Assessing Impact of Earthquake Safety

Initiatives in

Uttarakhand (India)

A Report

Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre

Department of Disaster Management

Government of Uttarakhand

Dehradun – 248 001

Uttarakhand (India)

April, 2007

Assessing Impact of Earthquake Safety

Initiatives in

Uttarakhand (India)

Piyoosh Rautela

Shailendra Kumar

Manoj Pande

Kailash Chandra Pande

Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre

Department of Disaster Management

Government of Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand Secretariat

Rajpur Road, Dehradun – 248 001

Uttarakhand (India)

April, 2007

Preface

Geodynamic evolutionary history and ongoing tectonism together render the

Himalayan terrain highly vulnerable to seismic risk. The entire State of Uttarakhand falls in

identified high seismic risk zone (Zone V and IV of Seismic Risk Zonation Map of India) and has

witnessed two major quakes in the recent past (1991 Uttarkashi and 1999 Chamoli). Absence of a

large magnitude (M > 8 on Richter Scale) seismic event in the region in the recorded history

further enhances the seismic risk.

A large number of agencies have been propagating seismic risk reduction

measures in the region; mainly after the region witnessed seismic events, and particularly so in

the areas that have suffered in these earthquakes. The population groups having suffered due to

disasters are generally considered to be receptive to disaster awareness drives; it is therefore

logical to conclude that the populations around Chamoli and Uttarkashi would be the most

aware in disaster related issues. This logical conclusion however needs to be supported by

impact assessment study that is lacking.

Impact assessment is an important exercise that is required to be carried out for

multitudes of reasons and it paves way for devising appropriate changes in the interventions so

as to make these more effective. This report is thus an effort to highlight major achievements as

also shortfalls in the efforts made in the past so as to improvise accordingly. Detailed survey

using structured questionnaires was carried out in the two identified areas in February, 2007.

Authors are thankful to Shri N.S. Napalchyal, Principal Secretary, Disaster

Management, Government of Uttarakhand for guidance, support and encouragement. The

administration of both Uttarkashi and Chamoli districts is thanked for extending support for

fieldwork.

Shri Veer Singh Rawat, Shri Mohan Rathore and Miss Pooja Rawat are thanked

for tabulating the data for detailed analysis while all the colleagues at DMMC are thanked for

painstakingly going through the manuscript and suggesting improvements. Typesetting has been

taken care of by Shri Mohan Singh Rathore.

Financial support from Disaster Risk Management Programme of Ministry of

Home Affairs, Government of India – United Nations Development Programme is thankfully

acknowledged.

The ideas expressed in the report are those of the authors and these do not

necessarily represent the official policies of the Department of Disaster Management,

Government of Uttarakhand or Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre.

30.04.2007 (Piyoosh Rautela)

Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre

Uttarakhand Secretariat

Dehradun

Executive Director, DMMC

Executive Summary The Himalayan State of Uttarakhand is vulnerable to a number of natural

calamities and earthquake is a major concern of one and all; primarily because of the widespread

damage it can inflict. A few seconds of shaking earth can cripple the economy and roll back the

pace of growth and development and the magnitude of the human losses could well be beyond

our imagination.

A number of scientific studies have suggested this region (falling in the Seismic

Gap of 1905 Kangara Earthquake and 1934 Bihar – Nepal Earthquake) to be the possible site of a

future Great Earthquake (magnitude > 8.0 on Richter Scale). Preparations are therefore required

to be taken up at all levels to effectively manage any exigency arising out of seismic tremors.

These have to cover all the sectors involved in post-earthquake response and that too, in

unimaginably short time as we are running out of time; it is high time therefore to review what all

we have achieved and truthfully accept the shortfalls so as to be able to innovate upon the

ongoing vulnerability reduction strategy so as to make it effective and fruitful.

As is often repeated, seismic safe structures hold the key to earthquake

vulnerability reduction. Mass awareness, together with the competence, skill and dedication of

the workforce involved in construction has a major role to play in furthering these initiatives. Ill

trained manpower entrusted with the responsibility of delivering seismic safe environment and

inadequately aware masses are only going to complicate the scenario and further enhance our

seismic vulnerability. This study is an attempt to highlight important issues that require

immediate attention for making vulnerability reduction efforts effective. This study is based on

the response of three groups (masses, masons and engineers) that have distinct role to play for

leading the community towards seismic safety. 1604 common people, 220 masons and 42

engineers were interrogated during the course of the study. The study was deliberately restricted

to the areas that have suffered due to earthquakes in the past (Uttarkashi, 1991 and Chamoli,

1999) for these are more exposed to awareness and capacity building initiatives carried out on the

aftermath of these earthquakes by different agencies. This level can well be taken as the highest

for the entire State.

The study does not bring forth lot many facts that give us a cause for self

applause. There are however a number of flagged issues that warrant serious review of our

approach towards addressing this important issue. We need to truthfully accept that we are taking

this issue (seismic vulnerability reduction) rather casually and revamp the strategy altogether and

immediately; not waiting for yet another earthquake to test the level of our preparedness.

The study clearly reflects upon the fact that the efforts made so far for mass

awareness, as also capacity building are not delivering desired results. There are a number of

issues that need to be genuinely addressed for making the earthquake vulnerability reduction

related efforts meaningful. These include:

1. Major review of mass awareness strategy, so as to tailor these to be

acceptable to the masses.

2. Standardisation of separate mass awareness programs for different target

groups.

3. Elements of traditional construction practices need to be accorded their

due share of credit. Innovation upon indigenous elements is sought.

4. Mason training programs need institutionalization and standardisation.

5. All the players involved in construction industry (engineers, architects,

contractors, masons and bar benders) need to be targeted by awareness

and capacity building programs. Ignoring anyone down the chain would

not help.

6. Technical competence of all the players involved in construction at all

levels needs to be regulated by introduction of a mandatory clause to this

regard in the techno-legal regime.

7. Cost free circulation of the BIS Codes is the key to their compliance and

Bureau of Indian Standards should be requested for the same.

8. Risk transfer mechanism needs to be inbuilt in all new construction and

the corporate sector needs to be involved in furthering capacity building

initiatives.

Though identifying shortcomings in vulnerability reduction

efforts this study is not a fault - finding exercise and the recommendations need

to be followed up seriously. Cooperation from all quarters is required for making

both awareness and capacity building programs (relating to seismic vulnerability

reduction) more meaningful and effective.

Contents

Preface

1. Executive summary 1

2. Earthquake risk in Uttarakhand 3

3. Indigenous measures for earthquake safety 4

4. Disruption of the tradition 5

5. Seismic safety related efforts 5

6. Earthquake safety measures and impact assessment need 6

7. The outcome: Analysis of the responses 7

7.1. Popular survey 7 7.2. Mason’s survey 11

7.3. Engineer’s survey 14

8. Recommendations 15

9. References 17

Annexure – I 27

Annexure – II 34

Annexure – III 37

Annexure – IV 48

Annexure – V 54

Earthquake risk in Uttarakhand Himalaya, the northern frontier of the Indian subcontinent evolved as a result of

the subduction of the Indian Plate beneath the Eurasian Plate and its consequent collision

(continent - continent collision) with the same, consuming the intervening Tethys Sea1. This

resulted in the uplift, deformation, dislocation (thrusting and faulting) and metamorphism of the

intervening sediments. These have rendered the terrain highly fragile and prone to mass wastage.

Ongoing north - northeastward drift of the Indian Plate and the resulting built up of strain makes

this terrain highly vulnerable to earthquakes2, 3. The region has witnessed four Great Earthquakes

(Magnitude > 8 on Richter Scale) in the past (1897 Shillong Earthquake, 1905 Kangara

Earthquake, 1934 Bihar - Nepal Earthquake and 1950 Assam Earthquake) apart from Kumaun

Earthquake of 1720 and Garhwal Earthquake of 18034, 5. Regions between the rupture zones of

these Great Earthquakes are recognised as seismic gaps that are interpreted to have accumulated

potential slip for generating future great earthquakes.

Fig. 1: Earthquake damage risk map of India. Fig. 2: Earthquake damage risk map of Uttarakhand.

The state of Uttarakhand falls in the Seismic Gap of 1934 Bihar - Nepal

Earthquake and 1905 Kangara Earthquake and is categorized as falling in Zone IV and V of the

Earthquake Risk Map of India (Fig. 1 & 2). Having witnessed seismic events of lesser magnitude

(1991 Uttarkashi Earthquake, 1999 Chamoli Earthquake) this region has been identified as a

potential site of a future catastrophic earthquake2. With the growth of population and

infrastructure seismic vulnerability has increased and previous earthquakes have provided a

glimpse of the devastating potential of seismic tremors.

Indigenous measures for earthquake safety

Fig. 3: Traditional multistoried house in Rajgarhi

(Yamuna valley).

The people habitating the

rugged Himalayan terrain

witnessed the fury of earthquakes

(Chalak in Kumauni; the local

parlance) ever since they chose to

settle in this region. Accepting the

challenge put forth by nature they

attempted ways of protecting them

and their community from nature’s

wrath and evidences suggest

relatively early evolution of the

elements of earthquake safe

construction in the region.

Undeterred by the threat

high structures being razed to

ground by seismic tremors

construction of high rise structures

was in vogue in the region and

even today apart from cattle sheds

it is hard to locate single storied

houses in the region. There exist

different words to identify four

different floors in both the local

dialects of the region; in Kumauni

(ground floor, goth; first floor,

chaak; second floor, paan; third

floor, chaj) and in Garhwali

(ground floor, kholi; first floor,

manjua; second floor, baund; third

floor, baraur).

Incorporation of unique terms for identifying individual floors in the local

dialect is suggestive of their frequent use. This implies common occurrence of four storied houses

in the region. Magnificant four to five storied structures can still be observed in Yamuna and

Bhagirathi valleys. These have survived many earthquakes and lack of the elements of earthquake

safety would have razed these to ground. Highlights of the technology utilized for erecting multistoried houses is observed to be commonly used in other structures of the region as well.

This includes, i) the use of thick wooden logs running through the entire length of each of the

walls alternately with heavy stones; ii) at the corners the edges of the pair of logs on the adjacent

walls are joined together by hammering thick wooden nails through them. This has the effect of

turning the structure into a single piece construction like the beam of the modern construction;

and iii) all the windows, doorways, ventilators and floor- joists are joined to these well-secured

pairs of logs and these further strengthened the structure.

There was a tradition of carefully selecting the construction site and detailing the

various foundation related aspects. The foundation was dug till the hard rock or a large boulder

(dal in Kumaoni) was reached. The foundation was then left open for long durations, before the

commencement of construction. According to the tradition the foundation should have witnessed

seven monsoons before the construction. This helped in minimizing ground subsidence after the

construction.

The previous couple of decades have witnessed weakening of the social fabric of

the hill communities in Himalaya and with this many age-old traditional practices of resource

management, that drew strength from social cohesion, are loosing ground. The traditional

construction practice that had many elements of earthquake safety has also been relegated to the

back seat with the onslaught of cement based modern construction practice. This is owed to; i)

restriction upon traditional rights to forest for timber and stone, ii) increasing restrictions upon

felling and quarrying, iii) increasing cost of timber due to growing demand and ease of

transportation, iv) social status attached with concrete buildings even though these are less energy

efficient and unsuited to the cold climate, v) local artisans switching to concrete construction for

the lack of patronization.

The traditional stone – wood based construction has been abandoned in the

region and cement is being utilized for most new constructions. At present the region is

witnessing infrastructure growth at a never before pace and switching over of the construction

material without appropriate technological interventions (engineering standards associated with

cement based construction) is bound to jeopardize seismic safety of the populations. Drawing

confidence from cement based construction multistoried houses are haphazardly being

constructed in the seismically vulnerable zone without appropriate technical inputs. Lack of

suitable building bye laws and landuse regulations further complicate the scenario. This has

added to the seismic vulnerability of the population residing in this region.

Managing seismic vulnerability is a major challenge requiring systematic

studies to underline core issues for immediate interventions so as to bring forth

appropriate results. Conginence of the traditional practices of the region and

improvisation upon the same has the potential of putting forth cost effective and

acceptable models of earthquake safe construction in the region.

Seismic safety related efforts The State of Uttarakhand has witnessed two major earthquake events in the

recent past (1991 Uttarkashi and 1999 Chamoli) that caused massive loss of human lives and

infrastructure. Both these earthquakes occurred in the wee hours when the entire population was

indoors and this enhanced human losses in these events.

The Utatrkashi Earthquake of 20th October, 1991 (02hrs: 53 min: 16.4sec.; IST)

was of magnitude 6.6 (on Richter Scale) and its epicenter was located at 30.75° N latitude and

78.86° E longitude with the focus lying at a depth of 12 kilometers. This moderate magnitude

earthquake caused havoc in Uttarkashi and nearby areas that took toll of 769 human lives. The

Chamoli Earthquake of 29th March, 1999 (00hrs: 35 min: 13.4sec.; IST) was of magnitude 6.8 (on

Richter Scale). It caused extensive damage to property and took toll of 103 human lives. With a

focal depth of 21 kilometers the quake had its epicenter at 30.41° N latitude and 79.42° E

longitude. The effects of the earthquake were observed in six districts of the state that include

Chamoli, Rudraprayag, Tehri Garhwal, Bageshwar, Uttarkashi and Pauri Garhwal with Chamoli

and Rudraprayag witnessing comparatively severe impact.

Devastation caused by these earthquakes drew attention of disaster managers

around the country and abroad towards seismic vulnerability of the region and a number of

programs were consequently launched for reducing earthquake vulnerability of the populations

residing in this region. Apart from scientific investigations that focused on seismic

microzonation, efforts were made to train the human resource engaged in the construction related

initiatives (architects, engineers and masons) in earthquake safe construction techniques. Of these

the training of masons has the most important bearing upon the seismic safety as most building

stock (~ 99 percent) in the region is constructed by the masons without formal engineering inputs.

Together with this, the mass awareness is a must for bringing forth voluntary compliance of

earthquake safety norms. Massive awareness drives were thus launched to sensitise the masses on

the earthquake related issues. The State Government on its part issued orders making earthquake

resistant construction mandatory in all regulated areas (Annexure – I).

These efforts were subsequently extended to other districts of the State and at

present a massive awareness and capacity building programme (Disaster Risk Management

Programme) is being operated in 08 (Dehradun, Tehri, Chamoli, Uttarkashi, Rudraprayag,

Nainital, Bageshwar and Pithoragarh) out of 13 districts of the State with the support of

Government of India and United Nations Development Programme. Large number of persons

have so far been covered by awareness drive and trained in earthquake resistant construction

techniques under this program (Annexure – II) and it is perceived that these initiatives would

result in reduced seismic vulnerability of the masses.

The various agencies imparting seismic vulnerability reduction related capacity

building and awareness programs however do not adhere to a common minimum standard and

duration and content of these programs are arbitrarily decided upon and adjusted to suite

organizational convenience, as also the availability of the experts. This must therefore be

reflected differentially in the performance levels of the trainees as also upon the impact of these

programs.

Earthquake safety measures & impact assessment need The awareness levels of the masses as also the receptivity of the masses to

disaster safety measures has direct bearing upon voluntary compliance of the disaster safety

provisions and thus upon disaster vulnerability of the population. Level of all these important

factors within any community is generally perceived to be a function of the disaster exposure of

the population groups under question. The populations that have witnessed earthquake induced

losses in the recent past are therefore expected to have high impact of the awareness and capacity

building related efforts.

The people of both Uttarkashi and Chamoli that have witnessed devastating

earthquakes in recent past are therefore expected to show high impact of vulnerability reduction

efforts. At the same time the masons practicing in these areas, after undergoing training programs

on earthquake safe construction practices, are expected to deliver the required safety standards in

their routine construction.

Despite undertaking vulnerability reduction efforts for a long time no effort has

so far been made to assess the impact. Lack of impact assessment leads one to assume that the

desired impact is being made and this hampers efforts to improvise upon the ongoing strategy.

Impact assessment is thus an important exercise for highlighting the weaknesses of any initiative

so as to improve upon the same for better results.

The study is aimed at assessing the adequacy of the vulnerability reduction

efforts so as to pave way for tailoring these to be more effective. To achieve this aim a detailed

study was undertaken in earthquake affected Uttarkashi and Chamoli districts. Structured

questionnaires were designed (in vernacular) for three user groups that include common masses,

masons and engineers. These questionnaires were designed to seek information upon the levels of

awareness of the respondents on traditional disaster management related practices as also the

impact of the recent interventions.

The outcome: Analysis of the responses Structured questionnaires were utilized for assessing the impact of the recent

vulnerability reduction interventions, as also awareness levels of the respondents on disaster

related issues. The entire survey was designed to have response of the three target groups;

common people, masons and engineers. Separate questionnaires were prepared for these target

groups. Apart from the township of Uttarkashi, Chamoli and Gopeshwar responses were sought

from villages that had suffered losses in the previous earthquake events in the region. Every effort

was made in the survey to ensure representation of every section of the respondent community.

Popular survey The perception of the masses is the reflection of the levels of their awareness and

therefore a detailed survey was carried out in the two areas affected by earthquakes; i.e. Chamoli

and Uttarkashi (Fig. 4). It is generally perceived that the populations that have suffered due to

earthquakes would be better exposed to best practices for minimizing the losses occurring in the

event of a similar disaster striking the area again. The survey was carried out with an aim to

assess the attitude of the masses towards the disasters (particularly earthquake). District wise

details of the analysis of the responses are given in Annexure III.

Coverage Area: Apart from the townships of Gopeshwar, Chamoli, Bhatwari and Uttarkashi responses were sought from 19 villages around Chamoli and 30 villages around Uttarkashi that

include Bairagna, Balla, Devaldhar, Devar, Gangolgaon, Gardi, Ghingran, Gogal, Khadora,

Khalla, Kunj, Pavaldhar (Devaldhar), Sagar, Saikot, Sirokhoma, Siron, Tilfara, Vijrakot, Virahi,

villages of Chamoli district and Agoda, Athali, Baila Tipri, Bandrani, Bargana, Bhankoli, Bogari,

Dhanpur, Didsari, Dikthol, Fold, Ganeshpur (Gawana), Ginda (Manpur), Heena (Bhatwari), Iid,

Jamak, Kishanpur, Kyark, Lata, Malla, Maneri, Manpur, Mastadi, Nakuri (Upli), Netala, Pahi,

Raithal, Shiror and Thalan villages of Uttarkashi district

The Respondents: Every effort was made to have representation of the entire cross section of the community in the study. Most of the respondents were elderly; 34 percent being aged more

than 50 years and another 23 percent falling in the age group of 40 – 50 years. 29 percent were in

30 – 40 years age group with only 14 percent being less than 30 years in age. 28 percent of the

respondents were illiterate with 35 percent being educated up to 8th standard, 16 percent up to

high school standard, 10 percent up to intermediate standard and the rest (11%) having attended

college. Monthly income of majority of the respondents (41%) was between Rupees 1000 and

5000 with only 6 percent having monthly incomes exceeding Rupees 5000.

Other Disasters: Despite having witnessed the wrath of earthquakes the masses seemed concerned by recurring losses incurred due to landslides and flashfloods with 39 and 10 percent

of the respondents respectively rating landslides and flash floods as prime threats for the region.

This is a reflection of the short lived mass memory and if true this is bound to be reflected at

other places in the survey as well. 42 percent of the respondents rated this threat as being severe,

with 41 percent rating it as high and 10 percent as normal.

Traditional construction practices: Masses generally have strong emotional attachment with their traditional dwellings and they at the same time derive a sense of pride in describing the

strengths of the structures traditionally prevalent in their region. They were thus expected to

enumerate positive attributes of the traditional architecture but having witnessed large scale

collapse of traditional houses in the previous earthquakes a distinct bias in favour of the modern

construction practices is reflected all through in the study. Most of the respondents (78%)

acknowledged that the traditional houses incurred more losses in the previous earthquakes. 34

percent of the respondents attributed this to these houses being old and ill maintained while

another 32 percent attributed this to the structures being inherently weak due to the use of

inappropriate construction material (stone and mud mortar). 7 percent of the respondents

attributed this loss to the lack of appropriate technological inputs in the traditional structures and

craftsmanship with 4 percent attributing the losses to the severity of the quake.

Fig. 4: Map showing epicenters of 1991 Uttarkashi and 1999 Chamoli earthquakes together with the location of

habitations covered by the study.

The masses however do not altogether reject the traditional construction practices

and an appreciable proportion (51%) still considers traditional houses to be safer than the modern

houses even though only 30 percent acknowledge earthquake safety as being a consideration in

these structures. This respondent group also is not unanimous on the construction details that

provide earthquake safety in traditional houses; majority attribute this to the use strong wooden

frames around the openings (29%) with strength of the traditional building material (14%), broad,

solid and strong walls (10%), small openings (10%), quality of the masonry work (9%), liberal

use of wood (9%) together with small and appropriate shape of the structure in keeping with the

construction site (4%), use of through stone (4.5%) and strong, deep and wide foundation (4%)

being other safety related considerations. Judicious site selection (2%), light structure (1.5%),

strong and light roof (1%) and craftsmanship of the traditional masons (0.5%) are some of the

other reasons put forth for better seismic performance of the traditional buildings.

Majority of the respondents (55%) consider site selection to be an elaborate affair

in traditional construction. Meticulous observation of the construction site is the main component

of this for the majority (69%) which includes assessing safety and stability of the site with regard

to previous disaster incidences as also bank erosion with flat stony site being preferred. Soil

examination based upon the moisture content and compactness seems to be a major site selection

criteria cited by 17 percent while 12 percent regard consultation with experienced and specialized

persons including priests and astrologers as the major consideration. Most persons (91%)

acknowledge that services of specialized persons are resorted to for site selection and priest

(50%) and astrologer (26%) are identified as the persons providing this service. This advice,

according to the people, is extended on the basis of astronomical calculations (41%), observation

of the soil of the proposed construction site (20%), personal experience and accumulated

knowledge (16%) as also physical observation of the construction site (13%). Most of the

respondents (89%) accepted that the traditional procedure of site selection is still practiced.

Large majority of the people (60%) asserted that particular care was traditionally

taken with regard to the foundation of the structures. They could not however describe specific

details related to these provisions. 44 percent attributed this to deep, wide foundation of the

traditional structures. The same was interestingly contradicted by 7 percent of the respondents (all

in Chamoli) who said that the shallow foundation was in vogue in the area. The principles of site

selection were repeated by 13 percent while time gap and stone masonry work were highlighted

by 9 percent each. Some even attributed strength of the foundation of the traditional structures to

the use of cow dung, gold, silver and brass in the same. The respondents were divided over the

depth of the foundation in traditional structures; 31 percent considered it to be more than 3 feet

deep, while 30 percent considered it to be 2 – 3 feet deep. As against popular belief regarding

appearance of solid rock in the foundation as being mandatory 65 percent of the respondents said

that the construction was traditionally resorted to at the chosen site even if solid rock did not

appear while digging the foundation. 54 percent of the respondents accepted that time gap was

resorted to between digging up of foundation and initiation of construction. Exact duration of this

gap could however not be specified unanimously and it was described as varying between 3 – 6

months by 27 percent and being less than one month by 12 percent of the respondents. The time

gap was considered to vary between 1-3 months by 9 percent and being more than one year by 6

percent of the respondents. 54 percent of the respondents said that the rainy season was

particularly considered while digging up foundation and 78 percent said that these foundation

related provisions are still practiced in the region.

Earthquake safety according to majority of the respondents (39%) is owed to

appropriate site selection with 28 percent attributing it to the detailing of the foundation, 20

percent to the quality of the masonry work and 8 percent to the technical advice by an engineer.

As regards strong and weak points of the traditional structures masses showed

consensus on certain points. Strong and elaborate masonry work using large dressed stones

(17%), use of through stones (16%), foundation detailing (13%), broad walls (13%), use of wood

(8%) and strong wooden frame around openings (16%) are described as the strong points of the

traditional construction together with light structure (5%), small, compact and even shaped

structure (5%) built using strong material (3%) with small openings (3%). It is clearly brought out

by the study that the masses, having witnessed large scale collapse of the traditional structures,

consider cement based construction technique to be superior and safer. The use of local material

and mud mortar based masonry work are therefore described as weak points of the traditional

structures by 28 and 21 percent of the respondents respectively. 19 percent attribute this to weak

and relatively heavy roofs, 13 percent to the non-use of appropriate construction technology and

construction material with 5 percent attributing it to wide, heavy walls.

Strength and earthquake safety in modern structures is clearly acknowledged as

emanating from the use of cement (43%) and resorting to beam – column structure (33%). It is

interesting to note that framed structures are non-existent in the region. Lintel roof is considered

to be safer by 9 percent while 7 percent attribute safety to detailing of foundation with only 4

percent attributing it to the use of appropriate technology. Relatively narrow brick walls are

considered as being weak by 35 percent of the respondents, while inappropriate site selection

(16%), heavy and huge construction (11%), fast pace of construction (11%), carelessness and

negligence of safety provisions due to lack of training and awareness (10%), heavy roof (6%) and

large openings (1%) are described as other factors contributing to weakness in modern structures.

Previous earthquake events and the perceived losses: Both the areas covered by the study were were by earthquakes in recent past (Uttarkashi Earthquake, 1991, M 6.6 on Richter Scale

and Chamoli Earthquake, 1999; M 6.8 on Richter Scale). Interestingly enough 7 percent of the

respondents could not recall their area ever being affected by an earthquake and significant

number of those remembering the event could not recall the year rightly.

Most people do not have any idea of relative vulnerability and 62 percent said

that the community was equally affected by the event. The enlightened 35 percent owed

differential losses to weak structures constructed using wood, stone and mud mortar (58%),

houses being old and lacking maintenance (19%) and inappropriate site selection (9%). Severity

of the earthquake, quality of construction together with design and shape related aspects were

also held responsible for the differential losses.

Despite being exposed to awareness drives on earthquake safe construction only

38 percent of the respondents agreed that the losses incurred during the previous earthquakes (of

1991 and 1999) could have been minimized. This according to them could have been done by

propagation of seismic safe construction technology (51%), promotion of beam-column and RCC

based construction practices (13%), capacity building of the masons (12%), disaster awareness

(8%), construction of strong houses (6%) and appropriate site selection (5%).

Majority accepted that the strong and well built houses can reduce the losses

likely to be incurred by earthquake (97%). It is however interesting to note that an appreciable

proportion of the respondents (24%) were unaware of earthquake resistant construction

technology but still 87 percent of the respondents showed inclination towards spending a bit more

for the cause of earthquake safety.

Post Earthquake Changes: Almost everyone (96%) agreed that awareness level of the masses on earthquake safety related issues has improved after the previous earthquakes (of 1991 and

1999) and building construction style in the region has witnessed change since then (88%). For an

overwhelming large proportion of the respondents (48%) it has been the change in building

material and interestingly enough the use of beam – column structure (17%). Others perceived it

as the onslaught of new type of houses over the traditional houses (10%), use of earthquake

resistant construction technology (9%), detailing of foundation (1%) and lintel in place of

traditional wood – slate roofs (1%).

Despite most houses in the region being constructed with cement traditional

masons (mostly trained in stone masonry works) are preferred (56%); largely so around Chamoli

(70%). Trust (20%), expertise in handling local situations (21%), familiarity (15%), confidence

upon their knowledge which is largely traditional (14%) and craftsmanship (12%) are cited as the

reasons for preferring them. Ready availability (8%), cost effectiveness (3%), efficiency (2%)

and ease of communication (1%) are cited as other reasons for preferring the traditional masons.

Those preferring the masons from outside described their efficiency (31%), workmanship (22%),

technical competence and knowledge (24%) together with experience (21%) as the reasons for

doing so.

Competence of the masons undoubtedly has a decisive bearing upon the strength

of the building but it is hard to believe 49 percent of the respondents who assert that earthquake

safe construction related knowledge of the masons is a consideration for entrusting them

construction related responsibility. Almost all the respondents (97%) agreed that the masons with

knowledge of earthquake safe construction techniques would be preferred in case the same are

easily available and would therefore command more work. 8 percent of the respondents however

expressed hesitation over paying the trained masons a bit more.

Efforts for reducing earthquake induced losses: Less than half the respondents (41%) were aware of any disaster management related efforts being made by the State and other agencies

(including NGOs). Major proportion (49%) identified these efforts with post disaster relief and

other mitigative / welfare measures (erosion control measures and IAY houses). People were

however not totally ignorant of other measures and awareness (25%) and capacity building (21%)

efforts were cited by the masses. As regards shortcomings in the program majority of the

respondents listed out their dissatisfaction with the relief; 19 percent described relief as being

discriminatory while 23 percent described it as not being extended timely and being

inappropriate. 40 percent of the respondents described awareness programs to be organized

without appropriate facilities and lacking public involvement, not providing information on the

benefits being extended by the government, having limited reach, not being organized regularly,

not covering remote areas, providing inadequate and shallow information that amount to wastage

of public money. 9 percent of the respondents described mason training program as not being

rendered due attention and not being conducted at regular intervals. The duration of the same was

described as too short so as to be of any practical use afterwards. 3 percent described the efforts

as being carried out without required sincerity and commitment while another 3 percent

complained for not so effective and aggressive propagation of earthquake resistant construction

technology.

Low level of awareness on earthquake safety measures is attributed to long time

interval between successive earthquakes (23%), lack of technical know how (30%), lack of

awareness (24%) and lack of resources (22%). Most suggestions for popularizing disaster

resistant construction technology revolved around awareness generation through aggressive

advertisement campaigns as also capacity building of masons and engineers. Economic incentives

for adopting safer technological options and stringent building bye laws are the other suggestions

put forth for the same.

Mason’s survey Most houses in the region are constructed solely by the masons without specific

engineering inputs. The house owner generally finalisises rough outlay of the proposed structure

and the construction material (mud - stone or brick – cement) while all other finer details

pertaining to the construction are left to the discretion of the mason entrusted with the

responsibility of construction work. Seismic performance of the structure is therefore a direct

function of the knowledge, skill, experience and acumen of the mason.

After the region was jolted by earthquakes in 1991 (Uttarkashi Earthquake) and

1999 (Chamoli Earthquake) a number agencies started working on earthquake safety related

aspects which include capity building of the masons. The State government has also been

imparting training to the masons on earthquake safe construction practices through its various

programs. It is therefore natural to expect (after 08 and 16 years of Chamoli and Uttarkashi

earthquakes respectively) majority of the masons practicing in this region to be conversant with

earthquake safe construction practices. Present study is an attempt to document masonry practices

in vogue in the area and critical analysis of the same is expected to pave way for a structured,

unified, certified and centralized training program for the masons that brings forth positive

changes in construction practices (if the same are not reflected in this study).

The areas chosen for the present study is ideal for assessing the impact of

masons’ training programs because of two basic reasons. Firstly, the masses around these

earthquake effected areas are expected to be aware and responsive to various earthquake safety

provisions and this is expected to be reflected in voluntary compliance of the safety provisions as

also higher demand for trained masons. Secondly, the masons practicing in this region (having

been exposed to repeated training and exposure programs) are expected to be well versed with

earthquake safe construction practices which they are expected to be translating into their routine

practice. At the same time the demand from the masses is expected to be an incentive for the

masons to undertake training programs for improving their performance.

The respondents: The survey covered 220 randomly selected masons from Bamiyala, Birahi, Devaldhar, Devar, Dogdi, Doggi, Gangal, Gangolgaon, Gari, Ghingaran, Ghudsal, Khadora,

Kilodi, Kumgang, Saikot, Sonla, Tilfara and Virajkot villages of Chamoli district and Agoda,

Athali, Bandrani, Baunga, Chakon, Dadsari, Dhanpur, Ginda, Hina, Jamak, Kishanpur, Kyarki,

Mailtipari, Majyagaon, Malla, Manpur, Mastadi, Netala, Siraur and Thati villages of Uttarkashi

district. District wise details of the analysis of the responses are given in Annexure IV. As expected large proportion of the respondents (30%) were illiterate with

another 53 percent being educated till 8th standard. Majority of the respondents (47%) were well

experienced falling in the age group of more than 40 years with another 42 percent falling in the

age group of 30-40 years. Most respondents (61%) had experience of more than 10 years. It was

not however a familial occupation for 32 percent of the respondents and only 54 percent had

learnt the intricacies of the occupation within the family. Interestingly enough 35 percent took

more than 3 years in mastering the work. Half the masons (50%) accepted to have been trained in

stone masonry works but there seemed no hesitation amongst them in undertaking brick masonry

works.

The quality of construction and construction practices: All the respondents accepted grave threat of earthquake in their region and 6 percent of the respondents truthfully accepted that the

houses constructed by them could very well crumble down during an earthquake. There seemed

lack of unanimity amongst the masons on the measures adopted by them to provide required

levels of earthquake safety; 29 percent cited strong, deep and graded foundation as the main

element of earthquake safe houses while 16 percent attributed this to the use of beams and

columns, 6 percent to stone joints, 9 percent to stable construction site, 13 percent to the use of

large stones in foundation and strong masonry work and 2 percent to the use of through stone.

This raises a serious doubt on the professional competence of the masons to construct seismic

safe houses. This in turn unfolds a major challenge of assessing seismic safety of the structures

these masons had been constructing all through.

The study clearly shows that the masses are shunning the traditional practice of

stone masonry construction with wood - slate roofs and are fast adopting brick - cement masonry

with concrete roofs; high social status attached to the cement houses being an incentive for doing

so. Reacting to the demand the masons on their part are taking up cement based construction

assignments without technical competence to do so. The ones taking up responsibility of capacity

building of the masons are mostly restricting themselves to achieving their targets rather working

for systematic and scientific transfer of technology.

The study shows that the masses consider beam and column as the cornerstone of

seismic safety even though framed houses are not in vogue in the area. Columns are generally

erected along with the load bearing walls that have bands at various levels (plinth, door and

lintel). In view of the overriding importance being accorded to the columns detailing of the

reinforcement and bar bending related practices assume prime importance for determining

seismic performance of the building stock. Only 15 percent of the masons reportedly engaged

specialized manpower for bar bending. 74 percent claimed to take special care in bar bending so

as to provide desired levels of seismic safety; there was however clear lack of unanimity amongst

the masons regarding finer details. Not even a single mason could rightly specify the required

angle at which the bars have to be bent in the stirrups, leave apart the detailing of the

reinforcement in beams and columns. 11 percent of the masons decided upon these on the basis of

the roof area, diameter of the bars being used and column size. 20 percent actually said that the

bars are bent at 90 degrees in stirrups (as against the required 135°). 18 percent considered ties to

be the most important and they took special care to tie the bars at the joints. 19 percent said that

the detailing of reinforcement is taken care of but they could not spell out the basis for doing so

and it seemed that the detailing is based upon the experience and good judgment of the individual

mason. Heating of bars (as also safety related considerations) came out as an interesting practice

for bending the bars. The study indicates that this important aspect of seismic safety is grossly

being overlooked. Bar bending therefore needs to be accorded additional importance in future

training programs.

As has been stated previously, most houses are presently being constructed using

cement. Cement ratios in the mortar, utilization time of the mortar (a function of the setting time)

and water used for preparing the mortar thus become important factors determining the strength

of construction work, apart from other factors. For a day’s work 13 percent of the masons prepare

mortar just once, while another 25 percent prepares it twice. 23 percent however prepare the

mortar thrice while 10 percent prepare it four times with 4 percent preparing it more frequently.

14 percent actually decide upon the frequency of mortar preparation on the basis of the roof area.

Like the frequency of mortar preparation the quantity of water used for preparing mortar using a

bag of cement varied widely. For this 6 percent use up to 20 liters of water, 16 percent use 20 –

30 liters of water, 22 percent use 30 – 40 liters of water, 13 percent use 40 – 45 liters of water and

34 percent even use more than 45 liters of water. This clearly indicates that the masons have no

clear idea of the time within which the mortar should be used or exactly how much water should

be added for preparing the mortar. They utilize their good judgment and convenience for deciding

upon these important parameters.

Seismic safety and traditional houses: The region has witnessed major earthquakes that took heavy toll of the traditional houses (mainly owed to the lack of regular maintenance) and it is thus

no surprise for the masses to form a firm opinion against seismic safety related provisions of the

traditional houses. Going with the masses, only 43 percent of the masons considered traditional

houses as being seismically safe. As regards the particular seismic safety provisions of the

traditional houses; deep and wide foundation with large stone filling was cited by 17 percent, use

of through stones and stone joints was cited by 37 percent, detailed and meticulous stone masonry

work was cited by 13 percent, elaborate site selection was cited by 9 percent, use of mud mortar

was cited by 5 percent and use of wood was cited by 7 percent. 2 percent even attributed strength

of the traditional buildings to its small size and small sized openings (doors and windows).

Capacity building efforts: A large number of organizations (including the State Government) have put in appreciable resources for the capacity building of the masons. The present study

raises serious doubts on judicious use of these resources. The responses of the masons pertaining

to the basics of seismic safe construction are not in keeping with the efforts put in. Interestingly

enough, only 5 percent of the respondents have received formal training on earthquake safe

construction and it cannot be solely attribute to bias in sample selection. 67 percent of those

trained said that they did not learn anything new and useful in the training. They also accepted

that they do not remember what was taught to them. The organizations taking up responsibility of

the capacity building of masons should therefore review their capacity building strategy so as to

make these more effective.

It was encouraging to note that all the masons were enthusiastic for getting

trained on earthquake safe construction techniques and 80 percent even expressed willingness to

pay the course fees. 29 percent of the responders hoped that the trained masons would get more

work opportunities and 36 percent were optimistic on their commanding higher wages after

getting trained.

59 percent of the masons accepted that they are questioned on seismic safety

related aspects before imparting construction work. 88 percent of the masons said that they often

suggest on seismic safety related provisions and interestingly enough suggestions so put forth by

68 percent are actually accepted. This point highlights the importance of the masons in

propagating culture of seismic safety in the region. If the advice of not so competent mason

matters, the brigade of adequately trained masons would certainly change the whole scenario.

Unawareness of the masses is highlighted as a reason for not paying heed to mason’s advice on

seismic safety related measures.

Most masons (97%) agreed that awareness of the community would result in

more work and wages for masons trained in seismic safe construction. As regards popularization

of earthquake safe construction and masons training programs 10 percent said that the content of

the trainings programs should be simple while 29 percent said that the trainings should be

organized at regular intervals. Mass awareness and making earthquake safe construction

compulsory were some of the other suggestions so put forth.

Engineer’s survey For assessing the level of awareness of engineers on seismic safety related

aspects as also the problems faced by them in compliance of the safety provisions 42 practicing

engineers were interrogated around Gopeshwar and Uttarkashi. Most of these were young (68

percent being less than 40 years in age) diploma holders (76%). District wise details of the

analysis of the responses are given in Annexure V.

Half the responders truthfully accepted that earthquake resistant construction

techniques did not form a part of their educational (diploma / degree) curriculum. 40 percent of

the respondents truthfully accepted that they are not conversant with the provisions of earthquake

safe construction. 45 percent accepted that they do not refer to the BIS codes on earthquake safe

construction. Unavailability of the BIS codes was an alibi put forth by half for doing so while the

other half being engaged in minor construction works said that the BIS codes were of little use to

them. 17 percent of the respondents accepted that adequate attention is not paid to earthquake

safety related provisions in their routine work.

31 percent of the respondents had attended short term (1 – 5 days duration)

courses on earthquake safe construction. It was interesting to note that only 27 percent of the

respondents accepted to have learnt something new and useful in these courses (despite 50% not

having studied these at their engineering course). Only 37 percent said that they utilize the

knowledge gained in these training programs. This point highlights some underlying flaw in the

design and delivery of training programs on earthquake safe construction. One should therefore

not expect masons to be well versed with the intricacies of earthquake safe construction overnight

when the well educated engineers cannot reap intended benefit of these trainings.

26 percent of the engineers suggested that the training programs should have

more of practical components while 10 percent suggested that the relevant BIS Codes be made

available, 10 percent suggested that the training programs be organized locally and an equal

proportion highlighted the need for developing standards for retrofitting.

49 percent of the engineers acknowledged that the magnitude of the losses in any

major earthquake in the region would be far more than that experienced in the previous

earthquakes. Non-compliance of the bye-laws / codes (32%), inappropriate construction (23%),

unawareness of the masses (23%) and unplanned construction (10%) were cited as the reasons for

the perceived enhanced losses. Awareness of the masses (22%), capacity building (27%),

compliance of building bye laws and insurance of the houses (12%) were suggested as the means

of controlling the perceived losses.

46 percent of the respondents accepted that they are not consulted by private

builders on earthquake safety related aspects. The ones that are consulted are sought advice

mainly on earthquake safety provisions (27%) and detailing of RCC construction (5%). Only 44

percent said that their advice is sought on earthquake safety aspects by the masses. Only 39

percent of the respondents said that they face no problem routinely in the compliance of

earthquake safety provisions. Lack of awareness (42%), lack of resources (26%), compliance not

being compulsory (26%) and masons not being trained (6%) are cited as the reasons for the

problems faced in compliance.

Recommendations The study brings forth a harsh reality that the mass awareness as also capacity

building efforts related to seismic vulnerability reduction are not delivering the intended results.

The conclusion cannot be logically generalized due to limited sample size and geographical

coverage; it nevertheless highlights a number of logical issues that need to be genuinely

addressed for making the earthquake vulnerability reduction related efforts meaningful and

effective.

Action therefore needs to be undertaken on the following lines so as to make

vulnerability reduction efforts more purposeful:

1. The study reveals that some persons based upon their experience and

knowledge could assess and comment upon the bearing capacity of soil by

examining soil texture, moisture content and the other related features.

Elements of this age old traditional practice need to be studied,

documented and propagated (with necessary improvements where

necessary) so as to evolve a readiliy available and cost effective tool for

assessing site suitability. Department of Disaster Management, Government of Uttarakhand should support and encourage initiatives on these lines.

2. There exist many studies that suggest existence of elements of seismic safety in

traditional architecture of the region. The present study reveals that the traditional

construction practices for ensuring earthquake safety are being forgotten due to

the onslaught of new construction practices. Positive aspects of the traditional

architecture as also construction practices therefore need to be studied,

researched, documented and improvised upon to evolve a more appropriate, cost

effective and acceptable construction option. Department of Disaster

Management, Government of Uttarakhand should support and encourage

initiatives on these lines.

3. Mass awareness holds the key for making vulnerability reduction programs

demand driven and this would at the same time ensure voluntary compliance of

risk reduction measures by the masses. Foremost emphasis therefore needs to be

accorded to mass awareness programs. Most awareness programs use lectures

(that is known to be the least effective mode of communication) on the related

subject as the primary tool for this purpose with occasional screening of

documentary films and the content of the program mostly lacks mass appeal.

Simple and entertaining mass awareness programs woven round little tradition of

the masses should therefore be developed in vernacular and propagated through

all modes of communication; particularly so in the far flung rural areas. National

Disaster Management Authority, Government of India can be approached for

supporting these initiatives on mass scale.

4. Mass awareness programs do not cater to the specific requirements of the

particular beneficiary group and the same module is repeated for all target

groups. Development of target specific awareness programs therefore needs to be

undertaken on priority basis. These should necessarily have flavour of local

problems and concerns. The agencies providing support for awareness programs

on disaster related issues need to insist on the formulation of the detailed

program outline specific to the target group. Disaster Mitigation and

Management Centre should develop a detailed outline of such programs in

consultation with other stakeholders.

5. There is lack of uniformity in the disaster related capacity building programs

being offered by different agencies. This is clearly reflected in the response of the

three target groups. It is therefore necessary to immediately standardize content

and duration of these programs. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India

should be approached for bringing forth uniformity in the training programs.

6. Masons play a major role in ensuring seismic safety of structures as most

construction works in the State are undertaken without formal engineering inputs.

The study brings forth the fact that the masons practicing in the area are not

conversant with the basics of seismic safety and are undertaking construction

works based upon their individual understanding. Mason training therefore needs

to be specifically addressed. The following points need special attention while

designing the capacity building programs for the masons:

a. Programs should be based on a standardized curriculum and duration.

b. Programs should be organized locally.

c. Programs should be hands on and should cater to the specific needs of the

masons.

d. Communication should necessarily be in vernacular.

e. The participants should be provided with illustrative manuals that they can refer

to later.

f. The participants should be paid wages for the duration of the training program.

g. Certification process should be developed and the masses should be made aware

of the benefits of engaging trained masons. The certification should be for a

limited duration after which the mason should undergo refresher course to get the

same renewed.

h. A refresher training module should be designed.

i. Mechanism for preferential engagement and premium wages needs to be worked

out for the trained masons.

It is therefore necessary to immediately standardize content and duration

of these programs. Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India should

be approached for bringing forth uniformity in the training programs.

7. The study shows that the capacity building programs being organized by

different agencies are not sufficient and there is pressing need to organize

these programs in large numbers, specially in the far flung rural areas.

Development of trainers is the basic prerequisite for achieving this end.

Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre should formulate, standardize

and organize trainer development programs and work out a certification

mechanism for the same in collaboration with Department of Technical

Education. These training programs can be supported by the funds

available in Calamity Relief Fund of the State.

8. The study suggests that the masses consider concrete buildings to be

stronger than those made with local building material. This belief

overlooks the fact that people have used natural building materials since

they began to build, with cement began to be used only around 1824.

Remains of the earliest villages dating back to 9000 BC, at Shanidar on

the Turkish-Iranian border, show that the buildings were made of mud and

reeds. Even today half the world's population lives in houses made of

locally available materials like bamboo, stone, grass, wood, lime and mud;

mud being the most widely used material. Mud houses are at the same

time energy efficient. The region also has a magnificent traditional

architecture with ingradients of seismic safety that date back to almost

1,000 years before present. The traditional construction practices needs to

be studied and innovated to put forth a better and cost effective alternative

for the masses. Department of Disaster Management should initiate action

on these lines in collaboration with HUDCO. 9. The study reveals that cement based construction is getting popular even in the

remote areas and the masses are particular about incorporating beam – column in

their structures for seismic safety. The role of bar benders thus becomes utmost

important. It is revealed that the masons practicing in the region are not formally

trained in cement based construction and bar bending related works are being

carried out without formal training. The detailing of the reinforcement is also

being done as per the convenience and experience of the masons and particular

care is not taken in working out the details. Without proper training masons

should not be expected to carry out the reinforcement details appropriately.

Training programs should therefore be formulated, standardized and organized

for bar benders in large numbers across the State. Department of Disaster

Management, Government of Uttarakhand should support and encourage these

initiatives.

10. The masons and bar benders trained through these standardized training

programs should be certified and issued identity cards. Department of Disaster

Management, Government of Uttarakhand should work out the curriculum as

also certification procedure with the Department of Technical Education,

Government of Uttarakhand.

11. Appropriately illustrative manuals need to be developed for both masons and bar

benders that they can refer to later. Disaster Mitigation and Management Centre

of the Department of Disaster Management, Government of Uttarakhand should

initiate action on these lines.

12. Training of the masons should necessarily be hands on and should be organized

at the grassroots level. Wages should necessarily be paid for the duration of the

training. An order to this regard should be issued by the Department of Disaster

Management, Government of Uttarakhand.

13. Trained masons and bar benders should be preferred in all construction initiatives

of the State. An order to this regard needs to be issues to all the construction

agencies of the State. Technical Audit Cell (TAC) of the State might consider

including a provision to this regard in all proposals submitted for State support.

14. Appropriate codes of BIS should necessarily be made available in all the district

level offices of all the construction agencies of the State.

15. As most construction is carried out through the contractors a mechanism

for the training and sensitization of the contractors in earthquake safe

construction needs to be evolved. 16. Traditional structures in many areas are observed to be degenerating due to the

lack of resources for maintaining these. Identified prototypes structures of

traditional architecture having elements of earthquake safety should necessarily

be conserved as heritage structures. Archeological Survey of India as also

Department of Culture, Government of Uttarakhand should be approached for

initiating action on these lines.

17. Training programs should also be organized on traditional construction.

Department of Disaster Management, Government of Uttarakhand should

support and encourage these initiatives.

18. Risk transfer mechanism needs to be inbuilt for all new construction and the

corporate sector needs to be involved in furthering capacity building initiatives.

References

1. Thakur, V.C., 1992, Geology of Western Himalaya, Pergamon Press, Oxford, 363 pp.

2. Bilham, R., Gaur, V.K. and Molnar, P., 2001, Himalayan Seismic Hazard, Science,

293, 1442-1444.

3. Feldl, N. and Bilham, R., 2006, Great Himalayan earthquakes and the Tibetan plateau,

Nature, 444 (9), 165 – 170.

4. Thakur, V.C., 2006, Seismotectonics and earthquake geology aspects of Northwestern

Himalaya, Geological Survey of India Special Publication, 85, 61-71.

5. Thakur, V.C., 2006, Reassessment of earthquake hazard in the Himalaya and

implications from the 2004 Sumatra-Andaman earthquake, Current Science, 90

(8), 1070-1072.

Annexure – I

Orders issued by the State Government for the compliance of seismic safety related

norms

la[;k 2312la[;k 2312la[;k 2312la[;k 2312@ @ @ @ V@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk0½@2004@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk0½@2004@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk0½@2004@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk0½@2004 izs"kd]

ih0ds0 egkfUr]

lfpo]

mRrjkapy 'kkluA

lsok esa]

1- v/;{k@mik/;{k] leLr fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

2- v/;{k@lfpo] leLr fo'ks"k {ks= fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

3- leLr ftykf/kdkjh] mRrjkapy A

4- fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh] leLr fofu;fer {ks=] mRrjkapy A

vkokl@'kgjh fodklvkokl@'kgjh fodklvkokl@'kgjh fodklvkokl@'kgjh fodkl fnukad 15 twu] 2004fnukad 15 twu] 2004fnukad 15 twu] 2004fnukad 15 twu] 2004

fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % & u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k esaAesaAesaAesaA

egksn;]

u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k esa le;≤ ij fuxZr 'kklukns'k la[;k Øe'k 1665@vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001 fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001] la[;k 2851@vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001 fnukad 04 vDVwcj] 2001 ,oa la[;k 573@'k0fo0vk0&02&58¼vk0½@2001 fnukad 18 tqykbZ] 2002 dh vksj /;ku vkdf"kZr djrs gq;s 'kklu ds laKku esa ;g vk;k gS fd fofHkUu vfHkdj.kksa }kjk vkosnd ls Hkou ekufp= vkosnu izkfIr dsmijkUr bu izkfo/kku ds vHkko esa vkosnd ijs'kku gksrk gS] ogha ekufp= ds fuLrkj.k esa Hkh foyEc rks gksrk gh gS lkFk gh bu vfHkdj.kksa dh tulk/kkj.k esa Nfo ij Hkh izfrdqy izHkko iM+rk gSA

pawfd Hkou ekufp= Lohdr djus ls iwoZ HkwdEi fojks/kh izek.k dh vfuokZ;rk ek0 mPp U;k;ky; uSuhrky] mRrjkapy us fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 23178@98 Construction of New Building In Garhwal Region V/S Garhwal Mandal Vikas Nigam esa vius fu.kZ; fnukad 08-04-2003 }kjk dh xbZ gS] vr% eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd lHkh vfHkdj.k Hkou ekufp= vkosnu ds lkFk gh HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk lEcU/kh vko';d izkfo/kku vkosnu izkfIr ds le; lqfuf'pr dj fy;k tk;A bl O;oLFkk dks vkSj vf/kd ljyhdj.k fd;s tkus ds mn~ns'; ls vkosnd }kjk izLrqr Hkou ekufp= vkosnu ds lkFk fuEu la'kksf/kr izkfo/kku lfgr izkjEHk esa gh vkosnu i= izkIr djrs le; lacf/kr vfHkdj.k lqfuf'pr dj ysaA bldh O;oLFkk lHkh vfHkdj.kksa ds Lrj ij fd;k tkuk furkUr vko';d gksxk ftlls fd ekufp=ksa ds fuLrkj.k esa tulk/kkj.k dks vuko';d dfBukbZ u gks %&

layXu ifjf'k"V & III ¼v½ dks dsoy 7-5 ehVj rd dh ÅWpkbZ okys vkoklh; Hkou ekufp= ds vkosnu i= ds lkFk ekufp= ij gh Hkou Lokeh ,oa okLrqfon@ykblsUl izkIr l{ke rduhdh dehZ@LVªDpjy bathfu;j ls gLrk{kfjr izek.k&i= dh izkfIr vko';d gksxhA vU; lHkh Hkouksa ds ekufp=ksa ,oa 7-5 ehVj ls vf/kd ÅWpkbZ ds vkoklh; Hkouksa ds vkosnu i= ds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V& II ds izk:i ij ^^ fcfYMax bUQkjes'ku 'ksM;wy** rFkk LVªDpjy bathfu;j ds gLrk{kj;qDr Hkou dh LVªDpjy fMtkbu ekufp= ,oa iw.kZ x.kuk;sa layXu ifjf'k"V III ¼c½ ds vuqlkj ekufp= ds lkFk layXud ds :i esa izkfIr ij gh vkosnu Lohdk;Z fd;s tk;saA

bl lEcU/k esa ;g Hkh funs'k fn;s tkrs gS fd budk izpkj&izlkj djus ds mn~ns'; ls bldk izdk'ku LFkkuh; lekpkj i=ksa esa Hkh dj fn;k tk;A

mDr vkns'kksa dk dM+kbZ ls vuqikyu lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A

layXud %&layXud %&layXud %&layXud %& ifjf'k"V & III ¼v½

ifjf'k"V & II ,oa III ¼c½

Hkonh;]

¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½

lfpoA

la[;k 2312@ la[;k 2312@ la[;k 2312@ la[;k 2312@ V@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk@ 'k0fo0&vk0&04&¼vk0½@2004 0½@2004 0½@2004 0½@2004

izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&

1- izHkkjh vf/kdkjh] uxj ,oa xzke fu;sktu foHkkx] mRrjkapy] nsgjknwuA

2- xkMZ QkbyA

¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½¼ih0ds0 egkfUr½

lfpoA

nill

For all other buildings and for residential building upto 7.5 mt. height.

Annexure-III(B)

DRAWING

SUBMISSION

Proposed Plan ..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

INDEX

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

Certified that-

1. The Buildings plans submitted for approval satisfy

the safety requirements and the information given

in factually correct to the best of our knowledge

and understanding.

2. Provisions for structural safety from natural

hazards shall be adhered to during the

construction.

Sig. of Architect/

Licensee Sign. of Structural Engineer

Sign. of Owner

Only for residential building upto 7.5 mt. height.

Annexure-III(A)

la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001

izs"kd]

ih0ds0 egkfUr]

lfpo]

mRrjkapy 'kkluA

lsok esa]

1- leLr v/;{k] fo'ks"k {ks= fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

2- leLr mik/;{k] fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

3- vkokl vk;qDr] vkokl ,oa fodkl ifj"kn] mRrjkapy A

4- leLr fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh] fofu;fer {ks=] mRrjkapy A

DRAWING

SUBMISSION

Proposed Plan ..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

INDEX

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

..........................................................................................

Certified that-

1. The Buildings plans submitted for approval satisfy

the safety requirements and the information given

in factually correct to the best of our knowledge

and understanding.

2. Provisions for structural safety from natural

hazards shall be adhered to during the

construction.

Sig. of Architect/

Licensee Sign. of Structural Engineer

Sign. of Owner

BUILDING INFORMATION SCHEDULE

(To be submitted with plan)

1. Building Address Plot No Scheme/Colony Town District Initial of checkin staff Reference

2.1 Landuse zoning IS 1893

2.2 Selsmic zone V IV III II I VUL. ATL

2.3 Flood proneness of site River Plain

Unprolected/ Procted

Low area Inundelion

Possible-Yes/No.

Observed

HFL above GL= Cms

2.4 Land slide frequency Seldom Often Frequent

2.5 Slope Under 150 16

0-30

0 31

0-45

0 45

0-60

0 Above 60

0

2. Building Function &

Location

2.6 Road Level +4 Ml +4ml-7ml 0 -7ml -7ml-15ml Beyond-15ml

Mean-Annual Total Rain Fall (in CMS) 3.1 Rain Fall

0-100 101-200 Above 200 Specify Other if any

3. Local Consideration of site

3.2 Snow Fall Seklom Often Frequent

4. Foundation 4.1 Type of footing

foundation used

Strip Indiv. Col.

Footing Raft

Bearing Piles Friction Piles Specify Other if any IS:1893

5.1 Storeys Etc. Basement=

0/1/2/3

No. of

Storeys

Attic

Yes/No.

Life House

Yes/No.

Wate Tank on

Roof Capacity

= Lits.

5.2 Bearing Wall Bricks Stone Solid Block Hollow Block Adobe

5.3 Frame Work R.C. Column &

Beam

Steel Column &

Beam Trusses

Wood Post &

Trussess Rafter

Specity Other if

any

5.3.1 Infill Panels Glass Brick Walls Wood

Panelling

Specify Other if

any

5.4 Floors R.C. Slabs Stone Slabs on

Joists

Prefab.

Flooring

element on

Beam

Specify Other if

any

5.5 Roof Structure Flat like Foors/ Pitches Trussed/ Raftered/ A Frame/Sloping

R.C. Slab

5. Super Structure

5.6 Roof Covering CGI Sheeting AC Sheeting Clay Tiles Wood Shingle

ANNEXURE-II

6. Building

Function 6.1 Use

(Occupancy)

Institutional Commercial Residential Industrial Assembly Specify Other

if any

NCB Part III

6.2 Importance Ordinary Important Hazardous IS:1893

7. Flood/Rain Protection Plinthn

Yes/ No/NA

Water Proofing of Walls

Yes/No/NA

Roof

Yes/No/NA Flood Guide

8.1 Bracings Provided In Plan

Yes/No/NA

In Plane of Rafters

Yes/No/NA

In Plane of vertical column

Yes/No/NA IS:4326

Cyclone.

Guide

8.2 Roof Anchorae To walls

Bolt

length=Cms

To R.C. Column

Bolt tength=Cms

To wooden post, steel Straps

& Bolts/ nails/........... Cyclone

Guide

8. Safety of Pitched Roof

where used

8.3 Connections covering to Purlins

J-Bolts/wire

Purtlins to Rafters

Bolt/wire

Truss elements

Welding/bolt/nail/straps Cyclone

Guide

9.1 Building

Configration

Plan Sh ap Separation provided to

get rectangular shape

Yes/No

Plan projection>0.2 of length

Yes/No.

IS:4326

9.2 Bands

Provided

Plinth Bank

Yes/No/NA

Lintel Bank

Yes/No/NA

Eave Bank

Yes/No/NA

Roof Bank

Yes/No/NA

Globe

Bank

Yes/No/NA

Ridge Bank

Yes/No/NA

IS:4326

IS:13828

9.3 Vertical Bars At Corners of

Rooms

Yes/No/NA

At Jambs of opeing

Yes/No/NA

Specify other, if any IS:4326

IS:13828

9.4 Stiffening of

floors/Roofs with

separate units

Vertical Bars

R.C. screed & bank

Yes/No/NA

Peripheral bank

& connectors

Yes/No/NA

Diagonal Planks & all

round Band

Yes/No/NA

Specify other,

if any

IS:4326

9. Load Bearing Wall

Building

9.5 Framed thin

wall construction

Bounding of columns with the walls ensured Yes/No

(Fig. 13 of IS:4326)

IS:4326

10.1 Building

Shape

Both axis

symmetrical

One axis

symmetrical

Unsymmetrical in plan or section

10.2 Detailing of

R.C. Frames

Beams

Yes/No

Columns

Yes/No

Beam Columns Joint

Yes/No

Sheer Walls

Yes/No

IS: 13920

10. Safety of Steel/R.C.

Frame Building

10.3 Detailing of

Steel Frames

Beams

Yes/No

Columns

Yes/No

Beam Columns Joint

Yes/No

11. Safety of Wooden

Building

11.1 Holding

Down

Sill Beam Bolted

Yes/No/NA

Wood Post Anchored

Yes/No/NA

Framed, Resting on Pedestals

Yes/No/NA IS:4326

Cyclone,

Guide

11.2 Bracing of

wood frame

Diagonal Bracing

in vertical plane

Yes/No/NA

Diagonal/Knee

Bracing in plane

Yes/No/NA

Stiff Wall

panel

Brick nogging

with hold fast IS:4326

Cyclone.

Guide

11.3 Connections Framed with Iron

Straps

Bolted Nailed Specify other,

if any

Signature of Architect Signature of Structural Engineer Signarure of Owner

31

la[;k 573@'k0fo0vk&02&58 ¼vk½2001la[;k 573@'k0fo0vk&02&58 ¼vk½2001la[;k 573@'k0fo0vk&02&58 ¼vk½2001la[;k 573@'k0fo0vk&02&58 ¼vk½2001

izs"kd]

ih0ds0 egkfUr]

lfpo]

mRrjkapy 'kkluA

lsok esa] 1- leLr v/;{k] fo'ks"k {ks= fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

2- leLr mik/;{k] fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

3- leLr ftykf/kdkjh] mRrjkapy A

4- leLr fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh] fofu;fer {ks=] mRrjkapy A

'kgjh 'kgjh 'kgjh 'kgjh fodkl@vkokl vuqHkkxfodkl@vkokl vuqHkkxfodkl@vkokl vuqHkkxfodkl@vkokl vuqHkkx nsgjknwu% fnukad 18 tqykbZ] 2002nsgjknwu% fnukad 18 tqykbZ] 2002nsgjknwu% fnukad 18 tqykbZ] 2002nsgjknwu% fnukad 18 tqykbZ] 2002

fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % & u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEiu;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEiu;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEiu;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k jks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k jks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k jks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k esaAesaAesaAesaA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo"k;d uxj fodkl@vfHk;U=.k 'k[kk ds 'kklukns'k la[;k&1665@vk@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001 fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 rFkk 'kklukns'k la[;k&2851@vk@vfHk@2001@2001&58@vkokl@2001 fnukad 4&10&2001 dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd 'kklu }kjk lE;~d fopkjksijkUr ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd mDr of.kZr 'kklukns'kksa esa gkW&tgkW 'kCn ^^okLrqfon** vk;k gS] mlds LFkku ij ^^,sls okLrqfon ,oa ykbZlsUl izkIr Lk{ke rduhdh dehZ tks uS'kuy fcfYMax dksM vkWQ bf.M;k] 1970 ds ifjf'k"V&, esa nh x;h vgZrkvksa dks iw.kZ djrs gks**] 'kCn j[kk tkrk gSA mijksDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 19&7(2001 ,oa 4&10&2001 mDr lhek rd la'kksf/kr le>k tk;sxkA mDr 'kklukns'k fnukad 19&7&2001 ,oa 'kklukns'k fnukad 4&10&2001 dh 'ks"k 'krsZ ,oa izfrcU/k ;Fkkor ykxw jgsaxhA

Hkonh;]

¼ih0lh0egkfUr½ lfpo

la[;k% 573¼1½'k0vk0fo&2002 rn~fnukadla[;k% 573¼1½'k0vk0fo&2002 rn~fnukadla[;k% 573¼1½'k0vk0fo&2002 rn~fnukadla[;k% 573¼1½'k0vk0fo&2002 rn~fnukad izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr& 1& izeq[k lfpo] xzkE; fodkl@vkink izcU/ku] mRrjkapy 'kkluA 2& lfpo] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] mRrjkapy 'kkluA 3& lfpo] vkokl mRrj izns'k 'kklu y[kuÅ dks muds i= la[;k&570@ 9&vk&1&2001& HkwdEijks/kh

@2001 ¼vk0o0½ xzkE; fodkl@vkink fnukad 3 Qjojh] 2001 ds lUnHkZ esa lwpukFkZ izsf"krA vkKk ls]

¼vks0ih0 vksyh½ vuqlfpoA

la[;k% ¼2½ 'k0fla[;k% ¼2½ 'k0fla[;k% ¼2½ 'k0fla[;k% ¼2½ 'k0fo0vk&2002 rnfnukadAo0vk&2002 rnfnukadAo0vk&2002 rnfnukadAo0vk&2002 rnfnukadA izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr& 1& eq[; uxj ,oa xzke fu;kstu foHkkx] mRrjkapyA 2& xkMZ QkbZyA

vkKk ls]

32

¼th0ch0 vksyh½ vuqlfpoA

33

la[;k% 2851@vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k% 2851@vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k% 2851@vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k% 2851@vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001

izs"kd] ih0lh0 'kekZ] lfpo] mRrjkapy 'kkluA

lsok esa] 1- leLr v/;{k] fo'ks"k {ks= fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A 2- leLr mik/;{k] fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A 3- leLr ftykf/kdkjh] mRrjkapy A 4- leLr fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh] fofu;fer {ks=] mRrjkapy A

uxj uxj uxj uxj fodkl@vfHk;U=.k 'kk[kkfodkl@vfHk;U=.k 'kk[kkfodkl@vfHk;U=.k 'kk[kkfodkl@vfHk;U=.k 'kk[kk nsgjknwu% fnukad 04 vDVwcj] 2001nsgjknwu% fnukad 04 vDVwcj] 2001nsgjknwu% fnukad 04 vDVwcj] 2001nsgjknwu% fnukad 04 vDVwcj] 2001

fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % & u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k esaAesaAesaAesaA

egksn;]

mijksDr fo"k;d 'kklukns'k la[;k&1665@vk@vfHk0@2001&58@ vkokl@2001 fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 dh vksj vkidk /;ku vkd`"V djrs gq, eq>s ;g dgus dk funs'k gqvk gS fd fofHkUu Lrjksa ls izkIr ftKklkvksa ds Øe esa dfri; fcUnqvksa ds lEcU/k esa fLFkfr Li"V fd;k tkuk vko';d gSA vr% mDr 'kklukns'k la[;k&1665@vk@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001 fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 esa vkaf'kd la'kks/ku djrs gq, orZeku izkfo/kkuksa ds LFkku ij muds lEeq[k vafdr la'kksf/kr izkfo/kku fuEuor~ i<+s tk;saxs%& orZeku izkfo/kkuorZeku izkfo/kkuorZeku izkfo/kkuorZeku izkfo/kku la'kksf/kr izkfo/kkula'kksf/kr izkfo/kkula'kksf/kr izkfo/kkula'kksf/kr izkfo/kku ¼1½ fuekZ.k dk;Z ftu ij ;g O;oLFkk;s ykxw gksaxh%& uxjh; {ks= ds leLr Hkw&ry lfgr nks eaftyk ls vf/kd vFkok 7-5 ehVj ls vf/kd ÅpkbZ ds Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ;Fkk&okVj oDlZ ,oa vksojgSM VSad] VsyhQksu ,Dlpsat fczt ,oa dYoVZ] fo|qr mRiknu dsUnz ,oa fo|qr lc LVs'ku fo|qr Vkoj bR;kfn dk fodkl lqj{kk ds vko';d izkfo/kkuksa ds vuqlkj gh lqfuf'pr fd;k tk,A orZeku esa miyC/k ekLVj Iyku ,oa tksuy Iyku esa Hkh ;Fkk&vko';d la'kks/ku Hkw&xHkhZ; rduhdh losZ{k.k ds vkadM+ksa ,oa ekufp=ksa ds] izkfo/kku ds vk/kkj ij 'kh?kz djk fy;k tk,] rkfd fu;kstu dh n`f"V ls Hkh u;s Hkouksa ds fuE.kZ ,oa u;h vkoLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ds fodkl esa HkwdEi ,oa vU; nSoh; vkinkvksa ds izfrdwy izHkko U;wre Lrj dk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk ldsA fdlh Hkh Hkou dh vf/kdre ÅWpkbZ] ekxZ dh pkSM+kbZ rFkk vxz&lsV cSad ds ;ksx ds 1-5 xquk ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA ekxkZf/kdkj esa fdlh izdkj dk fuekZ.k vuqeU; ugha gksxkA

uxjh; {ks= ds leLr Hkw&xsg ¼cslesaV½ ,oa Hkw&ry lfgr nks eaftyk ls vf/kd vFkok 7-5 ehVj ls vf/kd ÅWpkbZ ds Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ;Fkk&okVj oDlZ ,oa vksojgSM VSad] fczt ,oa dYoMZ] fo|qr mRiknu dsUnz ,oa fo|qr Lkc&LVs'ku rFkk fo|qr okVj] 'kSf{kd laLFkku] lkeqfgd mi;ksx ds Hkou lkeqnkf;d Hkou e.Mi] Nfoxg] izs{kkx`g] ufalZx gkse ,oa vLirky] dk;kZy; Hkou] vkS|ksfxd mi;ksx Hkou LVsfM;e vkfn dk fodkl lqj{kk ds vko';d izkfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i gh lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A fdlh Hkh Hkou dh vf/kdre ÅWpkbZ ekxZ dh pkSM+kbZ rFkk vxz&lSVcSad ds ;ksx ds 1-5 xquk ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA ekxkZf/kdkj esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk fuekZ.k vuqeU; ugha gksxk rFkk 'keu dh Hkh vuqeU;rk ugha nh tk;sxhA

¼2½ 10-00 eh0 rd ÅWpkbZ okys Hkouksa ds fdlh Hkh nks Cykd ds e/; ijLij nwjh 3-00 eh0 vko';d gksxhA

10-00 eh0 rd ÅWpkbZ okys Hkouksa ds fdlh Hkh nks CykWd ds e/; ijLrj nwjh 3-00 eh0 vko';d gksxhA blds i'pkr izfr 3-00 eh0 dh Hkou dh ÅWpkbZ dh o`f) vFkok mlds va'k ij] Hkou Cykdksa dh ijLij nwjh 1-00 eh0 dh nj ls vfrfjDr vko';d gksxhA

34

¼,u0ch0lh0bf.M;k ikV&111&4&3-3 ,oa 4-3-5-1½

¼3½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu ds le; vko';d vfHkys[k%

Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu ds lkFk vko';d vfHkys[k%&

Hkou fuekZ.k gsrq ekufp= Lohdr djkus ds fy, iwoZ fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj vko';d okLrqfonh; ekufp=] ftlds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V&2 ds izk:i ij fcfYMax bUQzkjes'ku 'kSM~;wy rFkk layXu ifjf'k"V&3 ds izk:i ij Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj ekufp= rS;kj djus okys vkdhZVSDV ,oa Hkou dh uhao rFkk lqij LVDpj dh LVªDpjy foMtkbu rS;kj djus okys LVªDpjy bathfu;j ds la;qDr gLrk{kj ls bl vk'k; dk izek.ki= izLrqr djuk gksxk fd Hkou ekufp= ,oa uhao rFkk lqij LVªDpj dh fMtkbu esa HkwdEi jks/kh lHkh izkfo/kkuksa dk Øekad&2 esa mfYyf[kr dksM] xkbZM&okbZUl ,oa vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa ds izkfo/kkuksa dk 'kr&izfr'kr vuqikyu fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr LVªDpjy bathfu;e ds gLrk{kj;qDr Hkou dh uho ,oa lqij LVªDpj dh fMtkbu dh iw.kZ x.kuk;sa ,oa LVªDpjy ekufp= Hkh] ekufp= Lohd`fr lEcU/kh izi=ksa ds lkFk izLrqr djus gksaxsA

Hkou fuekZ.k ds fy, ekufp= Lohdr djkus ds fy, iwoZ fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj vko';d okLrqfonh; ekufp= ij 7-5 ehVj rd dh ÅapkbZ okys Hkouksa ls okLrqfon ,oa Hkou Lokeh vkosnu ds gLrk{kj;qDr izek.ki= vko';d gksxk fd] izkd`frd vkinkvksa ls lqj{kk gsrq izkfo/kku fd;s x;s gSa rFkk rnuqlkj fuE.kZ Hkh djok;k tk;sxkA tcfd 7-5 ehVj ls vf/kd ,oa vU; Hkouksa ¼mDr izLrj&1½ esa of.kZr ds ekufp=ksa ds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V&2 ds izk:i ij ^^fcfYMax bUQkjes'ku 'kSM~;wy** rFkk layXu ifjf'k"V &3 ds vuqlkj ekufp= rS;kj djus okys vkfdZVSDV ,oa Hkou dh uhao rFkk lqij LVªDpj dh LVªDpj.k fMtkbu rS;kj djus okys LVªDpjy bathfu;j rS;kj djus okys LVªDpjy bathfu;j ds la;qDr gLrk{kj bl vk'k; dk izek.k&i= izLrqr djuk gks fd Hkou ekufp= ,oa uhao rFkk lqjij LVªDpj dh fMtkbu esa HkwdEijks/kh lqj{kk izkfo/kkuksa dk ifjf'k"V&1 esa mfYyf[kr ys[kksa ds vuq:i 'kr&izfr'kr vuqikyu fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr LVªDpjy bathfu;j ds gLrk{kj;qDr Hkou dh uhao ,oa lqij LVªDpjy dh fMtkbu dh iw.kZ x.kuk;sa LVªDpjy ekufp= Hkh ekufp= lEcU/kh izi=ksa ds lkFk izLrqr djus gksaxsA

¼6½ dEIyhds'ku lfVZfQdsV dh vfuok;Zrk%& dEiyh'ku lfVZfQdsV dh vfuok;Zrk%& Hkou iw.kZ gks tkus ij Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj }kjk iw.kZrk izek.ki= ¼dEiyh'ku lfVZfQdsV½ izkIr djus gsrq tks vkosnu i= l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk mlds lkFk ijf'k"V&5 ij lEcfU/kr okLrqfon] lkbZV bathfu;j] Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj }kjk la;qDr :i ls iqu% bl vk'k; dk ,d izek.ki= fn;k tk;sxk fd Hkou dk fuekZ.k Lohdr ekufp=] fu/kkZfjr fof'kf"V;ksa] xq.koRrk rFkk ifjf'k"V&1 esa mfYyf[kr Hkkjrh; ekud laLFkku ds dksM] us'kyu fcfYMax dksM ,oa lqlaxr xkbZM ykbZUl ij vk/kkfjr leLr LVªDpjyk bathfu;j }kjk vuqeksfnr LVªDpjy fMtkbZu ,oa Hkw&dEikjks/kh leLr izkfo/kkuksa ds lkFk fd;k x;k gS rFkk Hkou mi;ksx gsrq gj izdkj ds lqjf{kr gSA iw.kZrk izek.k i= nsus okys vf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og ;g lqfuf'pr dj ysa fd iw.kZrk izek.k&i= fuxZr djus lEcU/kh lHkh vU; vkSpkfjdrk;sa iw.kZ gksus ds lkFk lqj{kk lEcU/kh izek.k i= Hkh fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij miyC/k gSA blds mijkUr gh iw.kZrk izek.k i= ¼dEiyh'ku lfVZfQdsV½ fuxZr fd;k tk;A

Hkou iw.kZ gks tkus ij Hkw&Likeh@fcYMj }kjk iw.kZrk izek.ki= ¼dEiyh'ku lfVZfQdsV izkIr djus gsrq tks vkosnu i= l{ke izkf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sxk] mlds lkFk ifjf'k"V&4 ij lEcfU/kr okLrqfon] lkbZV bathfu;e] Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj }kjk la;qDr :i ls iqu% bl vk'k; dk ,d ize.k i= Hkh fn;k tk;sxk fd Hkou dk fuekZ.k Lohdr ekufp=] fu/kkZfjr fof'kf"V;ksa] xq.koRrk rFkk ifjf'k"V&1 esa mfYyf[kr Hkkjrh; ekud laLFkku ds dksM] us'kuy fcfYMax dksM ,oa lqlaxr xkbM ykbZUl ij vk/kkfjr leLr LVªDpjy bathfu;e }kjk vuqekfnr LVªDpjy fMtkbu ,oa HkwdEijks/kh leLr izkfo/kkuksa ds lkFk fd;k x;k rFkk Hkou mi;ksx gsrq gj izdkj ls lqjf{kr gSA iw.kZrk izek.ki= nsus okys vf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og ;g lqfu'pr dj ys fd iw.kZrk izek.k&i= fuxZr djus lEcU/kh lHkh vU; vkSipkfjDrk;sa iw.kZ gksus ds lkFk lqj{kk lEcU/kh izek.k&i= Hkh fu/kkZfjr½ izk:i ij miyC/k gS] blds mijkUr gh iw.kZrk izek.k i= ¼dEiyh'ku lfVZfQdsV½ fuxZr fd;k tk;A

'kklukns'k la[;k 1665@vk@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001 fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 dh 'ks"k 'krsZ ,oa izfrcU/k ;Fkkor~ ykxw jgsaxsA

35

layXu& mijksDrkuqlkjAlayXu& mijksDrkuqlkjAlayXu& mijksDrkuqlkjAlayXu& mijksDrkuqlkjA

¼ih0lh0'kekZ½ lfpoA

la[;k% 2815¼1½@vk0vfHk0@2001 rn~ fnukadAla[;k% 2815¼1½@vk0vfHk0@2001 rn~ fnukadAla[;k% 2815¼1½@vk0vfHk0@2001 rn~ fnukadAla[;k% 2815¼1½@vk0vfHk0@2001 rn~ fnukadA izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks bl vuqjks/k ds lkFk izsf"kr fd os d`i;k vius vkLFkkuksa ,oa voLFkkiukvksa ds fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa mi;qDr 'kklukns'kksa esa fufgr lqj{kkRed izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa ekufp= ,oa ifj;kstukvksa dh Lohd`fr gsrq dk;Zokgh djkus ds vkns'k tkjh djus dk d"V djsa%& 1& izeq[k lfpo] xzkE; fodkl@vkink izcU/ku] mRrjkapy 'kkluA 2& lfpo] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] mRrjkapy 'kkluA 3& lfpo] ÅtkZ@ flapkbZ@i;ZVu@m|ksx] mRrjkapy 'kkluA 4& lfpo] vkokl mRrj izns'k 'kklu y[kuÅ dks muds i= la[;k&570@ 9&vk&1&2001& HkwdEijks/kh

@2001 ¼vk0o0½ xzkE; fodkl@vkink fnukad 3 Qjojh] 2001 ds lUnHkZ esa lwpukFkZ izsf"krA 5& eq[; uxj ,oa xzke fu;kstu] uxj ,oa xzke fu;kstu foHkkx] mRrjkapyA 6& xkMZ QkbZyA

vkKk ls]

¼th0ch0 tksyh½ vuqlfpoA

36

la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001

izs"kd]

ih0lh0 'kekZ]

lfpo]

mRrjkapy 'kkluA

lsok esa]

1- leLr v/;{k] fo'ks"k {ks= fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

2- leLr mik/;{k] fodkl izkf/kdj.k] mRrjkapy A

3- leLr ftykf/kdkjh] mRrjkapy A

4- leLr fu;a=d izkf/kdkjh] fofu;fer {ks=] mRrjkapy A

uxj uxj uxj uxj fodkl@vfHk;a=.kfodkl@vfHk;a=.kfodkl@vfHk;a=.kfodkl@vfHk;a=.k 'kk[kk 'kk[kk 'kk[kk 'kk[kk nsgjknwu% fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 nsgjknwu% fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 nsgjknwu% fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001 nsgjknwu% fnukad 19 tqykbZ] 2001

fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % &fo"k; % & u;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiwu;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiwu;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiwu;s Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k .kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k .kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k .kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa esa HkwdEijks/kh O;oLFkk djus ds lEcU/k esaAesaAesaAesaA

egksn;]

ns'k esa le;&le; ij vk;s HkwdEiksa dh =klnh dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, ;g vifjgk;Z gks x;k gS fd mRrjkapy ftldk lEiw.kZ {ks= HkwdEi tksu&4 ,oa 5 ds vUrxZr vkrk gS] esa Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ds fuekZ.k ds fy, vko';d lqj{kkRed izkfo/kku lqfuf'pr fd;s tk;sA u;h fuekZ.k vuqefr fuEufyf[kr O;oLFkkvksa dks lqfuf'pr djrs gq, gh nh tk;sxh %&

¼1½ fuekZ.k dk;Z ftu ij ;g O;oLFkk;sa ykxw gksaxh %&¼1½ fuekZ.k dk;Z ftu ij ;g O;oLFkk;sa ykxw gksaxh %&¼1½ fuekZ.k dk;Z ftu ij ;g O;oLFkk;sa ykxw gksaxh %&¼1½ fuekZ.k dk;Z ftu ij ;g O;oLFkk;sa ykxw gksaxh %&

uxjh; {ks= ds leLr Hkwry lfgr nks eaftyk ls vf/kd vFkok 7-5 ehVj ls vf/kd ÅWpkbZ ds Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ;Fkk&okVj&oDlZ ,oa vksojgSM Vsad] VsyhQksu ,DlpsaUt] fczt ,oa dYoVZ] fo|qr mRiknu dsUnz ,oa fo|qr lc&LVs'ku rFkk fo|qr Vkoj bR;kfn dk fodkl lqj{kk ds vko';d izkfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i gh lqfuf'pr fd;k tk;A orZeku esa miyC/k ekLVj Iyku ,oa tksuy Iyku esa Hkh ;Fkk&vko';d la'kks/ku Hkw&xHkhZ; rduhdh losZ{k.k ds vkdaMksa ,oa ekufp=ksa ds izkfo/kku ds vk/kkj ij 'kh?kz djk fy;k tk;] rkfd fu;kstu dh n`f"V ls Hkh u;s Hkouksa ds fuekZ.k ,oa u;h voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ds fodkl esa HkwdEi ,oa vU; nSoh; vkinkvksa dk izfrdwy izHkko U;wure Lrj dk lqfuf'pr fd;k tk ldsA fdlh ds 1-5 xquk ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA ekxkZf/kdkj esa fdlh izdkj dk fuekZ.k vuqeU; ugha gksxkA

2& 10-00 ehVj rd ÅWpkbZ okys Hkouksa ds fdlh Hkh nks CykWd ds e/; ijLij nwjh 3-00 ehVj vko';d gksxhA

3& ekxZ ds [kM~M ,oa cjlkrh ukyksa ds nksuksa rV dks U;wure 4-5&4-5 ehVj rFkk unh rVksa dks U;wure 10-00&10-00 ehVj {ks= o`{kkjksfir rFkk o`{kkNkfnr fd;k tkuk vko';d gksxkA 4& ,sls LFkyksa ij dksbZ Hkou fuekZ.k ugha fd;k tk;sxk ftlesa Hkw&L[kyu dh rhozrk vR;f/kd o fujraj laHkkfor gks vFkok ml LFky dh LFkkuh; <ky 60-00 va'k ls vf/kd gksA orZeku esa ekLVj Iyku ,oa tksuy Iyku esa Hkh mDr of.kZr izkfo/kkuksa ds lkFk vko';d la'kks/ku Hkw&xHkhZ; rduhfd losZ{k.k ds vkdaMksa ,oa ekufp=ksa ds vk/kkj ij 'kh?kz djk fy;k tk; rkfd fu;kstu dh nf"V ls Hkh Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa voLFkkiuk fodkl lqfuf'pr gks ldsA

¼2½ llaxr dksM %&¼2½ llaxr dksM %&¼2½ llaxr dksM %&¼2½ llaxr dksM %&

mRrjkapy jkT; dk lEiw.kZ Hkkx tksu&4 o 5 esa vkrk gSA vr% izR;sd tksu ds vUrxZr uxjh; {ks= esa fufeZr gksus okys u;s Hkouksa ,oa mijksDr bafxr egRoiw.kZ voLFkkiuk lqfo/kkvksa ds fodkl gsrq

37

layXu ifjf'k"V&1 esa mfYyf[kr Hkkjrh; ekud laLFkku ds dksM us'kuy fcfYMax dksM] vU; lqlaxr xkbZM&ykbZUl ,oa vfHkys[kksa ds izkfo/kkuksa dks 'kr&izfr'kr viuk;k tkuk vfuok;Z gSA

¼¼¼¼3½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu ds le; vko';d vfHkys[k %&3½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu ds le; vko';d vfHkys[k %&3½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu ds le; vko';d vfHkys[k %&3½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr gsrq vkosnu ds le; vko';d vfHkys[k %&

Hkou fuekZ.k gsrq ekfufp= Lohdr djkus fy;s iwoZ fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj vko';d okLrqfonh; ekufp=] ftlds lkFk layXu ifjf'k"V& 2 ds izk:i ij fcfYMax bUQkjesa'ku 'ksM~;wy rFkk layXu ifjf'k"V&3 ds izk:i ij Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj ekufp= rS;kj djus okys vkdhZVsDV ,oa Hkou dh uhao rFkk lqij LVªDpj dh LVªDpjy fMtkbu rS;kj djus okys LVªDpjy bathfu;j ds la;qDr gLrk{kj ds bl vk'k; dk izek.k i= izLrqr djuk gksxk fd Hkou ekufp= ,oa uhao rFkk lqij LVªDpj dh fMtkbu esa HkwdEijks/kh lHkh izkfo/kkuksa dk Øekad&2 esa mfYyf[kr dksM] xkbZM ykbZUl ,oa vU; lqlaxr vfHkys[kksa ds izkfo/kkuksa dk 'kr&izfr'kr vuqikyu fd;k x;k gSA blds vfrfjDr LVªDpjy bathfu;j ds gLrk{kj ;qDr Hkou dh uhao ,oa lqij LVªDpj dh fMtkbu dh iw.kZ x.kuk;sa ,oa LVªDpjy ekufp= Hkh] ekufp= Lohd`fr laca/kh izi=ksa ds lkFk izLrqr djus gksxsaA

¼4½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr ds le; ijh{k.k %&¼4½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr ds le; ijh{k.k %&¼4½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr ds le; ijh{k.k %&¼4½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr ds le; ijh{k.k %&

ekufp= Lohdr djus okys vf/kdkjh ;g lqfuf'pr djsxsa fd Lohd`fr gsrq izLrqr fd;s x;s okLrqfonh; ekufp= fcfYMax ckbZ&ykt ds vuq:i gS rFkk HkwdEijks/kh ,oa Hkou dh lajpukRed lqj{kk ds izkfo/kkuksa ds laca/k esa fn;s x;s izek.k i= mijksDrkuqlkj fu/kkZfjr izk:iksa esa gS rFkk uhao ,oa LVªDpjy fMtkbu laca/kh x.kuk;sa LVªDpjy bathfu;j ls izekf.kr dj layXu dh x;h gSA ;g lqfuf'pr gks tkus ds mijkUr gh ekufp= Lohdr fd;s tk;sA fcuk lqeqfpr ijh{k.k fd;s vFkok izek.k i= fy;s gh ;fn ekufp= Lohdr dj fn;s tkrs gS vkSj ckn esa ,slh dksbZ rduhdh =qfV ik;h tkrh gS ftlds dkj.k Hkou dh lajpukRed lqj{kk la'k;iw.kZ ikbZ xbZ gks ekufp= Lohdr djus okys vf/kdkjh Hkh ^^fØfeuy** f'kfFkyrk ds fy;s mRrjnk;h gksxsaA

¼5½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr dh 'krsZ %&¼5½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr dh 'krsZ %&¼5½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr dh 'krsZ %&¼5½ Hkou ekufp= Lohd`fr dh 'krsZ %& fuekZ.k Lohd`fr fuEufyf[kr 'krksZ ds v/khu tkjh dh tk;sxh % ¼d½ fd;k tkus okys fuekZ.k] lqlaxr Hkkjrh; ekud laLFkku ,oa us'kuy fcfYMax dksM ds izkfo/kkuksa ds vuq:i vgZ LVªDpjy bathfu;j ,oa okLrqfon }kjk izekf.kr fMtkbu ds vuqlkj gh gksxkA

¼[k½ fuekZ.k dk lqij foty Hkh vgZ okLrqfon dh tk;sxh rFkk mlds mRrjnkf;Ro ds v/khu fd;k tk;sxk rkfd lqj{kk dh voLFkkvksa dk vuqikyu lqfuf'pr jgsA

¼x½ fuekZ.k iw.kZ gksus ij iw.kZrk izek.k i= izkIr fd;s fcuk Hkou vFkok mls va'k dk dksbZ mi;ksx ugha fd;k tk;sxk] u djus fn;k tk;sxk] u mijksDr ds vfrfjDr Lohd`fr izkf/kdkjh vU; 'krsZ%

¼6½¼6½¼6½¼6½ dEIyh'ku lkfVZfQdsV dEIyh'ku lkfVZfQdsV dEIyh'ku lkfVZfQdsV dEIyh'ku lkfVZfQdsV dh vfuok;Zrk %dh vfuok;Zrk %dh vfuok;Zrk %dh vfuok;Zrk %

Hkou iw.kZ gks tkus ij Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj }kjk iw.kZrk izek.k&i= ¼dEiyh'ku lkfVZfQdsV½ izkIr djus gsrq tks vkosnu i= l{ke vf/kdkjh dks izLrqr fd;k tk;sx] mlds lkFk ifjf'k"V&5 ij lEcfU/kr okLrqfon lkbZV bathfu;j] Hkw&Lokeh@fcYMj }kjk la;qDr :i ls iqu% bl vk'k; dk ,d izek.k i= fn;k tk;sxk fd Hkou dk fuekZ.k Lohdr ekufp=] fu/kkZfjr fof'kf"V;ksa] xq.koRrk rFkk ifjf'k"V&1 esa mfYyf[kr Hkkjrh; ekud laLFkku ds dksM] us'kuy fcfYMax dksM ,oa lqlaxr xkbZM ykbZUl ij vk/kkfjr leLr LVªDpjy bathfu;j }kjk vuqeksfnr LVªDpjy fMtkbu ,oa HkwdEijks/kh leLr izkfo/kkuksa ds lkFk fd;k x;k gS rFkk Hkou mi;ksx gsrq gj izdkj ls lqjf{kr gSA iw.kZRkk izek.k&i= nsus okys vf/kdkjh dk ;g nkf;Ro gksxk fd og ;g lqfuf'pr dj ysa fd iw.kZrk izek.k&i= fuxZr djus laca/kh lHkh vU; vkSipkfjdrk;sa iw.kZ gksus ds lkFk lqj{kk laca/kh izek.k&i= Hkh fu/kkZfjr izk:i ij miyC/k gS] blds mijkUr gh iw.kZrk izek.k&i= ¼dEiyh'ku lVhZfQdsV½ fuxZr fd;k tk;A

¼7½ iw.kZrk izek.k&i= izkIr fd;s fcuk ;fn dksbZ Hkou vFkok mldk dksbZ va'k vukf/kdr :i ls iz;ksx esa yk;k tkrk gS vFkok yk;s tkus dh laHkkouk gksrh gS rks ,sls fuekZ.k dks lhy dj fn;k tk;sxk rFkk Hkou Lokeh fuekZrk ds fo:} fu;ekuqlkj dBksj dk;Zokgh dj nh tk;sxhA

¼8½ mijksDrkuqlkj fu/kkZfjr izk:i vukf/kdr fuekZ.k ds 'keu ds izdj.kksa esa Hkh ;qfDr&;qDr :i ls ykxw gksaxsA

layXu %& ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXu %& ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXu %& ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXu %& ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½

Hkonh;

38

¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½

lfpo

la[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001&rn~fnukadla[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001&rn~fnukadla[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001&rn~fnukadla[;k 1665@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&58@vkokl@2001&rn~fnukad

izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks muds vkLFkkuksa ,oa voLFkkiukvksa ds fuekZ.k dk;ksZ esa mi;qZDr 'kklukns'k esa fufgr lqj{kkRed izkfo/kkuksa ds vUrxZr Hkou fuekZ.k ,oa ekufp= ,oa ifj;kstukvksa dh Lohd`fr gsrq dk;Zokgh djkus ds vkns'k tkjh djus dk d"V djsa %& 1- izeq[k lfpo] xzkE; fodkl@vkink izcU/ku] mRrjkapy 'kkluA

2- lfpo] yksd fuekZ.k foHkkx] mRrjkapy 'kkluA

3- lfpo] ÅtkZ@flapkbZ@i;ZVu@m|ksx] mRrjkapy 'kkluA 4- lfpo] vkokl] m0iz0 'kklu] y[kuÅ dks muds i= la[;k& 570@9&vk0&2001&HkwdEijks/kh@2000¼vk0c0½] fnukad 03 Qjojh] 2001 ds lUnHkZ esa lwpukFkZ izsf"krA

,layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½

vkKk ls]

¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½

lfpo

la[;k 1665¼2½la[;k 1665¼2½la[;k 1665¼2½la[;k 1665¼2½@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&rn~fnukad@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&rn~fnukad@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&rn~fnukad@ vk0@vfHk0@2001&rn~fnukad

izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&izfrfyfi fuEufyf[kr dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;Zokgh gsrq izsf"kr %&

¼1½ eq[; ,oa xzke fu;kstu foHkkx] mRrjkapyA

¼2½ xkMZ QkbyA

layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½layXud % ifjf'k"V ¼1&5½

vkKk ls]

¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½¼ih0lh0'kekZ½ lfpo

39

Annexure – II

Achievements of the Disaster Risk Management Programme of Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India - United Nations

Development Programme Last Updated March 31, 2007

Level

Outputs

Uttarakhand

Bageshwar

Chamoli

Dehradun

Nainital

Pithoragarh

Rudrapryag

Tehri Garhwal

Uttarkashi

Total

Disaster Management Committees formed 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

DMC Members trained 43 101 39 31 32 35 40 40 361

Other officials trained (Govt officials, local functionaries,

…)

30 88 163 192 148 81 101

105

908

Disaster Management plans finalized 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 8

DMT Members trained in First Aid 64 112 110 49 48 76 50 0 509

DMT Members trained in Search and rescue 64 113 110 49 48 45 50 0 479

Emergency Operation Centre strengthened and equiped 1 1 1 0 1 6 0 1 11

Emergency kits/Search & rescue kits distributed 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 6 9

PRIs Members trained in Disaster Management 21 30 2 16 49 10 40 2 170

Of whom Women PRIs trained 7 15 0 6 11 5 13 3 60

Teachers trained/oriented in Disaster Management 254 360 166 563 246 124 112 248 2073

NSS & NYKS volunteers trained in DM 528 1135 512

967 348 2243 582

397

6712

Architects trained in disaster resistant technologies 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Engineers trained (DM & disaster resistance technologies) 7 30 38 40 8 59 95

0

277

District

Disaster resistant demonstration units constructed 1 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 9

40

Mock drills realized 0 5 0 0 8 12 3 2 30

District having completed data to the IDRN (Yes=1,

No=0)

1 1 1

1 1 58 1

1

65

District DM plans updated by DMC 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 7

Disaster Management Committees formed 3 9 6 8 8 3 9 6 52

DMC Members trained 33 205 45 157 114 44 144 80 822

Other officials trained (Govt officials, local functionaries,

…)

212 140 322

396 63 255 176

175

1739

Disaster Management plans finalized 3 1 1 0 8 3 2 0 18

DMT Members trained in First Aid 62 41 90 201 85 100 48 28 655

DMT Members trained in Search and rescue 62 41 90 201 85 88 48 24 639

PRIs trained in Disaster Management 294 530 341 132 165 80 180 342 2064

Of whom Women PRIs trained 93 112 83 25 57 20 150 14 554

Village Volunteers trained 513 780 614 558 234 1009 445 784 4937

Of whom Women volunteers trained 342 102 326 323 69 298 114 974 2548

Data base of volunteers trained created (discipline wise) 1 1 1 0 8 3 0 4 18

Masons trained 318 264 260 369 344 1123 304 0 2982

Mock drills realized 0 10 0 4 1 18 3 1 37

Teachers Trained/oriented in D. Mgt. 216 669 0 0 0 1106 0 116 2107

Of Whom Women 0 79 6 0 0 443 0 0 528

Block

Block DM plans updated by DMC 3 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 10

Disaster Management Committees formed 363 500 246 246 607 320 614 427 3323

DMC Members trained 3450 5621 2460 2077 1711 1452 6135 482 23388

Of whom Women DMC Members trained 408 2352 738 666 498 364 2028 24 7078

Disaster Management plans finalized 363 500 246 175 551 320 573 300 3028

DMT Members trained in First Aid 3450 5621 2460 1802 242 2024 3483 80 19162

Of whom Women trained in First Aid 408 2352 738 863 18 762 1466 55 6662

DMT Members trained in Search and rescue 3450 5621 2460 1802 247 2043 1533 272 17428

Of whom Women trained in Search and rescue 408 2352 738 425 18 732 1466 14 6153

GP

Mock drill realized 345 0 0 179 25 31 94 4 678

41

Disaster Management Committees formed 503 1020 470 788 1501 627 1232 673 6814

DMC Members trained 1080 5621 6490 2560 1512 1880 12320 4837 36300

Of whom Women DMC Members trained 140 2352 2077 612 314 544 4066 524 10629

Disaster Management plans finalized 503 1020 470 776 1411 616 1181 600 6577

DMT Members trained in First Aid 1080 5621 6490 40 247 2049 3897 261 19685

DMT Members trained in Search and Rescue 1080 5621 6490 40 247 2027 3897 353 19755

Villages having contingency fund for emergency response ----- 0 470 0 0 0 22 0

492

Awareness sensitization meetings held 360 510 470 788 154 724 1319 91 4416

Villages covered by wall painting 210 0 470 0 0 5 309 140 1134

IEC distributed (number of villages covered) 360 1080 470 1075 1439 788 1319 325 6856

Mock drills realized 360 0 13 5 110 85 270 38 881

Village

Village DM plans updated by DMC 503 1020 0 0 1461 4 1268 556 4812

Disaster Management Committees formed 1 5 6 7 3 2 6 2 32

DMC Members trained 11 133 91 98 33 11 42 30 449

Disaster Management plans finalized 1 5 3 0 0 2 1 1 13

Emergency Operation Centre strengthened and equiped 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1

Municipalities having amended building bylaws 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2

Lifeline buildings retroffited 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

ULBs covered by wall painting 0 30 0 0 0 10 0 2 42

IEC distributed (number of ULBs covered) 18 550 6 7 3 12 6 2 604

ULB

Mock drill realized 0 6 0 0 0 2 1 1 10

42

Annexure – III

Details of the popular survey carried out around Uttarkashi and Chamoli to assess the

awareness levels of the masses

1. Name of the villages: Gopeshwar township, Upper Chamoli and Lower Chamoli Bazar, Khalla, Sakot,

Tilfara, Siron, Balla, Sirokhoma, Ghingran, Devar, Khadora, Gangolgaon, Virahi, Konj, Sagar, Devaldhar,

Pavaldhar (Devaldhar), Virajkot, Gardi, Bargana and Gogal villages of Chamoli district and Agoda,

Bandrani, Malla, Bargana, Baugadi, Bhankoli, Fold, Dikthol, Ginda (Manpur), Heena (Bhatwari), Iid,

Kyarki, Manpur, Nakuri (Upli), Netala, Raithal, Athali, Siror, Thalan, Bandarani, Baila Tipri, Pahi, Mastadi,

Dhanpur, Manpur, Ganeshpur, Didsari, Kishanpur, Manpur, Lata, Jamak, Maneri and Bhatwari of Uttarkashi

district.

2. Total respondents: 1604

Age group of the respondents:

< 30 years 30 – 35 years 35 – 40 years 40 – 50 years > 50 years

Chamoli 18% 15% 18% 22% 27%

Uttarkashi 8% 10% 15% 25% 42%

Total 14% 13% 16% 23% 34%

Educational level of the respondents:

Nil Up to 8th Metric Intermediate Above

Chamoli 30% 30% 15% 10% 15%

Uttarkashi 25% 41% 16% 9% 9%

Total 28% 35% 16% 10% 11%

Monthly income of the respondents:

< 1000 1000 – 2000 2000 – 5000 > 5000 Can’t say

Chamoli 40% 33% 18% 9% 0%

Uttarkashi 50% 33% 8% 5% 4%

Total 41% 30% 12% 6% 11%

1. Which disaster threatens your area the most?

Earthquake Landslide Flood Can’t say

Chamoli 50% 41% 8% 1%

Uttarkashi 48% 36% 13% 3%

Total 49% 39% 10% 2%

2. Threat level of earthquake:

Severe High Normal Can’t say

Chamoli 36% 42% 14% 8%

Uttarkashi 49% 40% 6% 5%

Total 42% 41% 10% 7%

3. Traditional houses are safer than modern houses:

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 34% 65% 1%

Uttarkashi 65% 33% 2%

Total 51% 47% 2%

4. Earthquake safety was considered in traditional houses:

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 35% 65%

Uttarkashi 25% 73% 2%

Total 30% 69% 1%

5. Specific earthquake resistant features of traditional houses:

Sl.No. Response Chamoli

Uttarkashi

Total

1. Site selection/ stable land (construction at safe place) 3% 2%

2. Shape of the house in accordance with the site 2% 1%

3. Size Small (low) size 5% 2% 4%

4. Masonry Stone and wood work 12% 4% 9%

43

5. Material (stone, mud, wood) 19% 4% 14%

6. Openings Small doors & windows (openings) 14% 2%

10%

7. Walls Solid broad walls 13% 5% 10%

8. Foundation Solid deep and wide 6% 0.7% 4%

9. Joints Through stone 6% 1% 4.5%

10. Wood Liberal use of wood (houses made of wood) 9% 9%

9%

11. Frame Strong doors and windows 7% 72% 29%

12. Construction technique and skill of the masons 1% 0.5%

13. Structure Light structure 2% 1.5%

14. Worship 0.3% 0.5%

15. Roof strong and light wooden roof 2% 1%

6. Were the site selection related considerations were kept in mind traditionally?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 70% 28% 2%

Uttarkashi 37% 62% 1%

Total 55% 43% 2%

7. Narrate site selection related considerations of traditional construction.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi

Total

1. Consultation with priest / astrologer / experienced

person

6%

29% 12%

2. Away from water bodies 0.5%

5%

2%

3. Solid stable ground preferably rocky 23% 25% 24%

4. Flat land 7% 8% 7%

5. Site observation

(Avoid marshy land as also one with high moisture,

Should have water exit and sunshine

32% 19%

28%

6. Slope observation / Safety / No threat of slides 8% 6%

7. open space on all sides 6% 2%

8. Soil examination 21% 6% 17%

9. Strong foundation with through stones 2% 2% 1.5%

10 Time gap 0.5% 0.5%

8. Was there a tradition of consulting someone for site selection?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 90% 7% 3%

Uttarkashi 91% 6% 3%

Total 91% 7% 2%

9. Who was consulted traditionally for site selection?

Priest Astrologer Can’t say

Chamoli 33% 40% 27%

Uttarkashi 71% 9% 20%

Total 50% 26% 24%

10. On what basis the above mentioned person gave advise on site selection?

Experience Site observation Astrological

calculations

Observing the

soil of the site

Can’t say

Chamoli 21% 17% 27% 28% 7%

Uttarkashi 10% 8% 61% 10% 11%

Total 16% 13% 41% 20% 10%

44

11. Do you believe on this procedure?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 90% 7% 3%

Uttarkashi 88% 10% 2%

Total 89% 8% 3%

12. Are the site selection related these traditional considerations still practiced?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 86% 11% 3%

Uttarkashi 75% 22% 3%

Total 81% 16% 3%

13. Was there some specific considerations traditionally with regard to foundation?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 69% 24% 7%

Uttarkashi 49% 48% 3%

Total 60% 35% 5%

14. Narrate foundation related considerations of traditional construction.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Site selection (Firm, flat, safe and stony place with

low moisture)

12% 16%

13%

2. Soil examination 0.5% 0.7% 1%

3. Stone use (Large stones used in foundation) 2% 6% 3%

4. Broad deep foundation 33% 66% 44%

5. Shallow foundation 10% 7%

6. Time gap 13% 1.3% 9%

7. Foundation according to site 4% 3%

8. Beam column 3% 2%

9. Strength of foundation 8% 5%

10. Stone joints and masonry work 12.5% 9%

11. Special provisions

(Foundation digging method, stepped foundation, use

of gold, silver, brass, cow dung and wood in the

foundation, use of technology, rocks not dug

excessively, open space on all sides and rituals)

2% 10% 4%

15. What was the normal depth of the foundation?

Up to 1

foot

1 – 2 feet 2 – 3 feet > 3 feet Unless

solid rock

is reached

As

necessary

Can’t say

Chamoli 4% 6% 32% 43% 1% 3% 11%

Uttarkashi 4% 28% 25% 14% 0% 0% 28%

Total 4% 17% 30% 31% 1% 2% 15%

16. Was the house constructed at a site where solid rock / ground did not appear?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 61% 37% 2%

Uttarkashi 70% 28% 2%

Total 65% 33% 2%

17. Was there some time gap between digging up of foundation and the construction of the house?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 76% 23% 1%

Uttarkashi 28% 70% 2%

Total 54% 44% 2%

18. How much?

Upto 1 1 – 3 months 3 – 6 months 6 – 12 > 12 months Can’t say

45

month months

Chamoli 15% 9% 40% 6% 9% 21%

Uttarkashi 9% 9% 7% 3% 2% 70%

Total 12% 9% 27% 4% 6% 42%

19. Was some particular season considered for foundation works? 831 + 18 = 849

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 66% 32% 2%

Uttarkashi 39% 59% 2%

Total 54% 44% 2%

20. Which?

Winter Rains Summer Can’t say

Chamoli 0.3% 76% 0.7% 23%

Uttarkashi 6% 30% 3% 61%

Total 3% 54% 2% 41%

21. Are these precautions still taken care of?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 89% 6% 5%

Uttarkashi 63% 30% 7%

Total 78% 16% 6%

22. Which houses suffered more damage in the previous earthquake?

Traditional New Both Can’t say

Chamoli 90% 4% 0% 6%

Uttarkashi 56% 32% 9% 3%

Total 74% 17% 4% 5%

23. Narrate reasons of this preferential damage.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Lack of beam and column 1% 13% 6%

2. Weak houses built using local material (stone

mud masonry)

39% 25%

32%

3. Non use of technology mainly due to the masons

being untrained

7% 8%

7%

4. Severity of the quake 2.5% 5% 4%

5. Old construction lacking maintenance 42% 20% 34%

6. Faulty masonry work and use of round boulders 3% 9% 6%

7. Weak foundation 1% 0.7% 1%

8. Faulty site selection 2.5% 5% 3%

9. Both suffered damage 1% 6% 2.8%

10. Lack of awareness 0.2% 0.2% 0.2%

11. Non use of cement 0.4% 4% 2%

12. Others

(high, heavy construction lacking quality control)

0.4%

4%

2%

24. What is most important for earthquake safety?

Site selection Foundation Brick work /

Stone work

Engineer’s

advice

Can’t say

Chamoli 41% 29% 21% 5% 4%

Uttarkashi 37% 28% 18% 10% 7%

Total 39% 28% 20% 8% 5%

25. What are the strong and weak points of the traditional houses?

Strong points of traditional houses

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Broad walls 11% 18% 13%

2. Stone joints / use of through stones 23% 5% 16%

46

3. Foundation details 20% 1.5% 13%

4. Elaborate masonry work 20% 11% 17%

5. Wooden frames for support and wooden

joints

2% 39%

16%

6. Wooden houses 2% 18% 8%

7. Shape, size 8% 2% 5%

8. Small openings 3% 3% 3%

9. Judicious use of strong local material 3% 2% 3%

10. Light structure 7% 5%

11. Vacant space in the walls 1% 0.6%

12. Site selection 0.5% 0.4%

Weak points of traditional houses

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Absence of beam and column 5% 5% 5%

2. Non use of cement and RCC 7% 5% 6%

3. Use of weak material 13% 45% 28%

4. Stone – mud masonry 25% 17% 21%

5. Foundation 6% 4% 5%

6. Broad walls 7% 3% 5%

7. Heavy, sloping and weak roof 32% 2% 19%

8. Weak joints 12% 5%

9. Site selection 1.2% 3% 2%

10. Hard to maintain 0.8% 3% 2%

11. Technology 3% 1% 2%

26. What are the strong and weak points of the present houses?

Strong points of modern houses

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Beam - column 35% 25% 33%

2. Material (Cement – iron) 36% 63% 43%

3. Foundation detailing 7% 5% 7%

4. Light and strong roof 12% 1.4% 9%

5. Strong masonry work 1% 0.5% 1%

6. Technology 5% 1.1% 4%

7. Strong construction 1% 4% 1%

8. Site selection 3% 2%

Strong points of modern houses

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Heavy roof 3% 20% 6%

2. Size 12% 4% 11%

3. Negligence of provisions due to lack of

awareness and training

10%

10% 10%

4. Site selection 14% 25%) 16%

5. Weak walls 41% 13%) 35%

6. Quality control 5% 28%

7. Fast pace of construction 14% 11%

8. Big openings 1% 1%

Remembering past disaster events

1. Was your area ever affected by disasters?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 73% 22% 5%

Uttarkashi 74% 20% 6%

Total 73% 21% 6%

5. Was the area ever affected by earthquake?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 90% 8% 2%

47

Uttarkashi 97% 2% 1%

Total 93% 5% 2%

6. When?

1991 1999 2002 2006 Can’t say

Chamoli 18% 74% 0.1% 4% 3.9%

Uttarkashi 99% 0.3% 0% 0% 0.7%

Total 52% 43% 0% 2% 3%

8. Were all sections of the community equally affected by earthquake?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 48% 49% 3%

Uttarkashi 79% 20% 1%

Total 62% 35% 3%

9. If no, narrate reasons of differential losses?

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Earthquake intensity 2% 6% 3%

2. Construction quality 2% 18% 5%

3. Use of technology 2% 13% 3%

4. Old construction with no maintenance 21%

8%

19%

5. Site selection 5% 33% 9%

6. Construction material 66% 13% 58%

7. Shape and design of the houses 1% 1%

8. Economic condition 1% 3% 0.8%

9. Height 1% 0.2%

10. Awareness 5% 1%

10. Do you think that the magnitude of the losses could be minimized?

Yes No NR

Chamoli 56% 41% 3%

Uttarkashi 15% 83% 2%

Total 38% 60% 2%

11. Narrate ways that would have reduced the losses.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Awareness 2% 43% 8%

2. Propagation of technology 56% 20% 51%

3. Promote beam column base construction

and RCC use

15% 4% 13%

4. Capacity building 14% 4% 12%

5. Site selection 4% 6% 5%

6. Strong houses 3% 22% 6%

7. Warning and preparedness 2% 2%

8. Timely maintenance 2% 1.5%

9. Abandoning old weak structures 0.5% 0.5%

10. Appropriate foundation 1% 1%

11. Economic incentive 1% 0.5%

12. Bye laws 0.5% 0.5%

12. Have the awareness levels of the masses gone up after the quake?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 97% 1% 2%

Uttarkashi 95% 3% 2%

Total 96% 2% 2%

13. Can strong houses reduce earthquake induced losses?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 98% 0.2% 1.8%

48

Uttarkashi 97% 2% 1%

Total 97% 1% 2%

14. Have you heard of the earthquake resistant construction techniques?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 76% 22% 2%

Uttarkashi 73% 26% 1%

Total 74% 24% 2%

15. Would you be willing to spend a bit more for the cause of earthquake safety?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 87% 11% 2%

Uttarkashi 87% 11% 2%

Total 87% 11% 2%

16. Has the construction technique changed after the earthquake?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 95% 3% 2%

Uttarkashi 79% 19% 2%

Total 88% 10% 2%

17. Of what kind? (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Beam – column construction 25% 3% 17%

2. Use of cement and iron bars 54% 37% 48%

3. Bricks in place of stone 0.25% 6% 2%

4. Lintel roofs 1.5% 0.25% 1%

5. Tin roofs 0.25%

6. Change in architecture style / Loss of traditional

architecture style

3% 21%

10%

7. Earthquake resistant technology 10% 7% 9%

8. Trained masons 0.25% 0.2%

9. Awareness 1% 1%

10. Big and multistoried houses 3% 1%

11. Strong houses 2% 21% 9%

12. Foundation detailing 2% 0.5% 1%

13. Planned houses 1% 0.25% 1%

14. Large openings 0.25% 0.2%

15. Construction in open space 0.5% 0.2%

16. Less of wood use 1% 0.4%

18. Are you aware of some earthquake safety efforts being made by government or others?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 51% 45% 4%

Uttarkashi 30% 68% 2%

Total 41% 55% 4%

19. Narrate earthquake safety related efforts that you are aware of.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Relief 34% 62% 41%

2. Awareness programs 23% 20% 22%

3. Advertisements for awareness 2% 7% 3%

4. Training / Technical know how 24% 10% 21%

5. Demonstrations 1% 0.5%

6. Developmental initiatives (Check walls

/ IAY etc)

10%

1% 8%

7. Workshops and formation of

committees

6%

4.5%

49

20. Would these efforts have some benefits?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 63% 27% 10

Uttarkashi 41% 28% 31%

Total 53% 28% 19%

21. Are there some shortfalls in these programs?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 36% 57% 7%

Uttarkashi 33% 40% 27%

Total 35% 49% 16%

22. What (Narrate)?

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Government aid is discriminatory 28% 1% 19%

2. Relief not timely and adequate 36% 23%

3. Masons training is not appropriate 12% 5% 9%

4. Shortfalls in awareness efforts 12% 51% 26%

5. Limited reach 6% 19% 11%

6. Lack of community involvement 1% 3% 2%

7. Lack of commitment 3% 3% 3%

8. No economic incentives 6% 2%

9. Misuse of resources 0.5% 7% 3%

10. Duration of the program short 1% 4% 2%

11. Local government functionaries are unaware

of the technology

0.5% 1% 1%

23. Who is traditionally preferred in construction related works?

Traditional masons Masons from out

side

Both Can’t say

Chamoli 70% 28% 0% 2%

Uttarkashi 38% 56% 4% 2%

Total 56% 41% 2% 1%

24. Reasons of preferring these?

Reason of preferring traditional masons.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Expertise with local material 17% 29% 21%

2. Trust 29% 5% 20%

3. Familiarity 12% 20% 15%

4. Knowledge 15% 12% 14%

5. Experience 0.5% 10% 4%

6. Quality / Craftmanship 16% 4% 12%

7. Efficient 0.5% 5% 2%

8. Cheap 4% 1% 3%

9. Readily available 5% 15% 8%

10. Ease of communication 1% 1%

50

Reason of preferring the masons from outside.

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Efficiency 43% 20% 31%

2. Craftsmanship 22% 20.5% 22%

3. Expertise / Familiarity with new technology 18% 29% 24%

4. Experience 16% 25.5% 21%

5. Trust 1% 2% 1%

6. Shortage of local masons 3% 1%

25. Is the earthquake safe construction related knowledge of the masons assessed (or is a consideration) for entrusting

responsibility of construction?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 48% 51% 1%

Uttarkashi 72% 27% 1%

Total 59% 40% 1%

26. If easily available, would the masons with knowledge of earthquake safe construction techniques be preferred?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 97% 1% 2%

Uttarkashi 97% 2% 1%

Total 97% 1% 2%

27. Would trained masons get more work?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 98% 0% 2%

Uttarkashi 97% 2% 1%

Total 97% 1% 2%

28. Would it be possible to pay the trained mason a bit more?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 86% 11% 3%

Uttarkashi 94% 4% 2%

Total 90% 8% 2%

29. What are the reasons of low disaster awareness levels of the masses?

Long time

interval

between

successive

earthquakes

Lack of

technical know

how

Lack of

awareness

(People do not

know what to

do)

Lack of money Can’t say

Chamoli 29% 31% 23% 15% 2%

Uttarkashi 18% 28% 24% 27% 3%

Total 23% 30% 24% 22% 1%

30. Suggestions for popularizing earthquake resistant construction technology (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Awareness 35.5% 39% 37%

2. Training 25.5% 24% 25%

3. Advertisement 4.4% 3% 4%

4. Promote trained masons 1.2% 1% 1%

5. Dissemination of technical information 10% 5% 8%

6. Economic incentive 2% 14% 8%

7. Promote new type of construction and construction

material (cement)

8% 4% 6%

8. Technical assistance for safe construction 7% 2% 4%

9. Setting up of demonstration units 0.5% 1% 1%

10. Height of buildings be regulated 0.5% 1% 1%

11. Promotion of local material and construction technique 3.7% 2% 3%

12. Community involvement 0.7% 1% 1%

13. Strengthening communication links and pre – disaster 0.5% 3% 2%

51

preparations

14. Setting up information centres 0.5% 1% 1%

52

Annexure – IV

Details of the mason’s survey carried out around Uttarkashi and Chamoli to assess the

impact of earthquake safe construction related training programs on masons.

Masons Survey

1. Name of the village: Gangal, Gari, Devaldhar, Bamiala, Sonla, Kilodi, Gangolgaon, Virajkot, Kumgang,

Saikot, Ghudsal, Birahi, Doggi, Saikot, Ghudsal, Birahi, Dogdi, Tilfara, Devar, Khadora, Ghingaran, and

Bamiyala (District Chamoli), Dadsari, Agoda, Malla, Netala, Hina, Dhanpur, Manpur, Kishanpur, Ginda,

Mastadi, Jamak, Thati, Baunga, Kyarki, Siraur, Mailtipari, Athali, Chakon, Majyagaon and Bandrani (District

Uttarkashi).

2. Total respondents: 220

Age group of the respondents:

< 30 years 30 – 35 years 35 – 40 years 40 – 50 years > 50 years Can’t say

Chamoli 10 % 20 % 19 % 33 % 18 % 0%

Uttarkashi 13% 14% 32% 21% 20% 0%

Total 7% 11% 14% 18% 11% 39%

Educational level of the respondents:

Nil Up to 8th Metric Intermediate Above Can’t say

Chamoli 39 % 45 % 7 % 4 % 4 %

Uttarkashi 14% 67% 15% 4% 0% 0%

Total 18% 33% 6% 3% 1% 39%

1. Are you engaged in construction related works?

Yes No

Chamoli 100%

Uttarkashi 100%

Total 100%

2. Since when?

Upto 5 years 5 – 10 years 10 -15 years > 15 years Can’t say

Chamoli 17% 19% 20% 40% 4%

Uttarkashi 13% 28% 18% 41% 0%

Total 10% 14% 12% 25% 39%

3. Is it your familial occupation?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 62% 38%

Uttarkashi 76% 23% 1%

Total 41% 20% 39%

4. Who taught you this work?

Father / Uncle Brother Friends Others Can’t say

Chamoli 37% 4% 35% 18% 6%

Uttarkashi 67% 3% 14% 16% 0%

Total 30% 3% 17% 11% 39%

5. How much time it took you to learn this work?

1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years > 5 years Can’t say

Chamoli 23% 29% 15% 30% 3%

Uttarkashi 41% 44% 14% 1% 0%

Total 18% 22% 9% 12% 39%

5 A. Were through stones used?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 16% 84%

Uttarkashi

53

6. Is there a threat of earthquake in your region?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 99% 1%

Uttarkashi 97% 3%

Total 99% 1%

7. Houses constructed by you would withstand earthquake tremors?

Yes No Cant say

Chamoli 94% 4% 2%

Uttarkashi 90% 9% 1%

Total 93% 6% 1%

8. Do you take some specific precautions with regard to earthquake safety?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 93% 6 1%

Uttarkashi 96% 3% 1%

Total 95% 5%

9. Of what type (Narrate):

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Stable site 7% 5%

2. Bands (Beams and columns) 11% 28% 16%

3. Foundation filled with large stones 6% 14% 8%

4. Site selection 13% 9%

5. Strong deep graded foundation 37% 11% 29%

6. Masonry work 6% 5%

7. Door band 1% 7% 2%

8. Adequate ratios of material 1% 1%

9. Strength special care 4% 2%

10. Through stone a special feature 4% 2%

11. Adequate use of cement and iron bars 2% 2%

12. Stone joints 8% 6%

13. Wooden joints 14% 4%

14. Joints in the bar 9% 3%

15. Iron bars in foundation 7% 2%

16. Strong corner joints in the walls 10% 4%

172 74 246

10. You are trained in which construction technique?

Stone – mortar Cement - brick Both Can’t say

Chamoli 60% 38% 2%

Uttarkashi 32% 19% 47% 2%

Total 50% 31% 17% 2%

11. Would you try other construction practice?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 91% 5% 4%

Uttarkashi 87% 7% 6%

Total 90% 6% 4%

12. You also do the bar bending related work?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 69% 20% 11

Uttarkashi 92% 5% 3%

Total 78% 15% 7%

13. Do you follow some precautions while bending the bars?

Yes No Can’t say

54

Chamoli 62% 23% 15%

Uttarkashi 90% 1% 9%

Total 74% 15% 11%

14. Of what kind? (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Measurements are kept in mind 13% 26% 19%

2. Mesh is of 6 and 8 inches 3%

3. As per roof area and diameter of the bars and

column size

20% 11%

4. Corners binded properly 1% 2% 1%

5. Heating bars for the ease of bending 1% 1%

6. Joints of bars 14% 22% 18%

7. Double jala (mesh) 1% 1%

8. Ratio of L and B 8% 4%

9. According to height 1% 1%

10. Bars bent at 90 degrees 21% 19% 20%

11. Can’t say 17% 9%

12. Bars bent and laid properly 16% 7%

13. Stirrups bent inside (> 90 degrees may be 135

degrees)

6% 3%

14. Personal safety precautions 10% 4%

15. How many times do you prepare mortar in the day?

Once Twice Thrice Four times More As per roof

area

Can’t say

Chamoli 15% 15% 18% 6% 4% 21% 21%

Uttarkashi 8% 39% 29% 15% 5% 0% 4%

Total 13% 25% 23% 10% 4% 14% 11%

16. How much water do you generally pour in the mortar of 1 bag of cement?

Upto 20

liters

20 – 30

liters

30 – 35

liters

35 – 40

liters

40 – 45

liters

> 45 liters Can’t say NR

Chamoli 9% 23% 8% 13% 10% 22% 16% 13%

Uttarkashi 0% 4% 0% 22% 18% 54% 0% 2%

Total 6% 16% 5% 17% 13% 34% 9% 6%

17. Are the traditional houses of the region earthquake safe?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 36% 63% 1%

Uttarkashi 55% 44% 1%

Total 43% 56% 1%

18. What earthquake safety provisions were generally used in traditional houses?

Through

stones and

stone

joints

Masonry

work

Use of

wood

Foundatio

n deep,

strong and

wide

Small

house

small

openings

Site

selection

Use of soil Can’t say

Chamoli 15% 14% 5% 18% 2% 11% 6% 29%

Uttarkashi 67% 2% 7% 4% 0% 0% 0% 20%

Total 37% 13% 7% 17% 2% 9% 5% 10%

19. Have you ever been trained in earthquake safe construction techniques?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 1% 95% 4%

Uttarkashi 13% 86% 1%

Total 5% 94% 1%

27. Do trained masons get more work opportunities?

55

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 15% 8% 77%

Uttarkashi 38% 2% 60%

Total 29% 8% 63%

28. Do trained masons command higher wages?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 13% 18% 69%

Uttarkashi 54% 5% 41%

Total 36% 17% 47%

29. Do the people ask earthquake safety related questions before entrusting you the work?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 34% 48% 18%

Uttarkashi 87% 8% 5%

Total 59% 37% 4%

30. Do you voluntarily put forth your advice with regard to earthquake safety?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 81% 15% 4%

Uttarkashi 96% 3% 1%

Total 88% 11% 1%

31. Do the house owner listen to your advice?

Yes No Usually Occasionally Can’t say

Chamoli 65 % 3 % 13 % 19 % %

Uttarkashi 73% 3% 6% 17% 1%

Total 68% 3% 11% 17% 1%

32. What are the reasons of his not paying heed to your advice? (Narrate)

Not aware: 2

Poor economic condition: 11

Convenience of the owner: 2

NR: 47

33. Would an aware community result in more work and wages for the trained mason?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 95% 3% 2%

Uttarkashi 100% 0% 0%

Total 97% 2% 1%

34. Your suggestions for making the mason’s training program more effective. (Narrate)

Sl.No. Chamoli Uttarkashi Total

1. Training programs should be easily accessible 5% 1% 4%

2. Provide technical information 2% 20% 8%

3. Train in large numbers 2% 9% 5%

4. Maintain list of participants to maximize reach 1% 0.5%

5. Advertise benefits of training make people aware 9% 5%

6. Ensure more work to trained persons 2% 4% 3%

7. Masons be chosen from amongst the villages 1% 0.5%

8. Effective trainings at village level 5% 11% 7%

9. Training program (content) should be simple 16% 10%

10. Trainings should be tailored to suit local needs 1% 0.5%

11. Trainings at regular intervals 38% 14% 29%

12. Disaster awareness 5% 28% 13%

13. Earthquake safe construction compulsory 5% 3%

14. Honorarium and logistics support 1% 9% 4%

15. All safety related aspects should be covered in the

trainings

3% 2%

16. People should be made to appreciate the role of 1% 0.5%

56

masons

17. Trainings in the light of disasters 4% 2%

Demonstration 3% 0.5%

35. Would you like to undergo training program on earthquake safe construction?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 99% 1%

Uttarkashi 99% 1% 0%

Total 99% 1%

36. Are you ready to spend some money for this training?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 77% 22% 1%

Uttarkashi 85% 15% 0%

Total 80% 20% 0%

37. Would wages during training be an incentive?

Yes No Can’t say

Chamoli 99% 1%

Uttarkashi 99% 0% 1%

Total 99% 0.5% 0.5%

38. Your suggestions for making the mason’s training program more popular. (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response

1. Disaster awareness and awareness on earthquake resistant construction should precede training

2. Mass awareness

3. Directory of trained masons

4. Demand should come from the masses

5. Awareness so that trained masons get more work

6. Trainings should be in the village itself

7. Benefits of training should be publicized

8. Earthquake safety tips should be popularized

9. Effective techniques be popularized

10. Ensure more work for trained personnel

11. All should be trained

12. Short but informative

13. Trainings should be twice in a year (At regular intervals)

14. Legal binding

15. Awareness drive

16. Trainings should be simple

17. Local trainings

18. Use of modern equipment be taught

57

Annexure – V

Details of the engineer’s survey carried out around Uttarkashi and Chamoli to assess the

impact of earthquake safe construction related training programs on engineers.

Engineer’s Survey

A. District: Uttarkashi and Chamoli

B. Total respondents: 42

Age group of the respondents:

< 30 years 30 – 35 years 35 – 40 years 40 – 50 years > 50 years

Uttarkashi 12% 24% 24% 36% 4%

Chamoli 13% 31% 38% 19%

Total 12% 27% 29% 29% 2%

1. Educational level of the respondents:

Diploma Degree Others

Uttarkashi 80% 20%

Chamoli 71% 29%

Total 76% 24%

2. Was earthquake resistant construction technique a part of the technical curriculum?

Yes No NR

Uttarkashi 24% 72% 4%

Chamoli 76% 18% 6%

Total 45% 50% 5%

3. Your place is located in which Zone of earthquake risk?

Zone V Zone IV Zone III NR

Uttarkashi 92% 8%

Chamoli 88% 12%

Total 90% 5% 5%

4. Are you conversant with all provisions of earthquake safe building construction norms?

Yes No

Uttarkashi 40% 60%

Chamoli 88% 12%

Total 60% 40%

5. Do you routinely refer to the earthquake safety codes of BIS?

Yes No NR

Uttarkashi 32% 68%

Chamoli 76% 12% 12%

Total 50% 45% 5%

6. Reasons of not referring the BIS Codes. (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Engaged in small construction

works

50%

2. Codes not available 50%

7. Do you pay adequate attention to seismic safety provisions?

Yes No

Uttarkashi 72% 28%

Chamoli 100%

83% 17%

8. Have you ever been trained in earthquake safe construction techniques?

Yes No

58

Uttarkashi 8% 92%

Chamoli 69% 31%

Total 31% 69%

9. How many years have passed since you took this training?

1 year 2 years 3 years 4 years 5 years > 5 years NR

Uttarkashi 8%

4% 88%

Chamoli 29% 7% 7% 57%

Total 5% 10% 3% 3% 3% 76%

10. Where?

DMMC District

administratio

n

ATI IIT Roorkee District HQ NR

Uttarkashi 4% 4% 4% 88%

Chamoli 6% 50% 44%

2% 2% 2% 22% 72%

11. Who imparted the training?

DMMC District

administratio

n

ATI NGO IIT Roorkee NR

Uttarkashi 4% 4% 4% 88%

Chamoli 7% 40% 53%

Total 5% 3% 18% 74%

12. What was the duration of the course?

1 day 2 days 3 days 4 days 5 days > 5 days NR

Uttarkashi 4%

4% 4% 88%

Chamoli 31% 6% 6% 13% 44%

17% 2% 5% 2% 5% 69%

13. Did you learn something new?

Yes No NR

Uttarkashi 12% 60% 28%

Chamoli 50% 13% 37%

Total 27% 42% 31%

14. Do you regularly practice the earthquake safety elements you learned in the training?

Yes No NR

Uttarkashi 16% 64% 20%

Chamoli 69% 31%

Total 37% 39% 24%

16. Suggestions for making these programs effective. (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Training should be practical and at the construction

site

40% 26%

2. Standards should be developed for retrofitting 12% 8%

3. BIS Codes should be made available 16% 10%

4. Traings should be organized at local level 29% 10%

5. NR 32% 71% 46%

17. What you think would be the magnitude of losses if earthquake strikes this region again?

More than before Less than before NR

Uttarkashi 52% 40% 8%

Chamoli 44% 44% 12%

Total 37% 42% 21%

59

18. Reasons. (Narrate)

Sl. No. Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Inappropriate construction being doe due to lack of

awareness

24% 17% 23%

2. People not aware 16% 50% 23%

3. Non-compliance of codes / Bye laws 32% 33% 32%

4. Unplanned construction 12% 10%

5. Most construction is framed 16% 12%

19. Can the magnitude of earthquake induced losses reduced?

Awareness Training Building bye

laws

Insurance of

houses

NR

Uttarkashi 20% 32% 28% 20%

Chamoli 25% 19% 25% 31%

Total 22% 27% 27% 12% 12%

20. Are you consulted on earthquake safety provisions by private house owners?

Yes No

Uttarkashi 48% 52%

Chamoli 63% 37%

Total 54% 46%

21. On what aspects? (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Earthquake safety provisions 18% 46% 27%

2. Regarding RCC construction 7% 5%

3. NR 75% 54% 68%

22. Do people seek earthquake safety related information from you?

Yes No

Uttarkashi 40% 60%

Chamoli 50% 50%

Total 44% 56%

24. Do you face problems in complying with earthquake safety provisions?

Yes No NR

Uttarkashi 68% 12% 20%

Chamoli 19% 81%

49% 39% 12%

25. Of what kind? (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Lack of awareness 44% 42%

2. Lack of resources 28% 26%

3. Compliance not compulsory 28% 26%

4. Masons not trained 100% 6%

26. How do you solve these? (Narrate)

Sl.No. Response Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Departmental supervision 23% 19%

2. Mason’s training 8% 33% 13%

3. Engineer’s involvement in approval of construction

plans

15% 13%

4. Promoting framed construction 8% 6%

5. Awareness and financial incentives 23% 19%

6. Popularise earthquake safe construction and reduce costs 23% 67% 31%

60

28. What precautions can reduce the magnitude of the earthquake induced losses?

Sl.No. Response Uttarkashi Chamoli Total

1. Deep foundation

Strong joints

Light and strong material

35% 23%

2. Awareness 30% 36% 32%

3. Promote RCC construction 10% 6%

4. Promote earthquake safe construction 10% 27% 16%

5. Training and compliance of bye laws 15% 10%

6. Retrofitting 10% 3%

7. Promote light structures 27% 10%

61

Disaster Risk Management Programme

Ministry of Home Affairs

Government of India

Department of Disaster Management

Government of Uttarakhand

United Nations Development Programme