"Poverty and Inequality in India: An Examination of the First Three Five-Year Plans” by K. Saradamoni

Thinking Social Science in India: Essays in Honour of Alice Thorner
By Sujata Patel (editor), Jasodhara Baqchi, and Krishna Rajj
May 23, 2002
—Chapter 9: “Poverty and Inequality in India: An Examination of the First Three Five-Year Plans” by K. Saradamoni

This was a different kind of article that the ones I had read before. It was also more politically based, but from the title, I was more prepared for that approach. This chapter talked about the successes and shortcomings of the 3 5 year plans instituted in India to combat poverty. I found it interesting to trace the progression of India’s methodology in correcting poverty—what they retained and what they revised.

In the first plan, I found it interesting that poverty was seen to have come from not utilizing all the man power that was available (those who are poor and unemployed) and not exploiting natural resources. I found this particularly interesting because I am also taking a course in ecological anthropology and there are a number of debates that talk about whether or not it is okay for native peoples to utilize their resources (and protect them from only foreign exploitation) or to save the resources all together. Therefore, it is interesting that at this time in India, the worry was not that they were using too many resources and hurting the economy in the long run in that way, but instead that they weren’t using up enough of the natural resources!

I think this article also took a very realistic approach in analyzing India’s poverty. They acknowledge the fact that poverty will not be fixed overnight and will not be fixed by adherence to a certain formula. They also state the fact that the country needed more industrialization, but that also does not mean an immediate upturn in the economy—followed by decline of poverty. In fact, the author states statistics that suggest that unemployment rates sometimes go down first before they get better. Finally, they acknowledge that a lot of what is in these three plans is just empty words that reflect a good hearted attempt, but actions that will not cause a real result. And in good anthropologic form, they bring the whole issue back to the people and say that a political economy is not about the institution, but about the person. “ ‘Ultimately it is the development of the human being and the human personality that counts. Although planning involves material investment, even more important is the investment in man.” (163)

Finally, I also enjoyed the discussion on the history of poverty in India. Perhaps it is the history major in me, but I enjoyed being able to track a progression. For instance, in the beginning, social concerns were the business of religion, and the main jumpstart of serious poverty was the end of the feudal system because people no longer had lords to support them. Also, the authors state that another reason for extreme poverty could be the neglect of the rural peoples. There are so many rural people in India that to ignore them is to ignore the whole country, but it is easy to do because they are not the most visible ones. I thought this was thought provoking and made me remember that history, even social history, is all about perception and there can be more than one reason for things depending on the viewpoint.