There is a critical link between poverty, inequality, unemployment, exclusion and violence that stem from the pursuit of quick money. This is quite true in the context countries afflicted with social apartheid and racial discrimination.

The other temptation for the poor is crime and violence, which begets easy (rather unearned) income and thus helps them to get out of the shackles of poverty. This must not be misconstrued to mean that poverty per se is necessarily associated with crime and related activities. But when poverty, including wide disparities and high unemployment rates, combines with a perception that the State, on the one hand, does not do much for the poor and on the other hand, the poor get highly marginalised, isolated, and excluded socially, there emerge very strong incentives that force the disadvantaged poor to resort to crime and violence. It is also true that lower the social support in a community, higher the crime rate.


It is therefore concluded that there is a critical link between poverty, inequality, unemployment, exclusion and violence that stem from the pursuit of fast monetary success through effective illegal means. This is quite true in the context of many countries that are afflicted with a long history of social apartheid and racial discrimination.

Having discussed in detail the dimension of ‘concealed’ poverty and its emergence in many developing countries, it will be interesting to look at the overall social scenario in the given context in India. It is true that India has failed to meet poverty and hunger reduction targets and has still a large number of poor people (below the poverty line), the largest in the world, who are seriously undernourished. However, the proportion of undernourished people has decreased from 38 percent in 1979-81 to 26 percent in 1990-92 and 21 per cent in 1996-98 and a little further beyond that. The biggest constraint in poverty reduction is the addition of a little more than 17 million people to the total population every year.


On the employment front, the scenario is a mixed one. On the one hand, employment in the formal sector has grown impressively in the past two decades or so but on the other, employment has declined marginally both in urban and rural areas. Despite this, there still exist widespread poverty and income disparities, which get worse when we accept Amartya Sen’s contention that poverty is much more than lack of income. It is also lack of voice, lack of empowerment and lack of good governance. Promoting opportunities for the poor is not enough. They need to be empowered through elections, decentralisation to the grass roots, responsive administration, effective judiciary and good governance in general. They also need a greater voice in managing their future and a greater inclusion in the decision-making process. There is no doubt that India has miserably failed in reducing poverty in terms of this wider connotation.


But no matter what it is, India is much better placed and has tackled its problems of poverty, inequality, and unemployment much better and more effectively than many other developing countries. It is probably because of a number of micro-level programmes (both area-specific and people-specific) launched by the government from time to time. But, despite the fact that the social scene in India in terms of the given indices is a lot better in all respects compared to other countries, especially in South Asia and Africa, the poor in India, of course with a few exceptions, unlike their counterparts in other countries (like South Africa), invariably live within their means, save whatever they can by living frugally, go for discretionary rather than contractual savings, do not mortgage their assets or future income and above all, do not, in any way, try artificially or illegitimately, to conceal or disguise their poverty. Being highly tolerant and God-fearing, they accept their fate and the given circumstances and maintain their self-respect to live with honour in their own way.


Poverty is, therefore, still openly seen in India in its crude form and is very well reflected on the haggard, tired, anxious, stressed, underfed and famished faces of the poor through their shattered, shabby and torn clothes and also through their temporary shacks and mud houses in rural areas and city slums. Most of these poor people are both wage-earners and self-employed - as vendors, hawkers, casual labourers, peasants, rickshaw and trolley pullers and domestic servants. They work hard and live their lives honestly and value their self-esteem more than anything else. Despite living a difficult life, the interesting thing is that they do save money during the high-wage season to tide over financial gaps without much dependence on others and they do spend on their own on social occasions and festivals. These attributes of the poor in India, despite their hardships, have to be highly appreciated, as they undoubtedly constitute something very unique towards the concept of what we term as Indian-ness.


In no other country in the world perhaps the poor have such tolerance and faith in living their lives without losing their self-respect. It is true that they do wish to get out of the shackles of poverty perhaps on their own, through self-employment and also with the help of public support, but not so much through artificial and illegitimate means as discussed earlier in this Paper. But this virtue of the poor people should in no way lead to complacency on the part of the public authorities. There is still a long way to go and much more has to be done to improve the lot of the poor in its wider connotation. But, no matter what the outcome of these efforts, the unique concept of Indian—ness, as enunciated above, will always be a part of our society.