Originally published in Cornell Policy Review on

As per the 2011 census, 1.77 million people in India are experiencing homelessness – 0.15% of the total Indian population. If those experiencing homelessness in India had a state of their own, it would be the 26^th most populous state in the country – with a population greater than Goa, Arunachal Pradesh, Mizoram, and Sikkim^[1]. If this population were its own country, it would be the 152^nd most populous country with a population greater than Bahrain. It is also worth noting that approximately 80% of the people experiencing homelessness in India belong to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Classes (OBCs), i.e. the traditionally marginalized communities in India.

People experiencing homelessness in India face at least two broad sets of issues – (1) lack of shelter, which is a necessity for a decent living, and (2) lack of identity, which is the prerequisite for gaining access to government services such as assisted social security schemes, unemployment allowances such as the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme (MNREGA), old-age assistance, and food allowances through the public distribution system.

The traditional approach of giving access to the underprivileged has followed a linear chain that runs as follows: You have a house (let’s call it ‘H’ for ease in modeling the argument) that functions as a permanent address (PA); your PA becomes the basis of your identity (I); you get services (S) based on your ‘I’. If any element of this chain is missing, your access to government service is in jeopardy, and all depends on one’s ability to have a house and a permanent address.

For example, someone experiencing homelessness who needs subsidized food through the public distribution system would, in most states, require an Aadhar card^[2] to be eligible for the food allowance. The Aadhar, in turn, would be issued on a permanent address. In 2018, Justice Madan B. Lokur, in a hearing, asked, “how do homeless people get Aadhaar if they have no home or a permanent address (?) … Does this mean that they [the homeless] do not exist for the government of India (?)”.

Sections of the tribal population in India who still dwell in forest communities face a similar situation as those experiencing homelessness. Their lack of permanent address and paperwork to establish their identity leaves them without an Aadhar card, in the absence of which they remain excluded from government services. The effort to integrate these communities into the traditional society or to allow them the opportunity to develop adequately on their own trajectory is then hindered at the very start. Aloka Kujur, an Adivasi rights activist, has aptly pointed out that the forest dwellers would also find it difficult to prove their citizenship in the light of the Citizenship Amendment Act. Her comments are noteworthy in the context of access to government services for the tribal population as she remarks: “the state of Jharkhand, being a “Scheduled Tribe/Adivasi area” has witnessed a long history of displacement due to projects including Bokaro Steel Plant, and mining for coal, uranium and bauxite. People are living in the forests without Aadhar. They migrate and live in these areas. How will they provide documentation?”  Interestingly, in 2020, Jagadambika Pal, a Member of Parliament (MP), asked a similar question in the Parliament:

In a document titled Unstarred Question no. 465^[3] (Lok Sabha),^[4] Pal asked:

“Will the Minister of Electronics and Information Technology be pleased to state:

(a) the number of people enrolled for Aadhar identification out of the total tribal population in the country, State/UT-wise; and

(b) the steps taken by the Government to expand the official identification net of tribal population?”

The Minister of State for Electronics and Information Technology, Sanjay Dhotre, responded on the 16^th of September 2020 that the required information was “not maintained by UIDAI (Unique Identification Authority of India)”. According to Minister Dhotre, the reason why there is no data on the number of people belonging to tribal populations with Aadhar enrolments and those who have not been enrolled yet, is that the concerned regulations do not require authorities to collect any data related to a person’s tribe or ethnicity. Below is the written response of Minister Dhotre to the question posed by MP Jagadambika Pal:

“As per Regulation 4(6) of Aadhaar (Enrolment & Update) Regulations 2016, “The demographic information shall not include race, religion, caste, tribe, ethnicity, language, record of entitlement, income or medical history of the resident”.

Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) collects only the following demographic details at the time of enrolment for Aadhaar:

1. Name, 2. Date of birth, 3. Residential address and 4. Gender.

Hence, the required information is not maintained by UIDAI.

The Particularly Vulnerable Tribal Groups (PVTGs), especially if they are displaced, find it hard to access even basic necessities such as food in the absence of Aadhar coverage. In some areas, they are entitled to a pension by the government, and to access these funds, they need a bank account which has an electronic Know Your Customer (e-KYC) banking requirement. That also depends on Aadhar. Many regions have seen active efforts, but a spate of reports suggests that the forest-dwelling and the PVTG populations remain uncovered by Aadhar.

Members of the population experiencing homelessness and the PVTGs have particularly been excluded from the government services due to the linear linkages of having a house -> permanent address -> identity -> government services. Other groups who have suffered due to missing out on one stage or more from this linear model include migrant laborers who have suffered from a lack of access to food from the public distribution system, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic. The linear model shows clear opportunities for improvement.

The Linear (H -> PA -> I -> S) Model

The linear model is still popular as a policy pathway for many governments. In September 2013, the government of India launched the National Urban Livelihoods Mission (NULM), which budgeted Rs 1,078 crore (approx. 149 million USD) for shelters and services for 900,000 people experiencing homelessness in 790 cities – a gross estimation of the number of homeless people given the 2011 census data. In 2015, the Honorable Supreme Court of India reviewed the NULM and found that most of the states had not utilized the NULM funds and had not built the number of shelters they had promised to construct. As a result, the beneficiaries devoid of a permanent home remained excluded from the public service delivery system at large.

As per a 2019 baseline study by Indo Global Social Service Society conducted across five states in India (Bihar, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu):

“Only 18% of the homeless could avail of ration through PDS benefits and for them, especially the women and children, there exists a barrier in securing a healthy and nutritional diet. ICDS services are meant to address this aspect – however, only 0.9% of homeless populations are getting these benefits. A majority of the respondents 77.7% of the homeless are not receiving any entitlements from the government.”

In 2017, the state of Rajasthan promulgated the Rajasthan State Policy for Urban Homeless and envisioned building shelters for those experiencing homelessness as per NULM and laid out the objective of providing those experiencing homelessness with “entitlements including identity cards, election cards, and pensions.” The time lag between the construction of permanent shelters and their eventual occupancy poses a unique challenge to policies where government services and subsidies are contingent on the building of permanent shelters. The population experiencing homelessness cannot access even the most basic services and commodities such as essential food items until construction completion.

(Figure 1. The Linear Model of Public Service Delivery)

Indeed, there are other models with which the government and civil society organizations have experimented, and these models have shown some promise in facilitating greater access to public services.

The “Permanent Address on Temporary Housing”

(H’ PA -> I -> S) Model

One such model is the “Permanent Address on Temporary Housing” model, wherein a distinction exists between having permanent housing versus having a permanent address. This model has been successful to some degree in New Delhi, where civil society organizations such as Prayaas have given their homeless shelters’ details as (mandatory) permanent addresses proof for 5000 people to get their Aadhar cards. In the same report, on conditions of anonymity, a UIDAI official said:

“As per the norms, the UIDAI will collect similar demographic and biometric information that it takes from general citizens. However, for address proof, every homeless resident in Delhi who enrols for an Aadhaar number will be linked to the Homeless Resource Centre (HRC) of their respective district. The HRC address, along with a pocket code assigned during the survey which uniquely describes the location where the homeless usually spends the night, will be used to deliver the Aadhaar letter and continue any further communication with the homeless resident.”

Although this model does not resolve the issue of permanent housing, it allows people to receive their Aadhar card by including a temporary housing location as their permanent location of residence in the Aadhar registration system. The people experiencing homelessness who receive their Aadhar cards in this way also receive letters and documentation from the government at the temporary housing location. Sometimes, volunteers at these locations deliver such correspondences to those without permanent housing where they actually spend their nights – on the streets or under a bridge. The advantage of this model is that it does not require solving the resource and time-intensive problem of providing housing for those experiencing homelessness as a prerequisite to gaining them access to government services.

Yet, there are certain disadvantages to this model. Not all regions may have NGOs such as Prayaas or an adequate number of Homeless Resource Centres which are able and willing to offer temporary housing as proof of permanent address to the homeless.

Further, it is possible that many such correspondences, Aadhar letters, and other paperwork would get lost, misplaced, or remain undelivered. Many homeless people register for Aadhar on temporary addresses, and their actual place of residence (such as bridges or street-sides) could be far away from the registered address.

(Figure 2. The Permanent Address on Temporary Housing Model)

With the growing rate of urbanization and migration of rural populations to urban centers, it will be increasingly difficult for the NGOs and the state and municipal governments to provide adequate formalized housing or temporary housing for internal migrants from villages. As per estimates, “within 35 years, 70% of the world’s population will be living in urban areas, with as many as 1 in 2 living in unplanned settlements”. The few temporary housing facilities that would exist would face increased pressure from a growing number of people who would want to list these temporary addresses as their permanent residence on their Aadhar application. Consequently, issues of liability and claims on property could emerge over time, driving down the willingness of the temporary housing facilities to allow themselves to be listed as permanent addresses for Aadhar aspirants. Therefore, although this model might work as a temporary solution, it may not be sustainable in the long-run.

The “Identity Delinked from Permanent Address Model”

(H’ PA’ I -> S) Model

In this model, a person’s identity does not depend on a permanent address. With their biometrics and a current address, they may be allowed access to the Aadhar card and, therefore, all the services associated with it. In a 2019 amendment to the Aadhar rules, people can give their current address in addition to the permanent address “registered in the Central Identities Data Repository”. This measure brings limited relief because it still theoretically requires a person to have a permanent address and does not solve for the lack of a legitimate permanent address for those experiencing homelessness or the PVTGs.

One way to operationalize the “Identity Delinked from Permanent Address Model” would be to offer geo-tagged kiosks tied with biometric details that may be used as a legitimate permanent address for an individual even if they do not possess permanent housing. These geo-tagged kiosks would ensure that those experiencing homelessness have a permanent address while the governments work towards building low-cost permanent housing for rural migrants coming to urban areas and the displaced tribal population. Indeed, these kiosks would be cheaper than building a house for those experiencing homelessness – a short-term but effective solution for accessing government services and related correspondence. With the kiosks in place, the option of accepting a current address in addition to a permanent address could still be made available to register for an Aadhar card, while the kiosk can serve as a verified permanent address even in the absence of a permanent house. These kiosks would obviate the need to register temporary shelters as permanent addresses and may prevent future disputes and resistance of temporary shelter running organizations in offering them to those in need. With a biometrically and/or password or analogously protected mailbox built into these kiosks, it may also solve the issue of misplaced letters and mails. Rather than the mail delivery taking place under a bridge, a person could have a spot in a geo-tagged kiosk to receive mails while they work towards acquiring a permanent residence in the longer run. This could open access to banking, government services, and other facilities that would positively impact the social mobility of those experiencing homelessness.

Perhaps a state government can fund the establishment of such kiosks while they work in the longer term to build affordable housing. The greatest return on investment for such an initiative will naturally be states with high populations of those experiencing homelessness and Jharkhand which has a sizeable PVTG population. According to the 2011 census, Punjab (46,714), Haryana (51,871), West Bengal (134,040), Uttar Pradesh (329,125), and Gujarat (144,306) are together home to 40% of India’s homeless people.

A downside of the kiosk could be its lack of cultural acceptance, physical durability, and technology that maintains safeguards against misuse, break-ins, privacy infringements, or trespassing (someone using another person’s kiosk without their permission and/or knowledge).

(Figure 3. The Identity Delinked from Permanent Address Model)

The “Universal Service Coverage Model”

(H’ PA’ I’ S) Model

Under this model, states would provide essential services such as food rations, access to government hospitals, and other subsidies irrespective of any identity requirements. This model is different from a “One Nation One Ration Card” Model, which still requires identification details for a person to hold a ration card. This is, in fact, akin to the temporary practice of many states such as Telangana, Chhattisgarh, and Rajasthan who temporarily universalized their Public Distribution Systems (PDS) and offered subsidized food to people irrespective of if they held an identity proof during the Covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing national lockdowns.

However, there are a few challenges with such a model. In a situation where a few states have a universalized public distribution system and others do not (assuming a period where there is no national lockdown and mobility is close to normal), such states would see a massive inflow of people who may migrate to avail the benefits of the subsidies. Further, it would be difficult for these states to accurately estimate the number of people they need to provide subsidies, food, and other services to at a given point in time. Shortfalls would be even more acute.

In a pan-national universal service coverage model (delinked to identity), there would always be the risk of exhausting capacity in general. The lack of capacity to deliver services could get more acute in the face of migration from neighboring countries. Even under a scenario where enough capacity exists to support undocumented migrants from neighboring countries, in a model which is identity agnostic, it would be hard to tell if the state is spending excessively on the migrants (since in this model, everyone gets services without any identity verification). The absence of data on a person’s permanent address could present an opportunity for extremist political groups to create a divisive feeling among the local population by telling them that the resources that were meant for them are being spent disproportionately on the migrant population. Such claims will become hard to counter since services under this model are provided without verifying a person’s identity. Under such circumstances, even if there are enough resources to provide for an immigrant population, people could be easily led to believe that the refugee or migrant groups are receiving disproportionate benefits at their own expense.

(Figure 4. The Universal Service Coverage Model)

Conclusion

While there are many ways to improve the condition of those at the bottom of the pyramid, the distinction between housing and a permanent address is crucial. With the population moving from rural to urban areas at a mass level, an even greater proportion of the population could experience homelessness or be without a permanent address in the future. Climate change, demographic pressures, and the rise of the gig economy are likely to cause large scale internal and external migrations rendering the concept of a permanent address unfeasible as well as obsolete. Under such conditions, policymakers will need to innovate systems that deliver essential services to citizens in an effective way, irrespective of a person’s housing status.

Innovating with different models that serve as eligibility criteria for service delivery is key to effectively managing the political economy of growth in a country like India. While linear models that require a permanent residence as the base of eligibility for government services may become redundant, delinked models of universalized service provisions irrespective of identities may be unfeasible as well. The most plausible scenario would be a combination of identities based on proxy permanent addresses (such as digitally enabled and geo-tagged kiosks) or similar innovations that walk the line between relevance (to enable access to resources for a mobile population), reliability (safe and concrete marker of a permanent address), and feasibility (accurate identification of beneficiaries). The conceptual distinctions of the utilities and interlinkages among housing (H), permanent address (PA), identity (I), and service delivery (S) would go a long way in devising appropriate models for the future.

1. That is, if one calculates from a time preceding the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganization Act, 2019. ↑
2. “The Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI) issues Aadhaar that is a 12-digit unique identification number to all residents of India. Residents get this number by providing their biometric and demographic details at the various government-authorized Aadhaar Enrolment Centres. This program was launched by the former Prime Minister of India, Dr. Manmohan Singh, in 2009. In April 2010, Nandan Nilekani, who was appointed as the Chairman of UIDAI on June 23rd 2009, launched the logo and the brand name “Aadhaar”. Aadhaar is a Hindi word that means ‘base’ or ‘foundation’. The purpose of issuing Aadhaar to the citizens of India by UIDAI was to provide them with a document that can be used as unique identity proof for various purposes.” (“Aadhar Card (आधार कार्ड): Know Aadhaar Card Number & Information Online 2020” n.d.) ↑
3. Unstarred Questions (Definition) – “An Unstarred Question is one to which written answer is desired by the member (of Parliament) and is deemed to be laid on the Table of the House by (the concerned) Minister. Thus, it is not called for oral answer in the House and no supplementary question can be asked thereon.” (Source: “Questions : Lok Sabha,” accessed February 24, 2021, http://164.100.47.194/Loksabha/Questions/TypeOfQuestions.aspx.) ↑
4. Loksabha is the lower house of the Parliament of India. It comprises representatives of the people chosen by direct election on the basis of the adult suffrage. ↑

Arpit Chaturvedi 

Arpit is the Co-Founder and CEO of Global Policy Insights, a centrist Policy think tank and the Co-Founder & Chief Strategy Officer of EnviPol, an Environmental Consulting firm based out of India. He is also the Co-Director of Global Policy, Diplomacy and Sustainability Fellowship (GPODS). Along with leading these organisations, he is a Lecturer at the San Francisco State University where he teaches Comparative Perspectives in Public Service to graduate students.

He is a graduate of the Cornell Institute for Public Affairs and holds an MPA degree (Pi Alpha Alpha) with a focus on Governance, Politics, and Policy Studies. He was also the first non-US citizen to hold the position of the Editor-in-Chief of the Cornell Policy Review. He is the author of the book “Our Egalitarian Universe?” and has been the editor of “Not Without her: Communal Harmony” – a monograph printed by the National Foundation for Communal Harmony, Government of India, with essays from the top civil servants of the country. He has published articles in various prestigious journals on the themes of democracy, governance, systems thinking, game theory, history and politics.

 

Sarah Allick

Sarah Allick is a Civil Systems Expert at Global Policy Insights. She has been a professional inventor since the age of 19 years old when she started to develop products to solve problems such as the ones in her neighborhood that then became sold to cities, such as the Freedom Swish Indestructible Basketball Net. She devotes her life to aid the world in meeting the UN’s Global Sustainability Goals through invention, production, and marketing of strategic key innovations that are able to provide for each and every individual on the planet. She was born to a highly celebrated Air Force family in Okinawa Japan. >