Poverty is a highly complex phenomenon as it has multiple dimensions; economic, social, political and cultural. Sages’ rejection of poverty as a curse or a stigma hasn’t made it desirable or palatable.

Poverty in simple terms means having much less than is needed at a particular point in time i.e. at a particular stage of development. It’s believed that it was rife in ancient times because we had few scientific and technological means to produce what was needed. And now when we have abundance of means of production at our disposal what causes poverty is overpopulation.

Social history has been the chronicle of the division between the haves and the have-nots. The haves firmly believe and propagate that one, poverty is something natural as it’s found in the natural order of things in the form of the strong and the weak. This is the universal law that rules the natural world. Nature doesn’t create men equal in terms of their abilities and potential. Two, poverty is a result of individual’s inability or deficiency. So it’s either an act of nature or individual’s failure or both. Hence it’s a curse or a stigma. The haves never factor in the system in the analyses of historical conditions of the have-nots. The wise men always knew that it was the system premised on inequality that produced poverty and misery.

Baba Farid (12/13th centuries) says: “Farid, these stalks of mustard in the pan though sugar-coated are poison / Some toiled till they dropped dead raising the crop / others moved in plundering it”. The saint clearly identifies the those who are responsible for the indigence of hardworking peasants.

Economist Ernest Mandal quotes in one of his books a 14th century bishop who addressing a gathering of aristocrats says; “Gentlemen, you are not thieves but what you eat is the fruit of theft.”

What creates poverty is the exploitation by the powerful and the upholders of system. What we call poverty is in fact a product of the system, a systemic disease that can only be cured or eliminated by changing the system. Unfortunately, but not unexpectedly, the poor who come to accept their condition as something natural. This acceptance of the given is made possible by an unending avalanche of propaganda that idealises dominant social values, cultural norms and certain metaphysical notions of human existence and destiny. One can call it super structure – erected on the economic base - and culture of hegemony. Why such a social phenomenon is taken as natural is hinted at by poet Bertlot Brecht in one of his poems: “Is oppression as old as the moss around ponds? / The moss around ponds is not avoidable/ Perhaps everything I see is natural, and I am sick and want to remove what cannot be removed? …Is it because it’s so many who are suffering? /Should one not help them all the more because they are many? / One helps them less / Even the kindly walk past and after that are as kindly as they were before walking past/ The more there are suffering, then, more natural their sufferings appear/ Who wants to prevent the fishes in the sea from getting wet?”. This is a true depiction of psychological logic employed to shield oneself from the pain of widespread sufferings, poverty in our context. The worst is that the poor, unaware of the consequences, share such a socio-cultural orientation that perpetuate their miseries. As a result of cultural conditioning they develop a sense of guilt; they start treating their poverty as their personal failure, a deficiency having psychogenetic roots. It’s obvious that culture of the ruling class rules. Such a rule has smooth sailing when its hegemony is accepted by the ruled as a natural law. What’s intriguing is that active and passive proponents of status quo stress natural laws but conveniently ignore that humans are governed by both natural and human laws.

A predator assaults its prey when hungry or threatened but man pounces on its prey even when satiated. The predator doesn’t take more than its fill but man wants more after having his fill. This insatiable greed has become ingrained in human psyche born of historical memory of scarcity. It reflects negative human development which makes humans less worthy than animals. Ironically, this is created by what makes us humans distinct from animals’ consciousness. It makes us simultaneously more than animals and less than animals. Man wants more than what is genuinely needed for his existence. And the positive side is that he can sustain himself with less than what is needed. A predator won’t share a bite from its food if it feels it isn’t more than what can satisfy its hunger. But man can share with others when he hasn’t enough on his plate for his own needs. But human history has been marked more by possessiveness than sense of sharing causing unending sufferings.

Poverty isn’t a natural product. It is a social product born of a class system. Our world produces enough for all if what’s produced is distributed fairly keeping in view the principle of human equality and human needs which are similar in nature. ‘Enough’ is relative. Even less when shared equally – according to needs - is more psychologically. Not in the distant past our elders used to say; “vund khaa, khund kaa (it tastes sweet when shared). So poverty is neither an essential evil nor desirable. But as long as poverty is there and human struggle to eliminate it continues, we cannot allow it to be stigmatised as it would be an insult to human ideals and psycho-cultural impediment in the way of human emancipation from sufferings. There is no need to pity the poor. They may look paupers but they are the ones who create riches in our society. They may look unsightly but they are the ones who create beauty. It’s they who keep the wheel of production in motion with their labour, skills and creative potential. Just look at things that are close at hand; your dress, cap, shoes, house, washroom and lawn. They carry the mark of their richness. And those who reflect the richness of life deserve to have it in their lives too. 

— soofi01@hotmail.com