India’s urban housing shortage was estimated at 1.88 crore units in 2012; PMAY-Urban has sanctioned 1.18 crore homes as of 2024. Critically analyse the demand-supply gap and the case for an Urban Employment Guarantee.

Introduction:

The Hashim Committee (2012) pegged India's urban housing shortage at 1.88 crore units, with about 96% in the EWS and LIG segments. PMAY-Urban, launched on 25 June 2015, has sanctioned around 1.18 crore homes by 2024; PMAY-U 2.0 (2024) targets one crore more. Yet 65.49 million urban Indians (Census 2011) still live in slums and demand keeps outrunning supply.

Supply architecture: PMAY-U runs four verticals — In-Situ Slum Redevelopment, Affordable Housing in Partnership, Beneficiary-Led Construction and Credit-Linked Subsidy Scheme. The Affordable Rental Housing Complex scheme of 2020 was designed for migrants after the pandemic exposed urban precarity. The Dharavi in-situ redevelopment in Mumbai and Hyderabad's 2BHK Dignity Housing exemplify two opposite delivery models.

Demand-supply gap: Unit sanction is not occupation. Many PMAY units lie unoccupied at urban peripheries while migrants crowd into informal rentals close to work. Slum eviction without rehabilitation, as in Delhi's Kathputli Colony, undermines the in-situ promise; CLSS reached creditworthy demand, not the EWS for whom the scheme was nominally designed.

Urban Employment Guarantee case: Kerala's Ayyankali Urban Employment Guarantee Scheme, Tamil Nadu's Tenement Housing Scheme and Himachal's MGNREGS-style urban pilots show how a public-works floor stabilises informal workers and underpins housing affordability. Construction-dependent workers and street vendors need exactly such a counter-cyclical guarantee tied to PMAY-U occupancy.

Conclusion:

Bundle PMAY-U 2.0, ARHCs and a national Urban Employment Guarantee Scheme — housing alone cannot solve urban precarity if migrants cannot pay for it.