state government has been receiving demands from ULBs for release of pending funds and delay in the release of funds has caused “unrest among the beneficiaries”, especially those from EWS sections.
On December 18, Abhijat wrote back, reiterating that the state government will have to submit UCs worth Rs 324.87 crore to MoHUA before further funds are released. By this time, the UCs received by MoHUA had gone up to Rs 211.94 crore (from Rs 127 crore in March 2020). In this letter, Abhijat raised several other fresh compliance issues, including AADHAR seeding of the beneficiaries into the PMAY(U) portal, action taken report on the recommendation of the third party quality monitoring agencies, geo-tagging of the current stage of the constructions, among others.
“Therefore, I would request that all thus compliances may be done as soon as possible and come up with the proposal to release further funds to the state,” wrote Abhijat.
When reached for a comment, officials with MoHUA and MHADA, requesting not to be named, said that they were working to resolve the issues at the soonest.
In October 2020, PMC had alloted affordable houses being constructed under PMAY(U) to 2,918 poor families but only 731 of them claimed them. Now PMC has announced names of 2,187 fresh allottees urging them to book the unclaimed homes.
ATIKH RASHID
In August 2017, Babaram Bhagne (53), a helper at an automobile spare parts shop in Nana Peth, was among the 40,000 hopefuls from economically weaker families who had given applications to claim low cost homes being built under Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) in Pune city.
In October 2020, he was among the happy club of 2,918 applicants who were declared ‘winners’ to get the homes being built by Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) with assistance from private builders at five different locations in the city.
Two months later, he is one of the 2,187 individuals who have decided to let go of this ‘opportunity’. On Monday, PMC’s PMAY (U) cell posted a list of new ‘winners’ from the waiting list who will now have a chance to lay claim over the homes that remained unclaimed in the first round.
“On the day our name was announced in the lottery, we were told to pay up Rs 1.02 lakh (10 per cent of the total price of the apartment) within a month. I had no income from March to October 2020 as the automobile shop I work for was shut due to the lockdown. It was extremely difficult for me to arrange the sum within such a short time,” said Bhagane, who presently stays in a rented home in Sukhasagar with wife, a son and a daughter. He said that getting a housing loan for payment of the total cost (pegged at Rs 9.67) lakh was difficult due to break in employment.
But that wasn’t the only reason he let go of the home offer. “At 350 square feet carpet area, the apartment is too small for my family. My son has finished his graduation this year and very soon we will start thinking about his marriage. Once our family expands, this house will be too tiny for us. Hence, we thought and decided that instead of taking a loan to pay for this small flat, we will wait for an opportunity to buy a bigger home once my son starts earning,” said Bhagane.
The houses are being built for economically weaker sections (EWS) under Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) component of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban). Under this component, the central and state assistance is provided to housing projects where 35 per cent homes are reserved for EWS customers and are made available to them at an affordable rate.
Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) had announced eight projects under AHP in August 2017 and has also invited applications from EWS families. Of these, five projects progressed and in October 2020 PMC drew lotteries to determine the beneficiaries who would get the opportunity to buy low cost 2,918 apartments from the pool of 40,000 applications that it had received.
The five housing projects are located in Hadapsar, Survey No. 106A (340 homes), Kharadi (786), Vadgaon Khurd (1108), Hadapsar, Survey No.89 (584), and Hadapsar, Survey No.106A12 (100). Each dwelling unit is a 1BHK (bedroom, hall & kitchen) apartment with a carpet area of about 350 square feet.
As per officials at PMC’s PMAY(U) Cell, not all allottees who didn’t lay their claim over the homes found the offer unattractive or were not able to pay up the booking amount. “We had accepted the applications in 2017 and the lottery was drawn full three years later in October 2020. Many may have changed the contact numbers and did not get our messages. Owing to the Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown, many may have also moved out of the city and did not see lists of the winners published in the newspapers. We were receiving calls and personal visits of such people after November 23 but we could not consider their requests as it would have been unjust to those in the waiting list,” said Dinesh Rokade, Joint-Director for PMAY(U) implementation in PMC areas.
Financial incapability, however, remains a recurring theme among the allottees, including those who have laid a claim and paid up the first installment. “It’s beyond my comprehension why they had to make the allottment in the thick of the lockdown,” said Satvashila Bhosale, a domestic worker who stays in Yerwada area. “My husband who worked in a Titan shop lost his job during the lockdown and now banks are refusing to give us a loan. We are in a big trouble since we don’t want to lose the money we have already paid,” she said.
To help the allottees secure a bank loan, the PMC has set up home-loan stalls in its premises where housing finance companies and loan consultancies are guiding the allottees with loan procedure and accepting applications if they find them eligible. “Problem with most of the allottees is that they already have borrowed from banks and have unpaid loans on their accounts. Most have very poor credit history. In fact, some of them availed personal loans to pay the first installment for PMAY home which reflects poorly on their financial health. This makes them very weak loan candidates,” said a DSA (direct selling agent) present at the spot.
Rokade said that the PMAY(U) cell at PMC is learning from its mistakes earlier and the future AHP projects (five of them are being planned) will take into accounts the issues faced by the allottees and make the allottment process quicker and more accessible to the EWS families.
Earlier, civic bodies in the state – acting upon guidelines of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) – were releasing advance subsidy to beneficiary families constructing houses under the BLC (Beneficiary Led Construction) component of the PMAY(U) to ensure fast progress of the projects.
Beneficiaries are now required to show the progress of the house before requesting release of funds at each stage of the construction. (Photo Credit: Atikh Rashid)
Learning from earlier adverse experience, civic bodies in Maharashtra have now changed the pattern of releasing the subsidy under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (Urban) to the beneficiaries to ensure the money is not diverted from the intended purpose of the house construction.
Beneficiaries are now required to show the progress of the house before requesting release of funds at each stage of the construction.
Earlier, civic bodies in the state – acting upon guidelines of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) – were releasing advance subsidy to beneficiary families constructing houses under the BLC (Beneficiary Led Construction) component of the PMAY(U) to ensure fast progress of the projects.
However, this policy led to a considerable number of beneficiaries (about 20-25 per cent, as per MHADA officials) diverting the funds for other purposes, thus stalling the progress of construction. In several towns and cities in the state, PMAY(U) projects have not reached completion despite being under progress for one, two or more years.
The Covid-19 pandemic and the lockdown imposed between March and August resulted in a drastic reduction in earnings of economically weaker families – the target demographic for the BLC component – and may have further led to diversion of the funds received from the state and central governments to ensure livelihood.
“Considering past experience, we have decided to release the subsidy amount only after progress is shown at each stage,” Karbhari Divekar, Chief Officer, Pathri Municipal Council in Parbhani district. “Previously, we had deposited an upfront amount of Rs 40,000 in the accounts of the 1,050 beneficiaries when we gave them the building plan sanctions. But about 300 didn’t commence work,” he added.
In Pathri, new 1550 PMAY(U) beneficiaries whose names appear in the latest BLC project plan, have been asked to commence the work on the homes and that they will receive the first installment of Rs 40,000 after the foundation work is done, additional Rs 60,000 when the work progresses until lintel-level and rest Rs 1.50 lakh after the work finishes.
The beneficiaries are not too enthused about this strategy. “I will have to borrow money from private sources to start the work as I don’t have money to put in. As per the new strategy, only those who are well-off or have savings will be able to take advantage of the scheme,” said Laxmikant Ambure, a beneficiary.
Central subsidy released in some towns
Following The Indian Express report highlighting the status of the work on 1,150 houses sanctioned for PMAY(U) beneficiaries in several towns of the Marathwada region, MHADA – the state coordinating agency for PMAY(U) – has released the central subsidy for some of the towns.
As per officials with Parbhani, Hingoli and Pathri municipal bodies, some central funds have been received in the recent weeks, enabling them to release the 3rd and 4th installment of the funds to the beneficiaries.
Officials with Hingoli Municipal Council said they have received Rs 3.33 crore of the central subsidy while those in Pathri said they have received Rs 5 crore. “We had to wait for long. People really suffered as the work got stalled due to unavailability of funds. We hope that in future, the central funds will be released in a timely manner,” said Divekar.
As reported earlier, the release of central funds for the BLC component has been severely delayed owing to failure of a section of the Urban Local Bodies (ULB) to submit the utilisation certificates (UC) for amounts earlier released.
Although MHADA’s Dilip Muglikar, who is in-charge of PMAY(U) implementation in the state, did not comment, officials in the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) said they are still awaiting the submission of UC’s from Maharashtra.
“Of the total Rs 803 crore released, we have received the UC’s only for Rs 211 crore. The amount for which the UCs are due is close to Rs 550 crore. We won’t be able to release additional funds until we get UC’s for at least 80% of this amount,” said the a Ministry official who did not wish to be named.
(This news report appeared in The Indian Express on December 5 2020. It can be read here)
Of the 2.19 lakh homes sanctioned in Maharashtra under Beneficiary Led Construction (BLC) component of Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s flagship housing scheme, only 22,000 have been completed. Most beneficiaries – including those who have finished work – await release of Rs 1.5 lakh central subsidy
Delay in the release of Central Government share of PMAY(U) subsidy has halted construction of houses in many towns of Maharashtra for several months now. Roofless under-construction houses have become a common sight in small towns of the state. (Photo: Atikh Rashid)
ATIKH RASHID
Beneficiary led construction (BLC), one of the four components of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY)– Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s flagship programme to construct affordable houses in urban areas by 2022– has emerged as the most popular of the four components of the scheme.
The high demand for BLC, especially in small cities and towns, is because of the comparative flexibility it offers to beneficiaries to construct stand-alone houses on their own plot. The other three components of the scheme are the Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS), Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP) and In-Situ Slum Rehabilitation (ISSR).
Under BLC, the central government provides an assistance of Rs 1.5 lakh per beneficiary for construction of a new house, with a carpet area not exceeding 30 square metres, or enhancement of 9 square metres to an existing house. Several states have also offered an additional financial assistance to the scheme, with the Maharashtra government offering an additional Rs 1 lakh per dwelling unit (DU).
Homes sanctioned under BLC are more than those sanctioned under three other components combined.
The popularity of the scheme in the state can be gauged by the fact that 2.19 lakh homes have been sanctioned under the scheme since 2016 under 350 urban local bodies (ULBs) such as municipal corporations, municipal councils, and nagar panchayats, till date.
However, the initial enthusiasm of the beneficiaries of the scheme and ULBs has now replaced with uncertainty and dismay. This has been caused by delay in the release of the promised central subsidy of Rs 1.5 lakh – in whole or part – to the beneficiaries who are in the middle of construction. As a result of the 2.19 lakh houses sanctioned in the state between 2016-2019, only 22,000 have been completed.
The state and union government officials involved in PMAY(U) insist that there is no shortage of funds but their release has been plagued by the failure by the ULBs to submit utilisation certificates (UC) for funds released earlier.
The Covid-19 pandemic and the prolonged lockdown has only made the matters worse as a large number of beneficiaries are not able to contribute their own share towards the construction. The result: Over 1 lakh beneficiaries in the state have not reported any progress despite receiving the first few instalments of financial assistance.
At the national level, out of the total 67.44 lakh homes sanctioned under BLC, 36.67 lakh have been grounded and 17.08 have been completed. As many as 13.44 lakh have not shown any progress.
In Maharashtra, of about 80,000 homes that are incomplete most have been constructed till the lintel level and are standing roofless. Officials say that the future installments of the assistance will only be released for them after the roof has been cast. Many beneficiaries, however, expressed inability to do so. The Indian Express found that many beneficiaries have now given up hope and started putting old tin sheets over the newly constructed walls where an RCC roof was intended to be cast.
Many beneficiaries have given up hope and have moved into half-constructed houses by putting old GC sheets over the walls instead of waiting for the funds to cast the RCC roof promised under PMAY(U). (Photo Credit: Atikh Rashid)
Officials with ULBs say that despite repeated follow-ups with PMAY(U) authorities, no solution is being found to the issue of incomplete houses although desperate beneficiaries continue to badger them with queries about the release of funds.
Desperate wait for the new house
It’s been over eight months since Mukhtar Begam’s family in Pathri – a town of about 40,000 population in Parbhani district about 550 kms from Mumbai– moved into a metal sheet shanty erected on an empty plot under high-tension electricity wires about 50 metres away from their old home. The family dismantled this kuccha house hoping to build a new two-room home, with a kitchen and a toilet, as promised by the scheme after their name appeared in the list of beneficiaries released by the Pathri Municipal Council. Since then, Mukhtar Begam has come to repent her decision.
The construction progressed until the lintel-level when the money ran out. The family has spent over Rs 2 lakh on the house, including the Rs 1 lakh they received in financial assistance, the state government share promised under the scheme. Her husband is a woodcutter who earns Rs 300 on the days he manages to find work. His income has dried up since March, when the nationwide lockdown came into effect.
“He has to travel to cut trees and during the lockdown, all the travelling came to a halt. We were struggling to survive,” said Mukhtar Begum, who is mother to three daughters and a son.
Monsoon has been especially challenging for the family. While they are used to a leaking roof, life in a makeshift shanty during heavy rain has posed some newer, and frightening, challenges. The overhead high-tension wires often snap in strong winds and fall on the tin roof of her house, turning the entire tenement into an electrically-charged unit.
LIkes hundreds of others the work on Mukhtar Begum’s home has halted in absence of money. (In the inset, she points to the overhead electricity wires that she sees as a mortal danger for her family). (Photo Credit: Haseeb Shaikh)
“It happened thrice till now. Sometimes we rush out and other times, when it’s raining, we have to stay inside. I hold my breath and start chanting god’s name – clutching my youngest child to the chest,” said Mukhtar Begum, pointing to the wire over her roof. “I’m repenting for having demolished my house and came into the lure of having a nice RCC home for my kids. Often, I cry over this. My husband has even threatened to abandon me because of the constant cribbing over the house,” she said.
About 100 metres away, in Vilas Gople Nagar, Babarao Tambe is curses the day he picked PMAY (U) over Ramai Awas Yojana, Maharashtra Government’s housing scheme for poor families belonging to Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes which also provides the 2.5 lakh subsidy for construction of a house.
“My cousin got a house sanctioned under Ramai at the same time I got mine under PMAY. I have so far received Rs 1 lakh and have spent Rs 3.60 lakh, of this, Rs 2 lakh of I have borrowed. My cousin has received Rs 2.5 lakh in subsidy and his house is ready and he has a loan of about Rs 1 lakh to repay. I would have been better off if I had applied through that scheme,” said Tambe. He demolished his mud-house in February 2019 to build a new and shifted to an empty tenement in the neighborhood. The stay has turned out to be for over a year now. The new house looks strong and imposing but needs further work such as plastering of the inner walls, installation of doors, windows and fittings in the bathroom and the toilet. “I don’t have any money left and am waiting for the next instalments of the subsidy which are now due,” he said.
Babarao Tambe stands next to his new house being built under PMAY (U). Behind him is the tenement where his family has been living for about a year and must continue until the work on the new home is over. (Photo Credit: Atikh Rashid)
In the town of Pathri, 1153 DUs has been sanctioned under the scheme since 2018 and work started on 1050 tenements between January 2019 and January 2020. As of October 5, only 200 homes have been completed while 621 remain in various staged of incompletion. All these houses have received Rs 1 lakh in two instalments from the state government’s share– one of Rs 40,000 and then Rs 60,000 – and are awaiting further funds to complete the work. About 250 beneficiaries have reported no progress.
In Jintur, about 60 kms from Pathri, only 175 beneficiaries have completed the construction out of 1250 sanctioned homes and even they are awaiting one to three instalments (Rs 30,000 to 1.5 lakh) of central assistance. As many as 500 do not yet have a roof and in rest of the cases, the work did not start at all.
In the Hingoli town, headquarter of the neighbouring district, construction of 1098 houses was sanctioned and work orders were issued in 951 cases. Of these 448 DUs have been completed while 503 DUs are stuck at the lintel level. Most of the beneficiaries who have completed the construction have not received central assistance.
“We received Rs 11.33 crore from the state government and should have received Rs 16 crore from the central government but are in receipt of only Rs 35.40 lakh. UCs of all the funds have been submitted – not once but four times – but further release have not happened. In fact, for some of the beneficiaries we used unspent funds from the state government assistance,” said HIngoli Municipal Council Chief Officer Ajay Kurwade.
Desperation is highest in the section of beneficiaries who had moved into rental accommodations after dismantling their existing homes to construct new, better ones under PMAY(U), say local politicians.
“In Pathri, many beneficiaries are staying in rented houses and have spent a considerable amount in rent. Due to the long delay in the release of the 3rd and 4th instalments of the subsidy, many have now started to return to half-constructed houses by covering them with tin or plastic sheets because they can’t afford pay rent anymore,” said NCP leader from Pathri and MLC Abdullah Khan Durrani. The high cost of sand (at Rs 25,000 per brass) has also made it difficult for poor families to finish the construction on their own, he added.
COVID-19, lockdown hampered EWS families’ ability to invest ‘beneficirary share’
As per officials, an estimated cost of the construction work that is desired to be done under BLC (with the desired strength, size, design and finish) requires an investment ranging from Rs 4.5 to 6.5 lakh. Thus a beneficiary needs to put in about Rs 2 to 4 lakh from his own pocket to complete the house in addition to the Rs 2.5 lakh received in subsidy.
It appears that the local bodies either failed to apprise the beneficiaries that they will have to put in such an amount or the contingencies of the ongoing pandemic – prolonged lockdown, loss of wages – has deprived them of the resources that they could otherwise have put in.
“Many seem to think that PMAY is like previously implemented schemes where the government was providing all the money. In PMAY (U) you have to pitch in your own share. If they are not able to do that, the work lags,” Dilip Muglikar, Executive Engineer, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) which is implementing PMAY(U) in the state, told The Indian Express.
Naseer Shaikh is one such beneficiary who is palpably desperate to finish the work but is unable to invest more than Rs 50,000 for the construction. “I have spent Rs 50,000 by borrowing from friends and family, apart from Rs 1 lakh subsidy received, and can put in no more. I work in a bakery and due to the lockdown, my earnings have suffered in the last six months. I don’t have a penny to put in the house and the officials are telling me that I would not get the next instalment if I don’t finish casting the roof for which I will need about Rs 80,000 to 1 lakh,” he said.
The rainy season has been “very tough” on Naseer Shaikh this year who demolished his existing kachcha house in the hope of building a better one under PMAY (U). Without money to finish the work on his own, he is left with no option but to wait for the next instalment of subsidy. (Photo Credit: Haseeeb Shaikh)
Last week, municipal officials in Pathri issued notices to 250 beneficiaries whose work had not progressed satisfactorily. “Most pointed to the lockdown having affected their earnings,” said a staffer requesting not to be named. “They are also unwilling to put in money because they see that those who did are also stuck because of non-release of subsidy in the latter stages of construction,” he added.
A year ago when the scheme picked up and beneficiaries were getting subsidy amounts on time, suppliers of construction material were willingly supplying cement, steel and bricks on credit. “They knew that the money was coming –in a week or two. But now since no funds have been released for months they have grown cautious and turning away those seeking to buy on credit,” said an official from Pathri Municipal Council.
PMAY (U) officials blame non-submission of Utilisation Certificates by ULBs for delay
As per Muglikar, the factor that has caused withholding of the central assistance from the beneficiaries who have shown significant progress is the failure a section of ULBs to submit utilisation certificates (UC) of the central funds received by them in the past.
“Funds from the sanctioned central subsidy are held up because of the issue of submission of the UCs. As per the rule, the state will have to submit UCs for at least 70 per cent of the released funds to seek further release. Of the Rs 600 crore odd central assistance released to ULBs in Maharashtra since 2016, we have so far submitted to the MoHUA UCs for Rs 214 crores. UCs for another Rs 200 crore have been received from ULBs and will soon be sent to the union ministry. Once the we have submitted UCs for about 70 per cent (about Rs 450 crore) received funds our case to seek the release of next rounds of funds will be strengthened,” said Muglikar.
Officials suspect that the ULBs may have failed to submit the UCs because a section of the beneficiaries may have spent the money elsewhere. “The Covid-19 pandemic and the prolonged lockdown may have played a role,” said Muglikar.
When contacted for a comment, the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) did not provide an official response. On condition of anonymity, a highly placed officer said that the Ministry was aware of the issues being faced in the implementation of the PMAY(U) in Maharashtra and was taking urgent steps to resolve them. “We are in regular touch with the MHADA officials and have now written to the state government. The issue is not caused by a lack of funds. We are seeking submission UCs and will soon resolve the problem,” said the MoHUA official.
ULB officials and local politicians are not ready to buy ‘non-submission of UC’ argument furthered by the Ministry. “If some ULBs have not submitted the UCs then they should be affected. Why should the funds of hundreds of other ULBs be stopped and thousands of poor beneficiaries be left in the lurch? People are suffering terribly due to the delay and have lost confidence in the scheme. It will be difficult for us to approach newer beneficiaries who had earlier shortlisted to be included in future DPRs,” said a municipal council chief officer requesting anonymity.
(This article appeared in The Indian Express on October 9 2020. It can be accessed here)
