City of Joy- Anubhav Bigamal A007

ASSIGMENT ON POVERTY BASED ON THE MOVIE

“CITY OF JOY”

- By: Anubhav Bigamal, Roll No. A007

-

The movie “City Of Joy” directed by Roland Joffe, based on the novel by Dominique Lappierre brings forth

the woeful predicament of the poor living in perpetual poverty in the most straitened circumstances. Set in

the slums of Calcutta the plot reveals the most astonishing and disheartening reality of the urban poor, who

struggles to fight deprivation, suffering, cruel exploitation, disease, filth, social ostracism to rekindle the

dream of a better future for the family which seems so bereft from the reality of their petty existence.

The movie necessitates to reflect on the poverty in the rural & urban India and also to understand the

interwoven relation between poverty and the social exclusion.

Poverty at basic can be defined as denial of resources and opportunities, causing deprivation of overall well -

being. Thus poverty creates a choice less, resource less, deprived, insecure and vulnerable individual, which

to a large extent is socially alienated. In India the chronic poverty is excessively high in marginalized groups

like Scheduled castes and scheduled tribes. The statistic speak boldly, that on an average it is seen that one

out of every two people belonging to these groups are poor as compared to less than one out of three when it

comes to general population, hence contextualizing social exclusion among groups perpetuating poverty.

Social exclusion refers to unequal access to benefits, status and opportunities of growth in the society. In the

paper, Sharma puts it as incomplete citizenship. In a briefing note by Sarah Byrne and Devanshu

Chakravarti, on “Inequality, Power and Social Exclusion in India” it is brought about vividly in statistics

quoted how social marginalization of groups cause poverty. It is seen in India that SCs and STs in rural areas

constitute 20 percent and 11 percent of rural population but poverty but SCs constitute 38% of rural poor

and STs around 48%, which is astonishing. Inequality and social exclusion undoubtedly germinates poverty

by dividing people on basis of caste, creed, religion, gender, and denying them equal participation in growth.

The movie “City of Joy” evidently brings in this aspect of social exclusion and poverty in the nation

especially in the urban setup. It portrays the protagonist Hasari Pal, a small peasant from Bihar, who is

rendered homeless on failing to pay a debt of a moneylender. The Pals in hope of starting life anew come to

the city of Calcutta, in search of a livelihood. They land up in the City of Joy, a small township which is

ruled by a coalition of gangsters, which exploit the poor to fill their treasuries. By the mercy of one of the

godfathers, Hasari fortunately gets an opportunity to drive a rickshaw manually to make both ends meet. The

exclusion that the community and slum dwellers face along with the exploitation at hands of the gangsters is

quite realistically brought about. In the article “Urban migration & Exclusion” by Preeti Mann she brings

about the contrasting view of the urban development in recent years in India, wherein she talks about a class

of haves and have-nots existing in the urban context.

Urban development brings out the stark contrast wherein on one hand we see high rise skyscrapers,

attractive shopping arenas, distinguished corporate offices, and well planned residential spaces, and right

amidst this rosy picture lies the blemish on the perfect landscape, the slums, shanty houses, jhuggis, and the

people engaged in undignified work in the informal sectors, the rag pickers, the construction workers,

rickshaw pullers and hawkers. In the urban setup most of these poor are the migrant population from the

rural areas, which like shown in the movie are like the Pals who come attracted to the gleam of opportunities

but get entangled in the cobweb of exploitation and deprivation in the informal sector with exploitation,

harassment bereft of any security.

In the movie, a godfather made a statement of how people with everything or nothing are satisfied, but those

who have little are the ones who are discontented, and crave for more. He cleverly states that since there

isn’t enough wealth in India his role in keeping the masses of the City on a bare subsistence level was a

noble deed. This indeed reflects, the predicament of the poor who end up getting trapped in the system of

such godfathers and are perpetually exploited. Godfathers considered money as a wall that separated them

from the outside world of poverty pointing at the social exclusion that poverty can lead to.

One account of such banishment is also seen wherein people with leprosy are shunned without cause in the

film. In the article Preeti Mann has rightly pointed out that though cities have helped in mitigation of

traditional caste based discrimination and inequality but the urban spaces have now led to a new form of

inequality based on social and economic profile. She argues correctly that such social profiling has restricted

the poor migrants access to urban spaces equally, which is rightly shown in the movie. Hasari Pal, wants to

buy a bridal dress for his daughter from a high profile megastore, but his profile and economic background

deters him to even accessing the store and he tries to gauge the price from the outdoor itself. Mann in her

article reasons the sparse efforts of the State in creating a safe housing, clean drinking water, sanitation

access, for the entrant migrants.

Such exclusion on account of social and economic profile is predominant in urban space, but in the rural

scenario as well it is evident as the evidence pointed at the beginning. Even today, dalits in India face

exclusion in securing lucrative jobs in the private sector as employers look down upon their background.

However it’s not only social exclusion, Sarah Byrne and Devanshu Chakravarti in their paper point the role

of adverse selection also wherein even if people from such marginalized groups are selected in educational

institutions, very few can complete their degrees due to lack of economic competence.

Addressing such exclusion, is necessary. The state neglect needs to be addressed towards the migrant. Under

the urban housing shortage it is found that 90% of these pertained to economically weaker sections and low

income migrant group. Urban development hence needs to be exclusive.

There needs to be a change in the power relations confronting the groups that are responsible for exclusion

through monopolising economic or political power of sorts. But often these influence policy making which

renders such argument frail.

Any policy made to address the exclusion would only be a mere sham as Mann points out in the article in

absence of strict implementation and monitoring. It is imperative to address such socio economic exclusions

mushrooming in urban centres, ignoring which could lead to civil strife, as even in the movie we see an

upheaval of power by the slum dwellers on instigation by Dr. Max Lowe to stand for their rights and against

exploitation.

The other aspect of poverty is the distinction between its impacts in the urban v/s rural centres. Rural

poverty can be a result of various factors like low income, poor agricultural production, and illiteracy, lack

of access and ownership of natural resources. The main group are the landless agricultural labourers and

marginal farmers. Urban poverty is quite multidimensional where poor suffer from lack of job opportunities,

lack of adequate housing, sanitation, health, education and to a large extent social banishment from the elite.

These people land up in the informal sector with undignified jobs in absence of any social, educational

qualifications.

Though evidently and statistically it is seen that incidence of poverty in rural India is higher at 34% as

compared to Urban India at 21% but Jayati Ghosh & Chandrasekhar in their article point out that though

urban poverty rate has been declining but the number of poor in urban sector still stand large at 76 million.

Also it should be noted that the plight of the urban poor dwelling in slums is much more miserable than that

of the rural poor in India. The urban poor live in overcrowded slums which lack access to clean water,

sanitation, adequate health facilities and are vulnerable to diseases. Lack of social security poses them to risk

of eviction in the face of development. If we see the example of Mumbai, slums cover 6% of land area but

are home to 60% of population (almost 7 million people).However, in absence of land entitlement these are

considered to be illegally squatting and are also ironically the backbone of Mumbai’s economy.

The similar plight of the rural poverty is shown in City of joy, where Hansari Pal loses the land on account

of heavy indebtedness to a landowner, and hence in search of living goes to Calcutta where the plight of

urban poor is brought in the fore as first is looted of the money by a man Ganguly who poses to be a

landlord, and later on losing all savings they tend inhabited a pavement on the roadside. Not only this at one

point Hansari and his wife also think of whether they should start begging when he is unable to find any

work.

A recent report by the Government clearly acknowledges the fact that health of the urban poor being worse

than the rural poor. The high population density in slums and deplorable health conditions make them

vulnerable to various diseases like TB, cholera, etc. The slums lack of safe drinking water, and high risk of

morbidity and mortality on account of spread of water borne diseases. Almost 50% of urban poor children

were overweight and 60% devoid of immunization which is both higher than in rural counterparts. A recent

study by a medical college in Anand district, Gujarat found that neonatal care and health facilities in urban

slums were worse than those in rural areas. The government attributes the causes for such deplorable health

conditions to limited public health care systems & poor standards, lack of proper housing, programmes, and

monitoring. Hence there is need of building more infrastructure for primary health care, sanitation facilities

along with proper housing plan for the poor and slum dwellers.

The movie does highlight the spread of disease in the slum where the poor dwell, and the inhuman attitude

of one of the godfathers, who wants to get rid of the slums on account of the spread of leprosy. Also the poor

health conditions are seen where we see no institutional health clinic as such existed to give a proper

treatment to the diseased, and often when the social worker Joan Bethel tries to establish one along with Dr.

Max Lowe their attempts are by thwarted by one of the chief godfather who wants to exploit the poor slum

dwellers to maintain exclusive power over them. Hence it, points perhaps in an abstract manner an urban

society which crumbles the poor to relish its riches, exclusively. The rural scenario doesn’t give such a cruel

and insensitive attitude towards the poor.

The movie culminated in an uprising by the poor overthrowing cruel exploitation of the power maniac,

which highlights the frustration of the oppressed to break norms to balance the power equations and obtain

rights by any means. Such an end doesn’t augur well if growth isn’t equitable in our country. Poverty

remains a daunting challenge, for the Indian government. There are policies to address poverty both in rural

and urban centres, but in absence of a strong implementation & monitoring, it would just be an eyewash.

Hence what is required the most is the political will to address this menace, following which all policies and

programmes would fall in place, in rightfully achieving “ an inclusive growth” , benefits of which can be

percolated to the poorest of the poor.

References

Deccan Herald. 2013. India's urban poor worse off than rural poor: Poverty Allevation Minister

(Interview). [online] Available at: http://www.deccanherald.com/content/96074/F

Mann, P. 2012. India in transition: Urban migration and exclusion. [online] Available at:

http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/article3708079.ece

Poverty-wellbeing.net. 2013. Poverty-wellbeing.net - News Detail. [online] Available at:

http://www.poverty-wellbeing.net/en/Home/News/News_Detail?itemID=3076

Times, H. 2013. Urban poor children worse than rural children - Hindustan Times. [online]

Available at: http://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/newdelhi/rural-poor-in-india-better-off-

than-urban-poor-unicef/article1-819011.aspx

Unknown. 2013. [online] Available at:

http://www.rcueslucknow.org/Publication/TrainingModules/Dr.A.K.Singh/Background%20paper

%20BSUP%201-2-09.pdf

Unknown. 2013. [online] Available at:

http://www2.hu berlin.de/transcience/Vol3_Issue2_2012_37_50.pdf

Verma, V. 2011. Conceptualising Social Exclusion: New Rhetoric or Transformative Politics?.

Economic and Political Weekly, Available at: http://www.epw.in/special-articles/conceptualising-

social-exclusion-new-rhetoric-or-transformative-politics.html

ARTICLES

ARTICLE 1: RURAL VS URBAN POVERTY

Title: The changing face of urban poverty

Ghosh, Jayati . Businessline [Chennai] 04 Feb 2013.

Abstract (summary)

Translate [unavailable for this document]

The issue of the official poverty line has generated much debate in recent times, as it became evident to the wider public that both the methodology and the actual lines drawn for estimating the poor were deeply flawed. [...]the official estimates for 2009-10, the poverty numbers were generated by using the consumer price indices to update poverty lines determined by average monthly consumption expenditure of households whose members consumed (per capita) 2400 Kcal of food per day in rural India and 2100 Kcal per day in urban India in the 1970s.

Full Text

Translate [unavailable for this document]

Urban poverty is both underestimated and inadequately addressed by public policy in India. In this edition of MacroScan, C. P. Chandrasekhar and Jayati Ghosh consider the most recent evidence on urban poverty.

There is a widespread perception that poverty in India is concentrated in the rural areas.

It is certainly true that the officially estimated urban poverty ratio (at 21 per cent on average for all of India according to the Planning Commission's poverty estimates for 2009-10) is considerably lower than the rural ratio of 34 per cent.

It is also true that -- given the still low rate of urbanisation in India -- most of India's officially defined poor (nearly four-fifths) live in villages.

However, there are grounds for questioning the policy focus on rural poverty, and important reasons for recognising that the nature and extent of urban poverty require urgent attention.

This is not only because of the significant increase in absolute numbers of the urban population over the decade of the 2000s and the change in the classification of many settlements from rural to urban in the 2011 Census.

It is also especially because urban poverty can take on a qualitatively different nature from its rural counterpart, and therefore may require very different policy interventions.

On the face of it, urban poverty has been declining in terms of rates as well as (in the most recent estimates) in terms of absolute numbers.

It should be noted that the official urban poverty estimates presented in Chart 1 reflect the numbers derived from the Tendulkar Committee recommendations, and therefore are not strictly comparable with the earlier figures.

Even with comparable figures, however, the data suggest that the rate of urban poverty has been coming down (although certainly not as rapidly as could be hoped given the aggregate income increase in the country). However, the absolute numbers of urban poor remain extremely large, at more than 76 million.

However, one important concern is that these urban poverty figures are quite misleading because they have such a minimalist notion of survival that they generate a maximalist definition of poverty in terms of the derived income line.

What is called "poverty" in India is really extreme destitution, such that a much larger proportion of the population would tend to be classified as poor according to most international standards, even in other developing countries at similar levels of per capita income.

The issue of the official poverty line has generated much debate in recent times, as it became evident to the wider public that both the methodology and the actual lines drawn for estimating the poor were deeply flawed.

Until the official estimates for 2009-10, the poverty numbers were generated by using the consumer price indices to update poverty lines determined by average monthly consumption expenditure of households whose members consumed (per capita) 2400 Kcal of food per day in rural India and 2100 Kcal per day in urban India in the 1970s.

Thereafter, the Tendulkar Committee set up by the government provided another even more arbitrary determination of the poverty line, which did, however, generate somewhat larger numbers in terms of the incidence of poverty.

Even so, the income poverty lines that are now being officially used are still extremely low, for both urban and rural poverty.

Table 1 provides some estimates of these lines across States for 2009-10, as well as the associated urban poverty ratios.

It is evident from Table 1 that the lines for determining urban income poverty remain extraordinarily low, and would not be considered as sufficient to describe a household as "non-poor" in any meaningful sense.

In Delhi, for example, the stated daily consumption spending per capita of less than Rs 35 would not have been enough, even in 2009-10, to enable a person to use the public transport system from one end of the city to the other, quite apart from all necessary items of consumption.

Clearly the determination of the income poverty line leaves much to be desired, not least because it ignores the actual elements and rising costs of the standard spending basket of poor households whose members are forced to seek wage employment for survival.

Since there is no clearly specified norm for the determination of the line, apart from some "guesstimates" by experts of the likely necessary consumption of households, there are good reasons for finding this line not only arbitrary but also unrealistic and even unfair. It is quite likely that the lower incidence of urban poverty stems from this insensitivity to the actual requirements and material conditions of the majority of the urban population.

Even these highly problematic income poverty measures, however, reveal a concentration of urban poverty in India, which is somewhat different from the concentration of rural poverty.

Chart 2 describes how just ten States account for nearly four-fifths of the number of officially defined urban poor in India. This is not only reflective of larger absolute populations or greater degrees of urbanisation.

In fact, in some States, urban poverty ratios are as high as or even higher than rural poverty ratios, such as in Kerala, Manipur, Punjab and Uttarakhand.

In other States such as Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal, the gap between urban and rural poverty ratios is quite small.

Some States such as Bihar and Manipur have very high urban poverty rates of 40 per cent or more, even according to this very stringent measure that actually captures extreme destitution.

Of course, one basic problem with assessing the incidence of poverty, whether urban or rural, is the continued reliance on the crude single indicator of income.

It is quite evident that poverty is multidimensional, encompassing a range of different, although typically overlapping, deprivations.

It comes as no surprise that the UNDP's Multidimensional Poverty Index found the incidence of multidimensional poverty in India to be almost double that of the income poverty rate, and even slightly higher than that for urban India.

The Central government has declared that it will use a multidimensional measure, based on data from the ongoing Socio-Economic census, to determine which households should be classified as poor.

But there are still relevant concerns about whether this will actually capture the nature and extent of urban poverty in its various manifestations.

One frequently used indicator applied to gauge the extent of poverty is the extent of the slum population. But it is clearly the case (and also increasingly recognised) that not all the slum-dwelling population is poor; nor do all the poor live in slums.

The 2011 Census found that around 12 per cent of the urban population in "Class I" cities lived in slums, with higher rates in the larger cities.

The amenities available to the urban population may provide some further indications of their material status. For example, according to the 2011 Census, nearly one-fifth (17 per cent) of the urban population do not live in "pukka" houses.

Nearly one-third (32 per cent) of urban households -- accounting for around 120 million people -- live in a single room, while more than 3 per cent of households have no exclusive room to themselves at all.

Around 19 per cent of urban households have no latrine facilities within their premises while another ten per cent do not have modern water closets or improved sanitation. Around a quarter of families do not have bathing areas within their homes.

Since these can be interpreted as characteristics of extreme destitution and absolute privation rather than simple poverty, it is noteworthy that the numbers involved here are slightly more than those described by our official system as urban poor in income terms.

Once again, this points to the likelihood that the available income poverty indicators are significantly wanting in their ability to capture the true extent of poverty, even in urban India.

This is not just important because it indicates an insufficient grasp of the material reality of urban India.

It also affects the significance that policy makers attach to solving the pervasive problem of urban poverty. Since so many government schemes also continue -- mistakenly -- to be targeted at "the poor", this also critically reflects the rights of urban citizens.

ARTICLE 2:-

Source: Times of IndiaUrban poor worse off than rural population: GovtRajiv Shah, Oct 3, 2009, 06.24am IST

GANDHINAGAR: In a glaring acknowledgement over its outright neglect of the social sector,Gujarat government has said that "health indicators of urban slums are worse than that of rural areas." Ironically, the state government has preferred to tell this in no uncertain terms in a high-level report it submitted to Government of India officials in June, but has refused to release it for public scrutiny, apparently fearing that it may lose face in view of its tall claims regarding "emphasis" on the fight against poverty.The report says, "Despite availability of medical facilities -- both public and private -- in the vicinity, urban poor are unable to access them due to their working hours, lack of information and indifference towards their health." Besides, it adds, "Urban slums are located in areas with poor hygiene and sanitation." There is "lack of safe drinking water supply and safe waste disposal systems in most of the urban slums." All this contributes to "high level of water borne diseases" and "higher risk of morbidity and mortality."

The state government believes this is especially alarming as today 37.36 per cent of the state's population lives in urban areas, which is expected to rise to 40 per cent in 2012 and 50 per cent by 2025. Of the total urban population, 18 per cent lives in slums and the percentage is rising due to pressure from migrant labourers, who constitute "a major proportion of the urban poor." As these migrants "stay away from their families," incidence of "HIV/AIDS is also high among them," the report points out.Aware of all this, yet, the government admits, "One of the main reasons for poor quality of health services (in urban areas) lies in limitations of the public health systems such as limited capacity, lack of programme standards and guidelines."The report adds though the government is "keenly pursuing" programmes to improve services, there is lack of funds for improving health of the urban poor. Hence, it has demanded Rs 1,079 crore from the Centre for this suggesting urban poor is Centre's and not state's subject.TableComparative Urban Poor-Urban-Rural Health Indicators GujaratHealth

indicators Urban poor(%) Urban overall(%) Rural (%)

Under 5 yrs mortality 7.27 5.19 5.8

Institutional delivery 44 67.5 60

Underweight children 47.1 32.8 45

Anaemic children 71.4 62.9 67.7

Full immunisation 40 58 45

Source: Memorandum to 13th Finance Commission, finance department, Government of Gujarat, June 2009

ARTICLE 3: SOCIAL EXCLUSION AND POVERTY

This Briefing Note is part of a series addressing issues surrounding poverty and poverty reduction. They have been produced for SDC, its partners and interested development practitioners and offer an overview of the current debates. An introduction to the full series and the other Briefing Notes can be downloaded at www.poverty-wellbeing.net.

Brief No 5 – Inequality, Power and Social Exclusion in India

Sarah Byrne and Devanshu Chakravarti, March 2009

1. Introduction

The state of affairs in India with regards to “inequality, power and social exclusion” is somewhat paradoxical. On the one hand, since its independence India has demonstrated a longstanding political willingness to recognise different forms of inequality and exclusion and to use constitutional and legislative measures to address them. On the other hand, there continue to be large disparities in poverty levels, mortality rates, educational attainments and access to resources between regions, social groups and the sexes. India today remains a country of stark contrasts and striking disparities. Some states and districts of India report levels of social development similar to leading industrialised countries. Other parts of India report achievement levels that are worse than the average of the poorest countries in the world. In this brief we will first look at examples of inequality and social exclusion in India today, followed by an analysis of constitutional and public policy measures to combat inequality and social exclusion.

5 Inequality and Social Exclusion

in India Today

In India, the list of groups experiencing some form of inequality or social exclusion is great, although perhaps most frequently mentioned, and most numerous, are the Dalits (Scheduled Castes) and Adivasis (Scheduled Tribes), who together make up about a quarter of the population of India. Their exclusion is reflected in a lack of access (or unequal access) to political institutions, to public services (education, health care), to public places (police stations, government ration shops, post offices, schools, water facilities and village council offices), and

to income-earning assets (in particular, land), among many others. Attempts by Dalits and Adivasis to secure their human rights and lawful entitlements have sometimes been met with resistance, and even violence, including from representatives of the state. Inequality and social exclusion have a gendered aspect as well.

Estimates from India’s National Sample Survey (NSS) in 2000 suggest that Dalits constituted 20 percent of the rural population, but 38 percent of poor people in rural areas. Adivasis made up 11 percent of the rural population, but 48 percent of the poor. In urban areas Dalits were 14 percent of the population and 37 percent of the poor people, whereas Adivasis were 3 percent of the population and 35 percent of the poor people. Estimates from the same data set suggest that poverty was around 30 percent for minorities (mainly Muslims) (Kabeer 2006).

Across social groups, women face discrimination in many areas of life, though their status varies significantly according to their social and ethnic backgrounds. Disadvantage is amplified when identities overlap, such that, for example, Adivasi women are doubly excluded, both as women and as Adivasis. The following are several examples of significant inequality in India today.

2.1. Inequality Between Social Groups

Inequality between social groups refers to political and social, as well as economic, inequalities between people belonging to particular socially defined groups. The definitions of the groups can be more or less fluid over time, but the more fixed they are defined, and the more historically they are rooted, the more challenging it is to address inequalities. Caste is perhaps the most well known example of this type of inequality that is prevalent in India. A caste system is a type of social structure that divides people on the basis of inherited social status. The roots of the Indian caste system can be found in Hindu scriptures where society could be broken down into a number of different groups, known as Varnas. The system also has a space for outsiders and foreigners who do not conform to the system. Within a caste system, each member generally knows his or her place, and one’s social status is usually apparently to others as well. Though the roots of the caste system are ancient, it is certainly not static but has changed over the years as a result of various social and religious reforms. These include the birth of new sects in Hinduism, as well as new religions.

India today is in the paradoxical situation that evidence of the resilience of caste system continues to be present, at the same time as there is evidence that its role as an explanatory factor in understanding inequality is diminishing. Deshpande and Palshikar identify three areas where the changing role of caste can be identified: the changing pattern of interaction between caste and politics; the change identity and the rise of caste associations and the issue of caste-occupation linkages (2008). With respect to the latter, traditionally mobility was extremely rare; one could transform from a labourer to a scholar except in very rare circumstances. Today the situation is more nuanced. In the study mentioned above, the authors found that in urban areas, space for upwards mobility exists and there is a general though modest trend towards upwards mobility. For example, the study found that Dalits record considerable upwards mobility in terms of their occupations. However, a large section of Dalits still work in the “lowest” occupations (being at the very bottom of the occupational hierarchy, even a small shift results in upwards mobility) and only few are in the upper occupations (Deshpande and Palshikar: 2008).

A significant group outside of the caste system are Adivasis, India’s “tribal” people. Adivasis are concentrated in the central and north-eastern parts of the country, generally living in remote or hilly areas outside of the reach of public services, and lacking in basic infrastructure. For this reason, and also due to years of neglect and exploitation at the hands of the government and other citizens, the human development indicators (HDI) of India’s Adivasi population are much lower than the HDI of the rest of the population in terms of all parameters (literacy, infant mortality, etc). For example, health care is a major problem in the isolated areas where Adivasis live. Lack of food security, sanitation, safe drinking water, poor nutrition and high income poverty levels aggravate Adivasis’ poor health. Furthermore, health institutions and health professionals are few and far between. The problem of malnutrition is multi dimensional and intergenerational in nature. The following table gives health indicators for Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes and others (per thousand persons).

Figure 1: Health Indicators by Social GroupInfant Under-5 Under-Mortality Mortality nutritionRate Rate

Scheduled 83.0 119.3 535CasteScheduled 84.2 126.6 559TribeAll 70.0 94.9 470

(Source: GoI Draft Tribal Policy and based on data from the Bulletin on Rural Health Statistics in India, 2005)

2.2. Regional and Spatial Inequality

Inequality between regions and spaces in India provides a striking example. Regional inequalities, both between different states, within states, or

2

between urban and rural areas in India are marked. India’s poorer states, in particular the group known collectively by the acronym BIMARU (Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh), consistently score below average on economic and social indicators. These states have higher than average population growth, lower than average literacy rates, below average indicators on almost all heath related measures, slower than average economic growth and below average human security. See several examples in Box 1, below.

Box 1: Regional Inequality in India Today

• Some 54 % of India’s poor people live in the states of Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Orissa and Madhya Pradesh (although they have about a third of the population).

• The infant mortality rate of Kerala is 14; that of Orissa is 96. Child malnutrition stands at 24–28 % in the North-Eastern states and Kerala; it is 51–55 % in Bihar, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa.

• In Bihar, only 53% of children aged 6–11 attend school. In 9 other states, this figure is more than 90%.

(Source: Centre for Policy Studies, 2006)

On the map of income poverty in India, illustrated below, the poorest areas (those lightly coloured) lie in parts of Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh, Orissa and West Bengal. Large numbers of India's poorest people live in the country’s semi-arid tropical region. In these areas shortages of water and recurrent droughts impede the transformation of agriculture that the Green Revolution has achieved elsewhere. There is also a high incidence of poverty in flood-prone areas and forested areas.

Map 1: NSS Regions Ranked by Rural Poverty

(Source: Mazumder and Sarkar, 2008 (NSS 1999-2000)

India’s recent economic growth has been to a large extent concentrated on a handful of cities, such as Bangalore or Mumbai, with many other areas falling

behind. Such inequality leads to migration from rural to urban areas, which, while in itself is not necessarily a negative thing, carries with it the double risk of further decline in the rural areas and social tension in the urban areas. Although many rural people are migrating to cities, three out of four of India’s poor people still live in the vast rural parts of the country.Spatial inequality refers to inequalities related to a particular place, such as a neighbourhood. In rural areas, these places tend to be remote, with low agricultural or resource potential and poor access to services. Within urban areas, location-specific characteristics can lead to a concentration of environmental, economic and social disadvantage within a particular neighbourhood.

For example, in the financial capital of Mumbai, while slum pockets cover a mere 6% of the land, they are home to 60% of the city’s population (a staggering 7 million people). This land is in the heart of the city and is among the most valuable real estates in Asia. But the residents do not have a title to the land and are considered to be illegally squatting. Slum dwellers live under a constant threat of slum demolition drive -a move that takes away the roof over their head. In addition to this chronic insecurity, the inhabitants deal regularly with issues like lack of water, no sewage or solid waste facilities, lack of public transit, pollution and housing shortages. But these slum dwellers are the backbone of Mumbai’s society and economy. They work as construction workers, train operators, factory workers and do all the other low-paying jobs that keep Mumbai’s economy functioning.

In many parts of rural India, people from the same caste live in the same settlement. Hence, different settlements are named after castes living there - “Brahman wada” or “Harjan wada”. The Dalits settlements are on the outskirts of a village. The Dalits create separate water facilities, as they cannot draw water from the wells where other castes draw their water. In some places, even entry to village temples is restricted for the Dalits.

2.3. Reinforcing Inequalities

In many cases, social inequality also manifests itself in regional and spatial inequality. The various disparities overlap and reinforce each other. This is especially serious because, as Cook writes, “when a regional concentration of poverty coincides with ethnic or religious divisions, the two reinforce each other, generating intractable forms of exclusion, potentially becoming a source of social instability, or, in some circumstances, fuelling regional insurrections”(2006).

This overlapping is shown in the figures below, which present data concerning levels of education (levels of literacy) from the National Sample Survey (2004-2005). Literacy is an important measure, as unequal distribution of literacy skills is associated with both present and future economic and social inequalities. The charts show that more men than women are literate, more urban people than rural people are literate, and more members of “socially advanced”

3

groups are literate. Where these overlap, we can see that a very large number of rural households from particular social groups have no literate women. In other words, gender, caste and regional inequalities are clearly evident in literacy rates, and are most striking when they overlap.

Figure 2: Percentage of households with no literate adults of age 15 +, by social group

Urban Areas

14.833.8 30 24.2

14.3 10.810.3 8.4

Scheduled Scheduled Backwards SociallyCastes Tribes Classes advanced

Both men and women Women only

Rural Areas

60.5 61.9 51.432.7 38.1 34.125.7

15.9

Scheduled Scheduled Backwards SociallyCastes Tribes Classes advanced

Both men and women Women only

(Source: Krishnan, 2007)

In spite of the foregoing, which provides a general view, caution should be used in ascribing poverty or inequality to collective identities as a whole (whether they are based on geography, caste, gender, etc). When generalising across collective identities, there is a danger of overlooking inequality that exist between different individuals within the same group, often on economic grounds. In India, this manifests itself in the meteoric rise of a few from among the Dalits through benefits drawn from repeated and multiple benefits reservation policies, for example. The individuals who benefited in getting a higher education through reservations, also benefited in employment opportunities and in subsequent promotions through reservation. The children of these individuals, who are in no way economically disadvantaged with regards to children from other castes, also benefit from reservation policies. However, while a few benefit multiply from these policies, the vast majority of Dalits, continue to be economically and socially marginalized.

2.4. Social Exclusion and

Adverse Incorporation

In India, widows have traditionally been confined to the house and thus cut off from all contacts with the outside world. This continues today in some places or communities, in which widows have social restrictions that limit their participation, not only in political and social life but also in religious and social functions. The widows thus confined to the house are, by default,

excluded from all forms of social life. This is an example of social exclusion.

Social exclusion describes a process by which certain groups are systematically disadvantaged because they are discriminated against on the basis of their ethnicity, religion, caste, gender, age, etc. Discrimination occurs in public institutions, such as the legal system or education and health services, as well as social institutions like the household (DFID 2005). Social exclusion is also about exclusion from political power, so sometimes groups that have adequate incomes may be excluded in this sense.

A recent study (conducted by Surinder S Jodhka and Katherine Newman) shows that well educated Dalits face difficulties in getting opportunities in the lucrative private sector job market in India due to preconceived notions of employers about their background. Thus, while not excluded from public institutions (education), they are excluded from some parts of the private sector due to discrimination. Thus the preferred choice of the educated Dalits today are the limited (and comparatively poorly paying) jobs in the Government sector. This “exclusion” from the private sector, prevents Dalits from contributing to and enjoying the fruits of the economic gains made by the country, reinforcing their economic and social inequality.

However, it is important to keep in mind that sometimes it is more relevant not that a group is excluded but that they are incorporated under unfavourable conditions, a concept termed adverse incorporation (du Toit, 2004). For example, from among those Dalits, who (due to reservations) gain admission to professional courses (engineering or medicine), very few actually complete their degrees in time. Most drop out before they graduate, due to economic or competence related considerations. For example, their education in government funded schools puts them at a competence disadvantage (command over the medium of instruction -English-both written or spoken, computer skills) when compared to their (mostly public school educated) peers. This example highlights the fact that while many provisions exist in the law (for example, reservations), in practice, as we have seen, inequality and social exclusion persist.

3. Measures to Combat Inequality and

Social Exclusion

Since its independence, the Indian state has been proactive in putting in place measures to combat inequality and social exclusion. The most significant of these have been the Constitution of India, and a series of progressive public policies. However, while India has an impressive series of constitutional provisions, laws and policies, their implementation is often incomplete. India provides different examples of a range of entrenched institutional, social and political constraints to implementing the constitutional commitment to equality.

4

3.1. The Constitution of India

The Constitution of India clearly sets the agenda of the postcolonial state in the terms of the abolition, or at least reduction, of social inequality. The Constitution established both the collective rights of communities to maintain cultural identities and to pursue religious freedoms and individual rights of civil liberty to all citizens, as fundamental rights. Inter alia, the Preamble to the Constitution resolved to secure for all its citizens social, economic and political justice and equality of status and opportunity.

These objectives are promoted through a set of Fundamental Rights, Fundamental Duties and Directive Principles of State Policy, which are vital elements of the Constitution that describe the rights and duties of citizens and the state. The Fundamental Rights guaranteed equal (i.e. non-discriminatory) access in several spheres such as the legal process, education, and public employment as well as basic civil liberties in regard to speech, association, and religious affiliation. Fundamental Duties, added by amendment in 1972, describe a citizen’s duties towards themselves, the environment, the state and the nation.

The Directive Principles are guidelines to the central and state governments for policy making and for achieving social, economic and political justice. While the Constitution makers recognised that processual equality — i.e. equal treatment of all whether they were equals or unequals — was not sufficient for achieving substantive equality in outcomes. Accordingly, the Constitution included this further set of provisions aimed at creating a more just society, including affirmative action in favour of the Scheduled Castes and Tribes, and other socially and educationally “backward” classes of citizens, and religious and cultural minorities.

Furthermore, in recent years, the Indian Supreme Court has taken a broad view of the scope and content of some of the Fundamental Rights, such as the right to life and liberty (art. 21). This has created a space for a number of social justice issues to be brought before the court (such as the right to shelter, to education and to health) through public interest litigation.

3.2. Public Policies

In terms of public policies, the Indian government’s approach towards Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes consists of three main elements. These are:¾ Non discrimination: legal and other safeguards

against discrimination ¾ Affirmative action: measures in the state and state-

supported sector (reservations of seats at all levels of political representation, government jobs and places in educational institutions)

¾ Protection and promotion: a series of measure including both protective elements (such as ending forced labour) and promotional elements (such as allocation of housing, land, etc). (Sheth 2004)

This approach has lead to great progress being made in the last fifty years. For example, in 2002, a provision for free and compulsory education for all children was added to the Directive Principles. As abject poverty prevents many poor children from attending schools, the Government of India, since 1992 in phases, has introduced the midday meal scheme that provides a noon meal to all children turning up for school. This scheme has improved enrolment in government schools as poor people now send their children to school so that the children can at least get one proper meal during the day, which is sometimes difficult for the parents to provide.

Despite these actions, the case can be made that Indian education policies continue to favour the urban, upper-caste English-educated sections of the population, enabling their social and physical (international) mobility, but resulting in massive illiteracy for the members of the poor, lower status communities. India possesses state of the art higher institutes of management and information technology, while many rural primary schools are in a pitiful condition. Massive financial allocations were made for higher education, to which poor people did not have much access. This prevented them from effectively availing the benefits of affirmative action, as it is no use having a reserved seat at such an institute, if you don’t have access to primary or secondary education of a sufficient calibre to prepare you.

A comprehensive overview of public policies in India to tackle social exclusion has identified several barriers to their effective implementation. These include technical failings in the design of policies, bureaucratic requirements to access benefits, institutionalised discrimination, and ongoing social discrimination. Political constraints are central and the hardest to overcome: while political representation of excluded groups has increased, clientelism and the chosen industrialisation strategies have been blamed for the failure of policies aimed at addressing social exclusion (Piron and Curran, 2005).

In addition to measures applied in the public sector, today the question of whether reservations should also be applied to the private sector is causing much controversy. These reservations could mean reserving jobs for Dalits or other discriminated groups, or reserving places in private educational institutes. The Constitution of India allows the government to make special provisions for "advancement of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens", including their admission in aided or unaided private educational institutions. Governments at national and state level have indicated their commitment to gradually implement this reservation in other private sector institutions and companies as well. Many business groups, as well as non-reserved category students are opposed to such measures.

4. The Role of Power

The example above about education is a clear case of a bias in public priorities and public policy, a bias

5

corresponding to the uneven distribution of power and influence. As Dreze and Sen wrote, “the main limitations of Indian democracy do not, however, relate so much to democratic institutions as to democratic practice. The performance of democratic institutions is contingent on a wide range of social conditions, from educational levels and political traditions to the nature of social inequalities and popular organisations (2001). Governments rarely prioritise excluded groups and are unlikely to develop and implement policies favouring these groups over more powerful groups, as they would have little to gain as a result. This bias is evident for example, in the case above, where affirmative action policies are not connected with other policies that would enable them or would be necessary in order to achieve the objectives of the affirmative action policy. Often such policy connections are improvised only when democratic pressures are mounted through political movements.

While there are complex and reinforcing processes, lack of power, or unequal power relations, is clearly at the root of every type of exclusion (and, hence, inequality). Any significant attempts to reduce social exclusion will thus involve changing power relations – confronting those institutions that are responsible for the exclusion (i.e. institutions which monopolise political power or economic opportunities and discriminate against particular groups). And, while it can reduce the exclusion of some groups, it can also continue to perpetuate existing exclusion, as we see in the case below, or can lead to new groups being excluded.

Such a case of changing power relations, took place in Bihar, where the Yadavas, who traditionally were considered among the “other backward classes” (OBCs, groups other than Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes that are identified on the basis of social and economic indicators and who benefit from certain affirmative action measures), have gained most from land reforms. This economic ascendance of the middle castes in a number of states has led to a re-grouping of these forces for political power and has changed the face of Indian politics since the 1980s. The political battles often are now between the Dalits and the other OBCs, rather than the conventional analysis of `upper vs lower caste'. However, instead of dissolving caste injustice, the new rulers have cornered special privileges for their own particular "backward" community. The Dalits, at the bottom of the ladder, continued to face day to day atrocities.

5. Conclusions

Our brief overview of inequality, power and social exclusion in India has highlighted a strong contradiction between constitutional and public policy measures and the enduring inequality and social exclusion experienced by many. Dr. Ambedkar, chief drafter of the Indian Constitution and himself a Dalit, anticipated this disparity between stated aims and actual progress in terms of equality and inclusion at the time of Independence, warning, “on the 26th January, 1950 we are going to enter into a life of

contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality.” (quoted in Drèze and Sen, 2001) This tension between policies and practice remains to this day. While in some cases social and economic inequality is decreasing, those facing multiple inequalities in particular remain deeply marginalised. Furthermore, the effects of globalisation and the benefits of India’s rapid economic growth are unequally distributed.

This has lead to the identification of three Indias: global India, developing India and poorest India. Global India is the India of the new service industries, a growing industrial sector, and large farmers. Global India is prosperous, linked to the global economy and reaping the benefits of globalisation. Developing India is the India of small farmers, micro-enterprises and village industries, with some links to the modern economy, but with low productivity and limited access to public services. Poorest India is the India of the marginal farmer, landless agricultural labourers and urban slum dwellers, where people live in extreme poverty and basic public services are mostly absent (DFID 2007). While India’s growth and development may continue for some time despite these inequalities, in the longer term, inequality and social exclusion will reduce the rate of poverty reduction of the country as a whole and pose a threat to continued growth.

6. References

Centre for Policy Studies (2006). “India’s Development Priorities: Issues and Challenges along the Path to 2015.” Paper presented at the Asia2015 Conference.

Constitution of India.

Cook, Sarah (2006) “Asian Paths to Poverty Reduction and Inclusive Development.’ Paper presented at the Asia 2015 Conference.”

Deshpande, Rajeshwari and Suhas Palishkar (2008). “Occupational Mobility: How Much Does Caste Matter?” EPW 43:34, August 23, 2008. p. 61-70.

DFID (2007). “Ending Poverty in India: Consultation on DFID’s Plan for Working with Three Indias”

DFID (2005). “Reducing Poverty by Tacking Social Exclusion: A DFID Policy Paper.” DFID, London.

Drèze, Jean and Amartya Sen (2001). “Democratic Practice and Social Inequality in India.” Journal of Asian and African Studies 37(2): 6-37.

du Toit, A. and S. Hickey (2006) “Adverse incorporation. Social exclusion and chronic poverty.” CPRC Working Paper 81. Chronic Poverty Research Centre, Manchester and Birmingham.

Eyben, Rosalind and Jarrod Lovett (2004). “Political and social inequality: a review.” IDS Development Bibliography 20. IDS, Sussex.

6

Gang, Ira, et al (2004).”Caste, Ethnicity and Poverty in Rural India.” Rutgers University, Department of Economics, Departmental Working Paper 200225.

Government of India (2006). “Draft Tribal Policy.”

Jodhka, Surinder. S. and Katherine Newman (2007). “In the Name of Globalization: Meritocracy, Productivity, and the Hidden Language of Caste" EPW, 13.10.2007.

Kabeer, Naila (2006). “Social Exclusion and the MDGs: The Challenge of ‘Durable Inequalities’ in the Asian Context.” Paper presented at the Asia 2015 Conference.

Krishnan, P.S. (2007).“Backward still.” Frontline 24:20, 06-19.10.2007.

Mazumdar, Dipak and Sandip Sarkar (2008). “Globalization, Labour Markets and Inequality in India” IDRC, Ottawa.

Piron, Laure-Hélène and Zaza Curran (2005). “Public policy responses to exclusion: evidence from Brazil, South Africa and India.” ODI, London.

Stewart, Frances (2003). “Horizontal Inequalities: A Neglected Dimension of Development.” Working Paper 1. Centre for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity, University of Oxford.

Sheth, D. (2004). “Caste, Ethnicity and Exclusion in South Asia: The Role of Affirmative Action Policies in Building Inclusive Societies.” Human Development Report Office, Occasional Paper, UNDP, New York.

University of Minnesota Human Rights Resource Centre. “Justiciability of ESC Rights—the Indian Experience”. Human Rights Resource Centre, University of Minnesota. Available at http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/edumat/IHRIP/ circle/justiciability.htm (consulted 24.03.2

ARTICLE 4:

India in transition: Urban migration and exclusion

PREETI MANN

By 2030, India’s urban population is set to reach 590 million, an addition of approximately 300 million to India’s current urban population. Much of this growth will be due to rural-urban migration.

The success of the Indian urbanisation agenda will be hugely dependent on the poor migrants’ integration as urban citizens. While the bulk of scholarly work focusing on the “haves” and “have-nots” in India has traditionally focused on the rural, there is comparatively little that we know and understand about its dimensions in the urban context.

MIGRANT IDENTITY

This somewhat neat categorisation of India into the rural versus the urban also overlaps with stereotypical labels of “backward” and “modern.” Such acts of labelling and categorising are not necessarily benign or apolitical acts.

They further the logic of the developmental agenda and are a justification for the urbanisation mission that India is steadfastly marching towards.

Little wonder then that Gurgaon, India’s youngest urban centre, gets hailed as the country’s Millennium City, while it is actually far from that.

Barring the residents of the traditional villages, on whose acquired lands Gurgaon has been raised, almost everyone here is a migrant. However, the term migrant conjures up images of the poor and destitute that work in the informal economy and live in slums or jhuggis. There is a certain unsaid understanding about an ideal city dweller as belonging to a certain social and economic class, who is conceived as the resident around whom the bulk of urban planning and development is focused.Interestingly, when an undergraduate class of sociology students, in a university in Delhi, gave instances of migrants, they responded unanimously in identifying only those working in the informal economy, despite the fact that quite a few of them have relocated to Delhi for higher education themselves and are being taught by faculty who also belong to other parts of the country. This “othering” of the so-called migrants happens through acts of labelling, such as “outsiders,” “encroachers,” “illegal occupants,” and “criminals.”Urban development is a story of sharp contrasts. While it conjures up images of glitzy buildings, attractive shopping arcades, fancy corporate offices, and neatly laid out residential complexes that provide a clean, safe, and healthy existence, there also exist shanty towns, slums, and the informal economy where people live in

sub-human conditions and earn a living by doing odd jobs, including casual labour at construction sites, domestic work, rickshaw pulling, security guard duty, street vending, and hawking.While their contributions are indispensable to the smooth working of urban spaces, these people, their needs are overlooked in the planning and vision of urban development.

India does not stop its citizens from internal migration. People are free to move across States to escape destitution or in search of better opportunities. However, local governments and India’s middle class largely view economically poor migrants as outsiders making illegitimate claims to life in cities.

THE NEW CASTES

Recently, scholars have started pointing out the growing hostility of urban governments, as well as middle-class citizens, towards the urban poor, especially migrants to the cities. The 2010 Common Wealth Games held in Delhi saw the forced eviction of large numbers of urban poor, mostly rural-urban migrants.

Urbanisation in India subscribes to forces of the neo-liberal economy, where citizens are expected to become self-reliant and not be an economic liability for the State. The manner in which urbanisation is conceived and executed is, therefore, inextricably linked to this notion of the ideal city resident.

While cities may be melting pots that have arguably helped mitigate traditional caste-based discrimination, urban spaces are generating newer forms of inequalities and exclusions that go beyond caste.

In urban India, one’s social and economic class has become the new caste. The caste anonymity of migrants is not enough to allow access to all urban spaces, as their social profiling restricts entry to most of these enclaves.

So, while India may not be like sections of apartheid Africa, where the state legalised exclusionary practices, there is little being done towards the active enforcement of rights that allow for an integrated society.

Much, therefore, depends on a city’s ability to create an enabling environment for new entrants. This involves planning for services such as access to safe housing, water, electricity, schools, and healthcare. However, institutional and state policy efforts to this end seem to have been sparse.

STATE NEGLECT

At the beginning of the Eleventh Five Year Plan (2007-2012), there was an urban housing shortage in India of 24.7 million. Ninety nine per cent of this shortfall pertained to the economically weaker sections and lower income groups in which migrants typically fall.

While most migrants would qualify as lawful citizens of the land, in urban India, the rights of citizens get operationalised through a host of official documents, such as property lease or ownership papers, PAN cards, bank statements, bills, and voter IDs. Bereft of these, the paperless migrant accesses basic goods and services at a premium in the black market economy.

Ironically, the most marginalised and poor also have to pay the most dearly. The underground economy is also indicative of the state’s absence in service delivery and lack of institutional support.

Urban development, if done in an inclusive manner, can enable social mobility and integration of migrants. The Right to Education Act has been a landmark intervention which has opened up private educational establishments to other economically weaker sections.

There is a long road ahead, however, and similar legislations are also needed in health, housing, and labour rights sectors.

RAISING AWARENESS

Good policy-making is only half of the solution. In the absence of proper execution or enforcement, it becomes mere eyewash, failing to help the most excluded.

An acceptance of the permanence of the poor migrant population is critical to better planning, provisioning, and integration into India’s urban development.

There are interesting lessons to be learned from China, where the State Council of China’s cabinet, in January 2010, came out with a document to resolve problems of urban integration faced by young migrants.

Excluded migrant populations would gain by seeking a collective identity that unites them on the basis of their exclusion. Activism and awareness about their rights are key to overcoming some of the negative stereotypes they might have inherited or internalised.This, in turn, will help them to better stand up for their rights and exert demands for better living and working conditions. Additionally, social attitudes of urban elites need to be addressed through active campaigns.

If schisms are left unaddressed, it will not be long before the inequality in India’s urban centres, like the rural hinterlands, becomes engulfed by civil strife.

(The author is a social anthropologist at Ambedkar University, Delhi.)

This article is by special arrangement with the Center for the Advanced Study of India, University of Pennsylvania.

(This article was published on July 31, 2012)