Worship of Poverty

The East profits from Zen and the art of money-making, and the capitalist West from the consumerist spirit and Protestant work ethic. Why does South Asia totter?

Poverty has a strange status in South Asia: some of its forms are honoured while others are denounced. The ascetic with his begging bowl and avowed stand on poverty is respected, while the beggar with his commitment to get out of poverty is ignored or reviled. Ironically, the reasons why one form of poverty is esteemed and another is not, has less to do with Hindu/Buddhist attitudes toward poverty than with attitudes toward wealth. Both religions state clearly that wealth is necessary and that it is important for fulfilling one's economic needs. But they also point out that wealth is binding, and that it stifles a person who does not seek the ultimate, even as a vine chokes a plant. The Mahabharata says that wealth is both Laxmi, goddess, and a mound of earth. The great Hindu texts, however, never say that wealth, by itself, is harmful.

WEALTH

The confusion over the status of wealth, which in turn has influenced the status of poverty, is a /recent development. Pundits have interpreted religious sayings like "all men are born into illusion" from the Bhagavad-Gita to illustrate that wealth also is an illusion, and more so than anything else because it leads a person away from enlightenment.

These are the modem conjurings of gurus. Historically, it was never required that a person give up his wealth and take on a vow of poverty in order to attain release from the world of existence. For example, Buddhist texts say that one of the manifestation of an enlightened being is that he display economic well-being. Hindu texts show how integral material wellbeing is for leading a good householder's life. The four goals of life consist of dharma (order), artha (economic well-being), kama (desire) and moksa (release). Without artha, the pursuance of the other three goals was not possible.

Wealth, and not poverty, has been associated with ancient South Asian kings and statesmen. King Janak ruled from within the magnificence of his palace and even the poorest forest dweller came to him for blessings and teachings. Other wise kings like Ajatsatru and Balaki Garg, too, were anything but mendicants. Rama had to leave his palace for fourteen years, but ultimately returned from exile to reclaim his kingdom and wealth. The Pandavas were cheated and denied of their share of wealth but they fought for it, with the blessing of Krishna and were ultimately glorified in the Mahabharata for doing so.

WHY ACCEPT SQUALOR?

Surrounded as we are by poverty and squalor, it is all too easy for us to think that South Asia has always accepted poverty. Actually, poverty's incorporation into the Hindu/Buddhist world-view and its exaltation is a recent development. What happenned? Firstly, poverty came to be associated with simplicty. Since many Hindu/Buddhist texts glorify the importance of leading a simple life and being content, the not-so-simple began to romanticise the poor. They began to argue that the poor were poor because they wanted to be simple and content. This romantic bourgeoisie ideal of poverty is one crucial reason why the government does little genuine work to alleviate poverty.

Another reason why poverty came to be accepted was the historical shift in Hindu ideology from karmanajati to janmanajati – the sensitive topic of caste and birth. Originally, it was the actions of a person that determined his caste; later, a person was born into a caste and the question of personal choice vanished. Mobility was negligible. Under the new ideology, the poor became poor because they were destined to be so. And since poverty was the consequence of past actions, nothing could change it. "It is written in their karma…perhaps they will fare better the next time around."

Poverty is accepted, and even romanticised today, by many who believe that simplicity is the ideal way of life. They assume that the South Asian religions sanction this ideal. Yes, they do, but the simplicity they talk about is of temperance which does not necessarily derive from being poor. To liken simplicity to poverty, especially the stark, shocking destitution that we see in South Asia, is to be widely off the mark.

India's Poor

Sixty one per cent of households in rural India fall below the poverty line, as against the national average of a little over 50 per cent, according to study released in December by the Operations Research Group (ORG), an independent research group based in Bangalore. The cut-off point used to define poverty is an annual household income of IRs9000, which is equivalent to a monthly IRs750.

According to the study, two-thirds of households in villages with population below 1000 have a monthly income of less than IRs750, as against 16.1 per cent in the case of the Indian cities with population over 10 lakhs.

In fact, 27.5 per cent of households in rural India in 1990 continued to be the poorest of the poor with a monthly income of less than IRs350. While only 3.4 per cent of village households have a monthly income exceeding IRs2500, the corresponding figure in the urban areas is 17.1 per cent. Only 6 per cent households in urban India have a monthly income of over IRs4000.

Poverty is worst in what ORG calls the Eastern Zone, comprising West Bengal, Orissa and Assam, where the percentage of households below the poverty line is much higher than 50 per cent. As much as 63 per cent of rural households in this zone have a monthly income lower than IRs750.

The ORG study was based on a sample survey covering 83,000 households spread out across India. (Source: UNI)

Shah is a practising Buddhist.