Our leaders have changed.
Our government has changed.
Even our governance has changed.
But one thing that remains unchanged even amongst them is the housing in India, or the lack thereof. The very basic unit of life, both physically and psychologically, dwelling — remains a far-fetched thought for many. Why is it so?
Here, I wish to entertain two questions that illustrate my take on how the state of housing in India can be worked towards betterment.
1) Shouldn’t we re-think our idea of home ownership?
I don’t think it would be completely jarring to claim that we, as a society, are still stuck in the archaic concept of home ownership. Though we have largely moved on from the quintessential independent-house module, we haven’t progressed enough to keep pace with the demand. So, I ask, is it not possible to separate the aspiration of living in a home from that of home ownership?
This question arises as a response to the policies that promise housing for all, even when the demand keeps climbing above the supply. Is this not a reflection of the policies failing to keep pace with the on-ground situation?
Perhaps, one way to look at this would be from the perspective of rental policies. Living on rent can be seen as equivalent to short-term home ownership. However, we are engineered to think that if you don’t own a house by the time you are in your 40s, your investments aren’t right and neither are your priorities. We tend to conform to these societal laws that not only prove to be out of touch with the reality but also disadvantage a large section of the population. This brings me to the second thought:
2) Can the housing sector be privatised to be economically inclusive?
I am not going to make any attempt to defend that this thought may not be completely practical. However, it is high time that the recent trend where the private sector caters largely to the high-end users, should be challenged and vehemently so. It is no surprise that the housing sector seems to unjustly favour the rich. There are more units of the luxury apartments that are being added to the market, thus forming the illusion that they are aiding the state of housing. This is far from the truth as most of these units go unoccupied for a greater part of the year and builds a highly isolated neighbourhood. The type of neighbourhood, which if Jane Jacobs ever had the unfortunate chance to witness would put her in disappointment, to say the least.
Is it possible that we can incentivise these giants to partake in the gamut of housing for all? One possible way to do this is to possibly tax them higher for all the units that go unoccupied. This may encourage them to exercise the advantage of rentals and thus tie a relationship with the same. Even if this means that the lower-income can’t occupy these luxury units, there is a chance that the middle-income tenants can occupy them, thus clearing stock for the lower-income inhabitants.
I won’t be so ignorant as to claim that these questions might be the game-changers. There probably have been many whose concern for the current state of housing has brought their thoughts along these lines. Hopefully, there will be even more in the future. That doesn’t take away from the penultimate question, what can we as active citizens do to pick up the present scenario and show it a brighter path?
