Sunday, August 17, 2025

INDIA


Maharashtra: Cane-Cutting Women are Healthcare Lifelines for Migrant Communities



Abhijeet Gurjar 





In drought-hit Marathwada, women trained as Arogya Sakhis are providing first aid and medical support to thousands of migrant families left behind by the public health system.


The migrant women cane cutting labour workers working in the western part of the Maharashtra state. They have to cut and tie the cane and carry on head to the tractor in harsh conditions (Photo - Abhijeet Gurjar, 101Reporters)

Beed, Maharashtra: “Many women use chumbal, the cloth we tie on our heads to carry sugarcane, as a sanitary pad during our periods,” Sadhana Waghmare (32), a cane-cutting labourer from Maharashtra’s Beed district said. “While on the field, we have no time or safe place to wash or change clothes in the fields, so we continue using the same cloth. This causes itching, swelling and infections. Earlier, we had no one to share this with. Now, because of the Arogya Sakhis, at least someone listens and suggests solutions.”

In 2023, Waghmare was among 20 women trained under the Arogya Sakhi programme, a community health initiative for migrant cane-cutters in drought-prone Marathwada region. Every harvesting season, thousands of families migrate to work in the fields of western Maharashtra and beyond, with little access to healthcare.

The programme – run by Society for Promotion Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) and Anusandhan Trust Sathi – was born out of the Covid-19 pandemic, when SOPPECOM distributed notebooks to migrant workers to track their injuries, illnesses and health expenses during the lockdown.

The data showed that basic health training for volunteers could help reduce medical emergencies.

Arogya Sakhis are trained to offer first aid and distribute non-prescription medicines from standardised kits, with supplies provided by the Beed Zilla Parishad. The kits include essentials like paracetamol, oral rehydration salts, antiseptic lotion and cotton dressings.

While the women work as volunteers, they receive a travel allowance of Rs 500 when applicable. To qualify, participants must have studied up to at least Class 7 and be literate. The initial seven-day training covered first aid, menstrual hygiene, and record-keeping, while subsequent batches received a condensed four-day version.

Though many early trainees were cane-cutters with limited education, support from trainers in Pune helped them overcome unfamiliar medical vocabulary. Over time, they gained confidence and began offering health support not just at field sites but also in their home villages.


Sadhana Waghmare, an Arogya Sakhi from Kathoda, showing her record book. She served more than 40 patients in remote migrant farms and returned around 20 patients in the 2024-25 season (Photo - Abhijeet Gurjar)


By the second year, the programme’s impact was visible. Volunteers were also representing their communities in Jana Aarogya Samitis or village health communities with the help of local grassroots groups like Mahila Ustod Sanghatana helped coordinate this outreach. “There were no health services at the migration sites,” said district convener Manisha Tokale. “We realised that if even one woman in each group was trained, she could help others and connect them to care when needed.”

Cycle of neglect

During the migration season, labourers shift in pairs called koyta, typically husband and wife, and are paid Rs 350 to Rs 400 per ton of sugarcane cut. They are expected to meet a daily target of two tons which helps them get Rs 800 a day per pair. And, taking even a single day off, including for medical reasons, invites a penalty of Rs 1,200 from contractors. As a result, many workers continue cutting cane while unwell.

“These contractors are least bothered about the workers’ health or rights,” Ashok Tangade, president of the Beed District Child Welfare Committee said. “The government says India is free of bonded labour, but sectors like sugarcane and brick kilns still practice bandhua majdoori. The contractor, farm owner and sugar factory are all responsible for providing medical facilities, but they shirk these responsibilities completely.”

As a result, Tangade said, labourers are squeezed from both ends: unable to afford medical care and punished if they try to access it. “They work through illness, risking long-term harm. They compromise on nutrition, healthcare, even their children’s education and vaccinations,” he added.

These labourers belong to Marathwada,  a drought-prone region in central Maharashtra, comprising seven districts. The region lies in the rain shadow of the Western Ghats. With poor irrigation and limited industrial development, farming here is usually restricted to a single, rain-fed crop each year. As a result, thousands of families migrate annually to western Maharashtra and to other states such as Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, and Tamil Nadu for sugarcane-cutting work.

This pattern of migration began after the 1972 drought and has continued for over five decades. In many villages, the children of cane-cutters grow up expecting to follow the same path.

From Beed district alone, over 10 lakh people migrate for the harvest season each year. Of them, more than 3 lakh are women, according to civil society estimates.

A voice in the system

Over time, Arogya Sakhis have become important intermediaries between migrant women and the public health system, not just by treating symptoms, but by helping women articulate their needs and push for better access to care.

Volunteers like Waghmare and Kalpana Thorat have repeatedly raised the demand for sanitary pads at Jan Aarogya Samiti meetings, even if the response has been slow. “I have raised the sanitary pad issue with the Sarpanch before every migration season,” said Thorat, a cane-cutter from Pimpalwadi village. “He always promises, but we never receive anything. Even the ASHA worker in our Samiti could not help.”

Despite this, Thorat said she felt empowered to speak up. “It is a major issue for migrant women. I am glad I was able to bring it up in front of the Samiti, which includes the Sarpanch, Community Health Officers, Primary Healthcare Centre nurses, Anganwadi and ASHA workers, and SHG members.”

Her efforts are recognised by others in the community. “Every village should have someone like an Arogya Sakhi,” said Shahnaj Ajbuddin Sayyad, president of the self-help group in Pimpalwadi and a member of the Samiti. “I worked as a cane-cutter for 15 years. The ASHA worker gave us medicine sometimes, but her visits were irregular, and our work was unpredictable. With Arogya Sakhis we have a constant connection.”


The Arogya Sakhis are equipped with a medical kit with medicine, band aids, and other medical supplies (Photo - Abhijeet Gurjar, 101Reporters)


Bridging language and distance

Waghmare recalled the difficulty of seeking care in unfamiliar places during migration. “In Karnataka, my younger daughter was suffering from Unhali, a condition where you need to urinate frequently in summer,” she said. “For the first four hours at the clinic, we couldn’t explain the issue to the doctor, we didn’t speak Kannada, and the doctor didn’t understand Marathi. A translator from a nearby village finally helped.”

In another case, she said, an elderly woman from her village used to travel 10 km to Beed just to get medicine for fever. “Now, for the past two years, she doesn’t need to. She gets the medicines in the village itself,” Waghmare said.

The effectiveness of the Arogya Sakhi training becomes most evident during emergencies. “One fellow labourer’s leg was cut by a metal sheet,” said Thorat. “I was able to stop the bleeding with the first-aid kit. He later got eight stitches from the doctor.” The illustrated manuals and labelled kits, she said, helped her identify the correct medicine for each condition.

“The sharp sugarcane leaves and the koyta often cause hand injuries,” Thorat added. “The Band-Aid strips have been really useful. Paracetamol helps with period pain, otherwise, the contractors don’t allow rest during those days.”

Her work has extended beyond the fields into her village. “Recently, my grandson got a cut on his foot. We were planning to take him to a private clinic, but by evening my son called me. I dressed the wound, and it saved us money,” said Shantabai Pakhare, a 50-year-old villager from Pimpalwadi. “Kalpana has helped us many times, especially when the PHC is closed at night.”

The programme has also led to visible cost savings. “We used to spend Rs 25,000 during harvest season on medical expenses,” said Waghmare. “For the last two years, we’ve saved that money with the help of the Arogya Sakhi kit.”
 

During one migration, she said, she provided medicine to four tolis, about 40 to 50 people. After returning home, another 20 people from her village also benefited from the same kit, which contains paracetamol, Flura, Dome, cotton bandages, wool, Gentian violet antiseptic lotion and other over-the-counter medicines. “I can now treat fever, diarrhoea, dehydration and minor injuries, and do basic bandaging,” she said. “This has helped both my own toli and others at the migration site.”

Changemakers

Arogya Sakhi training hasn’t just improved healthcare access, it has helped cane-cutting women emerge as local health leaders. Many are now pushing for systemic change.

The Mahila Ustod Sanghatana demanded that cane-cutting workers be included in the Jan Aarogya Samiti during the October-April migration season, so healthcare support continues in their villages while they’re away. These demands were raised in women’s assemblies and later passed in Gram Sabhas.

In 2021, SOPPECOM began documenting the Arogya Sakhis’ work. By 2022, it encouraged women to seek representation in the Samitis. In 2023-24, the key demands included Samiti membership and identity cards for migrant women.

The Zilla Parishad initially resisted, citing budget constraints. But health advocates argued that representation would improve access to schemes, health camps and sanitation drives, and bring migrant women into the public health system.

Identity cards, to be issued by local bodies, would formally recognise cane cutters and help them access aid during migration. Signature campaigns and follow-ups were carried out with the Chief Minister’s Office and the District Health Officer. Lists of trained volunteers linked to PHCs were submitted.

Despite early pushback, 28 Arogya Sakhis in Beed and 24 in Hingoli now work at the Gram Panchayat level. According to SOPPECOM, each migrant family saves an estimated Rs 25,000-Rs 30,000 per season on healthcare due to their work.

Ahead of the 2024–25 season, the Beed Zilla Parishad organised refresher training and distributed new kits, which the Arogya Sakhis say lasted them beyond the migration period.

“I’m hopeful that thousands of trained women can work as Fadavarchi ASHA and support the 3 lakh women who migrate from Beed,” said Manisha.

Now, the administration is planning a new initiative: Arogya Mitra. Each migrant group will have a trained volunteer to coordinate with ASHA and Anganwadi workers. Training is expected to begin in August.

Former Zilla Parishad Chief Executive Officer Aditya Jivane said such women can offer first-line care, promote nutrition and immunisation, and help link remote camps to the health system. 

Abhijeet Gurjar is a freelance journalist and a member of 101Reporters, a pan-India network of grassroots reporters. 

 INDIA

Defending Sovereignty in New Trade War


Shirin Akhter , C. Saratchand 







If the Indian government doesn’t opt for diversifying trade, and strategic relationships with the rest of the world, there’s danger of strategic autonomy being decisively undermined.


Image Courtesy:  Pexels

The responses in India to Donald Trump’s unilateral tariff impositions and demands regarding a trade agreement that solely favours US interests have been varied. Cosmopolitan neo-liberals (who often moonlight as neo-fascists and vice versa) tend to frame this response as a matter of policy choice (based on microeconomic cost-benefit analysis): should India continue buying discounted Russian oil (and defence equipment) and risk punitive US tariffs or give in to United States pressure to protect earnings from exports to the US?

Reducing this conflict to a neat calculation of short-term microeconomic costs and benefits obscures the concrete problem at hand. This is not merely about oil (and defence equipment) or tariffs. It is about whether India will retain even a semblance of sovereignty or submit to having a subordinate place under US hegemony.

Whether US tariffs on Indian exports to the US will reduce India's export earnings depends on whether there are alternative suppliers of the commodities in question. If there are no alternative suppliers who can outcompete Indian firms post-tariff, and if the demand for these commodities is relatively inelastic, then India's export earnings from the US will not fall post-tariff. However, if there are alternative suppliers who can outcompete Indian firms post-tariff, then India's export earnings from the US will fall post-tariff.

While higher US duties could erode export earnings to some extent, Indian firms, if supported credibly by the Indian government, can diversify their export destinations to locations other than the US. Currently, over one-fifth of India's exports go to the US.

This trade diversification will require, as a necessary condition, the integration of Indian firms into global production networks in which Chinese firms too are involved. In this regard, it needs to be mentioned that all other BRICS countries have initiated steps in the direction of trade diversification.

The US government is able to wield these threats because of structural vulnerabilities in India’s position in the global economy that owe significantly to the Indian government's strategic short-sightedness. Almost all foreign trade is US dollar-denominated. Among the BRICS countries, the current Indian government has perhaps been the most reluctant to participate in the efforts by BRICS to further de-dollarisation.

Calls to treat the present conjuncture as “another 1991 moment” and push through further sweeping neo-liberal polices betray either wilful amnesia or ideological complicity. The 1991 neo-liberal reforms deepened the country’s dependence on global capital, eroded labour protections, and hollowed out domestic industry in favour of import dependence and speculative flows.

To present further dismantling of land and labour safeguards, or deepening integration into neoliberal trade regimes, as a route to “sovereignty” is to misrepresent the very roots of India’s current strategic vulnerability. Far from insulating India from US coercion, such reforms would lock the economy even more tightly into the structures of US-centred international finance capital and leave working people more exposed to global shocks.

All this creates a leverage multiplier that allows the US government to penalise any policy move by India that it dislikes (at little cost to itself)—from energy or defence partnerships with Russia or Iran or Venezuela to participation in BRICS initiatives to trading in local currencies.

Financial coercion through secondary sanctions, exclusion from US dollar payment systems, or restrictions on correspondent banking would hit far harder than tariffs. By demanding an end to local currency trade, Washington seeks to preserve US dollar hegemony—the monetary foundation of its geopolitical power. India's interests do not lie in the preservation of US dollar hegemony.

If the current Indian government, however, does not opt for this route of diversifying trade, financial and strategic relationships with the rest of the world, then there arises the clear and present danger of India's (already shaky) strategic autonomy being decisively undermined.

Apart from the trade concessions, the deeper danger lies in the permanent concessions the US government seeks through a binding unequal trade agreement. These include intellectual property rules that extend pharmaceutical product (as opposed to process) patents and block compulsory licensing; digital governance provisions that mandate unrestricted one-way data flows and protect source code secrecy to the detriment of India; agricultural concessions opening the door to genetically modified imports and undermining the system of minimum support prices and the public distribution system, and therefore food security and food sovereignty to the detriment of peasants and workers; and procurement rules privileging US firms over domestic industry. Such setbacks, due to capitulation to US hegemony, will permanently shrink India’s policy space and disproportionately impact the working people.

Framing the oil trade question, for instance, as a choice between Russia and alternative suppliers to avoid tariffs ignores a number of issues.

First, there is the long-term solution of accelerating investment in renewable energy and modernising the national grid to gradually end fossil fuel use in a planned manner.

Second, India's agriculture must not become a playground for international corporate agribusiness. If that happens, then to begin with, Indian agricultural land will not only be (directly and indirectly) controlled by international corporate agribusiness, but the resultant increase in labour-displacing technical change will further swell the reserve army of labour.

Besides, when land use and crop composition change in response to metropolitan demand, then, as argued previously, food security and food sovereignty will be decisively undermined, as was the case during the colonial stage of the capitalist system.

The cosmopolitan neo-liberals, as expected, are claiming that the unilateral imposition of secondary sanctions by the US government is actually a golden opportunity to revive the infamous Three Farm Laws that the current Indian government was compelled to withdraw after a protracted struggle of peasants and workers. The democratic movement must exert all its powers to ensure that this hope of the cosmopolitan neo-liberals is thwarted in toto.

Why is the US government using these unilateral secondary sanctions on countries such as India? To begin with, the armed forces of the Zelensky administration in Ukraine are undergoing a process of slow collapse that is accelerating.

The US government, which is the curator of the Zelensky administration, is worried that a large-scale political and military collapse of the Zelensky administration will be an irredeemable strategic setback. This move to impose unilateral secondary sanctions is an act of strategic desperation.

Moreover, while seeking to compel India to cut ties with Russia, the US and EU continue importing Russian commodities, such as uranium and fertilisers besides oil and natural gas. In other words, even while seeking to hurt India, the US government is not willing to make even a show of shouldering even a bit of pain. Besides, the US government is hoping to obtain a face-saving way out of this desperate strategic impasse in Ukraine by entering into direct negotiations with the Russian government.

In case the current Indian government does succumb to US pressure and strategically distances itself from Russia, then an unprecedented strategic setback to Indian foreign policy will emerge. The denizens of the current Indian government must remember that the net consequences of China and Russia not working with India cannot be counterbalanced by the current Indian government's acquiescence to US hegemony for at least two reasons.

First, as the US government is learning from the trajectory of the conflict in Ukraine, dual containment of China and Russia is not possible, nor is a wedge strategy likely to succeed.

Second, as past experience demonstrates time and again, strategic proximity to the US, and therefore strategic detachment from BRICS, is a recipe for further inroads into Indian strategic autonomy.

Defending sovereignty requires more than rejecting specific US government diktats. It means dismantling the underlying conditions that make such demands possible, as previously discussed. This involves expanding BRICS local currency payment systems and bilateral currency swaps; building strategic gold reserves; and reintroducing capital controls to protect domestic policy autonomy from the hegemony of US-centred international finance capital. In this light, BRICS+ must evolve into a platform for international initiatives such as joint energy security, a common digital governance framework, and a pharmaceutical patent pool, while creating multilateral insurance and legal shields against unilateral sanctions.

Resisting tariffs while leaving US dollar dependence and export concentration intact will only invite the next round of strategic coercion by the US government. Defending existing policy space without building new economic structures will keep India strategically vulnerable.

The overcoming of this strategic vulnerability requires the reiteration of two elementary but relevant propositions. First, the foreign policy imperatives of no great power will coincide with the national interests of India. Second, and therefore, it is at best impetuosity to presume that one great power will be more favourably inclined towards Indian national interests when compared to others.

If the current Indian government is unwilling to resist the US government demand for abandonment of strategic autonomy, then it is time for the democratic movement to take the lead in the struggle to reassert India's sovereignty.

Shirin Akhter is Associate Professor at Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi. C Saratchand is Professor, Department of Economics, Satyawati College, University of Delhi. The views are personal.


Strategic Altruism is Dead: Why India Can no Longer Fantasise About its US Alliance



Keshav Bedi 







India’s future demands resolve, realism, and the discipline to ground its power in its own achievements—not in the borrowed light of another’s convenience.



Image Courtesy: Flickr

There was a time—not far in the past—when the American approach to India was marked not by a ledger of immediate returns but by what authors Robert Blackwill and Ashley Tellis astutely called “strategic altruism”. This was a rare fiction of international diplomacy: Washington, unsettled by China’s rise, wagered that a strong, independent India would help sustain the balance of power in Asia, regardless of whether New Delhi followed Washington’s script in detail.

For two decades, America was content to see India rise—even if India’s markets were protected, its voting record contrarian, and its leaders notoriously reluctant to play “junior partner”. America’s chief demand was that India should strengthen itself and, in so doing, buttress the security of the “liberal international order.”

One could almost have mistaken this for American magnanimity, a virtue seldom seen among empires. All that—like so much else—has now vanished beneath the sharp blade of America’s new whim. President Donald Trump’s tariffs represent a doctrinal break, from strategic patience to strategic impatience, and from magnanimity to a crude arithmetic of “reciprocity.” The result is that today, India’s back is up against the wall, its room for manoeuvre is growing worryingly narrow.

The facts are less forgiving than the dominant rhetoric. America remains India’s largest single export market, accounting for 18% of total merchandise exports, amounting to $86.5 billion in a $4.3 trillion economy. The next largest partner, the United Arab Emirates, takes in less than half that volume.

To dismiss this relationship as a mere trifle — “just 2% of GDP”— is to ignore that India’s export engine sustains nearly 90 million jobs, a significant portion owing to trade with the US, not least of all in labour-intensive industries, such as textiles, apparel, gems and jewellery etc.—all first in line for tariff pain.

These are not abstract numbers: these represent millions at risk of economic displacement, with over half of India’s US- bound exports by value imperilled by the latest American measures. For all the talk of a “global partnership,” the relationship is now reduced to its transactional core.

The American logic is clear: the age of strategic altruism is over. India is now expected simply to “give without asking what we are getting in return”—an argument so often made by pro-US strategists in Delhi. Yet, nothing in Trump years indicates that such obeisance is rewarded: not in investments, nor in diplomatic concessions, nor tangible economic benefit.

A 50% tariff has shattered India’s competitive advantage overnight. Exemptions have been rendered nearly meaningless by the persistent threat of Section 232 investigations—an endless game with rules that shift at the drop of a presidential tweet. In sectors, such as electronics and semiconductors, American scrutiny makes long-term planning almost futile.

If India could claim its place among the world’s leading economic innovators, matters might be different. But the reality is stark. After a decade of stable governance and grand declarations of “Make in India,” our Research & Development and innovation landscape remains listless. High-technology exports, patents, advanced manufacturing—all lag markedly behind China, Korea, and even Vietnam.

Bereft of genuine dynamism, we substitute summits and new corridors for real progress; our research parks brim with numbers rather than results.

There is no clearer illustration of India’s position than the tale of Russian oil. Discounted Urals crude, paraded as a diplomatic victory, brought scant relief to Indian households while delivering windfall profits to a select few. The Ambani Group emerges as among the largest beneficiaries, with contracts inflating corporate balance sheet while pump prices remain indexed to world markets. The 25% US penalty now slapped due to Russian oil purchases underlines the constraints of one-dimensional “victories”—and if cheap oil was a diplomatic coup, why is punishment not counted as a diplomatic blunder?

The lesson is simple: the comfort of great power friendship proves evanescent when pitted against another’s calculations. One must ask, then, if India’s famed “strategic autonomy” was more valuable than admitted by India’s power brokers.

Now, India stands wedged between an American administration conjuring up tactical manoeuvres in place of norms and a Chinese neighbour whose agenda is anything but altruistic. We cannot afford illusions; alliances based on sentiment or showmanship are no substitute for hard, predictable rules. Even as trade with China overtakes that with the US, Beijing, however unpalatable, offers a kind of predictability—an unimpressive virtue, perhaps, but of real value in a turbulent world.

The years have made one lesson clear: wishful thinking makes a poor foundation for strategy. Strategic altruism was always contingent on another’s calculation of advantage— a fact mistaken far too often for selfless friendship. Today, India’s export base, its jobs, and its so-called diplomatic triumphs stand exposed to the cold winds of global reality. Our lack of innovation, reliance on incremental reforms, and reluctance to confront our dependence have left us with precious few options.

For a country once celebrated for the independence of its judgment, there is little dignity in surrendering to another's volatile tactics. If the American embrace has grown conditional, if fortunes can pivot on a stroke of foreign pen, then sentiment must yield to sobriety. The age of comfort is over, and with it, the space for self-deception. India’s future now demands resolve, realism, and the discipline to ground its power in its own achievements—not in the borrowed light of another’s convenience.

The writer has a background in economics from Jamia Millia Islamia University and analytics from Delhi School of Economics. He runs an Instagram page and YouTube channel on economics. The views are personal.

 INDIA

‘Garbage in, Garbage Out’: A Case Against Inequality’s Excuses



Keshav Bedi 





A refutation of Columbia University Professor Neeraj Kaushal’s essay in ‘Times of India’ titled “Why People Leave Equal Bihar For Unequal Mumbai.”

There’s something undeniably reassuring about easy narratives. Consider the views advanced by Columbia University Professor of Social Policy, Neeraj Kaushal, in her Times of India essay “Why People Leave Equal Bihar For Unequal Mumbai.” Readers are told, with disarming clarity, that discussions about India’s economic inequality are simply a case of “garbage in, garbage out.” The “crucial factor” we should be looking at is migration.

Take, for instance, the flow from Bihar’s relative equality to Mumbai’s glaring disparities. Yet arguments like these, wrapped in the rhetoric of opportunity, all too often trip over their own intellectual contradictions. They inevitably end up falling into the same trap of “garbage in, garbage out”.

Let’s not fall for the seductively simple idea that migration between regions shows “preference for opportunity” and a “disdain for equality.” Human movement is almost never about seeking inequality for its own sake; it is driven by the hope for a better life, for the possibility of broad-based prosperity.

Unless we are shown that prosperity itself is a result of stark inequalities of income and wealth (in fact, evidence points to the contrary, as I will show later) the facile comparisons made by the esteemed Columbia professor makes no sense.

Moreover, one finds no acknowledgement in her essay that inequality itself radically conditions which opportunities exist, and for whom. The correct question is not whether Bihar’s relative equality is less attractive than Mumbai’s notorious stratification. The correct question is: does Mumbai’s inequality create more prosperity for the many, or does it barricade fortunes against most who enter its gates?

Equally, is Bihar’s poverty the child of its equality, or would the misery deepen under larger disparities? The failure to hold other things constant, ceteris paribus, something known to even high school students these days, simply eludes the esteemed professor.

In her essay, Kaushal repeats the cliché of the United States being unequal, yet rich. But absent from her narrative are the Nordic states—Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden— countries just as rich, yet far more equal. Their lowest earners are significantly better off than their American counterparts, a persistent issue in American politics. Why shouldn’t the US at least match Nordic levels of equality given its income? Is this disparity the result of natural law or deliberate policy choices? Kaushal never asks.

We later see another familiar claim in her essay: that the inequalities that matter are those in human capital and health, not in ‘garbage in, garbage out’ of inequality of outcomes— such as those of income and wealth. But those who make this claim seldom reflect that correcting these former sorts of inequalities requires correction in latter sort of inequalities. What else have Thomas Piketty and his colleagues argued when proposing a ‘crorepati’ tax justice plan? That a modest wealth tax on crorepatis in India—whose net wealth exceeds Rs 10 crore—will create fiscal space for government spending on health and education, which is currently abysmally low by any standard.

Since those who dismiss inequalities in income and wealth as mere “distraction” are unlikely to be aware of its impact on collective prosperity, they should take a look at OECD’s report titled “In It Together: Why Less Inequality Benefits All.” Under the heading “Higher inequality drags down economic growth”, the report emphatically states that it empirically found “consistent evidence” that growing income inequality placed a “significant” brake on long-term economic growth of countries. Between 1985 and 2005, across 19 OECD countries, a rise of two Gini points—a modest shift—knocked 4.7 percentage points off cumulative growth.

The report also found that attempts to redistribute—through taxes and benefits—do not slow growth, but support it. And if you imagine this to be true only for developed nations, read the report further. It highlights that economic inequality “affects even more emerging economies.” It continues: “despite often impressive growth rates and reductions in absolute poverty, high and sometimes very high levels of income inequalities in emerging economies are found to undermine their long-term growth potential.”

The reason is not obscure. More inequality means the rich seize opportunities far better, faster, wider than the poor. For poor families, educational dreams are truncated by costs, hampered by access, and future fortunes vanish for want of a loan, a ladder, or leverage. The result: economic growth that is slower, less broad-based, and more exclusionary.

The World Bank, in its report released the very next year after OECD’s, reinforced the same lesson: inequality exacts financial costs, stifles growth, and creates social and political pressures well beyond numbers. Levelling the playing field not just increases efficiency, but it’s also a matter of justice and fairness.

Legendary Nobel laureate economist Robert Solow, specialising in economic growth, saw this plainly. In his words, a “highly unequal society is not exploiting its full potential for growth.” He termed those who parrot “equality of opportunity” while dismissing “equality of outcome” as “phoney.”

The shaping of opportunities by prior outcomes was obvious to him—as it should be to anyone else paying attention. Thus, to foster genuine improvement, we must resist facile comparisons between “equal Bihar” and “unequal Mumbai.”

The central task is to examine how Mumbai’s inequalities undermine prospects for its lower half. Hold other factors constant, isolate impact—do the basic analysis. Otherwise, risk ending up, in Solow’s words, as “phoney.”

The writer has a background in economics from Jamia Millia Islamia University and analytics from Delhi School of Economics. He runs an Instagram page and YouTube channel on economics. The views are personal.

 INDIA

Demolish, then Disenfranchise: Urban Planning as the New Instrument of Political Engineering


Talha Abdul Rahman 




Theoretically, adult suffrage under Article 326 of the Constitution is decoupled from housing status, ensuring that the right to vote cuts across social divisions.

Justice Antonin Scalia repeatedly emphasised that the separation of powers is the Constitution’s most effective safeguard against tyranny. In his concurring opinion in Morrison v. Olson (1988), he wrote that the Constitution does not rely on the good intentions of officials, but on the division of power among branches to prevent abuse. For Scalia, structural separation itself was the “biggest check on power.”

Each battle to save a slum from demolition leaves an indelible mark of injury on my heart, a wound that festers with the pain of displaced lives and silenced voices. I have failed in escaping unscathed from the human toll of these struggles – especially now that I see a chilling pattern. With each large-scale demolition, the state’s immediate objective of quelling dissent is but a veneer for a deeper, more insidious aim—to inflict a thousand quietly weeping wounds on our democracy. These acts, by stripping citizens of their constitutional right to vote under Article 326 of the Constitution, erode the very soul of India’s democratic fabric, leaving behind a legacy of disenfranchisement and despair.

Theoretically, adult suffrage under Article 326 is decoupled from housing status, ensuring every citizen above 18 retains the right to vote, regardless of whether he resides in a castle or in a barrack. A homeless person carries the same right as a millionaire living in a mansion – and that is the essence of equality before the law. 

Under the law, a voter is tagged to a constituency for convenience and making logistical arrangements for them to vote. The Representation of the People Act, 1950 (‘RP Act’), under Section 19, requires only "ordinary residence" in a constituency. This test of “ordinary residence” is enabled by Article 326 which provides every adult citizen has a right to vote if such person  “is not otherwise disqualified under this Constitution or any law made by the appropriate Legislature on the ground of non-residence, unsoundness of mind, crime or corrupt or illegal practice

A homeless person carries the same right as a millionaire living in a mansion – and that is the essence of equality before the law. 

In fact, the Election Commission of India (‘ECI’), in an X  (formerly Twitter) post, has clarified that it will  also include homeless citizens, verified through field inquiries. In practice, however, this right is undermined by bureaucratic hurdles and arbitrary voter deletions post-demolitions. The Booth Level Officers are slaves to documents showing residence.  

Section 21 of the RP Act requires annual updates to electoral rolls, while Form 7 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, governs objections to voter inclusions or deletions, where the law explicitly, in Rule 19,  requires a pre decisional hearing and reasonable notice to uphold natural justice. 

The Delhi High Court’s landmark ruling in Sudama Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi (2010) further reinforced that evictions without prior rehabilitation violate Article 21’s guarantee of life and dignity, which encompasses the right to civic participation. The Delhi Urban Shelter Board’s 2015  Rehabilitation Policy requires in situ resettlement and relocation in extreme cases. 

However, the recent spate of demolitions show that the Delhi Development Authority’s (‘DDA’) preferred mode is demolition without rehabilitation. Those who are able to navigate the legal hurdles may get alternative accommodation to EWS flats in regions far away from the urban centre. This means that voters in one part of Delhi can be removed from the electoral list once their jhuggi is demolished – on the ground that they have shifted their residence. 

In this article, I advert to the weaponisation of Form 7 under the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, as enabled by the RP Act. I highlight that this could be a calculated move to deploy the benign electoral framework to disenfranchise the marginalised. Far from being an administrative tool for maintaining accurate voter rolls, Form 7 — intended for objections to voter inclusions or deletions — has been twisted into a mechanism for purging the poor from democratic participation. I cite three examplesSunder Nursery, Delhi: The Ugliness of Seizing Power.

In November 2023, civic authorities demolished slums near Sunder Nursery, displacing over 1,000 families under a Delhi High Court order citing post-2006 encroachments. This High Court order was passed on the basis of Google Maps, projected by the Delhi Urban Shelter Improvement Board’s advocate, to argue that the slum was an encroachment that had come up after January 1, 2006.  However,  post demolition, DUSIB issued a show cause notice to its lawyer for filing an affidavit contrary to its instructions. 

This demolition, which some could argue was deceitful, affected the electoral make-up of the Jangpura constituency.  Though many residents from demolished JJ Cluster of Sunder Nursery voted in the 2024 Lok Sabha polls, they were excluded from the 2025 Delhi Assembly elections. 

The misuse of Form 7 under the RP Act, purged 628 voters from the electoral rolls, exploiting their poverty to manipulate a tightly contested election.

The misuse of Form 7 under the RP Act, purged 628 voters from the electoral rolls, exploiting their poverty to manipulate a tightly contested election. In January 2025, 628 Sunder Nursery residents were removed without notice, labeled “shifted” post-demolition, despite many remaining in nearby camps. 

It is noteworthy that there was a perception that slum dwellers favoured the previous dispensation. In fact, in an attempt to woo them, a party had attempted “Jahan Jhuggi, Wahan Makaan” promise, and doled out DDA’s EWS flats. In constituencies, with close margins, this exclusion could sway results, as seen in similar cases where deletions targeted migrants and minorities.

In the context of Bihar’s electoral roll revision, scholars and lawyers are discussing the deletion of 65 Lakh names without following the Form 7 route. However, this Form 7, governed by the Registration of Electors Rules, 1960, mandates hearings and 15-day notices for voter deletions – which was not followed for Sunder Nursery residents. The Supreme Court’s Lal Babu Hussein v. Electoral Registration Officer decision (1995) demands natural justice, but authorities flouted this. 

Similarly, residents of Madrasi Camp, part of the Jangpura constituency, faced similar betrayal. Pre-election notices issued by the DDA and Public Works Department threatened demolition. Yet residents, hoping for in-situ housing, voted one way.

Despite holding voter IDs and DUSIB tokens proving pre-2006 residency, their homes were razed post-election, apparently under a Delhi High Court order, ignoring the Sudama Singh decision on rehabilitation.  The government neither challenged this decision in the High Court, nor asked the High Court even once to reconsider its decision. It meekly complied.  The limited resettlements offered by DDA are in Narela, 40 kilometres away from the original place of habitation.

It is a matter of record that after purging Sunder Nursery’s 628 voters and threatening Madrasi Camp with demolition, in the 2025 Delhi Assembly election, BJP’s Tarvinder Singh Marwah won by a mere 675 votes against AAP’s Manish Sisodia. The 628 deletions—exceeding the margin—likely swung the result, proving how demolitions weaponise voter exclusion.

Bulldozer gerrymandering in Assam 

Assam has seen thousands of Bengali speaking persons (including Muslims) at risk of homelessness from evictions in 2023–24, targeting Miya Muslims labeled as "encroachers." 

In Dhalpur, between 2021 and 2023, 2,000 families were evicted; names were removed from rolls without notice, forcing paid re-registrations in new areas. In 2024, Kachutali saw 1,000 voters receive deletion notices post-eviction, despite makeshift camps in the same constituency. Authorities cited "shifted" status, ignoring ECI guidelines for homeless voters (night verification without documents) implemented elsewhere in India.

In Dhubri, the houses were demolished on July 8 and on July 15 the intimation of deletion of names from the electoral list were sent.  Evictions in Goalpara and Nalbarithis year displaced thousands without rehabilitation, leading to fears of citizenship erasure. 

The Nalbari evictions illustrate how bulldozer politics effectively nullifies the protection implicit in a grandfather clause. The Assam Accord’s 1971 cut-off date was meant to secure continuity for settled populations. Yet families who have lived in Bakrikuchi for decades, integrated into the economy and electorate, are being displaced as “encroachers.” 

By demolishing homes, schools, and mosques, the State severs the evidentiary link that anchors their residency, leaving them exposed to voter deletions under Form 7. Language and religion has been made a marker to implement disenfranchisement and subverting Article 326’s guarantee of universal suffrage.

These operations, displacing thousands of predominantly Bengali-origin Muslim families without rehabilitation, are not mere land reclamations but strategic acts of voter suppression and citizenship erasure in polarised regions.

Akbar Nagar, Lucknow: Using urban planning for political engineering  

In June 2024, the Lucknow Development Authority razed 1,800 structures in Akbar Nagar, displacing 10,000 residents for the Kukrail riverfront project. Predominantly Muslim, the area housed long-term settlers with utility bills and voter IDs.  The area on the left bank formed Akbar Nagar and on the right side of the ‘drain’ is Shakti Nagar.  While Shakti Nagar was regularised as a colony, despite being on a flood plain, Akbar Nagar remained as a settlement and never regularised. 

In view of alternatives offered,  the Supreme Court upheld the demolitions but mandated rehabilitation under the Pradhan Mantri Awas Yojana (‘PMAY’). Yet many faced affordability issues (the flats ranged in around ₹4.8 lakh) and inadequate alternatives. 

At that stage, what was not considered was that the displacement disrupted voter registration, with residents scattered to distant sites like Basant Kunj – reportedly about 12 kms away, complicating address proofs for Form 8 updates. While mass deletions are so far not reported, the chaos mirrors Delhi’s cases, potentially excluding thousands in Uttar Pradesh's 2027 polls. 

The demolition of Akbar Nagar has resulted in large-scale forced displacement within the constituency, with the inevitable consequence being that all residents of Akbar Nagar (including Muslims or those from vulnerable castes) stand effectively disenfranchised. Such dislocation renders their names vulnerable to challenge under Form 7 of the RP Act, and it is only a matter of time before an interloper, acting with malice or political design, secures the wholesale deletion of these voters from the electoral rolls. Experience from Delhi and Assam shows that the Election Commission is only too willing to oblige.  

This two-step exclusion—first eviction, then erasure from rolls—subverts Article 326’s universal suffrage and corrodes constitutional morality.

This constitutes not merely administrative complicity but a grave assault on the constitutional guarantee of universal adult suffrage under Article 326, and an impermissible dilution of the right to equality and non-discrimination under Articles 14 and 15.

Bulldozer demolitions are the new gerrymandering, in that they are intended to displace inconvenient voters especially those from the poor communities, strip them of ‘ordinary residence’, and render them vulnerable to Form 7 deletions. 

This two-step exclusion—first eviction, then erasure from rolls—subverts Article 326’s universal suffrage and corrodes constitutional morality, weaponising urban planning as an electoral tool. 

Scalia’s warning haunts me today. When development authorities, electoral bodies, and executive converge, the line between governance and manipulation collapses. What remains is not democracy, but dictatorship in disguise. In the name of town planning or urban development, bulldozers are  clearing not just homes, but the very foundations of constitutional morality and universal suffrage.

Talha Abdul Rahman is an advocate-on-record, the Supreme Court of India. The views are personal.

Courtesy: The Leaflet