Abstract

United India with a strong sense of fraternity (oneness) among all its citizens was the much cherished dream project not only of the architect of the Indian Constitution Babasaheb Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, but also of Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders. Although the presence of fraternity among people within each caste and community is not doubtful, its presence between people of different castes and communities is very much doubtful, given the fact that the dominant sections of Indian society continue to look down upon the others, particularly the Dalits, Adivasis and religious minorities. The discussion in this paper clearly reveals that the path laid down for the purpose in the preamble of the Indian Constitution, viz., fraternity through liberty and equality, has not been adhered to earnestly both by the State and by the people in general. Inclusive development is therefore suggested as the best strategy to transform India into a strong united nation.

Introduction:

World over, large scale development initiatives have been justified in the name of ‘development of nation’. The justification however seems to be rather political in nature and theoretically unconvincing, given the fact that despite decades of State’s planned efforts the asymmetrical power relations between the rich and the poor, in other words, the exploiting and the exploited castes and communities, has not changed significantly. Such justification has been the dominant state-sponsored discourse yet, irrespective of which party governs the state and what has been its ideological rootedness and popular image among people. For instance, the Congress party whose nationalism is often argued to have become the symbol of patriotism and identity of India, has been credited to have taken India to an unprecedented height in the global economy through its carefully crafted neoliberal policies and programmes. The right wing parties like the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and its allies called the National Democratic Alliance ( NDA) during 1998-2004 also pursued neoliberal policies during its rule. Even those State like West Bengal which has the 34 years long history of being ruled by left-wing parties and therefore ideologically against privatization, liberalization and globalisation and against market-oriented neoliberal policies, started promoting private sector to deal with its pressing economic needs, including its support to Tata Motors to take over of 997 acres of farmland in Singur in Hooghly district, West Bengal in 2008. In conclusion it may be said that almost every political party, irrespective of its claim on nationalism and ideological position against neoliberal policies, supported or relied on the much criticized neoliberal policies whenever it assumed power as the custodian of the state, committed to its economic progress. And all of them pursued, either aggressively or passively, either overtly or tacitly, the neoliberal policies in the name of development of nation.

While one may not doubt the genuineness of the State’s claim that it is committed to development of nation as it is mandated by the ideals of Indian Constitution such as social justice, what one seems to be apprehensive about is the commitment of the leaders of the nation at various levels elected to realize such ideals. When the values and ethics of leaders, right from the Prime Minister of the country to the village Panchayat Board member, the bureaucracy, right from Chief Secretary to village administrative officer, and also the judiciary at various levels, are rooted in the principles and values of the caste or religions they are born into and most of their decisions on all matters, including marriage, from birth to death within and outside their family life are governed primarily by such principles and values, the very expectation that they should throw away instantly such deep-rooted caste, cultural and religious sentiments and become the citizens of India, adhering to the ideals of Indian Constitution as the cardinal principles of their social life, is rather very ambitious project. Yet, it was the goal and vision of intellectuals and leaders such as Ambedkar, Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru. To them, development of nation is no less than social justice and therefore development of nation is ought to be development of all citizens, irrespective of who they are, in other words, what caste or community or religion they belong to or what linguistic and regional background they come from. It means that development is ought to be inclusive development. In simple term, inclusive development means that development benefits should reach all sections of society. In other words, every section of society should benefit from the dividend of development initiatives undertaken by India as a nation. How far India has realized this cherished goal? In this paper, I attempt to compare the development of nation, particularly with regard to increasing the literacy level and per-capita income, and protecting the despised and vulnerable sections of society from crimes, discrimination and exclusion, with that of the Dalits, Tribal people and religious minorities who constitute over 80 percent of the Indian population.

Social Justice and Inclusive Development:

It is a widely held view that India has grown many folds in accelerating its economic growth and increasing the national income, particularly in the last two five-year plan periods. But at the same time, it seems to have been caught in a dichotomy: “on the one side, there is the obvious growth that has taken India to dizzy heights on the world stage; but on the domestic front, there is a growing restlessness among large numbers at the bottom of the pyramid – a fact that governments in a democracy can ignore only at their peril”(1). This simply reflects that there is growth, but it is a growth that does not value social justice.

As noted earlier, social justice demands honouring, in true sense, the liberty and equality of every individuals, communities and nations, particularly of those subjected to injustice of one kind or the other by the relatively more powerful ones. Social justice can be realized, as the American critical theorist Nancy Fraser argues, only by way of: a) recognizing, in true sense, the contribution of every linguistic group or community to the society at large and their plight today as excluded and deprived community at both political and policy levels, and b) redistributing the resources and goods to them(2) . Development seems otherwise impossible. Although the meaning of development has been changing over time-space context, there has always been a category of people called the developed or rulers or bourgeoisie and also a category called the undeveloped/underdeveloped or ruled or proletariat. Thus the development debate can not be a recent one as it is often portrayed to be. Arguing that despite its record of unprecedented scientific and technical progress, development has acted as an ideological trap perpetuating the asymmetrical relations between dominating minorities and dominated majorities, both within and between countries, and has resulted in two major crisis, viz., mass unemployment and growing inequality, the post-modernists propose to renounce to it and move towards what they call a post-development state which envisions a society removed from the discourse of development, modernity, politics, cultural and economical influences from the west, and market oriented and centralized authoritarian societies. However, the post-modernists have not stated in clear terms as to what to be done in the coming years to accomplish the move, and, more specifically, to over come the two major problems(3).

But development—subsequently reinterpreted as freedom, and not merely as increase in per-capita income(4), and in general understood as an ideology here to stay— demands the removal of all sources that curtails freedom. Social exclusion, b eing one of the major sources of social unfreedom or factors that curtail freedom, has now been well recognized as a major concern in development sector. In the western context, social exclusion is generally understood as “denial of equal opportunities in multiple spheres”. Social exclusions results in ‘multiple and overlapping forms of disadvantages’ with social identity as the central axis of the exclusion. It invariably leads to “capability failures”, resulting in curtailment of freedom, rights and dignity of individuals and communities. In other words, social exclusion perpetuates historical injustices, creates new layers of hegemony and provokes violence against the excluded communities. Social exclusion, in short, negates and destroys the dialogical character of human life. In the long run, social exclusion can not only become inimical to development but can also endanger peace and harmony right from family level to global. This is the reason why addressing social exclusion is more challenging and crucial than the narrowly defined concept of income poverty. Thus, development is ought to be “inclusive development” and the fruits of development is to be shared across all sections of society.

The ideals inherent in the idea of inclusive development demands that development should be designed and implemented in such a way that every under developed or targeted individual or community should be able to avail of the due share of development benefits. Unless there is conscious and deliberate attempt to include the excluded as partner in the process and part of development, exclusion can not be addressed effectively. But in reality, many people get excluded from development due to various reasons. Internationally, gender, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, physical ability, colour and economic status have been recognized as factors determining one’s access to development benefits. Those considered inferior in the society for the reason of belonging to one or more of these factors, get socially excluded. “The effects of such exclusion are staggering, deepening inequality across the world. The richest ten percent of people in the world own 85 percent of all assets, while the poorest 50 percent own only one percent. …Development can be inclusive and reduce poverty, only if all groups of people contribute to creating opportunities, share the benefits of development and participate in decision-making. Inclusive development follows UNDP’s human development approach and integrates the standards and principles of human rights: participation, non-discrimination and accountability”

According to the original Millennium Declaration, it was necessary for countries to take steps to promote democracy and strengthen the rule of law, as well as respect for all internationally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms, besides working towards peace and security across nations. But the Millennium Development Goals left out the rule of law, human rights, and democracy on the grounds that progress in these direction could not be properly measured.(5) The result is that though countries, including India, have progressed immensely in terms of improving peoples’ access to primary education and basic heath care services, and even the per-capita income of people in general, their achievement in honouring rule of law, human rights and democracy has been very poor.

Judged by GDP growth rate as an important indicator of development, India, as a nation, has certainly been on the onward march, although the growth rate kept fluctuating since the first Plan period. According to Rakesh Mohan, Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India, t he India’s real GDP growth rate was 3.6 in the 1950s, but increased to 4.0 in the 1960s and drastically declined to 2.9 in the 1970s, but increased to 5.6 in the 1980s and further increased, although marginally, to 5.7 during 1991/92-1996/97. The increase in growth rate reached an unimaginable height of 8.7 percent in 2003/04. Encouragingly, it also remained at the same level for 4 consecutive years, i.e., till 2007/08.(6) But once again declined to 6.8 percent during 2008-09, and although marginally increased to 7.4 percent during 2009-10, it further declined to 5 percent during 2012-13 and is expected come down to 4.9 percent during 2013-14. However, the fact that the growth rate of India keeps fluctuating, that India once achieved as high as 8.7 percent growth rate, and its average growth rate during 2003/04 to 2009/10 remained as high as 7.6 percent, give enough hope that India’s growth rate will improve soon or later and it will continue to move ahead in the path of development. The Planning Commission of India recently claimed, “the number of those below the poverty line declined to 21.9% of the population in 2011-12, from 29.8% in 2009-10 and 37.2% in 2004-05.”(7) And the literacy rate in India steadily increased from mere 18.33 percent in 1951 to 43.57 in 1981 to 74.04 in 2011.

But the crucial question is whether or not such an encouraging scenario of promising growth rate, in other words, significant reduction in poverty, and the increasing literacy rate which are often considered as indicators of development truly contribute to the development of all sections of Indian society? In other words, whether such development indicators truly represent the development of all sections of Indian society, particularly of the socially excluded and marginalized communities such as the Dalits or Scheduled Castes (SCs), the economically backward Backward Castes (BCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Religious Minorities (RMs) who continue to face one or more forms of social exclusion, marginalization and violence by the dominant sections in the society. The question, in short, means whether or not the kind of development initiated—be it those initiated by the state or those by the private parties—is beneficial to all sections of society?

India is socially and historically a hierarchical society where members face social exclusions of one or more forms. Sometimes, such exclusion is cumulative in its magnitude. The concept of social exclusion in India goes beyond the usual explanations of material and psychic deprivations, and compels us to recognize how and why social exclusion is structurally and institutionally rooted in a complex matrix of caste, class, gender, religion, ethnicity etc. In India one’s caste or cultural or tribal or religious background or all of this does play a significant role in determining his/her social dignity or status and economic, political and bureaucratic power positions which have direct bearing both on his/her ability to access development benefits and on the readiness of his/her counter parts to honour his/her basic and special rights guaranteed under the various provisions of the Indian Constitution. When there is lack of readiness or unwillingness on the part of the dominant sections of the society, the conflict between such sections and those asserting their due rights as citizens –right to life, livelihood, and dignity—become inevitable. The result is that those asserting their constitutional rights such as the SCs, BCs, STs and RMs who together constitutes more than 80 percent of Indian population are overtly and covertly discriminated and excluded, economically marginalized, politically oppressed and controlled and physically displaced and sometimes even brutalized not merely by the other castes or tribes or ethnic and religious groups, and, some times, even by the State itself, of course, in different degrees and forms.

Experiences in the development sector suggest that the impact of development initiatives has not been the same among all the targeted individuals and communities, particularly in terms of the nature and magnitude of outcome expected and achieved of such initiatives. While there are instances of the fruits of development being shared even by those not targeted, there are ample evidences of vast proportion of targeted individuals and communities not getting their due share for a long period of time, resulting in chronic poverty, social exclusion and violence. For instance, according to the National Crimes Records Bureau, Government of India, the number of reported crimes committed by the non-SCs/STs against the SCs increased from 14318 in 1981 to 33719 in 2011. Even the brutal crimes such as rape and murder have gone up over the years. The number of reported incidence of SC women being raped by the non-SC/ST men increased from 604 in 1981 to 1557 in 2011. Similarly, the reported number of SCs being killed by the non-SCs/STs increased from 493 in 1981 to 673 in 2011.

The situation seems to be more alarming when it comes to the issues of the Tribes in India. The total number of people—predominantly Tribal people—displaced or affected under various projects in Andhra Pradesh, Jharkhand, Kerala and Orissa during 1951-1995, in Assam, Bengal during 1947-2000, in Goa during 1965-95 and in Gujarat during 1947-2004 were as many as 19810834. According to the estimate of Fernandez, Das and Rao(8) (1989), the number of Indians displaced but not rehabilitated properly between 1950 and 1980 i.e., during pre-globalisation period were over 11.5 million.

There have also been instances in which people face social exclusion and violence owing to their religious background. The number of reported communal riots in India during 1947-2003 was as many as 98(9). And most of these riots were between Hindus and Muslims. During 2005-09 alone as many as 648 persons reported to have been killed and as many as 11278 injured in 4030 incidents of communal violences. On an average, 130 people reported to have died and 2200 injured in communal violence each year(10).

Existing data on select indicators reveal how the members of Religious Minority lag behind others. For instance, the literacy level of Muslims in India , according to the census data, is below the national average, although it has increased over the years. In 2001, the total literacy rate among Muslims was 59.1 percent when the national average was 64.8 percent. It increased to 67.6 percent as against the national average of 74 percent in 2011. The following findings of Sachar Committee Report(11) reveal the gravity of problems faced by the Indian Muslims: 1) There is a clear and significant inverse association between the proportion of the Muslim population and the availability of educational infrastructure in small villages. Muslim concentration villages are not well served with pucca approach roads and local bus stops. 2) Substantially larger proportion of the Muslim households in urban areas are in the less than Rs.500 expenditure bracket. 3) The presence of Muslims has been found to be only 3% in the IAS, 1.8% in the IFS and 4% in the IPS. 4) Muslim community has a representation of only 4.5% in Indian Railways while 98.7% of them are positioned at lower levels. Representation of Muslims is very low in the Universities and in Banks. Their share in police constables is only 6%, in health 4.4%, in transport 6.5%.

Such a state of affair of the SCs, STs, BCs and RMs even after 6 decades of India’s independence seems to defeat the very purpose of development. These sections of Indian society together constitutes more than 80 percent of Indian population. They constitute a significant proportion of India’s rich cultural diversity. They are also the descendants of those who laid down their lives to secure political freedom from the British. Yet, their share in the fruits of India’s independence is far less than what is due to them. Be it the bureaucracy or any other government departments and institutions, their representation is far low.

The special Constitutional provisions have helped, at least a minuscule section of the marginalized and excluded communities, to occupy decent and powerful bureaucratic positions not only in government departments and institutions, but also in august decision making bodies like State Assemblies and Parliament to voice their grievances. These in turn have helped them improve their educational and economic status and to protect themselves from being discriminated and brutalized. Yet, a vast majority of them continue to face multiple forms of indignities, exclusions, marginalization and human right violations both in rural and urban India owing to their assertion towards protecting their self respect and dignity and claiming their rights as citizens of India, negating their socially constructed and sanctioned lower status. Besides, the India’s new economic policy and globalization have often argued to have further limited the scope of whatever safeguards guaranteed to these excluded communities under the Indian Constitution.

Conclusion:

Though the excluded and marginalized sections’ contribution to India’s cultural diversity is acclaimed and the Indian Constitution does guarantee protection and opportunities for their development, there seems to be reluctance on the part of society at large in sharing India’s economic prosperity and development opportunities among them. As a result, most of them continue to remain excluded not merely from the benefits and opportunities of development but from the entire process of development itself. In every yard stick of human development index, these sections of society remain relatively more backward. Their plight indeed greatly challenges the general conception of what constitutes a good or just society and endangers the very notion of nationhood among such a huge population. Much of the problems related to Jammu and Kashmir, the north-east, and other areas affected by militancy also seem to be the result of the development in the country in general and in such regions in particular not being inclusive. The governance system put in place for accomplishing the ideals of Indian Constitution has not yielded the desired outcome to the desired extent owing to, besides other factors, fear and prejudice of one kind or the other that the custodians of the governance system suffer from.

End Notes:

(1) Fernandas, W., Das, J.C., and Rao, S (1989), ‘Displacement and Rehabilitation: An estimate of Extent and Prospects’, In W. Fernandas and E. Ganguly Thukral (eds.), Development, Displacement and Rehabilitation, Indian Social Institute, New Delhi.

(2) Rajeshwari, B (2004), Communal Riots in India: A Chronology (1947-2003), IPCS Research Papesr (March), Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, New Delhi.

(3) http://www.prsindia.org/administrator/uploads/general/1308201190_Vital%20Stats%2020Communal%

20Violence% 20in%20India%2014Jun11%20v2.pdf.

(4) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sachar_Committee_Report (accessed on January 9, 2014).

(5) http://rbi.org.in/scripts/BS_SpeechesView.aspx?Id=379 (accessed on January 2, 2014)

(6) http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2013-07-24/news/40771743_1_poverty-line-tendulkar-methodology-poverty-rates (accessed on January 4, 2014)

(7) Sen, Amartya (1999), Development as Freedom. Oxford: Oxford University Press. http://www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ourwork/povertyreduction/focus_areas/focus_inclusive_development/

(8) http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/voices/justice-2015-redefining-worlds-development-agenda(January 5, 2014)

(9)http://revathikumaran.wordpress.com/stray-thoughts-and-ideas-on-education/neo-liberal-policies-and-their-impact-on-the-environment-india-as-a-case-study/

(10)Fraser, N. (2009) ‘Social justice in the age of identity politics, Redistribution, recognition and participation’, in Henderson, G. and Waterstone, M. (eds.) Geographic Thought: A Praxis Perspective. Oxon: Routledge

(11)Sachs, Ignacy (2004), Inclusive development strategy in an era of globalization, Working Paper No. 35 , International Labour Organization , Geneva .