On the Margins of Survival

In the context of the globalising economy, the hegemonic neo-liberal global policies have regained relevance. Based on large-scale indus-trialisation and privatisation, a higher economic growth focuses on increasing investment in terms of capital and technology. The growth-centric approach to development has contri-buted to an economy that is extractive in terms of resources and labour power. Ironically, this has resulted in further disparities and divisions between the geographical regions and socio-economic groups—rural and urban, rich and poor, upper class-caste and SCs (Scheduled Castes), STs (Scheduled Tribes), OBCs (Other Backward Castes), other marginalised sections, and gender.

While recent years have emphasised inclusive growth and flagged policies based on human development with an increasing investment in employment expansion and social sector such as health, education, water, sanitation, child nutrition and targeted poverty reduction pro-grammes,1 living experiences at the grassroots reveal that the development plans are largely relief measures and have failed to bridge the above divides that afflict our country. (Ray, 2011: 18-21) Integrating with the world economy has led to further marginalisation and depriva-tion of a large part of the general population—the aam aadmi.

Based on a lived experience that is different from the mainstream development discourse, the history of consciousness of people’s rights movements across the country oppose and contest integrating and assimilating with the mainstream development. Therefore it is pertinent to engage with the debates on the development strategies that have failed to address the systemic deprivations which not only persist but also continue to increase.

Growing Disparities and Divides

The Human Development Reports (HDRs) propose Composite Development Index (CDI) based on Human Development Index (HDI), Gender Development Index (GDI), Poverty Index (PI), Infant Mortality Rate (IMR), Infrastructure Development Index (IDI), Education Rank Index (ERI), and Nutrition Levels in terms of Body Mass Index (BMI), amongst others, to rank a country in comparison with that of the other nations or rank a state with the national average. The ranking of districts showing the inter-district disparities within a State led to special attention to the backward and underdeveloped regions. To reduce the disparities and divides, the special measures focus on an accelerated growth which is inclusive. An increase in invest-ment on human as well as social capital to increase human capabilities, empower indivi-dual households and communities alongside equity and sustainability became important in the agenda of policy planning. While the deve-lopment policies and programmes are pro-claimed to be pro-poor than ever before, findings of several studies substantiate the disadvantaged position of the tribals and Dalits in particular, that arguably locates poverty, hunger and distress in the context of structural deprivations cumulated over a period.

We find that rapid growth might have led to sustainable income poverty reduction as per the norms of poverty estimation, but it has failed to empower the marginalised and poor to fight the everyday structural constraints of society. Even if income poverty is reduced, other forms of poverty exist and its spatial and social characteristics show that certain regions, and communities and social groups not only continue to remain the poorest and most deprived but are also threatened by new forms of vulnerability. Increasing malnutrition, hunger, distress migration, farmers’ suicides, depleting resources are symptomatic of the development processes and policies that have, over the decades, created conditions of denial of basic needs and rights to the marginalised. The ‘Developmental State’ and the big development projects have helped the privileged and richer sector of elites. (Ray, 2010a: 17, 2010b: 27) While the Indian state has been successful in bringing the rich and powerful sections to the mainstream of development, the poor and powerless are pushed to the margins of survival. (Ibid.)

Higher economic growth during the last decade has also seen an increase in the intensity of inequality and poverty. In fact, the strategies of development are themselves incompatible with reducing ‘inequality’ and promoting ‘social security’ in society. Therefore, despite emerging as a powerful nation in South Asia, with an economy growing at around eight per cent in the previous three years,2 India ranked much low in terms of the development indicators. The inequalities on several fronts are captured in the HDRs through the Multi-dimensional Poverty Index (MPI),3 the Inequality-adjusted Human Development Index (IHDI) and the Gender Inequality Index (GII).

Though the indices are not free from errors and biases, and several studies point out the flaws in the application of the index, the HDR 2010 has made some innovations to measure development across countries. The ‘Gross Domestic Product’ (GDP) is replaced by the ‘Gross National Income’ (GNI), that includes the international income flows which have become important in the globalising context of India’s poverty reduction programme. (See also Ray, 2011: 38)

The new GII highlights the gaps in reproduc-tive health, empowerment, work force participa-tion and education. The countries that are more unequal (in health, education and income) score less than the countries that are less unequal. By reconfiguring its indicators on literacy and income and replacing ‘gross enrolment’ and ‘adult literacy rate’ with ‘expected years of schooling’ and ‘mean years of schooling’, it tells us that the rising literacy rates are no satisfac-tory achievement as ‘the mean year of schooling’ is only 4.4 per cent compared to the global figure which is 7.4 per cent and the ‘expected year of schooling’ is 10.3 per cent which is less than the global average of 12.3 per cent. (See also Ram 2010: 10; Ray, 2011: 38) We see that despite impressive economic growth, inequality is on the rise and India loses 30 per cent in the overall IHDI, including 41 per cent in education and 31 per cent in health.

Combining economic prosperity with educa-tion levels and life expectancy, the UNDP’s HDR 2011 places India at 134 in the HDI out of 187 countries. However, a comparison with the HDR 2010, which places India at 119 in the HDI out of 169 countries, is misleading as the underlying data and methods to index have changed along with the number of countries included in the HDI. The inequality adjusted index—adjusted in inequalities of three areas of human development such as life expectancy, education and standard of living in terms of income—shows that while the gaps in health and education have narrowed, the distribution of income has grown more unequal over the past several decades. (The Hindu, 2011a: 15)
India has been positioned in the ‘Medium Human Development’ category and its HDI value has increased by 59 per cent from 0.344 to 0.547 between 1980 and 2011.4 Despite the increase, the Report states that it is still below the average HDI value of 0.630 for countries in the medium human development group and below the average HDI value of 0.548 for the countries in South Asia. (Ibid.) In spite of being ranked in the ‘Medium Human Development’ category, around 55 per cent of its population suffers from multiple deprivations and an additional 16 per cent are vulnerable to depri-vation.
The Food and Agricultural Organisation (FAO) reports that India had the highest percentage of undernourished children in the entire world, that is, 237.7 million in 2011. (See also Haddad 2011: 11; Sen 2012: 11) This has increased from 224.6 million in 2008. (Mukherjee 2012: 12) India’s average rank amongst South Asian countries in standard social indicators, varying from life expectancy to infant mortality and girls schooling, has ‘dropped over the last twenty years from being the second best to second worst’ despite surging ahead in terms of its Gross National Product (GNP) per capita. (Ibid.)

The recent 2012 Global Hunger Index (GHI), released by the International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), reports that India along with Bangladesh and Timor-Leste has the highest prevalence of underweight children under five and it is more than 40 per cent in each of the three countries. (Parsai, 2012b: 12) In India 43.5 per cent of children under five are underweight. It is two-thirds of the country’s high GHI score. From 2005 to 2010 India ranked second to last on child underweight—below Ethiopia, Niger, Nepal and Bangladesh. In the 2011 GHI India ranked 67 out of 81 countries and was below Rwanda, which ranked 60. It was also below Sri Lanka (36), Nepal (54), Pakistan (59) and China (4). (Global Hunger Index Report 2011—http://www.ifpri.org/publication/2010-global-hunger-index; http://economictimes.india-times.com/news)

Though India is at the centre of the global economic recovery along with China, it ranks much lower than China. While China has met its goal a few years ago by halving its 1990 underweight rate, India is expected to reach its Millennium Development Goals’ (MDGs’) nutrition indicator by 2043. (Haddad 2011: 11) China’s strong commitment to poverty reduction and social security, alongside its intervention in nutrition, health, water, sanitation and education, has lowered its level of hunger and under-nutrition. (Parsai, 2012b: 12) But India spends a far lower percentage of its GNP than China on government provided health care and has a much lower life expectancy. (Sen 2012: 11) We see poor life expectancy at birth which is 64.4 per cent, the IMR is 50 per 1000, mortality rate of children below five years of age is 66 per cent, adult literacy rate is 65 per cent, literacy rate for women between 15 and 24 years (despite the rise) is still below 80 per cent, almost half our population are undernourished, and only 66 per cent of children are immunised with Triple Vaccine—Diphtheria, Pertussis, Tetanus (DPT). According to Save the Children, every year in India 1.73 million children die even before reaching the age of five and nearly one million of them die within their first month. (Perappadan 2011: 2)

A study covering twenty years and all the 193 member states of the World Health Organisation (WHO), conducted by the WHO, Save the Children (‘Saving the Newborn Lives’ Programme) and London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, reports that though the new born deaths dropped from 4.6 million to 3.3 million, that is, a drop by 28 per cent during 1990-2009, it lagged progress in maternal mortality (34 per cent reduction) and mortality of older children (37 per cent reduction for children aged between one month to five years) resulting in a rise in the share of child deaths that occur in the new born from 37 per cent to 41 per cent during the same period. (www.do1thing.org.nz/news) India, Nigeria, Pakistan, China and the Democratic Republic of Congo are amongst the WHO member countries, which account for more than half of the world’s 3.3 million new-born deaths. Amongst them India has the greatest number of new-born child deaths which is more than nine lakhs a year, (Dhar 2011: 13)

A more recent survey between December 19, 2011 and January 9, 2012 by Save the Children (‘A Life Free From Hunger: Tackling Child Malnutrition’) based on a global poll reveals that more than half of the world’s malnourished children, that is, 170 million stunted children, live in India, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria and Peru. (Dhar 2012b: 6) The survey finds that the proportion of stunted children was highest in India, that is, 48 per cent, which is more than a third of the world’s stunted children, followed by Nigeria and Bangladesh with 43 per cent, Pakistan with 42 per cent, and Peru with 24 per cent. It reports that due to the soaring food prices, one-third of the families in India are forced to cut back on food and their children do not have enough to eat, and 24 per cent of the families reported that their children go without food for an entire day. (Ibid.) The latest State of Food Insecurity (SOFI) Report states that one in eight people or 12.5 per cent of the world’s population today is chronically under-nourished. (Varadarajan, 2012a: 10)
A recent study by the Naandi Foundation on ‘Hunger and Malnutrition’ (HUNGaMA), based on height and weight of more than one lakh children across six States in India, also reveals that as many as 42 per cent of under-fives are severely or moderately underweight and 59 per cent of them suffer from moderate to severe stunting. (Dhar 2012a: 1; Balagopal 2012: 9) Amongst the stunted children, about half are severely stunted and about half of all children are underweight or stunted by the time they are two years. (Ibid.) Though the number of underweight children has reduced from 53 in 2004 to 42 in 2011, it is still high. The survey across 112 rural districts shows that the prevalence of malnutrition is significantly higher among children from the low income families. Children, particularly from the Muslim, SC, ST households generally, have worse nutrition indicators. Birth weight is an important risk factor for child malnutrition and the prevalence of underweight in children born with a weight below 2.5 kg is 50 per cent while that among the children born with a weight above 2.5 kg is 34 per cent. The survey also reports that awareness amongst the mothers about nutrition is very low as 92 per cent mothers had never heard the word malnutrition. (Dhar 2012a: 1)5

India also has the largest number of poor and is home to one-fourth of the world’s poor despite the decline in poverty estimate. The study by Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative (OPHDI), using the MPI and identifying serious simultaneous deprivations in health, education and income at the household level, shows that 421 million poor live under the MPI in eight States of India such as Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. (UNDP, HDR 2010; see also Ray, 2011: 18) This is higher than the 410 million poor living in 26 poorest African nations.

The Approach Paper of the Eleventh Plan also acknowledges the persistence and spatial location of poverty. We see an increase in the percentage of India’s poor living in the poorer States such as Jharkhand, Bihar, Orissa, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh, and Uttar Pradesh from 41 per cent in 1993-94 to 49 per cent in 2004-05. (Radhakrishna, Ravi and Reddy 2011: 23) Their share in the poor is more than their share in the population, which is 39 per cent in 2004-05. (Ibid.) The percentage of rural poor living in these six States increased from 46 per cent to 53 per cent during the same period. (Ibid.)

Poverty is not only spatial and pocketed in certain regions but is also an economic and social phenomenon as certain sections of society are also the most vulnerable and battle hunger for generations. It is disproportionately high among certain social groups such as SCs and STs. (Ibid.: 25) In 2004-05 we see that 42.3 per cent of the rural poor and 28.9 per cent of urban poor in the country belonged to STs and SCs, which was much higher than their share in the population, that is, 28.9 per cent and 18.6 per cent respectively. (Ibid.) India’s poor now exceed 612 million. (Global Hunger Index Report 2011)

Several studies on poverty and development claim that the poverty alleviation policies and development strategies have failed to benefit the marginalised and deprived sections, parti-cularly in the rural areas. The measureable out-comes of an increasing number of beneficiaries of several poverty alleviation programmes and the official estimates of decline in poverty are therefore contested. However, this study is at variance with the approach of poverty studies, which measure the outcomes in terms of short-term benefits alone.

Poverty is a condition created by not only an unequal society but also an unjust society, as people who lack ownership and control over productive resources are also denied ‘freedom to exercise freedoms’. Poverty needs to be located in the structural process and one has to go beyond economic determinism to understand the processes which have generated and perpetuated conditions of poverty for the poor. The persistence of poverty and the contesting poverty ratio, alongside the increasing depri-vations, not only problematise the development approaches but also compel us to rethink the alternative strategies that can bring about structural changes and alter the power relations.

Viewing citizens as passive receivers of benefits of the poverty alleviation programmes excludes them from participating in the development plans. Despite all its claims to be pro-poor and citizen-friendly, the state stands in favour of the rich, strong, privileged and powerful sections of society opposed to the poor, weak, under-privileged, and powerless. Mainstream writings based on field studies find that despite industrialisation, developed infrastructure, improved health and education levels, and an increasing agricultural production, there is lack of participatory control. A democratic economic system calls for ‘participatory economy’ which should work in the interest of the general population unlike corporate capitalism, which is ‘radically anti-democratic’ and where the powerful are the ‘principal architects of policy’. (Chomsky, 2003: 140) We find that the big corporations influence and dominate the development policies of the government across the world. Despite decentra-lisation procedures and efforts to make policies more citizen-friendly, the planning process in India remains centralised. In fact failure to decentralise the economic power has made decentralisation of political power meaningless.7

Undemocratic Economic Power

The economic system based on state capitalism operates on the principle of concentrating the economic power in the hands of a few who own and control the productive resources, and subor-dinating the majority who are deprived of such ownership and control. Imperial capitalism ensures that the policies of development are in the hands of the former and economic power is not democratised. This has resulted in an increasing wealth which is narrowly concentrated in the hands of the few—the capitalist class—and there is huge inequality, poverty and starvation deaths, deprivation and distress for the vast majority. The subordination, under-development and exploitation of the majority are therefore systemic and planned. The economic reforms and development policies, which are claimed as pro-poor by the state, actually favour the rich sections of society. While the welfare state is supposed to intervene to ensure that the basic rights of its people are not threatened, today the aam aadmi experiences that the policies of the developmental state violate their basic rights.

We see that denial of ownership, access and control over the productive resources, control over labour power and produce of the labour are planned by the state and the landless and poor tribals and Dalits are placed in disadvan-tageous situations. The structures of ownership, access and control over productive resources create conditions of social and economic disadvan-tages, deprivations, alienation, marginalisation, exclusion and impoverishment. Cumulative disadvantages and disempowement prevents the marginalised and poor to fight against the structural constraints in society. The structural deprivations have widened further in recent times resulting in persistence of structural poverty and hunger.

Historically the concept of ‘eminent domain’ has been used by the state to appropriate private property for ‘public purpose’ which deprives the poor, particularly the landless communities, of their rights to natural resources and the meagre resources of livelihood.8 ‘This ‘sovereign domain’ of the government alienates people from their traditional sources of sustenance (such as lands, forests, and village habitats), livelihood and social networks and causes untold hardships and miseries’. (Ibid.; see also Sharma 2003: 907) Recent years have seen a growing concern on the manner in which the power of ‘eminent domain’ has been misused by the state for the benefit of the corporations (both public and private), commercial interests and profits. (See also Vijayan 2008: 8; Kumar 2010: 10-11, 2011: 11-14) The big development projects and land grabs by the corporate state and giant corporations have led to forced eviction of people, dispossession and losing sources of livelihood, displacement, and ecological degradation resulting in further deprivation of the Dalits and tribals in particular. Physical uprooting of the villagers not only results in psychological and cultural alienation but also the loss of one’s identity.

Therefore understanding displacement from the vantage point of the displaced is important, as it is much more than physical dislocation of the people from their habitat and loss of their economic livelihoods. The larger and long-term consequences of uprooting of people from their habitat is a traumatic experience and results in a sense of isolation and alienation from the community, rights to land, and other forms of private and Common Property Resources (CPRs) (such as forest land, grazing land, ponds, tanks, riverbeds, perennial spring). It leads to the loss of one’s identity, psychological insecurity, lack of citizenship rights, breakdown of social and food security, credit and labour exchange networks, social capital and kinship ties, impoverishment, marginalisation, increased morbidity, deforestation, ecological disorder and environment degradation. (See also Rout 2011: 8) Thus, the growing conflicts and unrest, arising out of increasing encroachments over their natural resource base by industries and mines, makes it pertinent for the state to review its policies as well as priorities for the industrial and mining sector.

It is important to note that the interior regions, that are rich in mineral resources, have contributed to the growth and development of regions which inhabit the urban elites and capitalists while the former continue to remain underdeveloped.
Poverty in the interior regions is chronic as it is severe and has long duration usually transmitted across generations. Its intensity and multidimensionality has made it a perennial problem compelling us not only to understand its underlying causes but also analyse the factors that have contributed to its persistence.
Though good governance, decentralisation, participation, partnership and involvement of civil society is made central to poverty reduction, and a pre-condition to economic growth and development, the approach of the state remains top-down. The Panchayati Raj Institutions (PRIs) function as implementing agencies of the policies laid down to them despite the 73rd Amendment Act and decentralisation. Even in deciding the beneficiaries of various programmes and schemes, we see manipulation by the few higher castes, excluding larger sections of society from participating in the Gram Sabhas. (Ray, 2011: 18-21)

Absence of participation of the lower castes in the local institutions is not only the consequential effect of multiple deprivations but is also a determining factor of further marginalisation, exclusion, deprivation and impoverishment. The functioning of democracy at the grassroots excludes and deprives large sections of society from actively participating in the formulation of development policies. Despite the shift from normative to the rights-based approach, the state has failed in many ways to (i) bring the marginalised to the mainstream of development; (ii) empower them as participant citizens; (iii) reduce the disparities and inequalities between different sections; and (iv) make structural changes to secure people’s rights in society.

The state’s love for democracy and human rights has remained rhetorical as in practice the state is becoming increasingly repressive. Violations of human rights are not accidental but systematic. Instead of negotiating with the conflicts of people’s rights movements, today the state governs in an authoritarian way. While the Indian state has always been in the forefront opposing the violation of human rights elsewhere, it has become increasingly intolerant and enacts discriminatory laws to strengthen its powers against the voices of people who oppose the policies that violate their right to live and livelihood. The hierarchical, unequal and brutal state uses violence not only to counter violence by the public but also resorts to such violent means against people’s protests and movements that are peaceful. Today it is harder to fight the unequal exploitative system as the state ensures that the deprived and marginalised also lose their rights to protest its development policies that violate the right to life and livelihood.

Understanding New Forms of Oppression

The capitalist state today not only uses force and violence against the protest movements that oppose its policies but also exercises subtler methods of a well-planned strategy to control their ideology and independent thinking in order to manufacture consent. The neo-liberal campaigns and propaganda make every possible effort to convince the general population that the interest of the subaltern class lies in the growth of a capitalist economy. (See also Chomsky, 2003: 238-250) And ‘inclusive growth’ in the Eleventh Plan, and ‘inclusive and partici-pative approach’ to the entire planning process in the Twelfth Plan (2012-17), as recommended by the Planning Commission, are attempts to make the general population believe that they are beneficiaries of the development projects. The participatory approach is indeed a radical departure from yesteryears in the history of India’s policy planning, as it has led to the commencement of a wide consultative process on the challenges of the Twelfth Plan and unlike the previous Plans, the feedback received through people’s participation process from all sections of society made strong demands to improve implementation, accountability and service delivery. (Dasgupta 2011: 13)

However, people’s concerns pertain to the leakage, pilferage, graft and corruption that has seeped into the government’s various social and other welfare programmes with regard to implementation, accountability and service delivery, be it PDS and even the much-talked MGNREGS (ibid.) and there has been little suggestion opposing the strategies of development and the mainstream development discourse.9 There is no dispute that in an environment of the ongoing investigations into a host of scams and increasing corruption, it is equally important to effectively plug the loopholes in the delivery mechanism of commo-dities as well as services through close monitoring, but the policies of development should be assessed on the basis of entitlements and empowerments. (Ray, 2012a: 37-38)

Several studies also show that while it is easier to meet the targets in terms of access to social opportunities such as education, and the current plan to increase spending in critical sectors such as health, education, skill develop-ment, and infrastructure is welcome, it is difficult to find the outcomes such as improving school completion rates. (Ram 2011a: 10) The productive power of the marginalised is an important resource to empowerment, but the development models are vertical initiatives of the state and do little to address the structural causes of disempowerment, inequality, exploi-tation, oppression, marginalisation, deprivation and distress at the grassroots.

While the state alone has the authority to decide ‘public interest’, recent years have seen a state that represses such actions or voices which it believes is harmful to the ‘public interest’. Citizens are not allowed to criticise the policies of the state that undermine its authority. There is no freedom for dissent and ‘by criminalising dissident voices the state dilutes the distinction between political dissent and criminal activity’. (Singh, 2012: 14) We see that in the name of national security, people’s democratic rights are violated through violence orchestrated by the state.

The Unlawful Activities Prevention Act (UAPA) is an extraordinary law that criminalises the fundamental freedom to associate and assemble by allowing the government to simply ban political organisations. (Ibid.) The arrest and detention of Soni Sori under the UAPA and other sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) such as 124 A (Sedition) and 120 B (Criminal Conspiracy), arrest of Amitabh Bagchi the CPI (Maoist) Polit-Bureau, political cartoonist Aseem Trivedi, Professor Ambikesh Mahapatra of Jadavpur University, the Poducherry activist and volunteer of ‘India Against Corruption’ Ravi Srinivasan, and Human Rights activist Binayek Sen in the past under sedition charges contravene the fundamental principles of freedom which are indispensable for the functioning of democracy. (Ibid.; see also Ray, 2012b: 7) In fact, the definition of unlawful activity as per the 2004 amendment—section 2 (0)—does not involve a physical violence but can be either a democratic agitation, spoken words, written or visible representation or otherwise which may be considered as threatening to the power and authority of the state. (See also Singh, 2012: 15) The state is extremely intolerant of anyone who expresses (in any form) what the state does not want to hear, see or learn. And we see that the state punishes its citizens even if ones speech, art or act does not contribute to actual crime or incitement to an actual criminal act. (See also Chomsky, 271)
The ‘high-handed action of the state under Section 66 A if the IT Act to stop critical views from circulating in electronic form is plain censorship’. (Varadarajan, 2012b:10) This particular provision of the Act in recent times has become ‘the anti-free speech weapon of choice’ and must be condemned, opposed, protested and reviewed as it is decidedly vague, poorly defined and is a threat to the ‘freedom of speech’ and encourages a state of arbitrary enforcement. (Ibid.)

The state has resorted to suppression of people’s struggles and protests. Custodial deaths and encounter killings are no longer exceptional cases. In a majority of the cases the human rights activists and participants of protest movements challenging the state policies and development projects are targeted. The state resorts to greater use of force and violence to frighten the general population so that they abandon all their rights. (Ibid.: 375) This has resulted in more and more discontent and dissidence amongst the population and we see increasing violence against the criminal state.

The right to life and livelihood are crucially important issues. They should be the subject of intensive public discussion and debate. But the Indian state has deviated from such engagements with its citizens. However, despite all its attempts to prevent the people from such debates and political activism the state has failed to crush the people’s rights movements and protests that challenge the economic reforms of the capitalist state.

We see growing dissidence and activism across the country and all over the world against the policies made by the powerful interests. ‘People’s Rights Movements’ are active in dismantling the ideological campaigns of the global capitalist order. While the state has realised that it cannot use violence and force to legitimise itself without flagging people’s rights, it is significant for the state to get engaged in the conflicts for a constructive purpose by involving in larger public discussions of critical issues. If the state fails to acknowledge the long-term effects of its development strategies and policies, conflicts will keep growing all over the world in the long run.

Thus, alongside new methodology to identify the poor, marginalised and deprived, rethinking development should lead us to rework alternative strategies which should aim at structural changes to arrest the process of exploitation, oppression, deprivation and marginalisation to ensure freedom from poverty and hunger. Such freedom should stand out as both means and an end.

We need to differentiate between the under-standing of poverty, hunger, and development by the policy-makers, and the actual experiences by the people at the grassroots. Empirical studies demonstrate that there are different categories of the poor and deprived; therefore integrating the needs of the local people in the development process will differ. Hence, the route to poverty reduction and development should differ across social groups, communities and geographical regions.

Freedom to oppose or critique state policies and development models that threaten the right to livelihood of a large population is critical. Development planning should be with the consent of gram sabhas/palli sabhas in the rural areas. Inclusive growth can be possible when people’s organisations and institutions, which provide space to the poor and excluded, are encouraged to play an important role in the decision and policy-making process. (Mohanty, 2003: 202-203) Thus, planning from below will make a difference.

Conclusion

The people’s rights movements raise issues of identity, conflicts, social disorder, struggle, rights, and the functioning of a democratic state. Since underdevelopment, poverty and hunger are the cumulative effects of structural inequality and systemic deprivations, the poor, deprived and marginalised will continue to remain so unless they are empowered to own and control resources of production, labour power and the produce of their labour. Therefore, the rights-based approach of the state should focus on the structural changes which will create conditions to empower the citizens to realise their entitlements and rights. The structural and political factors should form the core of development studies as they have remained of limited interest to the policy-makers. One will definitely get the wrong answers if one was to ask ‘whether the Corporate Capitalist World has benefited the aam aadmi’. Therefore, the need to identify alternative strategies of development is even greater than before.

To identify the key factors that create the ‘poverty trap’, the poor must be recognised as individuals with their own identity. The constraints perceived by the poor are important as they are not a homogenous mass and there is no grand universal answer to the ‘poverty trap’. (V.M. Rao 2011: 12) It is important to listen to the multiple voices of the subalterns. Understanding ‘history from below’ and multiple histories at the interface of race, class, gender and caste is critical. (See also Anandhi 2011: 14)

It is significant to make people’s representatives work beyond electoral platforms and in the interest of the people they represent. People’s participation in the decision-making process at the grassroots can only be ensured if the economic power is decentralised alongside political power. Though the state passes laws to protect the rights of its people, laws are enforced only when people fight for them. And as long as one is willing to struggle for one’s rights, one does not lose them despite an intolerant and repressive state.

Since popular involvement threatens ‘mono-poly of power’, it is important for people to be organised for breaking down of the entire system of exploitation, oppression, deprivation and disempowerment. As part of the larger popular struggle it is important to bring people together and unify popular movements, protests, struggles and organisations. People’s rights movements and struggles against the draconian laws such as the UAPA and the imperial capitalist economy and its development models need to be strengthened. It is essential to express our solidarity with such movements that work for the functioning of substantial democracy.

References

Anandhi, S. (2011), Subaltern Citizens and their Histories Investigations from India and the US by Gyanendra Pandey (ed.), New Delhi: Routledge. Book Review in The Hindu, August 16.

Balagopal, Gopalan (2012), “Needed More HUNGaMa Over Malnutrition” in The Hindu, March 6.

Chomsky, Noam (2003), Understanding Power The Indispensible Chomsky, Peter R Mitchell and John Schoeffel (eds.), New Delhi: Penguin Books India.

Dasgupta, Ashok (2011), “New Thinking on Planning Process” in The Hindu, May 2.

Dhar, Aarti (2011), “Newborn Deaths Account For 41% of Child Mortality” in The Hindu, August 31.

Dhar, Aarti (2012a), “42 per cent of Indian Children are Malnourished” in The Hindu, January 11.

Dhar, Aarti (2012b), ‘An indigestible Truth’ in The Hindu, February 24.
Government of India (2004-05), National Sample Survey Report 61st Round 2004-05, Department of Statistics, Ministry of Planning and Programme Implementation.

Government of Orissa (2010-11), Economic Survey 2010-11, Bhubaneswar: Planning and Co-ordination Department, Directorate of Economics and Statistics.

Global Hunger Index Report (2011), International Food Policy Research Institute www.ifpri.org/publication/2010-global-hunger-index, accessed on November 21, 2011.

Global Hunger Index Report (2010), International Food Policy Research Institute www.ifpri.org/publication/2010-global-hunger-index, accessed on November 25, 2010.

Haddad, Lawrence (2011), “Transforming Child Nutrition” in The Hindu, August 27.

http://economictimes.india-times.com/news,economy/indicators/ assessed on November 21, 2011.

http://www.dailypioneer.com accessed on November 8, 2012.

http://www.do1thing.org.nz/news accessed on November 10, 2011.

http://www.silicoindia.com/news/ accessed on November 8, 2012.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-tops-world-hunger-chart/ accessed on September 1, 2011.

Kumar, Madhuresh (2010), “People’s Movements Oppose” in The Movement of India 5 (3).

Kumar, Madhuresh (2011), “Broken Promises” in The Movement of India 6 (1).

Mohanty, Manoranjan (2003), “New Agencies: People’s Democratic Organisations” in Project Report on “Poverty Eradication and Role of Local Institutions in Comparative Perspective: With Focus on Kalahandi, Bhojpur and Chittoor” by Manoranjan Mohanty, S.K. Aggarwal, G.N. Trivedi, Suranjita Ray and N. Sukumar, Supported by Planning Commission, Government of India.

Mohanty, Manoranjan, Suranjita Ray, G.N. Trivedi, N. Sukumar (2011), “Landlessness and Marginalization: A Study of Kalahandi, Bhojpur and Chittoor” in Manoranjamn Mohanty (ed.), India Social Development Report 2010: The Land Question and the Marginalised, Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Mukherjee, Ananya (2012), “From Food Security to Food Justice” in The Hindu, February 1.

United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), (2010), Human Development Report 2010, New Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Parsai, Gargi (2012a), “Digitisation Helps Weed out 2.96 Crore Bogus Ration Cards” in The Hindu, January 14.

Parsai, Gargi (2012b), “India Lags Behind Bangladesh In Improving Global Hunger Index Despite Economic Growth” in The Hindu October 12.

Radhakrishna, R. C. Ravi and B. Sambi Reddy (2011), “State of Poverty and Malnutrition in India” in Manoranjan Mohanty (ed.), India Social Development Report 2010. Delhi: Oxford University Press.

Ram, N. (2010), “Assessing Development” in The Hindu, November 17.

Ram, N. (2011a), “Rethinking Inclusive Growth” in The Hindu, May 7.

Ram, N. (2011b), “Do Not Dilute The Bill” in The Hindu, September 13.

Rao, V.M. (2011), Poor Economics Rethinking Poverty and the Ways to End It by Abhijit V. Banerjee, Esther Duflo Random Delhi: House Publishers India Limited. Book Review in The Hindu, August 16.

Ray, Suranjita (2010a), “Experiencing The Indian democratic State” in Mainstream, 48 (18).

Ray, Suranjita (2010b), “Developmental State and People’s Struggle For Land Rights’” in Mainstream, 48 (29).

Ray, Suranjita (2011), “MDGs: India Has a Long Way To Go” in Mainstream, 49 (12) and the Corrigendum of the same in Mainstream, 49 (14).

Ray, Suranjita (2012a), “NREGA And The Rights-based Approach’ (Part-II) in Women’s Watch, January-March.

Ray, Suranjita (2012b), “Political Culture Of Engaging With The State” in Mainstream, 38 (44).

Rout, Sharada Prasanna (2011), Development-Induced Displacement: A Case Study of Mining Projects of Keonjhar District Orissa, M Phil Thesis, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

Sahoo, Sarbeswar (2005), “Tribal Displacement and Human Rights Violations in Orissa”, in Social Action: A Quarterly Review of Social Trends, 55 (2).

Sen, Amartya (2012), “The Glory and the Blemishes of the Indian News Media” in The Hindu, January 7.

Sharma, R.N. (2003), “Involuntary Displacement: A Few Encounters” in Economic and Political Weekly, 38 (9).

Singh, Anushka (2012), “Criminalising Dissent Consequences of UAPA” in Economic and Political Weekly,47(38).

The Hindu (2012), “Giving Colostrum to Newborn not Commonly Practised” January 11.

The Hindu.(2011a), “US Drops in U.N Development Index” and “India Ranked 134” November 3.

The Hindu (2011b), “e-PDS System Launched For Greater Transparency’ December 8.

Varadarajan, Siddharth (2012a), “A Sobering Report On Hunger” in The Hindu , October 23.

Varadarajan, Siddharth (2012b), “An Attack On Media Freedom” in The Hindu , November 2.

Vijayan, M.J. (2008), Critical Assessment and Recommendations: Land Acquisition (Amendment) Bill And Rehabilitation and Resettlement Bill 2007, New Delhi: Delhi Forum.

Endnotes

1. The pro-poor mandate of the government makes the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) one of its flagship programmes to guarantee employment in the rural areas. Right to education, health, information, and forest resources are assured through the major policy changes. (See also M. Mohanty, S. Ray, G.N. Trivedi and N. Sukumar 2011: 224) Food security is promised in the proposed draft on National Food Security Bill. In addition, the proposed amendment to the Land Acquisition Act 1894 and draft of an integrated Bill on Land Acquisition and Rehabilitation and Resettlement 2011 are significant given the increasing alienation of tribal land in particular and displacement due to big development projects. The recent campaign against corruption and demand for the Jan Lok Pal Bill is equally important and fundamental to the functioning of democracy as it will ensure layers of transparency and accountability of the public officials in delivering services to the society.

2. The Indian economy is expected to grow by six to 6.5 per cent in the current fiscal year and would take at least two year s to reverse to eight per cent growth trajectory. In fact, the country’s gross domestic product growth slumped to 9 year low at 5.3 per cent in the quarter ended in March 31, 2012. (See also http://www.dailypioneer.com; http://www.silicoindia.com/news)

3. The factors assessing the MPI in the recent Oxford University study are child mortality, nutrition, access to lean drinking water, sanitation, cooking fuel, electricity, years of schooling and child enrolment, and those deprived of at least 30 per cent of the weighted indicators are considered poor.

4. However, between 1992 and 2007-08 India’s HDI rank had lowered from 122 to 132. (See also http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/India-tops-world-hunger-chart).

5. It finds that about 51 per cent of the mothers did not give colostrums to the newborn soon after birth and 58 per cent mothers fed water to their infants before six months. Regarding the anganwadi services 86 percent mothers said they accessed immunisation, 61 per cent were provided food on the day of survey and only 19 per cent of mothers reported that the anganwadi centre provides nutrition counseling to the parents. (The Hindu, 2012a: 13)

6. Orissa with highest poverty (61st NSS Round 2004-05) witnessed slowest reduction of poverty in the post reform period. However, between 2004-05 and 2007-08, the Orissa Government claims a 11.73 per cent decline in poverty, that is, from 39.80 per cent to 29.54 per cent, based on a tentative analysis of NSS data. (Orissa Economic Survey 2010-11: Foreword) The poorer States Chhattisgarh, Uttar Pradesh and Madhya Pradesh have also experienced slower rate of poverty reduction between 1993 and 2005. (Radhakrishna, Ravi and Reddy 2011: 22)

7. While several Amendments have legitimised the democratic state as representative of its people across class, caste, sex and ethnic communities, we find that the owners of productive resources control the decision-making process at all levels.

8. The Land Acquisition Act of 1894 (amended in 1984 and in 2011-12) empowers the government to acquire private lands and properties in ‘public interest’ (see also Sahoo 2005: 8) and the ‘eminent domain’ theory empowers the state alone to define the ‘public purpose’.

9. While the recent implemention of the Electronic PDS (e-PDS) might improve the system by bringing more transparency in the supply chain management, which will reduce divergence and other corrupt practices as consumers would be able to get online information regarding the ration shops, availability of foodgrains, distribution of essential commodities, the status of ration cards, and the number of ration card holders, as claimed by the government (The Hindu, 2011b: 3), a majority of the villagers in the interiors without electricity, other infra-structure facilities, information and education will benefit little from it. [However, the recent digitisation helped weed out 2.96 crore bogus ration cards from the estimated 10.56 crore ration cards and the number of cards has come down to 7.6 crores. (Parsai 2012a: 20)] Similarly, while several micro level studies confirm violation of various provisions of the MGNREGA, right to work needs to be conceptualised in specific contexts of the over-all position in the existing hierarchical social class-caste structure, patriarchal structure and feudal and semi-feudal agrarian relations. (Ray, 2012a: 38)

Suranjita Ray teaches Political Science at Daulat Ram College, University of Delhi. She can be contacted at suranjitaray_66@yahoo.co.in