The annotations will stop here and not continue into the annexes and document templates.

The annexures are usually templates of various instruments for implementing the scheme. The critical ones are usually the MoUs or Memorandums of Agreement (MoA) that the Centre and States/UTs are expected to sign to enrol for the scheme. Then there are further data collection templates at city, slum or 'beneficiary' or household level. States/cities are also usually expected to draft annual action pllans and indicators to track them. Various criteria for release of monies from the Center to the State/UT are included, as well as the all-important 'Utilization Certificate' which is a document claiming that the State/UT has spent so and so amount of monies and is therefore now eligible for the next tranche of support.

Leaving this open-ended like this is definitely not an error, such as the use of the word "would" in previous portions of the policy. But this signifies the 'give' that a Central Government has to make towards local interpretation.

Notice the lack of a preamble, for something that is pitched as a 'flagship' scheme. There is literally no introduction to the questions or 'problematization'. What message does that give you as a reader? It could mean that there is an assumption that the problem is well known and well defined. It could also mean that there is almost extreme valorization of action (as prescribed in these guidelines) over thought or planning, that is available from other sources. It makes me feel the authors are a bit parochial, saying, "We know the problem, don't worry, you just do what this scheme tells you to."

To be sure, rental housing in our cities is a super-prevalent phenomena with its own logics and practicalities. These statements do make it appear that there is no history or context to the market at all.

Again, some rationale gives a sense of relief to the reader.

To be blunt, we're bad at this. Quite bad, actually. One quick piece of evidence to support my claim is: even in a 2021 document, it is being said that a 'suitable' mechanism for M&E will be set up. Remember the scheme was launched 6 years previous to this document.

More FYI but very relevant in practice - this is one of the most important formats in government work. Refer to my previous point about audit trails and demands for efficiency - a vindictive government would happily reject a local government's claims, quoting mismatch between accounts of one scheme and another.

Convergence, as a government aim, can be seen in two ways. One is to enable creative thinking by joining funds from various schemes in order to provide a fairly comprehensive safety net for the target segments of such schemes. But there are others who claim that these terms are always kept vague (see the verbs in this section, such as request, make provision, ensure, etc.) so that an audit trail can be created and efficiency can be questioned. For example, making a toilet in the house with PMAY funding would be questioned because households should make them under Swachh Bharat Mission funding.

In general, please notice on this page, the fairly prescriptive nature of provisions and 'recommendations'. It literally translates to 'our way or the highway' in terms of disregarding local stakeholders, capacities and working networks.

It is often a good idea to bookmark or tag pages that have dense presence of key words. It is the kind of para that you will have to go back often to.

Even a small amount of background or rationale seems like a breath of fresh air. They provide openings and windows to thoughts and new actions. However, this opening is immediately shut down with 'mandatory conditions'. In this case, these conditions have far reaching consequences for the land and real-estate markets at the local level. The whole section seems to flatten the 'problem of urban land' and fails to address the fact that local land markets are quite specific to their histories, geographies, economies and cultures.

Code yellow - new category!

Here too, why not just use the word 'will' or 'shall'?

Strange use of 'would' here. May be just a grammatical error, but if its not, it signifies some hesitation on (in this case, partnering with knowledge institutions) involving more neutral stakeholders.

Open-door policy for consultants. In reading these documents, some familiarity with the sector in terms of capacities is extremely helpful to try and decipher where and when thoughts and actions will start getting 'out-sourced'.

Quite parochial and suspicious sounding language. Again, puts an emphasis on the relationship expected between the government and the people. In any case, do remember that it is the local government's responsibility to achieve this exclusion, which has political and practical impacts.

Another super-optimistic assumption or term. Given severe unpredictability and unevenness in incomes and asset ownership, exactly how will a local authority claim that all other funds have been 'tied up'? What would be the instrument for making such a claim?

And almost immediately, the inclusion becomes problematic due to the really, very optimistic assumptions being made. In some ways, the generosity of inclusion is contradicted by the prescription of unrealistic terms. The Census will easily tell us that a vast majority of houses are in fact semi-pukka and few and far between will be able to achieve the areas and structural integrity expected here.

These are categories defined by the Registrar General of India (the Census office). In this particular para, a new inclusion has been made.

The catch-all language. It is pertinent to note that in Housing for All policy, this particular scheme component wherein 'beneficiaries' make or upgrade their own houses is by far the dominant, popular approach that has emerged, after years of implementation. Speaks to my previous point about agency and power relations.

A bit of a (thematic) critique here: this kind of provision has two effects. One is that it creates (what may well be) artificial exclusions, for example, a migrant from a poor household may require support at source and destination locations. The other is that this provision clearly positions the government as a benefactor and the recipient of support as a beneficiary, a loaded relationship that skews power dynamics in a particular way. In other words, it tends to remove or negate the agency of the very person this scheme is actually meant for.

Slowly, a central sector scheme starts 'guiding' local policy. Make note of the impact of such provisions on local, implementation level stakeholders and governance structures. You must understand that even a 'suggestion' backed by a pot of money can end up becoming a force driving competition to access the said pot of money.

This kind of a technology stack diagram is obviously meant for specific readers (such as those expected to develop or contribute to develop these tech stacks). Other types of audiences (potential beneficiaries, political and administrative parts of government, private sector, non-profit sector, researchers, etc.) may well get lost trying to even fathom if this is important for them. But a 'flat', non-hierarchical document will always have this issue. Should it have gone to an annex, or a supplement? There is a propensity in government to keep one large document, which is authoritative, and doesn't get confused or diluted by other documents.

These kind of diagrams seem intimidating and they can be. Yet, it is highly recommended to eyeball them and read them through once. Like the tables set out the most important categories, these diagrams play an important role in outlining the relationship between stakeholders, as well as roles and responsibilities. Pay particular attention to the lines and arrows and the annotations on them.

Only Ctrl-F will help you find this definition.

Such tables are usually the most operative part of scheme documents. Pay careful attention to the categories in the rows and columns.

New category - code yellow!

This set of (fairly prescriptive) instructions seem straightforward but raise many questions about the assumptions behind recommending these steps and procedures. The tone assumes a political alignment to the approach - 'this is it, everybody, right?' At a second order, it also assumes that there will be administrative alignment - 'change this, do that, publish this, etc.'. A fairly clear infringement on local intention and capacity emerges through this text.

Imagine the impact on data collection. The Census does not demarcate slums, but rather calls a particular enumeration block a slum or not. Further, the so-called HFAPOA is not given time to mature, and later you will see, the document recommends literally using any data source, hurrying people along to 'make projects'.

If you notice, the undefined 'tenable slum' category has suddenly become quite important in this slum redevelopment process chart. This unevenness in communication is not uncommon in scheme documents, and is something to watch out for. As usual, Ctrl-F (or similar) is your friend.

A new category, not explicitly mentioned in the list of definitions earlier has emerged. Code Yellow! what does this mean? A Ctrl-F may be in order.

S. Nos. 4.1 to 4.7 are critical allowances and exclusions. This id often at the heart of schemes/programs - what is allowed and what is excluded - to use the money being made available.

Similarly, another inadequate description of a section. This section is actually closer to what one may call an approach or pathways, but is made to sound much more techno-specific by calling it methodology. Researchers who are used to research-oriented terms such as 'methods' or 'methodology' need to keep a keen lookout for such somewhat misleading but fanciful terms.

Vague heading warning. The text in this section goes beyond what may be called coverage - geographical or thematic or otherwise. It is a good idea usually to ignore or not focus on these headings too much, but to look at the actual text under them. Bit of a pain but not at all unusual with policy and/or program documents.

This practice of serialization is banal looking but is useful to reference sections when required, which it often is. It is similar to the Sections of a law.

You can treat this section as a quiz :-) how many of these do you know? As you learn more about the sector, this basic information should expand in quantity and reduce in terms of time-to-recall.

It is a good idea to 'eyeball' these terms quickly before you move along. On the one hand, these give a flavor of the thrust of the document and scheme. On the other, it is good to be familiar with the most important terms, so that they don not appear confusing when they appear in context in the document. In other words, you will end up coming back to these pages sometimes, if not often, and it is a good idea to bookmark or highlight the important pages/terms for later reference.

The first aspect of this table of contents one might notice is that it has literally no hierarchy, and all the chapters have been laid out with equal, almost flat emphasis. This is obviously not helpful for readers to understand what the priorities of the document (and by extension, the scheme itself) may be. It also defies logics of cognitive loading, comprehension and retention, as it is difficult to identify any clusters or networks of topics that may be more important than others (for one set of readers or others). This tonality (or rather tone-deafness) is prevalent in several government documents, and we will discuss it later. In the meantime, don't let it discourage you to go ahead and read the document :-)

The second thing is that there is clearly an 'action' orientation in the language already. Do you perceive that? Partly it is because it is a scheme guideline, but the other, more tacit reason may be one of positionality and the expected power relation between the author/s and the reader/s (more on this later). One immediate limitation of this action-orientation is immediately evident: with all this action prescribed, would it not be useful, even critical, to know what has been the outcome of past actions, and what have been the insights from their implementation? In other words, referencing previous versions of this document is a good idea, but it simply does not go far back enough into the sector's context, current and past practice itself. In the recent past, this kind of writing practice (decontextualized, ahistorical and non-geographic) seems to have become 'normal', unfortunately.

It is pertinent to note that the current document is a cumulative document, that includes all the amendments made so far. This is good practice, and in Scheme guidelines allows referencing to previous versions and provisions therein, in case of disputes or, in terms of making meanings that are commonly understood over time, which then may be lead to inclusions and exclusions for supporting. With respect to this latter point, a researcher may well gain significant insights into government systems thinking, by tracking the changing meanings in such documents, as practice often requires.

Test page note

An observation is put up front