Go to other pieces on
Gujarat
POST-EARTHQUAKE REHABILITATION IN GUJARAT - 9
MONTHS AFTER. A Field Assessment by, Rohit Jigyasu
(Download Word
file)
Dr.ing student, Dept. of Town and Regional Planning
Norwegian University of Science and Technology
Trondheim - 7050
I have just returned from Gujarat after making a first hand assessment of the
rehabilitation process that has been initiated there at a big scale after the devastating
earthquake earlier this earlier. There are so many interesting facets emerging out of this
rehabilitation process, that they demand a thorough review and discussion
The whole post-earthquake scenario has been so interesting, complex and pioneering in many
respects (esp. in developing country context). I must say that I am so impressed of the
grass root work of lot of NGOs, other organisations, Govt. and individual volunteers who
have been working with commitment and setting examples of 'rehabilitation process' that we
must appreciate. This is certainly a pioneering case of NGO involvement in rehabilitation
and as any other experiment, it has its positive as well as negative points. It is very
easy to be critical (which I will be on many issues) but then, this is part of a learning
process. So I guess there is no harm in being open about certain issues. There is no
logical sequence to my discussion points, these just point at the diverse aspects related
to the rehabilitation process.
Those who have been closely following the immediate follow-up (esp. those who were part of
the WSSI reconnaissance team) would remember that the Govt. was considering to relocate
villages based on certain criteria [1]. Considering out-right rejection by the people
(less than 10% people accepted relocation), Govt. abandoned this policy. On the other
hand, it was found that after initial fear had subsided, most of the villagers started to
move back to their old locations. And right now, majority of them are living in
temporary/semi-permanent shelters, right adjacent to their damaged houses (in most cases,
on their own plots). The phsychological stress is so evident that even in the houses not
so damaged, people are using those as storage and staying in the temporary shelters.
Coming back to Govt. policies towards rehabilitation, it took nearly 2-3 months for the
government to prepare policies not only for shelter but also for economic and social
rehabilitation. Accordingly, the Govt. initiated 'owner-driven approach' under 50-50
govt.- NGO partnership programme. NGOs and corporates were welcomed under public-private
partnership programme with these agencies sharing the cost with the govt. by atleast 50%.
The Govt. decided to provide resources (in the form of financial compensation and cheaper
building materials [2]) and owners are supposed to undertake reconstruction, with the help
of NGOs. It is worth noting here that NGO movement is very strong here in Gujarat and in
Kutch inparticular. As such, number of grass root NGOs were already existing at the time
of earthquake and working on various development issues. One of the big umbrella
organisation striving towards the same is Kutch Nav Nirman Abhiyan, which is a consortium
of around 21 local based NGOs who were already working in Kutch before the earthquake on
various development, gender issues as well as working out ways and means for managing
droughts and cyclones. As a result many of these NGOs had already got a firm footing in
the region.
While owner-driven approach was on the agenda of the Govt., it also paved the way for
'full-fledged adoption of villages' through contractor driven reconstruction programmes.
Simultaneously, Govt. also initiated painfully tedious process of assessing the extent of
damage with the help of several academic agencies and NGOs. In order to co-ordinate the
overall process of rehabilitation, govt. set up 'Gujarat State Disaster Management
Authority' under the chairmanship of Chief Minister of Gujarat state, with its 'spacious'
office located in Gandhinagar.
It is very interesting to note, how things started to emerge after this. Large number of
corporates and NGOs, started visiting these villages and started promising different kind
of packages, which promised 'ready-made' villages with all the facilities (similar to
Latur). The villagers listened to everyone. However, they became conused with number of
promises being made by number of donor agencies. At the same time 'compensation package'
was initiated by the Govt. The villagers were left with two options - either to choose
financial compensation offered by the Govt., or to let these donor agencies undertake full
fledged adoption and reconstruction. Finally, majority of the people decided to go for
financial compensation and expressed their desire to undertake construction on their own.
For the first time 'owner-driven approach' towards rehabilitation has been initiated at
such a big scale (contrary to the contractor-driven approach followed in Latur [3]) This
is a pioneering attempt and as a result a diverse 'reconstructed physical fabric' is
emerging on the wide canvas of Kutch. However, social, political and economic implications
of this approach are only just beginning to show up.
Social Polarisation leading to physical break-up
A shocking implication of 'owner driven approach' is 'social as well as physical break-up
of the villages'. In Kutch, 'social stratification' is quite strong. While some castes are
rich and politically powerful, there are others, which are weak and marginalized (socially
and economically). The middle class is not very strong here. With the gradual breaking of
mutual interdependencies, the 'social polarisation' was already existing at the time of
the earthquake. Under 'owner-driven approach', these villagers were supposed to mutually
determine, whether they want to be relocated or get compensation. What happened as a
consequence of this was that 'socially and economically powerful castes' got together and
purchased their own land and in this way, decided to get relocated. While, the weaker
groups were left with no option but to stay back. This is happening in nearly all the
villages. In many cases, a single village has got split into as many as 4 parts, at safe
distance to each other. This is very serious as physical segregation will further deepen
the polarisation. Moreover, due to 'good political connections' , in many cases the
powerful castes have even managed to attract infrastructure and investment, while the poor
and the marginalized are now left as 'abandoned hamlets' devoid of even basic faciliaties.
Here I must mention, that I discovered that in many cases, even 'non-resident Indian'
relief was distributed strictly on 'social basis'…so obviously there were many who
were left behind. In a famous craft village, Dhamadka, internationally known for block
printing, the Khatri community, who owned work-sheds and were economically well off have
decided to relocate themselves and poor labourers, who used to work in those sheds are
left behind…wondering how to cope!
However at this point, I must appreciate the work of some NGOs like Unnati, Swati and many
others who are exclusively catering to the needs of vulnerable sections of the community.
Rehabilitiation or Compensation!
During the course of my study, I found out that most of the people have infact got the
initial sum of Rs. 12,000/- and many have received their first instalment of the
compensation package (Rs. 20,000/- or less depending on the extent of damage, surveyed by
the Govt. earlier.
However, it seems that the whole approach is getting heavily centred around financial
compensation, without working out and facilitating actual ways and means to achieve
'earthquake resistant features' in physical reconstruction'. In many cases, people getting
the money don't really know, how to make optimum use of the little money (from the first
instalment) to achieve best results in terms of make safe structures. Since the condition
of getting compensation is incorporation of earthquake resistant features, many of them
now become ineligible to get second instalment. This is a funny situation since after
inspection by 'official' engineers, many of them are already supposed to retrofit 'new'
constructions. Forget about retrofitting existing constructions !!!
Many people still remain in very damaged houses. At many places, people have barely
managed to erect walls..with whatever little they had..and for the roof they still use the
plastic sheets (quite innovatively).
Another issue has been the ways and means of getting compensation based on number of
documents, such as ration cards, and papers showing house ownership. One wonders what
about those living in huts (they don't need to get legal saction), what about those living
as tenants for 50 to 60 years…what about those whose papers have got buried in
rubble…what about those who are illiterate. Needless to say, many of them have been
left out of this compensation package. Most of them are already marginalized sections.
Evidently corruption was very evident for securing 'compensation'.
'Contractor Driven approach'
However donor concept arrived in Kutch also (though in very few villages), thanks to the
generous intentions of many religious, political and industrial organisations, who
'adopted some villages for reconstruction' by many corporates, state govts. and NGOs, very
much like in Latur. These organisations embarked on reconstruction through hiring of
contractors. Interestingly, very much like in Latur, the plot sizes are decided on the
basis of land-holdings with the beneficiary families [4].However, in case of many (if not
all) such donors, I found negligible participation of the beneficiaries, who are being
provided with 'over safe' and expensive (by rural standards) permanent houses on their
platter. The long term sustainability is put into question here, very much like the case
of Latur [5]. The quality of construction in some of these 'adopted' and totally
reconstructed villages is also in question. I found that some organisations even
compromised on quality to achieve fast reconstruction. One can find some villages already
reconstructed in total and inaugurated by political leaders. I was shocked to see that in
one such village, new constructions suffered cracks from 'aftershocks'. This is serious
!!!!
Temporary, Semi-permanent or permanent
Very interestingly, there is a big confusion between the three types. Lot of 'exotic'
temporary structures got flown in, in the immediate aftermath. Before they could be
provided to all, monsoons set in. These were found to inappropriate during monsoons.
Therefore some well intending NGOs, started the concept of 'semi-permanent structures'.
This was an innovative concept, if it could have materialised in time. By the time, these
could be erected, people started initiating permanent constructions. Therefore, in many
cases, they ended up with three kind of constructions. I wonder, what will be their future
use as lot of resources have been pumped into these. Interestingly, many of these
semi-permanent shelters are already getting permanent by raising walls as an 'extra room'.
(such additions are highly unsafe in many cases!!!) while their permenanent shelter is
getting ready.
Wrong perceptions
Very much like in Latur, wrong perceptions on the issues of 'appropriate technology' are
evident both on part of 'official engineers' as well as local people. The RCC / cement
block (locally known as pillar constructions) are thought to be the only 'safe option'.
Most of the people are changing over to these techniques, though the quality and
techniques are indeed very very poor (in many cases). Moreover, due to shortage of water
(this is drought prone area!!), concrete may not be properly cured. In many villages, I
found that people have not even understood the basic features of 'earthquake resistant
construction'.
Even wrong repairs are seen everywhere (there is no retrofitting, what so ever). People
have filled up 'through cracks' with cement grout, increased cross section of soft storey
columns and moved back to their houses. (this is not only in Ahmedabad, but also in Bhuj
and Anjar).
Also, here traditional (vernacular) technology is being blamed by many, out rightly for
the disaster, without taking into account the reasons for this degeneration of technology.
One wonders who is at fault behind all this destruction - the local building skills, the
masons or the poverty. Is it because of the scarcity of the special kind/ quaity of
material e.g. the unavailability of long(through) stones or is it because of general
ignorance as people started to ignore the original specifications out of sheer negligence.
Moreover, economy influenced, owner's choice of materials and lowering down of
specifications. As an example, the sophisticated joinery slowly got replaced with nailing
of beams and columns. Moreover, the overriding perceptions favoured the use of outside
material like cement while overlooking the traditional use of mud. As such, the original
strength of the traditional materials could not be used effectively to make the buildings
stronger in withstanding earthquake forces. Certain materials such as brick which were
introduced later were incompatible with traditional materials such as stone.
Moreover, in many cases the original design considerations e.g. regarding the position of
openings were forgotten. A part of the reason may be additions and alterations due to
increase in population. Moreover, due to change in materials and technology, traditional
craftsmen suddenly found themselves incapable of using their skills e.g. Gwandis who were
originally shaping stones were not trained to make brick or concrete walls. . Needless to
say that some of the new specifications needed with the introduction of new materials and
technology were not feasible owing to the local unavailability of resources e.g.
appropriate curing of concrete was virtually impossible due to lack of water in the area.
Here I must mention that there are some strikingly good examples of traditional structures
that have withstood the earthquake very effectively. Unfortunately, these are being
demolished, left and right. This was very evident in historic towns such as Morbi, Bhuj
and Anjar.
Many NGOs are promoting 'alternative technology' through use of 'compressed soil
blocks'(not mud blocks, as wrongly understood by many!!!). However, such a technology also
requires strict quality control and proper curing. Right now, this is being taken care of
through strict monitoring by these NGOs but there are questions regarding 'internalising'
this technology with the local community, once these NGOs withdraw from the scene. Will
such technology take roots with the building culture of the area….I have some doubts
!!!
However an interesting aspect related to this is that, thanks to the enterprising nature
of local people, the manufacture of pre-cast concrete and soil blocks has become a small
scale industry providing livelihood opportunities. If the villagers have the knowledge of
making these to achieve optimum strength, is another issue as many of them are heavily
economising on cement at the cost of strength to achieve more profit.
Community participation or community involvement
'Community participation' is undoubtedly the key word in the rehabilitation process
initiated here by number of NGOs. I think, it is the first time that the community is
being involved in the rehabilation process at such a big scale. Community is assisting in
the process of rebuilding by providing their labour, skills and resources. I must
appreciate the work of NGOs like SEEDS india in coorperation with NSET Nepal and Unnati
who are involving communities in the rehabilitation process right from the start.
However at this point, I will like to state that 'involvement' of community may not evoke
their true participation. True participation will emerge only if these communities are
empowered in 'decision making'. And needless to say, 'communities' means equitable
participation of every section within the community. This sadly, I found lacking here as
well due to existing social and political realities.
Increasing Dependencies
People have certainly become more dependent, thanks to the overflowing relief and presence
of numerous NGOs, many of whom are certainly over-doing with all their good intentions. I
can site an interesting example. At one place, an NGO is making worksheds for some block
printing craftsmen in cement blocks with tiled roof. After earthquake, they have been
carrying on their work in very basic structures made of locally available weeds
(vegetation) and plastic sheets. Even the sheds before were made of poor rubble masonry.
When I visited the site of new construction (adjacent to their existing temporary sheds),
I was shocked to find the owner complaining about thin crossection of rafters being
provided in new shed (which I found was totally appropriate -the owner could not even have
dreamt about getting such a structure, had there not been an earthquake). Such examples
throw open the questions relating to what kind of assistance should we provide to the
victims so that they donot lose their self initiative.
Local coping mechanisms
While I was working in the area, I came across countless examples of 'local coping
mechanisms' that are in place and working quite effectively. As a case, I found people
celebrating 'Navratri - a festival to worship Goddess of power'. For nine nights, people
dressed in their colourful costumes dance to live music. And here I was, witnessing Rabari
women dressed in colourful attire, singing and dancing in the midst of rubble in Bhachao.
The festival was in fact promoted by local organisations to initiate phsychological
healing process. It was an intense setting, I must say!
People have come back to their damaged shops and houses (in many cases!) and trying to get
back to life. In Bhuj, Anjar, Bhachao, Shopping streets have come back to life. In the old
town(gamtal area), there is still ban on new constructions or repairs. However, people
have initiated constructions on their own (in most cases, they are not safer than
before!!).'
While rubble has been cleared in the main town areas…(in Bhachao, the core area is a
big open field), still lot of rubble remain, especially in villages. However local people
have put these to innovative uses for making boundary walls etc..
Role of Women
This disaster certainly has brought women out of their household. I could sense that women
have become more aware of their rights and have started to join their partners in raising
their demands. This is also thanks to the work of lot of women NGOs in the area such as
SWATI.
The role of women in generating income for the family cannot be under-estimated. I could
send an equal (if not more) role of women in rebuilding efforts. I had some interviews
with single women, widows to assess how they have been coping with the situation. And I
must say, I am impressed at their ongoing struggle for survival, in the face of such a
trauma. Here I will elaborate on a case history of a widow.
This case history is that of Sarifa, whom I met sitting along with her neighbour (who
incidentally was also a widow, due to earthquake) in the outskirts of Bhachao, occupied by
'low castes'. Before the earthquake, Sarifa had two children, one of whom she adopted from
one of her relatives. Sarifa's husband was very sick suffering from cancer and she had to
do hard day's labour to earn family's livelihood and to educate her children. In order to
undertake a major treatment for her husband, he had taken loan of nearly Rs. 2 lakhs from
a local money-lender (locally called Durbari). On the fateful day of earthquake, while
Sarifa was away working as daily labour, both her children died under the rubble. However,
her sick husband survived the disaster.
Sarifa got Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation for the death of her two children, with which she
was forced to repay the loan. She was left with no source of livelihood, but a little
money from the relief. She decided to take another loan of Rs. 15,000 and used her savings
to buy a buffalo so that she can earn the livelihood. However that proved to be not enough
to sustain herself. Meanwhile her husband also died and poor Sarifa, is left alone living
with haunting memories, loan and meagre source of livelihood. Fortunately, one of the
local NGOs, Unnati, provided her with temporary shelter and Sarifa is still struggling for
physical survival after have undergone such an intense phsychological trauma.
Livelihood- the main issue at present
Livelihood is the single most important issue for the victims. Even now, most of them are
without a sustainable source of livelihood. For first few months, they were 'provided'
with all kind of help but now they are slowly left on their own. At this juncture, the
importance of generating livelihood is becoming all the more evident. Many of them are
working as daily wage workers (most of them are paid not in cash, but given just food to
ensure survival ). Local businesses are not running to give enough returns. Still people
are sitting in their shops, in the hope of better times). Informal activity can be seen in
the midst of rubble…!
Certain migrant settlements (e.g. Navlakhi) of workers in salt pans have been driven out
by port authorities. This is because their job is no longer useful. It is more profitable
to import charcoal for factories. Who cares for their future livelihood?
Development - challenges in bridging community, NGOs and the government (issues of
governance)
For the first time, development focus has been explicitly articulated by some NGOs right
at the outset of rehabilitation process. This is certainly due to the fact that many of
these NGOs were already involved in many development activities in the area at the time of
the earthquake.The approach and intentions are worth consideration as for the first time,
such a sincere and big scale effort has been made to use this disaster as an opportunity
for development. However the challenges relating to long term sustainability, governance
and creating civic society are only now beginning to unfold, when these good intentions
are being tested against the ground social, economic and political realities.
Abhiyan, has initiated the concept of 'Setu' (meaning 'bridge'). The idea is to act create
a bridge between NGOs, community and the government. More than 20 Setus are created in the
whole Kutch region, each catering to a group of villages. Each setu has a group of trained
social workers and engineers, who are initially involved in collecting data at the grass
root level pertaining to extent of damage, the kind of compensation, needs of marginalised
sections such as widows etc. This data is then passed on to the NGO, which is supposed to
then interact with the Government to initiate action for grass root development along with
rehabilitation. This is indeed a pioneering concept, thanks to the efforts of Sushma and
Sandeep Virmani, who are spearheading Abhiyan.
However, while I was in the last stage of my field study, I could discover some challenges
that are being now encountered while initiating this approach.
It seemed to me that these setus have in fact served to strengthen the link between the
community and NGOs. However the link between the community and the Government is
structurally so weak, that effective action /communication on behalf of the government,
based on community feedback missing. There is lack of trust (of the community) and lack of
accountability (of the government). When the community doesnot see concrete actions based
on what they demand, they donot cooperate.
This is also related to the fact that till now, grass root governance (i.e. local village
panchayats) have not been given any roles and responsibilities in the rehabilitation
process. One has gradually begun to understand that rejuvenating and empowering local
governance is so crucial for effective grass root actions.
Another seemingly related issue is the role and responsibility of the Govt. vis a vis NGOs
and other donor agencies. Many people to whom I talked, complained that the Govt. has been
very slow in taking actions and in many ways, has shed too much of its responsibility, in
the 'pretext' of owner driven approach, through heavy involvement of NGOs. Some people
also complained that Govt. took too much time in 'damage assessment' which was made into a
heavy bureaucratic exercise, riddent with corruption. However, one must not outrightly
blame the Govt. considering the big scale and the complexities involved with this
disaster.
All said, one must acknowledge that these Setus have been very effective in achieving
social awareness.
Footnotes:
1 Towards the end of February, the Govt. announced
packages 1 to 5. Accordingly relocation was advocated in villages with more than 70%
damage, very much like in Latur. However, here the people got time to weigh pros and cons
of relocation, thanks to the delays in taking concrete decisions by the Govt.. This was
also due to increased role of media which brought to light the lessons from Latur. As a
result, around 90% of the people in the region, rejected the idea of relocation. (Source.
The Times of India, ??)
The economy of the region also played a major role in the way things progressed in the
aftermath of the disaster. While the major economy of Latur was agro-based and the region
was economically backward. On the other hand, the economy of the region in Gujarat is
quite mixed, based on small scale businesses, salt pans, crafts, port etc. Moreover, owing
to the socio-political situation in Latur(the region is dominated by Marathas and
Lingayats), decisions were faster as only the dominant group had to be primarily taken
into confidence. While in Kutch region, there existed strong leadership among various
groups due to strong economic base.
2 As part of this policy, the materials needed for reconstruction especially the cement
were provided by the Govt. in a subsidised way (Rs. 105 per bag against the original price
of Rs. 150/- per bag). However it seems that Govt. is now finding it difficult to provide
subsides material in a streamlined way.
3 In Latur, the whole approach was primarily of physical rehabilitation through adoption
of villages by various donors (religious, industrial organisations), who set the agenda
for full construction of houses by hiring building contractors. This was a very quick
decision on behalf of the Govt. who obtained soft loan from the world bank for carrying
out rehabilitation. The role of Govt. was to providing legal land through acquisition and
construct houses by hiring contractors. The project management unit set up for
rehabilitation adopted top-down approach with heavy emphasis on technical soundness of
structures.
4 In most cases, there are three category of houses. The landless get plot size of 100 sq.
mts. With covered area of 30 sq. mts. Those with the landholding between 1 acre to 5 acres
get 250 sq. mts. Of plot size and 40 sq. mts. of covered area. In this way, very much like
in Latur, the existing social and economic inequities are being reinforced very much like
in Latur.
5 Latur mistakes seem to be repeated through provision of ready made houses made disaster
resistant through use of sophisticated technology and heavy reiforcement, made in
city-like pattern, in contrast to their traditional way of life.
End Notes:
Gujarat rehabilitation is a typical case which demonstrates the lessons from 'owner driven
approach' and efforts to use disaster as an opportunity for development, which are
currently underway. This approach thrusts greater role and responsibility on local people.
However, it also brings forward the pre-conditions for ensuring their true participation.
One of the crucial issues that has emerged is this regard is the need for attitudnal
changes in the way current management system works. There needs to be structural
decentralisation to make it more accountable and transparent. It is indeed better that the
'outside agencies' including the govt. and NGOs to be facilitators in this process.
However, they need to operate outside the current system with certain fixed notions on
management and execution.
Very much like in Latur, lack of education at individual as well as mass level is also
evident in this case, linked to the crucial questions of 'appropriate' technology transfer
(what kind of technology, the process of its generation and transfer). As a result of
this, the local people are not able to comprehend the technical problems in their
constructions that make them physically vulnerable to earthquakes.
This is also linked to growing 'false perceptions' among local people as well as agencies
favouring the use of 'modern' technology, without looking into the questions of long term
sustainability both in terms of availability of materials and workmanship. This is clearly
linked to loss of civic pride in 'indigenous knowledge, skills and capacity'. Related
issue is degeneration of traditional knowledge, making it more vulnerable. The reasons for
which are way beyond the technical ones and are linked to the current paradigms of
development and modernisation.
While education is important on one hand, an important issue is about inculcating social
ethics in those who get trained, so that they are not turned into petty contractors who
can compromise on the quality to earn more.
All said and done, one needs to point out that earthquake has affected most those
disadvantaged sections, who have lost their small property as well as their source of
livelihood. We need to identify and focus on these groups, as to how they can get the
maximum through optimum use of what they have including the compensation money. However,
it needs to be emphasised that only NGO efforts are not enough if the marginalised
sections are not socially and politically empowered. This is vital as planning is nothing
but a political process that decides who have power and access to resources for
sustenance, growth and well being. Only then we can go beyond mere community involvement
to their equitable participation.
Last but not the least is the issue of governance. As said earlier, in the rehabilitation
that has been initiated in Kutch in the aftermath of the earthquake, the grass root
organisation at village level i.e. Panchayat has been silent and has not been activated
and delegated with responsibility. This is a big loss for sustaining todays efforts
towards rehabilitation for the future as it is the grass root organisation where truly
people centred actions can take place and where their concerns and issues will be
highlighted, where their capacities will be utilised and weaknesses addressed and most
importantly the current processes of positive change towards local development can be
sustained only if their responsibility is finally passed on to the local governance.
Back to the top