SOCIAL HOUSING: IT’S APPLICABILITY AND

SUITABILITY IN BANGLADESH
PROF. BIJON B. SARMA
Dean, Faculty of Architecture & Planning
Head, Department of Architecture
Ahsanullah Univ. of Sc. & Tech. (AUST)

ABSTRACT :
Social Housing is a well accepted concept in the democratic countries. In many republics the
bureaucrats try to continue the previous apartheid policies they followed during the kings,
dictators or military generals. Non introduction of Social Housing in Bangladesh is a clear
expression of such mentality. As custodian of all properties and wealth of the territory the
people’s representatives are the real rulers, where the bureaucrats are their executioners. The
representatives can play this role only if they have no dependence on the bureaucrats for any
reason, whatsoever. In absence of a transparent system of collection of fund for political
activities, in many countries, the politicians depend upon the bureaucrats for secret collections. It
is obvious that such practice lessens the control of the politicians over their executioners.

In this article background issues relating to these topics have been described in order to justify
why Social Housing should be introduced in Bangladesh and how. Even though Social Housing
is a commonly-practiced program in the democratic countries, it is a pity that the government of
Bangladesh did not still initiate it. All these indicate that the country needs courageous parliament
members and their interventions in the traditional projects conducted by the bureaucrats.

INTRODUCTION :
Even though Bangladesh is a republic and the country is ruled by people’s representatives
elected in free and fair election, still today the bureaucrats continue their dominance over the
elected representatives in various activities. It is well-known that they attained this trend earlier
during their predecessors worked under the kings and military generals. One example of this act
is, huge number of living quarters constructed on government land and by government fund is
kept reserved for the use of the public servants only. The common people are not allowed to such
accommodations even when those remain unoccupied for years together. The negligible rent they
pay cannot even take care of the maintenance cost, as a consequence of which many such
quarters are now in dilapidated conditions.

This practice is highly against the spirit of democracy. In the democratic countries any housing
accommodation constructed with people’s money are managed in “Social Housing” concept. In
this concept anyone irrespective of his status of government service or private service or
business can live in such quarters, where the rent varies on the basis of the user’s status. In our
country the elected representatives of some political parties have been found to be submissive to
the bureaucrats. It is often said that they do so because the bureaucrats help them in collecting
fund for the party. We want to believe that this is a false accusation. As the true custodian of the
state’s wealth and properties we want our representatives to act courageously. The horse should
run the cart, and not the reverse. If the representatives can think in this way they might realize
that accepting the principle of Social Housing is their moral responsibility. By ignoring the
probable resistances they can take a decision in the parliament to the effect that henceforth the
existing government quarters will be treated as “Social Housing”.

In this article we have explained the applicability and suitability of Social Housing in Dhaka city. In
Bangladesh the general consensus is, the bureaucrats are by nature selfish and they always
stand against pro-people programs. Even though it may not be true in all cases, keeping blind
eyes to “Social Housing”, the widely practiced program in the democratic countries seems
dubious. The sooner our parliament members can rectify this blunder the better it will be for the
country.

BACKGROUND ISSUES RELATING TO OWNERSHIP :

The first and most important component of housing is land and the second one is the built-form.
The success of housing as a project largely depends upon the status and conditions of ownership
of these components. Any academic discussion on housing thus essentially starts from the issue
of ownership. The issues regarding ownership on land and built-forms are determined essentially
by the government, or more precisely, by the type of government. Naturally we need a little
discussion on the types of governments.

During the period of the kings and emperors ( 6th Millennium BC to 5th C BC) the sole proprietors
of land and properties were the emperors and kings. Being supreme in all respects only they
could determine the ownership of properties and they did the same according to their sweet will.
The practice of this period suffered from changes later during colonial era (300 BC to 1949 AD).
In the new practice ownership of all wealth and properties of the colony were vested with the
colonial master. If satisfied the master used to allocate or sell those to anyone including the sons
of the soil. There came another serious turn in this practice under the Socialistic government
(1917 AD), where a single used to rule the territory with the promise of fulfilling the minimum
basic needs of all citizens. Alike the system prevailing during the era of kings and emperors, in
this system also all properties belonged to the government.
Direct democracy was introduced in Greece by Cleisthenes in the 6th C BC. After the Second
World War it became clear that neither kingship nor Socialism, but Democracy only retains the
potentiality to be regarded as the best system of governance. Ever since various civilized nations
have started practicing the same. Some socialist countries also have accepted this system. It is a
pity that in the name of religion some dictators still rule some territories according to their needs
and whims. We shall hatefully avoid discussing anything about those in our academic discussion.

GOVERNANCE UNDER DEMOCRACY :

In democracy, as per constitution, all properties belong to the people, where the government
formed in combination of the bureaucrats and elected representatives act as custodian. They
elected government take oath to act with utmost neutrality. While this is the principle of
Democracy and should have been followed in all countries, the fact is, it is not followed in any
country. It happens so because of the following reasons :
(i) The direct system of election that was possible in the tiny Greek countries (in fact cities) is
not possible in the vast countries of the contemporary world.
(ii) The level of honesty that existed among the Greek citizens is absent today. In those cities
the citizens considered it their noble duty to send the best men to the parliament and they
did it at their own urge.
(iii) During direct democracy of Greece only individual persons not parties were elected. Now
the major game is played by political parties, where the roles of few independent candidates
do not play any deciding role. The political parties need money for continuing their activities.
The democratic countries of the contemporary world have completely failed to devise a
transparent way of funding these parties. So, the parties collect money from individuals or
organizations for this purpose. Naturally after they are elected they need to satisfy the fund-
givers in all possible ways. In doing so, the members themselves also get ample scope to
earn money. This reality has provoked some affluent men take politics as a business where
they invest money for election and squeeze out those after being elected.
(iii) The two major components of democratic government are (01 Elected representatives and
(02) Bureaucrats and. The bureaucrats are the continuation of the privileged class having
longtime experience of fulfilling their selfish interests by purposely guiding or mis-guiding the
kings and colonial masters. Naturally they continue the same even in democracy.
(iv) After the Second World War II, a number of countries were ruled by the military dictators.
When democracy were introduced in such countries due to people’s agitation the army
generals polluted the election and governance of democracy in their selfish interests. One
negative system they introduced was, appointing army personnel at strategic positions in
order to interfere the activities of the government.
OWNERSHIP ISSUES UNDER DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT :
The ownership issues regarding land and built-form for housing is determined by the government.
We shall now look at these issues under the type of governments described above :

(i) Countries with continuous dominance of the bureaucrats have been found to practice the
following system : Even though all land of the republic is said to be owned by he people, the
government keep aside vast land demarcated as “land for housing for the government servants”.
In this land they either allocate plots to the bureaucrats for construction of houses or construct
houses at government cost to be used at subsidized rate only by the bureaucrats. Even when
they demarcate as “land for housing for the people” they maintain special quota for the
bureaucrats.

(ii) In the countries with long-time dominance of the military generals, in addition to the
bureaucrats the army personnel are given special preference in allocating land, house-building
loan etc.

Thus even though the people are the real owner of all wealth and properties as per principle of
democracy, in many countries they are placed in the third position, after the bureaucrats and
army personnel. Even though the elected representatives have the authority over all others,
including the bureaucrats, they cannot enforce the same because in many cases they need to
rely on them for money. In this context we can say that the democratically elected representatives
would not be able to act neutrally unless and until there will be transparent system of fund
collection for their political activities.

However, in spite of the above realities, in some courtiers, the courageous and honest elected
representatives have been successful in practicing SOCIAL HOUSING, in which the government
construct housing on acquired land at their own cost band allow both the common people and the
government servants to rent those.

GOVERNMENT’S NEGLECT OF PEOPLE IN HOUSING : After discussing the various issues

concerning “ownership of the common people on land and built-form for housing”, we shall go for
discussing this particular issue in Bangladesh. We present below the chronological statement
showing various political regimes and the issue of “peoples’ ownership on land and built-form for
housing”.
SL. PERIOD TERRITORY / OWNERSHIP ON LAND ORDER OF
PREFERENCE
NO REGIME
01. 00-1125 AD Prachin Bangla / (i) King provided furnished 1ST : King and
Dictatorial kingship housing to his courtiers family.
under Hindu Buddhist (later turned 2nd : Courtiers
kings bureaucrats). and friends.
(ii) Ownership or living right 3rd : Common
given to the common people.
people only by the king.
(ii) Structure to be built by
the people themselves.
02. 1125-1757 Vanga / Dictatorial Same as above. Same.
kingship under Muslim
kings
03. 1757-1947 East Bengal / Colonial (i) Colonial government 1ST : Rulers.
Rule of the East India provided house, land for 2nd : Bureaucrats.
Company and the housing etc. to the 3rd : Army and
British Government government servants Police
(later turned 4th : Common
bureaucrats), army etc. people.
(ii) People had to make their
housing on land sold or
given on rent by the
government or the
landlords.
04. 1947-1971 East Pakistan / (i) Government provided 1ST : Bureaucrats.
Colonial Rule of West house, land for house 2nd : Army
Pakistan and loan for housing personnel.
specially to the 3rd : Refugees.
bureaucrats, army and 4th : Common
refugees. people.
(ii) Government provided
land for housing to the
common people, where
bureaucrats and army
had special quotas.
(ii) Housing loan in limited
quantity was given to the
people.
05. 1971-1975 Bangladesh / The period was too short for
Democracy in changing previous and
independent state forming new policies.
06. 1975-1990 Bangladesh / Pseudo (i) The Government of the 1ST : Generals.
democracy under the generals provided 2nd : Army
generals house, land for house personnel.
and loan for housing to 3rd : Bureaucrats.
the bureaucrats. Also 4th : Common
those from army were people.
given preference.
(ii) Government provided
land for housing for the
common people with
special quota for the
army and bureaucrats.
(iii) Housing loan in limited
 quantity was given to the
people.
07. 1990 to date Democracy No change in previous Common people
policy. still in the last
position.

So, it is seen that during pre-democratic regimes the people were given the last preference in
point of ownership on land for housing. This seems quite natural. But even after the territory
became independent republic and democratic government came to power, the common people
were placed after the bureaucrats, army and even the refugees. In the independent Bangladesh
there is no more any preference for the refugees, but the common people are still in the last
position.

In all administrative head quarters (e.g. capital city, district city, upazilla urban areas etc.) of
Bangladesh we find the following types of housing :
(i) Government quarters (where buildings with necessary supporting facilities have been
constructed at government cost and those are only use by the government servants at
negligible rent),
(ii) Government Housing areas (where plots and loans have been given to the bureaucrats, for
construction of multistoried buildings, thus creating provision such that they could gainfully
rent those to the common people).
(iii) Defense (or other) Officers Housing Areas (where plots and loans have been given only to
the army personnel, such that they could construct multistoried buildings and earn by
exploiting the common people).
(iv) Housing areas of the personnel, working in financial, autonomous and government
corporations with the above provisions.
(v) Housing for the common people, where the common people are given plots. However,
experiences show that bureaucrats are given preference even in such housing.

PRIVILEDGES ENJOYED BY THE GOVERNMENT SERVANTS :

Where as the people are the legal owners of all properties and the bureaucrats forming as one of
the two major components of government and in charge of implementing the decisions made by
the elected representatives, in democratic Bangladesh the public servants enjoy the following
privileges in housing :

(i) They are allotted government quarters on negligible rent.

(ii) They are given plots in government housing areas and housing loans, such that they could
construct multistoried buildings and enjoy the income.
(iii) Even when the government makes housing areas for the public, considerable number of plots
is kept reserved for the government officials.

From what has been written above it is clear that by utilizing the weak-points of the politicians, the
bureaucrats have been able to manipulate the principle of democracy to serve their own interests.
Needless to mention that such deviations have profusely deprived the common people. It is not
difficult to understand that the politicians had to agree or cooperate with the unfair, illogical and
illegal demands of the bureaucrats because of their obvious dependency for collection of fund. It
is known to all that in Bangladesh the ways and means of the collection of money for running the
political party of the ruling government are devised and managed by the bureaucrats.

PEOPLE’S HOUSING AND APARTMENTS : The people of Bangladesh need housing. It is the
responsibility of the elected government to arrange the same for them. But we have seen, in
Bangladesh the government arranges those mostly for the public servants. A careful observation
of their policies may indicate that the government wants to utilize the common people in enriching
the public servants. In accordance with this policy they are reluctant to give land or housing loans
to the public and endeavor their best to divert such facilities to the public servant, such that the
people need to rent their houses for living. There is no strict rule that the government officials
having their own houses in a city must not live in government quarter. In Dhaka city there are
instances in which the bureaucrats constructed posh houses on government allotted land with
government loan, rented those to large organizations and then they used to live in government
quarters at nominal rent.

The trend of construction of apartment building has, however, brought about significant changes
in the above scenario. Unlike owned multi-storied buildings, the owners of apartments can either
live in or rent the apartment, but cannot do the both. The government has kept wide scope for the
people to “own house for living” by owning apartments. Now let us see how economic, safe,
invest-repaying or reliable are such apartments in the context of Bangladesh.

UN-RELIABILITY : In comparison with an owned building, an apartment constructed on a land

owned by many persons is inferior because of the following reasons :
(a) The living unit cannot be mortgaged for bank loan or similar other purposes,
(b) There is absolutely no way for the owner of an apartment to reconstruct his unit by himself in
case of collapse.

An intelligent analysis might reveal that in the present context of Dhaka there is no or very little
scope for reconstruction of such buildings through joint efforts. Let us look at the scenario from an
imagine picture. Let an apartment building collapses 10 years after its construction. Let us say,
the initial number of owners was 40 and now, considering the sons and daughters the same has
risen up to 60 now. Does it seem possible that these 60 owners would coolly sit down and find
out ways and means for the reconstruction of the collapsed building ? Does it seem natural that
all of the 60 owners would agree to one proposal ? And no one go for legal suite to establish legal
ownership, or take up a different program ? In case of legal suite, does it seen normal that the
court would give immediate decision or go for expandable injunction ? In Bangladesh (i) where
land and house owners are super-conscious about their rights, (ii) where there are many
loopholes in legal matters and (iii) where the government has no prefixed rule for dealing such
incidents, there is absolutely no reason to consider an apartment as a reliable asset.

Even though living in owned-apartments is better than that in the rented house, the present
system of owned-apartments has got severe defect. Usually men rent house for temporary living.
On the other hand they purchase house or apartment for security and as an asset for the future
generations. However, the way owned-apartments are now being constructed, sold and managed
in Bangladesh, these no more exist as “permanent asset”, and in most cases these may act as
unsolvable problem and headache for the future generations. At present the owners of the
apartment building are given equal right and share on the land. In almost all the apartment
buildings no owner would ever be able to construct an independent house on the tiny land he
owns. Land is usually known as a permanent asset. However, a tiny land mentioned above in no
way can be treated as permanent asset. By all means, the owner of an apartment should
consider the advantage of his apartment ton exist still the life of the building. In such a situation,
salable apartments constructed on government land seem a much better option, where the cost
of land will naturally be less.

UN-STABILITY : Multi-level apartment buildings are constructed with cement and steel. These
materials have fixed life-span. The life of a building depends upon on its design, system of
construction, environment, natural hazard etc. Even if we ignore the case of natural hazards
(which may crush a building at any time), all buildings have limited life span. In Engineering field
the life of a brick building is taken to be about 60 years and that of a concrete building, 80-100
years. Even though the prediction has been proved to have been true in case of brick building, it
has not yet been proved for concrete building, because the age of cement and concrete did not
still reach that age. From the available information, one of the earliest apartment building
constructed in Mumbai collapsed in the natural way (i.e. without external hazard) after 30 years.

Even though the apartment buildings constructed in Bangladesh at the initial stage may get
longer life, the recently built buildings may not be that lucky. We can explain its reason here. In
earlier days apartment buildings were constructed at the initiative of a number of owners, who
used to sell the excess units to outsiders. Naturally the owners in their own interest used to place
utmost importance on the life and safety of the building. Nowadays, the developers treat and use
apartment buildings as “salable commodity”. In this concept their interest lies in profit only. This
profit depends upon the difference between cost of construction and sale of units. After the sale is
complete the developer is relieved from all responsibilities. So, they do not have to bother about
the life of the building. Now let us see how the developers endeavor to increase their profit.

Keeping the cost low : The developer knows that the cost of construction can be kept lower
through a number of means including : (i) Use of less water in curing, (ii) Use of less cement in
mortar, (iii) Use of inadequate or poor-quality bar, brick etc.

For example, curing or ‘application of water at proper time’ ensures strength of concrete. Life and
strength of concrete depends upon proportion of cement and sand. It is possible for a developer
to make money by ignoring these and there is absolutely no scope for the prospective buyers to
know these. It is obvious that once the construction is complete the deceitful practices mentioned
above can no more be detected. It is obvious that the apartments constructed by the developers
by treating those as “salable commodity” would get lesser life-span.

Keeping the price high : The developers have also been found to increase the price of apartments
through the following means :
(i) Colorful and attractive advertisements in papers and electronic medias,
(ii) Excellent finishes and costly-looking fixtures,
(iii) Attractive rebate and easy condition of payment,
(iv) Attractive prizes for purchase etc.

The developers who save money in construction (say, by using poor quality materials, avoiding
essential jobs etc.) usually spend big money in advertisements, prizes, rebate etc. The buyers
usually believe that large, established, experienced and reputed companies do not deceive the
buyers. This ‘notion’ has however, been proved wrong.

In the recent times extremely renowned companies have been accused of initiating and
continuing faulty projects and the urban authorities or court of law has stopped those. Even
though the companies endeavor to express their innocence, in most cases they intentionally
initiate such projects, knowing the consequences fully well. The journalists have exposed the
secrecy of their exploitation. It is said that the initiate projects on land with doubtful ownership.
They manage the owners to keep mum for certain years. Within this period they initiate projects
with blessings from the corrupt personnel in administration. They calculate the over all profits if
the project can be stopped after some years. When they find that optimum period has passed,
they either initiate the owners to initiate law suite or the authorities to take action against them.
After the court or the urban authority stops their faulty projects, most of the time they make bigger
income in shorter period by avoiding payment of compensations, payments to the various parties
including suppliers etc. Then they start looking for another such project.

SUITABILITY OF APARTMENTS IN BUSY CITIES :

At present Dhaka city is tremendously suffering from transport problem. One of the principle
reasons behind this problem is the type of housing developed inside the city. Only the fools may
take pride in seeing a city congested and rich in population, but the intelligent people would prefer
to see population just adequate for a nice, healthy and efficient city. Due to the lack of knowledge
and intelligence of the urban authorities Dhaka city has turned to concrete jungle where the
vehicles run at snail’s speed due to severe traffic jam. Out of many reasons of this deterioration
one is the choice of wrong type of housing. Apartments and government quarters are much better
than single owner owned multistoried buildings, where not only the users are deprived of living
pleasure, but the city also is congested with people who do not have any apparent need in the
city. Even though the problem is quite old, the government does not seem to realize it. Only a few
days ago the government has taken up the same wrong policy for sale or allotment of plots at
Uttara and Purbachal.

SOCIAL INFRA-STRUCTURE is the term used in the democratic countries to mean the basic
facilities which can be used by all citizens. It is a widely used in Architecture and Urban Design.
While the inhabitants of cities can live independently, in ideal cities they need some community
facilities like school, shopping centre, bazaar, community or public hall, bank, healthcare centre
etc., where they can meet, talk, discuss things of mutual interest and thus can live like the fellow
members of a society. Since these facilities act as infrastructure for the inner spirit of societal life
these are known as Social Infrastructure. The religious structures are not included in its domain
because by nature democracy is secular. Neither private house nor government quarters fall in
the domain because by nature of use these are private and hence restricted places. The housing
constructed on government land and to be rented to anyone irrespective of common people or
government servant are known as SOCIAL HOUSING.

INTRODUCTION OF SOCIAL HOUSING IN BANGLADESH :

We believe time is ripe for Bangladesh for introducing Social Housing. We find the following
advantages and benefits of introducing it :
(i) By introducing Social Housing Bangladesh, for the first time in her history would give the
common people the opportunity equal to the government servants or army personnel, even
though in democracy the people should have been given more preference.
(ii) Introduction of Social Housing would lessen the burden of unnecessary people in the city.
After such housing is constructed, the common people and government servant who have
purpose and jobs in the city would live there. This trend would discourage the people who do
not have any job and live by renting houses. When the business of house rent would lessen,
the owners would be compelled to invest their resources in alternate and productive sectors.
(iii) By introducing Social Housing it is possible to redevelop Dhaka as a livable city. It would
reduce the acuteness of transport problem, scarcity of drinking water and other utilities and
services.
(iv) By introducing Social Housing it is possible to redevelop the dilapidated government
quarters of the city into nice, healthy and efficient housing for living. For example : most of
the buildings in Azimpur government housing area are now in dilapidated condition. The
area can be redesigned with widely spaced (say, about 100 ft apart) multistoried buildings
(25 or more storied) with modern facilities. It may be noted here that whatever might have
happened earlier during army-dominated or bureaucracy-influenced governments, now it will
be difficult for the government to justify construction of living units for the government
servants, where the return as rent is meager. The safety of structure, finishes, development
of surrounding are etc. can be ensured only if the return is good. This can only be ensured
by renting some units to the common people. Social Housing can also be introduced in the
new housing areas developed by the government. In Dhanmondi residential area the land
has been given lease for 99 years. After the expiry of this period the government may go for
social housing here. As a compensation to the past apartheid policies done by the previous
governments to the common people, the present government should declare all future
government housing projects as Social Housing.
(v) The deprived citizens of Bangladesh are again entering into the great risk or loss due to the
apartment business run by dishonest people. We have already explained how these people
make money by treating an immensely important asset like “house” as mere saleable
commodity. The prediction of imminent earth-quake in Bangladesh by the concerned experts
has created panic among the apartment users. Probably the dishonest developers have
taken it as a good scope for better business. They know, after the weak buildings
constructed by them would collapse due to earthquake, no one would get the slightest scope
to hold them responsible. However, we are not much concerned about their business, we
are concerned with the loss of life and properties of the innocent people, who had to opt for
purchasing those because of the absence of appropriate system introduced by their
 government. In the present situation, we can expect better quality and safer buildings only if
those are constructed by and/or supervised by the government.

CONCLUSION : As per principle of republic the citizens are the owners of all properties of the
republic, the elected representatives are the custodians to manage those and the bureaucrats are
assigned the responsibility of executing the decisions of the people’s representatives. The
bureaucrats, however, through their experience earned as courtiers of kings and then clerks of
the colonial masters have learnt how to fulfill their selfish interest by manipulating the kings,
colonial masters and now, the elected representatives. Quite often the elected representatives
cannot materialize their decisions through the bureaucrats because they help them in getting
money for themselves and their political parties.

In the democratic republic of Bangladesh it may be considered as a pity and mockery that the
houses constructed on republic’s land and by republic’s money is kept reserved only for use of
the bureaucrats, and where the common people, the master of the republic have no right to live.
We know the root cause of this problem is the absence of a transparent system of collection of
fund for political activities. Formulation of this policy also lies in the hands of the politicians. They
would have to decide whether they would continue using the bureaucrats in collecting fund
secretly or introduce a transparent system for its collection and teach the bureaucrats to work like
the servants of the republic.

Knowing fully well that the bureaucrats would place their usual resistance, the first thing the
elected people’s representative can do in this respect is to take a decision in the parliament to the
effect that henceforth all government quarters will be treated as “Social Housing”.

The unjustified, biased, immoral, apartheid and condemnable activities that the bureaucrats have
continued so long in the housing sector of Bangladesh by utilizing the weakness of the elected
representatives must stop. For the bureaucrats the best expression of realization of their faults,
and that for the elected representatives of the democratic republic of Bangladesh will be, to
accept the concept of social housing and to implement it throughout the country.
This paper is available from the link : http://ssrn.com/abstract=1480239. . (SSRN, New
York, USA)