How India Lives: Impoverishment, Inequality and Identity

John Samuel


(This note is based on a recent paper by Arjun Sengupta, KP Kanana and Ravindran in the Economic and Political Weekly of India, on March 15, 2008)


Poverty is not merely about numbers. Poverty is the denial of right to live with dignity and perpetuated by an active process of impoverisation that emerge out of unequal and unjust power relationship.

The notion of impoverisation (or the process of the active creation of poverty with in 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 marginalization; poverty is no longer a humanitarian issue, but a deeply political issue. Such 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 further pose problem for economic growth and social security.

A recent paper (Economic & Political Weekly, March 15, 2008 49 .India’s common people: Who are they, How Many are they and How Do they live? Arjun Sengupta, K P Kannan, G Raveendran) very clearly demonstrates the link between poverty, inequality and identity in the Indian context.

To give a sense about the broader arguments of the paper, I quote the key highlights from 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 for 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 per cent 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 per cent above the poverty line, called marginally poor here, then we find another 207 million. These three groups account for 444 million or 40.8 per cent 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 per cent 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 per cent.”


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:

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

b) Whether the present policy and budget paradigm and the mode and pattern of economic growth perpetuate the existing marginalization and the growing inequality?

c) What are some of the key policy prioritization 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 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 about 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 prioritization and interventions. (If it all there is Political Will to do so)

2) The paper clearly points out how cumulative marginalizations (in terms of cast/social hierarchy, access to education, access to employment etc) perpetuate 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 marginalization that is indeed a recipe for political discontent, contestations and consequent violence and political unrest. The consequences of inequality, cumulative marginalization and entrenched social identity may challenge and change the present political equations and formation 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 the 2005-6 data, it will be good to know whether CMP, NREGA etc of UPA Government made any difference. Apart from the rhetoric of the so-called "Aam Admi"( 75 percent of the population) ,to what extend 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/ST. Even the writing off the agricultural loans may benefit the "Others" more than SC/ST, Muslims - though OBC also may 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 conditions of SC/ST and Muslims.

6) The fact of the matter is more than 40 percent of the population is really , really poor and at the receiving end of cumulative marginalization. The vulnerable poor( most of them may be OBCs) still may have better bargaining power and also tend intervene in the mainstream political process. But the marginalized poor and poor may challenge the mainstream political process, by initiating a serious of "micro" struggles or even armed contestations to the state to challenge the existing custodians of the 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 main-stream parties( Congress, Left etc) fail to significantly challenge and change their present assumptions and approaches, they will lose a significant constituencies and new actors and new political formations( both reactionary and mainstream) will emerge on the scene in the next ten to fifteen years.

8) The present mode of urban-centric, service sector driven growth , at the cost of agriculture, small and medium level enterprises and rural infrastructure will create new population pressure, rural-urban migration and new forms urban poverty and consequent increase of crime and violence.

It would have been great if the paper has 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 more than 80 % of the beneficiaries of the economic growth are the upper cast, urban , professionally educated class. This will have implications in terms real estate ownership pattern( for instance there are number of "vegetarian" housing societies or exclusive "cast" apartments-without making it obvious- in the new Metros), English media( as upper cast-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 do 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! If so, that is not a good sign for the future of Indian Democracy.