|
By Mari Marcel Thekaekara Three years after the tsunami, hundreds of ugly cement houses have been built along the Nagapattinam coast by different NGOs. Many are sub-standard, some actually below sea level, many unoccupied. Why do we keep repeating the mistakes of Latur, Gujarat, Orissa?
Returning to Tharangambadi village three years after the tsunami hit the Nagapattinam coast threw up a kaleidoscope of impressions. Driving through the area, we saw a myriad NGO boards proclaiming the good work they’d done. Houses, boats, balwadis, shelters….. Some were obviously terrible. But from a distance you couldn’t quite judge. I’d visited Tharangambadi several times since that first, fateful Boxing Day which threw the lives of the community into tumult forever. What was the peoples’ verdict I wondered, now that the parade of NGOs, officials, politicians and disaster tourists had left and life had returned to a semblance of normalcy? Had the millions which poured in post-tsunami been well spent? Had the victims actually received the money? I started by examining the housing. Annie George, director of the NGO Coordination and Resource Centre (NCRC) gave me an overview. "Wherever the government felt shelter was needed they gave NGOs permission to construct houses for vulnerable groups. They used the opportunity to reconstruct and improve damaged houses too." "After the elections, the new government took World Bank money and embarked on a ‘Building Better’ mission, disaster-proofing and converting kuchcha houses to pucca. By March most people will be in the new houses. In Nagapattinam it has been largely successful." Selvadas from the South Indian Federation of Fishermens Society (SIFFs) explained, "In Tharangambadi, SIFFs signed an MOU to construct 1,100 houses. Of these 400 were in situ, on the original site, close to the beach, and 700 were in a new settlement. We handed over 55 houses on the old location and 396 in the new one, on May 21, 2007. We are the only group which has 99% occupancy." Priya from NCRC continued, "In many places, there are differences between the community and the NGOs. Some houses are really bad." Selvadas pointed out, "We consulted the community from day one. We provided seven models and they were asked to examine them carefully and decide which they wanted. The community made all the decisions about locating and allotting the houses. Sometimes it was a real headache because people changed their minds several times. But because it wasn’t a mechanical, hurried process, our houses were the slowest, took the longest to come up. The community complained to the Collector and the government passed an order to cancel the MOU and take back the incomplete houses." Manoharan, a local panchayat leader continued, "We were annoyed that our houses were not ready. Most others were. But after complaining to the government we realised many others were doing a shoddy job, though in a rush. So we went back to the government and said no, we want SIFFs to do it. It became complicated because the orders had already been passed. But we fought. Had to go all the way to Chennai in a delegation to revoke the orders and get SIFFs back on the job." Malliga, a fishworker, explained, "The good thing about our houses was that we chose the site. We planned it in the community and located the houses the way they were before. So I had my old neighbours on either side. In other places there are fights and unhappiness because there were arbitrary allotments, people who can’t stand each other are neighbours and they hate it. We knew which was our house from day one, so we did our own bhumi puja and it felt like we were building our own houses. We supervised construction carefully, coming ourselves every day to pour water so the curing was good, changing details as we went along. That’s why we feel like this is truly our own." Selvadas continued, "When we started I really hated my job. I’d get blasted at the Collectorate every afternoon at the 4 o’clock meeting because the work was going so slowly and then at the site I’d have to listen to a hundred complaints, people screaming at me every day. After handing over the houses, 95% of the people are positive and so finally I have some satisfaction. It’s encouraging that they think we did a good job. We plan to finish everything by July 2008." What about dalit groups, I asked. "Before the tsunami, the dalit houses were on two different streets. The government allotted some land and we have built 67 houses which are to be handed over in mid-January," Selvadas replied. "Are the dalit houses the same as the fishing community houses?" I asked. "Exactly the same. Initially we planned only on building houses for our people (fisherfolk) then the dalit group came and said ‘You must build for us too.’ We showed them the seven models and they chose. Many people have been trained as masons and coolies in the process. So they have picked up a new skill and are in demand wherever construction wok is going on." "In other places though," Priya intervened, "dalits have got a really bad deal. Theirs are the worst, most shoddy houses built by many groups". Annie George pointed out, "One huge failure was that the government, NGOs, everyone, concentrated only on moving people away from the beaches as a safety measure. Traditionally, people built their villages in ways that protected them from flooding, which is a fact of life in the Nagapattinam area. A topographical survey by NCRC showed that the original villages were all built on the highest dunes in the area. Unfortunately this was not taken into account when relocating people -- the only consideration was getting the beach vacated. As a result some of the new sites are below sea level. For example Pazhayar where about 400 houses have been built, is so low that during the recent monsoons it was flooded with knee-deep water. Naturally, the people have still not occupied these houses." In most areas, local people were not involved in the decision-making process. Huge numbers of houses are unoccupied. Many are really sub-standard and poorly built, but the NGOs that built them are accountable to no one, so they will get away with the rubbish they have produced. Both government authorities and local people are reluctant to name the scamsters. But it should be standard practice for an audit to be done on post-disaster housing. This is where huge profits are made in the name of relief work. Some enterprising journalist should do an expose, a name and shame documentary. Many houses are average. But several people gave top marks to the work done by Mata Amrithanandamayi, World Vision, Peace Trust, the Tata group, SIFFS and ISED. While the people have opted for concrete middleclass- looking houses, regarded as a step up in society, it is well known that thatch and tile are scientifically proven better options for those regions. The ambience of a fishing village appears to have gone with the tsunami. The row-upon-row of boring, unaesthetic, unappealing houses looks like any government low-income group housing colony. Concrete and cement makes houses feel like ovens in the hot weather. We need a body of architects to look at housing and educate the people about appropriate housing and the benefits of different types of materials. At the end of every disaster, everyone knows that unscrupulous people siphon off large profits leaving a pittance for the disaster victims. The biggest lesson, one which different experts have pointed out, is that NGOs and government should source the material in bulk. This brings down costs considerably. They should support the process with new technology – but they should leave the people to build their own houses. That’s the verdict of concerned experts and of the tsunami victims. We’ve heard this refrain after the Orissa supercyclone, after Gujarat, after Latur and now after the tsunami. The tragedy is that year after year, no one heeds their voices. Can we have a disaster protocol expert committee which establishes norms so that we do not repeat our mistakes over and over and over again? A disaster leaves people vulnerable and traumatised. They have been displaced, lost family and loved ones, homes and possessions. The last thing they need is to have profiteers hovering around like vultures. There should be no qualms about exposing and punishing profiteers who feed off human misery and tragedy. They need to be taught a lesson. At the end of the day, we laud the achievements, the houses built, families relocated, livelihoods restored, and myriad problems dealt with. But the voice of Malliga, standing in front of her new house rang in my ears. An over-eager volunteer asked Malliga, "So, are you happy with your new house?" "Happy? With three of my children gone with the waves, how can a house bring happiness?" she asked quietly. "You need children in the house to make you happy." That put things in perspective. We can’t ever give back what people have lost. We can only try to restore a semblance of normalcy to their lives. And hope that the nightmares which haunt them will recede with time. InfoChange News & Features, December 2007
|
