| Latest Sociology NCERT Notes, Solutions and Extra Q & A (Class 11th & 12th) | |||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11th | 12th | ||||||||||||||||||
Chapter 5 Patterns Of Social Inequality And Exclusion
What Is Social About Social Inequality And Exclusion?
Chapters 3 and 4 examined institutions like family, caste, tribe, and market in terms of their role in community formation and societal maintenance. This chapter shifts focus to an equally vital aspect: how these very institutions create and uphold patterns of inequality and exclusion.
Social inequality and exclusion are pervasive realities in India, visible in everyday life through phenomena like begging, child labour, and discrimination faced by various groups. This everydayness often leads people to perceive these inequalities as natural, inevitable, or even justified (e.g., blaming individuals for their poverty due to perceived lack of ability or effort). However, sociological analysis challenges this view, highlighting that the hardest labor is often performed by the poorest, with little improvement in their life chances, suggesting that individual effort alone is not the primary determinant of social position.
Social Inequality
Social inequality refers to the unequal distribution of valued social resources among individuals and groups within a society. These resources include wealth, property, education, health, and power. Sociologists categorize these resources into three forms of capital:
- Economic Capital: Material assets and income.
- Cultural Capital: Educational qualifications, status, and knowledge.
- Social Capital: Networks of contacts and social associations.
These forms of capital are often interlinked and convertible; for example, economic capital can facilitate acquiring cultural capital through education, and social capital can aid in gaining favorable economic opportunities.
While some individual differences in access to resources may stem from innate abilities or effort, social inequality is primarily a product of the societal structure, not just individual variations. Social stratification is the term used to describe the system by which categories of people are ranked in a hierarchy within a society. This hierarchy significantly shapes people's identities, experiences, relationships, and access to resources and opportunities. Key principles of social stratification are:
- Characteristic of Society: It's a system-wide feature, not just individual differences. More technologically advanced societies with surplus production tend to have more pronounced stratification, with unequal distribution across categories regardless of individual talent.
- Persistence Across Generations: Stratification is closely tied to family and the inheritance of social position and resources. A person's position is often ascribed (determined by birth). This is reinforced by practices like endogamy (marriage within the same group), which limits mobility between strata.
- Supported by Ideology: Stratification systems are maintained over time because they are often justified by prevailing beliefs or ideologies (e.g., the caste system justified by concepts of purity and pollution). While those with privileges tend to support these ideologies, those at the bottom are more likely to challenge them.
It's crucial to understand that discrimination and exclusion are not solely economic issues. They are often based on social attributes like gender, religion, ethnicity, language, caste, and disability. People develop preconceived ideas or attitudes towards other groups, often based on limited or biased information.
Prejudice means holding pre-conceived opinions or attitudes about a group, often formed without direct experience or evidence, and resistant to change. Prejudice can be positive (favouring one's own group) or negative. Prejudices are often rooted in stereotypes – fixed, oversimplified, and inflexible characterisations of entire groups (e.g., stereotypes about 'martial races', or classifying groups as 'lazy' or 'cunning'). Stereotypes ignore individual variations within a group and across contexts.
While prejudice is about attitudes, discrimination refers to the actual behavior or practices that treat individuals or groups unfairly, denying them opportunities available to others (e.g., denying a job based on gender or religion). Discrimination can be subtle or indirect, making it difficult to prove, as discriminatory actions may be disguised by seemingly neutral reasons (like 'merit').
Social Exclusion
Social exclusion describes the processes by which individuals or groups are cut off from full participation and involvement in the broader society. It highlights the various factors that prevent access to opportunities available to the majority, such as essential goods and services (education, healthcare, transport, banking, access to justice).
Social exclusion is not accidental; it is systematic, resulting from the structural features of society. India, like many societies, has historical patterns of discrimination and exclusion based on caste, gender, and religion. While protest movements and legislation have challenged these, prejudices persist and new forms can emerge. Therefore, laws alone are insufficient for lasting social change; continuous social campaigns for awareness are needed.
The experience of discrimination, including that faced by Indians under colonial rule, contributed to the rise of social reform movements in the 19th century, challenging various forms of social inequality and advocating for justice and dignity. This chapter focuses on four groups who have historically suffered from significant inequality and exclusion: Dalits (ex-untouchable castes), Adivasis ('tribal' communities), Women, and the Differently Abled. It also notes that other groups, such as Transgender and Third Gender individuals, also face exclusion.
Caste And Tribe – Systems Justifying And Perpetuating Inequality
The Caste System As A Discriminatory System
The caste system is a unique Indian social institution that has historically legitimized discrimination. It traditionally linked individuals to occupations and assigned them a specific place in a social hierarchy based on status. While there was a theoretical separation between ritual status (highest for Brahmins) and secular power (with Kshatriyas), in practice, social (caste) status and economic status were often closely aligned, with 'high' castes tending to be wealthy and 'low' castes generally being poor.
In modern times, the rigid link between caste and occupation has weakened, and wealth and poverty are found across all caste groups. However, at the macro level, a strong caste-class correlation persists. Privileged and economically well-off sections of society are still predominantly from 'upper' castes, while disadvantaged and poor sections are heavily represented by 'lower' castes. The proportion of people living in poverty or affluence varies greatly across different caste groups, demonstrating that caste continues to significantly influence individuals' life chances.
Tables 1 and 2 in the text illustrate this correlation by showing the percentage of population living below the poverty line (Table 1) and in affluence (Table 2) across different caste and community groups (Scheduled Tribes, Scheduled Castes, Other Backward Classes, Forward Castes, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Sikhs) for rural and urban India in 2011-12. These tables show significant disparities, with STs and SCs having the highest proportions in poverty and lowest in affluence compared to the national average and other groups, particularly in rural areas, highlighting the ongoing link between caste and economic status.
| CASTE and COMMUNITY GROUPS | RURAL INDIA (Spending ₹816 or less per person per month) |
URBAN INDIA (Spending ₹1000 or less per person per month) |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduled Tribes | 45.3 | 24.1 |
| Scheduled Castes | 31.5 | 21.7 |
| FC | 15.5 | 8.1 |
| OBCs | 22.7 | 15.4 |
| Muslims | 26.9 | 22.7 |
| Hindus | 25.6 | 12.1 |
| Christians | 22.2 | 05.5 |
| Sikhs | 06.2 | 05.0 |
| ALL GROUPS | 25.4 | 13.7 |
| CASTE AND COMMUNITY GROUPS | RURAL INDIA (Spending ₹1000 or more per person per month) |
URBAN INDIA (Spending ₹ 2000 or more per person per month) |
|---|---|---|
| Scheduled Tribes | 1.4 | 1.8 |
| Scheduled Castes | 1.7 | 0.8 |
| OBCs | 3.3 | 2.0 |
| Muslim | 2.0 | 1.6 |
| Hindu | 8.6 | 8.2 |
| Christian | 18.9 | 17.0 |
| Sikh | 31.7 | 15.1 |
| Others | 17.9 | 14.4 |
| ALL GROUPS | 4.3 | 4.5 |
Untouchability
Untouchability is an extreme and particularly severe form of discrimination within the caste system, targeting groups deemed ritually 'impure' to the extent that even their touch or presence is considered polluting. These groups are effectively placed outside the traditional caste hierarchy.
Untouchability encompasses three main dimensions:
- Exclusion: Prohibiting participation in shared activities and access to common resources (e.g., denial of access to common wells, temples, social ceremonies).
- Humiliation-Subordination: Subjecting individuals to demeaning treatment and enforcing a subordinate status.
- Exploitation: Imposing forced or underpaid labor and confiscating property.
While other low castes might experience subordination and exploitation, the extreme forms of social exclusion are unique to groups labeled as 'untouchable'. This practice is found across India, though its specifics and intensity vary regionally.
Historically, these communities have been referred to by various derogatory names. While Mahatma Gandhi used 'Harijan', the term 'Dalit' (meaning 'downtrodden') is preferred by the communities themselves and their leaders. 'Dalit' signifies an oppressed people and reflects their struggle for rights and dignity, resonating with the philosophy of empowerment movements, notably those inspired by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar.
The discrimination faced by lower castes and specifically Dalits in India can be compared to racial stratification systems seen elsewhere, such as the apartheid regime in South Africa. Apartheid enforced racial segregation and discrimination, concentrating power and wealth in the hands of the White minority while denying basic rights and opportunities to the Black majority, often through brutal repression, until its dismantling in 1994 following a long struggle led by figures like Nelson Mandela. Both systems illustrate how ideology and power combine to create rigid social hierarchies based on ascribed status.
State And Non-State Initiatives Addressing Caste And Tribe Discrimination
The Indian state has implemented specific measures for Scheduled Tribes (STs) and Scheduled Castes (SCs) since before independence, based on schedules compiled by the British in 1935. These policies continued and expanded post-1947, notably with the inclusion of Other Backward Classes (OBCs) in the early 1990s.
The most significant state intervention is reservations, a policy of affirmative action setting aside a proportion of seats in state/central legislatures, government jobs, and educational institutions for SCs and STs, proportional to their population share. Reservations for OBCs were introduced later with a different basis for determining proportion.
Numerous laws have been enacted to prohibit and penalize caste discrimination, especially untouchability. Significant examples include:
- Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850: Prevented loss of rights due to change of religion or caste.
- Constitution of India (1950): Abolished untouchability (Article 17) and introduced reservation provisions.
- Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act of 1989: Strengthened legal provisions against violence and humiliation towards Dalits and Adivasis.
- Constitution Amendment (Ninety Third Amendment) Act of 2005: Introduced reservation for OBCs in higher education.
However, the repeated enactment of laws demonstrates that legislation alone is insufficient to eradicate deep-seated social practices. Acts of discrimination and atrocities against Dalits and Adivasis continue across India.
Crucially, social change is not solely driven by state action. Oppressed groups actively struggle for justice. Dalits have been increasingly active in political, cultural, and protest movements. Historical figures like Jyotiba Phule, Periyar, and Ambedkar led pre-independence movements. Contemporary political parties (like BSP) and organisations reflect ongoing Dalit political assertion. Dalit contributions to literature in various languages are also significant.
The Other Backward Classes
Beyond Dalits, a large segment of castes experienced lower status and discrimination short of untouchability. These were often service and artisanal castes. The Indian Constitution recognizes these as 'socially and educationally backward classes', commonly referred to as Other Backward Classes (OBCs). This category is diverse, including groups from various religions, reflecting how caste structures influenced non-Hindu communities too.
OBCs are generally defined as being below the 'forward' castes and above Dalits. They became a significant force in national politics after the central government implemented the recommendations of the Mandal Commission report (Second Backward Classes Commission, appointed in the late 1970s) in 1990. This decision, based on their large population share (around 41%), allowed OBCs to convert demographic strength into political influence.
Internal disparities exist within the OBC category; 'upper OBCs' often own land and hold influence in rural areas, while 'lower OBCs' are socio-economically disadvantaged, sometimes similar to Dalits. Despite their significant political representation, OBCs remain under-represented in other spheres like education and certain occupations, particularly in urban areas where their situation is often closer to that of SCs and STs than upper castes.
Adivasi Struggles
Adivasis, or Scheduled Tribes, are constitutionally recognized social groups. Historically considered 'people of the forest', their lives were shaped by hill and forest habitats. However, their interaction with mainstream Hindu society is long-standing, making the boundaries with caste groups fluid.
Today, Adivasis live primarily in specific concentrations rather than exclusively tribal areas, especially outside the North-East, due to historical migration patterns. Their economic and social conditions are often significantly worse than non-tribal populations in the same areas.
The poor conditions faced by Adivasis are largely a consequence of resource extraction policies initiated by the British colonial government and continued by independent India. From the late 19th century, colonial forest policies prioritized timber extraction, curtailing Adivasi rights to forest produce and shifting cultivation. Denied traditional livelihoods, Adivasis were forced into illegal forest use or wage labor migration.
Post-independence, rapid industrialization required resources located in Adivasi areas. Large-scale land acquisition for mines and dams led to the displacement of millions of Adivasis with inadequate compensation or rehabilitation. Justified as 'national development', critics view this as a form of 'internal colonialism' that subjugated Adivasis and alienated them from their essential resources. Projects like the Sardar Sarovar dam and Polavaram dam caused massive displacement. This process intensified under economic liberalisation from the 1990s, making land acquisition by corporations easier.
Like 'Dalit', the term 'Adivasi' carries political significance, meaning 'original inhabitants' and representing a shared identity forged through struggles against outsiders ('dikus') and the state. Their identity is based on common experiences of losing forests and land, displacement due to development, and marginalization.
Adivasi movements have achieved successes, such as the creation of statehood for Jharkhand and Chhattisgarh, enabling greater political self-determination in areas of tribal concentration. Unlike Dalit struggles which are pan-Indian but often diffuse, Adivasi struggles have sometimes leveraged geographical concentration to press for distinct political units.
Struggle For Women’s Equality And Rights
While biological differences between sexes are evident, gender inequality is primarily a social construct, not a natural outcome. There is no biological basis for the under-representation of women in positions of power or their limited share in family property in most societies. The existence of matrilineal societies (where inheritance passes through women) and women excelling in roles like farming and trade in various cultures demonstrates that gender roles and inequalities are socially determined.
Gender is a form of social inequality and exclusion with its own distinct features. The 'women's question' gained prominence in modern India during the 19th-century social reform movements, primarily led by the newly educated middle class. These reformers, influenced by both Western democratic ideals and pride in aspects of Indian tradition, advocated for women's rights.
Notable male reformers and their initiatives included:
- Raja Rammohun Roy: Campaigned against 'sati' (widow immolation) using both humanitarian arguments and appeals to Hindu scriptures.
- M.G. Ranade: Advocated for widow remarriage, drawing arguments from both Western philosophy and interpretations of Hindu law texts (shastras).
- Jotiba Phule: From a socially excluded caste, he simultaneously challenged both caste and gender oppression, founding the Satyashodak Samaj and working for the upliftment of women and 'untouchables'.
- Sir Syed Ahmed Khan: Sought to reform Muslim society, promoting girls' education, though initially within the confines of the home and with a curriculum focused on domestic skills alongside religious principles. This seemingly stereotypical approach nonetheless initiated a process leading to broader educational opportunities for women.
It is important to recognize that the movement for women's rights was not solely driven by male reformers or based purely on imported ideas. Indian women themselves played crucial roles. Writers like Tarabai Shinde (Stree Purush Tulana, 1882) protested against societal double standards towards women, and Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain (Sultana's Dream, 1905) used creative writing to envision a society with reversed gender roles and women in positions of scientific advancement and public life.
In the early 20th century, numerous women's organizations emerged at both national and local levels. Women actively participated in the national movement, integrating women's rights into the nationalist vision. The Karachi Session of the Indian National Congress in 1931 declared fundamental rights committing to women's equality before the law, non-discrimination in public employment and office, universal adult suffrage, and the right to vote, represent, and hold public office.
Women's issues re-emerged strongly in the 1970s, shifting focus from traditional practices (like sati, child marriage) to 'modern' concerns like media representation and the gendered impact of unequal development. Legal reforms became a major focus in the 1980s. New challenges persist in the 21st century, such as the declining child sex ratio, reflecting an ongoing societal bias against the girl child.
The Struggles Of The Disabled
Individuals are considered 'disabled' not solely due to physical or mental impairments, but significantly because society is structured in a way that fails to accommodate their needs. The recognition of the rights of the differently abled is a relatively recent development compared to other social movements.
The term 'disabled' itself prompts a re-examination of public perceptions. Common assumptions include viewing disability solely as a biological problem, attributing difficulties solely to the impairment, seeing the disabled person as a victim, linking disability only to the individual's self-perception, and assuming they are simply in need of help. In India, derogatory terms are often used, and cultural notions of a 'perfect body' lead to viewing impairments negatively, often as a result of fate or past actions (karma), thus individualizing the problem.
However, the term 'disabled' challenges these views. Preferred terminology like 'mentally challenged', 'visually impaired', and 'physically impaired' emerged to move away from negative labels. The core argument is that individuals are rendered disabled by society's design, not their biological condition. Examples include buildings without ramps limiting access to education, employment, and social life. The barrier lies in the societal construction, not the individual's body.
Disability is also closely linked to poverty. Factors like malnutrition, inadequate healthcare access, and accidents contribute to higher incidence of disability among the poor. Furthermore, disability can perpetuate and worsen poverty for both the individual and their family, making disabled people among the most impoverished globally.
The Census of India 2011 adopted a detailed approach to collecting data on disability. Information was gathered for all household members through the Household Schedule during the population enumeration phase. Enumerators were instructed to interact directly with disabled persons. The process involved field trials, consultations with civil society organizations and government ministries, and pre-tests to finalize questions. Simpler terminology was used, and questions were placed earlier in the schedule to improve coverage. The Census attempted to collect data on eight types of disabilities, expanded from five in 2001.
Crucially, efforts to improve the situation have been significantly driven by the disabled community themselves, leading to increased awareness and some policy responses from the government. Challenges persist, particularly within the education system, which often segregates disabled students. As highlighted in Box 5.7, while legislation may aim for inclusivity, practical barriers related to poverty and perceived limited opportunities can affect parents' views on the value of education for disabled children, particularly in rural or low-income urban areas.
Public spaces, including institutions like courts, often lack necessary infrastructure (e.g., ramps, accessible elevators) making them 'disabled-unfriendly', creating barriers to access and participation for disabled individuals seeking justice or employment, as illustrated in Box 5.6.
In conclusion, caste, tribe, gender, and disability are presented as social institutions that generate and maintain inequality and exclusion in India. However, these inequalities also fuel resistance and struggles for rights and dignity. While sociology has historically focused on class and race, and more recently gender, the Indian context requires specific attention to caste, tribe, and the complex interplay of these categories with others like religion, region, and intersectional identities. The experiences of groups marginalized by multiple factors, such as Muslims (as highlighted by the Sachar Committee Report), require increasing focus in understanding contemporary inequality.