Policy | ARHC scheme
Newcomer
The housing sector in India is a largely misunderstood field. It is influenced by economics, sociology, politics, design, and planning. I intend to dive deep into its discourse, for scholarly inquisitiveness, tackling a different perspective each time.
The purpose of this article is to understand the new Affordable Rental Housing Complexes (ARHCs) under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana — Urban (PMAY-U) from the perspective of the beneficiaries.
“In the midst of every crisis, lies great opportunity”, a quote by Albert Einstein is the subject of every professional discourse and action during this global pandemic. Governments and societies worldwide are reflecting on possible measures to flip the losses into sweeping changes and address their resilience and strength. So when our country shut down for a nation-wide lockdown in the March of 2020, we responded to the ‘reverse migration’ issue of migrant workers with an addendum to the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana — Urban (PMAY-U) namely, the Affordable Rental Housing Complexes (ARHCs). This gave an opportunity to address the daunting rental market in India.
The scheme addresses a fundamental concept “Not everyone needs house ownership”. It proposes two models for execution; one that utilizes the vacant houses that are already built by government funding and the second explores the construction, operation and maintenance of ARHCs through a public-private partnership[1]. This gives leeway for the private parties to play a role in the rental housing sector. Moreover, it is proposed into different classes, in terms of facilities provided, to cater to interest groups of varying economic backgrounds. It introduces a new typology of dormitory living with a common kitchen, toilet and bathroom.
The ARHCs scheme does give an additional choice for affordable housing for migrant workers and urban poor. However, it fits into a system of approach which is misaligned with the on-ground housing scenario. In an effort to outline where the government’s intended path of execution pivots from its intention, we must understand that our urbanization depends on stark rural-urban differences[2]. These differences have influenced the housing sector in terms of land costs, residential density, and housing tenure among many others. In cities like Gurugram, we observe a difference in the socio-economic status of housing for the well-off and the low-income migrants who came in looking for employment [3]. This indicates the presence of an informal economy and subsequently an informal rental mechanism.
The nature of the beneficiaries’ employment is also informal; they have no written contract, no paid leave, no health benefits or social security. Labour relations, where it exists, are based on kinship, casual or social relations with no guarantees. The periodic labour force survey shows that 85.5% of informal workers are engaged in the unorganized sector [4]. Even if the scheme caters to only a quarter of them, the numbers are in lakhs for those who have no record of employment or income. The details for enrolling for the scheme without formal employment documents becomes a little fudgy. However, the interest groups can enrol with Aadhaar, which in itself is a point of conflict for many migrant workers and urban poor.
The informality that exists in the work relation extends into their living atmosphere as well. Many migrants have an existing relationship with their landlords based on oral contracts. This indicates the presence of an informal rental market in cities, which has mushroomed in response to restricted formal housing supply. While this is not unique to India, informal rentals constitute 25% of India’s national housing stock [5]. In my belief, the ARHC scheme thus, in contrast to a deviation from a strict regularization that it proposes, seems to impose yet another one on our housing sector.
Now, a migrant in a city like Delhi or Mumbai that is recovering from the harsh impacts of the pandemic is likely to go where the job takes. Given the flux of development and economy in the near future, the prescribed minimum of 25 years period of operation may be ambitious. Moreover, if the rental housing is going to occupy the vacant government-funded houses, a point to note is their location. These houses are located away from city centres, which means they are away from their jobs. Migrants make a trade-off by living in slum houses to stay closer to their jobs and thus reduce expenses. If the rental houses continue to be located away from city centres, they will remain vacant and be an added challenge for the specified time period of operation.
The scheme, while not completely acknowledging the underlying factors that influence the housing sector, presents an option of recourse. It empowers the Urban Local Bodies (ULBs), whose ability to understand the tenant-landlord relationship can make or break the implementation of this policy. With an estimated tight fiscal space in the near future, the ULBs can utilise this opportunity to embrace options for partnership with the private sector in providing basic infrastructure services. If the motive is to help cultivate better living conditions for the poor, it should start with making basic services accessible. The way to change is through incremental steps that have the scope to improve in line with the future development of our cities.
References
[1] Official website — ARHCs
[2] IGC Working paper- Urbanisation, demographic transition, and the growth of cities in India, 1870–2020 by Chinmay Tumbe
[3] Negotiation, mediation and subjectivities: how migrant renters experience informal rentals in Gurgaon’s urban villages by Mukta Naik, published in Radical housing Journal
[4] Annual Report, Periodic Labour Force Survey (June 2017- July 2018), computed from NSS
[5] National Sample Survey Organization, 2010
