The Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin (PMAY-G) aims to provide housing for all in rural India. However, recent scrutiny by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Rural Development has raised concerns. The committee marks issues regarding the identification of beneficiaries and the adequacy of financial assistance. The scheme continues to rely on outdated data from the 2011 Socio-Economic Caste Census (SECC), which has led to gaps in beneficiary identification.
Current Issues
The committee criticises the government for not updating the beneficiary list. Many households that are now eligible have been overlooked. The existing criteria are based on housing deprivation parameters that are no longer relevant. This oversight has created a disconnect between the scheme’s objectives and the current housing realities in rural areas.
Financial Assistance Concerns
Currently, the financial assistance provided under PMAY-G is ₹1.20 lakh in plains and ₹1.30 lakh in certain northeastern states and Union Territories. The committee argues that this amount is insufficient due to rising construction costs and inflation. It recommends increasing the per-unit cost to ₹4 lakh to ensure quality housing that meets safety standards.
Need for Comprehensive Review
The committee urges the Department of Rural Development to conduct a thorough review of the eligibility criteria. It suggests expanding the criteria to include households with semi-permanent structures. This change would better reflect the current housing conditions and ensure that more needy households can access the benefits of PMAY-G.
Survey and Backlog Issues
The government conducted an Awaas+ survey in 2018 to identify additional eligible households. However, as of February 2025, many houses remain pending. The committee notes that the extension of the scheme primarily addresses the backlog rather than providing new allocations. Out of the 2 crore houses approved under the extended phase, only a fraction represents new allocations.
Extension of the Scheme
PMAY-G was implemented on April 1, 2016, with an initial target of 2.95 crore pucca houses. The Union Cabinet extended the scheme in August 2024, allowing for an additional 2 crore houses from FY 2024-25 to FY 2028-29. The total financial outlay for this extension is ₹3,06,137 crore.
Recommendations for Improvement
The committee strongly recommends increasing the total number of planned houses to at least 3.46 crore. This figure accounts for both the existing backlog and new allocations. The aim is to ensure that the programme effectively meets the housing needs of rural populations.
Questions for UPSC:
- Critically examine the impact of outdated census data on government welfare schemes in India.
- Discuss the implications of rising construction costs on rural housing schemes like Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin.
- What are the challenges in identifying beneficiaries for housing schemes? Explain with suitable examples.
- With suitable examples, discuss the significance of updating eligibility criteria in government welfare programmes.
Answer Hints:
1. Critically examine the impact of outdated census data on government welfare schemes in India.
- Outdated census data can lead to inaccurate identification of beneficiaries, leaving many eligible individuals without support.
- Welfare schemes may become ineffective if they do not reflect current socio-economic realities, leading to unequal distribution of resources.
- Reliance on old data can cause misallocation of funds, undermining the objectives of the schemes.
- Examples include the PMAY-G, which uses 2011 SECC data, failing to capture new housing needs and demographics.
- Regular updates are essential for ensuring that welfare programs adapt to changing societal conditions and effectively address current needs.
2. Discuss the implications of rising construction costs on rural housing schemes like Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana-Gramin.
- Rising construction costs diminish the purchasing power of allocated funds, making it difficult to build quality housing.
- Inflation affects the affordability of building materials, leading to compromised safety and durability of houses constructed under the scheme.
- Insufficient financial assistance limits the ability of beneficiaries to afford necessary upgrades or maintenance post-construction.
- The committee recommends increasing the per-unit cost to ₹4 lakh to align with current economic conditions.
- Failure to address cost increases may lead to a backlog of unfinished houses and dissatisfaction among beneficiaries.
3. What are the challenges in identifying beneficiaries for housing schemes? Explain with suitable examples.
- Challenges include reliance on outdated data, such as the SECC 2011, which may not reflect current eligibility.
- Emerging households with housing needs may be overlooked due to rigid eligibility criteria based on past assessments.
- Geographical and socio-economic diversity complicates the identification process, leading to unequal access to benefits.
- Examples include households with semi-permanent structures being excluded from PMAY-G, despite their need for assistance.
- Inadequate surveys and assessments can result in gaps in identifying deserving beneficiaries, perpetuating housing deprivation.
4. With suitable examples, discuss the significance of updating eligibility criteria in government welfare programmes.
- Updating eligibility criteria ensures that welfare programs reflect current socio-economic realities, improving their effectiveness.
- For instance, expanding PMAY-G to include households with semi-permanent structures acknowledges the diverse housing conditions in rural areas.
- Regular updates can help include newly emerging needy households that were previously unrecognized, ensuring comprehensive coverage.
- Examples of successful updates include revisions in criteria for other welfare schemes, which have led to increased beneficiary inclusion and satisfaction.
- Dynamic eligibility criteria can enhance the responsiveness of government programs to changing demographics and economic conditions.
