This book ‘Unequal: Why India Lags Behind its Neighbours’ by Swati Narayan provides a vivid account of the nature and causes of social and economic inequality in the Indian subcontinent in contemporary times. Along with India, the countries considered for the study are Bangladesh, Nepal, and Sri Lanka. The author has conducted extensive field surveys and has actively interacted with ordinary farmers, artisans, Dalits, Adivasis, and generally people from the socially disadvantaged sections of communities in Bangladesh, Nepal, and in the State of Bihar in India. The choice of Bihar has to do with its geographic proximity to Bangladesh and Nepal. The findings are very clear: as regards India’s eastern and northern neighbours, the basic indices of human development are far higher in Bangladesh and Nepal vis-a-vis Bihar.
The situation in southern India generally, and in Kerala and Tamil Nadu in particular, is quite different. The author describes these States as the “Southern Supermodels.” Their development indicators are more akin to the high levels achieved in Sri Lanka and, indeed, are comparable to the levels achieved even in the U.S. The successes of Kerala and Tamil Nadu have a lot to do with the social and political movements going back about a hundred years that had caught the imagination and active participation of the socially disadvantaged groups in those states.
Related articles
In the author’s very first chart on page 7, we learn that a girl child born in 1971 had a life expectancy in India, Nepal, and Bangladesh of 48, 44, and 32 years, respectively. Half a century later, in 2021, the figures for the three countries were 69, 70, and 74, respectively. This is a rather telling reversal of circumstances. Each of the three countries has improved its performance quite significantly over the past half century. But in relative terms, the positions have precisely interchanged. India is the worst performer.
Why is this so? The answer, the author avers, and in one word, is inequality. She holds that the difficulty about India is that there are multiple layers of severe inequalities that aggravate one another. Three of the most extreme axes of these inequalities have to do with caste, class and gender. They form the core bases of why India lags behind. The author contends that the main reason “is the vice-like grip of systemic and, at times, barbaric inequalities, which are now on the rise”. The idea is that the differences in the life chances of the rich and the poor, men and women, Brahmins and Doms, Hindus and Muslims, etc, are so sharp that until these inequalities are bridged, it would be impossible to expect the nation as a whole to prosper.
The big paradox one has to contend with is that, purely in terms of economic performance, India seems to have been doing well. The country has recorded a reasonably fast growth rate of GDP since the beginning of its liberalisation and economic reforms in 1991. It has even had growth rates in excess of 9% during 2005-08, in the early years of the United Progressive Alliance rule. Even though the pace of growth took a hit during the global financial crisis of 2008, the Indian economy recovered reasonably unscathed and soon secured its place among the fastest-growing major economies of the world, which it continues to enjoy up till now. The natural question then is: Why are its achievements in the social and human spheres not keeping space?
It is well known as well as widely acknowledged that citizens of more equal societies tend to have higher levels of indicators with regard to health, education and children. The welfare states of Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden are among the best performers in terms of human development. The author notes that highly unequal societies such as even the US have to contend with many severe challenges, “from homelessness and obesity to gun violence”. The problem in India is exacerbated by extreme and degrading poverty and a rigid caste hierarchy that relegates a large segment of the socially disadvantaged Dalit communities to a life of indignity and oppression.
Findings from the Field
The book’s chapter on Bihar opens with the author visiting a district for her field-work in July 2016, where two Dalit youths had been beaten up and urinated on by forward castes. Inhuman and grossly brutal acts directed at the Dalits have been, and sadly continue to be, a common place occurrence all across India. There are several levels of gradations even among the lowest castes. The author notes that almost 41 per cent of Dalits she interviewed in Muzaffarpur admitted that they would “have a problem if a Musahar were to eat in our home”. The Musahars are at the bottom rung of the Dalit communities. The author notes that when she visited a Musahar hamlet, the mothers she met complained bitterly that the anganwadi worker rarely served any food to their children.
Bangladesh offers a striking contrast. As a Muslim-majority country, Bangladesh has fewer caste-style hierarchies than Muslims in India. For almost a thousand years, Buddhism’s egalitarian and universalist ethic thrived in East Bengal. East Bengal was also the hub of the two Buddhist empires of the Palas and the Chandras. By the 12th century CE, while most surrounding kingdoms had reverted to Hinduism with its rigid caste hierarchies, Buddhism continued to flourish in East Bengal. This egalitarian culture of Bengal was strengthened by the entry of Islam in the early 13th century by the Turkish—Afghan military general, Mohammad Bakhtiyar. It is believed that most of the conversions into Islam were by non-Hindus, who took to the ways of Sufis and mystics from Central Asia. There is a fairly useful account of the social and political history of East Bengal during the post-Mughal period that throws light on the relatively egalitarian historical background of Bangladesh.
In her fieldwork in Nepal, the author notes that underneath the seeming tranquillity on the surface, the “habitation was clearly segregated on caste lines”. The Brahmins (Bahuns) and the Kshatriyas (Chhetris) are the privileged upper castes and have much more and better endowments in terms of land, cattle, etc. The Janajatis and Dalits live in remote hamlets on the upper reaches of hillocks and are difficult to access. The monarchical system came to an end in 2006, and the subsequent period up to now has had centre-left and left-wing communist governments. Jan andolans (people’s movements) have brought about a greater degree of democratic participation to bring about more equitable public policies. The author concludes that the “Maoist movement paved the way for a radical transformation of Nepali society”.
As mentioned above, the high achievement levels in education and health, as well as better social status of women in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, have been built on long years of progressive social and political movements. Kerala had the first democratically elected communist government in 1957, and this worked as a catalyst of change for the later economic development of the State. In Tamil Nadu, E.V.Ramasamy, revered as Periyar, launched the Self-respect Movement in 1925, which was committed to abolishing caste hegemony in Tamil society.
In Conclusion
The book establishes quite persuasively that to understand the reasons behind India’s poor showing in human development, one has to focus on India’s eastern and northern regions, which have a lot of catching up to do. It is clear that most of the usual indicators in terms of education and health are much better in the case of Bangladesh vis-à-vis the comparator State, Bihar, that the author studies. The recent turn of events in Bangladesh’s politics points to a rather uncertain future that awaits the country. It goes without saying that a stable political regime is a necessary precondition for fostering secure social and economic development.
It should be pointed out that the latest household consumption expenditure data from India reveals that inequality has reduced both in urban and rural areas across the country between 2011-12 and 2022-23. This is a matter of some satisfaction and offers some optimism for India. Yet, one must remember that inequality is a multidimensional phenomenon, and even though the economic aspect is a major dimension, the social aspect can often prove to be no less vital. The aim of this book has been to drive home this fundamental truth.
Courtesy: ‘Economic & Political Weekly’
