Editor,
The article by Toki Blah, titled. “The unredeemable burden of being poor,” ST March 26, 2025), made sober reading. The sad story of two students who died far away from home, has been long repeated. In Meghalaya we have just woken up to a tale that has unfolded before our very eyes, yet paradoxically managed to stay under the radar.
The ashram shalas were set up in 1953, ostensibly as a scheme to provide an education to children of poor ST, SC and OBC families, though ST children seem to be the dominant group. As of last year, there were 1103 such schools in Maharashtra, 705 in Odisha, 933 in Gujarat, 123 in Karnataka, and hundreds more in other states.
While writers to The Shillong Times keep quoting the Tehelka article, numerous other reports have appeared in the last decade. These investigative reports have appeared in the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), The Times of India, The Hindu, and India Today. A study was published by the Tata Institute of Social Sciences Mumbai. A well-researched account was published by the International Institute of Social Studies, Netherlands by Sneha Dicholkar as a master’s thesis. All of these reports dwelt on the bad infrastructure, poor staffing, inadequate diet and malnutrition, but worst of all, physical and sexual abuse, rapes, suicides and other deaths. Siblings are separated, and children are not allowed to speak their mother tongue.
The Courts entered the picture. In 2013 when a PIL was filed in the Bombay High Court, highlighting the deaths of 793 children in ashram shalas wrongly ascribed to snake and scorpion bites, and minor illnesses; when these deaths were mainly due to the negligence of staff. The PIL led to the formation of the Salunkhe Committee. Their report in 2016 exposed widespread malpractices. The Bombay High Court again took up the matter in 2024, since 80 deaths in ashram schools were further reported. The Gujarat High Court in 2024 took up the problems of poor staffing and teaching in ashram shalas, comparing them to orphanages.
The Kalinga Institute of Social Sciences (KISS) in Bhubaneshwar has forty thousand tribal students on its campus, studying for free. Their website indicates a future goal of two lakhs students. Virginius Xaxa, perhaps the foremost tribal academician in India, was professor of sociology at the Delhi School of Economics and the Tata Institute of Social Sciences. Writing in the Caravan he decried the practice of KISS to describe tribals as primitive and backward, among other descriptions and practices, in its magazines and annual reports. He has been sued for defamation by KISS.
The harbingers of this tragedy were long evident. It is not only the fault of the ashram shalas. Social and economic factors in our own tribal communities are the real drivers of this sad situation. Unless we take care of our own tribal children, many more deaths will follow.
Yours etc.,
Glenn C. Kharkongor,
Via email
India’s slow GDP growth
Editor,
According to the editorial “Shaping the economy” (ST March 26, 2025), the economy is shaped by a combination of factors such as production, consumption, investment, trade, government policies, and societal trends. Two key indicators, GDP and per capita GDP, provide distinct perspectives on economic health. In 10 years time (2015-2025) China added $8.3 trillion to its GDP while India added $1.9 trillion during the same period. For the same period India added $ 1320 to its per capita GDP while China added $5839. It will be of interest to note that in 1960 China’s per capita GDP was $89.52 and India’s was $ 84.93. Today (2025) the per capita GDP of China is $13,873 and that of India is $ 2937. Both the indicators are influenced by factors like labour productivity, innovation, policies (taxation, trade agreements), and external events (global markets, climate changes). Together, they help assess not just the scale of the economy but also its impact on citizens’ quality of life.
China rapidly transitioned into a manufacturing powerhouse starting in the late 1980s, implementing reforms that attracted foreign investment, developed infrastructure and boosted export driven industries. India’s industrial sector has grown at a slower pace, with strong reliance on services rather than manufacturing. China’s economic reforms under Deng Xiaoping in the late 20th century prioritized state-led industrial growth, foreign direct investment (FDI) and export policies while India liberalized its economy in 1991, reforms have been slower and more incremental, which has limited its global economic competitiveness compared to China. Massive investment in infrastructure, such as roads, railways and ports, enabled China more efficient trade and industrial development. India’s infrastructure development has been slower, often hindered by bureaucratic inefficiencies and funding challenges.
Despite having a larger population, China’s aggressive education policies and vocational training programme have created a more skilled workforce. While India has a youthful and growing workforce, skill development initiatives and employment opportunities are still catching up. When it comes to political and policy stability, centralized political control allows for consistent and long-term policy implementation in China. India’s democratic governance, while more inclusive, often results in policy debates and slower implementation. As for exports China leveraged its low labour costs and manufacturing base to dominate exports across industries. India’s exports are more focused on services (e.g., IT) rather than goods, limiting its global economic scale.
When it comes to urbanisation, technological advancement and per capita resource allocation. China’s aggressive urbanisation strategies created economic hubs that drove growth while India has been slower and less organised, impacting economic efficiency. China invested significantly in Research and Development which is 2.44 percent of the Gross Domestic Product, leading to innovation and higher productivity while India’s focus on technology has primarily been in IT services, which, while profitable, does not impact per capita GDP as broadly. Moreover India’s R&D expenditure is stuck at 0.65 percent of its GDP and is stagnant. China’s higher GDP translates into more resources available per capita for healthcare, education and infrastructure whereas India’s lower GDP results in less spending per capita on these essentials.
Doubling India’s GDP from $2.1 trillion in 2015 to $4.3 trillion is an achievement but given the sheer size of the American and Chinese economies which are $30 trillion (estimated) and $ 19.5 trillion respectively aspiring to be like them does not make any economic sense at all. However, according to Ray Dalio’s Great Powers Index 2024 India has moved up on the list of global power rankings and has surpassed leading powers like UK, France and Russia. It is also expected to experience the fastest real GDP growth in the coming decade with better policies and development.
Yours etc;
VK Lyngdoh.
Via email
Why disrespect other cultures?
Editor,
A few days ago, during a discussion in one of the Youtube news channels on environmental issues that affects life sustainability, one of the panelists who is the advisor of the Sutnga Elaka for Environment, Reading War completely veered off the topic and questioned the relevance of Ka Niam Behdeinkhlam and Chad Sukra while Rev Kyrsoibor Pyrtuh interrupted and was heard to have termed the religious festival of the indigenous faith as “Chad Cement.” One can’t help but wonder – is this part of a calculated effort to paint our religious festivals in a negative light? One cannot tolerate this sort of intentional disrespectful behaviour. It is very painful for many of us, the believers in the indigenous faith when our values are openly undermined. We respect all religions, but we will not allow anyone to demean our faith.
Yours etc.,
Dr. Omarlin Kyndiah,
Via email