The inaugural edition of the xSDG UnConference was hosted by Belongg in collaboration with Dalberg, J-PAL South Asia, and Breakthrough India. It was held from August 18 – 31, 2021. Bringing together the global community of academics, development professionals, practitioners and people interested in themes of diversity and inclusion, each session at the UnConference offered diverse and nuanced insights on topics ranging from inclusive, education and urban planning and employment to various other aspects of an intersectional approach to sustainable development. 

Tens of thousands of students graduate from a range of public policy and social work schools across the world. These institutions are the sites in which development problems are defined. What is the way in which intersectional inclusion gets framed, discussed and taught in these schools? What are the big gaps and why? What kind of changes are sorely needed? What is the role of different actors such as school administration, leadership, faculty and student bodies, in bringing about these changes?

A four-member panel comprising Phokrizat Mayirnao, a core team member at Bahujan Economists and an independent researcher from Manipur; Arvind Kumar, a core team member at Bahujan Economists and a Master’s student at the Delhi School of Economics; Neetisha Besra, founding member of Equity in Policy Education and the first Adivasi person from India to graduate from Harvard Kennedy School; Ria Dutta, director of Women in Econ and Policy and a researcher at LEAD took part in a session at the xSDG UnConference to tackle these questions.

The session was moderated by Nirat Bhatnagar, founder of Belongg and a partner at Dalberg.

The following is a transcript of the session. Questions and responses have been edited lightly for style and clarity.

With regard to the nature of the current education system in the fields of public policy and development, and the different ways in which it is not "inclusive", what are the problems that you’ve seen students experience or you have experienced first-hand?

Neetisha: Having completed a Masters degree from abroad, I had a very powerful experience. I'm talking about development in terms of how the world has started seeing it very recently – which is evidence-based. Growing up in a tribal community, we struggle between development and our tribal identity. I come from Jharkhand and the entire Jharkhand movement was based on land and identity and so the way we define development is very anthropological and socio-cultural in nature.

The moment we start talking about development from an evidence or data standpoint, we miss out on the various qualitative elements of the problem. When I was pursuing my master's degree, it was very difficult to pick up a topic which was concerning, say, tribal development, because the first question you are asked is, do you have data available? If you don’t have data, there’s very little interpretation you can make and hence, you can create very little policy-related knowledge.

Therefore, the existence of data has become the core of all development problem statements at this point. And since the last caste census in 1931, the dialogue on caste has been missing systematically and this problem stood out very prominently for me.

Arvind: In 2018, one of my seniors had conducted research on the situation of students at the Delhi School of Economics and it turned out that 84% of the students from the Scheduled Caste (SC) category could not clear one of the three compulsory courses. About 29% of SC and 41% of Scheduled Tribe (ST) students could not pass all three compulsory courses in the same semester.

People who come from privileged backgrounds can afford the coaching fee for entrance exams and so they clear the cut-off required for the master's courses. On the other hand, marginalised students are hopeless because they don’t have the resources. They don’t have any person to guide them. I call them ‘treasure hunter economists’ because they have to solve riddles to figure out everything – from how to communicate, how to approach the faculty and the university administration, how to request letters of recommendation etc. They need to fight every battle on their own. Then they are faced with the faculty accusing them of not studying well and wasting their time.

We need to realise that these students cannot afford to get a room of their own in an expensive city like Delhi and order food online, and spend time on their studies. They need to cook their own food and use public transport which also consumes a lot of their time. Institutions need to acknowledge that there is an issue of "exclusion" and they need to take accountability for that and offer to help these marginalised students with hostel facilities etc.

Why do you think there is a lack of intersectional inclusion in academia? Are you seeing some momentum in the last few years, both within India and outside of India, to try and improve things? Or are these just small, isolated efforts while at scale things remain static?

Neetisha: When we look up the history of caste-based inclusion, I think it is only recently that the churn related to the caste movement has strengthened. And it’s at a very nascent stage, where we have more and more scholars coming into these institutions. If you look at the social sciences institutions, say TISS or Azim Premji University, they make a concerted effort to make sure there’s caste representation within the institutions.

It is in these institutions where you will see a different kind of dialogue happening, where caste is spoken about very openly and in a systematic manner. You will not see caste-based work happening in institutions where there has not been a systematic effort to bring in representation.

If we want systematic, at-scale changes to happen, there have to be big policy changes, not just by the government, but by academic institutions as well. I emphasise on policies because they create an ecosystem where changes happen. For example, I hail from Jharkhand. And since the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, which is a tribal government, has come into power, for the first time they have pushed for a policy which ensures that tribal language is being taught at the universities there.

This is a policy change which will attract more tribal scholars to academia. Policy changes are required. It will only happen when there are big political decisions, and academic institutions have a role to play in the implementation of such policies.

Also read: Casteism Is Rampant in Higher Education Institutions, but Is ‘Wilfully Neglected’: Study

When it comes to research in topics of "inclusion", a major impediment is lack of funding. The entire theme of where the funding will go is determined by an "impatient funder", who wish to act quickly in the short-term, and their focus is on the numbers.

The moment we start looking at the impact, which has to come out in a year or two, we forget about the chronic issues. And caste is a chronic issue. Our policies are not designed according to the social realities of the community. The reason why this happens is because it translates or trickles down from who is paying for that particular project and for how long. When we talk of equal representation, it feels like a huge, overwhelming problem. But where it all begins is where the policy focus is, where the intent is. By intent I mean, where is the money directed? The funder’s money and the government’s money that determines the academic institutions’ research priorities – what is the intent behind this money?

Lastly, if academic institutions themselves have a class full of upper-caste students being taught about caste by a professor who’s upper-caste himself, I don’t think we’re talking about inclusion in its true sense.

How would you contrast the experience within Indian policy schools versus those abroad, with regard to the problem of the faculty not being representative of different marginalised communities?

Neetisha: The Harvard Kennedy School has a dedicated centre which focuses on African and African-American studies. They put money into a research centre where they invite scholars from across America and the world. And right now, I cannot think of a centre which focusses exclusively on caste-based research. Even if there are scholars on this topic, they have to go around searching for funders for their research work.

And at the end of the day, we say that it’s “substandard research”. It’s substandard because nobody puts money into it! The moment you start putting in money, you will automatically see that the quality of research, the methodology will improve and will be more rigorous. And that is what a centre does.

Are similar discussions happening within policy and development schools? Are students talking about topics of inclusion to peers and mentors?

Ria: I can vouch for TISS and Azim Premji University. All students, even upper-castes, are quite sensitised. Not all professors [in these institutions] are upper-castes, and that's why the professor knows how to approach the subject [of caste]. We have a ‘samvaad’, at least in TISS, where people would pick a topic and debate on it. Oftentimes, it would have to do with reservation. Students from the Social Sciences backgrounds would talk about these topics and visit other institutions such as Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and Jamia Millia Islamia.

But when it comes to specialised courses, especially in the Sciences, these conversations don’t really happen. Those people are generally unaware and are not sensitised about these topics. They don’t have any space where they can talk about these matters.

Why do you think these discussions in the student community are not prominent?

Neetisha: A big challenge is just for people to be able to ‘come out’ as Bahujan. In an academic environment, to own caste as a personal fight is a challenge. You have to undergo social, psychological and mental barriers.

Secondly, for people who don’t belong to the Bahujan community, but want to be allies in the caste movement, it becomes difficult for them because it’s very difficult to own that space. I can’t take away the space of talking about caste from someone who belongs to the Bahujan community.

So, it has to be a combination of both sides coming together and having this conversation. That kind of environment is either created within the universities through the faculty, or through how we teach inclusion.

Also read: ‘Victory for Constitutional Values’: Kerala Protestors Celebrate After University Expels Prof Accused of Casteism

If you compare issues of gender, sexuality and caste and the way these play out on campuses in development schools, how do these issues get tackled? Even the question of ‘coming out’ and claiming that space, is it different for different kinds of identity markers in policy schools?

Neetisha: I can speak for two, the gender and caste identities. In India, if we are talking about universities in general, not specifically public policy institutions, it is much easier to talk about gender than sexuality and caste. It varies from place to place. We had a lot of conversations related to my gender, about me being a woman engineer in an oil field. During the initial part of my growing up as a professional I focused a lot on that identity marker, because that’s where I found my allies.

When it came to caste, it was very difficult to find someone who belonged to an OBC (Other Backward Class) or an ST background. You will not find posters openly declaring “If you belong to a scheduled caste or tribe, we are a forum here, let’s all meet at 5 pm”.

I’ve seen a surge of such platforms with the LGBT community in the US. The same applies to women – there are research centres focused on gender. Being female is a visible thing. But caste is a hidden identity and so just finding someone from your own caste is difficult. And therefore it’s a difficult conversation to find space for.

Phokrizat: It’s not just about sexuality, gender or caste identity. When you introduced everyone on the panel, you mentioned Neetisha’s identity as an Adivasi. Without that there is no way I would have known that that is her identity or about Arvind’s caste identity or anyone’s for that matter. But I do not even pass that first litmus test. You look at me and realise that I am from the northeastern part of India and I am an ST. So my experience is a little different from the rest.

You talk about the difficulty to own space and to own up to your identity. I have a very different way of owning space. I have to constantly prove myself, prove that I’m worthy to be here and that I also have certain capabilities. This is the other sort of experience that I have and that people with similar facial structures like me would have. When we speak of the Indian context, there are other groups of people like me who don’t fall into the caste hierarchy but are subjected to the hierarchy of the practice itself.

Arvind: There is an additional problem in this regard. The teaching that we get in our schools and families is different from the teaching that we get in universities. Usually, our parents teach us their societal interpretations (on matters of caste, gender etc.) and people accept that and don’t question it.

Now, when they come into the university space, they are exposed to many more perspectives that may be going around and discussions that might be happening. But then the main problem lies in the fact that when these students go back to their hometowns, especially now during the pandemic, they regress back to the interpretations they had before joining the university. They don’t go back home and pass on the knowledge and open-mindedness they were exposed to in the university space.

If you could wish for something to change in order to make policy and development methods more inclusive, be it public discourse or funding or teaching methods, what would that something be?

Neetisha: Firstly, I would wish for a broader acceptance of the caste movement. I think lots of work is required beyond just sensitising people on caste. If one day in the future everybody starts to accept the movement, it will make things easier for us.

Second, I would wish for more patience in the funding space. The more patient funders we have, the more investment goes into creating bodies of work related to inclusion and specifically caste-based inclusion. This will have a snowball effect in increasing representation, improving our networks and focusing on the right problem statements.

Phokrizat: I also have two wishes. The first is to democratise education. The second would be for more people to reflect, just as human beings. In order to create good policy we really need to be good persons. It all comes down to who we are as a person. If your intentions are wrong, what sort of good things can you really create? So, it really boils down to our selfhood.

With regard to research centres focused on topics of inclusion, do you think there’s a risk that these centres will become self-contained zones with very little exchange across departments and centres? Secondly, do you think that with less and less government financing, it is possible to have such centres in all institutions across India?

Ria: Definitely these are silos. When I graduated from TISS, it was difficult for me to find people who were equally sensitised. I think it becomes an island within which everyone is open to discuss whatever they want to discuss. Secondly, in India, although private universities are coming up, there’s still a lot of government funding required for Indian institutions. And government funding always comes with a grain of salt. So institutions may not have the academic independence to write what they want to write.

Phokrizat: As a student of Economics, my experience has been that there’s a huge divide between qualitative study and quantitative study and there’s a rigidity in methodology. This idea of purity of methodologies can separate people within the field itself which is evident in the field of Economics. So, yes even if there are research centres, the methodology can really divide people, both with other centres and institutions and also within the centre itself.

Do you believe we need to learn to be a vulnerable society for us to talk about sensitive issues such as gender, sexuality and caste, and if yes, how do you build that culture?

Arvind: The first book which teaches us about caste and all these other issues is the Civics textbook in sixth grade. We need to start by making that book a little more inclusive and we need to discuss these issues with more nuance from the very beginning itself.

Neetisha: Given our current systems, I think there are various plugins that can happen within the current education system, within the way organisations function, through which we can become more sensitised. There are already several organisations which are trying to work on practicing vulnerability – be it in your school spaces or in your organisations. We can start right from childhood, and teach children to be more acceptable of each other and tolerant of each other's identities. Because once we cross the barrier of 18 years, it's difficult to make people vulnerable when they already have developed their own set of biases.

Amiya Chaudhuri is an associate at Belongg Research Collective.

The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.