Skip to main content

Housing for all? Maharahstra govt "utilizes" 0.444% of budget in 2017-18, scheme not meant for slum-dwellers: GBGBA

By A Representative
The Maharashtra government has failed to utilise funds allocated for constructing affordable housing as part of its ambitious plan to curb homelessness from the state. A total of Rs 1,381.95 crore were allocated for the current fiscal year under the Housing For All scheme, out of which 0.444% (Rs 5.001 crore) were spent on housing, while the remaining 99.556% is unspent as on today.
Though the state government has an ambitious plan for constructing 1.9 million houses so as to address the housing shortage in the state, in reality, only 23,000 houses have been constructed till date, as per the latest report by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affair.
These 23,000 houses are, in fact, houses constructed under the old housing schemes like Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY) and Credit Linked Subsidy Scheme (CLSS), but now have been included under the current Housing For All scheme.
In a statement, the well-known housing organization, Ghar Bachao Ghar Banao Andolan (GBGBA), said, “The BJP government, whether at the centre or in the state, is good at showing dreams, but fails in realising them, especially when poor is going to get benefits. Housing For All looks like a distant dream given the present pace with which housing being constructed.”
According to GBGBA, ironically, even the full utilization of the allocated funds might not be able to address the problem of housing/homelessness. Pointing out that “our analysis of the present housing scheme-‘Housing For All’ or ‘Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) finds certain loopholes”, it said, “Our analysis of the ‘Housing for All’ suggests that a large chunk of population that is either homeless or not living in dignified housing or slums, will not be able to get the benefits of this scheme.”
Thus, it said, “Two of the four provisions (‘Credit Linked Subsidy’ and ‘Affordable Housing in Partnership’) of ‘Housing For All’ scheme are basically modelled to facilitate purchasing of affordable housing”, adding, “As per the latest information received through Right to Information (RTI), in Mumbai there are around 20 lakh families having an annual income less than Rs. 1 lakh. Under the prevalent rates, no housing under any affordable housing segment can be availed to a family belonging to this income level.”
GBGBA stated, “The third provision of PMAY is ‘in-situ slum rehabilitation’ based on the ‘cut-off-date’ model which means that some of the member of a slum will be held ineligible, hence not will not be getting the benefit of the scheme.”
“Lastly”, it said, “The ‘Subsidy for beneficiary-led individual house construction/enhancement’ is available to only those who own a piece of land. This provision is at least not for slum dwellers who, never owned a piece of land. In a nutshell, the poorest of the poor might not get housing under PMAY.”
GBGBA underlined, “The existing approach to address the housing problem will not work. There is a need for overhauling the housing schemes and policies so as to ensure that poorest of the poor have a protection of minimum and a dignified housing.”
Seeking implementation of the recent recommendations made by the “UN Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing to the Indian government to formulate a law in order to address the housing problem”, GBGBA said, “A national housing law that aims to address growing inequalities and offers a long-term road map is needed.”
“India has recognized and ratified housing as a basic human right in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. But in the paucity of a law, the housing rights of the most marginalized section of the society living in informal settlements or slums have violated numerous times across India. Shift from considering housing a commodity to a necessity for every citizen is required”, it added.

Comments

TRENDING

Swami Vivekananda's views on caste and sexuality were 'painfully' regressive

By Bhaskar Sur* Swami Vivekananda now belongs more to the modern Hindu mythology than reality. It makes a daunting job to discover the real human being who knew unemployment, humiliation of losing a teaching job for 'incompetence', longed in vain for the bliss of a happy conjugal life only to suffer the consequent frustration.

CFA flags ‘welfare retreat’ in Union Budget 2026–27, alleges corporate bias

By Jag Jivan  The advocacy group Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA) has sharply criticised the Union Budget 2026–27 , calling it a “budget sans kartavya” that weakens public welfare while favouring private corporations, even as inequality, climate risks and social distress deepen across the country.

Four women lead the way among Tamil Nadu’s Muslim change-makers

By Syed Ali Mujtaba*  A report published by Awaz–The Voice (ATV), a news platform, highlights 10 Muslim change-makers in Tamil Nadu, among whom four are women. These individuals are driving social change through education, the arts, conservation, and activism. Representing diverse fields ranging from environmental protection and literature to political engagement and education, they are working to improve society across the state.

From water scarcity to sustainable livelihoods: The turnaround of Salaiya Maaf

By Bharat Dogra   We were sitting at a central place in Salaiya Maaf village, located in Mahoba district of Uttar Pradesh, for a group discussion when an elderly woman said in an emotional voice, “It is so good that you people came. Land on which nothing grew can now produce good crops.”

'Big blow to crores of farmers’: Opposition mounts against US–India trade deal

By A Representative   Farmers’ organisations and political groups have sharply criticised the emerging contours of the US–India trade agreement, warning that it could severely undermine Indian agriculture, depress farm incomes and open the doors to genetically modified (GM) food imports in violation of domestic regulatory safeguards.

When free trade meets unequal fields: The India–US agriculture question

By Vikas Meshram   The proposed trade agreement between India and the United States has triggered intense debate across the country. This agreement is not merely an attempt to expand bilateral trade; it is directly linked to Indian agriculture, the rural economy, democratic processes, and global geopolitics. Free trade agreements (FTAs) may appear attractive on the surface, but the political economy and social consequences behind them are often unequal and controversial. Once again, a fundamental question has surfaced: who will benefit from this agreement, and who will pay its price?

Why Russian oil has emerged as the flashpoint in India–US trade talks

By N.S. Venkataraman*  In recent years, India has entered into trade agreements with several countries, the latest being agreements with the European Union and the United States. While the India–EU trade agreement has been widely viewed in India as mutually beneficial and balanced, the trade agreement with the United States has generated comparatively greater debate and scrutiny.

Trade pacts with EU, US raise alarms over farmers, MSMEs and policy space

By A Representative   A broad coalition of farmers’ organisations, trade unions, traders, public health advocates and environmental groups has raised serious concerns over India’s recently concluded trade agreements with the European Union and the United States, warning that the deals could have far-reaching implications for livelihoods, policy autonomy and the country’s long-term development trajectory. In a public statement issued, the Forum for Trade Justice described the two agreements as marking a “tectonic shift” in India’s trade policy and cautioned that the projected gains in exports may come at a significant social and economic cost.

Samyukt Kisan Morcha raises concerns over ‘corporate bias’ in seed Bill

By A Representative   The Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM) has released a statement raising ten questions to Union Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare Minister Shivraj Singh Chouhan regarding the proposed Seed Bill 2025, alleging that the legislation is biased in favour of large multinational and domestic seed corporations and does not adequately safeguard farmers’ interests.