Kapur Surya Foundation

Globalisation, Social Justice And Marginalised Groups In India

Author(s): VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA
Source: World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues , Vol. 19, No. 4 (WINTER
(OCTOBER-DECEMBER) 2015), pp. 60-73
Published by: Kapur Surya Foundation

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2307/48505247

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Kapur Surya Foundation is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
World Affairs: The Journal of International Issues

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 GLOBALISATION, SOCIAL JUSTICE AND
MARGINALISED GROUPS IN INDIA

Globalisation has led to the opening up of the Indian economy to foreign

direct investment by providing facilities for foreign companies to invest in
different fields of economic activity and removing barriers and obstacles for
the entry of multinational corporations. Supporters of globalisation see it as
an engine of growth and technical advancement. Critics argue that it has
widened the gap between nations, led to the exploitation of resources, the
destruction of the environment and a loss of national sovereignty. In the Indian
context, while globalisation has accelerated the flow and interconnectedness
of capital, goods, information, people and technology, it has also intensified
disconnection, exclusion and marginalisation while creating a new privileged
minority within the disadvantaged section of society. This article shows how
globalisation touches upon issues of well-being and social justice and analyses
its effects on the marginalised to understand rising inequalities in India.

VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

INTRODUCTION

T
he term “globalisation” refers to the integration of economies and
societies across countries through the flow of capital, finance, ideas,
information, goods, people, services and technologies. The International
Monetary Fund (World Economic Outlook, Washington DC, May 1997, p45)
defines it as:

60 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

“The growing economic interdependence of countries worldwide through

increasing volume and variety of crossborder transactions in goods and services,
freer international capital flows and the more rapid and widespread diffusion
of technology”.

Jagdish N Bhagwati (In Defence of Globalisation, New Delhi: Oxford University

Press, 2007, p3) sees economic globalisation as:

“The integration of national economies into the international economy

through trade, direct foreign investment (by corporations and multinationals),
short term capital flows, international flows of workers and humanity generally
and flows of technology”.

Globalisation may be interpreted as a natural force that is impossible to direct or

control in the contemporary world scenario. As per Japanese economist Kenichi
Ohmae (“Putting Global Logic First”, Harvard Business Review: The Evolving
Global Economy, Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1995, p12):

“No more than Canute’s soldiers can we oppose the tides of the borderless
world’s ebb and flow of economic activity”.

As a consequence, the room for political initiatives has become limited and
the only option for politics is to adjust to globalisation to benefit from it.
Noam Chomsky (“Corporate Globalisation, Korea and International Affairs”,
Interview with Sun Woo Lee, ZNet: The Spirit of Resistance Lives, 22 February
2006) describes it as the neoliberal form of economic globalisation.

“The strongest proponents of globalisation have always been the left and
the labour movements. ... The strongest advocates of globalisation are the
remarkable and unprecedented global justice movements, which get together
annually in the World Social Forum and by now in regional and local social
forums. In the rigid Western-run doctrinal system, the strongest advocates of
globalisation are called ‘anti-globalisation’. The mechanism for this absurdity
is to give a technical meaning to the term ‘globalisation’—it is used within
the doctrinal system to refer to a very specific form of international economic
integration designed in meticulous detail by a network of closely interconnected
concentrations of power—multinational corporations, financial institutions,

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 61

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

the few powerful states with which they are closely linked and their international
economic institutions (International Monetary Fund, World Bank, World Trade
Organisation, etc). Not surprisingly, this form of ‘globalisation’ is designed to
serve the interests of the designers. The interests of people are largely irrelevant”.

Globalisation has severe implications for the marginalised and poor in the
form of increasing individualism and a growing culture of consumerism as
well as expanding and exploiting material desires, creating identity dislocation
and a collective relative deprivation in a large section of people (Sagar Sharma
and Monica Sharma, “Globalisation, Threatened Identities, Coping and Well-
Being”, Psychological Studies, vol55, no4, October–December 2010, p313). The
issues of globalisation are not confined to the economic field but also deeply
affect the sociocultural sphere. The changes associated with it are important for
understanding the impact on and responses of individuals, communities, cultures
and governments to its consequences (ibid, p314). The changes have a direct
bearing on the well-being of individuals and groups. The uneven distribution
of economic gains that excludes many increases the level of stress, alienation
and feeling of injustice among the majority of vulnerable individuals and
marginalised groups (ibid). According to Zygmunt Bauman (Globalisation: The
Human Consequences, Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000), globalisation has changed
the way people think about the world and themselves. A traditional model of
stable and reliable employment has given way to a new experience of a working
life characterised by the absence of contracts, outsourcing, unstable working
conditions, labour market deregulations as well as social and job insecurity
(Vishal Bhavsar and Dinesh Bugra, “Globalisation: Mental Health and Social
Economic Factors”, Global Social Policy, vol8, December 2008, p380).
Globalisation in India is an amalgam of cultural, economic and social
outcomes resulting from the “opening up” of the Indian economy to the global
market (Ruchira Ganguly and Timothy J Scrase, Globalisation and the Middle
Classes in India: The Social and Cultural Impact of Neoliberal Reform, New York:
Routledge, 2009, p4). The Indian economy experienced major policy changes in
the early 1990s and new economic reforms, popularly known as liberalisation,
privatisation and globalisation (the LPG model), aimed at making the economy
a fast growing and globally competitive one. A series of reforms were undertaken
in the financial, industrial and trade sectors to make the economy more efficient.
Many aver that the policy of economic liberalisation has resulted in a mass of
wealthy middle class people—the principal beneficiaries of the globalisation

62 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

process. While they have benefited from consumption and new opportunities
for education and jobs and are seen an engine of growth, on the other hand
the lives of the marginalised and poor have become more difficult due to rising
prices, increasing debt and competition for jobs. Although opportunities have
undoubtedly increased, they have been accompanied by higher levels of financial
and personal stress (ibid, p3). The process of globalisation is guided by the
principle of neoliberalism, which offers consumers a freedom of choice but at
the cost of liberal values like equality and liberty.

SOCIAL JUSTICE AND MARGINALISED GROUPS

A welfare state guarantees provisions for elementary education, minimum

standards of healthcare, economic security and a civilised life. It attempts
to redress existing economic and social inequalities in society and maintain a
balance of power by ensuring social advancement for the marginalised sections
(Sarbeswar Sahoo, Globalisation and the Politics of the Governed: Redefining
Governance in Liberalised India, Research Paper 184, Department of Sociology,
National University of Singapore, 2007, p5). Social justice is a multidimensional
concept that has been viewed variously by scholars and some define it as:

“The right of the weak, aged, destitute, poor, women, children and other
underprivileged persons” (Maddela Abel, Remade in India: Political Modernisation
in the Indian Context, Hyderabad: Institute of Chartered Financial Analysts of
India University Press, 2006, p246).

It is a social value for providing a stable society and securing the unity of a
country. This article is based on distributive justice and the principle of John
Rawls’s (A Theory of Justice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1971) theory
of justice based on the “difference principle”, which implies an alternative, more
morally sound scheme for the global economic order then the prevalent one. It
leaves open the possibility of a free market as long as the “least advantaged groups
benefit from it”. According to Rawls (ibid), “circumstances, institutions and
historical traditions” decide which economic systems and social institutions best
serve the realisation of justice. He applies socially institutionalised mechanisms
for redistribution.
The concept of marginality is generally used to analyse cultural, political and

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 63

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

socioeconomic spheres, where disadvantaged and poor people struggle to gain

access to resources and a full participation in social life (Ghana S Gurung and
Michael Kollmair, Marginality: Concepts and their Limitations, Swiss National
Centre of Competence in Research North-South, Zurich, IP6 Working Paper 4,
2005, p10). Marginality may be defined as:

“The temporary state of having been put aside, of living in relative isolation,
at the edge of a system (cultural, economic, political or social) ... when one
excludes certain domains or phenomena from one’s thinking because they do
not correspond to the mainstream philosophy” (“Homepage”, International
Geographical Union, online at http://www.swissgeography.ch).

The marginalised are groups of people that are economically, legally, politically
or socially excluded, ignored or neglected and therefore vulnerable to livelihood
changes (ibid). Marginalisation is a multilayered concept. Sometimes, whole
societies may be marginalised at national or global levels, while classes and
communities may be marginalised from the dominant social order at the local level
(Carolyn Kagan and Mark Burton, “Working with People who are Marginalised
by the Social System: Challenges for Community Psychological Work”, online
at http://www.compsy.org.uk). Thus, marginalisation is a complex, shifting
phenomenon linked to social status.

“Marginalisation denies opportunities and outcomes to those living on the

margins, while enhancing opportunities and outcomes for those at the centre.
Marginalisation combines discrimination and social exclusion. It offends
human dignity and denies human rights, especially the right to live effectively
as equal citizens” (“Globalisation and Marginalisation: Discussion Guide to the
Jesuit Task Force Report”, Sydney, July 2007, online at http://www.sjweb.info).

In India, caste and class prejudices exclude many communities and hinder
their participation in economic and social development. Globalisation too has
promoted development at the cost of equity. It has enhanced the gap between the
“haves” and “have-nots” and furthered marginalisation. It is well known, India is a
multicultural, plural society with many groups and sections based on caste, class,
religion, etc. These groups are heterogeneous in nature, facing diverse problems.
Many are marginalised groups that are not empowered to tackle the challenges of
competing for equality even more than sixty years after independence.

64 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

GLOBALISATION AND THE MARGINALISED IN INDIA

A n important point of analysis is not whether globalisation is anti-poor, but

rather if it is “pro-poor”. Social policies in India are formulated to compensate
for asset inequalities and equity losses in the country. Government intervention
in education, employment, the environment, food security, healthcare and
technology is specifically to ensure that
apart from efficiency gains economic
Social policies in India are
reform measures have a positive impact formulated to compensate
on equity as well (Kalpana C Satija, for asset inequalities and
“Economic Reforms and Social Justice equity losses in the country.
in India”, International Journal of Social Government intervention in
Economics, vol36, no9, p956). While education, employment, the
“equity” is not an explicit goal of
economic reforms, it is a necessity and
environment, food security,
a clear definition of what equity should healthcare and technology is
imply in the Indian context must be specifically to ensure that apart
developed. Globalisation has been from efficiency gains economic
accompanied by a debate on whether reform measures have a positive
it is at the cost of growing inequality or impact on equity as well.
not. Critics of globalisation argue that
it accentuates inequality both within and between countries (Melinda Mills,
“Globalisation and Inequality”, Oxford Journals: European Sociological Review,
vol25, no1, 2009, p1). Some finding shows that there are clear winners and
losers, while others argue that globalisation has disintegrated national inequality
gap borders, prompted economic integration and lifted millions out of poverty
(ibid).
Inequality and the gap between the rich and poor are important issues of the
Indian liberalisation programme. In their work, India: Perspectives on Equitable
Development (New Delhi: Academic Foundation, 2009, p102), S Mahendra Dev
and N Chandrashekhara Rao state:

“Inequality has becomes a crucial factor determining the long-term

sustainability of the reform programme, for at least two major reasons. Firstly,
the impact of growth on poverty alleviation is critically dependent on the level
of initial inequality in a society. Secondly, high levels of inequality are inhibitive
of the development and survival of democratic norms in a society. Inequality

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 65

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

undermines good public policy, by eroding collective decision-making processes

and social institutions critical to a healthy functioning of democracy—the so-
called ‘vanishing’ middle class syndrome”.

India is the world’s largest democracy with a federal setup. Inequalities in the
country have two main dimensions—regional inequality between states and
interpersonal inequality. Globalisation has had an adverse impact on regional
inequality, which has the potential to create political tensions in a society where
regional loyalties have been traditionally powerful. Interpersonal inequality in
the wake of the globalisation process in India has also attracted the attention
of academics and policymakers (DM Nachane, Liberalisation, Globalisation and
the Dynamics of Democracy in India, London School of Economics and Political
Science, Asia Research Centre Working Paper 32, June 2010, p21). Privatisation
in India has often led to the rapid concentration of wealth in the hands of the
elite, high service charges by privatised utilities, employment restructuring and
the erosion of regulatory control, which have all impacted marginalised groups
unfavourably (ibid). Even subsidy policies at times do not achieve their short-
term goals of providing greater resources to the poor, as they are either not
targeted at the poor or are hijacked by the rich. The public distribution system
in which a fixed amount of food grain is given per person and a few essential
commodities are sold at subsidised prices has had a negligible impact on rural
poverty, while the central government alone spends four rupees to distribute
one among the intended beneficiaries (Elias Dinopoulos, Pravin Krishna, Arvind
Panagriya and Kar-yiu Wong (Eds), Trade Globalisation and Poverty, New York:
Routledge, 2008, p24).
India’s success owes more to its democratic institutions and processes and
less to external stimuli provided by globalisation. Its economic growth record has
been fairly impressive so far and the country has been steadily marching forward
since independence. India is among the developing countries that have enjoyed
sustained though slow growth in per capita incomes since 1950. Its economy has
been improving since the adoption of economic reforms and in recent years it has
averaged a rate of nearly six to seven per cent (Gowher Rizvi, “Emergent India:
Globalisation, Democracy and Social Justice”, International Journal, Canadian
International Council, Toronto, vol62, no4, Autumn 2007, p760). According to
a World Bank report (The Economic Times, 30 April 2014), India has displaced
Japan to become the world’s third biggest economy in terms of purchasing power

66 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

parity. However, while its share of goods and services has increased globally and
there is every indication that the growth of the economy will accelerate, India’s
development has been characterised by persistent inequality.
India’s record for dealing with the marginalised and disadvantaged while
substantial is far from satisfactory (Rizvi, ibid). The marginalised groups are
poor, mostly illiterate, the least healthy and secure, malnourished, and without
an effective voice. These groups, especially those that have suffered historic
discrimination, have received less than a fair share of the benefits of development
(ibid). They are predominantly dalit and adivasi (tribal)—the worst affected
marginalised groups. The conditions of both communities are at the bottom of
almost all indicators of the Human Development Index. Modern development
has largely bypassed these politically
Privatisation in India has often
and socially disadvantaged people.
Globalisation too has hurt them— led to the rapid concentration
while it has created opportunities of wealth in the hands of the
for employment in the services elite, high service charges by
sector, particularly in information privatised utilities, employment
technology, financial services and the restructuring and the erosion of
retail sector, most jobs are at the lower
regulatory control, which have
levels of business process outsourcing
(JS Sondhi, “An Analysis of India’s all impacted marginalised groups
Development: Before and After unfavourably.
Globalisation”, Indian Journal of Industrial Relations, vol43, no3, January 2008,
p329). Even internet access is differentiated by education, gender, location
and social class—collectively referred to as the digital divide. Information
and communication technologies play an important role in shaping uneven
development within the economy. In India, the development of the shrinking
world due to “time-space compression” has led to new social divisions between
those who have access to information and communication technologies and
those marginalised from them. There is a wide gap between the opportunities
available to those who speak English and operate computers and the rest of
the population. Such inequities at times result in localised conflicts between the
“haves” and “have-nots”, often reinforced by traditional social divisions based
on caste, region and religion (Surya Deva, “Globalisation and its Impact on the
Realisation of Human Rights: Indian Perspective on a Global Canvas” in C Raj
Kumar and K Chockalingam (Eds), Human Rights, Justice and Constitutional

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 67

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

Empowerment, New Delhi: Oxford University Press, 2007, pp237–8).

Globalisation gives a premium to people with high levels of education
and entrepreneurial skills who are better equipped to survive and succeed in
a competitive world (Manisha Tripathy Pandey, “Globalisation and Social
Transformation in India: Theorising the Transition”, International Journal of
Sociology and Anthropology, vol3, no8, August 2011, p258). As a consequence,
uneducated workers and the marginalised population benefit less in a more
competitive economy with both public and private players in the market. The
process of globalisation has meant a loss of livelihood to many people in traditional
jobs (ibid). According to Joseph E Stiglitz (Globalisation and its Discontents, New
York: WW Norton, 2002, p4), globalisation has created dual economies and
technological divides in societies. It divides as much as it unites. An integral part
of globalisation is “progressive segregation, separation and exclusion” (Stephen
Vertigans and Philip W Sutton, “Globalisation Theory and Islamic Praxis”,
Global Society, vol16, no1, 2002, p12).
India’s economic reforms lay excessive reliance on foreign investment
not only for industrial development but also for solving the unemployment
problem. While multinational corporations and their associate companies have
made considerable investments in India, they have not generated significant
employment for marginalised groups. According to a 2013 National Sample
Survey of India report (Third Annual Employment and Unemployment Survey
Report 2012–13, Labour Bureau, Government of India, online at http://
labourbureau.nic.in), in terms of unemployment the most affected sections are
the marginalised:

“The unemployment rate at 36 persons out of 1000 persons at an all India level
is lowest in the scheduled tribes category, followed by 44 persons under the
other backward classes category, 45 persons under the scheduled castes category
and 56 persons out of 1000 persons each under the general category”.

India has now moved away from the concept of government towards governance.
In the governance paradigm, in large part reflecting the changed circumstances
resulting from economic liberalisation, technological advances and the rise of
market ideology, governments are moving away from being operational agencies
to regulatory authorities. From the perspective of the poor, the rollback of
government’s operational role in the management of the economy does not

68 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

augur well. Through economic reforms, the government has downsized many
state enterprises and privatised many public sector ones leading to a loss of jobs
for marginalised groups that had reservations under a policy of affirmative action
(Rizvi, ibid, p765). As Rizvi (ibid) adds:

“While it is true that as the economy expands and privatised state enterprises
flourish, new and better paid jobs will be created ... in a knowledge-based
economy, only those who are well-educated, skilled, information-savvy,
English-speaking and internationally connected will be able to take advantage
of the opportunities”.

However, without a commitment to affirmative action, private sector jobs are

unlikely to go to rural, locally educated people, especially the marginalised.
Market liberalisation without an adequate social safety net widens the gap
between the rich and the poor and leads to the possibility of the poor being
further marginalised (Gowher Rizvi, “Benefits of State, Monopolised by the
Powerful”, The Hindu, Chennai, 9 May 2007). Nonetheless, the marginalised in
India remain poor neither due to a paucity of solutions nor a lack of resources but
because they are not empowered to enforce entitlements (Amartya Sen, Poverty
and Famines: An Essay on Entitlement and Deprivation, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1981, p12).
According to Parthapratim Pal and Jayati Ghosh (Inequality in India: A
Survey of Recent Trends, United Nations Department of Economic and Social
Affairs, Working Paper 45, New York, July 2007, p24):

“The opening up of trade leads to job losses in import competing industries

and increases employment opportunities in export sectors. If socioeconomic
conditions prevent workers from making this transition smoothly or if the rate
of new job creation is not fast enough, then it may result in even higher levels
of inequality than those that already prevail in the Indian economy”.

The process of globalisation has adversely affected marginalised groups as they

lack requisite skills, access to technology, institutional credit, are dependent on
agriculture, unemployed, uneducated and unhealthy (ibid). Global experience
shows that those who do not have assets, are not educated, are wage earners and
unskilled have been the losers in the process of globalisation—by and large, as
a fallout of globalisation, the poor have been the losers (Sondhi, ibid, p327).

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 69

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

In India as well, the gap between the rich and the poor has widened and those
without requisite skills have been the losers. Post-globalisation there was much
churning amongst those below the poverty line. Although some have been pulled
out of poverty and enriched, others have been pushed into impoverishment
(ibid, p328).
The Indian caste system is structured and defined by principles of graded
inequality and as such produces economic disparities across caste groups. The
most deprived are the scheduled castes (scheduled refers to the government
schedule in which they are originally listed as eligible for affirmative action
benefits) also known as dalits, literally the oppressed/exploited (Sesha Kethineni
and Gail Diane Humiston, “Dalits, the ‘Oppressed People’ of India: How are
their Social, Economic and Human Rights Addressed”, War Crimes, Genocide
and Crimes against Humanity, vol4, no1, 2010, p100). They still face cultural,
economic, political and social discrimination in the name of caste. Perpetuated
discrimination has resulted in them accounting for a disproportionate number
of the poor in India and in the creation of obstacles that hinder their ability to
change their situation (Ellyn Artis, Chad Doobay and Karen Lyons, Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights for Dalits in India: Case study on Primary Education
in Gujarat, Princeton: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs, 2003, p9). About three-fourths of all dalits live in rural areas, where
the main sources of income are either wage labour in agriculture or non-farm
employment. In urban areas, there is also a big gap between dalits and the
advantaged groups. Moreover, the economic and social inequality of dalits maps
on to regional disparities—there is socioeconomic inequality of dalits versus
other communities and their economic deprivation has persisted over time. The
general process of globalisation and economic development has not reduced the
extent of inequality between dalits and non-dalits.
The Indian National Commission for Enterprises in the Unorganised
Sector has introduced categories of the “marginal poor” and “vulnerable”. This
categorisation indicates the position of these groups in the socioeconomic hierarchy.
Table 1 below shows that marginalised groups are heavily underrepresented at
the top and overrepresented at the bottom of the hierarchy (Judith Heyer and
Niraja Gopal Jayal, The Challenge of Positive Discrimination in India, Centre
for Research on Inequality, Human Security and Ethnicity Working Paper 55,
February 2009, p5).

70 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

Table 1: Percentages of Major Social Groups by Expenditure Category 2004–05

All Muslims
Scheduled All other except
Castes/ Backward Scheduled
Others All
Scheduled Classes except Castes/
Tribes Muslims Scheduled
Tribes
High: >4 PL* 1.0 2.4 2.2 11.0 4.0
Middle: 2–4 PL 11.1 17.8 13.3 34.2 19.2
Vulnerable:
33.0 39.2 34.8 35.2 36.0
1.25–2 PL
Marginal Poor:
22.5 20.4 22.3 11.1 19.0
1–1.25 PL
Poor: 0.75–1 PL 21.5 15.1 19.2 6.4 15.4
Extremely Poor: <0.75
10.9 5.1 8.2 2.1 6.4
PL
All 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Per cent of Total
27.7 35.9 12.7 23.7 100.0
Proportion
* PL: the official
poverty line in India
Source: Based on National Sample Survey 2004–05 data, cited in Heyer and Jayal, ibid

Although scheduled castes/scheduled tribes are heavily underrepresented at the

top, a small minority are in the upper reaches of the distribution and a few have
reached significant positions in the private sector. Heyer and Jayal (ibid) add:

“The numbers in the ranks just below the top are increasing too. However, if
25 per cent of the total population has benefited from the growth of the Indian
economy in the 1990s and early 2000s, only about half of this proportion of
scheduled castes has done so”.

As per surveys of businesses conducted in 1990 and 1998 by the Centre for
Monitoring the Indian Economy, the total numbers of scheduled caste businesses
declined over the 1990s, a period in which the total number of businesses owned
by all other social groups including scheduled tribes increased (Barbara Harriss-
White and Kaushal Vidyarthee, “An Atlas of Dalits in the Indian Economy”,
unpublished paper, 2007, cited in Heyer and Jayal, ibid, p54). The amount of
public sector credit to scheduled castes also fell in the 1990s, contrary to the case

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 71

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 VIVEK KUMAR MISHRA

of non-scheduled castes (Pallavi Chavan, “Access to Bank Credit, Implications

for Dalit Rural Households”, Economic and Political Weekly, vol42, no31, 4
August 2007). Such figures support the claim that the declining role of the state
has been more damaging to dalits than to other marginalised groups in India.
While the Constitution of India enumerates separate provisions of
reservations for the economically and socially disadvantaged, there are concerns
about the benefits of quotas confined to dominant groups among scheduled
castes and scheduled tribes and the fact that these benefits tend to be reproduced
inter-generationally. Studies of reservation policies in admissions to the Indian
Institutes of Technology show that many (at times 50 per cent) reserved seats
for scheduled castes and scheduled tribes remain unfilled. In medical colleges,
enrolled scheduled caste students usually come from a few dominant sub-
castes, belong to relatively well-off urban families and have usually attended
private schools (Heyer and Jayal, ibid, p26). Thus, few dalits have benefitted
from affirmative action and globalisation in India. The marginalised have
limited economic opportunities in government jobs, as these are few in number
relative to the numbers of youth joining the workforce. Moreover, millions of
marginalised people obtain degrees without any real skills and quality education.
Thus, the time has come for academicians and leaders in the political process to
give serious thought to the consequences of globalisation for the marginalised in
India. The role of government in establishing the entitlement of the marginalised
has acquired urgency, especially as many of its functions are being rolled back
and the activities it performed in the past have been left to civil society or the
market. Investment in human resources development is essential to help the poor
realise their rights and develop capabilities to take advantage of the opportunities
offered by globalisation.

CONCLUSION

A lthough economic growth is important for any country, it is critical only

to the extent that it helps bring about a qualitative improvement in the
lives of the people—when the benefits of globalisation and development are
actually transferred to all sections of the population. Through the process of
globalisation the dominance of a few powerful people has not been beneficial
for the marginalised in India. Government policies and programmes must

72 WORLD AFFAIRS WINTER 2015 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) VOL 19 NO 4

This content downloaded from

103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 G L O B A L I S AT I O N , S O C I A L J U S T I C E A N D M A RG I N A L I S E D G RO U P S I N I N D I A

be backed by the mobilisation of marginal groups as well as the building and

training of human capacity. Economic growth is a means to an end and not an
end in itself. The end is and must be quality of life and human wellbeing. The
effects of globalisation and the benefits of India’s economic growth have been
unequally distributed and the problems of the marginalised and poor need to
be urgently addressed. The contrasting fates of the rich and poor challenge the
belief in the centrality of government
to society as the custodian of social
The central policy challenge
justice. India’s success is due to its for the Indian government is
democracy and democratic institutions to sustain social gains while
and the processes that have empowered ensuring that the marginalised
a majority of its citizens to realise participate more meaningfully
their capabilities and entitlements in the economy, by sharing in
(Atul Kohli, Democracy and Dissent:
India’s Growing Crisis of Governability,
the fruits of economic growth
Cambridge: Cambridge University and contributing to it as well.
Press, 1990, p17). Amartya Sen has redefined the concept as the expansion of
freedoms, including political freedoms (Pulapre Balakrishnan, “Globalisation
and Development: India since 1991”, The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, vol8,
no2, December 2011, p56). Globalisation could contribute to the project of
development as the expansion of freedoms. India however has yet to achieve
the expansion of positive freedom as envisaged in Sen’s conceptualisation of
development. Politics, political mobilisation, political institutions and policy
frameworks intervene to refract the condition of the marginalised.
The central policy challenge for the Indian government is to sustain social
gains while ensuring that the marginalised participate more meaningfully in the
economy, by sharing in the fruits of economic growth and contributing to it as
well. In an address to the nation, Prime Minister Narendra Modi expressed his
intention to “take a solemn pledge of working for ... the welfare of the poor, the
oppressed, the dalits, the exploited and the backward people of the country” (D
Shyam Babu and Chandra Bhan Prasad, “For a New Paradigm of Social Justice”,
The Hindu, New Delhi, 1 September 2014). The precise implementation of this
social justice vision in practice must promote a need based justice on the Rawls
and Sen models.

VOL 19 NO 4 (OCTOBER – DECEMBER) WINTER 2015 WORLD AFFAIRS 73

This content downloaded from
103.59.198.110 on Mon, 06 Mar 2023 15:25:46 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms