Social Exclusion: The European Concept for Indian Social Reality

Introduction

Since the concept of social exclusion has been inducted in academic and research programmes in India through the creation of 32 Centres to Study Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, there is a steady interest to understand the pros and cons of the concept as an academic discipline. Social exclusion as an effective social practice has been familiar since centuries, but its academic roots were unveiled recently in the European Union (EU). The concept was first used in France to articulate the deprivations manifested by high unemployment in the seventh decade of the nineteenth century. Post 1980s, the concept came into circulation of EU’s social policy discourse; this trend and language have multiplied unending concern about the deprived sections. However, within no time, the concept has emerged effective in the European policy, based on which the EU has committed promoting growth of the weaker sections, addressing high unemployment and persistent inequalities, etc. On a larger scale, the policy implications of the concept is to achieve overall social development in the EU and overcome social disadvantages. The elevated importance for the concept within the EU is partly due to the vivid structural integrity it brings while dealing with the various social groups in any given society. It is understood that using the language of social exclusion would highlight the multidimensional deprivations that any social problem might cause, and would promote remedies for such problems with an effective social inclusion approach in order to help those who fall under the trap of poverty and allied deprivations. Indeed, social exclusion is a holistic way of understanding any deprivation irrespective of its background. Owing to its significant attribution, currently combating social exclusion has been identified as one of the key objectives of social policy across the globe.

Objective of the Article

The University Grants Commission’s (UGC) (of India) concern to deploy the concept of social exclusion in research in order to offer input for policy formulation is quite an ambitious move. Besides, the rising critic on adopting Eurocentric social science approaches in non-European countries has always been an issue for debate (Alvares, 2011). In addition, it also raises concerns to understand how a loose concept like social exclusion could play any role in understanding and analysing the social disparities persisting in a culturally diversified country like India. With this background, this article will scrutinise the background of the concept and its application for India, which has embarked on a neo-liberal strategy in the recent past. Further, this article tries to see how India could respond to the existing inequalities using the new approach of social inclusion. This paper is divided into two sections: the first section deals with analysis of theories of social exclusion and its implications, while the second section highlights how the concept of social exclusion can be best reconciled in social policy.

Social Exclusion and Its Origin

The concept of social exclusion has its roots in the theory of social cohesion, which dates back to eighteenth century (Mathieson et al., 2008). Parkin (2006) relates his understanding about the practices of social exclusion with ‘social closure’ where he describes it as an ‘attempt by one group to secure for itself a privileged position at the expense of some other group through a process of subordination’ (p. 126). However, the concept in its current form come to light in the mid-twentieth century, especially in the post-Second World War scenario, where industrialisation and globalisation have excluded a few sections of people from ripping the benefits. In such scenario, middle and working classes mere struggled to cope up with the rising costs in the event of rising unemployment, poverty and other deprivations (Saith, 2001). In Europe, especially in France, it produced peak range of unemployment and underemployment, which often was caused by the failure of ‘welfare’ state. As a result, the groups affected have experienced continuous exploitation and exclusion and moved towards edges of society. Though poverty, which is an immediate and one of the most noted cause and consequence of financial exclusion, social exclusion, which itself tackles issues pertaining to poverty, in addition to the other social problems, was adopted to bring holistic understanding.

The first literal use of the term is credited to Lenoir (1974) ¹ who described social order in the then France, which was extremely depressing for a certain sections of people. Within a short span of time, the term attained popularity in all cultures, economies and political systems. Though the poverty school of thought claims that the concept of social exclusion has been incited in France due to the unpopularity of poverty as a concept; however, its origin has spread debate beyond stand-alone poverty remarks (De Haan, 2001). In addition, the term ‘excluded’ can be seen as synonymous for defining those who fall outside the contributory safety-net in a larger sense (O’Brein et al., 1997). The concept is also projected to fulfil a consistent demand that modern societies have brought in terms of identifying different social problems of humanity that cause or restrict participation of individuals in mainstream social functioning. Notwithstanding all these views, there is a tremendous need to describe any value addition that social exclusion promotes when compared to the other concepts that speak about social inequalities.

What Do We Define as Social Exclusion?

Defining the concept of social exclusion is quite a tricky task. In spite of various significant debates across academic fields and policy makers from different parts of the globe, the outcome tends to be quite disappointing because such discussions have not produced any strong definition that can be applied in all social conditions. Social exclusion as a concept is capable of speaking for any social problem and its consequence. Due to this elastic nature of the concept, largely diversified views and concerns about it lag its validity far beyond. This situation has helped many scholars, who are already working on the relative areas of deprivation and vulnerability, to step in to see their respective field of research from social exclusion perspective. For example, during an Academic Council meeting at one of the Indian Universities that was about to ratify notification for recruiting faculty in its newly established Centre for Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy, had to undergo a tug of debate to include applications even from experts of natural and physical science disciplines to study social exclusion. This demand was brought down with significant counter arguments from social scientists. However, the entry of multiple expertise in the field has on the one side, positively attributed to various new arguments, tools and techniques and on the contrary, it has also created tensions as far as the validity of the concept is concerned due to the vague attribution from different academic streams.

Though ‘social’ in social exclusion ideally deals with social structures and social networks, its purview constantly touches economic, cultural and political aspects and their relevant alteration to social structures. Hence, the misery of the concept has multiplied as scholars from various disciplines tried to influence the concept. In addition, its elastic nature is capable of attributing for all circumstances that may denote how a person becomes excluded. For example, an individual called ‘x’ may be considered as included in mainstream after obtaining a Ph.D. degree, however, he/she falls under the rubric of exclusion, if he/she continues to be unemployed. Due to variedness of the concept through circumstances, it requires a major understanding of both circumstances and consequences that result in social exclusion within the national and regional contexts to enhance its effective adaptation.

Now let me propose a set of observations of a given context in order to effectively understand how social exclusion is capable of creating multiple disadvantages. If we consider ‘Adam’ as an individual who is excluded or pushed away from mainstream, in the first phase, background and living conditions of Adam must be understood in a systematic method. This understanding attributes for broader analysis in later stage that could enhance the possibility of more intensified reasons for such scenario. In the following phrase, reasons that propelled Adam to move away from mainstream need to be taken up. We have to learn whether this move is a result of his own choice. If it is Adam’s own choice, then one has to locate reasons for such a move. In this condition, applying Rawlsian theory of social justice would help us to understand whether Adam is aware about the consequences of his journey away from mainstream. If his move helps him to secure better life, then there is no need for apprehension. What happens if the move defeats its aim of improving the life? Will Adam get a choice of being relocated to his earlier position? On the contrary, if the move is the result of hegemony or dominance of certain sections in mainstream, then the following understanding may be useful. On whose interest Adam is being pushed away? Why has Adam given up rather resisting the attempts? Is not there any support system for Adam that speaks on his behalf against his exclusion? Is such exclusion a result of an earlier act of Adam? For example, if Adam has attempted a theft, then society may not accept him. In some other case, is it because of his lack of capabilities to compete enough with the existing systems in place? Adopting such thorough prolonged analysis certainly helps scholars to be more relevant to conduct any studies related to understanding the magnitude of social exclusion. However, such an analysis may not be needed in all cases. Hence, the researchers have to ideally understand the need for such analysis and act accordingly.

Due to its vague underpinning, the concept has been broadly conceived by various policy mechanisms. For example, the EU considers that

Social exclusion is a process whereby certain individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented from participating fully by virtue of their poverty, or lack of basic competencies and lifelong learning opportunities, or as a result of discrimination. This distances them from job, income and education and training opportunities, as well as social and community networks and activities. They have little access to power and decision-making bodies and thus often feel powerless and unable to take control over the decisions that affect their day to day lives. (European Commission, 2004)

In order to be labelled socially excluded according to the EU: (a) one has to be moved away from mainstream society where normal living conditions do not prevail; (b) this state of pushing away prevents participation of excluded in various activities necessary to access basic services; (c) this may happen due to the lack of income that dictates financial capabilities of the affected or lack of basic skills that could have not been acquired with learning opportunities that they may have missed or as a result of discrimination based on caste, creed, gender or disabilities, etc.; (d) this process attributes them without a job, income, education to their children and training opportunities that may have helped them to empower their capabilities; and (e) as a result, they are no more connected to decision-making bodies whose decisions affect their lives. This attributes them as powerless and weak because of which their voices are not respected.

Social exclusion could become reality as a cause or consequence of notable social problems, including poverty and low income; unemployment; poor educational attainment; poor mental or physical health; family breakdown and poor parenting; poor housing and homelessness; discrimination based on caste, creed, gender and age; crime; and living in a disadvantaged area. The risk factors that cause social exclusion tend to cluster in certain neighbourhoods, but not everybody at risk lives in a deprived area (Social Exclusion Unit, 2004). Thus, the concept raises several serious concerns about issues such as social relations, networks and social ties (Atkinson, 1998; Room, 1999). It becomes relevant at this juncture to understand which groups are capable of being excluded and the many conditions and circumstances that may result in such exclusion.

Who Are Socially Excluded?

In the view of its current adoptability, the concept of social exclusion offers a large purview and covers broad realm of excluded sections. Indeed it is noticed that some people may face exclusion for long time, which may be permanent in nature but most of the people face short-term exclusions. For instance, we can consider disability as an impediment that falls under permanent social exclusion where one may not be compensated to become fully included; however, there are ways available in order to avoid relative exclusions that may emerge due to his/her original cause of exclusion. There are other sections of excluded, who can be pulled out of the trap, provided that they are facilitated with opportunities. For instance, if poor are provided with certain livelihoods then they will come out of the poverty trap. Thus, social exclusion is an endless process; it may move across communities due to several reasons and sometimes due to causes of active and passive exclusions or unfavourable exclusion and inclusion (Sen, 2000). However, there is a clear ambiguity over the structural views on what constitutes the pool of excluded. Now let me put forward different views expressed by the scholars in the field.

To begin with Lenoir (1974), the socially excluded are those who are not protected by welfare state and thus were considered as social misfits. Indeed, mentally and physically handicapped, the aged and invalid, drug users, delinquents and suicidal people, etc., are those who would be considered as excluded. The abstract explanation by Lenoir is a clear indication to proclaim that the role of failed state is significant in terms of its negligence towards the excluded. In Silver’s (1994) interpretation, social exclusion is the result of monopoly paradigm where certain sections, keep other sections, such as deprived, out of the social functioning. Thus, the aged invalids, abused children, those in substance abuse, delinquents, single parents, multi-problem households, marginal, asocial persons and other social misfits are considered as socially excluded. The contextual difference between Lenoir and Silver could be seen from their own geographical contexts. Though the list of excluded in both the views are quite similar, their views are strongly manifested by their geographical understandings of the societies in which they live.

Todman (2006) comes out with a set of methods that cause social exclusion such as abandonment, ostracism, discrimination, shame, marginalisation, segregation, confinement, imprisonment, exile and pathologisation, extermination and genocide; public policy, governmental and other institutional practices, cultural values and beliefs, demographic shifts, globalisation, technological innovations and organisational transformations are the agents to promote active exclusion. So, in addition to the social processes discussed earlier, markets and government policies also cause social exclusion. For instance, developing countries have chosen construction of dams as a way for inclusion of certain sections of people in the mainstream, whereas, on the contrary, the act also excludes certain other sections such as indigenous tribes because they are displaced and further re-excluded. The available data show that in most of the cases they are never rehabilitated in an acceptable way (Kummitha, 2008).

The practices of exclusion in developing countries include, the following: landlord excludes people from access to land or housing; elite political groups exclude other from legal rights; priest in India may exclude Schedule Castes from access to temples; minorities may be excluded from expressing their identity; labour markets, and some trade unions exclude people (non-members) from getting jobs; and so on. Such practices narrate how various dominated sections push the disadvantaged towards exclusion (De Haan, 2001). De Haan’s perspective is that the structural disparities and cultural disadvantages always dominated by those who stay on top of the ladder and exclude others who remain at the bottom. With the cross-cultural examples and experiences of exclusions, it is clear how exclusion can be effective and the kind of consequences it causes. Such exclusion from dominancy is capable of resulting in exclusion from education, exclusion from housing, exclusion from property ownership, exclusion from democratic participation, exclusion from access to health services and exclusion from public goods, to name a few (Nayak, 1995). In addition, one may think in terms of gender-based exclusion, exclusion of the old and infirm, exclusion of widows and exclusion of the physically handicapped. However, on contrary, cultural factors also play crucial role in dictating social exclusion. Lack of participation in cultural life that includes issues related to cultural identify, promoting one’s own culture and participation in various activities that would enhance skills and talents of the individuals or groups concerned (Council of the European Union, 2010).

Thus, social exclusion approach projects a unique way out to understand a variety of causes and consequences any social disorder may lead provided that local needs are taken care while interpreting the contexts. It also confirms that adopting social exclusion approach to interpret social problems is a progressive move in order to understand the social structures in a holistic manner. It also further unveils social order in the form of outer/inner classes where hierarchies are no more entertained, instead groups are placed parallel within and outside mainstream societies (Chile, 2002).

As demonstrated, no doubt that the concept seems to be challenging and has the potential to highlight social hierarchies and transform them towards homogeneous paradox. Still, there are consequent dilemmas among researchers whether social exclusion is a new theory or it is simply a new way of inquiry over the issues that have already been thoroughly discussed and debated. One such sticky situation was posed by scholars who claim that ‘social exclusion’ is not obviously innovative, and perhaps it is duplication of the theory of poverty. The second situation is to see how social exclusion differs with deprivation. In order to understand such dilemma, a critical deliberation is proposed below to scrutinise its validity.

Social Exclusion as a Holistic Concept

Understanding significance of social exclusion as a concept can be materialised through analysing differences among existing predominant concepts that talk about vulnerability. Such analysis not only allows researchers to be prompt to contribute for rigour of the field but also helps policy makers to attribute policies on the influences oriented. On such a move, I consider discussing about three concepts of similar outlook—poverty, social exclusion and deprivation in detail.

To start with, poverty is a situation in which income plays a major role. Inadequate income prevents the affected from leading standard acceptable life. It exists when someone’s actual income is below a poverty line. The second one is deprivation. Deprivation exists when resources that are inadequate precludes people from accessing services and resources that are necessary. The third one is social exclusion. Social exclusion exists when people find it difficult to participate in key activities in society that affect those who miss their participation. To make it further clear, poverty and deprivation are about what people cannot afford from different ends, whereas for exclusion, what people do not perform matters. These three concepts are distinct from each other in the way they operate and affect communities. However, they overlap with certain limitations. Significantly, these three approaches are key for developmental discourse because they strictly cover what requires for effective social functioning (Saunders, Naidoo & Griffiths, 2007).

Europeans who prioritised the concept of social exclusion in their policy outbound, distinguished social exclusion from income poverty. Poverty is a distributional outcome whereas exclusion is a relational process of declining participation, solidarity and access. For some scholars, exclusion is a broader term encompassing poverty; for others it is a cause or a consequence of poverty (Silver & Miller, 2003). Here the paradox is that people who are socially excluded need not to be poor, but all the poor are socially excluded. Indeed it shows that poverty is one aspect that the broader concept of social exclusion covers. Notion of vulnerability is closer to the concept of social exclusion. If poverty is defined by income or consumption outcomes, then social exclusion attributes value-addition to all allied concepts by adopting them in its broader realm. In addition, social exclusion attributes for a dynamic way of describing the process of social stratification whereas poverty simply preludes a condition. Poverty occurs due to the shortage of income that may have resulted from unemployment. Indeed, poverty emerges because of the only reason related to low income, but social exclusion occurs due to multidimensional deprivations. As a result, Sen (2000) welcomes the framework of social exclusion because its roots are spread in deprivation, and he believes that it is an ideal measurement to demonstrate how poverty causes capabilities deprivation. Capability deprivation not only attributes poverty but to the wellbeing that social exclusion theory altogether describes. Poverty comes through its only mean—lack of access to resources or income, but, social exclusion can occur through any deprivation that were discussed earlier. That is the reason Social Exclusion Task Force of the United Kingdom has disclosed that social exclusion is about more than poverty. It is about having the personal capacity, self confidence and aspiration to make most of the opportunities, choices and options in life that the majority of people take for granted (Social Exclusion Task Force, 2003).

Like poverty, all other deprivations such as caste, race, gender, physical disability, etc., may also result in relative extreme conditions; however, social exclusion as an approach takes a single stand to deliberate any such cause that disturbs social functioning. Thus, poverty is only one of the related sources of deprivation which enforces along with social exclusion. For example, being excluded from employment may lead to other related deprivations as Adam Smith felt ‘inability to appear in public without shame’ (Smith, 1976), which could also be called social exclusion, because sometimes social exclusion creates certain situations where the affected may not feel comfortable to appear in public. Caste in India and race in the United States are some of them, which are not accurate grounds for poverty but produce social exclusion. Thus, all these deprivations, which aim to exclude certain individuals or sections from participating in mainstream activities, are covered under the realm of social exclusion.

To sum up, poverty prevails due to lack of proper economic sources to carry out certain activities, but social exclusion is lack of proper social participation in particular and all other activities in general. Thus, elimination of absolute poverty is one of the prior conditions in order to combat relative poverty. Policies and acts should aim at achieving social inclusion in order to create a holistic social order. Hence, studying or combating social exclusion should be given primacy over poverty and deprivation because of the holistic benefits that it offers; for example, anti-poverty programmes may only aim to eradicate the poverty, and anti-deprivation policies may highlight measures that are needed for deprivation-free societies, whereas fighting against social exclusion holds fighting against every deprivation.

Implications for India

Having dealt with a wide range of social issues in the North, the concept of social exclusion has travelled to the South. In a more elaborative sense, the concept has spread its significance from developed world to the developing countries and the United Nations agencies such as ILO, UNDP, UNESCO, WHO and UNHCS act as prime forces for the knowledge transfer (Clert, 1999). In India, the first decade of liberalisation has promoted enormous exclusions and further attributed to the existing deprivations. So, exclusion and deprivation have multiplied, having left majority of people on the margins of developmental agenda put forward by socialist India. Though there were plenty of social policies in operation, the damage that liberalisation has attributed never could be retrieved with the help from existing approaches. It is at this juncture India adopted the concept of social exclusion in both policy and research through Common Minimum Programme by the United Progressive Alliance Government in 2004 and University Grants Commission in 2008, respectively.

Social exclusion is a relatively recent phenomenon for developing countries (Stewart et al., 2006). This new concept numerically deals with a wide range of sections in Indian society. And the ultimate goal of employing social exclusion/inclusion theories is to promote inclusive societies. For the author, inclusive society follows utopian model, which balances social structures and abolishes hierarchies through which everyone’s participation in social life is guaranteed. Active social inclusion upholds the notion of inclusive societies. Social inclusion is about addressing combination of issues that include income inequality, education, skill levels, housing affordability, health inequalities and work–life balance (Silver & Miller, 2003).

The UGC recognised that the issue of social exclusion not only has policy implications but also attributes for theoretical explanation of social structures. In order to give priority to social exclusion/inclusion in policy discourse, there is a need to espouse holistic nature of this approach in research work to analyse the possibilities of its adoptability. Thus, UGC, which is an independent body of Government of India that is established to coordinate, determinate and maintain standards of university education in India, believes that higher educational institutions should address issues of marginalisation under the broad realm of social exclusion through its research outputs. In addition, the Government of India has started promoting the idea of social inclusion through its inclusive policies. Though undertaking various policies that are aimed at promoting social harmony and social security is quite familiar since its independence, given India’s strong cultural obligations for certain sections to negate others, the language of inclusion has brought value addition to the whole attempt to uphold prosperous living.

India prioritised study and practice of social inclusion in the twenty-first century. The newly established Centres to Study Social Exclusion and Inclusive Policy have been assigned to look at the matters related to (a) conceptualising discrimination, exclusion and inclusion based on caste/ethnicity and religion; (b) developing understanding of the nature and dynamics of discrimination and exclusion; (c) contextualising and problematising discrimination, exclusion and inclusion; (d) developing an understanding of discrimination at an empirical level; and (e) formulating policies for protecting the rights of these groups and eradicating the problem of exclusion and discrimination (University Grants Commission, 2006). The guidelines are pretty relevant in the current context and a large chunk of excluded such as Dalits, tribals and religious minorities have been covered as named in the objectives prescribed. However, another set of excluded namely poor, women, disabled, who constitute more than half of the Indian population, are excluded from being labelled as ‘excluded’ in this attempt. Thus, the concept seems to be narrowed down from its original dialogue that was experienced in the European context, for that matter even policy outlay of Indian subcontinent. It is also to be realised that because of certain limitations, the European labour market context of social exclusion may not capture the magnitude of social exclusion in Indian context that has been based on several classifications (Radhakrishnan, 2009). Even as presented in the first section, critic against Eurocentric approaches in general and social exclusion in particular restrict the author from criticising the UGC for limiting adoptability of the concept with a view that the concept may have been adopted in accordance with local environment in which given sections are predominantly vulnerable (Alvares, 2011; Verma, 2011). However, the other groups that the author is concerned about must also be considered by researchers and policy mechanisms as they experience much vulnerability similar to the contexts discussed earlier. Let us now see the compatible sections of population in India that could be considered as excluded based on the analysis drawn from the first section.

India has a wide range of socially excluded population. These deprived groups experience discrimination and abuses in everyday life. Until now India has seen all deprived from their source deprivation point of view. However, by adopting present approach, all deprived, irrespective of their source deprivation, will perhaps be considered under this broad realm of social exclusion. It would altogether offer a new definition for all social misfits. Certain sections in Indian society such as, that is, Scheduled Caste (SC), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and religious minorities experience active exclusion from mainstream, which is materialised by deliberate social processes (Sen, 2000). Historically, Indian society has been divided based on caste system, in which society has been stratified into four sections namely priests, warriors, traders and labourers. The classification was hierarchical, which limited participation of the latter in social life. However, there is another section of people who were never considered part of the social hierarchy and placed below hierarchy as untouchables, that is, SC (Olivelle, 2004; Radhakrishnan, 2009). ST altogether did not acknowledge mainstream caste system and preferred to inhabit in forests and mountains, away from the mainstream social life. Social systems that modern society adopted are partly considered as reasons for exclusion of tribals. Historically, religion has been a source of spiritual identity, modern era on the basis of numerical strength and religious identity has resulted in a new class, that is, religious minorities, the class that has become continuously depressed in everyday context. One could easily locate that the question of rights never become a question for those who are placed below in the caste hierarchy. The more privileges upper strata enjoy, the more vulnerability downtrodden sections face. Those who are placed on top of the ladder enjoy privileges at the cost of those who are placed in the end (Thorat, u.d.). Thus, these sections are unable to take active part in social life because of which they never become integral part of any society. Hence, attaining social inclusion in India is largely about attaining equality for those groups, which are socially placed at the end of the ladder, in addition to addressing poverty and discrimination faced by other social sections.

The strong discrimination Dalits experience is quite visible and accordingly elimination of same has been given priority in both policy and research. However, there are plenty of other groups that are not seriously given consideration by the objectives prescribed by the UGC. In the current context, discrimination is everyday practice in ‘other’ communities as well, based on their financial and cultural backgrounds. Haves never entertain have-nots. It happens within and across communities. However, the discrimination Dalits face is cross-cultural and more aggressive that is based on untouchability. The research claims that despite several laws and constitutional provisions are adopted to eliminate practices of untouchability soon after independence, it is still practiced at grassroots (Navasarjan Trust & RFK Center, 2010). Hence, I argue that policies must highlight vulnerability of all the deprived and, in case of dalits, value addition is eliminating practices of untouchability and caste-based discrimination. However, it does not itself restrict ‘other sections’ to avail benefits from the welfare regime. The present concept of social exclusion in such a direction is noteworthy.

Let me point out some of the other sections that fall under the rubric of social exclusion in the Indian context. The other backward classes (OBCs) occupy more than half of the total population. Though the discrimination they face is not based on untouchability discourse, they have been structurally discriminated and their participation in mainstream is restricted. Women are one of the most deprived sections in traditional outlook. Women stand behind men in many indicators such as literature (Dharmalingam & Navaneetham, 2011) and nutritional standards (Jose, 2011). Though life expediency is higher among women, quality of life that they lead during old age is disastrous (Bose, 2008). SC or ST may get equal respect in their respective societies, but women do not get equal position across all communities. Women always experience social disadvantages from wider society, their community and from their families. Apart from these sections, children rights have been violated in all spheres of the society. Still about 13 million children are leading their lives as child labour in India (Biggeri, Sudarshan & Mehrotra, 2008). According to the human development index proposed by UNDP (2010), 55 per cent of people live below poverty line (BPL). India has about 21 million disabled population (www.censusindia.gov.in). To name, there are numerous sections that fall under the rubric of social exclusion. Every section broadly needs attention and they all deserve significant attribution from a strong macro social policy.

Since independence, various national and state governments have initiated a number of policies in order to tackle several forms of deprivations. Though they are aimed to include the excluded in mainstream, the language and magnitude of social exclusion/inclusion has not been brought under policy scanner. There are several programmes that are aimed directly to bring inclusion across communities. In order to facilitate planning and implementation of such social welfare schemes, Five-Year Plans were started immediately after India attained independence. Under these plans, funds were transferred to various heads like rural development, education, welfare of SC/ST, women empowerment, child development and so on. These plans allow governments to set milestones to be achieved by end of each plan and any unachieved from chosen milestones by end of the Plan will be carrying forward to the next Plan. Currently, the 12th Five-Year Plan (2012–2017) is in operation. Now let me stress some of the significant social policies that have been promoted since independence.