As was said before, all regions and nations, whether rich or poor, have their population divided between rich and poor in comparative terms.
For measuring poverty among the people, the unit is the family, and not caste or community. Each caste or community is stratified, according to its norms, into various socio-economic classes. Such classes cut across caste or community boundaries. A caste or community is united by the fact of birth or religion, and its membership is not affected by a family’s socio-economic status. A class, on the other hand, is a category in which people can move in or out, depending on the changes in status indicators. It is in this sense that caste or community is described as a horizontal unity spread over a number of local settlements; the classes, on the other hand, are vertically structured in a given setting and each class cuts across caste both in any settlement and in a region. A class is a category devised for analytical purposes, a caste or a community is a group. A class can be transformed into a group, but not every class is a group. It is in this sense that the poor as a class constitute a category, but do not become a group. Also, the poor can belong to different groups. It is important to keep this distinction in mind.
In India, the official machinery has not maintained that distinction, creating many problems. For example, when many groups resented their non-inclusion in the category of Scheduled Castes or Scheduled Tribes, the government decided to have a separate list of ‘Other Backward Classes’. While the term ‘Class’ was used in the appellation, the groups that are listed in this category are all castes. This is a misuse of the concept of class, and is based on the questionable assumption that all belonging to a given caste are ‘backward’ or ‘poor’. It is for this reason that demand is now being made, and is supported by the judiciary, to eliminate the ‘creamy layer’—a euphemism for those families that do not qualify any longer for a ‘backward’ or a ‘poor’ status.
The ambivalence of the government in defining who is poor can be seen in the use of two differing criteria—caste and the poverty line. Using the second criterion, families are classified as ‘Below the Poverty Line’ (BPL) and ‘Above the Poverty Line’ (APL). In using this yardstick, all families are evaluated irrespective of caste. Combining caste with this analysis can only suggest the actual percentage in each caste of BPL families. From this, one may infer that castes with a high percentage of BPL families are poor or backward. But this is misleading. Due to this ambivalence, privileges meant for the real poor get channelled into the creamy layer. Many in the category of the real poor remain beyond reach.
Leave a Reply