2. Living Conditions Post-Earthquake

More than 80% of the houses were totally damaged by 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 the aftermath of the 2001 earthquake, the damage was devastating, with over 80% of houses destroyed. It was necessary to reconstruct the village, leading to the creation of a new layout. However, many people, particularly those without formal land rights, chose not to relocate to the new housing. Instead, some individuals stayed where they were, leading to abandoned areas represented by yellow color on a map of the village.

Imagine a community that experienced a terrible storm that destroyed most of the homes. After the storm, the government offers to rebuild houses in a new area, but many residents, especially those without ownership of their original properties, feel insecure about moving and prefer to stay near their old neighborhood, which now has abandoned structures. This situation reflects the challenges faced by communities in the wake of significant disasters.

This is the number of occupancy in the new, you can see these new constructed house is 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.

The new houses built after the earthquake were largely unoccupied, with many standing empty. The cost of the new houses was quite high, at around 120,000 Indian rupees, making them unaffordable for many. People’s reluctance to move into these new homes was further exacerbated by the unfamiliar layout, which did not accommodate their previous living arrangements or community ties.

Think about a family who has lived in the same neighborhood for generations. After a flood, they receive an offer to move into new apartments that are far away and expensive. However, they feel attached to their old neighborhood and find the new place impersonal and unfamiliar. So, they choose to stay in their old neighborhood, even though it's changed drastically.

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.

Post-earthquake, several essential services were established, such as a health center and a school. Despite these developments, the health center and Ayurvedic facility were largely underutilized. On the other hand, the primary school saw good attendance, suggesting that education remained a priority for families. The panchayat office was rebuilt, and basic utilities such as electricity and telecommunications were restored.

Consider a school that remains popular even after a disaster, as parents prioritize their children's education. Meanwhile, a new clinic nearby goes unused because the community prefers familiar traditional practices or lacks trust in the new facility. This scenario illustrates how priorities can differ, impacting the usage of services provided after a crisis.

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

The reconstruction process reflected socioeconomic inequities. Wealthier individuals opted not to relocate and built new homes on damaged property, while poorer residents, often without legal rights to land, faced significant barriers. They resorted to building temporary houses but were not part of the formal reconstruction efforts, resulting in unoccupied new homes ready for those who needed them.

Imagine a neighborhood where after a disaster, wealthy families rebuild their homes on their lots, while less affluent families struggle to find stable housing. Those with means quickly adapt, whereas those without are left in temporary shelters, highlighting the disparity in recovery efforts.

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, government has provided the land for new site, villagers did not share any part of that.

The community’s preference for remaining in familiar areas conflicted with the new layout designed by an NGO, which was met with resistance. The rebuilding plan lacked community involvement; decisions were made without villagers' input, and the financial aid was funneled directly to NGOs rather than to local efforts. This disconnect further alienated residents and reinforced their reluctance to embrace the new developments.

Imagine if a city planned a new park without asking the community for input. If residents preferred gardens over play equipment, building a park based on another group's vision would lead to a park no one wants to visit. This situation highlights the importance of involving local communities in decisions that directly impact their lives.

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.

Although local materials were available, reconstruction primarily utilized materials procured by external contractors, which did not engage the local community. The design and execution of housing projects were controlled by the NGO, further alienating residents from the rebuilding process.

Consider a local bakery run by community members that uses ingredients sourced from the neighborhood. If a large corporation moves in and starts importing ingredients from far away, ignoring local product availability, it may not only lead to a disconnect but also resentment from the local bakers. Local involvement can foster a sense of community pride and ownership.

As a result, this project was very high cost and took some time but it was most way that socially not accepted, it was rejected by the villages and the project did not help to enhance people's awareness and the houses are poorly maintained.

The reconstruction project faced notable challenges: it incurred high costs, took over a year to complete, and was met with social rejection from the community. The lack of acceptance stemmed from poor planning, community disengagement, and as a result, many houses were not maintained properly, leading to ongoing vulnerabilities for the residents.

Think of a book club that is organized by people in a distant city without knowing what the members want. If they choose books and meeting times that do not interest the members, the club will likely dissolve. Similarly, when reconstruction doesn’t meet the community's needs and desires, those homes can fall into disrepair and frustration among residents can grow.

--