List of informants :

Mr.Guruswamy         Mr.Veerathappa      Mr.Nagaiah     Mr.Basavashetty
Mr.Mahadevappa     Mr.Chennanjappa     Mr.Nagaraj     Mr.Basavanna

Conclusion :

The exercise of wealth ranking in Marur village of Talavadi Project was taken up as part of the RRA workshop held at Talamalai. The information presented and results obtained would not have been possible but for the active voluntary participation of the informants. The results clearly indicate the large of very poor families as compared to poor and the poorest of poor.

After a preliminary discussion about the procedure, the team proceeded to Marur, where a group of Harijan women sangha members warmly welcomed us, especially Herman who conducts trainings for them. In the greetings and informal chat we explained the reasons for our visit, which was to learn the happenings in the village. They took us to house by the side of the road for a chat. We discussed about the village, houses, Sangha thrift and other sangha activities. The topic of agriculture and employment opportunities, brought up the idea that after the sangha started, many of the sangha members ‘Neravagithe' which means they have economically and socially improved considerably.

This paved the way to the economic classification of people into three categories i.e. Anadi (very very poor), Anukoola ‘Neravagi’ (not that poor) and Saukar (rich). A literate woman was found among them to read out the names of the householders in the village, then on a chart on the floor, 3 circles were drawn; one was small, another slightly larger, and the third still larger. The chit was presented to the literate woman, who read out the names and the group after interacting placed the chit on the relevant category.

Some of the names raised problems. They were not able to place them in any of the three marked categories. So they suggested another category between Anadi and Neravagi, which was styled as Sumar which meant poor people. The literate woman read out the names and the group discussed as to which category they belonged and then placed the chit on the appropriate symbol.

When the concerned family members list surfaced, she was asked to locate herself. After much hesitation, and reflection she found her slot. In four instances the chit placed was further discussed and then shifted to another slot on common consent. Mahadevappa who resides with his wife in another village, the group was not willing to accept him in any of the slots, as the participants did not know how much property the wife had. Since the group felt that he might return to the village, he was also categorised.

43 families were identified as ‘Sumar' and 11 as ‘Neravagi'. No one was classified as ‘Anadi' or ‘Saukar'.

2. ‘Sumar' - poor : Little land about 1/2 acre, casual worker, irregular employment, one or two cattle, own house, more or less three meals per day.

3. ‘Neravagi' - middle class : Educated, holding some sort of Government or private job, two or three acres of land, petty shops, 3 meals per day ensured, and a pretty good house.

4. ‘Saukar' - rich : Employer, employs continual labour, coconut plantation, big house, scooter, storage of grains, lending money, excess food.

After this work was done, we had to go into livelihood analysis which had to be done privately with an individual family. So we schemed a strategy. We said we wanted to visit each household. Some people went back home quickly to show us some of the damaged portions of their house. We visited seven houses and in the process identified the poorest family with the help of a sangha member. We gave her the 43 chits identified as sumar, and asked her to point out the poorest among them. She spread them out one by one and picked out Rangaswamy's family as the poorest.

Our extension worker, Susheela, was very helpful throughout the process. We started this meeting at 11.45 a.m and concluded by 1.10 p.m. After visiting the houses we started the livelihood analysis by 1.30 p.m. to end the whole process by 3.00 p.m.

The team was with Rangaswamy (32), his wife (28) and two daughters, Kalamani (7) and Sundari (5). They live in a hut, on a plot given to them by Rangaswamy's wife's father.

They live on daily labour and in the lean seasons, Rangaswamy collects firewood from the forest and works as helper in brick making.

The interview started in an informal way - the team shared duties: interviewer, recorder and observers. Employment opportunities got priority. Seasonal work break-up: February to March he works as helper to brick cutters. During the  agricultural season he gets work rather frequently as an agricultural labourer. During the lean season he goes into the forest to collect firewood.

The discussion then switched to food, availability, intake etc. During Ashada no money is available as no employment is possible and no one lends money as the people believe it is inauspicious to loan money during the particular period.

Credit - He used to satisfy his credit needs from the money lender. After the formation of the sangha his needs are usually met by the sangha. Necessity of loan arises during the lean season, festivity and purchase of clothes.

Crisis - Health hazards are the major crisis points of the family. Like when his child had throat infection and had to be hospitalised he was forced to borrow Rs.200/-. Similarly when his wife developed complications after a family planning operation she borrowed Rs.150/- for treatment. Similarly when he himself had chest and stomach problems they were forced to borrow money to meet treatment costs.

Expected Crisis - in the near future. Construction of house. As he is one of the few people who do not have their own home and his present shed could not withstand the rainy season he is bent on having a roof over his head before the rains start. As he is not able to mobilise funds from the Government, he is now trying to get it done through the Sangha.

Highlights - To ascertain the poorest person we planned to take the literate woman aside, but the rest of the women flocked together to that place and Mr.Krishna Prasad called them for a discussion about the village, they were forced to leave her alone to sort out the poorest.

- Bhajan Mandir was selected.
- Self introduction with members.
- Had a discussion with them on the village infrastructure.
- In this process it was found that wages were very low - Rs.3/- for women and Rs.8/- for men.
- We clarified once again on wages and found that women were paid Rs.5/- and men between Rs.10/- to Rs.13/-.
- The group was homogenous (Lingayat Community). They expressed that they were very poor.
- They did not come out with clear clarifications of poverty.
- We asked them individually about earnings, where they said that they did not go for labour work but preferred to work on their own land.
- It shows that no one is going for labour work.
- Mr.Santhosam said, can we classify our staff who is poor?
- Suggested that we play a number game for change (ice breaker).
- After the game we selected a common place for discussions.
- We gave them the chits to give to one member to classify the rich and poor.
- They said it is not possible.
- Mr.Chikkegowda expressed, ‘ in our group if one member wants to take a loan, we see the purpose, need, and on that basis the loan is sanctioned.
- He said according to that he could classify the rich & the poor.
- As the group felt that a literate person should handle the chits, Mr.Kempaiah was selected.
- He made 3 classifications with the help of three different size stones - rich, middle class and poor, and decided to discuss with the group before placing the chits.

Observation : Some of the poorest were put into middle class and a few were moved to the rich. The group was asked to do a 3rd ranking.

Some members of the group who were observing the first two rankings suggested that they were not satisfied with the ranking and changed the position of a couple of chits.

One observer asked why Mr.Mahadevappa was placed in the middle class. He should be placed in the poor class because his family was a large one. That after distribution of land in his family he would be in the poor class.

The group leader Mr.Lingappa in the earlier discussions had expressed he was poor, but the rest of the group had placed him in the rich category.

Mr.Chikkegowda who was placed in the middle class was moved to the poor class because the group felt his economic conditions were poor. Although he had land he had leased it out and was working as a labourer.

Some comments from the group were -
- The mornings discussion was not very clear and authentic, as they did not know the reason for this exercise.
- The group expressed some kind of expectation towards programmes which were being drawn up and therefore they tried to give us wrong information.
- After the purpose of the exercise was made clear and all members included in the exercise, it lead to an open and free participation.