3. Government and NGO Involvement

More than 80% of the houses were totally damaged by the 2001 earthquake. The reconstructions, so this was the existing before the earthquake that was the layout and this was the newly located village layout. You can see here that these yellow colours are abandoned places and some people who do not have any land rights in this area, no land rights, they do not have any formal land rights and many people they did not relocate it.

In 2001, a devastating earthquake damaged over 80% of houses. The reconstruction involved creating a new village layout that differed from the original, resulting in many abandoned areas as people with no formal land rights could not relocate. Many residents chose to stay where they were instead of moving to the new layout.

Imagine if a town was hit by a flood and rebuilt with a completely different plan that wasn't familiar to the residents. Many people might hesitate to move into the new layout, especially if they felt they had no secure place to stay.

This is the number of occupancy in the new, you can see these new constructed houses lying empty, the cost of dwelling units was 1 lakh 20,000 Indian rupees according to that time comparatively much higher. So, most of the houses are vacant, only yellow part you can occupied and you can see here that many people did not actually relocate it to the newly constructed house because it is a totally different layout.

Many of the newly constructed houses remained empty because they were expensive at 1 lakh 20,000 Indian rupees. The unfamiliar layout discouraged people from relocating, and the majority chose not to occupy these new homes.

Think of it like trying to sell a new smartphone that looks and works completely differently than the one everyone is used to. Even if it's better, people might stick with their old devices out of comfort and familiarity.

They have health center but, people are not using that. Ayurvedic health centre also, this is not used by the people, the schools are there is primarily; primary school, this is working well, people are using it, people are sending their kids there, panchayat office is rebuilt, electricity installed, telecommunication system was installed.

Although the area had rebuilt health and educational facilities, there was low utilization of the health centers, including an Ayurvedic center. In contrast, the primary school was functioning well as parents sent their children there. Other infrastructure like the panchayat office and basic utilities were also restored.

It’s like building a brand new gym with the best equipment but if the community doesn’t feel comfortable using it, they might prefer to stick to their existing workout routines or spaces, while the library (the school) becomes a popular spot because it provides value that people appreciate.

Constructions; those who are rich they did not relocate better off and they built their own house in the damaged side, some people who did not have land tenure rights, constructed temporary houses or got temporary houses and remaining there, they were not included into the reconstruction projects and the newly constructed projects remain unoccupied.

Wealthier individuals often chose not to relocate and instead built new houses on the damaged sites. Meanwhile, those without land rights had limited options and often lived in temporary housing. This disparity left many new constructions unoccupied as the marginalized groups did not benefit from reconstruction efforts.

Imagine a situation where during a makeover of a neighborhood, the wealthy families get to choose the best spots to build their new homes, while the poorer families are given only temporary shelters that don’t address their long-term needs. As a result, the revitalized neighborhood remains partially empty.

Because, these people preferred to live together, they did not like this new iron-grid pattern of layout, it was done by the Hindustan Benevolent. There was no training program, allocation of financial assistance given to the NGO directly and decision makings, villages were not involved into the decision-making process.

The community preferred to live in close-knit neighborhoods and rejected the planned layout imposed by NGOs. Additionally, there was a lack of training programs or financial assistance directed towards local involvement in these decisions, which created a disconnect between the NGOs and the villagers.

This is like a city council deciding to change the layout of a beloved neighborhood without asking the residents for input. The community would likely feel alienated and unhappy with the new changes since they were not part of the planning process.

Building materials; all building materials for these reconstructions were locally available building materials, contractor bought the building materials from outside, entirely designed by the NGO without any involvement of the people and it took 1 year 2 months to finish this project.

Although local materials were available, the contractors sourced materials from outside sources and completed the project based on designs set by the NGO, without local community input. This process took over a year to finish.

Imagine a restaurant that decides to serve a dish using local ingredients, but the chef isn’t from the region and ignores regional cooking methods and preferences. The end result might not resonate with the locals, despite the good ingredients.

So, what do we see here that no utilisations of local resources designed by the NGO, no training program, NGO decide every aspect; very weak organizational setup and absence of ownership right, people refuse this one and absence of monitoring also.

The reconstruction suffered from a lack of community resource utilization and involvement. Decisions were solely made by the NGOs, leading to a weak organizational structure. Additionally, with no ownership rights established for the residents, acceptance of the new structures faltered.

It's like a group of students getting a project directly handed to them by teachers without any input. Because they had no say, they might not be as invested or care about the outcome.

In community NGO partnership approach, we have Ludiya village, there is 100 kilometer north from Bhuj, area is around 5 square kilometer, total population is 1800 mainly by Harijans and Muslims population comprised by literacy rate was 35%.

Shifting to a different scenario in Ludiya village, which is 100 kilometers north of Bhuj, we see a community of about 1,800 people comprising primarily Harijans and Muslims, with a literacy rate of 35%. This indicates a diverse yet economically disadvantaged population that could benefit from targeted support.

Think of a small community of schools where students from different backgrounds come together. The school creates programs that cater to the varied needs of its students, enhancing education through inclusivity and involvement.

You can see that most of the people are involved in cattle rearing and wood cravings, so 50% of them are in cattle rearing and animal husbandry and some are also involved in agriculture around 20% of populations.

In this village, about 50% of the population engages in cattle rearing and animal husbandry, while around 20% are involved in agriculture. This indicates an economy largely dependent on traditional practices.

Imagine in a rural area where the majority of families depend on farming and animal care for their livelihoods. The economic health of the community would directly link to how well these families perform in their agricultural and animal husbandry practices.

And distribution of community also, you can see that there is a segregations that Harijans are there and here are the Muslims populations, these two communities and there is a poor community basically around Indian rupees 2500 to 5000, this shared the entire pie almost 90%.

In Ludiya, there is a visible social division between Harijans and Muslims. The economic situation is precarious, with a significant portion of the population living on only 2,500 to 5,000 Indian rupees, indicating that 90% of the community is significantly struggling financially.

Picture a small town where only a few people have good jobs while the majority are living paycheck to paycheck. The economic divide can create tension and disparity in opportunities within the community.

--