top of page
Feb 179 min read

Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY): A Deliberate Systematic Structural Failure?

Posted on 17/02/2024 (GMT 16:22 hrs)

Updated on 19/02/2024 (GMT 17:07 hrs)

In 1985, the then Prime Minister of India, Mr. Rajiv Gandhi of the Indian National Congress (INC), remarked in a public speech that out of every 1 rupee spent by the government administration for the welfare or the benefit of the downtrodden or poor sections of the Indian society, only a fraction of fifteen paise actually reached the persons for whom it was actually intended. Why so? Quite obviously, the presence of Middleperson transactions explains this phenomenon. This was called the “trickle down effect”.

Mr. Rahul Gandhi, the son of Mr. Rajiv Gandhi and leader of INC, rejected this “trickle down economics” in 2014, saying that it is bound to failure:

Rahul slams trickle-down theory VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 13th April, 2014 ©Mint)

It is to be noted that Congress stalwarts like Dr. Manmohan Singh and Mr. P. Chidambaram had openly advocated for such “trickle down” measures to reach to the lowest bottoms of the pyramid under a liberalization scheme that could somehow alleviate poverty, according to them. For both Singh and Chidambaram, the direct and indirect taxes collected by the government should best be utilized for the “empowerment” of the poorest of the poor.

Not only the poorest of the poor are supposedly getting such “benefits” without exchanging their labour-power or without having to engage in the productive process (obviously within the context of savage, cannibalistic pre-debt-or capitalism) for generating such benefits separately, but also the corporate are deriving advantages from:

a) loans from the banks; when they are failing to pay back their dues to the banks, the banks waiving off/writing off their loans by means of negotiation. The superrich wilful defaulters are also being enabled to default on their loans and fly off to other countries without meeting any obligations!

b) curtailment of direct and indirect taxes;

In the case of a certain section of the poor, when they are getting freebies from the government (though irregularly), the latter is making the former mere slowcoaches, who are staying apathetic towards working for themselves or participating in the productive process. This is a form of hegemony perpetuated by the trickle down economy.

The beneficiaries are behaving in a way that they have used their palms to operate or grip or hold over (though they are non-owners) the means of production (where the fingers are closed), and now they are using those palms in a reverse way by inverting them (where the fingers are opened: open palm) to beg due to the over-imposed burden of unemployment.

India’s present PM used this to counter-target “corruption under the Congress regime” in the context of trickle-down economy, which otherwise might be referred to as the “dole economy“:

The “dole economy” under the trickle-down effect is where the government (instead of the corporate) gifts its unemployed citizens without taking any money (freebies) from them but instead, spends the tax-payers’ contributions as well as money accumulated from external or internal debt. It does not lead to a sustainable economy since the dole policies discourage the productive engagement with the labour-process, both physical and intellectual.

The proliferation of dole economy was seen in Tamil Nadu when Jayalalitha first legitimized in the mainstream the very culture of freebies:

It was followed by Mamata Banerjee, when she started with her own version of “dole economy”, where large donations from the government to the registered local clubs (as well as grants for Durga Puja Committees; even Durga Puja committees are getting 60% waive off in electricity bills) became an everyday affair in West Bengal. Not only that, schemes of the WB government including Kanyashree, Sabooj Sathi, Lakshmir Bhandar (the repertoire of Goddess Lakshmi, a scheme for BPL women, but whose benefits are also being taken by lower/upper middle class women as well), Swasthya Sathi etc., further extended the domain of doles in the functioning of the Banerjee-led government.

Not only before elections, but the implementation of the MGNREGA (2005) itself showed to be promoting a model that reflects the poor state of the Indian economy, wherein there is no stable source of income for the poor that lasts throughout the year. Employment generation also has become a dole under the garb of “welfare”, which can never promote a long-lasting economy. Is not the demand for “100/200 days work” an insult to human dignity? One can even go to the extent of saying that such dole proposals are not quite conducive to Article 39A of the Indian Constitution, which promotes for adequate means of livelihood for all citizens. How can trickle down/dole economy ever be “adequate”?

The notions of Welfarism (prominently the philosophy of Dworkin), Resourcism, Preference Utilitarianism within the Capability Approach (as championed by Amartya Sen) also come up in this context. Sen’s postulates advocate for long-term sustainability while preserving a version of welfarist approach of increasing the maximum value (to be interpreted within the framework of “beings and doings”) of lives as presupposed in rational choice theory. While traditional welfarism and resourcism focus on the subjective well-being of the receiver of benefits, Sen’s capability take discusses the moral significance of such welfare from a holistic, positionally objective perspective– emphasizing on the significance of human dignity and sense of justice, as in Martha Nussbaum’s theorization.

Should political parties be allowed to dole out freebies? Economists offer a solution: Do away with the policy of doles!

This is what the present PM also remarked in 2022:

However, the BJP itself led a campaign of such “revdi culture” of giving out freebies to delude/influence voters in the last Gujarat Assembly Elections:

BJP Promises 20 Lakh Jobs And Bagful Of Freebies In Manifesto VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 28th November, 2022 ©Ahmedabad Mirror)

What a hypocrisy on their part! The PM’s statement, like all of his promises, turned out to be a mere “lip-service”, signifying nothing!

It is worth noting that PM Modi promised the following in a speech in 2018:

Amidst the same speech, the present PM came to mention the fact of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (PMAY) Scheme:

“While talking to women beneficiaries of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojna, I was watching the houses behind them. Even you would be wondering how such good quality houses were built under the scheme,” Modi said after his interaction with a few of the beneficiaries in various districts of Gujarat through video conferencing.

“This was made possible because there is no place for the system of paying commission in my government. If one rupee goes from Delhi, the entire 100 paise reach the house of the poor,” he said.

Claiming that his government has the “guts,” the prime minister said he can ask the women beneficiaries if they had to pay any bribe or commission to get the houses, when the entire country is watching. “In reply, the mothers and sisters could say with satisfaction that they got the houses according to rules and they did not have to pay a single rupee bribe,” he said.

He said the government has given money, but along with it, these homes have been built with the “sweat of the family”. The prime minister further said so far, people have heard about only politicians getting their own residence, but now we are hearing about the poor getting their own homes.”

However, what is the true picture of it all? Whatever our PM said in that speech, were those factually correct? This shall be the task of the present article to reveal.

We were surprised when we googled about the implementation of the PMAY scheme, where it was found that it is full of lacunae, money laundering issues as well as theft of the money allotted for the public in both the cases of the PMAY (Urban) and PMAY (Gramin).

Does it not point fingers at the systematic structural failure of the present governmental administration as a whole? Does not the said failure entail all-pervasive corruption by the current ruling party?

The PMAY across many states of India has seen paper-ground discrepancy (in government records, I have a house, though in ground-reality, I have none), documentation irregularities, middleperson transactions, illegal approvals under the scheme, misappropriation of funds etc., since the inception in 2015:


Contractor booked for scam in PM Awas Yojana VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 10th January, 2022 ©Times of India)

RTI helps unearth housing scheme scam, but activists bear brunt VIEW HERE ⤡ (As reported on 21st September, 2020 ©The Federal)



If my family (as a miniature form of the state) is being run by dole economy and taking debts from three international terrorist institutions, WB-IMF-WTO, the family would inevitably be bankrupt in the long-run and thus become an un-holy family.

The Government of India at present is taking huge loans from such external sources (At end-September 2023, India’s external debt was placed at a whopping US$ 635.3 billion, recording an increase of US$ 6.4 billion over its level at end-June 2023; under the BJP regime, the loan has increased 2.53 times per Indian in 9 years⤡ ⤡). If such debt-ridden economy is continued, the whole family shall collapse. The present economic programme is unsustainable at its very core.

Why were the Wadhawans singled out?

In the DHFL scam⤡ ⤡, the PMAY scheme played a major role. DHFL under the Wadhawan brothers was the largest contributor to PMAY, wherein it contributed 100 units to the said scheme, even after it was alleged for possible deviations in practice by the Cobrapost:

The entire narrative is depicted in the following:


Of All the Superrich Wilful Defaulters, Why the Wadhawans alone?

The DHFL was accused by the investigation bureaus for creating fake home loan accounts under the PMAY:

After viewing all these points, we have a few questions to ask:

a) What were the Vigilant Agencies doing when these type of fraudulent transactions were being carried out under a governmental scheme, i.e., the PMAY? Without cooperation from the higher political authorities, how could the Wadhawans have consummated these alleged ends (not yet conclusively proved in the Court of Law)?

b) If PMAY is a “pet” project of the Hon’ble PM, how do such scams take place under his watch, especially after the “successful” execution of Demonetization and Aadhaar-PAN Linking?

It is to be noted further that the business tycoons have to donate astronomical figures of money to the political parties’ itching palms through means such as the Electoral Bonds, PM CARES Fund etc., where the identities of the corporate donors (or literally any other kind of donor, especially hailing from the underworld, corresponding to multiple sources of terror-funding for political parties, e.g., the Dawood-Mirchi affair in the DHFL Scam ⤡) remain practically unknown to the public other than the party and the Bank (SBI), which has taken the donation. The Electoral Bonds were recently ruled out as “unconstitutional” by a Supreme Court bench headed by the CJI:


We have already discussed the transparently opaque space of corporate funding to political parties in the following:


Is there any one-to-one correspondence between Bharatiya Janata Party’s increasing assets and abrupt bankruptcies in India?

Legitimizing Bribery: Electoral Bonds and the Fall of Economic Justice

Money Laundering by the Ruling Party of India: An Open Epistle to the Financial Action Task Force (FATF)

Quid Pro Quo: BJP and Ajay Piramal

It could be understood that for this type of terror-funding/political donations/political charity, business tycoons have to compensate their losses by creating shell companies/fake bank accounts in the era of cyber vigilance. Moreover, political parties are also encouraging the opening of shell companies for taking donations to show that they are not taking money from only one or two companies alone.

Hence, one may conclude that the multi-party system in India is subservient to “corruption”– deviating from the legal norms. It is high time to understand the etiology of corruption vis-à-vis the rule of law.

The whole narrative can be summed up in only one sentence:

The defeats of de jure implementation of a policy entail the win of de facto systematic structural failure.


Comments

bottom of page