Thanthai Periyar, a great social revolutionary of the Dravidian movement of the early 20th century India opposed 'cheries' and introduced the concept of 'Samathuvapuram'. The concept of housing communities, where dalits and people of other castes live together in mixed neighbourhood and share all facilities - focuses for the firts time on social and cultural equality in housing programmes. Thanks Kalaigner M. Karunanidhi, the Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, for implementing the scheme successfully.  The scheme (Samathuvapuram) itself germinated in response to recurrent caste and communal clashes in the state and has received considerable acceptance among the public

K., Jothi Sivagnanam

M., Sivaraj

Munich RePEc Personal Archive

MPRAMunich Personal RePEc ArchiveTamil Nadu: Samathuvapuram : TowardsSpatial EqualityJothi Sivagnanam K. and Sivaraj M.Department of Economics, University of Madras, Chennai 600005,Tamil Nadu28. September 2002Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3205/MPRA Paper No. 3205, posted 21. May 2007Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 20023990K JOTHI SIVAGNANAM, M SIVARAJHistorically, social inequalities havepersisted in the caste Hindu struc-ture and that continue to this day.Caste discrimination has existed not onlyin the form of social hierarchy but alsoin the location of habitations. Shelteringpatterns of the so-called untouchables weresuch as to keep them separated from themainstream society denying them civicamenities and other services available to theothers. In fact, the settlements itself wasevidence of these inequalities. For instance,the dalit settlements were/are located in-variably in the downstream of the villages,which is insanitary in all possible manner.The widely quoted GO of the Madras Presi-dency (No 1010 and 1010(A)) on the socio-economic conditions of the Chingelputpariahs (1892) describes their poor livingconditions: “...always badly nourished;clad, if at all, in the vilest of rags; eatenup with leprosy or other horrible diseases;hutted like pigs; untaught; uncared for, andunpitied”. These conditions persisted invarious parts of the Madras Presidency tillindependence. Several social movementshad attempted to eradicate these inequali-ties, without much success. Neither thepre-colonial rulers nor the colonial admini-strators initiated any constructive attemptsto eradicate these social inequalities, par-ticularly in terms of their habitations.Since independence, both the union andstate governments have initiated severalmeasures to establish social equality amongvarious social groups/communities. Thesemeasures can be classified into two broadcategories – protective and promotional.Protective measures include several con-stitutional safeguards, acts and ordinances.TAMIL NADU‘Samathuvapuram’:Towards Spatial EqualityThe concept of housing communities, where dalits and people ofother castes live together in mixed neighbourhoods and share allfacilities – focuses for the first time on social and cultural equalityin housing programmes. The plan itself germinated in response torecurrent caste and communal clashes in the state and has receivedconsiderable acceptance among the public.Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 2002 3991In Tamil Nadu, cheries, ‘nagars’ and‘agraharams’ are popular habitation areasrespectively for dalits, caste Hindus, andbrahmins.Post-colonial government policies havenot encouraged integration of differentsettlements. On the contrary, they haveencouraged segregation indirectly by pas-sive silence about such inequalities. Thegovernment, of course, allotted lands/built‘cluster houses’/’group houses’ undervarious special schemes for the dalits andall such efforts have changed only thenomenclature from cheries to colonies.However, the social and spatial distancebetween the nagar and colony has not beenbridged. In other words, colonies arenothing but government-sponsoredcheries, still at the outskirts of the villagewithout any free access to the nagar andits civic amenities.The first samathuvapuram was estab-lished at Melakottai village of Maduraidistrict and 100 houses were built at a costof Rs 35,000 each. The houses are con-structed on 5-cent plots with a built-in areaof 259 sq ft with facilities. The beneficia-ries have been selected on the basis ofincome criteria from eight adjacent vil-lages of Melakottai. Of the 100 beneficia-ries, 40 are adi-dravidars, 25 houses havebeen allotted to backward classes, 25 tomost backward classes and 10 to peopleof other communities. The allotment isdone in the name of the female memberof the household. That is, the ‘patta’ (titledeed) is given in the name of the woman(such as the wife of the head of the house-hold). This, in a way, promotes entitle-ment and empowerment of women. Thesamathuvapuram consists of water tanks,community hall, primary school, library,health centre, fair price shop, noon mealcentre, recreation centre, park and play-ground. The government also provides thedeposit for electricity connection to eachhouse. The entire construction work washanded over to the Tamil Nadu StateConstruction Corporation, with emphasison the quality of construction. Expendi-ture towards construction is met from aspecial grant from the government. Ex-penditure towards basic amenities likeroads, street lights, drainage and drinkingwater is provided by the respective depart-ments and local bodies through conver-gence of ongoing programmes.The site for the scheme is identified bythe district collector either from availablegovernment lands or acquired from pri-vate parties. After a proper layout, a pattaPromotional measures consist of specificschemes and programmes. Broadly speak-ing, the former is an indirect strategy andthe latter a direct one. However, severalstudies have found that the protective andpromotional measures had not producedexpected results, by way of establishingequality among different social groups.Though individual social groups haveattained development, differences/discrimi-nation between the groups still persist onseveral grounds. A dalit settlement is onesuch widely prevalent discriminatory prac-tice in most of the rural Tamil Nadu. Severalhousing schemes have been initiated fordalits but these are located far away fromthe main residential area. Of course, dalitsare no longer “hutted like pigs”, and theirhousing conditions have improved but theproblem of untouchability still persists.Government programmes and policies ingeneral are not bold enough to addresssuch discrimination directly, that is, theynever attempted to built the ‘adi dravidar’houses in the midst of other dominantcommunities or vice versa. In the early 1990s,Tamil Desiya Pothuvudamai Katchi (TamilNationalist Socialist Party) and its leadingfunctionaries, P Maniyarasan, RajendraCholan and Yoganathan, opposed thecreation of ‘colonies’ and demandedcollective housing where dalits could liveamong others. The government, however,failed to respond. The ‘samathuvapuram’(equality village) housing scheme initi-ated by the Tamil Nadu government duringthe Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam(DMK) under chief minister MuthuvelKarunanidhi, broke out of this mould.Housing Policies and MissingSocial Dimension LinkagesGovernment housing policies andschemes had confined themselves till re-cently to the economic dimension ignoringthe social and cultural implications ofhousing. The spatial separation of housingsettlements due to social exclusion oncaste lines may cut off communication,interaction with other communities andsustain practices of social exclusion anduntouchability. Thus, housing, in its broad-est connotation, encompasses not onlyshelter, economic services and facilities,but also a harmonious social environment,conducive neighbourhood and peacefulcoexistence necessary not only to buildsocial capital but also to develop to humanwell-being. Since independence, the gov-ernment had provided housing facilitiesfor the untouchables in exclusively iso-lated places of the main village or at theoutskirts of small towns. In other words,the government policies had not consid-ered the integration of untouchable com-munities with mainstream communities.However, the DMK government initi-ated housing policies whereby all commu-nities could live together in the village andshare all civic and other infrastructurefacilities. Lower castes, higher castes andthose ‘in between’ were to live togetherin equal comfort, self-respect, and dignitywith mutual respect and interaction. Thus‘social equality’, which is a fundamentalneed to establish equality in a caste-riddensociety, could be attempted through thehousing schemes. Karunanidhi launchedone such housing scheme to establish socialequality through spatial equality by thecreation of model villages calledsamathuvapuram.A Model VillageThe samathuvapuram housing schemewas introduced in 1997 with Rs 35 croreto establish 100 samathuvapurams in dif-ferent parts of Tamil Nadu. The plan wasto create model villages in rural areas withfree housing and other facilities whereinpeople of different castes and religionscould live together and share civic ameni-ties and services without caste discrimi-nation or differential treatment. Thisscheme was named Periyar ‘Ninaivusamathuvapuram’, after Periyar E VRamasamy Naicker, a social revolutionaryof the Dravidian movement of the early20th century. In fact, Periyar opposed theexistence and creation of ‘cheries’ andintroduced the concept of samathuvapuram.In order to eradicate caste discriminationand untouchability, he proposed severalaction plans, like inter-caste marriage, inter-dining and common dwelling. He alsosuggested that all communities should livetogether to fight against exploitation.In rural areas, caste discrimination prac-tices prevail visibly and invisibly in variousforms. Habitation area, roads, access tobasic amenities like water, roads, templeand burial ground are some of the areasthrough which ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ aredemarcated in the name of caste. Caste inthe traditional villages determines the choiceof location for habitation. Almost invari-ably, the habitation area of each caste isseparated from that of the other by a greateror lesser distance based on the degree ofpurity or otherwise of a particular caste.Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 20023992is assigned to the beneficiaries, and sites/houses are allotted at random so that familiesfrom different communities live togetheras neighbours. A committee headed by thedistrict revenue officer selects the benefi-ciaries in consultation with local bodiesfrom nearby areas within a radius 10 km.Facilities provided for the samathuvapuraminclude town bus from the city, with stop-over facility by all buses plying on thenational highway. Post office and tele-phone facilities are also being provided.Additionally, a dairy farm is being set up,with 30 inhabitants to be provided withmilch cows. A scheme to extend loanfacility to provide self-employment foryoung people at the samathuvapuram isalso envisaged. The district collector hasobtained a written document/undertakingfrom each family not to install statues ofreligious or community leaders, not to sellor pledge houses for 15 years, accept usinga common burial ground, not to createseparate places of worship, not to consumeliquor, not to let the houses on rent, maintainhygiene and an agreement that the propertywill be taken over by the government ifrules are violated.Initially the validity of the samathuva-puram concept was challenged. However,Karunanidhi responded by saying that itwas not the claim of the government thatcaste-related problems could be eliminatedby this scheme. “The deep-rooted casteand communal differences cannot be elimi-nated overnight. They exist despite agita-tion by Gandhiji, Rajaji and others. How-ever, the government realised that someconcrete steps would have to be taken toprevent caste and communal clashes, asthe recurrence of such clashes would leadto law and order problems, which aredetrimental to development and welfareactivities.” He also said, “My wish is thatthe entire district should become asamathuvapuram and the entire state andabove all the entire nation and the worldshould become a samathuvapuram”.However, the initial criticism disappearedgradually and the scheme has come upwith striking results. So far, 150 samathuva-purams have been created in several dis-tricts and about 15,000 rural householdshave benefited. Though it may not besufficient to meet the actual rural housingrequirements in Tamil Nadu, as a conceptthe samathuvapuram has received the totalacceptance of the public. A field reportobserved that “the concept of peacefulcoexistence, transcending caste and reli-gious walls, as envisaged through the TamilNadu government’s samathuvapuramscheme is taking a concrete shape in theclash-torn southern districts, despite itsshortcomings and post-project bureaucraticapathy. The spirit behind the scheme hasbeen well taken by the people who areslowly coming out of their caste cocoon”(‘Samathuvapurams: Breaking CasteCocoons’ by S Annamalai in The Hindu,December 10, 1999). The report also broughtout some of the shortcomings of the schemeat the implementation level, like quality ofhouses, misuses like subletting, and politi-cal interference in the identification ofbeneficiaries. However, these minor short-comings could be rectified through a com-plete evaluation and proper monitoring ofthe scheme. The scheme has been appre-ciated by the Mohan Commission, whichwas set up to look into and suggest rem-edies for the scourge of caste clashes inthe southern districts of Tamil Nadu.All these developments have implica-tions for our national housing policy, whichhas long focused exclusively on an eco-nomic dimension. Until recently, ruralhousing schemes have not paid attentionto spatial and social inequality. The prob-lem of rural housing had so far been addres-sed only through wage employment pro-grammes like the National Rural Employ-ment Programme, Rural Landless Employ-ment Guarantee Programme and JawaharRozgar Yojana, with a small housingcomponent in them. The Indira AwaasYojana (aided self-help) has been de-linkedfrom JRY and has been made an indepen-dent scheme with effect from January 1,1996. So far, housing schemes had notattempted to establish social/spatial equal-ity. Some of the existing schemes can alsobe redesigned with minor modificationsin their guidelines to address the issue.This requires no additional expenditure,but only a strong political will andcommitment.The concept of samathuvapuram is cer-tainly a pioneering effort, not only in termsof promoting rural housing but also inestablishing spatial equality, social har-mony and social capital. However, it isunfortunate that the scheme has beenrelegated to the background, because ofthe change of government in Tamil Nadu.Unless there is a change in the mindset ofthe political parties, attempts to eradicatesocial inequality would be in vain.[We thank V Loganathan, Tagore Professorof Economics, University of Madras, andV Saravanan, Giri Institute of Development Studies,Lucknow, for their comments and suggestions.]

English

Tamil Nadu: Samathuvapuram : Towards Spatial Equality

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

MPRA
Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Tamil Nadu: Samathuvapuram : Towards
Spatial Equality
Jothi Sivagnanam K. and Sivaraj M.
Department of Economics, University of Madras, Chennai 600005,
Tamil Nadu
28. September 2002
Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3205/
MPRA Paper No. 3205, posted 21. May 2007
Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 20023990
K JOTHI SIVAGNANAM, M SIVARAJ
Historically, social inequalities havepersisted in the caste Hindu struc-ture and that continue to this day.
Caste discrimination has existed not only
in the form of social hierarchy but also
in the location of habitations. Sheltering
patterns of the so-called untouchables were
such as to keep them separated from the
mainstream society denying them civic
amenities and other services available to the
others. In fact, the settlements itself was
evidence of these inequalities. For instance,
the dalit settlements were/are located in-
variably in the downstream of the villages,
which is insanitary in all possible manner.
The widely quoted GO of the Madras Presi-
dency (No 1010 and 1010(A)) on the socio-
economic conditions of the Chingelput
pariahs (1892) describes their poor living
conditions: “...always badly nourished;
clad, if at all, in the vilest of rags; eaten
up with leprosy or other horrible diseases;
hutted like pigs; untaught; uncared for, and
unpitied”. These conditions persisted in
various parts of the Madras Presidency till
independence. Several social movements
had attempted to eradicate these inequali-
ties, without much success. Neither the
pre-colonial rulers nor the colonial admini-
strators initiated any constructive attempts
to eradicate these social inequalities, par-
ticularly in terms of their habitations.
Since independence, both the union and
state governments have initiated several
measures to establish social equality among
various social groups/communities. These
measures can be classified into two broad
categories – protective and promotional.
Protective measures include several con-
stitutional safeguards, acts and ordinances.
TAMIL NADU
‘Samathuvapuram’:
Towards Spatial Equality
The concept of housing communities, where dalits and people of
other castes live together in mixed neighbourhoods and share all
facilities – focuses for the first time on social and cultural equality
in housing programmes. The plan itself germinated in response to
recurrent caste and communal clashes in the state and has received
considerable acceptance among the public.

Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 2002 3991
In Tamil Nadu, cheries, ‘nagars’ and
‘agraharams’ are popular habitation areas
respectively for dalits, caste Hindus, and
brahmins.
Post-colonial government policies have
not encouraged integration of different
settlements. On the contrary, they have
encouraged segregation indirectly by pas-
sive silence about such inequalities. The
government, of course, allotted lands/built
‘cluster houses’/’group houses’ under
various special schemes for the dalits and
all such efforts have changed only the
nomenclature from cheries to colonies.
However, the social and spatial distance
between the nagar and colony has not been
bridged. In other words, colonies are
nothing but government-sponsored
cheries, still at the outskirts of the village
without any free access to the nagar and
its civic amenities.
The first samathuvapuram was estab-
lished at Melakottai village of Madurai
district and 100 houses were built at a cost
of Rs 35,000 each. The houses are con-
structed on 5-cent plots with a built-in area
of 259 sq ft with facilities. The beneficia-
ries have been selected on the basis of
income criteria from eight adjacent vil-
lages of Melakottai. Of the 100 beneficia-
ries, 40 are adi-dravidars, 25 houses have
been allotted to backward classes, 25 to
most backward classes and 10 to people
of other communities. The allotment is
done in the name of the female member
of the household. That is, the ‘patta’ (title
deed) is given in the name of the woman
(such as the wife of the head of the house-
hold). This, in a way, promotes entitle-
ment and empowerment of women. The
samathuvapuram consists of water tanks,
community hall, primary school, library,
health centre, fair price shop, noon meal
centre, recreation centre, park and play-
ground. The government also provides the
deposit for electricity connection to each
house. The entire construction work was
handed over to the Tamil Nadu State
Construction Corporation, with emphasis
on the quality of construction. Expendi-
ture towards construction is met from a
special grant from the government. Ex-
penditure towards basic amenities like
roads, street lights, drainage and drinking
water is provided by the respective depart-
ments and local bodies through conver-
gence of ongoing programmes.
The site for the scheme is identified by
the district collector either from available
government lands or acquired from pri-
vate parties. After a proper layout, a patta
Promotional measures consist of specific
schemes and programmes. Broadly speak-
ing, the former is an indirect strategy and
the latter a direct one. However, several
studies have found that the protective and
promotional measures had not produced
expected results, by way of establishing
equality among different social groups.
Though individual social groups have
attained development, differences/discrimi-
nation between the groups still persist on
several grounds. A dalit settlement is one
such widely prevalent discriminatory prac-
tice in most of the rural Tamil Nadu. Several
housing schemes have been initiated for
dalits but these are located far away from
the main residential area. Of course, dalits
are no longer “hutted like pigs”, and their
housing conditions have improved but the
problem of untouchability still persists.
Government programmes and policies in
general are not bold enough to address
such discrimination directly, that is, they
never attempted to built the ‘adi dravidar’
houses in the midst of other dominant
communities or vice versa. In the early 1990s,
Tamil Desiya Pothuvudamai Katchi (Tamil
Nationalist Socialist Party) and its leading
functionaries, P Maniyarasan, Rajendra
Cholan and Yoganathan, opposed the
creation of ‘colonies’ and demanded
collective housing where dalits could live
among others. The government, however,
failed to respond. The ‘samathuvapuram’
(equality village) housing scheme initi-
ated by the Tamil Nadu government during
the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
(DMK) under chief minister Muthuvel
Karunanidhi, broke out of this mould.
Housing Policies and Missing
Social Dimension Linkages
Government housing policies and
schemes had confined themselves till re-
cently to the economic dimension ignoring
the social and cultural implications of
housing. The spatial separation of housing
settlements due to social exclusion on
caste lines may cut off communication,
interaction with other communities and
sustain practices of social exclusion and
untouchability. Thus, housing, in its broad-
est connotation, encompasses not only
shelter, economic services and facilities,
but also a harmonious social environment,
conducive neighbourhood and peaceful
coexistence necessary not only to build
social capital but also to develop to human
well-being. Since independence, the gov-
ernment had provided housing facilities
for the untouchables in exclusively iso-
lated places of the main village or at the
outskirts of small towns. In other words,
the government policies had not consid-
ered the integration of untouchable com-
munities with mainstream communities.
However, the DMK government initi-
ated housing policies whereby all commu-
nities could live together in the village and
share all civic and other infrastructure
facilities. Lower castes, higher castes and
those ‘in between’ were to live together
in equal comfort, self-respect, and dignity
with mutual respect and interaction. Thus
‘social equality’, which is a fundamental
need to establish equality in a caste-ridden
society, could be attempted through the
housing schemes. Karunanidhi launched
one such housing scheme to establish social
equality through spatial equality by the
creation of model villages called
samathuvapuram.
A Model Village
The samathuvapuram housing scheme
was introduced in 1997 with Rs 35 crore
to establish 100 samathuvapurams in dif-
ferent parts of Tamil Nadu. The plan was
to create model villages in rural areas with
free housing and other facilities wherein
people of different castes and religions
could live together and share civic ameni-
ties and services without caste discrimi-
nation or differential treatment. This
scheme was named Periyar ‘Ninaivu
samathuvapuram’, after Periyar E V
Ramasamy Naicker, a social revolutionary
of the Dravidian movement of the early
20th century. In fact, Periyar opposed the
existence and creation of ‘cheries’ and
introduced the concept of samathuvapuram.
In order to eradicate caste discrimination
and untouchability, he proposed several
action plans, like inter-caste marriage, inter-
dining and common dwelling. He also
suggested that all communities should live
together to fight against exploitation.
In rural areas, caste discrimination prac-
tices prevail visibly and invisibly in various
forms. Habitation area, roads, access to
basic amenities like water, roads, temple
and burial ground are some of the areas
through which ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ are
demarcated in the name of caste. Caste in
the traditional villages determines the choice
of location for habitation. Almost invari-
ably, the habitation area of each caste is
separated from that of the other by a greater
or lesser distance based on the degree of
purity or otherwise of a particular caste.
Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 20023992
is assigned to the beneficiaries, and sites/
houses are allotted at random so that families
from different communities live together
as neighbours. A committee headed by the
district revenue officer selects the benefi-
ciaries in consultation with local bodies
from nearby areas within a radius 10 km.
Facilities provided for the samathuvapuram
include town bus from the city, with stop-
over facility by all buses plying on the
national highway. Post office and tele-
phone facilities are also being provided.
Additionally, a dairy farm is being set up,
with 30 inhabitants to be provided with
milch cows. A scheme to extend loan
facility to provide self-employment for
young people at the samathuvapuram is
also envisaged. The district collector has
obtained a written document/undertaking
from each family not to install statues of
religious or community leaders, not to sell
or pledge houses for 15 years, accept using
a common burial ground, not to create
separate places of worship, not to consume
liquor, not to let the houses on rent, maintain
hygiene and an agreement that the property
will be taken over by the government if
rules are violated.
Initially the validity of the samathuva-
puram concept was challenged. However,
Karunanidhi responded by saying that it
was not the claim of the government that
caste-related problems could be eliminated
by this scheme. “The deep-rooted caste
and communal differences cannot be elimi-
nated overnight. They exist despite agita-
tion by Gandhiji, Rajaji and others. How-
ever, the government realised that some
concrete steps would have to be taken to
prevent caste and communal clashes, as
the recurrence of such clashes would lead
to law and order problems, which are
detrimental to development and welfare
activities.” He also said, “My wish is that
the entire district should become a
samathuvapuram and the entire state and
above all the entire nation and the world
should become a samathuvapuram”.
However, the initial criticism disappeared
gradually and the scheme has come up
with striking results. So far, 150 samathuva-
purams have been created in several dis-
tricts and about 15,000 rural households
have benefited. Though it may not be
sufficient to meet the actual rural housing
requirements in Tamil Nadu, as a concept
the samathuvapuram has received the total
acceptance of the public. A field report
observed that “the concept of peaceful
coexistence, transcending caste and reli-
gious walls, as envisaged through the Tamil
Nadu government’s samathuvapuram
scheme is taking a concrete shape in the
clash-torn southern districts, despite its
shortcomings and post-project bureaucratic
apathy. The spirit behind the scheme has
been well taken by the people who are
slowly coming out of their caste cocoon”
(‘Samathuvapurams: Breaking Caste
Cocoons’ by S Annamalai in The Hindu,
December 10, 1999). The report also brought
out some of the shortcomings of the scheme
at the implementation level, like quality of
houses, misuses like subletting, and politi-
cal interference in the identification of
beneficiaries. However, these minor short-
comings could be rectified through a com-
plete evaluation and proper monitoring of
the scheme. The scheme has been appre-
ciated by the Mohan Commission, which
was set up to look into and suggest rem-
edies for the scourge of caste clashes in
the southern districts of Tamil Nadu.
All these developments have implica-
tions for our national housing policy, which
has long focused exclusively on an eco-
nomic dimension. Until recently, rural
housing schemes have not paid attention
to spatial and social inequality. The prob-
lem of rural housing had so far been addres-
sed only through wage employment pro-
grammes like the National Rural Employ-
ment Programme, Rural Landless Employ-
ment Guarantee Programme and Jawahar
Rozgar Yojana, with a small housing
component in them. The Indira Awaas
Yojana (aided self-help) has been de-linked
from JRY and has been made an indepen-
dent scheme with effect from January 1,
1996. So far, housing schemes had not
attempted to establish social/spatial equal-
ity. Some of the existing schemes can also
be redesigned with minor modifications
in their guidelines to address the issue.
This requires no additional expenditure,
but only a strong political will and
commitment.
The concept of samathuvapuram is cer-
tainly a pioneering effort, not only in terms
of promoting rural housing but also in
establishing spatial equality, social har-
mony and social capital. However, it is
unfortunate that the scheme has been
relegated to the background, because of
the change of government in Tamil Nadu.
Unless there is a change in the mindset of
the political parties, attempts to eradicate
social inequality would be in vain.
[We thank V Loganathan, Tagore Professor
of Economics, University of Madras, and
V Saravanan, Giri Institute of Development Studies,
Lucknow, for their comments and suggestions.]



MPRAMunich Personal RePEc ArchiveTamil Nadu: Samathuvapuram : TowardsSpatial EqualityJothi Sivagnanam K. and Sivaraj M.Department of Economics, University of Madras, Chennai 600005,Tamil Nadu28. September 2002Online at http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3348/MPRA Paper No. 3348, posted 29. May 2007Towards 'Spatial' Equality: Samathuvapuram in Tamil Nadu  K. Jothi Sivagnanam Reader,  Department of Economics,  University of Madras, Chennai 600005.  Email – jothsiva@nescape.net        Published in  Economic and Political Weekly September 28, 2002         Department of Economics University of Madras Chennai – 600 005 September 2002  2  Towards 'Spatial' Equality: Samathuvapuram in Tamil Nadu  K. Jothi Sivagnanam           Historically, social inequalities have persisted in the caste Hindu structure and they continue even now in different parts of the Indian sub-continent to this day.  Caste discrimination has  existed  not only in the  form of social hierarchy but also in the location of habitations. Sheltering patterns of the so-called untouchables  were kept away to keep them separated  from the mainstream society which led to denial of all civic amenities and other services which were available to the rest.   For instance, the dalit settlements were/are located, invariably in the downstream of the villages, which is unsanitary in all possible means.  The widely quoted G.O. of the Madras Presidency [No.1010 and 1010(A)] on the socio-economic conditions of the  Chingelput  Paraiahs (1892) describe   their poor living  conditions : " always badly nourished; clad, if at all, in the vilest of rags; eaten up with leprosy or other horrible diseases; hutted like pigs; untaught; uncared for, and unpitied''.   Similar conditions had persisted and continued in the different parts of the Madras Presidency till independence.   However, several social movements had attempted to eradicate these inequalities, but they had not produced the expected results over the period.   Neither the pre-colonial rulers nor the colonial administrators had initiated any constructive attempts to eradicate these social inequalities, particularly in terms of their habitations.   3  Since independence, both the Union and State Governments have initiated several measures to establish the social equality among the different social groups/communities.  These measures could be classified into two broad categories-protective and promotional.  The protective measures include several constitutional safeguards, acts and ordinances.   The promotional measures consist of several specific schemes and programmes.  Broadly speaking, the former is an indirect one and the latter direct one.  However, several studies found that the protective measures had not produced the expected results, while the promotional measures also had failed to establish equality among the different social groups.   Though the individual social groups have attained development, the differences/discrimination between the groups' still persists on several grounds. Dalit settlement is one such widely prevalent discrimination in most of the rural Tamil Nadu. Several housing schemes have been initiated for the dalits but they were located at a separate place far away from the main residential area. Of course, dalits are no more 'hutted like pigs' and their housing conditions have improved to some extent but the problem of untouchability still persists between the caste Hindus and the Dalits.  But the government programmes and policies in general are not bold enough to address such discrimination directly i.e. they never attempted to built the Adi Dravidar houses in the midst of other dominant communities or vice versa.  Instead, the government built Adi-Dravidar 'colonies' in  exclusive isolated places  away from the main habitations.  During early nineties, Tamil Desiya Pothuvudamai Katchi (Tamil Nationalist Socialist Party) and its leading functionaries                     P. Maniyarasan, Rajendra Cholan and Yoganathan have opposed the  4creation of   `colonies' that too by the government and demanded collective housing where dalits can live in midst of others.  The government, however, responded with a deep silence and maintained the spatial distance between the dalits and the rest. The Samathuvapuram (Equality Village) housing scheme initiated by the Tamil Nadu Government during the Diravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) under the then Chief Ministership of Muthuvel Karunanithi had really broken such deliberate 'silence'.   Housing Policies and Missing Social Dimension Linkages  Further, the government housing policies and schemes had confined, till recently, to the economic dimension alone and ignored the social and cultural implications of housing. The spatial separation of housing settlement due to social exclusion on caste lines may cut off communication, interaction with the other communities and sustain the different forms of social exclusion practices and untouchability.  Thus, housing in its broadest connotation, encompasses not only shelter, economic services and facilities but also harmonious social environment, conducive neighbourhood and peaceful coexistence, which are necessary not only to build social capital but also to improve human wellbeing. The housing schemes have not attempted, till late 1990s, to integrate the segregated untouchable caste settlements along with the other sections.  Since independence, the post-colonial government had provided housing facilities for the untouchables but in exclusively isolated places of the main village or at the outskirts of small towns. In other words, the government policies had not thought about the integration of the untouchable communities with the mainstream communities.  5 However, the DMK government had initiated housing policies, where all the communities could live together in the village without any discrimination and share all the civic and other infrastructure facilities. Lower caste, higher caste and those who are ‘in-between’ must live together in equal comfort, self-respect, and above all with dignity, mutual respects and interaction.  Thus ‘social equality’, which is a fundamental need to establish equality in the caste-ridden society, could be attempted through the housing schemes. M. Karunanithi launched one such housing scheme to establish social equality through spatial equality by the creation of model villages called Samathuvapurams. Periyar Ninaivu Samathuvapuram : A Model Village    Samathuvapuram housing scheme was introduced in 1997 with Rs.35 crores to establish one hundred Samathuvapurams  in different parts of Tamil Nadu. The idea behind the scheme is the creation of   model villages in rural areas with free housing and other facilities wherein people of different castes and religions  can live together and share civic amenities and services without any caste discrimination / differential treatment.  This scheme was named as Periyar Ninaivu Samathuvapuram, remembering Periyar E.V. Ramasamy Naicker, a great social revolutionary of the Dravidian movement in the early twentieth century in the erstwhile Madras Presidency. In fact, Periyar opposed the existence and creation of ‘cheries’ and introduced the concept of Samathuvapuram during the early twentieth century. In order to eradicate caste discrimination and untouchability, he proposed several action plans like inter- caste marriage,  inter-dinning and common dwelling.  He suggested that all the communities should live together to fight against the different forms of exploitation. Throughout his life,  6he waged a war against irrational beliefs, faiths, casteism and atrocities perpetuated on lower castes and weaker sections. Hence, the scheme has been named after him.  In the rural areas, caste discrimination practices prevail visibly and invisibly in one or the other form. Habitation area, roads, access to basic amenities like water, roads,  temple and  burial ground  are some of the areas through which ‘pure’ and ‘impure’ are demarcated in the name of caste. Caste in the traditional villages determines the choice of location for habitation. Almost invariably the habitation area of each caste is separated from that of the other by a greater or lesser distance based on the degree of purity or otherwise of a particular caste. In Tamil Nadu, Cheries, nagars and agraharams are popular habitation areas respectively for dalits, caste Hindus, and brahmins     The post-colonial government policies have not encouraged the integrity of the different settlements of people in the same place. On the contrary, they have encouraged the segregation indirectly by its passive silence about such inequalities. The government of course allotted lands / built ‘cluster houses’ / 'group houses' under various special schemes for the dalits and all such efforts have changed only the nomenclature from 'cheries' to ‘colonies’.  However, the social and spatial distance between the ‘nagar’ and ‘colony’ has not been bridged. In other words,  ‘colonies’ are nothing but the 'government sponsored cheries' still at the outskirts of the village without any free access to nagar and its civic amenities.    The first Samathuvapuram was established at Melakottai village of Madurai district and 100 houses were built at a cost of Rs.35000 each. The houses are constructed on 5-cent plots with a built in area of 259 sq.ft with all facilities. The beneficiaries have been selected on  7the basis of income criteria (i.e., poverty line) from the eight adjacent  villages of Melakottai.  Of the 100 beneficiaries, 40 houses have been allotted to Adi-Dravidars 25 to backward classes, 25 to most backward classes and 10 to people of other communities. Again, the allotment is done in the name of the female member of the household.  That is the patta (title-deed)  is given  in the name of the woman (e.g. wife of the Head of the Household).  This, in a way,  promotes entitlement and empowerment of women.    Samathuvapuram consists of water tanks, community hall, primary school, library, health centre, fair price shop, noon meal centre, recreation centre, park and playground. The government also provides the deposit for electricity connection to each house. The entire construction work was handed over to the Tamil Nadu State Construction Corporation, laying emphasis on the quality of construction. Expenditure towards construction is met from a special grant from government. The expenditure towards basic amenities like roads, street lights, drainage and drinking water  are provided by the respective departments and local bodies through convergence of ongoing programmes.     The site for the scheme is identified by District Collector either from available government lands or acquired from private parties. After a proper layout, patta is assigned to the beneficiaries; the sites/houses are allotted at random, so that families from different communities   live together as neighbours.  A committee headed    by District Revenue Officer selects the beneficiaries in consultation with the   local bodies from the nearby areas within 10 km radius.   Facilities provided for the Samathuvapuram include town bus from the city  with stop over facility by all buses plying on the National  8Highway.  Post office and telephone facilities are also being provided.   Additionally,  a  dairy  farm  is  being  set  up, with  30 inhabitants to be provided with milch cows.  A scheme to extend loan facility for the self-employment of youth at the Samathuvapuram is also envisaged.   The District Collector has obtained a written document/undertaking from each family not to install the statues of religious or community leaders, not to sell or pledge the houses for a period of 15 years, acceptance to use a common burial ground, not to create separate places of worship, not to consume liquor, not to let the houses on rent, keep everything hygienic and an agreement that the property be taken over by the government,  if any rules are violated.   At the earlier stage, the validity of the Samathuvapuram concept has been challenged. However, the then Chief Minister responded that it was not the claim of the government that caste-related problems could be abolished by this scheme. “The deep rooted caste and communal differences cannot be eliminated overnight. They exist despite agitation by Gandhiji, Rajaji and others.  However, the government realised that some concrete steps would have to be taken to prevent caste and communal clashes, as the recurrence of such clashes would lead to law and order problems, which are detrimental to development and welfare activities'. Further, he stated: `My wish is that the entire district should become a Samathuvapuram and not alone that, the entire state and above all the entire nation and the world should become a Samathuvapuram.’   However, the initial criticism disappeared gradually and the scheme came out with striking results. So far 150 Samathuvapurams have been created in various districts of the state and about 15,000 rural households have been benefited. Though it may not be sufficient  9to meet the actual rural housing requirements in Tamil Nadu, as a concept Samathuvapuram is indeed admirable and received the total acceptance of the public.   A field report observed that ‘the concept of peaceful coexistence, transcending caste and religious walls, as envisaged through the Tamil Nadu Government's Samathuvapuram scheme is taking a concrete shape in the clash-torn southern districts, despite its shortcomings and post-project bureaucratic apathy. The spirit behind the scheme has been well taken by the people who are slowly coming out of their caste cocoon’1.   The report also brought out some of the shortcomings of the scheme at the implementation level like quality of the houses, misuses like subletting and political interference in the identification of beneficiaries.  However, all these minor shortcomings could be rectified through a complete evaluation and proper monitoring of the scheme. The scheme has been appreciated by Mohan Commission, which was asked to enquire and suggest remedies for the scourge of caste clashes in the southern districts of Tamil Nadu.   All these have implications for our national housing policy, which has long focused exclusively on an economic dimension alone. Until recently, rural housing schemes have not given any attention to spatial and social inequality. Rural housing problem so far had been addressed only through wage employment programmes like National Rural Employment Programme (NREP), Rural Landless Employment Guarantee Programme (RLEGP) and Jawahar Rozhar Yojana (JRY) with a small housing component in them.  Then Indira Awaas Yojana (aided self-help) has been de-linked from JRY and has been made an independent scheme with effect from 1st January 1996.  In short, so  10far, the housing schemes had not attempted to establish social/spatial equality.  Some of the existing schemes can also be redesigned with minor modifications in their guidelines to address the issue.  This requires no additional expenditure but only a strong political will and commitment.  The concept of Samathuvapuram is certainly a pioneering effort not only in terms of promoting rural housing but also in establishing spatial equality, social harmony and social capital. However, it is unfortunate that the scheme has been relegated to the background mainly because of the change of government in Tamil Nadu. Unless there is a change in the mindset of the political parties, attempts to eradicate social inequality would be in vain.    [ I thank Dr. M. Naganathan, Professor and Head, Department of Economics, University of Madras ,Dr. V. Loganathan, Tagore Professor of Economics, University of Madras and  Dr. V. Saravanan, Giri Institute of Development Studies, Lucknow for their comments and suggestions. ]         Reference     S. Annamalai, ' Samathuvapurams Breaking Caste Cocoons' The Hindu, December 10, 1999.                     

http://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/3348/1/MPRA_paper_3348.pdf

Tamil Nadu: Samathuvapuram : Towards Spatial Equality

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Munich RePEc Personal Archive

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Munich RePEc Personal Archive