Social Exclusion
Since the criminal reform project
was launched in 1974, it has been rated a successful undertaking, as crime
among the Stuartpuram settlers has abolished. In the post-reform period from
2000 onwards, the major emphasis of Samskar has been on social inclusion and
mainstreaming the reformed criminals and their families (Ramakrishna &
Sundar 2007).
Social Interaction
Since being branded as criminal, the
Stuartpuram settlement has functioned as an open-air jail, completely
disconnected from mainstream organizations. Social interaction would only occur
within a criminal atmosphere. The ex-criminal settlers were despised and struck
terror in the public, and any form of social interaction was denied and nonexistent.
Hence, the ex-criminals have never experienced being a part of society
(Ramakrishna & Sundar 2007).
In
the post-reform period social interaction has increased to some extent. One
59-year old ex-criminal informant said:
Previously I could not walk around freely on the streets. I struggled
very much since I had to be in constant fear and suspicion. Today nor the
public or the police are unnecessarily harassing me. Before I couldn’t even
talk to anyone nor stay safely with my family without being in tension by
suspecting the worst all the time.
Social interaction has increased in
the sense that social contact outside the immediate community now more
frequently occurs compared to the pre-reform period. Many years has gone since
any of the ex-criminals engaged in any serious illicit activity. They have
convinced society that they are not continuing their practice and way of life.
In this way trust towards the ex-criminals has increased, allowing them status
as non-criminals and equal citizens.
In observing the
interaction of some ex-criminals with other members of society, these settings
involved some sort of interaction between those concerned; the people talked to
one another; they exchanged signs of common friendliness and showed some degree
of intimacy in their behaviour. Yet, most occurrences of interaction were
seemingly confined to minor, accidental interactions, like asking a shopkeeper
for product availability or price check.
Furthermore, although these happenings were
there to be seen by the researcher as an interested onlooker, he could not see
what the individuals were thinking, nor could he know from observation alone
about the wider background of their relationship. It is, however, most likely
that these events were more characteristic of social relationships than any
personal relationship.
Notwithstanding these
observations, most forms of repeated, regular or regulated social interaction
in general are still less than what it ought to be in a society. Two reasons
may be identified in this context. First, according to Marla (1992) the culture
of crime, distrust towards society, instinctive suspicious nature, fear
psychosis, hardened human relations, and disbelief in the mainstream ways
characterise the style of functioning among the ex-criminal families. Hence,
albeit they wish to be a part of the mainstream, their appetence to socially
interact is low-levelled and they find it difficult to take part in the social
and cultural life of society. Second, from a societal perspective, Gandhi
(2006) claims although they are not treated as criminals anymore there
nevertheless exists reservations in society against the ex-criminals of
Stuartpuram due to their social stigma, such as from employers, maintaining
their exclusion from society.
To all appearances the
data above reveals that the degree of social interaction is at modest levels
for the ex-criminals of Stuartpuram. As Sen (1999) explains (cf. chapter 3.1),
this goes deeply against the importance of human freedom, which applies to the
underdogs of society as well as to its leading figures. According to Sen
(1999), denial of social interaction excludes people from the socio-cultural
connections they have reason to seek.
Certainly there exists
some individual differences, but one may argue that a considerable share of the
ex-criminal generation of Stuartpuram are perhaps enjoying social acceptance or
tolerance as fellow members of society, rather than social interaction, as
such. Lavanam, the Samskar chairman, informed:
Society is not afraid of the ex-criminals anymore and they are accepted
as non-criminals. But only a margin of the ex-criminals socially interacts. It
depends in part upon the initiative of the ex-criminals themselves to socially
interact. They themselves have to take initiative and have the appetite to
grasp the opportunities ahead of them and become part of society. They
themselves have to convince society that they are not following their
forefathers’ way of life.
Social acceptance of the ex-criminals
by society is gradually becoming entrenched, meaning that the foundation for
the process of inclusion to continue is laid. Moreover, like we noted in the
conception of inclusion, the former excluded individuals themselves must seek
to interact with mainstream society, while the latter must offer acceptance
(Green et al. 2003).
On the other hand, this
is not a straightforward process. For generations the ex-criminal tribes of
Stuartpuram have not had social contact and thus, as already noted, their urge
to contact social life is modest. At the same time we must not downplay the
considerable achievement of accomplishing a large degree of social acceptance
for the settlers of Stuartpuram. Like Lavanam said, “social acceptance is the beginning of the long march of social
inclusion.”
Relative Deprivation and Poverty
Previously the ex-criminals and
their families were in many circumstances secured a livelihood by indulging in
crime or, if serving imprisonment, thanks to the investors in crime who supported
their families in the meanwhile. Today the living conditions of many of the
Stuartpuram settlers are miserable and pathetic, yet they enjoy more freedom
and peacefulness (Reddy 2002).
The following informal
conversation with an old ex-criminal derived from the researchers field notes
provides some insight:
Researcher: Are you satisfied with you life situation today?
Informant: I’m trying to live a normal life but I find it difficult to cope with
the situation. My family lives in poverty. I seek to God for comfort, and iron
clothes to make ends meet.
Researcher: Is your life any better than before you met Lavanam and Hemalata?
Informant: My fate is because I took to crime, not only me, but also my wife had
to spend time in jail. I thank Lavanam and Hemalata for getting me out of this
profession. Severe harassment is what I got for my criminal activity. It was
unbearable for me and my family, but we were lucky to be saved by Lavanam and
Hemalata.
Researcher: So you wouldn’t commit crime to better your life?
Informant: The feeling of freedom has persuaded me never to return to crime again.
The informant and his family live,
like many people in Stuartpuram, in stark poverty. The thatched hut symbolises
their struggles. Like substantial parts of the Indian population, they too are
subject to social disparity and inequality. Certainly, as Prakash (2007)
states, poverty, inequality and deprivation are associated with a more divided
society. And as Gandhi (2006) comments, comparing themselves with the people of
other strata of society, they are bound to suffer from an “inferiority
complex”.
However, in this
particular context, the richness in living an honest life has also in many ways
compensated their material poverty. Despite miserable lifestyles and meagre
earnings many of the ex-criminals expressed the content of living by pro-social
means. During their criminal era they were not even able to have a decent
quality life with their families as it was largely disturbed by their criminal
activities (Reddy 2002).
Lavanam informed:
Now they have a healthy and peaceful family and social life despite
their poverty. Yes, they are very poor in comparison to rich people, but at
least they can live their lives without fear. They manage with their support
and income from petty businesses, farming, Samskar and government programmes.
The ex-criminals are designated as
tribes-people, and the government’s development programmes provides some
succour in the shape of cattle, land or rickshaws. It is needless to state that
such measures are inadequate.
No comments:
Post a Comment