Jammu and Kashmir’s top ranking among Union Territories in the implementation of the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana–Urban (PMAY-U and PMAY-U 2.0) is a milestone that cannot be brushed aside as mere statistical noise. With 45,112 houses sanctioned and Central assistance of Rs 534.75 crore released against an approved Rs 714.86 crore, the UT has clearly emerged as the biggest beneficiary of the flagship urban housing programme in its category. At a time when shelter insecurity and informal housing continue to scar our urban landscape, this performance deserves acknowledgement. The latest Annual Report 2025–26 of the Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs underlines how far J&K has moved ahead of its peers. Delhi follows with 31,670 houses sanctioned, while Dadra & Nagar Haveli and Daman & Diu, Chandigarh, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep are far behind. On paper, then, J&K is not merely a participant but the frontrunner in the race to secure a pucca roof for every eligible urban family. Yet, as always in our context, the real story begins where the numbers end. The report itself points to steady progress over the previous accounting period, with Central assistance climbing from Rs 523.48 crore to Rs 534.75 crore, and completion of 31,173 houses out of 39,153 sanctioned under the ‘Housing for All’ banner. This raises a set of questions that must now dominate the public conversation: Who exactly is getting these houses? Are the most vulnerable urban poor, slum dwellers, migrant workers, widows and single women being prioritised, or do the benefits disproportionately accrue to the better connected? Equally important is the quality and location of these units. A house on paper is one thing; a liveable home with a reliable water supply, sanitation, power, access roads, schools and healthcare nearby is quite another. If PMAY-U houses are pushed to peripheral locations without supporting infrastructure or livelihood opportunities, they risk becoming vertical slums of tomorrow. The ‘Housing for All’ slogan must therefore be interpreted as ‘Habitable Housing for All’, integrated, serviced and dignified urban habitats. Transparency in beneficiary selection, grievance redressal and social audit of these projects is crucial. J&K’s leading position should come with higher standards of disclosure, not complacency. Urban local bodies and the Housing and Urban Development Department must open their data and planning processes to scrutiny from councillors, civil society and resident groups. J&K has shown that it can absorb Central funds and execute a large housing programme better than other UTs. The next challenge is to ensure that these houses do not become mere entries in a report, but anchors of dignity and stability for the poorest urban families. Only then will the UT’s impressive ranking translate into a genuinely transformative housing story.
