Urban Development 201 SUGGESTED FUTURE READINGS AND Pea Serer ad ‘The JNNURM and Urban Reforms in Globalising India’, in Batra, Lalit A he irban Poor in Globalising India: Eviction and Marginalisation, SADED, CSDS and Vasudhaiv Kutumbakam PublicationsDas, B. (1981) ‘Urban Planning in India’ Social Scientist, Vol. 9, No. 12, pp. 53-67 2 paves R. M. (2007) Urban Development and Housing in India, New Century: New i 3. Ganeshwar V. (1998) ‘Urban policies in India: Paradoxes and Predicaments, Habitat International, Vol. 19, No.3, pp.293-316 4, Kundu, A. (2003) ‘Urbanisation and Urban Governance: Search fora Perspective Beyond Neoliberalism’, Economic and Political Weekly, July 19, 2003, pp. 3079-3087 5. Mahadevia, D. (2003) Globalisation, Urban Reforms and Metropolitan Response in India, School of Planning, CEPT, Ahmedabad and Manak Publications, Delhi. 6. Ramachandran, R. (1989) Urbanization and Urban Systems in India, Oxford: New Delhi 7. Routray J. K. (1993) ‘Urban and Regional Planning in Practice in India’ Habitat International; Vol. 17, No.3, pp. 55-74 8, Shaw, A. (1996) ‘Urban Policy in Post-Independent India: An Appraisal, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 31, No.4, pp. 224-228 SLUM DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMMES IN INDIA The 2011 census estimates that 377 million people (31% of the total population) in India live in cities, out of which, 65 million (27% of the urban population) are slum dwellers. The census estimates the number of slum blocks in the country to be 110,000. The slums are in a deplorable state bringing misery to the residents. Irrespective of the fact that Indian cities have become the hub of economic activities, and have witnessed rapid economic growth, there is no end to slum development. India’s 10th Five Year Plan noted that the urban slum population is growing. The state actors as well as the non state actors have channelized their efforts for the development of the slums. GOI’s policies on slums have undergone a paradigm shift in recent years. In the seventies and early eighties, the government emphasized the notion of ‘slum free cities’. But the idea could not fructify due to some cardinal issues. These issues were: * The slum dwellers were noted to be the active and productive agents of city ‘economy. By resettling them ‘outside meant to prevent the economic growth cf the cities. ¢ Removing slums from central cities and transportation nodes often meant that the new settlements on the outskirts of the city would be generating unemployment of a high magnitude, thus further worsening the conditions of the slum dwellers. This would give birth to poverty amidst plenty. With such realisations, the urb: the government introduced several progr an planners focussed on slum development. For this ‘ammes for satisfying the basic needs of theee Urban Soc st for them, pew slum residents and generating a descent economic environment for them Providing shelter through housing provisions and opening livelihood opportunities dominate the vision of slum development in India. A few major initiatives of the government Of India for slum development are cited here. 202 The National Slum Development Programme (NSDP): The programme inaugurated and launched by the Prime Minister in August, 1996 at Kanpur in (U.P.). Under National Slum Development Programme, Additional Central Assistance (ACA) a5 being released to the States/UTs for the development of urban slums. The objective of this Programme was up gradation of urban slums by providing physical amenities {ii Supply, was ke water storm water drains, community bath, widening and paving of existing |ane: Sewers, community latrines, street lights etc. Besides, the funds under NSDP could be used for provision of community infrastructure and social amenities like preschos education, non formal education adult education, maternity, child health and primary health care including immunization etc, The Programme also had a component of shelter up gradation or construction of new houses. Under the programme, funds in the form of Additional Central Assistance (Aca were allocated by the Planning Commission annually on the basis of slum populatio: the State/UT. While the Ministry of Finance released the funds to the States under this Programme, the Ministry of Home Affairs released the funds to Union Territories. The States released the funds to the Implementing Agencies as per their requirements. The Ministry of Urban Employment & Poverty Alleviation had been nominated as the Nodal Ministry to monitor the progress of the Programme in respect of States. Valmiki Ambedkar Awas Yojana (VAMBAY): This Programme was launched in December 2001. VAMBAY was a centrally sponsored scheme with an in-built subsidy for undertaking construction of dwelling units for slum dwellers. The basic aim of the Programme was to ameliorate the conditions of the urban slum dwellers living below the Poverty line without adequate shelter, The scheme has tried to facilitate the construction and up-gradation of dwelling units for in providing affordable houses to th 7 Of this scheme were dovetailed into JNNURM. a Stee Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM): was launched 0" ecember, 2005 for duration of 7 years beginning 2005-06. It has the objectives of ‘astructure facilities in ci\cA) this The The oda! din | for the the tion fing n, 2 ent, bed ssful ents yon 5 of te! ie® Urban Development ii THE BASIC OBJECTIVES OF THE PROGRAMME INCLUDE + Focused attention to integrated development of basic services to the urban poor Security of tenure at affordable price, improved housing, water supply and sanitation etc. Convergence of services in fields of education, health and social security. As far as possible providing housing near the place of occupation of the urban poor. Effective linkage between asset creation and asset management to ensure efficiency. Scaling up delivery of civic amenities and provision of utilities with emphasis on universal access to urban poor. Ensuring adequate investment of funds to fulfil deficiencies in the basic services to the urban poor. It runs under the Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP) in cities and towns. JNNURM comprises two Sub-Missions .They are: Urban Infrastructure and Governance (UIG) (Sub-mission |) Basic Services to the Urban Poor Urban (BSUP) (Sub- mission II) There are, still two other components. They are: Urban Infrastructure Development of Small & Medium Towns (UIDSSMT), Integrated Housing and Slum Development Programme (IHSDP). JNNURM aims at creating ‘economically productive, efficient, equitable and responsive Cities’ by a strategy of upgrading the social and economic infrastructure in cities. It tries to make provision of Basic Services to Urban Poor and wide-ranging urban sector reforms to strengthen municipal governance in accordance with the 74th Constitutional Amendment Act, 1992. ‘Swarna Jayanti Shahari Rozgar Yojana (SJSRY): \t aims at providing gainful employment to the urban unemployed and under-employed poor, through encouraging the setting up of self employment ventures by the urban poor living below the poverty line, skills training and also through providing wage employment by utilizing their labour for construction of socially and economically useful public assets. The Ministry of Housing & Urban Poverty Alleviation is implementing the scheme on all india basis, with effect from 1.12.1997. The scheme has been comprehensively revamped with effect from 2009-2010. The thrust areas of the revised scheme are: ‘Supporting skill development and training programmes to enable the urban poor have access to employment opportunities opened up by the market or undertake self- employment; and Empowering the community to tackle the issues of urban poverty through suitable self- managed community structures like Neighbourhood Groups (NHGs), Neighbourhood Committees (NHC), Community Development Society (CDS), etc. ‘The major changes that have been effected in the new scheme compared to the old are:204 Urban Soci ty (1) For special category States (i.e. Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalay Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesn Uttarakhand), the funding pattern for the Scheme between Centre and the stay s, has been revised from 75 :25 to 90:10. (11) For the beneficiary under the Urban Self Employment Programme (USEP)compone of the Scheme, the education limit criteria of “not educated beyond Sth standarye has been removed and now no minimum or maximum educational Qualification level has been prescribed for the purpose of eligibility of assistance (ili) For the self-employment (individual category), the project cost ceiling has been enhanced to Rs. 2.00 Lakhs from the existing Rs. 50000/- and the subsidy has alsy been enhanced to 25% of the project cost (subject to a maximum of Rs 50000/.), from the existing 15% of the project cost (subject to a maximum of Rs. 7500/-), (iv) For the group enterprises set up by urban poor women, the subsidy has been made 3s 35% of the project cost or Rs. 300,000/- or Rs. 60,000/- per member of the Group, whichever is less. The minimum number required to form a women group has been reduced from 10 to 5. The revolving fund entitlement per member has also been enhanced from the existing Rs. 1000/- to Rs. 2000/-. (v) Under the Urban Wage Employment Programme (UWEP) component, which is applicable to the towns having population less than 5 Lakhs as per 1991 census, the 60:40 Material labour ratio for the works under UWEP, flexibility of 10% (either side) is now accorded to the States/UTs. (vi) The Skill Training of the Urban poor component has been restructured and quality skill training will be provided to the urban poor linking it with certification, imparted preferably on Public-Private Partnership (PPP) mode, with the involvement of reputed institutions like IITs, NITs, Poly-techniques, ITIs, other reputed agencies etc. The average expenditure ceiling per trainee has been enhanced from the Rs 2600/- to Rs. 10000/-. (vii) 3% of the total Scheme allocation will be retained at the Central level for special / innovative projects to be undertaken to implement a time-bound targeting to bring a specific number of BPL families above the poverty line through self-employment or skill development. The revised scheme has the following components: Urban Self Employment Programme(USEP): * Urban Women Self-help Programme(UWSP) © Skill Training for Employment Promotion amongst Urban Poor(STEP-UP) * Urban Wage Employment Programme (UWEP) * Urban Community Development Network (UCDN) sci) Integrated Low Cost Sanitation (ILCS): This scheme envisages the sonwersia) H re latrines into water seal twin-pit sanitary latrines on a whole town basis. It al conversion of individual dry latrine into pour flush latrine thereby liberating scavengers from the age old, obnoxious practice of manually carrying nl ee ight soil. 1LCS Z.Urban Development 208. scheme was initially started in 1980-81 through the Ministry of Home Affairs and later through Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment. The scheme was transferred in 1989- 90 to Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty Alleviation and from 2003-2004 onwards to Ministry of UEPA/HUPA. Under the Scheme, central subsidy is 75%, State Subsidy 15% and beneficiary share is 10%. The upper ceiling cost is Rs.10,000/- for the complete unit For the States falling in the category of difficult and hilly areas, 25% extra cost is provided. 2009-10 is aimed to be the last year of the scheme. Affordable Housing in Partnership (AHP): \t seeks to promote various kinds of public-private partnerships -government with the private sector, the cooperative sector, the financial services sector, the state parastatals, urban local bodies, etc.to create affordable housing stock. Under the scheme, the Government provides subsidy at the rate of Rs.50,000 per affordable unit or 25% of the cost of infrastructure(internal and external),whichever is lower. This Scheme is a part of the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) and takes into account the experience of implementing Basic Services to the Urban Poor (BSUP) and Integrated Housing & Slum Development Programme (IHSDP). The scheme is primarily applicable to the 65 cities covered under the BSUP programme. Rajiv Awas Yojana(RAY): Rajiv Awas Yojana (RAY): It is a scheme announced by the President in 2009.It focuses on slum dwellers and the urban poor. This scheme aims at promoting a slum-free India in five years and focuses on according property rights to slum dwellers. It aims at providing basic amenities such as water supply, sewerage, drainage, internal and approach roads, street lighting and social infrastructure facilities in slums and low income settlements adopting a ‘whole city’ approach. It also provides subsidized credit. Rajiv Rinn Yojana (RRY): RRY, a Central Sector Scheme (CSS), address the housing needs of the EWS/LIG segments in all urban areas, through enhanced credit flow. RRY is a applicable to all the urban areas of the Country. RRY provides interest subsidy of 5% (500 basis points) on loans granted to Economically Weaker Section (EWS) and Low Income Group (LIG) categories to construct their houses or to extend the existing ones. The upper loan limit is Rs. 5 lakh for EWS and 8 lakh for LIG; however, interest subsidy would be limited to the first Rs. 5 lakh of the loan amount, in case the loan exceeds this amount. SLUM DEVELOPMENT POLICIES IN INDIA: A CRITICAL ASSESSMENT Thus, over the years the slum development programmes and schemes in India are on rise. They seem to be quite promising in character. But the real scenario of the slums has hardly undergone a perceptible change. Population flow to the slums has not been arrested, but they are multiplying on day basis. There is a disproportionate relationship between slum population and the available resources. This has led to steep competition often resulting in strife and conflict. Slums in India are risk societies. The quality of life has hardly any change in a positive manner. Education, health, sanitation still plagues slum lives, Poverty is a perennial issue crippling the slum residents.on 200 __Urban Sociology Slum development policies are ambitious, but are not favourable to the slum dwellers as they lack an innovative approach. Private players are rarely found in the slum development ventures in India. Till date slum development is a non profit sector and is more a charity led investment. So, private players with commercial motive hardly volunteer to venture into slum development. Slum development programmes in India are centralised in character and are national launched. They often ignore the slum specific challenges and issues. They are standardised and stereotyped. Till now the stress has not been given on individual enrichment programmes like value addition through skill and entrepreneurship trainings, Slum dwellers have the inherent tendency to remain at their places. They lack drives of upward mobility. They rarely desire a drastic change in their lifestyle and living Conditions. So, no substantial change is marked at the end of the promising project cycles Attempt for attitudinal changes never figure in the government programmes. Till now the Government works on piece meal approach so far as the slum development programmes are concerned. It needs to be substituted by out of the box, multi-dimensional, multi-focused and holistic approach. The government need not only concentrate upon the physical aspects i.e. houses, roads, sewerage, health clinics, school buildings, shops for business and playgrounds /parks etc. of the slums and slum dwellers but also address the functional aspects i.e. psychological, social, economical, domestic and community aspects involving the people. Inviting private players like the business houses, CSOs and NGOs to slum development efforts is the need of the hour. This needs to be coupled with slum up- gradation under the practical leadership of municipality. Programmes like skill up-gradation for actual income generation; improving functional literacy by identifying illiterates/neo literates/ semi literates; providing better health care services particularly maternal & Child health care and emergency services; ensuring quality in primary & secondary education; working upon reduction of alcoholism; drug consumption; domestic violence and general crime and developing the cooperative culture and team spirit among slum dwellers need to be the focus of the new slum development programmes. In order to create a win-win situation for the slum dwellers, their participation ! be both solicited and stimulated. The onus of slum development needs to be shifted to the local milieu who can use their best knowledge and capacity with the finance td from different agencies. All these can bring concrete changes in the slums and the I'v of the slum dwellers. TUTTI Hrs aA Ml crea ah 1. Dwivedi, R. M, (2007) Urban Development and Housing in India, New Ce! Delhi 2. Environmental Improvement of Urban Slums: An Evaluative Study(1997), Study 77 National Institute of Urban Affairs, Government of India is to ntury: New esearch=— Urban Development 207 | ar ——_—— senate 3, Expert Group on the Commercialisation of Infrastructure Projects (1996) The India Infrastructure Report: Policy Imperatives for Growth and Welfare, Ministry of Finance, Government of India, New Delhi |. Ganeshwar V. (1998) ‘Urban policies in India: Paradoxes and Predicaments’, Habitat International, Vol. 19, No.3, pp.293-316 . Impact Assessment of Mega City Scheme, 2000, Research Study 87, National institute of Urban Affairs, Government of India 6. National Commission on Urbanization, (1988), Government of India 7. Schemes for slum development in India(2013) https://www.google.co.in/ URBAN BASIC SERVICES . UBS was a centrally sponsored scheme implemented under the 7th Five Year Plan with financial and technical support from UNICEF. The Programme was launched in 1985 to cover over 200 towns. By the end of 1989, it was under implementation in about 168 towns. Basic aim of the UBS programme is to upgrade the quality of the life of the urban poor, especially the most vulnerable sections like women, children and other economically weaker sections. The programme envisages development of urban slums by making provision of basic services like water, health and sanitation, education, environmental up gradation, etc. The Ministry of Urban Development of the Government of India was responsible along with the appropriate Departments of Urban Development and/or Local Administration in the State Governments, for the overall planning and monitoring of the programme. Basic aim of the UBS programme is to upgrade the quality of the life of the urban poor, especially the most vulnerable sections like women, children and other economically weaker sections. The programme envisages development of urban slums by making provision of basic services like water, health and sanitation, education, environmental up gradation, etc HISTORICITY OF UBS The origins of the Urban Basic Services Programme in India lie in India's rural Community Development Programme which had its root in the early 1950's after Independence. Due to rapid migration of the rural population to the newly emerging urban centers, the rural Community development programme was experimented in the urban centers. The first formal attempt to experiment with the community development approach in cities was initiated in Delhi. Urban Community Development (UCD) pilot project started in Delhi in 1958 with the assistance of the Ford Foundation. The rich dividend of the Ford supported UCD in Delhi, led the Ford foundation to launch a second pilot project in Ahmadabad in 1962. In 1965 a third pilot project in UCD was initiated by the American Friends Service Committee in co-operation with the Municipal Corporation s of Baroda. A fourth project was started in Calcutta in 1966. The experiences gained from the Ford sponsored UCD, led the Government of India to-design and establish its own series of UCD pilot projects across the country in the late 1960's. It began with fourteen projects in 1966 and another six were taken up in 1967. By 5 "—— 208 Urban Sociology 1970 the Government of India had turned over the financing of UCD projects to the State Governments and local bodies. Most projects survived with little expansion or replication, Three notable exceptions were Gujarat state, which started 11 new projects on its own Hyderabad, which expanded using the same staff; and Jamshedpur which was supported by Tata. The UCD project was manned by one project officer, eight community organisers, plus some volunteer workers from the community. It had an expected coverage of 50,000 populations and a budget of Rs 65, OOO/- per year. The financial burden was shared on a 50:50 basis between the Government of India and the State Governments and local bodies. UCD emphasised community participation and self help. While exploring the opportunities for supporting programmes for children, youth, and women in slums and shanty towns, UNICEF became associated with the Hyderabad UCD project in 1976. With UNICEF's assistance, the project began to shift its emphasis more toward children and women; while expanding to reach all the slums in the city.The Hyderabad project with its emphasis upon housing was replicated in Vishakapatnam and additional UCD projects were started in Ahmedabad, Baroda, Pune and Kanpur. UNICEF also supported the expansion of this approach to smaller towns under the programme known as Small and Medium Town Development in nine districts, including Siliguri and Allepey. At the request of the Government of India, during the years 1981-84, UNICEF's assistance was extended to 42 towns and cities, using the Basic Services Strategy to improve child and mother care services, water supply, sanitation facilities, women's income, shelter, health education and pre-school facilities. Substantial gains were made in the field of immunization, local sanitation, drinking water supply, health and pre-school education. (UNICEF, 1990) In August, 1984, the Government of India and UNICEF together reviewed the programmes then being implemented in 42 towns. At this review the Government reiterated its confidence in the viability of the strategy for providing certain types of services to the urban poor. The Government then decided to expand the UBS programme from the current 42 towns to 295 towns approximately, during the 7th Five-Year Plan period, i.e., 1985-89. The number of towns was later revised downward to 168 towns. The programme focuses primarily on towns below population strength of 100,000. With this decision, the Minsty also agreed to share programme costs with the State Government, local bodies 3! UNICEF. In the 7th Five Year Plan the expenditures for UBS were shared by Government, the State Government and UNICEF on a 20/40/40 basis. Since amr does support certain key areas of the programme including training and moni eF1EC at the state and national levels, UBSP Demonstration Towns, PCAREANSOES Oar (Information, Education and Communication) materials and advocacy. The och bed Plan provides Rs.100 crores for the revised Urban Basic Services Programme WT ay called Urban Basic Services for the Poor (UBSP). The costs are shared by the Government and the States on a 60/40 basis. aR: In 1990-91, the Government promised Rs.25 crores for UBS/UBSP and in 19! ns were 23 crores. Under the new UBSP programme of Government of India, 450 new an to be targeted, The transition from UBS to UBSP has created some problems. the UCD still exists in some states. the Central 1991, UNICEF=e Urban Development i Urban Basic Services began as a merger by the Government of India of three UNICEF assisted programmes. The programme was designed primarily to enhance the survival and development of children and women in urban low income families in some least developed districts. It is both an approach and a vehicle for providing amenities and services to poor communities. The approach is rooted in community participation and facilitated by Community organizers. SELECTION OF CITIES UNDER UBS The overwhelming majority of the towns selected had a population of well under one lakh, inter alia because it was felt that while a considerable amount of attention was being given to improving infrastructure and services in the slums of large metropolises, smaller towns were generally receiving less than their share and were operating with inadequate resources. It is decided that the amounts made available to various towns are to be in proportion to the size of the slum population in each town. The Municipalities/Municipal Corporations initially have to advance the funds, which were later reimbursed by UNICEF and State and Central Government. Selection of UBS towns by Government of India follows the following criteria for selection. These criteria are: * A particularly fast population growth rate; * Absence of basic services for slum dwellers; and * Willingness on the part of the municipal authorities to assign a Senior Municipal Officer to supervise the implementation of the project. FUNCTIONING PROCESS OF UBS UBS believes in bottom up planning. This calls for community participation through Tepresentation. Urban Basic Services seeks to ensure that essential services and facilities are provided to poor urban areas by systematically organising local communities to Participate in the planning, implementation and maintenance of these services and increase their representation with municipal bodies. In collaboration and with the assistance of Community Organisers, ordinary citizens of poor communities, hitherto underrepresented or by-passed in the overall urban development plan, are given a chance to formulate their own micro development plans and present them to the town officials and departmental functionaries in a systematic and legitimate way. The vehicle for Preparation and submission of a "Mini" plan of action reflecting community members’ Needs at the neighbourhood level is the Basti or Neighbourhood Development Committee. Allowing for local variations, it is comprises of around 10 Resident Community Volunteers (RCV) who are elected representatives of 10 Neighbourhood Groups of 20-25 households each. Neighbourhood Groups form the smallest community level working units within the Programme framework. The Mini Plan of Action is prepared under the guidance of a Community Organizer. Ten such Mini Plans representing needs and wishes of ten Neighbourhood Development Committees are then consolidated into a Community Plan—_—"[=j ao Urban Sociology (covering 2000/2500 families) with the assistance of the UBS Project Officer, and integrated into a UBS Plan at the Town level by the Chairman of the Municipal Committee through a uss cell Before being finalized, the plan is meant to be submitted to UNICEF and the Go} for review and comment as necessary. It is meant to be implemented in collaboration with all municipal and district departments concerned, e.g. Water Authority, Health, Education, ete. ' : The Municipal Administration remains primarily responsible for the implementation of the programme as well as its coordination with other departments of the State. (NIUA/UNICEF, 1989) The responsibility for planning, implementation, management and monitoring of the UBS Programme was thus shared as follows * Administrative Structure of UBS: 1986-90 Level Responsibility Functions -National Ministry of Urban Development; Steering, Monitoring Level UNICEF Regional Office; and Reviewing the UBS programme : State Urban Development Department; Coordination & Monitoring Level UNICEF Zone Offices of Programme in UBS Districts District Formulation of District Plan of Operations :District Collectors The Programme was supposed to be managed and monitored by five Committees at different levels operating simultaneously. In practice, the administrative organisation at state, district and town levels differed from state to state. * At the national level, the Steering Committee is chaired by the Secretary, Urban Development who establishes national policy and evaluates State level performance. * At the State level, the Programme Review Committee executes policy and integrates and coordinates all development efforts of related agencies. ‘At the District Level, the District Coordination Committee executes UBS Programme an Development guidelines; coordinates and integrates according to Ministry of Urb: all development efforts at the district level. * At the Town level, the Project Management Committee form guidelines, facilitates basti level project implementation, reviews and moniti implementation and ensures availability of all requisites. * At the Basti level, the Basti Development Committee assumes leadership a responsibility in the basti and enhances community participation and planning self reliance. Ballo It is decided that the amounts made available to various towns are to a 4 proportion to the size of the slum population in each town. The Municipaities/ Muri Corporations initially have to advance the funds, which were later reimbursed by and State and Central Government. cat Thus, the UBS approach to improve conditions and services in urban da ain does not follow the traditional model of centrally planned and centrally directe lates operational orsUrban Development as 2 development programmes. On the other hand, the Programme emphasized and provide for training at all levels. Government officials and elected representatives at the aan state, District and Town level are oriented in the Philosophy, objectives and practical application of UBS so that their capacity to respond to the needs of poor communities by taking them as partners in development might be developed. Training is conducted by the National Institute of Urban Affairs, the Regional Centres for Urban and Environmental Studies at Hyderabad and Lucknow, the All India Institute of Local Self Government, and other local training facilities throughout the country. Training is regarded as an integral and ongoing part of the programme. GAINS OF UBS Over the years the needs of the slums are on rise. The municipalities of small and medium towns have accepted that fulfilling the basic needs of the slums is a priority in urban planning and development. The Urban Basic Services Programme has gained acceptance as an important programme for the provision of basic services in the urban slums. The urban poor, the local bodies and the state and central governments have become aware of its significance as well as potentialities to provide basic services. Urban poor have appreciated the concept and philosophy of UBS and are participating in the programme implementation actively and effectively. The programme has opened opportunity to harness the hidden potentialities of the community, particularly, the women in improving the quality of life and provision of basic services. A community readiness is noted to contribute in cash, kind and labour wherever possible and necessary for the development of their community. The initial reluctance and resistance to participate in the community development in the urban slums is in erosion. People in the long run have positive appreciation of the need and significance of their contributions to implement the programme of UBS with a community participation approach. Community leaders and volunteers have become forthcoming in owning of the assets created under UBS and also are keen to protect the ‘assets from misuse and exploitation’. There is readiness on the part of the community to sustain the assets created through proper maintenance. Neighbourhood committees in several towns have been formed to take active interest in articulating their needs, Preparing micro-plans and implementing the programme components. ‘ men has led to realisation that they too are partners in the ‘embers and conveners of the neighbourhood committees are responsibilities. The neighbourhood committees fund on their own. Community organisers have jourhood committees. Empowerment of wo! Process of development. M Now shouldering greater development have learned to manage the revolving i i he neighb volunteered to render their services to t t 4 ' In a majority of the towns where the programme under implementation, a part of a to the needy members of the neighbourhood the fund is being spent for giving small loans to te Sy being a jenerating activities like starting a new business or petty trade Fi to eect exit seucies The loan scheme has helped many to supplant eir aS. on Sait ‘additional income. It has liberated the urban slum dwellers from es, thoug!a fie 5 Urban Sociology the clutches of the moneylenders and developed the habit of thrift and saving among the poor. It has also instilled interest among the poor to demand skill training to invest the loan properly and to take maximum advantage. Above all, the scheme has generate not only physical capital or financial capital for the slum residents, but a good amount of social capital. The social capital generated in the slums through the UBS has brought out community solidarity which is evident from prompt repayment of loans to enable other members of the community to take advantage of the scheme. In Orissa, an officer of the rank of Deputy Secretary under the supervision of the Director of Municipal Administration was established. Despite very limited institutional support, these nodal officers provided the much needed guidance and supervision in the implementation of the programme, through frequent visits and periodic meetings. In several districts, the Joint Collectors/Additional District Magistrates in Orissa have played @ pivotal role in providing the much needed impetus in the formative years of this experimental programme. The support and keen interest shown by the State Government and the UNICEF has given the much needed impetus and has contributed for effective implementation of the programme. Finally, the training and orientation programmes to the officials and non-officials as well as community leaders has brought awareness about the problems of urban poor, the need and significance of participatory processes as well as positive changes in the implementation methodologies. Training has played a very significant role in accelerating the process of implementation. Further, concentration in capacity building at various levels has increased community participation. SHORTFALLS OF THE UBS The starting of the UBS was in haste. This failed to undertake proper baseline surveys in the urban slums of the country and to integrate them in the UBS. The level of mobilisation of the members was slow and retarded. The formation of neighbourhood committees was sporadic. These committees comprised disinterested and unmotivated members without proper knowledge. In the absence of full complement of trained personnel in the municipalities, no efforts were made to explain the concept and philosophy to the slum communities to enlist their support and participation. The micr -plans prepared did not reflect the felt-needs of the community but, were formulated by the project staff based on their individual perception of the felt-needs of the community: These were not bottom up in the real sense of the term. There was some reluctance on the part of some key functionaries to appreciste oy concept and philosophy of UBS. Some criticised it for its low budget and Bee te character. The required convergence was a missing point. Narrow Depa Ee sot attitude marred the UBS. The problem was accentuated by the frequent trans eae officials - particularly those who were trained. The UBS programme in some Paeeattet implemented as any other government programme rather than as a develop programme with people's participation. Another problem was the implementation of UBS as a separate pro! i gramme ratherUrban Development pp a 213 fot ee than as an integral part of town development plan of poverty alleviation. Thus, there was no proper integration of UBS with other municipal services at the town level. Added to this, the municipal bodies, with their very weak financial resources, quite often, found it difficult to contribute 20 per cent of their share. At every review and monitoring committee meeting at state and district lelvels, this problem prominently figured consuming considerable time. Political pressures and interventions and treating the project staff unkindly was another problem. From the beginning, there have been efforts, though, unintentional, to keep elected councils outside the UBS programme. The only link between the UBS and the municipal council is the municipal chairmen. This made the councillors feel that they are being deliberately ignored and overlooked. This generated apathy among them towards the programme. Some of the municipal councillors perceived that neighbourhood committees are a threat to their leadership and as well as to their sphere of influence. Training was found to be insufficient for giving coverage to maximum number of people. Despite efforts made by the training institutions, particularly, the Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies, Osmania University, training efforts remained inadequate. This is more apparent in the case of functionaries at the grass-root levels, i.e., the community volunteers, community health volunteers and political functionaries like municipal chairmen and municipal councillors. As a result, full potentialities of these functionaries could not be harnessed. A closely connected is the training programmes at the community level for skill formation or up gradation of the existing skills. They were either inadequate or not commensurate with the expectations and aspirations in the slum communities. This created several problems to the project functionaries effecting the implementation process. Through training and orientation, the community leaders and volunteers were explained about the concept, philosophy, guiding principles and the programme forts, in some slums, the neighbourhood committees were components. Despite these et portunities provided to them in implementing some of reluctant to fully utilise the op! the programme components. Most important of them is extending small loans to the needy and deserving out of the revolving fund to undertake pretty trades and to extricate them from the stranglehold ‘of the moneylenders. Either due to conservatism or for fear of difficulties in recovery or due to inability to spare time to implement the programme, some NHCs were reluctant to extend the benefit to the people. Involvement of NGOs in the implementation of the programme has been very limited. The UBS is based upon the principle of flexibility, but insistence on following the rules and procedures which is @ characteristic of Indian bureaucracy has often came in the way of implementation of the programme as also for effective people's participation. Often, the municipal officials fearing the prospects of criticism by the audit, insisted ‘on following the accepted administrative norms, OF insisted on instructions or guidelines from the government. Flexibility, therefore, ‘existed only on paper in many places.214 Urban Sociology Finally, from the beginning of the programme, doubts and suspicions were raised about the continuity of the scheme after 1990. This has a demoralising affect on the project staff. A closely related issue is the absence of proper career patterns for the community organisers. They feel that they are underpaid and over-worked and also work under less qualified and not so committed officials. These feelings and perceptions have created and widened the gulf between project staff and in some cases even threatened proper implementation of the programme. SUGGESTED FUTURE READINGS AND REFERENCES 1. Prasad, Rabindra (1993)Urban Basic Services Programme in India: A Critical Evaluation, Unpublished Paper, Regional Centre for Urban and Environmental Studies Osmania university, Hyderabad. 2. Report(1990), UNICEF pp 55-57 3. Urban Basic Services Programme. A Reference Manual(1989) NIUA/UNICEF