13 ways to tackle inequality in India

Make inequality a political campaign issue: Despite being important to the

electorate, inequality is absent from major political campaigns. Inequality clearly
matters in Asia. A recent poll found that 82% of Indians see it as a major
problem. It doesn't take an economist or a sociologist to know that such sharp
inequalities are unsustainable. But curiously, in the loud political discourse that
assaults us non-stop in the run-up to the general elections, none of the major
parties has made fighting inequality a real issue in their campaigns
Introduce land reforms and raise taxation for the wealthy: We should
work towards reducing asset inequality through redistributive land reforms but
also through inheritance taxes, preventing monopoly of control over water,
forests and mineral resources and reducing financial concentration. The equality
of opportunity needs to be increased through good quality and universal public
provision of essential amenities and social services. We can raise the public
resources for doing all this by taxing the wealthy more and by increasing the
effective taxation of corporations, which have benefited greatly from the boom
and more than doubled their share of national income, but not been taxed
accordingly.
Give a voice to oppressed groups: We can tackle bias against caste and
gender first of all by recognising the value and dignity of all work (including
unpaid work) and all workers (including those in the most difficult arduous and
degraded occupations). We should also provide a greater voice to traditionally
oppressed and suppressed groups, including by enabling unions and association,
and making public and corporate private activity more transparent and
accountable to the people generally.
Improve the balance of mass media: The media in India plays a role in
sustaining inequality. This is becoming an urgent problem. We must take
measures to reduce corporate takeover and manipulation of mass media
Eliminate caste discrimination: Caste discrimination is still all pervasive.
Discrimination based on caste status is a root cause of the high poverty levels
that caste-affected people experience. Most Dalits, live below the poverty line,
earn less than the minimum wage, have no access to education, experience
segregation in access to housing and suffer from numerous diseases, not least
because of lack of access to safe drinking water and sanitation. This inequality is
exacerbated by the lack of implementation of existing laws to protect the Dalits
Harness the power of technology: Policymakers should not forget that
technology has helped in reducing some of the access barriers in India,
particularly in relation to access to information. Policymakers should focus on
making technology cheaper and deepening its penetration
Widen access to quality basic services: A two-tier system has been created,
with largely privatised quality education and health care for those who can pay,

and a large population left to fend for themselves with very poor quality public
services.
Make women more visible in public life and institutions: It is shocking to
see that in India women make up only 5% of the total police force, just two out of
24 supreme court judges and as we are going through polls right now, only 11%
of the last parliament are women.
Ensure that India's growth is for the benefit of the many, not the few:
India is a place of increasingly stark extremes in wealth. In the same India where
millions use smartphones, millions live in poverty. Within India, there are many
different countries. One is high-flying and tech-savvy, with people driving flashy
cars in and out of top-starred hotels and clubs. Another is white-collared middle
class, and another is still struggling to survive.
Make development inclusive of those with disabilities: As far as India is
concerned, we might score very highly in terms of growth of physical
infrastructure, but most of the public places are inaccessible to people with
disabilities. As per the 2011 census, India has about 2.7 million people with
disabilities, and only a handful of those enjoy education and/or employment.
Challenge the growth agenda: Beware of phrases like 'inclusive growth' and
'growth with a human face'. These concepts are not helpful and basically serve
the purpose of hiding the structural violence and poverty in India
Ensure that all groups and communities can express their voice without
fear: While they may have the vote, Dalits in the past experienced election
violence. In the last election the National Dalit Election Watch (NDEW) recorded
263 incidents of election violence against Dalits, formally known as
untouchables, in India. The violence manifests in several forms with Dalits being
threatened, abused and prevented from voting and also violently attacked after
the polls.
Stop the blame game: Instead of addressing the actual causes of inequality,
we indulge in a blame game. Both the middle classes and political leaders have a
tendency to blame the poor for their poverty, rather than to consider broader
structural issues. When visiting Anand in Gujarat last year, Narendra Modi
blamed the huge problem of child malnutrition in the state on the parents of the
children. There is a very strong tendency among the middle class to treat
poverty and inequality as natural and inevitable.

How India lives: Inequality, impoverisation and

identity
Share on twitter Share on stumbleupon Share on email More Sharing Services SHARE COMMENTS

A recent paper in EPW clearly demonstrates the links between poverty and vulnerability caused by social identity
in India. It also demonstrates the extent to which inequality is increasing. This is a recipe for political dissent, says
John Samuel
Poverty is not merely about numbers. Poverty is the denial of the right to live with dignity. Poverty is perpetuated
by an active process of impoverisation that emerges out of unequal and unjust power relationships.
The notion of impoverisation (or the active creation of poverty within a society or economy) needs to be seen in
the context of social, economic and political inequality. Such inequality is perpetuated by entrenched identities,
emerging out of cumulative marginalisation; poverty is no longer a humanitarian issue but a deeply political issue.
The political economy of impoverisation, resulting in active denial of social and economic rights, may induce
more violent conflicts and political unrest in a given society. Such conflicts may pose a further problem for
economic growth and social security.
A recent paper, 'India's Common People: Who Are They, How Many Are They and How Do They Live?' by Arjun
Sengupta, K P Kannan and G Raveendran in the Economic & Political Weekly, March 15, 2008, clearly
demonstrates the link between poverty, inequality and identity in the Indian context.
To quote the key highlights of the paper:
"This paper attempts to define the common people of India in terms of levels of consumption and examines their
socio-economic profile in different periods of time, since the early-1990s, with a view to assessing how the
economic growth process has impacted on their lives. The findings should worry everyone. Despite high growth,
more than three-fourths of Indians are poor and vulnerable with a level of consumption not more than twice the
official poverty line. This proportion of the population which can be categorised as the 'common people' is much
higher among certain social groups, especially scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. There is also evidence to
suggest that inequality is widening between the common people and the better-off sections of society."
The authors sum up their excellent analysis with the following findings:
"To sum up, an overwhelming majority of the Indian population, around three-quarters, is poor and vulnerable and
it is a staggering 836 million as of 2004-05. This includes 70 million or 6.4% who may be characterised as
extremely poor with a per capita consumption of less than or three-quarters of the official poverty line. To this
should be added 167 million of those who are poor with consumption not more than that fixed as the official
poverty line. If this is relaxed to include those with a per capita consumption of up to 25% above the poverty line,
called marginally poor here, then we find another 207 million. These three groups account for 444 million or
40.8% of the population. To this we add those with a per capita consumption between 1.25 and two times the
poverty line as vulnerable and this group of poor and vulnerable comes to 836 million of Indians or well over 75%
of the population.
"The next major finding is the close association between poverty and vulnerability with one's social identity. The
two social groups who are at the bottom by this classification are the SCs/STs, who constitute the bottom layer,
and the Muslims, who are in the next layer. This does not mean that the other groups are far better off. The next

group is the OBCs but better than the two bottom layers. Even for those who do not belong to any of these
groups, the incidence is 55%."
This analysis confirms the policy and political arguments some of us have been making for the last many years.
This also validates our argument against the present notions and definitions of the poverty line.
But the key questions are:
1.

What are the policy and political implications of such an analysis?

2.

Do the present policy and budget paradigms, and the mode and pattern of economic growth, perpetuate
the existing marginalisation and the growing inequality?

3.

What key policy prioritisation is required to transform the situation in a more proactive and positive way
in the next five to ten years?

Here are some of my responses (only meant for those who are further interested in the paper).
1) The methodological framework employed here gives a far better analytical mode to compare poverty across
classes, particularly in terms of status of education, work etc. Such a comparative analytical perspective also
gives a sense of the nature and character of economic inequality, in relation to poverty and social inequalities.
Such an analysis also helps to develop far more focused policy prioritisation and interventions (if at all there is
the political will to do so).
2) The paper clearly points out how cumulative marginalisation (in terms of caste/social hierarchy, access to
education, access to employment etc) perpetuates impoverisation and multiple forms of inequality. It would have
been good to get a sense about the gender dimension in the analysis.
3) When inequality has a direct correlation with identity, social locations and historical marginalisation, it is indeed
a recipe for political discontent, contestations and consequent violence. The consequences of inequality,
cumulative marginalisation and entrenched social identity may challenge and change the present political
equations and formations in India.
4) The fact that there is an assertive middle class in all sections (SC/ST/ Muslim/ OBC etc) will enable the
potential emergence of an articulate and assertive leadership among these sections and this will eventually
influence the political process. This is already evident in many states like Tamil Nadu, UP, Bihar etc.
5) While the study is based on 2005-06 data, it will be good to know whether the CMP, NREGA etc of the UPA
government have made any difference. Apart from the rhetoric of the so-called "Aam Admi" (75% of the
population), to what extent has the UPA public policy and budget allocation made a difference?
In fact, even in this budget, there is hardly any increase in the allocation for SC/STs. Even writing off the
agricultural loans of farmers may benefit the "others" more than SC/STs and Muslims -- though the OBCs may
also get some benefits. While it is good to have 20% increases in the allocation for education, that is not good
enough to substantially change the condition of SC/STs and Muslims.
6) The fact is that more than 40% of the population is really, really poor and at the receiving end of cumulative
marginalisation. The vulnerable poor (most of them may be OBCs) still may have better bargaining power and
also tend to intervene in the mainstream political process. But the marginalised poor and the poor may challenge
the mainstream political process by initiating a series of 'micro' struggles or even armed contestations to the
State to challenge the existing custodians of State and corporate power.
7) This shows that India is at the threshold of a new political transition in the next ten years. If the mainstream
parties (Congress, Left etc) fail to significantly challenge and change their present assumptions and approaches,
they will lose significant constituencies, and new actors and new political formations (both reactionary and
mainstream) will emerge on the scene in the next ten to 15 years.
8) The present mode of urban-centric, service sector-driven growth, at the cost of agriculture, small and mediumlevel enterprises and rural infrastructure, will create new population pressures, rural-urban migration, new forms
of urban poverty and a consequent increase in crime and violence.

It would have been good if the paper had given some in-depth analysis of the rural-urban implications and how
social and economic locations affect access to quality education and gainful employment.
9) It seems that more than 80% of the beneficiaries of economic growth are the upper caste, urban,
professionally educated class. This will have implications in terms of real estate ownership patterns (for instance
there are a number of "vegetarian" housing societies or "exclusive caste" apartments -- without making it obvious
-- in the new metros), English media (the upper caste-educated will be the consumers) and corporate leadership
(who tend to appropriate or control the mainstream political process through election funding and new forms of
patronage).
We need a new policy and political paradigm to ensure a stable, secure, democratic and vibrant India. I am not
sure how many political parties are even thinking beyond the next election or next six months! That is not a good
sign for the future of Indian democracy.