Open Forum

New Delhi, 5 October 2009

Urban Housing

REALISTIC SLUM POLICY CRUCIAL

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

The World Habitat Day, this October 5 was yet another grim reminder of the plight of the millions of homeless and the Government’s dilemma of how to make the country slum-free in the coming five years. Will the Urban Development Ministry’s latest scheme – Rajiv Gandhi Awas Yojana – with an initial budget of Rs 5,000 crores and aimed at constructing 10 lakh affordable houses meet targets?  

The much-publicised scheme envisages extending financial support under Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) to States that “are willing to assign property rights” to people living in slums. On its part, the Centre will encourage States to increase the supply of land and construct 10 lakh houses in the first phase by giving a grant of Rs 50,000 for every dwelling unit or bear 25 per cent of all civic services proposed in the housing project.

It is understood that to get the Central grant, projects should have houses ranging from 300 sq. ft. to 1200 sq. ft. plinth area built at affordable rates on land provided by the State Government. A minimum of 25 per cent houses of 300 sq. ft. will be compulsory for the economically weaker sections (EWS) in each project to be allotted. Further, to minimize the cost of construction, the scheme aims to come with layouts which mix EWS/Low Income Group (LIG) with Medium Income Group/ High Income Group (MIG/HIG) and commercial set-ups and cross subsidizing plans.   

The Yojana will ensure that the urban poor can access loans under interest subsidy scheme which provides five per cent subsidy on loans up to Rs one lakh. Moreover, States have been asked to cut stamp duty to a maximum two per cent for LIG and 0 per cent for EWS category to reduce the cost of houses.

These are no doubt welcome steps. But the problem is so acute with available resources being limited that development authorities have not been quite successful to cope up with the challenge affecting the EWS and the LIG sections constituting over 50 per cent of the population. In 2007, the National Housing & Habitat Policy found the total shortage in the country to be around 24.71 million dwelling units out of which 21.78 million units (around 88 per cent) constitute the shortage for the EWS and 2.89 million units (around 11.7 per cent) shortage for the LIG. In addition, there is the problem of the shelterless, who reside in pavements, squatter settlements etc.

The total investment required for meeting the housing shortage at the beginning of the 11^th Five Year Plan was estimated at Rs 147,195 crores and the investment required during the Plan period stands at Rs 214,123 crores. The proposed plan of providing ‘Housing for All’ by 2010 or even by 2015 would become virtually impossible with which the Government is unfortunately not much concerned. Schemes such as the National Slum Development Programme (NSDP), Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY), Indira Awas Yojana, the JNNURM and the 2 Million Housing Programme (2 MHP), which have reportedly focused on the EWS and the LIG sections, have not till date been able to meet the desired targets.    

The UN Committee on Economic, Social & Cultural in its most recent review (2008) pointed out that India has to “address the acute shortage of affordable housing by adopting a national strategy in a plan of action on adequate housing and by building or providing low-cost housing units, specially for the disadvantaged and low-income groups, including those living in slums”. It also brought out another dimension of the problem relating to displacement and forced eviction and urged the Government to take immediate measures to effectively enforce laws and regulations and “ensure that persons evicted from their homes and lands be provided with adequate compensation and/or offered alternative accommodation”.  

It has to be accepted that evictions have been increasing and estimates reveal that the total number of families affected in the 64 cities where the JNNURM is currently being implemented is over one million. In Delhi alone, between 2000 and 2006 around one lakh families were forcibly evicted while a massive eviction drive in Mumbai between November 2004 and March 2005, the State government destroyed 92,000 homes in 44 areas.  Moreover, in several cities people living in squatter settlements have been evicted without any due process and pushed to the city outskirts. 

Thus apart from construction of houses, slum upgradation is indeed a stupendous task as around 35 per cent of the urban population lives in such settlements, unauthorized colonies or on pavements. A UN Habitat report a few years ago found out that more people live in Mumbai’s slums than in the entire country of Norway. Worse, only 7-8 per cent of slum households have direct access to water and private toilets.  

The work of resettlement, upgradation or construction of houses for the poor have no doubt, to be financed by the Government but it would be better if the implementation is left to voluntary organizations for better results. Article 54 of the Habitat Agenda (1997) noted that Governments at the appropriate levels should carry out certain key functions. These include: One, promote self-help housing within the context of a comprehensive land-use policy.

Two, integrate and regularize self-built housing, specially through appropriate land registration programmes, as a holistic part of the overall housing and infrastructure system in urban and rural areas, subject to a comprehensive land-use policy. Three, encourage efforts to improve self-built housing through better access to resources including land, finance and building materials. Four, develop the means and methods to improve the standards of self-built housing.

Five, encourage community-based and NGOs in their role of assisting and facilitating the production of self-built housing. Six, facilitate regular dialogue and gender-sensitive participation of the various actors involved in housing production at all levels and stages of decision making. And, lastly mitigate the problems related to spontaneous human settlements through programmes and policies that anticipate unplanned settlements.

These need to be adhered to in finalization of a realistic slum policy (by modification of the earlier draft) and incorporating suggestions received from various voluntary organizations. All slums, whether recognized or unauthorized, have to be upgraded with minimum basic facilities so that it is worthy of living and proper rehabilitation given to all evictees. This work is more of a priority than construction of new houses for the economically weaker sections.      

The right to housing is now being debated the world over as it guarantees the right to live in security, peace and dignity. And the right to shelter involves not just adequate shelter but related rights such as access to safe drinking water and sanitation, security of land tenure and protection from forced evictions. But trends indicate that the economic policies being followed in most Third World countries, including India, are working against the interests of the weaker sections.

Creation of slummish settlements is not just a problem by itself but a manifestation of a larger problem. A problem of unjust and inequitable land holdings and that majority of the urban poor live in less than 1/10^th of the city space that too in pockets blighted and extremely marginal. When will all this change?  -- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

POLITICAL DIARY

New Delhi, 3 October 2009

Strike-A-Day-Nation

BANDH KARO YEH NATAK!

By Poonam I Kaushish

From Lokmanya Tilak’s “Swaraj is my birth right” to ‘strike is my birth right’. Indeed, over the decades India has trudged the treacherous protest road to become a strike-a-day nation. Wherein a person’s freedom ends at the tip of the others nose! 

Think. Last week air operations at several airports were thrown into disarray thanks to nearly 150 disgruntled executive Air India pilots going on enmass "sick leave," over the cash-strapped airline’s decision to slash their productivity-linked incentives by 50-70%. No matter that the four-day strike cost the nation over Rs 800 crores. The end? Status quo ante.

A repeat of Jet Airways 400-odd pilots going on mass "sick leave" two weeks earlier. Their cause? Reinstate two colleagues, sacked for trying to establish a union. The dispute was settled only after the airline succumbed to the pilots demands. Earlier in the year doctors in Maharashtra, Gujarat and Karnataka too resorted to strong-arm tactics. The latest to join the strike brigade were IIT professors.

Importantly, what makes these cases strikingly apart from strikes in general is that it’s for the first time that white-collared workers have resorted to what was the favourite tool of their blue-collared brethren. The only difference being that instead of going on a strike they resorted to en mass sick leave. Particularly, as the law bars “officials” from indulging in blackmailing tactics as they are a part and parcel of the management.

It is most shameful that pilots who get astronomical salary-allowances (Rs 4-6 lakhs per month) should hold airlines and passengers hostage. Putting the flying janata through untold misery, missed connections, saying goodbyes to holidays, appointments, medical help et al. Given, that all these years they have enjoyed good times. A little sacrifice during hard times would not have made much difference to their hefty pay-packet but would speak volumes about their commitment to work, responsibility as educated professionals to ensure their dedication and diligence to the job and the ethics entailed. This applies to doctors, engineers and educationists as well.

Have they all forgotten their duty as public servants? Primarily to serve the aam janata. Considering that their salary and other creature comforts come from the tax-payers hard-earned money. The less said the better of the rampant ghoos-khori. Without greasing palms no work gets done.

Tragically, turn North- South, East-West, any mohalla, city or State on any given day, the story is the same. Some disgruntled group is on strike to protest some grievance or failure leading to life coming to a standstill. Call it a bandh, hartal, rasta roko, chakka jam what you may matters little. Raising a moot point: Are strikes actually expression of freedom or are they means of suppressing fundamental rights in a democracy?

Arguably, not a few would simply shrug it off with “sab chalta hai attitude, this is Mera Bharat Mahan at its rudest and crassest best.”  Many would assert ki pharak painda hai. But the fact is that these strikes have exposed how dangerous this game has become. No longer can we dismiss it as a system’s failure.

Think. West Bengal has the maximum bandhs, an average of 40-50 per year. Followed by Tamil Nadu and Gujarat. In Kerala a single day's shutdown costs the State Rs 700 crore. Divided by the State’s population it translates to Rs 233 per Keralite. Manipur experienced 52 bandhs and 43 blockades in the 2007-08 that cost the State Rs 504.32 crore and Rs 236.68 crore respectively.  Worse, the three National Highways passing through the North-East witnessed economic blockades for 139 days from April 2006-December 2007, wherein Sikkim lost Rs 7 crore per day.

According to the Union Labour Ministry, 386 strikes and 279 lockouts took place in 2007.  While 9,52,000 workers participated, over 95,000 workers were affected due to lockouts and over 8.36 million mandays lost. Analyse the cost the nation suffered!

Clearly, part of the current paradox is explained by the changed notion of strikes aka hartal aka bandh as a form of protest. The original concept was centred on the logic that the only way for a group of disempowered people to shake the system was to agitate. From a simple gherao for more wages to a voluntary hartal against policy decisions. But slowly perversion set in. A strike could be effective only if stoppage of work could not be overcome easily by the system. Therefore, the strikers use their power base, including violence, to stall anything that spells change from the set routine. 

Look at the irony. On one hand we talk of India as the next super power with a strong economy on par with countries like Japan, Korea and China. On the other we fail to realize that strikes are a hindrance to achieving this goal. In no civilised nations do political parties or trade unions dare to justify deaths and severe distress of citizens as necessary to voice protest. Any call for a bandh should come from the suffering aam aadmi not from netas or corporate-executive fat cats.

Recall, in 1997 the Kerala High Court held that bandhs were illegal and people could not be forced to be a part of these. In 2003 the Supreme Court endorsed this and added, “Government employees had no fundamental, legal, moral or equitable right” to go on strikes whatever the cause, “just or unjust”. Pointing out that aggrieved employees had other options available to them, the Bench opined: Strikes as a weapon is mostly misused, which results in chaos and total maladministration.

The Apex Court’s judgment also upheld the Kerala Court’s fine distinction between hartal and a bandh.  It held that hartal was a form of passive resistance and a call for it did not involve force. While a bandh was an enforced muscle flexing act which interfered with the freedom and fundamental right of citizens.

True, the Constitution guarantees one the right to protest, but it does not guarantee one the right to infringe upon others rights. Unfortunately, our strikers fail to realize that strikes negate the basic concept of democracy. These are just a camouflage for non-performance, self-glorification, to gain sympathy or wriggle out of working hard.

Clearly, the time has come to take a leaf out of the US law, wherein there is no constitutional right to make a speech on a highway, so as to cause a crowd to gather and obstruct traffic. The right to assembly is to be so exercised as not to conflict with other lawful rights, interests and comfort of the individual or the public and public order. Also, the municipality has the power to impose regulations in order to assure the safety and convenience of the people. And the power to break up a meeting if the speaker undertakes incitement to riot or breach of peace.

In the UK, the Seditious Meeting Act, 1817 prohibits meetings of more than 50 persons within a mile of Westminster Hall during the sitting of Parliament. In Japan they strike in a different way. A case in point. At a shoe factory the workers showed their protest by producing only one shoe out of the pairs they were meant to manufacture so that though the output was not out, the production was going on.

Unfortunately, in India a strike is the weapon of the bully. How long can we allow this? Time to stop giving into the strong-arm tactics. There is need to hold a referendum where people decide what is right or wrong.  Remember, paralysing the State, black-mailing corporates, industries to get attention and policy reversals only exasperates the public and inconveniences them, cuts off the money flow, shoos off investors, and endangers their own jobs.

The country needs good governance and economic growth. The right of the citizen is paramount. The question we all need to ask is: Can we afford strikes at all, leave aside for what purpose it may have been called? At some point we have to stand up and bellow, "Bandh karo ye natak!"--- INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Round The World

New Delhi, 29 September 2009

Obama’s Af-Pak Policy

STRATEGY REVAMP ON CARDS?

By Monish Tourangbam

Research Scholar, School of International Studies, JNU

The Af-Pak Policy that President Barack Obama launched with much fanfare seems to be on a slippery ground. Even as the commander of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, General Stanely McChrystal, stated that the war against Taliban could be lost within a year without more troops, Obama administration is exploring an alternative to a major troop surge in Afghanistan. While the military on ground is pressing on its urgency, the administration in Washington D.C. is in no mood to make haste.

A wholesale review of the war effort in Afghanistan is being considered. With 51 troops killed in August alone and the Taliban more organized and sophisticated, military strategists are mulling over as what should be the next move. Clearly, the Afghan quagmire is muddier than ever and there seems to be no end to it. The reverses suffered in the war are slowly but surely eating into the popularity of arguably one of the most charismatic leaders of our times.

The reconsiderations being undertaken regarding the American operations in Afghanistan and Pakistan might well be a routine affair to introspect on the successes and setbacks of the Af-Pak policy. But there is no doubt that Obama is having second thoughts regarding the prospects of the country’s strategy in an eight-year-old intractable war. The unsettled outcome of the Afghan elections only worsens the situation in the war-torn country with no clear mandate to take decisions, and further fears of factional differences among the Afghan population. In spite of whatever gains American and NATO forces make on the battlefield, Kabul can have a better future only when the people have faith in their government. A lot hangs on how and when the final verdict comes and what sort of a mandate and legitimacy the Afghan government has.

When a country fights a long-drawn war in a foreign land, things can get only murkier if there are differences of opinion between the military commander on the ground and the policymakers in the Capital. And there have been ample signs in this case. Even as General Chrystal assessed that the Afghan campaign will be in serious jeopardy if more troops were not approved and sent, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, contradicted the same in a televised interview. She said, “But I can only tell you there are other assessments from very expert military analysts who have worked in counter-insurgencies that are the exact opposite.”

But, General Chrystal is not without support, which adds to the internal debate on reviewing the strategy. Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, sent Obama a six-page letter arguing, “There is no strategy short of a properly resourced counter-insurgency campaign that is likely to provide lasting security.”

When Obama unveiled the Af-Pak policy, there were both optimists and pessimists’ reviews.  If some saw it as pragmatic to win the war, others viewed it as “Bush wine in Obama’s bottle.” Now, Obama seems to be thinking if the Af-Pak policy was ad-hoc at best. According to Pentagon officials, he is undergoing what they call “buyer’s remorse” after ordering an extra 21,000 troops in Afghanistan within weeks of taking office before even settling on a strategy.

An alternative is being propounded by US Vice-president, Joe Biden, who favors a revamp of the American strategy. He prefers to scale down the troop strength in Afghanistan and instead increase surgical strikes on the Al-Qaeda cells, primarily in Pakistan. But according to a senior military official, airstrikes cannot achieve the desired results without significant troop force. In the absence of a policy of sanitization and maintenance by troops, all the insurgents need to do is re-occupy the places the troops vacate. Biden has often opined that the US spends something like $30 in Afghanistan for every $1 in Pakistan, even though in his view the main threat to is in Pakistan. Earlier this year, Biden was opposed by both Obama and Clinton. But, given the search for an alternative this time around, he might gain some traction.

It should be good news that Pakistan is being seen as a major problem, but if implemented the policy runs the risk of increasing Islamabad’s belligerence against India by default. Increasing aid money to Pakistan in the name of supporting the American cause, without proper inspection, could probably amount to strengthening of the Pakistani military infrastructure directed against India. And, it will not be the first time that Islamabad would engage in such adventurism. But American policy makers seem to suffer from a short-term memory loss when it comes to dealing with Pakistan’s notoriety.

General Chrystal stated that factions of the Pakistani and Iranian intelligence agencies have been supporting the Taliban and other terrorist groups to carry out attacks on the US-led international forces in Afghanistan. As such, while the American strategy targets the stronghold of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda in Pakistan, a thorough review of the destination of American aid would go a long way in easing India’s tensions. Moreover, pressure should simultaneously be applied on Islamabad to curb the activities of the ISI, which is of serious concern to New Delhi well.

Lately there have been some uncertain issues regarding Indian activities in Afghanistan. It is common knowledge that New Delhi has invested heavily in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. While General McChrystal feels that these investment benefits the Afghan people, in the same breathe, he says that New Delhi’s increasing clout is of concern to Pakistan. India does not have military ambitions in Afghanistan, and there is nothing wrong if it has demonstrated its diplomatic success there through humanitarian activities. Pakistan’s obsession with India as threat is not a new-found endeavor and it should not serve as logic for the American commander to give puzzling comments regarding India’s influence in the region.

As soon as Obama donned the Presidency, he raced ahead to distance himself from the policies of his predecessor Bush, and Afghanistan was one of the key issues, where he wanted to be different. But, the US military officials are frustrated and some US Congressional leaders are skeptical regarding the fickle nature of the Obama administration that might leave the military commanders in Kabul indecisive over the strategy they need to follow in this raging war.

Obama has always maintained that the intervention in Iraq was a war of choice and a big mistake that robbed resources and troops needed for more legitimate and necessary war in Afghanistan. As such, he had gone ahead with the policy of troop reduction in Iraq and that of troop surge in Afghanistan. But in the thick of things, he is now confronted with the fact that complexities are abound and maneuverability minimal. Just how Obama tackles Afghanistan would be an important determinant of his public popularity. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

Special Article

New Delhi, 29 September 2009

Right To Education

FULFILLING GANDHIAN IDEAL

By Dhurjati Mukherjee

A long-cherished dream of the father of the nation, Mahatma Gandhi, has to an extent been fulfilled. After long years of wait, the Government has eventually taken the revolutionary step: schooling for all children between six and 14 years is today a fundamental right. Remember, Gandhiji had first talked of universalization of education way back in 1937.

The passage of the long awaited Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Bill by both houses of Parliament last Session, is a landmark achievement. It binds the Government in ensuring neighbourhood schooling in three years, bans capitation fees and bars teachers from offering private tuition. It stipulates a student-teacher ratio of a maximum 30:1 for primary classes and for other Classes, suggests 35:1, even as ensuring that all private schools reserve 25 per cent seats for children from economically disadvantaged backgrounds. 

The realization of the Gandhian vision into a law undoubtedly opens a new chapter in the history of Independent India. It is expected to change the spectre of education in the country and make it available to children from the impoverished sections of society. However, the Bill should have included children below six years and up to 18 years—i.e. cover the entire gamut of school education up to Class XII. This is undoubtedly justified and it is hoped the Government would not take much time in accepting the suggestion and amend the Act accordingly.

There is much to learn from Gandhiji’s concept of education. In an article in Harijan in 1937, he observed: “Education of the intellect can only come through a proper exercise of the bodily organs …. The intelligent use of the bodily organs in a child provides the best and quickest way of developing his intellect”. No doubt knowledge of mathematics, history, geography and the sciences are necessary, but they ought to be imparted “through handicrafts, for example, by explaining the origin and manufacturing process of the tools, the sources, supply and processing of raw materials, the amount of goods produces etc.” He wanted the State to purchase the produce of the schools and guarantee their students employment in the craft they had learnt.  

Gandhiji was aware that the country lived in villages and accordingly he formulated his ideas on education with great stress on the crafts. This becomes particularly relevant today because most students do not go or do not have the capacity to go for higher education. But if they have some knowledge of the crafts, they could easily become self-employed. Thus, there is a vital need to frame the curricula in such a way, especially in rural and semi-urban area schools, that there is sufficient emphasis on the crafts.

Let us not forget that the country has and is facing major problems of unemployment and under-employment. Therefore, proper learning and even specialization in the crafts – say in Class XI and XII like one does today in computers -- could greatly help a large section of students to earn their livelihood. It is necessary that the curriculum be framed in such a way that there is ample scope for learning and eventual specialization in a craft at school and this could start from Class V onwards or even earlier. In all likelihood it would curtail the drop-out rate. Studying then would become linked to vocational education. 

Another vital aspect of Gandhiji’s idea of education was the emphasis on spirituality. As he embodied the principles of truth and non-violence in his political life, he wanted the students to do the same. The understanding of our religious texts was to him necessary for students to develop a sense of brotherhood and fraternity as also discipline which, in turn, would lead to great cohesion and unity in society. This is of utmost importance today as most schools either teach the Bible or the Koran or the Gita. There is rarely any school which teaches religious understanding based on the different religious texts.

Moreover, the need for inculcating a sense of spiritualism and understanding of non-violence is all the more necessary at such a juncture, when materialism has pushed up our greed and demands and communal tendencies have led to inter-religious violence. Worse, alienation and deprivation has instigated a section to resort to violence. These problems can only be resolved if students right from schools are imparted education on spiritual lines and shown the right way to live in life.    

According to the Mahatma, inequality and centralization of power cannot lead to a truly non-violent society. Therefore, he yearned for a mass moral upsurge to ensure a society, the challenge of which has to be taken by the young generation of the country. Education has to be tuned in such a way that the young mind becomes aware of the need for the transformation in society so that all sections could live in dignity.

However, imparting education is not enough. It has to be with the right content along with quality teaching. So far, many surveys have indicated poor quality of teaching and the lack of commitment of teachers. This must change and with it, the new curriculum should ensure that students find interest in what they are taught. Proper education should ensure the young mind is motivated so that the learning process becomes easier and faster.     

The Gandhian educational thinking has been totally wedded to Indian conditions and very much different from the British system, which we have practiced so far. It needs to be changed and while incorporating modern trends and current developments, there is need to understand the relevance and usefulness of the education imparted.

Moreover, education, which has now become a fundamental right, should not remain bookish but linked to employment needs. A student from a poor family in a remote area should get the benefit of learning and be able to stand on his own feet after completing his high school education.  

Clearly, basic changes have to be brought into the content of teaching while also ensuring that teachers are committed. This is easier said than done. So we do not sustained efforts in this direction. Then only will Gandhiji’s ideal of education i.e. reaching the masses in every corner of the country, be fulfilled. Echoing the Mahatma’s vision, the Kothari Commission observed in its report that there is a need for “a revolution which in turn will set in motion the much delayed social, economic and cultural revolution”. ---INFA

(Copyright, India News and Feature Alliance)

.