Who did we think would provide "Shelter for All"? We would. I don’t mean the handful of us that happened to work in Development Alternatives, but the architects with their "cluster designs", the engineers with their "cost-effective" building materials, planners with their "policy frameworks", bureaucrats with their "schemes", NGOs with their "social objectives" and politicians with their "vote catching" slogans.

During the next decade, we had added even more experts to play their well crafted tunes in this orchestra of never-ending hope. Not so long ago, the composers amongst us went to the extent of recognising that "industry should be involved in housing". And then in honour of our professional gurus, came grudging acknowledgement of the dictum that, "People will be major role players in the shelter process".

At some point in time, this group has learnt how to ask itself the question, "Have we been able to provide shelter for all ?" but not get too serious about the answer. Almost all of us are honest enough to admit that we still have a long way to go. The housing gap, in terms of both quality and quantity, is widening. At Vancouver, Istanbul and every conference in between or after, we have debated the finer points of how we could close the gap, but rarely stopped to ask the question "Will we ever be able to ?" Or perhaps, the question has been asked and asked often enough. The answers, however, have been peripheral and sometimes self-serving - more resources, new design concepts, advanced technology, private financing and so on.

Ten years hence, will the situation have changed? Maybe not, but it is our belief that it can. To do so, our definition of "we" itself must change to mean, and not just include, the real builders of India - the vast number of building material producers, masons and small contractors who are, in fact, the only source accessible to the poor for improved shelter. People whom we tend to call "them". "Shelter for All" will be a reality if "they" become the "we" in the title of this piece.

These entrepreneurs, in the broadest sense of the term, are the best and perhaps only means to deliver building material and services on a widespread, decentralised scale at a rate that actually closes the housing gap. They have distinct advantages over other role players that presume to play a meaningful role in the supply chain :

One may, on the other hand, legitimately ask why, with all these advantages, the building material producers and village masons have not been able to provide adequate shelter. The answer is that they also have serious shortcomings, the biggest being that they do not have the capacity to meet increased and changing demand from a depleted and significantly altered resource base. They cannot conduct their own research and development or invest in new technology packages and tools. Moreover, they operate in extremely depressed market conditions where people prefer to wait for housing benefits from the government.

These are shortcomings that the "we" of today can help remove by first learning what the problems of our real builders are. By using our immense intellectual and infrastructural resources to develop responsive solutions and by then organising technical, financial and managerial supports for enterprise based production and marketing systems. Such a shift in attitude and approach will revitalise housing processes.