The discourse about the idiom of poverty is perforce far more political than is commonly made out to be. Particularly in the context of allocations, design and execution of anti-poverty programmes, institutions and laws, beneficiary individuals and target groups tend to be treated as passive non-entities receiving condescension - quite a case of ignoring participatory and inclusive democracy ideals and values.
And worse, resources grudgingly spent are trotted out to be generally wasteful, as adding to fiscal deficit and inefficient use of scarce productive capital. This, though it is known that when people rise above poverty whether by deliberate means or through trickle-down processes, they become more capable, healthier, more endowed, self-confident with skills, adding to human capital, making the country’s life more manifold or versatile and worthy.
In this poverty discourse, there is the embedded question of inequality, cause as well as the consequence which has remained ignored by the political class though studied and lamented/commented upon variously all across the world of analysts including Nobel laureates, academics and leaders of public opinion.
In India and all over the world, absolute poverty has steadily declined over decades but relative poverty has increased manifold accompanied by a high systemic concentration of wealth and incomes.
This has made the poor further excluded, aspirational and demand for a real spread of social and political opportunities. The poor themselves are tending to be a political lobby sought to be propitiated by the entire spectrum of ruling parties as well as the opposition.
But unfortunately, the sense of urgency of the poor and the working class is not recognised, encouraged or cultivated; instead demeaned and consigned into the ghettoes of inequality—institutions, allocations and administration interfacing with the poor are suffering from inadequacy and dire neglect.
This is coupled by the unremedied attitude of the police, administration and possibly even by the judiciary to treat poverty victims as culprits for their self-predicament, and at best as recipients of condescension or grace from the powerful rich and the influential: clearly this is in violation of the deeper one-person-one-vote political spirit.
On the other hand, structural or systemic returns or benefits from the capital investment have far increased/accelerated over returns to the millions of poor labour, in farms and factories. This structural skewness is a chronic political problem (wrought also by technological and procedural changes famed as Schumpeterian creative destruction in economics) interfacing with poverty.
This is accompanied by a certain superstition, not free from vested interests, among dominant sections of politicians and economic administrators that helping the corporate class with lowered taxes and bank interest rates and increased subsidies reaches directly and indirectly to the business class.
Thus, there is a blatant ignoring of the empirical prospect that fast and widespread reduction in poverty accompanies a fast growth of demand, productivity and entrepreneurial initiative among the hitherto poor; spread of security and savings too, a goal of development.
Economic growth, expansion as well as transformation/invention in the production and use of energy, goods and services, is known to have damaged the environment vastly and variously—rise in global temperatures and sea levels, melting of polar ice caps, additional infestation of carbon in the atmosphere, irreversible damage to coastlines, mangroves and mountain snow lines and glaciers, damage to aquatic life, snapping of symbiotic links, loss of livelihood to the poor and forest dwellers.
Limits to growth
This loss cannot be made good by paying more to the poor but has to be remedied by positively heeding to the message, there are serious ‘limits to growth’. Nature does not brook persistent jeopardy to inter and intra-generational justice regarding harnessing and use/consumption of natural resources.
Any solution to this growing world problem has to be on the basis of consensus to be hewn between the rich and poor among societies, countries and governments. Obviously, it is a political movement towards distributive justice and fight against inequality.
Environmental and livelihood concerns attached to the idea of limits to growth or the idea of self-restraint in harnessing, production and consumption of natural resources, food and energy, are manifestly as old as 1968, initiated by some deeply sensitive technologists, industrialists, scholars and publicists famed as the ‘Club of Rome’.
These have been revalidated and reiterated recently at the global level in the forum of the United Nations by Sweden’s young girl, Greta Thunberg, a precocious environment crusader and leader.
Sooner we learn that all-round protection and refurbishing of the environment is a component of the inevitable or compelling fight against poverty, the better it is for the spread of world peace and forestalling of disaffection among swathes of people in all the countries.
Thus only, democracy in its truest and manifold sense can spread and the goals of human revolutions including India’s freedom movement can be reached with due pace.