By James Dkhar
The government’s promises radiate like sunrays, weaving a mosaic fabric of hope and optimism. Yet, the harsh reality remains: Meghalaya stands as one of India’s poorest states, according to the recently published Multidimensional Poverty Index (MPI). Despite assurances of prosperity and development, the poverty rate stubbornly persists, leaving a significant portion of the population struggling to make ends meet. The state’s economic growth has failed to reach those who need it most. The glaring contrast between politicians’ claims and ground realities is startling. While the government highlights its achievements, people continue to grapple with challenges—limited access to education, healthcare, employment opportunities, and basic living conditions.
The report, National Multidimensional Poverty Index: A Progress Review 2023, showcases India’s 2019-21 MPI results, plus the progress in multidimensional poverty reduction between 2015-16 and 2019-21. Traditionally, poverty estimation relied solely on income or monetary measures. However, people can be poor in various ways. Regardless of income level, the national MPI identifies those who lack access to basic necessities. It is the first-of-its-kind index that estimates multiple and simultaneous deprivations at a household level across the three macro dimensions of health, education, and living standards. This report also showcases India’s remarkable progress in reducing multidimensional poverty between NFHS-4 and NFHS-5 (survey period from 2015-16 and 2019-21). The share of India’s population who are multidimensionally poor has declined from 24.85% to 14.96%. In Meghalaya, 27.79% of the population faces multidimensional poverty.
Historically, the perception is that the Garo community faces more poverty than the Khasi and Jaintia communities. Surprisingly, this report challenges this stereotype. The Garo community fares well in this assessment with lesser multidimensional poverty and relatively much lower when compared with the Khasi and Jaintia. The Garo region also shows commendable progress in the reduction of multidimensional poverty during the survey period. However, Jaintia districts, despite their mineral wealth, perform poorly. The richest in resources paradoxically struggle with poverty.
The East Khasi district shows negligible improvement, and the other Khasi districts also performed poorly, similar to the Jaintia districts. Ri Bhoi district shows notable progress in poverty reduction, but a substantial portion of the people are in multidimensional poverty. The district-wise percentage of multidimensional poverty, according to the report, is as follows: East Jaintia Hills (43.79%), West Jaintia Hills (52.08%), East Khasi Hills (24.10%), Ri Bhoi (31.67%), West Khasi Hills (52.48%), South West Khasi Hills (40.98%), East Garo Hills (14.96%), North Garo Hills (13.26%), South Garo Hills (9.77%), South West Garo Hills (18.27%), and West Garo Hills (8%).
Overall, both the percentage and intensity of poverty are very high among the Khasi and Jaintia, reflecting the extent of multidimensional poverty. West Jaintia district and West Khasi district are among the most impoverished districts in the country.
The Khasi and Jaintia districts, which struggle with high poverty rates, also exhibit a high prevalence of polygamy—the highest number of men with multiple wives. According to the National Family Health Survey (NFHS-5) 2019-21, East Jaintia Hills has a polygamy rate of 20%, the highest in the country among districts. West Jaintia Hills follows at 14.5%, West Khasi Hills at 10.9%, South West Khasi Hills at 6.4%, Ri Bhoi at 6.2%, and East Khasi Hills at 5.8%.
Meghalaya, among the states, boasts the highest prevalence of polygynous marriages in the country at 6.1%. This phenomenon is particularly pronounced in these regions compared to the rest of the country, where the national average is significantly lower at 1.4%. Interestingly, these districts concurrently grapple with notable health and nutrition challenges.
The high rates of poverty and polygamy in the Khasi and Jaintia districts cannot be mere coincidence. While no specific study has investigated this relationship in these districts, research elsewhere has shown a correlation between poverty and polygamy. Economic insecurity can drive the pursuit of multiple marriages as a means of survival or social security.
In turn, polygamy can perpetuate poverty through the division of resources among multiple households, creating a self-reinforcing cycle that exacerbates economic vulnerability. Further research is needed to explore this complex dynamic in the context of the Khasi and Jaintia regions, taking into consideration the matrilineal system. However, the available data suggests a potential link between these factors
Although polygamy is not legal in India for any community except for Muslims, its practice persists in some sections of the country. In the context of the Khasi and Jaintia matrilineal society, polygamy appears to disproportionately impact women. They are often left to bear the brunt and shoulder the responsibility of caring for their children and managing households without adequate support. According to NFHS-5 (2019-2021), 41% of households in Meghalaya are headed by females, one of the highest percentages in India. Several studies have shown that male-headed households tend to have higher incomes, greater access to education and healthcare, and better overall well-being. In contrast, female-headed households are more likely to experience poverty, food insecurity, and limited access to resources and opportunities. Thus, these female-headed households may face increased vulnerability to poverty and social challenges, exacerbating the struggles faced by women in this region.
Research consistently shows that children raised by single mothers face additional challenges compared to those raised by both parents. Studies indicate that children from single-mother households often experience lower academic achievement, higher dropout rates, and an increased likelihood of behavioural and emotional problems. Additionally, they may encounter economic disadvantages, including reduced access to resources and opportunities.
This is not to diminish the ability of single mothers to provide a nurturing environment; rather, the absence of a second parent can cause added stress and reduced support, ultimately affecting the child’s well-being and development. While a mother provides warmth, comfort, and nurturing, a father’s presence brings illumination, guidance, and support. Also, it is important to recognize that many single mothers do an amazing job raising their children, and this paragraph highlights the added challenges they face rather than their capabilities.
Women in Meghalaya occupy a paradoxical position. On one hand, they enjoy a unique cultural status in the matrilineal society, granting them a significant degree of autonomy and power. On the other hand, they face numerous challenges that perpetuate their victimization.
The state’s high prevalence of female-headed households, early parenthood, health and nutrition challenges, and more underscore the difficulties they encounter. While the matrilineal system empowers women in some ways, it may inadvertently contribute to their vulnerability in other areas.
The family structure and well-being serve as the building blocks of a prosperous society. The health and well-being of families are paramount for growth and development. A stable and supportive family environment is essential for individuals to thrive, and by extension, for communities and societies to flourish. Without strong families, we risk perpetuating cycles of poverty, inequality, and social injustice.
Moreover, poverty is not solely about lacking financial resources or a mere matter of individual misfortune. It is a complex web of interconnected factors, including historical, cultural, social, economic, and political elements. Government policies, such as resource allocation and welfare programs, can either alleviate or exacerbate poverty. For instance, programs that focus on short-term fixes, such as food assistance or temporary housing, may provide immediate relief but fail to address the underlying causes of poverty. The emphasis on quick fixes and political point-scoring often overshadows long-term solutions, perpetuating the cycle of poverty. Consequently, some policies and practices inadvertently reinforce inequality and discrimination, trapping marginalized groups in poverty.
India’s Vision 2030, aligned with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), envisions a future where “no one is left behind.” India has made remarkable progress toward achieving this vision, with significant strides in poverty reduction, education, and healthcare.
However, the Khasi and Jaintia districts remain outliers, persistently grappling with poverty levels that defy the national trend. Meghalaya’s administration lags behind, failing to effectively translate the national vision into tangible action in these districts. This disparity raises questions about the state government’s capacity and commitment to addressing poverty, especially given the successful implementation of central government initiatives in other states.
The sobering reality of poverty in Meghalaya underscores the need for a nuanced understanding of the local context. A one-size-fits-all approach has fallen short, highlighting the importance of effective governance and resource allocation. Inefficient delivery mechanisms and inadequate infrastructure may have contributed to poor outcomes.
Additionally, it is pertinent to consider the potential impact of government policies regarding officer transfers and postings on regional development. Frequent transfers and postings can have a disruptive effect on institutional continuity and effectiveness. It would be enlightening to examine the patterns of officer transfers and postings across the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo regions. Understanding bureaucratic dynamics in the Khasi, Jaintia, and Garo regions could provide valuable insights in the regional developmental outcomes.
Acknowledging and addressing these shortcomings is essential. Policies should be rooted in evidence, and recent data provides a clearer understanding of the ground realities in Meghalaya. By leveraging recent data, policymakers can develop targeted strategies and interventions to tackle challenges effectively.
In the past, decision-making was often guided by intuition, leading to uncertain outcomes. But with the advent of data, we now have a reliable compass to navigate the complexities of policy-making. Data-driven policies ensure fairness. Far from being just cold numbers, data represents the pulse of progress. By embracing data-driven decision-making, we can build bridges of understanding, rather than walls of assumption, and create a brighter future for all.
In conclusion, poverty represents a denial of basic human rights, an erosion of dignity, and a stifling of potential. It perpetuates inequality, compromises health, restricts education, and fosters social exclusion. The time for rhetoric has passed; now is the time for action. It is imperative that the government recognizes the urgent need to address poverty and its interconnected factors, working toward a comprehensive and inclusive development strategy. Only then can Meghalaya hope to catch up with the rest of the country, ensuring that no one is left behind.