Relationship Between Livelihood Capitals and Livelihood Strategies of Dalit

Conceptualized Dalit: Output of Caste System

The word ‘caste’ originated with the definition—small and named group of persons characterized by endogamy, genetic relationship and precise lifestyle, continuing with traditional occupation and hierarchical system—in the fifteenth century from the Portuguese (Beteille, 2012). Caste system was created by Hindu philosophers, and they believed caste is determined by the ‘nature’ and qualities of the persons and with a distinct function (Ram, 1999). However, Dubois (1857) argues caste system in different ways. He argues that the caste system originated from the Brahmins because they wanted to rule and govern the society, therefore imposed several social restrictions on ‘non-Brahmins’. They put themselves in the highest position of the society and divided the society by rank (as cited in Ram, 1999). According to Ghurye (1964), caste is related to sociocultural institutions; it has certain characteristics and a fundamental cultural premise for the organization of Hindu society, separated into different groups, with changing grades of propriety and circle of social contact. He explains that caste is basically based on the concept of segmental division of society, hierarchy, restriction on marriage, feeding and communal communication. He further added that because of the caste division, people have less choice of the occupation (as cited in Subedi, 2011).

This shows that caste system is the division of community by the ruler to rule upon people and communities. In this context, Dalit is one of the communities which was created by Hindu philosophers to govern. However, now the rulers are defending their ‘guilt’ in the name of ‘division of work’ because caste system becomes a social problem and means of oppression for communities like Dalit. For example, for the first time Mahatma Gandhi employed the word ‘Harijans’ as children of Hari or Vishnu. But he forgot to maintain accordingly (Sunder, 2015). He carefully dealt with Dalits with reference of Hindu theology even which was already biased towards Dalits.

Generally, societies are divided into two ways; status and class. Status is mainly related to the economic order and Race or Varna, caste and ethnic group. According to the Rig Veda, Varna is the category of the caste—Brahaman, Kshetriya, Vaisya and Shudra—on the bases of the Purush Sukta, colour, occupation, personal characteristic and heredity (Bhattachan et al., 2009). Sikand argues that ‘Dalit’ is the overall package of the oppressed. The term ‘Dalit’ constitutes of all the burdened and demoralized unit of civilization. The author further argues that Dalit is the synonym of downtrodden, disadvantaged, underprivileged, dispossessed, deprived, handicapped, abused, humble, prostrate and so on. Furthermore, Dalits are not oppressed only by the culture, they are also oppressed by economic opportunity, ways of life and value system and dignity. So, we cannot find their real situation by analysing just one aspect. However, ‘Dalit’ has become the neglected caste in the society and culture (Sikand, 2002).

The Dalits are characterized on the basis of patron–client relationships where they received bali ¹ for their labor. According to Hindu caste system, Dalits have their traditional livelihood strategies or occupation. The major livelihood strategies of the Kamis are iron work, gold work, wooden work and making agriculture tools; and that of the Sharkis are leather work and physical (labor) work; and that of the Damais are tailoring and playing musical instruments. However, people are changing their livelihood strategies to cope with vulnerability and are adopting the diverse livelihood strategies for better livelihood.

According to the traditional caste based occupation, Damais stitch and repair the clothes, play the music Panchebaja during the festival and mainly at ceremonies. Kamis mainly make the agriculture instruments and Sarkis make and repair the leather items such as Halludo ² and shoes. However, the traditional occupations of the Kamis include constructing house and making wooden instruments together with aran ³ work. All Kamis, Damais and Sharkis provide their service annually to all other castes and receive bali from their clients. For such annual services given to the clients, the tailor households receive a certain portion of grain (generally paddy) annually from every household of their clientele. The amount of the grain generally depends upon the members, oxen and land of the household. Besides this, Dalits work in agriculture as well. They would work as the landlord’s ploughman for the cultivation of the paddy. The ploughman receives wages in return for his services, and the quantity of grain was often fixed by custom. A man who worked for the landowner on this condition was called hali ⁴ (literally, ploughman; Pokhrel & Chhetri, 2006).

Sustainable Livelihood Approach: Way to Conceptualize Livelihood

The sustainable livelihood approach is one of the ways to improve knowledge on livelihood of persons and household (Samsudin & Kamaruddin, 2013). A livelihood incorporates three factors, assets/capitals, activities and capabilities (Chambers & Conway, 1992). A livelihood will be sustainable if it can cope with the stress, shocks and vulnerability. Furthermore, for sustainable livelihood, it has to recover from stress, shocks and vulnerability. Every livelihood maintains or enhances its capabilities and assets both now and in the future. However, capabilities and assets have to maintain and enhance without any harmful effect on the natural resource base. From the above discussion, it can be outlined that livelihood would be sustainable only when it could cope with and recover from stress, shocks, vulnerability and enhance the capabilities of the individual without causing depression on the natural resources base.

Again, Ellis (2003) defined livelihood as the combination of the three factors, assets, activities and outcomes (as cited in Ellis & Freeman, 2005). Furthermore, livelihood is also the combination of the different activities of an individual or group in which an activity helps to meet the objective of the living. Furthermore, livelihood would be sustainable if it is able to tolerate or face the different difficult situations of life. However, to tolerate the difficult situation, individuals need to have capabilities and assets such as education, longevity, income, access to natural resources and physical ability to use the assets.

Satge et al. (2002) defined livelihood as the combination of the possession, access and judgment constructing. They further argue that livelihood is the ability of the households to create and sustain their means of living, enlarge their well-being for themselves and the upcoming generation. Livelihood depends upon the accessibility and obtainability of the environmental, biological, financial and political resources. Nevertheless, these resources have to be distributed on the basis of impartiality, possession and fair judgment.

This shows that livelihood is the combination of three factors—livelihood capitals, livelihood strategies and livelihood outcomes. Where, they help to fulfil the means of living of a household or individual. Generally, livelihood depends upon the available capitals or access in resources of household, capacity to perform over resources, activities undertaken by household members and outcome of the household. However, it is also dominated by the local condition or context and policies of the state in which they live. Furthermore, contexts such as socio-economical, environmental and political depend upon the access to the individual in the capitals/assets as how they can use these to enhance their capacity to attain protected livelihood. This shows the interrelationship between the components of the livelihood combined with policy and context.

Lower but Significant Relationship Between Livelihood Strategies and Livelihood Capitals

Livelihood strategies are the variables for identifying key influencing factors for the financial, physical, social, human and natural capitals. Agriculture, traditional occupation, foreign employment, service, labor work and business were taken as livelihood strategies. Capitals were categorized into the range of ≤ .20, .21–.40, .41–.60, .61–.80 and ≥ .81.

The Dalit households that have been adopting agriculture (5.7%) had low financial capital (< 20%) compared to foreign employment and labor work. Likely, Dalit community who had been adopting foreign employment (3.4%) had higher financial capital > 60% (.61–.80) followed by agriculture and labor work. The majority of the Dalit community (82.6%) had around moderate level (21%–80%) of financial capital. The relationship between financial capital and foreign employment, business, service and agriculture found better than the relationship between labor work and traditional occupation. Furthermore, the relationship between livelihood strategies and financial capital was found positive and weak strength of relationship was statistically significant [χ² = 41.066, df 18, N = 350, p = .001 and ф coefficient = 0.343].

The relationship between livelihood strategies and natural capital was found at moderate level because 66.29% households had 41% to 60% natural capital. Similarly, only 1.7% Dalit households had more than 60% natural capital and 32% have 20% to 40% natural capital. It was notable that the Dalit household who had adopted natural resource-based livelihood strategies had low natural capital. For instance, 20% farmers had less than 40% natural capital. However, 21.1% Dalit household who had 40%–60% natural capital were adopted foreign employment as major livelihood strategy. Furthermore, the relationship between livelihood strategies and natural capital was found positive and weak associated with statistically significant relationships [χ² = 29.222, df 10, N = 350, p = .001 and ф coefficient = 0.289].

Physical capital of the Dalit farmers was higher than others where 3.1% farmers had more than 81% physical capital followed by labor work 0.6% and foreign employment 0.3%. This study further explored that the relationship between the livelihood strategies and physical capital seemed good because 98% households had more than 40% physical capital and 61.4% had more than 60% physical capital. Similarly, Dalit households who have adopted traditional occupation as livelihood strategies have moderate level physical capital. For example, none of those households have less than 41% or more than 81% physical capital. Likely, service holders also have the same status. For instance, none of the service holder household had less than 40% physical capital. Besides this, the relationship between livelihood strategies and financial capital was found positive and weak strength of relationship was statistically significant [χ² = 44.533, df 18, N = 350, p = .000 and ф coefficient = 0.357].

The social capital of the household was comparatively low because only 12.9% have more than 40% social capital and none of them has more than 60% social capital. The relationship between the social capital and foreign employment and relationship between the social capital and labor work was higher than others. For instance, 4.9% and 4.3% of the Dalit households who had adopted foreign employment and labor work as have more than 41% social capital. This shows that, relationship between foreign employment and social capital and relationship between labor work and social capital is higher than relationship between physical capital and service, business, traditional occupation and farming. However, the study shows that overall social capital of the Dalit households was found low because 84.9% of them had less than 40% social capital. The study found that the relationship between livelihood strategies and financial capital was positive and weak strength of relationship was statistically significant low [χ² = 2.911, df 12, N = 350, p = .028 and ф coefficient = 0.256].

The Dalit households who had adopted agriculture (1.4%) had low human capital (< 20%). However, 20% farmers had more than 40% human capital and 11.4% had more than 60% human capital. Similarly, the Dalit community who had taken foreign employment (19.1%) had higher human capital (> 60%) followed by the farmer (11.4%) and labor work (10.6%) where majority of the Dalit community (91.5%) had around moderate level (> 41% of human capital). The study found that the relationship between livelihood strategies and financial capital was positive and weak strength but statistically significant relationship [χ² = 40.547, df 24, N = 350, p = .019 and ф coefficient = 0.34].

Hypotheses Testing

Five hypotheses were formulated on the basis of the reviewed theory, finding of the previous research studies and stated research question. Six livelihood strategies—agriculture, traditional occupation, service, foreign employment, labor work and business were taken as both livelihood strategies and financial capital, physical capital, human capital, social capital and natural capital had been taken as livelihood capitals. Hypotheses were formulated between each capital with livelihood strategies. To test the formulated hypotheses Chi-square (contingency table) was used. The alternative hypotheses were converted into the null hypotheses and two-tailed chi square was applied with 95% of confidence level. Following the formulation of null hypotheses: there is a relationship between livelihood strategies with livelihood capitals (human, financial, physical, natural and social; H₀: Phi coefficient = 1). Table 1 shows the significance level of the chi square test.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Significant Test Between the Livelihood Strategies and Livelihood Capitals.

Livelihood Strategies	Capitals	Chi-Square	df	Sig. (2-tailed)	Phi
Livelihood strategies	Human capital	40.547	24	0.019	0.34
	Social capital	2.911	12	0.028	0.256
	Physical capital	44.533	18	0.000	0.357
	Natural capital	29.222	10	0.001	0.289
	Financial capital	41.066	18	0.001	0.343

Source: Primary data source, Survey, 2019.

Note: p < .05.

The relationship between the livelihood strategies and human capital was statistically significant [χ² = (df 15, N = 350) 40.547, p = .019 < 0.05]. This established that availability of the human capital in households would help to choose the livelihood strategies. Therefore, the study found that there was significant relationship between the human capital and livelihood strategies (H₁) of the Dalit community. Likely, the relationship between the livelihood strategies and social capital was statistically significant [χ² = (df 12, N = 350) 2.911, p = .028 < 0.05. The relationship between livelihood strategies and physical capital was statistically significant [χ² = (df, 18 N = 350) 44.533, p = .000 < 0.05]. The study further shows that the relationship between the natural capital and livelihood strategies was also statistically significantly [χ² = (df, 10 N = 350) 29.222, p = .001 < 0.05]. Again the study shows a statistically significant relationship between the financial capital and livelihood strategies [χ² = (df, 18 N = 350) 41.066, p = .001 < 0.05].

Livelihood Capital and Livelihood Strategies: Positive with Moderate Relationship

This study explores that the relationship between all components of livelihood strategies and livelihood capital are positive. However, relationships between all components of livelihood strategies with five livelihood capitals were found to have less than moderate relationships. This shows that all capitals have a positive role to determine the livelihood strategies and the role of all capitals in livelihood strategies were predictable in population (p value is less than .05). However, it has contradicted findings of (Liu et al., 2018). They found that the relationship of livelihood strategies was negative with natural and human capital. Nevertheless, there was a positive relationship with financial and physical capitals and no relationship with social capital, where authors have also taken similar types of the livelihood strategies. It has already been discussed that maximum Dalit households were adopting agriculture as livelihood strategies but the role of natural capital to choose the livelihood strategies was found very low (relationship between livelihood strategies and natural capital was only 0.28). This shows that agriculture has been adopted as livelihood strategies whether they have limited natural resources. Therefore, this condition may lead to the livelihood insecurity among the Dalit households. Likely, this study found that the relationship of the livelihood strategies and livelihood assets was significant.

Su and Sang (2012) measured the relationship between livelihood capitals and livelihood strategies. The author found that there was a positive relationship between the physical capital and financial capital, conversely, there was a negative relationship between livelihood strategies and human, natural and social capital of the households. First, the result was similar to this study but the second result is contradicted with the finding of this study. Furthermore, the authors found that relationships between financial capital and livelihood strategies had significant relationships and other relationships were not significant. However, Fang et al. (2014) found that there was a significant relationship between the livelihood strategies and livelihood assets of the households. Kemkes (2011) conducted the survey in Georgia. It was found that there was a significant relationship between natural capital and livelihood strategies of the households which contradicted findings of (Su & Sang, 2012). So, it cannot be said anything about the relationship and degree of relationship between the livelihood assets and livelihood strategies of the households. It would be different by the geographical region, cultural and social networking of the households.

Lieneri and Burger (2015) argue that there was a significant relationship between the natural resources and livelihood outcome of the people. However, lack of livelihood strategies to use natural resources and knowledge of natural resources did not contribute to the livelihood outcome of the people. This study explored the similar result because the relationship between natural resources and livelihood was weak. They further argue that if the people have natural capital, it also contributes to the social capital. However, it was already discussed that the social capital of the Dalit community of Kusma municipality was very low which is contradicted with the finding of this study.

This study also disclosed that there were not any fixed ideas about the relationship between the livelihood capital and livelihood strategies. The relationship between livelihood strategies and livelihood capitals were found low. Yang et al. (2018) found the same result in their study. They have found that the households have been adopting two types of the livelihood strategies full time and part time. They further argue that the relationship between the livelihood strategies and livelihood assets would be different according to areas.

To grasp the desired outcome, people adopt different activities on the basis of set assets, which are available to them (Geiser et al., 2007). So, assets play a major role in the livelihood of people. Because they chose their livelihood activities on the set of resources that enable them to achieve their desired livelihood outcome. Regarding this study, all assets have a positive role to choose the livelihood strategies. Similarly, access to the resources are shaped by the institution and institutions are frequently confirmed and redesigned by what people do (De Haan & Zoomers, 2005). The result of this study is also found in similar way as Dalit households have left their traditional caste-based occupation and are adopting new livelihood strategies; farming/ agriculture, foreign employment and labor work as redesigned by social institution and structures. This study further disclosed that there was a significant relationship between the livelihood strategies and social and cultural assets. Further, Yuliati and Isaskar (2018) argue that livelihood strategies of the households depend upon the livelihood capitals of the households. Moreover, all components of the livelihood are interrelated and interdependent (Giri, 2020). If the households do not have sustainability of the other livelihood assets such as human, natural, physical, financial and social then they have used foreign employment as a livelihood strategy.

The finding of this study theoretically appeared different with the findings of other related studies. For example, some of the findings show that there was a negative relationship between the livelihood strategies and livelihood capitals. This means that only policy and sociocultural context of the country and community might positively contribute to the livelihood capitals of the households. Moreover, to enhance some livelihood capitals of the households, policy and sociocultural context should change. However, this study shows that effective livelihood strategies can contribute to the livelihood capital of the households. However, policy and sociocultural context might be supportive.

Capitals and Strategies: Capabilities and Functioning

Capability approach has two major concepts—functioning and capabilities; where functioning is related to the achievement of the individual or households (Robeyns, 2003). Furthermore, it is related to the living condition of the people or it is related with the outcome of the households. In this sense, capabilities are the abilities of the persons to achieve the objective of life as viewed by (Sen, 1999). Furthermore, the capability approach considers more about what persons are actually able to be and do.

Functioning of a person is related to what people have and how to use resources, whereas capability refers to the set of valuable functioning that a person has effective access to. Then, when the functioning is achieved, this provides the utility or subjective well-being to people (Robeyns, 2003). So, livelihood strategies are more related to how people use those resources or capital that they have. Capabilities refer to the effective freedom of an individual to choose between different functioning combinations. This mean that when people have access to the livelihood capital and they have multiple skills, knowledge and sound health conditions (human capital) to use those assets, then people conduct the activities (livelihood strategies) or functioning. When people achieve the functioning, it produces utility (outcome). Then livelihood strategies can be expressed as the functioning of an individual, whereas capability approach assumes strong relationship between the capabilities and functioning of an individual. Similarly, agency is related with acts of the people, which affect and change their situation on the way of their desire (Ellis, 2003). However, structure may dominate the capability of a person. So, this argument is relative with our finding as well, because beside the good human capital of the Dalit community, it does not have expected relationship with livelihood strategies of the Dalit community.

The finding of this study shows that the Dalit households had moderate level of livelihood capitals. Most of the capitals were around national average and more. Human capital of the Dalit community was more than the national average. Furthermore, all of the Dalit households were adopting multiple livelihood strategies according to their available resources/capital and skill or knowledge they had. Therefore, they had freedom to choose their livelihood strategies which were the combination of being and doing. This is the functioning of the Dalit community. With the reference to the above discussion, it can be concluded that capabilities and functioning of the Dalit community had moderate relationship.