Abstract
There is no dearth of studies on poverty in India which measure it in terms of inequalities in income and consumption. Some studies, lately, also take into account ‘social exclusion’ as one of the contributory factors for persistence of poverty and inequality. What is significant about this book is its exclusive focus on social exclusion as a structural constraint which keeps the affected groups trapped in inequality and immobility in their existing conditions vis-à-vis other groups. Also, while investigating these structural constraints, it gives importance to the exclusion processes–unequal access to resources, education and opportunities which prevent these groups from crossing the barrier and move up in the social ladder.
The study of ‘social exclusion’ is restricted to three social groups only—Adivasis, Dalits and women who are described as the ‘three axis of exclusion’. While this exclusion is defined by a historically graded process embedded in religious sanctions in the case of Dalits and women, it is influenced by geographical and cultural factors in the case of Adivasis. The exclusion processes have been looked at in three inter-related fields–services, markets and political participation. In each of these three groups, attention is focused on a subset of issues which offer tools that can be applied to study other forms of exclusion, i.e., in the case of Dalits, it is their poor labour outcomes while in the case of Advasis, it is their geographical isolation and dispossession from land and forest. In the case of women, poor health and survival outcomes, vulnerability to violence and disadvantage in labour market are crucial issues.
Of the three groups, the book notes that development outcomes are the worst in the case of Adivasis. In 2004–05, 44 per cent of their population remained in poverty compared to 27.5 per cent of the country. The gap between them and the average Indian is large and growing. In states with higher tribal population, poverty rates among Adivasis were higher than the rates in the rest of the country. Their poverty status is also evident from their health outcomes of which child mortality is the starkest indicator. The Adivasi households experience the highest child mortality rates in the country. The Adivasi children show a higher likelihood of dying between 1–4 years which is attributed to low converge of immunization and poor health of the mothers. The book hits the nail on the head when it observes that at the core of this process of underdevelopment is dispossession of Adivasis from their traditional source of livelihood–land and forests, their powerlessness in political decision-making processes which determine the paradigm of development and growth and the absence of leadership from their own communities. The book notes that while there is an impressive array of affirmative policies for protection of Adivasi interests and bridging the gap between them and the rest of the population, the poor implementation is at the heart of the problem.
In the case of the Dalits, the caste system with its norms of purity and pollution bears down heavily on their status and efforts to improve their condition. This is nowhere better exemplified than in the hereditary passing down of occupations making it difficult for them to break the cycle of exclusion. The study concentrates on education and labour market to illustrate this point. Among its findings on the Dalits, there is a recognition that of the three groups, certainly in comparison to STs particularly, the Dalits have much greater political participation in decision making, and have developed greater ability to assert in public space. There is also significant expansion of education among the Dalits male population. But even with skills and education, they face roadblocks in moving up. The belief system that is, caste prejudice, militates against their success. This is now well documented in access to jobs and higher level positions in social and political life and even in attempts to gain entry into and pursue professional courses in the institutions of Higher education. Both Dalit men and women have high rates of labour participation. But they are condemned to menial, low-paid, stigmatizing occupations, low-end positions in salaried jobs and as casual labour in farm employment.
This leads to high wage differentials between them and other caste groups besides low status. There is a nearly 60 per cent wage gap between SCs and others. The recent developments also point to a disturbing trend towards Dalit women withdrawing from the labour market. The acquisition of education and skills does not lead to higher mobility which translates into lower returns. No wonder, many Dalit families find accessing education disincentivising. Not only this, the attempts of the Dalits to move out of stigmatizing and low level caste occupations into self-employment are hugely resisted by higher castes. They face disadvantages and systematic discrimination in accessing land, credit, market, raw material and even skills notwithstanding affirmative policies of earmarking percentage of benefits in programmes, institutional facilities and resources.
As for their own enterprise, the examples would indeed be negligible. Their initial conditions–lack of assets and poor access to market – constrain their mobility. The new opportunities do not seem to have broken these barriers. On the positive side, the study finds that Dalit solidarity movements and affirmative action policies have succeeded in claiming for the Dalits political space more than what the other two groups have been able to achieve.
Women’s poverty is conditioned by lower level of work participation and wages and poorer health and education outcomes. They have less voice in political and general arena and they also face problems in access to markets. Since women cut across all social groups, the Dalit and Adivasis women face caste/ethnic disadvantages besides gender bias and suffer from multiple discrimination. The study finds that the roots of gender inequality are strong and cut across religions, classes and castes which affect a range of outcomes–education, health, employment and, most significantly, survival.
Among women as a group, Adivasis and Dalit women (Muslim women can also be added to this category) show much poorer outcomes. Cultural practices are responsible for low sex ratio and bias against the girl child among Hindus and Sikhs specifically. Child bearing remains a high risk event leading to a higher rate of maternal mortality despite safe delivery practices available. This is because less than half the women receive complete ante-natal care and 60 per cent of women still deliver at home. The low coverage of immunisation and institutional delivery is attributed to violence which prevents them from accessing reproductive health services. Violence emerges as a marker of extreme inequality in their case which points towards the need for addressing it both for its own sake as well as for improving other dimensions of their condition.
Labour market has been identified as one of the most important sites of gender inequality because entry into it itself is a huge problem for women due to cultural bias. Besides, acquisition of education, far from enhancing access to labour market, lowers the likelihood for the same reason. Like the other two groups, the inequalities in wages and opportunities also work as an additional disincentive. Women’s average wage is 71% of men’s wage notwithstanding the Equal Remuneration Act which makes such wage differential a penal offence. Women’s labour is confined to domestic field and remains unpaid. The burden of looking after children also acts as a significant constraint. They also suffer from an additional disadvantage unlike other two groups. The threat to violence and physical harm and lack of security outside home hinders their effort to seek employment outside home. Among the Dalit and Adivasis women who do participate in the labour market, most of them are stuck in farm based employment as casual laboure or family labour in artisan households. They are unable to make the transition to self employment and non-farm employment due to lack of access to credit and market. Women’s voice and assertion has increased over time, but is insufficient to break the barriers even at the local level.
The commonality that emerges from the analysis of the three groups is that economic growth is inequitable and is unable to change the traditional hierarchies of caste, ethnicity and gender. The Dalits are held back by initial disadvantages of their birth in particular castes. The female disadvantages also persist which growth has not been able to neutralize. The exclusion is rooted in inequality in opportunity, access to credit and labour market and in voice and agency. The militancy in the case of Adivasis represents a form of voice and assertion but has not able to reverse their exclusion.
The book unequivocally coveys the message that inclusion is necessary to break the barriers outlined above. This involves changing the processes that produce and reproduce exclusionary outcomes. This change would not come about by addition of programmes and creation of institutions but by giving these groups effective and decisive say in the way decision are made, resources are allocated and polices are implemented particularly in matters which concern them vitally. The changes are required not merely in the structure of institutions to achieve this but in the way they operate, hire employees and enforce laws and regulations. Implemetation of affirmative policies is the key not only for inclusive economic growth but also for an inclusive society and polity which in itself is of intrinsic value.
There is nothing startling about the conclusion that the economics growth has been inequitable and particularly with respect to these marginalised sections. As for the traditional factors responsible for exclusion of these groups (particularly the SCs and women) and dispossession from land and forest in the case of Adivasis, this too is well known. The growth pattern has tended to exacerbate rather than neutralize them, very markedly so in respect of the Adivasis whose alienation from their traditional livelihood has been pushed manifold with the acquisition and diversion of their land and deprivation of their access to forests without alternatives being provided to them. There would be little to dispute the point that the change has to come about in the processes that continue to discriminate against and marginalize these groups everywhere, not merely in labour and credit market but also giving them an effective voice in decision making on matters which affect them. The book, however, disappoints when it concludes by advocating that institutions must change and effectively implement affirmative policies and programmes. It fails to raise the questions why institutions behave as they do and why programmes and policies do not get implemented and therefore stops short of investigating their reasons. If it had done so, it would have found that the reasons for it lie in the power structure at all levels, dominated by the groups which stand to gain from the exclusionary processes and do not that what these groups should acquire higher status to challenge their dominance and dislodge them from their position. Even the assertion of these groups proves to be of no great value as it is brutally suppressed by the state agencies which their adversaries control. The widespread militancy in the tribal areas has led to no change in the pattern of exclusionary growth or in the tilting of implementation process in favour of the Adivasis. Rather, the counter violence by the State leads to their further exclusion from services and benefits. The discrimination against the Dalits in several government controlled institutions too does not get mitigated by protests and agitations. There is in fact no political or bureaucratic interest in doing so. The affected groups have nowhere to go as there is virtually no agency which can effectively hold the implementing institutions accountable for poor enforcement despite having mandate to do so. This is true even of the ‘powerful’ judiciary not to spark of the toothless bodies like the National Commissions whose reports are not even discussed in the Parliament. In fact, the entire democratic apparatus has become irrelevant to their concerns. When have you heard Parliament discussing issues concerning their groups in a meaningful way. Government’s characteristic response is tokenism in political participation and addition of more laws and programmes to get over the momentary embarrassment when glaring features of exclusion, worsening social and economic conditions and cases of violence against them get highlighted by the media. Therefore, the studies like the present one, despite their heightened concern and reasoned advocacy do not change the way these sections are governed. It is therefore the politics of governance which needed to be brought into the discourse to provide specificity and direction to the analysis.
These comments notwithstanding, the book is a lucidly presented analysis of the problem of social exclusion. Its importance lies in giving centrality to it in the discourse on poverty in respect of these three groups. It is also a good reference for evidence contained in existing literature on the entrenched sociological factors rooted in traditional practices and dysfunctionality of institutions entrusted with the responsibility of bridging inequalities which are responsible for persistent marginalization of these social groups .