Making difference in the lives of the poor

The debate about inequality is as old as money. Some argue that inequality is at the root of most financial disasters. Temporarily though, Tony Blair had turned this debate on its head with a beguiling new theory. His ‘new Labour Party’ claimed that it was fine to be rich and richer still as long as the poor became less poor. It was as unhealthy a proposition as it was unworkable.

Historical evidence shows that the rich owe their riches to the sweat of masses. Marx had got this bit right, but his followers messed up their big chance in the implementation of it. When all were poor, the communist state apparatus made merry, fouling everyone else’s life. Still, these theories and counter-theories make the world interesting. Sadly, we do not grow any wiser by experience.

Like Blair, we in India currently believe that the rich and the poor can prosper in tandem; that if the poor start eating cakes, they will eventually find the money to buy bread.

There is no harm in experimenting, in testing out theories in the constant churn of societies. But it is equally necessary to keep in view the fact that the information age puts all under the microscope. Previously, the rich could revel in their riches with an occasional envious sigh from the masses based on ill informed approximation of the extent of their wealth. Today, however, the poor have a fairly good idea of how well the bread of the rich is buttered.

Television and internet have made people equal in terms of aspirations; in dreaming dreams that have luxury as the common end point. Sadly, this information age equality does not extend beyond dreams. The daily reality is the angst of the masses. It manifested itself in the disciplined, but transformational, anger of Tahrir Square. And it is energising protests in Bahrain and Libya.

In India, the government recognizes that the economically deprived must be made partners in prosperity; NREGA is one such step. Alas, its implementation does not match the intent; corruption takes away much of what the government wishes to give.

But bridging the inequality gap is not the government’s responsibility alone. The private sector, especially the big corporates, should be equally involved; their economic progress will depend on it. For example, as the Indian industry graduates to more sophisticated technology, it would need varied skills. And that crop of the skilled can only come in if greater numbers are technically so qualified.

A selfish motive should also drive this involvement of corporates. If the masses continue to remain deprived of the fruits of the nation’s increasing prosperity the possibility lurks that, at some point or the other, their frustration might take a more direct form. Historically such eruptions have been directed against the rich.

Moreover, the rich also have a moral responsibility to plough back into society some of what they have earned from it. In USA, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are setting a splendid example of it. We in India have always had a tradition of sharing voluntarily a bit of what we have earned. But in recent years, some acts of charity have become more of a fashion statement. Elitist schools set up by the rich can’t uplift the masses; nor can fancy hospitals be an activity under corporate social responsibility (CSR).

CSR must make a meaningful difference to the life of poor, giving them the chance of a better tomorrow. Health, education and infrastructure facilities are their basic requirements. But if these are long gestation goals, there are other immediately realisable possibilities. Nearly 1 billion people in the world are undernourished; a vast number of them live in India. Is it not possible for the very rich to select the poorest of the poor villages in India and use some of their CSR funds to care for them for at least one year?  They might actually transform the villagers’ lives.

A telling transformation may be in their own interest; after all the British taught Indians English so that they could communicate with them and govern the country. Self-interest motivated the British, but it transformed society. Another transformation is needed now; for the welfare of the poor and in the interest of the rich. Otherwise the poor might grab, what they seek, by whatever means they can.