A couple of weeks ago, I had an experience in faith restoration towards the world. As someone who believes in giving to the homeless, I get reproached on occasion. There are very well meaning reasons behind this: My well wishers think that my money is being spent on people who might be addicts, and supporting them means supporting addiction. The other is, that since this is a student (read, idealistic) city, the chances of the travelling homeless to find sympathetic passersby is higher and hence it is a strategic call to be here than anywhere else. It often turns into an endless debate, where I give counter arguments, followed by theirs and so forth.
The other day, however, my experience provided me some clincher evidence to support my initial instincts. I gave to a homeless man sitting outside a supermarket right before entering inside. It was late in the evening – maybe 10pm – and when I stepped out, the man came to me and thanked me profusely for the donation. He said that he wanted to sleep in the hostel for the night and needed enought money for it. Along with what I and others had given him, he would now be able to do so.
It was a rewarding experience. And instead of now second guessing my actions everytime I did give to the homeless, I now feel far more confident. Of course it is still entirely possible that not each individual will be genuine, as the detractors suggest. But if it helps even one person in 10, it is still worth its while. This school of thought, is apparently what drives some charities and also in all likelihood, public distribution systems like those in India. Just because there is siphoning off of goods meant for transfer to those who truly need it, is not enough reason to stop the transfer altogether.
The question of re-distribution of resources is particularly significant today, given the stagnation in employment and incomes that happened in the years following the Great Recession. And this was hardly just a western phenomenon. The IMF published a paper a few years ago, showing a rise in inequality in Asia as well.
Indeed, those of us from and in India are well aware of the glaring poverty – and the resulting implication of inequality - that is visible on a day to day basis. And nowhere is it more physically manifested as in Mumbai, the biggest money spinning city in the country. On the one hand the business vibrancy of the city is positively electrifying, reflecting what a place geared towards commerce can achieve for itself, visible in its hectic pace, high rises and expanding geographical boundaries. But along with that, is the natural mushrooming of makeshift housing and slums as the city continues to attract a vast labour force from across the country.
Despite its continued growth, however, India is one of the Asian countries to have witnessed some rise in inequality over the years as well. The Gini coefficient, a popular measure of inequality, has risen over the longer term in India. (For those interested in more details, the link to my article from two years ago on is provided. It even has the customary China reference, that continues to maintain its popularity.).
Inequality would be worth thinking about even for its own sake. But acquires even greater significance in light of the fact that it has ramifications for all of us. I consider it no small co-incidence that the same day that the incident with the homeless man took place, I had spent the early evening listening to a talk by Prof. Thomas Piketty of the 'Capital in the 21st century' fame. He argues, that while traditionally the low income people have voted for the left wing while the high wealth category vote for the right wing. But once we bring education and globalisation into the mix, the story becomes more complex. For instance, highly educated are likely to be left leaning too, while globalisation encourages nativism. A particularly interesting aspect was the mention of the rise of the high-income and high-education category, which allows for more political ideologies to exist, than just the traditional left v/s right.
As many would agree, my own belief is that a lot of trends we are seeing globally – the rise of the extreme right wing, closed borders and sharp identity divides – have their roots in the lack of enough economic opportunity for everyone. While Piketty's argument would suggest that the political economy acros the world can go in any of the multiple directions indicated by the rising number of factors impacting it, going by the trends we have seen so far, it is geting difficult to bet on politics of harmony. As and when economic growth picks up significantly and importantly, sustainably enough to allow for the development of ambitious business plans, hopefully, the attitude of sequestring will subside. There are however two suppositions in this argument. Till such time though, I remain convinced that we might need to continue to find our own solutions to the challenge of redistribution, in whatever way we deem fit to our ideologies.
No comments:
Post a Comment