INCREASING WOMEN'S PROPERTY OWNERSHIP THROUGH

NCREASING WOMEN’S PROPERTY OWNERSHIP

THROUGH RURAL HOUSING PROGRAMS IN INDIA

A summary report of the study conducted by

the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW)

and the Rural Development Institute (RDI) entitled:

Women’s Property Ownership: An Examination of the Process and Impact of

Karnataka’s Rural Housing Program Titling Directive

Robin Nielsen, Nandita Bhatla and Swati Chakraborty

September 2006

SUMMARY REPORT

This report summarizes the contents comprehensive project report, which can be obtained

from either the Rural Development Institute (“RDI”) or the International Center for

Research on Women (“ICRW”). This summary is intended to provide an abbreviated and

accessible report, and, to that end, has eliminated footnotes and citations contained in the

comprehensive report. The sources used in the report are identified in the Bibliography,

and more specific references available in the comprehensive report.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The ICRW team would like to acknowledge the founders of the three Karnataka based

NGOs – Mr. G.N. Simha (REACH), Mr. Shankarnarayanan (SIRE) and Ms. C.S.

Vedamani (Samarasa) for their cooperation, time and continuous support during the

course of this research study. We would also like to thank the staff of the three

organizations that formed part of the research team and the consultants Ms. H.S. Veena,

Suvarna K.V. Sujaya Shivakumar and Malathi Saroj, for their hard work and dedication

that ensured the successful completion of this project. The study has greatly benefited

from the input and comments provided by Ms. Srilata Batliwala during the initial phase

of conceptualization and study design formulation.

Finally, we specially thank all the respondents, who shared their views, and the

experiences of their lives with us on many personal and sensitive issues. Without them,

this study would not have been possible.

RDI gratefully acknowledges the assistance and cooperation of the Rajiv Gandhi Housing

Corporation and its staff and the staff of the NGOs REACH and SIRE. Particular thanks

are extended to the founders and staff of Samarasa, an NGO that is based in Bidar,

Karnataka and has undertaken a pilot housing project with an SHG bank linkage

component that is referenced in this report. The founders and staff of Samarasa,

especially Ms. C. S. Vedamani and Mr. Veerashetty Muppale, have not only designed

and implemented a promising program, but they have been generous with their time,

assistance, and suggestions, and RDI’s work benefited enormously as a result.

RDI thanks the beneficiaries of the housing benefits, their household members, and

members of their communities – all of whom took time from their days and evenings to

speak with us, often on multiple occasions.

The research was conducted with the assistance and expertise of RDI’s India-based team,

S.B. Lokesh and Arun Muniyappa.

SUMMARY REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section Page

Glossary 3

Preface 6

I. Introduction 7

II. Description of study 9

III. Karnataka’s rural housing programs 11

IV. Legislative and policy framework 13

V. The challenge of implementation 15

VI. Impact of titling requirement 17

VII. Recommendations 21

VIII. Conclusion 25

Bibliography 26

GLOSSARY

Ashraya Programme

(aka Rural Ashraya)

A government scheme to provide house

sites and/or houses to siteless and/or

houseless beneficiaries in rural areas.

Ashraya Samithi The committee that selects beneficiaries for

Ashraya and Ambedkar schemes from list

prepared by gram sabha.

Below Poverty Line (“BPL”) As of the date of this report, households in

Karnataka state with less than Rs 11,800

annual income are considered BPL. See

Government Order No HUD HAH (1) 95,

dated August 4, 1995.

Calamity Relief Fund (“CRF”)

A national fund administered by the

Ministry of Agriculture, providing

assistance in the event of natural

calamities. Funds are released to states on

a cost-sharing basis.

Economically Weaker Sections (“EWS”) A term often used interchangeably with

Below Poverty Line (“BPL”).

Golden Jubilee Rural Housing Finance

Scheme of Banks

A Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation

scheme that links beneficiaries of housing

benefits with bank loans to assist with

housing construction costs.

Government Order (“GO”) A state government directive.

Hakku patra

“Site title.” Name of the document given

to beneficiaries of housing benefits

evidencing ownership of a house site,

house, or both. A copy of the form is

attached as Appendix A.

Individual tenure

A person holds some form of land right as

an individual.

Joint tenure A person holds land rights jointly with

another person or persons. The most

common type of joint tenure is land owned

by both a husband and wife.

Navagrama Ashraya Housing Schemes

(NAHS)

Karnataka’s “new village” extension

projects.

Panchayat Raj Institution (“PRI”) The three-tiered system of democratic

governance operating at village, subdistrict,

and district levels in all states.

Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation

(“RGHC” or the “Housing Corporation”)

Entity established by the State of

Karnataka in 2000 to manage the schemes

providing housing benefits to the rural and

urban poor.

Sampoorna Gram Swarozgar Yogana

(“SGSY”)

National poverty alleviation programme

with objective to raise families above the

poverty line through mix of self-

employment measures, government

subsidies, and bank credit.

Self-Help Group (“SHG”) Groups of approximately 8-12 individuals

from the same village or locale formed for

the purpose of saving, income generation

activities, capacity building, and other

activities. Most groups are comprised of

women.

Preface

This summary report is prepared for an India-wide audience of policymakers,

government officials, and NGOs who are considering concrete steps that they can take to

increase women’s property rights and reduce rural poverty. Karnataka’s rural housing

program, which is the subject of the underlying study, provides a model for one low-cost,

feasible, and potentially highly effective step. Through a series of policy directives that

require the state to title government housing benefits (houses and house plots) in

women’s names, Karnataka officials have provided rural women in the state with assets

of enormous potential. Particularly where title to the housing benefit is coupled with

capacity building and includes linkages to sources for credit and income-generation

activities, women’s receipt of property rights have proved to have significant positive

impacts the lives of the women, their households, and their communities. Perhaps most

significantly, the early examination of the program’s impact on the women beneficiaries

records a growth in assurance and self-reliance among women that suggests the

beginning of a significant shift in self-perception, a precursor to behavioral, and

ultimately societal, change.

The study underlying this summary report had a narrow focus: the examination of the

gender-specific titling directive of Karnataka’s rural housing program. The study

reviewed the implementation and early impact of the directive with relation to its

objective of increasing the property rights of women. The study’s comprehensive report,

which offers specific recommendations for strengthening the program’s effectiveness,

was designed for an audience of state policymakers, program implementers, and non-

governmental organizations working in Karnataka’s rural areas.

This summary report has a more general focus and is intended for a wider audience. The

summary briefly reviews the problems relating to gender inequality in land rights in rural

India and the potential benefits in providing rural women with house plots and houses.

Thereafter, the report overviews the terms of Karnataka’s rural housing program,

including its gender-specific titling directive. The summary reviews issues regarding the

design of the program, its implementation, and some early evidence of impact in the hope

that policymakers, government officials, and NGOs and others will be encouraged to take

up similar programs in their own states. Any effort expended by governments and

members of civil society will be extremely well placed.

I. Introduction

Women worldwide have unequal access to and control of resources and assets because of

their gender. Particularly in rural areas of developing countries, deeply entrenched

patterns of gender discrimination restrict and often exclude women from ownership and

control of assets, including rights to property. The cost of exclusion is enormous:

inequality of property rights increases women’s economic vulnerability, threatens their

wellbeing and physical security, and diminishes their status within their households and

communities.

The cost of the inequality is not only borne by women, but also by their families and their

communities. When provided with rights to resources and the tools to use them, women

will tend to look beyond their immediate personal interests and act to meet the basic

nutritional, welfare, and educational needs of their children and family. When women

control resources and income, children are most likely to be fed, educated, and to receive

necessary medical attention, and the family’s physical and economic well-being

prioritized over the needs of a single individual. Women with rights to household assets

tend to participate more substantively in their households, communities, and government.

India’s challenge

India’s Constitution and recent amendments to the Hindu Succession Act establish

standards of gender equity in property rights. However, women’s actual realization of

those rights has been constrained by lack of political will supporting policies of non-

discrimination, poor implementation of legislation and programs, restrictive economic

and social environments, and entrenched social norms and customary practices.

Not surprisingly, therefore, while women in India have the legal right to own property,

few do. Rural women experience the adverse impact of unequal rights most severely.

While men increasingly migrate to urban centers for employment, women usually remain

behind, their opportunities limited by lower levels of education, responsibilities for

children and elderly family members, and social and religious constraints. The women

rely on land for security, yet few have legal rights to that land, including the plots on

which they live and raise their children.

Domestic violence

Another significant and related manifestation of gender inequality is the prevalence of

domestic violence. In a recent multi-site household survey with nearly 10,000

respondents, almost one in two Indian women reported experiencing at least one form of

domestic violence. Over 40 percent reported physical violence -- being kicked, beaten,

and slapped -- by their husbands. In the communities that served as a focus for this

study, both women and men voiced attitudes and described behavior suggesting that

violence against women is often considered an inevitable part of marriage.

Domestic violence has enormous social, economic, and health consequences. Violence

against women causes more death and disability in women aged 15 to 44 years old than

cancer, malaria, traffic accidents, and war combined. In economic terms, the direct costs

of domestic violence for a household include loss of income and productivity, cost of

health care, and costs of accessing other services.

Most direct and unrelenting is the effect of violence on women’s well being. Domestic

violence can deprive women of their basic needs for survival. Meals, clothing, and a safe

place to sleep are too often under the control of the abuser. If a woman’s spouse or

relative evicts her from the house, she may be separated from her children, deprived of

sources of food and shelter, denied opportunities to earn income, and left destitute.

Women lacking access to and control of property who experience domestic violence face

impossible choices: security of shelter and basic welfare often carries the price of

continued abuse.

The importance of houses and house sites

Property ownership can change women’s options. Specifically, ownership of a house site

or a house can play a critical role in increasing women’s property rights and her

experience of the benefits flowing from those rights, including security and personal

empowerment. A house provides shelter from the elements, and a place in which to

sleep, eat, and store food and possessions. A house may sit on land that can produce

vegetables, house livestock, store fuel wood, and engage in income-generating activities.

A house can serve as collateral for credit and as insurance in old age.

Moreover, early research indicates that women’s property rights -- particularly rights to a

house or homestead plot -- may positively impact women’s status in the household,

provide them with enhanced bargaining power within their marriages, and may ultimately

contribute to a lessening or cessation of domestic violence. A recently concluded ICRW

study exploring the association between women’s property ownership and experience of

domestic violence found that women’s ownership of property (specifically ownership of

a house) protects them against violence perpetrated by their husbands. Another study

exploring the impact of joint titles to houses on intra-household gender relations

concluded that joint property rights increase women’s security, their access to

information on public matters, their participation in decision making, and the amount of

respect that women receive.

Women’s access to houses and house plots

Since Independence, India has tackled the fundamental human need for shelter using a

variety of methods: allocating state government land, granting ownership of house plots

to tenants, and regularizing possession of illegally occupied land. Through an assortment

of acronym-heavy programs, the country focused in the last few decades on financing

house construction and improvements on existing plots, government land, and in some

areas, on government-purchased land. In most states, men received title to the vast

majority of the house plots and houses.

Recognizing that housing programs provide a means of providing women with property

rights, in 1985 and again in 1992 India’s central government directed the states to title

government-distributed land jointly in the names of husbands and wives, or in the names

of women individually. A handful of states responded with directives to give women

joint or individual title to government-distributed agricultural land, house sites, and

houses. In most cases, gender-specific titling directives were new procedural

requirements superimposed on existing programs. Governments engaged in land

distribution programs added titling components to enhance the value of the distribution

by granting women a measure of control over the asset through titling it in their names,

either jointly with their husbands or individually.

Karnataka’s housing program

Karnataka is among a small group of Indian states that has attempted to increase

women’s ownership of government-distributed housing benefits. The state’s effort began

with a 1993 government order that required officials to title housing benefits jointly in the

names of both husband and wife. In 2000, the state attempted to increase women’s rights

further by requiring officials to title housing benefits in the name of women individually,

with limited exceptions. During the period in which these gender-specific titling

directives have been effective, the state distributed housing benefits to hundreds of

thousands of beneficiaries.

With consideration of Karnataka State’s rural housing program as a focus, this study

evaluated the ability of programs to take meaningful steps toward equalizing property

ownership and improving rural livelihoods through titling benefits in the name of women.

This summary report begins with a description of the study in Section II, provides an

overview of Karnataka’s housing programs in Section III, followed by a review of the

relevant legislative and policy framework in Section IV. Sections V and VI chronicle

issues relating the program implementation and recorded impacts of the titling directive.

The report concludes with a summary of the recommendations proposed from each

section. Throughout these sections and the report in general, one theme emerges and

remains a constant: titling rural housing benefits in women’s names can provide rural

women with assets of enormous potential. Moreover, women’s receipt of property rights

can have significant, positive impacts the lives of the women, their households, and their

communities and ultimately contribute to creating a more equitable society.

II. Description of study

Study objectives. During the course of the study, ICRW and RDI examined the titling

component of Karnataka’s rural housing distribution program, looking at the legal

framework for rights granted, the implementation process, and the impact of ownership

on the status of the women beneficiaries and their families. The specific objectives of the

study were to:

• Analyze Karnataka’s policies and other relevant legislation governing the

issuance of title to houses and house sites to women beneficiaries and other

documentation governing land rights;

• Study the process of implementing the policies in order to identify strengths,

shortcomings, and strategies for improvement;

• Chronicle early experiences of beneficiaries of the titling program;

• Explore the positive and negative impacts of women’s ownership of property on

their status within the family, and especially on their experience of domestic

violence;

• Identify critical constraints at household and community levels impeding

women’s effective control over and ownership of property; and

• Present recommendations for improving the housing program’s ability to meet its

objectives.

RDI analyzed the policy and legislative framework and assessed the implementation

process to identify gaps and areas for attention. ICRW focused on the impact, and the

positive and negative outcomes of receiving the title, for women, households, and the

community. ICRW gave particular consideration to issues of, and possible impact on, the

experience of domestic violence.

Methodology. The analysis of the legislation and policies focused on national and state-

level policies and laws. The examination of program design and implementation was

limited to Karnataka, with specific attention to implementation in Davangere and

Gulbarga districts. The fieldwork was undertaken at the district, taluks, and village

levels. The researchers selected taluks that were included in a social audit conducted

with relation to a larger study that predated this study. Three local NGOs were involved

in the social audit work: REACH (Harapanahalli, Harihara taluks of Davangere district),

SIRE (Yadgiri taluks, Gulbarga district), and Samarasa (Chincholli taluk, Gulbarga

district). Representatives of the NGOs assisted ICRW and RDI in identifying taluks,

villages, and specific households for concentration.

Researchers used qualitative methods to gather information to meet the study objectives.

These included:

• Interviews with state, district, and local level officials regarding program design

and implementation;

• 16 focus group discussions at the village level to explore the attitudes of men and

women regarding women’s ownership and control of property, the state’s titling

directive, and perceptions on domestic violence;

• 54 case studies, consisting of interviews with beneficiaries, their husbands, and

other household members regarding the impact of the housing benefits and receipt

of property rights; and

• 34 supplementary interviews with beneficiaries to explore issues regarding the

beneficiaries’ understanding of legal rights and program requirements and

processes.

III. Karnataka’s rural housing programs

Potential in housing programs. Programs distributing homestead plots and housing

benefits and granting women title to those benefits are one of the most feasible and

promising means by which India’s state governments can have a positive and sustained

impact on the lives of the rural poor. House and house plot programs can provide

significant benefits with limited land. If the plot is sufficiently large to allow for a

garden, livestock, and income generating activities, women’s management and control of

the plot -- whether jointly with other family members or individually -- can provide the

household with the benefits of those uses and also provide women with valuable skills

and experience.

Rajiv Gandhi Housing Corporation. Since 2000, the Rajiv Gandhi Housing

Corporation has been responsible for designing, implementing, and overseeing

Karnataka’s housing programs. In its first four and a half years of operation, the Housing

Corporation reports responsibility for 770,000 new houses, with another 204,000 in

process. Each of the housing schemes has separate terms and criteria, but most include

the following requirements: (1) beneficiaries must be below poverty line (“BPL”); (2)

title (hakku patra) to houses granted must be placed in the name of women individually,

with limited exceptions; and (3) members of scheduled tribes or scheduled castes are

entitled to receive Rs 20,000 as a grant or subsidy; all other beneficiaries receive up to Rs

10,000 as a grant or subsidy and can borrow up to Rs 10,000. In addition, in 2002, the

Housing Corporation issued a memo noting that if the state issues housing sites, they

should be given in the name of women.

Joint or individual title?

Most commonly, government programs grant benefits either individually (to the man or

the woman), or jointly to a husband and wife. Whether joint or individual title is better

suited to achieve the objectives of increasing the number of women with land rights and

positioning them to take advantage of the benefits of those rights depends in large

measure on the legal effect of the type of title granted.

The housing program beneficiaries, their husbands, and members of the communities

interviewed in the course of the study expressed both views of the question of title.

Muslim and Lambani women were at one end of the spectrum, stating a strong preference

for individual title. Muslim personal law permits women to own property, and the

Muslim women interviewed stated that the ownership should be theirs alone. The

Lambani women interviewed expressed a similar preference. As stated by one Lambani

woman, individual title is the “only way for property to be of real use of her and the

children.” Both groups believed that joint ownership can lead men to pressure women to

renounce their rights to the property.

Christian men who joined in a focus group discussion expressed a similar preference for

individual title -- but held in the name of the man. The men expressed concerns that

women who received property would desert their husbands or elope.

In contrast, most Hindu men and women and Christian women interviewed prefer joint

ownership. Some prefer joint title because they are concerned about giving too much

power over the property to one spouse, regardless of sex; joint title is considered the most

effective security: Property will be safe if it is in joint name; it secures property as both

parties have to agree for disposal—in single ownership man may lose the entire property

under evil habits; for the sake of property children take proper care of both parents.

Others expressed a belief that joint title maintains family harmony, cordial relationships,

and security for both parents: A joint title keeps husband and wife in tune and

complementary to each other for the welfare and wellbeing of the family and property.

Almost all women who prefer joint title believe all assets held by a married couple should

be titled jointly in both names.

Interestingly, however, the majority of women interviewed also stated that the main

benefit they receive from ownership of the house -- and the benefit they value above all

other potential benefits -- was physical security. The extent to which women value

personal security may be a basis for considering individual title in designing titling

components, despite women’s stated preference for joint title. A house can reduce a

women’s physical vulnerability, and individual title to a house provides the highest level

of legal protection (assuming the woman has the practical ability to obtain and retain

possession). Individual title gives a woman the right to the entire property and puts her in

the strongest legal position for retaining her right under pressure from other interests. A

weakness of joint title (particularly where it is unclear whether it includes a right of

survivorship) appears precisely in the circumstances when women feel the most

vulnerable -- when their relationships with their husbands and other male family

members are severed. As one focus group participant noted,

House should be in single name. Only this provides women security and safe

shelter. If husband quarrels with wife and deserts her, where will she go? Safe

shelter is her security. She will labour and live a safe life.

IV. Legislative and policy framework

The legislative and policy framework governs the state’s ability to grant rights to housing

benefits and a woman’s ability to exercise rights to those benefits. The government order

issued by the Karnataka Housing Department dated August 3, 2000, states that housing

benefits shall be titled in the name of the women, with exceptions for unmarried men and

widowers. The power of the directive to increase the property rights of women in a

meaningful manner depends on: (1) the extent to which the legislative and policy

framework supports the legal rights resulting from application of the government order;

(2) social recognition of those rights; and (3) enforcement of those rights.

Support is found in the Constitution, which provides that all citizens have equality of

status and opportunity and the right to equitable treatment under the law. The

Constitution further prohibits the government from discriminating against any person

because of gender, and expressly permits the State to make special provision for women

and treat them more favorably than men. Not surprisingly, however, the constitutional

pronouncements of gender equity and the policies that reflect those pronouncements have

little impact on daily lives in rural India.

Religious and customary laws and practices, not constitutional principles, dictate the

property rights of women. As a technical matter, the laws governing Hindu, Muslim, and

Christian property rights uniformly allow women to obtain land as a sole owner or a joint

tenant through a government distribution program. Women have the legal right to enjoy

all the rights and privileges of ownership, including the right to possession of the

property, to exclude people from the property, to use and improve the property as she

sees fit, to control of income and production from the property, to alienate (mortgage,

lease, sell) it, and to bequeath the property according to her wishes.

Rural reality

However, rural reality often provides little support for a woman’s privileges of property

ownership. Principles governing the Hindu joint family property, inheritance, the

practice of dowry, the management of property at separation and divorce, and the norms

of patriarchal society combine to constrict the areas in which a woman can freely exercise

property ownership rights. The constraints fall on a continuum. At one end of the

continuum are constraints created by typical and expected issues related to managing

multiple people and activities in limited space. At the other end of the continuum are

severe forms of rights’ deprivation.

Some examples illustrate the range of constraints. In Suragondanakoppa village in

Davangere district, a woman beneficiary operates a hotel (restaurant) from her house.

Her husband decided she should also run a small shop and selected the items for sale in

the shop. The beneficiary does not like the shop, and would have preferred to expand the

hotel. However, despite her ownership of the property, she does not believe it was her

decision to make. A similar lack of control is found in Mundargi village in Gulbarga

district, where a widow with ownership of her house is sharing the space with her son and

daughter in law, who recently moved in with her. The widow does not get along with her

son and daughter in law (“We are cooking separately”), but she shares her house

nonetheless. She does not believe she has the power to ask them to leave.

In some cases, the constraints are more significant. In Gajarakot village in Gulbarga

District, a beneficiary’s in-laws applied for a house in the beneficiary’s name. The house

was constructed according to her in-laws wishes, and the beneficiary has never resided

there. She and her husband continue to live with his parents; her husband’s brother has

possession of her new house. The beneficiary does not expect to live in her house and

makes no decisions regarding the property.

As these examples demonstrate, a male family member may be the greatest obstacle to a

woman beneficiary’s ability to exercise the privileges of ownership. Granting joint rather

than individual title is, therefore, unlikely to create a more advantageous situation for the

exercise of the female beneficiary’s privileges. In addition, the potential to increase

property rights for women through a concept of marital property (joint ownership of

property gained by a couple in the course of the marriage) is, based on interviews

conducted for the study, favored by both women and men.

The Case for Marital Property

Despite these examples of the limited impact legal requirements may have on rural

society, some form of legislated marital property rights is worth pursuing. First, current

practices regarding ownership of assets earned by a man and women during their

marriage are inequitable. Second, when questioned about their ideal models for marital

property, most women interviewed in the study wished for circumstances in which

husband and wives own and manage the household assets and income earned by the

couple jointly. Some form of community property rights would support that model.

Third, while legislation may not in itself change rural practices, laws establishing equality

of rights to assets received in the course of a marriage create a foundation for community

education and support for test cases, and ultimately, the legal space for social change.

In summary, the legislative and policy framework establishes a foundation for women to

receive housing rights and the ability to exercise the privileges of ownership. However,

despite favorable terms supporting the equality of rights, legislation and policy

pronouncements often fail to penetrate the surface of rural lives. More often than not, the

patriarchal currents (supported by religious and customary law and practice) running

through rural society prove far more influential and persistent than any law or policy. In

order to facilitate social change, the institutions involved in the distributing the housing

benefits must actively engage in promoting the rights of women.

V. The challenge of implementation

Since its inception in the year 2000, the Housing Corporation has made significant and

beneficial changes to Karnataka’s housing programs. At the state level, the Corporation

is staffed with professionals committed to ensuring that the intended benefits reach the

neediest members of the population. The systems for disseminating policies and

communications and collecting data are well designed, and information is readily

available to the public.

The district and taluk level officials responsible for implementing the housing program

express similar commitment to the program. Those interviewed in the course of the study

have a solid understanding of various components of the program, their responsibilities

and obligations, and the documentation and reporting requirements. All officials at the

district and taluk levels had received notification of the titling requirement and had

implemented the requirement, albeit in one case less than three months prior to our

interviews in 2005.

Understanding of purpose of gender-specific titling

Although the local officials had implemented the titling requirement, none received any

specific education on the purposes of the gender-specific titling requirement. None of the

officials interviewed identified goals of increasing gender equality in property rights,

empowering women socially and economically, creating a base for credit and investment,

enhancing household nutrition, or diversifying livelihood opportunities for rural

households. Instead, the officials simply understood the titling directive to be one of

many requirements of the program and without any specific objectives.

Many of the beneficiaries interviewed in Davangere and Gulbarga districts demonstrated

a similar lack of knowledge about the nature of their rights to housing benefits and the

potential contained in those rights. Every beneficiary interviewed by RDI researchers in

the course of the study reported that the reason why she had received title to the house

plot or house was that the project required the benefits to be titled in the name of a

woman. Every beneficiary questioned about her husband’s attitude toward the prospect

of her ownership of the housing benefits stated that her husband had no objection. The

husbands interviewed confirmed their acquiescence. However, based on the discussions

with those interviewed it appears that the titling requirement caused no dissension or

controversy not because they understood the objectives of the directive and understood

and accepted the need to grant women title, but because title must be in the women’s

name as a condition of receiving the benefit. The titling requirement was simply another

box to check off on the list of eligibility criteria, and had no independent meaning for the

husbands of beneficiaries or, indeed, for some of the beneficiaries themselves.

This discovery is hardly surprising. In order for a law or policy such as a titling directive

to impact an individual or household’s understanding or behavior, the officials involved

in the project, the beneficiaries and their households, and the public must be educated as

to the purpose of the directive. Absent the most basic understanding of what the goals of

the program are, the titling directive is unlikely to have the desired impact.

When program officials do not explain the titling requirement, and intended benefits of

property rights leak away, unrecognized by beneficiaries. In Davangere and Gulbarga

district, several of the women interviewed about the titling project’s impact on them were

unaware of their ownership rights, or dismissive of their importance. As one woman

stated, it hardly matters what the hakku patra says; her husband is in charge of the family,

the house, and the marriage. The woman was resigned to her position: “if he asks me to

leave this place, I will go.” The woman’s legal ownership of her house is of no

consequence to her; in her mind, title to a house is incapable of changing the balance of

power in her marriage.

Where education is prioritized, the result is markedly different. In Bidar District, a local

NGO, Samarasa, has organized women into self-help groups for the housing project.

Samarasa staff provided capacity building to the women and their households on the

purpose of the titling directive and requirements of the housing project. Women and men

who received this capacity building are well versed in the privileges and responsibilities

of ownership of a house plot and house. The women actively contemplate how their

housing rights may enlarge their possible livelihood options, including using their plots

for income-generation activities and joining with neighboring women to lobby local

officials regarding the use of the village’s common land. The women not only recognize

that holding title to the house improves their personal and financial security, they

understand that the plot and house are assets that provide them with opportunities to

benefit their households.

The achievements of the housing program in areas such as where Samarasa is operating

highlight the potential for Karnataka’s housing program. The lack of knowledge

witnessed in the course of the study at the district, taluk, and village levels dilutes the

impact of the gender-specific titling requirement and the value of the property rights

granted. If, however, that gap in knowledge is filled, the Karnataka program will have

the potential to have an enormous impact on the livelihoods of beneficiaries and their

families statewide.

Additional areas where the program can be strengthened are:

• Community knowledge of the program. In many areas, the panchayats did not

share information about the scheme with the gram sabha or in any other

systematic fashion designed to reach all village residents. In addition, women in

communities with housing benefit programs were far less likely to know of the

existence of the program and its terms than men in the same communities.

• Beneficiary selection process. At local levels, many officials failed to adhere to

Housing Corporation procedures for the selection of beneficiaries. The study

found many beneficiaries did not meet eligibility requirements, such as BPL

status, and beneficiaries were often selected because of their relationship to

members of the panchayat.

• Financial benefits received. The Rs 20,000 grant provided under the state’s

Ashraya scheme was not sufficient in most of the cases to complete a house or

pay for the costs of obtaining program benefits (such as the cost to travel to the

taluk office), and the majority of beneficiaries took out loans or used savings to

complete the house. The debt incurred, which was viewed by many as a debt for

which the husband is responsible, led many women to devalue their ownership

rights.

• Additional payments to panchayat. The beneficiaries interviewed in both

districts almost uniformly paid between Rs 1,000 to Rs 5,000 to the panchayat in

order to have their names included on the list of those eligible for housing

benefits. In some areas the beneficiaries (either knowingly or not) also gave the

panchayat a percentage of each incremental payment that they received for the

house construction.

• Dissemination of title. Many of the beneficiaries had not received hakku patra or

believed they had the title document but upon review, researchers determined the

document was not a title document.

• Ownership of the house site. Less than half of the beneficiaries interviewed

owned both the house and house site; the majority of the house sites were owned

by the government (under the Navagrama scheme) or held in the beneficiary

husband’s or father-in-law’s name. The split ownership between the house and

house site dilutes the impact of the woman’s ownership of the house and creates a

vulnerability to loss of the house in the event of divorce or death of the husband.

VI. Impact of titling requirement

Most women interviewed in the course of the study received title (or understood that they

had received title) to the housing benefits in 2003 or thereafter. In a majority of those

cases, the women received little or no education regarding the nature of their rights and

the privileges of ownership. Accordingly, at this stage of the housing benefits program,

less impact was recorded during the 2005 fieldwork than will likely be evident as time

passes. That recognized, evidence of several impacts is emerging. Women, their

husbands, and community members reported the following impacts from the housing

program and the receipt of ownership rights:

 Increased sense of physical security. The vast majority of women interviewed

recognize that a house provides them with physical security, and they place a very

high value on that security. Many of the women believe that in the event their

husbands died, abandoned them, or divorced them, the women have a right to stay

in their houses. They attribute that right of possession to their ownership of the

house.

 Increased economic security, including diversification of sources for income

and food. Several beneficiaries and their families derive a sense of psychological

and economic security from the house. The house provides a secure base from

which to explore earning options, a sense of stability and security when work is

irregular, and several rented-out rooms in their houses or themselves experienced

direct savings of rent payments when they became homeowners. One beneficiary

opened a small shop in her house, and in a village with active SHGs, some

women use their plots for vegetables, have greater food security, and are able to

direct their cash assets to other purchases. As one beneficiary stated,

I feel secure after getting this house. Critical situations can be faced

boldly with this asset behind you…Women can go out and labour and earn

livelihood and sleep peacefully in her own house.

 Increased comfort and experience of wellbeing. Many of the case study

narratives mention the ease with which the beneficiaries can live because they

have a pucca house, or a house with more space.

 Increased status and enhanced self image. Many of the women who knew they

had rights to their houses expressed pride in being owners of a valuable asset.

Women expressed happiness, confidence, and reported that they have the courage

to resist if their husbands try to sell the house:

I feel strong and secure after getting this house. This is the first thing that

I own in my life. This dream of having a house which is on my name has

come a reality thanks to the government…My social status has undergone

a change. I can move in society with my head held high.

Some of the husbands interviewed agree that the women have a better image and

receive respect as a result of their ownership status. Others state that they must

now include women in any decision to be made around the house, especially

decisions regarding sales and mortgages. Where women are less involved in the

process of obtaining the house and where loans have been taken to construct the

house in addition to the grant from the government, the positive impact of

ownership of house is significantly reduced. One woman confessed:

I do not know any details of the house. I did not see any allotment list. I

was not involved in the house building process. I accompanied my father-

in-law to sign the papers. I know nothing more... I don’t know where the

documents and records are…There is no difference in me or my family.

My father-in-law takes all the decisions and this is so now also.

In happy contrast, at a Navagrama site (a separate new colony of house sites),

women appear to be the most vocal about the change that they perceive in their

status. These beneficiaries were also more likely to have seen the hakku patra for

the house and report more details around the process of acquiring the benefit:

I am happy to have this house on my name. There is a difference now. I

had to ask my husband earlier, even for going out. But now the house is

in my name, and that is a security for me…None can tell me to get out.

 Increased confidence and courage to address violence. Thirty-three of the 54

women interviewed by ICRW researchers reported having experienced violence

during their marriages. Women reported all forms of domestic violence, with

moderate physical violence (being “beaten up”) most common. Men confirmed

the prevalence of beatings. One husband admitted that he has “beaten [my] wife

whenever she has stepped out of line.” Another reported: “I have beaten my wife

at least or eight times. I did not beat her for not working but when I was angry.”

A few women spoke of incidents of severe violence or being beaten “very badly.”

Four women also reported experiences of sexual violence. Most community

members interviewed considered domestic violence a matter to be tolerated rather

than acted upon, although they also stated the community should intervene.

Disturbingly, some men in focus discussion groups mentioned suicide as an

option for women. Some women reported past suicide attempts, but the majority

were more likely than men to mention other options of coping with violence, such

as the possibility of taking legal action or leaving home. However, while women

mentioned possibilities such as leaving their homes, very few acted on those

options.

Most of the women beneficiaries who faced violence in the course of their

marriages reported that, as a result of receiving the housing benefit, they now

have increased confidence to face the problem and the courage to protest the

violence. This growth of assurance and self-reliance suggests the beginning of a

significant shift in self-perception, a precursor to behavioral change. The

evolution is remarkable given the high level of acceptance of (or resignation to)

domestic violence in the communities in which the beneficiaries reside.

 In a few cases, cessation of domestic violence. Of the twenty women who were

experiencing some form of violence at the point of receiving the benefit, four

women beneficiaries directly stated that violence ceased completely after they

received the house, or after the couples moved into the house. For the remaining

sixteen women, violence continued, although in some cases the women reported it

had lessened somewhat after receipt of the house.

While only four women stated unequivocally that violence ceased upon receipt

(or possession) of the housing benefit, almost all of the women report a new or

increased sense of confidence and courage to protest problems, including

violence. The emergence of this self-assurance was especially true for the women

who had faced violence at some point in their marriages.

 Husband’s insecurity. One change noted in the course of the case studies is an

often unstated but nonetheless evident insecurity felt by the beneficiaries’

husbands because their wives received housing benefits. The appearance of

feelings of insecurity is one indication of change in the power structure within a

marriage, and thus evidence of a desired evolution toward a more equal

relationship. Rarely do important changes occur in relationships without this type

of response. In this study, researchers did not receive reports of any significant

negative actions by husbands and other family members as a result of the

beneficiaries’ receipt of housing benefits. However, the risk is always present;

individuals often respond to fear with expressions of insecurity, which can include

combative behavior and violence.

Factors influencing empowerment and beneficial change through receipt of

property rights

Some of the factors recognized in the course of the study as influencing women’s

empowerment with relation to receipt of property rights include:

• Community attitude toward traditional gender roles. In communities where

both women and men’s attitudes reflect belief in traditional gender roles, the

dominance of men in the marital relationship, and the women’s obligation to

accept even violent expressions of that dominance, the mere receipt of property

rights is less likely to alter perceptions and behavior. In these communities, the

titling requirement of the housing programs was most often dismissed as a mere

technical program requirement. Women received little or no education regarding

their rights, were not usually involved in the process of obtaining the benefit, and,

not unexpectedly, researchers recorded little impact on women and the household.

• The source of the property right. The source of the housing benefit influences

its ultimate impact. A recent ICRW study found that ownership of property,

especially a house, serves to protect women from violence beginning in the

marriage. However, the women in that study usually acquired the houses through

inheritance, a process that indicates fundamental social support for the rights of

women that is reflected in a transfer of property that is of accepted value to the

family. In contrast, in this study, women received the property right through a

government program. The terms of the program, including the titling directive,

do not originate from within the family or the community. As such, the women’s

receipt of the asset does not reflect or reinforce the values of a community, but

rather a value superimposed on the community through the program. Absent

specific education regarding the objectives of the program and titling directive,

the women’s receipt of title is simply the playing out of a program requirement. In

that case, titling houses in the women’s name will have less beneficial impact for

the women and the communities and is less likely to inspire social change.

• Nature and scope of property right received. Where women do not receive

hakku patra for their house and thus have no evidence of their property right, the

right is less effective and less impact is evident. Where households incur debt to

complete house construction, women have a reduced sense of ownership.

Similarly, where women receive ownership of a house but the house plot is owned

by their husbands or third parties, the property right is diminished in value in the

minds of the women, their families, and the community. In addition, the split

ownership creates a legal ambiguity that is likely to present unnecessary problems

for the woman in the event of separation, divorce, or death of the husband.

VII. Recommendations

The study resulted in a series of recommendations to strengthen the Karnataka housing

program and enhance the program’s ability to meet the objectives of the titling directive.

While the recommendations are presented with relation to the Karnataka program, the

concepts are relevant to the design of other gender and land-based programs in Karnataka

and in other Indian states.

Recommendations regarding Karnataka Housing Program design:

• Increase plot size. The Housing Corporation programs that involve obtaining

new land (either through existing government land or purchase of private land)

limit the size of house plots to 30 x 40 feet, or 1,200 square feet. In some areas,

the plots are 20 x 40 feet, or 800 square feet. These plot sizes substantially limit

the non-housing benefits (including improved nutrition, increased income, and

diversification of income sources) derived from the schemes. In order to provide

the beneficiaries with an asset of significant value, the state should consider

enlarging the size of the plots to approximately 50 x 60 feet, or 3,000 square feet.

• Establish additional procedures to ensure beneficiary selection criteria met.

The study suggests that some additional procedural safeguards are warranted in

the selection of beneficiaries to reduce the possibility that some eligible residents

are overlooked and ineligible residents included.

• Require adherence to directive regarding titling of house plots to ensure

complete ownership. Consistent with its own policy, the Housing Corporation

should require evidence of titling of any existing house plot in the name of the

female beneficiary before housing benefits are granted.

• Grant title to house plot in Navagrama sites and under Ambedkar scheme. In

some Navagrama sites, officials report that they are not granting title to house

plots, only houses. Officials express some confusion whether the denial of

landownership is related to the period of loan repayment, or inherent to the

program. The matter should be clarified, and beneficiaries granted title to the

house plots and houses. The Ambedkar scheme, which is an all grant scheme,

does not provide beneficiaries with hakku patra for a period of 15 years. Hakku

patra should be granted immediately, with an appropriate restriction on alienation

(five years is suggested below), if needed.

• Consider relaxing the restriction on alienation. The requirements of the

housing programs restrict the beneficiaries from alienating their land and houses

for the period of any loan repayment and, once a beneficiary receives title, for 20

years. The requirement, which secures the government’s loan and protects the

beneficiary’s asset from ill-considered transfer also forecloses the beneficiary

from one of the benefits of the asset – its transferability for value. Consideration

might be given to limiting the ban on transfer to the period of loan repayment, or

for five years in the event of a grant.

• Consider eliminating the restriction on renting out the house and house plot.

The hakku patra form includes a blanket prohibition on beneficiaries renting out

the property. The prohibition limits the value of the property for households who

may wish to diversify income sources by renting out the house.

Recommendations relating to the legal framework

India’s legal and policy framework provides a relatively firm foundation for women to

receive and retain rights to property. Concrete progress toward gender equity, led by the

2005 amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, has been made. Additional

suggestions that support ownership rights of women to housing benefits and to property

rights in general are:

• Codify government orders and circulars. The gender-specific titling directives

will carry greater authority if they are included in the state land reform act or rules

(or other legislation), with an enforcement provision and penalties attaching for

non-enforcement.

• In the event of death of spouse during the loan repayment period, grant

ownership of house or house site to surviving spouse. In the event that one

spouse dies during the loan repayment period, the burden of repayment on the

surviving spouse (whether man or woman) is automatically doubled and

repayment is less likely. Widows and widowers are a section of the population in

need of security and support from the community. As a matter of policy, the

government should forgive the debt and grant widows and widowers ownership of

the house and house site.

• In the event of abandonment or divorce during the term of the loan, the

woman beneficiary should receive possession of the house. Under the housing

programs, if a beneficiary takes a loan for housing benefits, her name is on the

loan documents. In the event of divorce, her husband could potentially claim a

right to the house based on any loan payments made during the course of the

marriage. The woman remains liable on the loan document, and as a matter of

policy, the state should award her possession.

• Establish minimum property settlements in the event of divorce. Laws

governing property rights in the event of divorce should identify minimum rights

of the parties to property, so the terms are no longer wholly discretionary and

anyone asserting legitimate rights is entitled to some recovery. The poorest

citizens may never avail themselves of the formal legal system but the existence

of legal standards will provide a foundation for community education and a

standard that village elders and others can reference for support of their decisions.

Recommendations regarding program implementation

• Educate officials (including panchayat officials), communities, and

beneficiaries regarding the purposes of the tiling requirement and benefits of

gender equity in property rights. The ability of Karnataka’s titling component

to achieve its objectives is compromised by inadequate attention to the goals of

the titling component. Particularly at local levels, few officials were able to

articulate any larger purpose served by titling the housing benefits in the name of

women. A pilot designed by the NGO, Samarasa, has demonstrated that

education of officials, communities, and beneficiaries and their households has

proved to be a very effective means of ensuring that granting title to women has

some of the desired positive impacts on rural livelihoods. A plan for education of

government officials and village-level stakeholders (including beneficiaries, their

families, village elders, panchayat officials, and community leaders) should be

added to the state program.

• Require procedures for transparency in decision making and greater

accountability of the implementing agency and panchayat for failure of

achieving scheme objectives and targets. Implementing agencies and

panchayats often do not adhere to standard processes in decision making and have

little obligation to account for not achieving scheme objectives. Effective

functioning of gram sabhas is critical to ensuring access to information to all and

inclusion of women in public processes. Both formal and community-led

accountability mechanisms should be instituted.

• Require timely disbursement of the monetary resources to beneficiaries.

Failure to disburse resources in a timely fashion can undermine the beneficiaries’

ability to realize the benefit of the scheme.

• Ensure easy access to information. Beneficiaries, NGOs, and others should

have full access to program information (including program benefits, eligibility

requirements, and procedures) without reliance on connections with local

officials.

• Assert greater control over beneficiary selection. The program design should

be refined to place greater controls on the selection of beneficiaries, ensure the

proposed list of beneficiaries is communicated effectively to the community, and

provide reasonable opportunities for comment and challenge.

• Confront practice of additional payments. Beneficiaries consistently report

making payments to the panchayat for housing benefits and in some areas,

receiving only a percentage of the amounts sanctioned for a loan or grant. How

this practice is effectively controlled is best decided by those with significant

experience with local conditions and issues, but should be addressed without

delay.

• Require evidence that officials give the hakku patra to the beneficiary. The

Housing Corporation requires officials to give the beneficiary the hakku patra and

to register the site in her name before it can be counted as a benefit granted.

However, this requirement does not appear to be enough in itself to motivate the

panchayat to complete the process. The Housing Corporation should consider

further means of ensuring compliance with this requirement.

• Invest in monitoring and evaluating the housing programs, with attention to

the titling directive. The Housing Corporation has implemented some measures

for monitoring and evaluating its programs, but these remain limited in their

access and ability to include systematic collection of data regarding the impact of

the programs.

• Support programs that link beneficiaries with NGOs for education and

capacity building. Beneficiaries who are in areas where there are active local

NGOs engaged in capacity building and other activities often have the best

opportunities to realize the potential of the ownership of a plot or house site for

themselves and their families. Local NGOs often have detailed information about

the population and have established relationships with residents. NGOs can be

used to identify beneficiaries, assist with awareness building, and ensure that

information is disseminated to everyone in a community.

• Support complementary community programs with objectives of

empowerment, acceptance of women’s property rights, and reduction in the

tolerance of violence. Sensitization of community members, elders, and natal

and marital family (including husbands of the potential beneficiaries) on women’s

property ownership rights should complement state initiated schemes. Officials,

program managers, and NGOs should also be aware of the possibility of adverse

reactions by husbands and male household members and be prepared to intervene.

Training and community-level processes that enable both men and women to

adjust and accept major changes in social structures should be essential parts of

programs with directives for titling benefits in the name of women.

VIII. Conclusion

Secure rights to a house and house plot are of enormous importance to the physical and

psychological security of women. Even in areas where programs may be imperfectly

designed or implemented (such as the recognized gaps in the areas of education, the

failure to involve women in the program processes, and often spotty adherence to

procedures), the positive impact of the presumed ownership is substantial. This finding is

not only of inherent value and interest with regard to Karnataka’s program; the finding is

an indication of the enormous untapped potential in housing and small plot programs that

include gender-specific titling components. With appropriate education, well designed

programs, and well executed projects, program benefits can provide for the physical,

psychological, and economic security of women and their households.

Karnataka has developed a solid foundation for success in its existing programs, many of

which include gender-specific titling components. Moreover, the state maintains a

visionary outlook that has led to innovative programs that support the purchase of land

for new colonies and the establishment of bank linkages for self-help group loans. As the

state moves forward, some attention should be directed to the design of the programs, the

legal framework, and the implementation methods in order to ensure that benefits are

tailored to the needs of the poor, that they reach the intended population, and that the

poor can realize the full potential in the benefits granted. Once that attention is given, the

beneficiaries and their households will be in a position to realize the security, enhanced

well being, income and investment potential, and empowerment that property rights can

create.

The vision is already becoming a reality through small, well designed, and carefully

implemented pilot projects. The next step is to capture and model the practices

developed and lessons learned in order that all the state’s rural poor (and ultimately the

rural poor across India) can benefit. The state has already made the financial commitment

through its housing and small plots programs. All that remains is to add the necessary

time, energy, and dedicated action. It is difficult to imagine a more promising

investment.

Bibliography

Agarwal, Bina, 1994. A FIELD OF ONE’S OWN: GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS IN SOUTH ASIA

(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

------, 1998. Disinherited Peasants, Disadvantaged Workers: A Gender Perspective on Land and

Livelihood, E

CONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, March 28, 1998

------, 2002. Are We Not Peasants Too? Land Rights and Women’s Claims in India, SEEDS

paper for the Population Council, November 21, 2002, at 3.

Awasthi, S.K., 2000. J

OINT FAMILY PROPERTY AND PARTITION (New Delhi: Orient Publishing

Co.)

Brown, Jennifer, Kripa Ananthpur, and Renee Giovarelli, 2002. Women’s Access and Rights to

Land in Karnataka State, RDI

REPORTS ON FOREIGN AID AND DEVELOPMENT NO. 114.

Brown, Jennifer, and Sujata Das Chowdhury, 2002. Women’s Land Rights in West Bengal: A

Field Study, RDI Reports on Foreign Aid and Development No. 116.

Das, Sakmar 2000. A Critical Evaluation of Land Reforms in India (1950-1995), in L

AND

REFORMS IN INDIA: AN UNFINISHED AGENDA, Sinha and Pushpende, eds.

Datta, Namita, n.d. Joint titling – A win-win policy ? Gender and property rights in urban

informal settlements in India. http://yale.edu/ycias/iac/wwpapers/Datta.doc

Deere, Diana and Magdalena Leon, 2001. E

MPOWERING WOMEN (Pittsburgh: University of

Pittsburgh Press).

Divekar, G.M. 1999. L

AW OF HINDU CO-PARCENARY 2D (Pune: Hind Law House)

Gopal, Gita,1993. Gender and Economic Inequality in India: The Legal Connection, B

OSTON

COLLEGE THIRD WORLD LAW JOURNAL.

Government of India (GOI), Ministry of Rural Development, A

NNUAL REPORT 2000-2001.

GOI, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, A

NNUAL REPORT 2002-2003.

GOI, Ministry of Rural Development’s Guidelines for Indira Awaas Yojana (IAY), effective April

1, 2004 (on file at RDI).

Gupta, Jayoti, 2002. Women Second in Land Agenda, E

CONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY, May

4, 2002

Hanstad, Tim, Jennifer Brown, and Roy Prosterman, 2002. Larger Homestead Plots as Land

Reform: International Experience and Analysis from Karnataka, E

CONOMIC AND POLITICAL

WEEKLY (July 20, 2002).

ICRW, 2006. Property Ownership and Inheritance Rights of Women for Social Protection- The

South Asia Experience: Synthesis report of three studies.

Ikdahl, Ingunn, Anne Hellum, et al., 2005. Human Rights, Formalisation and Women’s Land

Rights in Southern and Eastern Africa, Studies in Women’s Law No. 57 (Oslo: University of

Oslo)

Kodoth, Praveena, 2005. Fostering Insecure Livelihoods: Dowry and Female Seclusion in Left

Development Contexts in West Bengal and Kerala, E

CONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY (June

18, 2005).

Madan, Vishwa Lochan, 2002. S

ALE & PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES: A LEGAL GUIDE (Delhi:

Universal Law Publishing)

Mukund, K., 1999, Women’s Property Rights in South India: A Review, E

CONOMIC AND

POLITICAL WEEKLY (May 29, 1999).

Quisumbing Agnes R., et al, 1995. Women the Key to Food Security, Food Policy Report:

International Food Policy Research Institute. Father’s Money, Mother’s Money, and Parental

Commitment: Guatemala and Nicaragua, in E

NGENDERING WEALTH AND WELL-BEING:

EMPOWERMENT FOR GLOBAL CHANGE, Rae Blumberg, et al., eds. (Boulder: Westview);

Rajan, M.S., 1986. L

AND REFORMS IN KARNATAKA: AN ACCOUNT BY A PARTICIPANT

OBSERVER (New Delhi: South Asia Books)

Rao, Nitya, 2005. Women’s Rights to Land and Assets, E

CONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY,

October 29, 2005

Sen, Amartya K., 1990. Gender and Cooperative Conflicts, in P

ERSISTENT INEQUALITIES:

WOMEN AND WORLD DEVELOPMENT, Irene Tinker, ed. (New York: Oxford University Press)

SMS-ICRW, 2002. The Shalishi in West Bengal: A Community Response to Domestic Violence.

Sridevan, Srinath, 2004. Property Plus: The Muslim Law of Succession, T

HE HINDU, August 7,

2004 and August 21, 2004.

UNDP, 1997. H

UMAN DEVELOPMENT REPORT

Walker, Cherryl, 2003. Piety in the Sky? Gender Policy and Land Reform in South Africa, in

GRARIAN CHANGE, GENDER AND LAND RIGHTS, ed. Shahra Razavi (UNRISD Publication)

(Oxford: Blackwell Publication).

World Bank (Klaus Deininger), 2003. L

AND POLICIES FOR GROWTH AND POVERTY REDUCTION,

World Bank Policy Research Report (Washington D.C.: World Bank).