Foreword
(To be contributed. Placeholder for Edition 3)
Preface
This portal is the fruit of decades of work in poverty reduction, but it is not mine alone. It is shaped by the experiences of communities, colleagues, and organisations who walked this journey with me. It is also the outcome of God’s wisdom and guidance. Without His leading, none of this would have been possible. To Him belongs the glory.
As I look back, I see both the progress made and the work still unfinished. It would be easy to take pride in what has been done, but I am reminded instead to remain humble. This portal is not about achievements but about service — service to the poor, and through them, to God.
Why This Portal
Why another publication on poverty reduction? Because the poor are still with us, and because too often their voices are not heard. Over time, poverty disappeared from the centre of economic thought. Growth, trade, and markets became the measures of progress, while hunger, exclusion, and inequality were sidelined. This portal is an attempt to bring poverty reduction back to the centre.
It is not a textbook. It is not a policy manual. It is a living record of practice, reflection, and faith. It brings together experiences from RUHSA, stories from communities, and insights from wider debates. Its aim is simple: to share knowledge that can be used, adapted, and built upon — so that poverty is not studied at a distance but confronted with compassion and courage.
Introduction: Called, Sent, and Guided
It was the last day of my medical education at Christian Medical College, Vellore, India. I had studied for seven years and was about to embark on my first posting in a small village in the foothills of Nepal. Sleep eluded me that night. At midnight, I felt God calling me to the rooftop of the Men’s Interns Quarters.
Standing there, overlooking the quiet Katpadi Road, I surrendered my life to Jesus. I did not know the path ahead, only that I was to follow Him wherever He led. The very next day, I began a three-day train journey to Nepal, unsure of when I would return or what lay ahead. That rooftop decision set the course of my life.
From a thirty-bed hospital in Nepal, to clinical work in Ranchi, Pune, and Andhra, to decades with RUHSA in Tamil Nadu, God led me step by step. Each turn, including disappointments such as a denied visa, revealed His plan in ways I only understood later. Alongside me, my wife Jolly became both partner and colleague, building data systems that gave RUHSA’s work credibility and permanence.
What I learned in those years is simple: every intervention must touch lives at scale. A doctor can treat patients one by one, but poverty reduction requires transforming systems so that thousands — even millions — can benefit. Today, with the help of this portal and the reach of technology, I pray that these lessons can serve not only in Tamil Nadu but across the world. To God belongs all the glory.
Part I: The Problem
Why Poverty Reduction Disappeared from Mainstream Economics
For much of the twentieth century, poverty reduction was not at the centre of economics. The subject was not ignored entirely, but it was treated as secondary — an afterthought to growth, trade, and markets. The mainstream of the profession concerned itself with abstract theories and elegant models, while the lives of the poor were pushed to the margins.
The Illusion of Growth as a Cure
One reason was the assumption that growth alone would solve poverty. If national income increased, it was believed, benefits would “trickle down” to everyone.
Initially, this seemed plausible. Rising GDP in industrialised countries after the Second World War coincided with improvements in welfare. But when this logic was applied across the developing world, it faltered. Growth often came with inequality, leaving millions still trapped in poverty. Yet economists clung to the promise of growth as the universal cure.
Overconfidence in Markets
Another reason was the faith placed in free markets. Thinkers like Milton Friedman and Friedrich Hayek championed minimal government, arguing that the “invisible hand” introduced by Adam Smith would allocate resources efficiently. This line of thinking became dominant in the 1980s and 1990s, shaping structural adjustment programs and global trade rules. But for the poor, the results were harsh: cuts in social spending, reduced subsidies, and exposure to global markets without protection. Economics became more about efficiency than equity, and more about markets than people.
The Rise of Abstract Models
At the same time, economics grew increasingly mathematical. Models of perfect competition, rational agents, and self-correcting markets were elegant on paper but far removed from village life in Tamil Nadu or tribal areas in Gujarat. Realities like hunger, malnutrition, lack of access to health care, and the daily struggles of the poor did not fit neatly into equations. As the discipline sought precision, it lost relevance.
Marginal Voices
This does not mean there were no voices for the poor. Amartya Sen broadened the understanding of poverty as capability deprivation. John Kenneth Galbraith spoke of the indifference of economists to mass poverty. Paulo Freire, though not an economist, reminded us that development must be participatory and liberating. But these voices were marginal or were silenced, compared to the dominant orthodoxy of markets, growth, and abstraction.
The Cost of Neglect
The result was that millions of poor people were left outside the frame. Policies shaped by economic advice often bypassed their realities. Aid and development programs, guided by top-down models, rarely engaged with grassroots experiences. The failure was not only technical but moral: economics lost sight of its responsibility to serve people, especially the poorest.
This is the problem that gives rise to our portal. If mainstream economics has sidelined poverty, then we must bring it back to the centre. And we must do so not by theory alone, but by grounding knowledge in lived experience. The next chapters turn to RUHSA and other community experiences — not as footnotes to economic theory, but as the heart of what poverty reduction really means.
Part II The Practice
Drinking Water Access
Clean and safe drinking water is one of the most essential requirements of daily living. When RUHSA was started in the late 1970s, there was not much emphasis on clean water. People did not know the link between contaminated water and diarrhoea, which was a common cause of death among children then. Very often, water would be contaminated with cholera germs as people practised open defecation.
The common source of drinking water in those days was open wells. Some families had to walk long distances to fetch drinking water from the few wells that served an entire village. There were inadequate efforts made to keep these sources of water clean, which were often contaminated and unsafe. Meeting this need early on in the programme gave confidence to the poorest to be prepared for the changes that were to come.
Working with World Vision of India (WVI), RUHSA introduced over one hundred India Mark II borewells across the block. WVI expected a small contribution from the community for these borewells. Initially, wealthier neighbourhoods captured these borewells by paying the required contribution early. Later, these were directed to poorer hamlets, ensuring access to safe water for those most in need.
Equity in Access
Water scarcity often sharpens inequality. RUHSA’s approach tried to reverse this. By prioritising poor and marginalised communities, borewells and irrigation schemes became not only technical fixes but also tools of justice. Families who had long suffered the burden of carrying water from distant sources now had taps within reach.
Lessons Learned
By meeting an essential right at the beginning of a programme, the poorest tend to participate more actively in the larger development process. While community contribution, even by the poorest, is important, efforts must be made to ensure that richer community members do not hijack services meant for the poorest. Not every organisation may be fortunate to have an institution like WVI, providing 100 borewells. Even within small budgets, providing small funds for borewells in needy areas would contribute towards effective community participation.
Part II The Practice
Water and Agriculture
In a drought-prone block like K.V. Kuppam, water has always been the most precious resource. Agriculture — the main livelihood for most families — rises and falls with the rains. When the rains are generous, harvests can sustain families. When they fail, hunger and debt follow quickly. RUHSA’s work in poverty reduction could not ignore this reality. Water and agriculture were inseparable.
Scarcity and Strain
Farmers dug deeper and deeper wells each year, chasing a receding water table. Some invested heavily in borewells, while others, too poor for such investments, were left with failing crops. Competition for water created tension within communities, and many families fell into cycles of debt, borrowing to pay for irrigation that yielded little in return.
Changing Cropping Patterns
RUHSA encouraged farmers to shift from water-intensive crops such as paddy, sugarcane, and bananas to more sustainable alternatives. Jasmine, mango, and mulberry were promoted not only for their lower water demand but also for their reliable market value. This shift reduced strain on water resources and provided farmers with more stable income.
Watershed Development
Beyond individual fields, RUHSA invested in community-level solutions. In Thuthithangal village, a watershed project between 1983 and 1987 introduced contour bunding, check dams, and water-harvesting structures. These interventions slowed runoff, replenished groundwater, and improved soil moisture. The benefits, though gradual, reshaped farming in the area.
The experience taught us that poverty reduction in rural India must always take water into account. Agricultural practices, livelihood strategies, and even community health are shaped by access to water. Sustainable management of this resource is not a side issue — it is central to ensuring that poverty is reduced and dignity restored.
Part II: The Practice
Community Decision-Making by the Poorest
Poverty reduction is not only about programs and projects — it is about power. Who makes the decisions that shape a community? Too often, the poorest are the most affected by policies but the least heard in discussions. RUHSA’s experience showed that unless the poorest of the poor themselves participate in decision-making, interventions risk missing their mark.
The Missing Voices
In many village meetings, the voices of the wealthier and more powerful dominated. The poorest — landless labourers, widows, marginalised castes — were present but silent. Even when government policies mandated participation, real influence rarely flowed down to the bottom. Decisions about resource allocation, priorities, and leadership were shaped from above.
Creating Space for the Poorest
RUHSA sought to involve the poorest to participate in decision-making for their own development. Representatives of the poorest were invited to our campus to decide how we should use the money available for their own development. In the first round, they rejected what we as staff thought was good for them. They chose only goats as appropriate for them. In the second round, they went one step further and requested help to replace thatched roofs, which needed replacement every three years. We agreed on both of the above. In the third round, they were hesitant and apologetic to make an even costlier request. Instead of replacing a leaking thatched roof, they wanted to know if we were prepared for an even more costly tiled roof. We said the cost is high, and the number of beneficiaries would come down. They reasoned that a thatched roof would last only three years. On the other hand, a tiled roof would last thirty years. Their reasoning won, and we gave them tiled roofs. This is the power of decision-making by the poorest. We always treated them as honoured guests and provided a sumptuous meal after the meetings.
Women in Leadership
Legally, one-third of elected positions in local governance were reserved for women. In practice, many of these seats were controlled by male relatives. RUHSA worked to challenge this by equipping women with the skills and knowledge to exercise leadership themselves. Progress was uneven, but the presence of active women leaders began to change community dynamics.
Breaking Dependency
Participation in decision-making also meant breaking dependency on outside “experts.” Instead of waiting for government officers or consultants to decide for them, communities were encouraged to set their own priorities. This shift was not easy — decades of paternalism had left many people believing they had little to contribute. Yet when given the chance, communities often identified practical, effective solutions overlooked by outsiders.
Lessons Learned
True poverty reduction requires more than delivering services. It requires shifting power so that the poor have a say in the choices that affect their lives. Empowerment is not charity; it is justice. When the poorest take part in decision-making, development becomes more relevant, more sustainable, and more humane.
Part II: The Practice
Self-Help Groups and Women’s Empowerment
When poverty is examined from the ground, one truth emerges clearly: women are central. They are often the first to feel the pinch of hunger, the ones who stretch small incomes to cover household needs, and the ones who hold communities together. It was natural, therefore, that one of RUHSA’s most significant interventions in poverty reduction began with women.
The Rise of Self-Help Groups
The concept of self-help groups (SHGs) grew in India as a way of pooling small savings to create larger collective resources. At RUHSA, these groups became not only financial tools but also spaces of solidarity. Women, many of them poor and marginalised, came together to save a few rupees each week. Over time, these savings allowed them to access credit without turning to moneylenders.
More than Money
But SHGs were never only about money. They became forums where women gained confidence, where they spoke out in public, and where decisions once left to men could now be shared. In villages where women had been silent, SHGs gave them a collective voice. Formal and structured training sessions were often woven into group meetings, making them centres of empowerment as well as financial activity.
Breaking Barriers
The changes were not always easy. Resistance came from within households, where husbands or elders sometimes objected to women stepping out. Yet the visible benefits — loans for school fees, capital for small enterprises, emergency funds for health expenses — made it hard to deny the value of SHGs. Over time, through gentle prodding, men themselves began to acknowledge their contribution.
Measurable Impact
The results could be seen both in numbers and in lives. Households that once relied on informal debt saw their dependency decline. Small businesses were started — tailoring, petty shops, goat rearing — each creating incremental improvements. Just as important, women reported feeling more respected, more able to participate in community decisions, and more secure in times of crisis. Banks recognised the power of the SHGs and their creditworthiness and made bank credit readily available.
Lessons Learned
SHGs at RUHSA showed that poverty reduction is not only about resources but also about relationships. A few rupees saved each week could not transform entire economies, but it could transform lives by giving women agency. When women are empowered, families and communities follow.
Part II: The Practice
Entrepreneurship and Youth Skills
Poverty is not only about lack of money — it is also about lack of opportunity. Many young people in rural areas complete their schooling with few options for further study or meaningful work. Too often,, they remain underemployed in agriculture, migrate to cities for insecure labour, or drift into despair. At RUHSA, we saw that if poverty was to be reduced in a lasting way, young people needed skills and opportunities to stand on their own feet.
Training for Livelihoods
One of RUHSA’s early initiatives was to identify practical skills that could generate income locally. Tailoring, carpentry, driving, electrical repair, automobile repair mechanisms, and computer literacy became pathways for young men and women to gain employable skills. Training was often short-term but intensive and skill-oriented, focused on immediate applicability rather than on long academic preparation.
Building Entrepreneurs
The vision extended beyond jobs to entrepreneurship. Young people were encouraged to start small enterprises of their own, sometimes supported by loans from the government banks. Poultry units, petty shops, repair workshops, milk processing units, and service centres began to spring up. The income was modest, but the sense of ownership and dignity was significant.
Addressing Barriers
Challenges were real. Some youths lacked capital. Others faced scepticism from families who preferred the stability of agricultural work. Still others struggled with limited markets for their products. Yet persistence, combined with RUHSA’s training and follow-up support, helped many to succeed.
Impact on Families and Communities
The ripple effects went beyond individual earnings. When a young person gained skills and work, entire families benefited. Better, private schools could be selected for their children. School fees could be paid on time, food security improved, and migration pressures lessened. Youth who had once felt powerless began to see themselves as contributors to community development.
Lessons Learned
The RUHSA experience showed that skills training and entrepreneurship are not luxuries — they are essential strategies for poverty reduction. Investing in young people builds resilience not only for individuals but also for communities. The poor are not merely labourers for others; with opportunity, they become innovators and job creators in their own right.
Part II: The Practice
Agriculture and Livelihoods
Agriculture is the backbone of rural life. In K.V. Kuppam, as in much of India, most families depended on farming for their survival. Yet the very land they relied on was often unyielding: drought-prone, with erratic rainfall, poor soil fertility, and shrinking water tables. For the poor, agriculture could become a trap of hard work with little return. RUHSA’s challenge was clear — to help farmers sustain their livelihoods in ways that reduced poverty rather than deepened it.
Working with Nature
From the beginning, RUHSA promoted practices that worked with, not against, the environment. Soil conservation, water harvesting, and contour bunding were introduced as part of watershed development to make small plots more resilient. Crop diversification was encouraged, so that there was no dependence on single water-intensive crops, which could devastate families in times of drought.
Alternative Crops and Income
Bananas, paddy, and sugarcane had long been popular but placed huge demands on water. RUHSA promoted alternatives such as jasmine, mangoes, and mulberry for sericulture. Jasmine gave a regular cash income. Mangoes offered shade, stability, and seasonal profit. Mulberry supported sericulture, but faced marketing problems. Together, these alternatives lessened water dependency and created more sustainable streams of income.
Livestock as Security
Livestock became another pillar of livelihood security. Dairy cattle provided daily income through milk sales, while poultry offered quick returns and nutrition. Although there was awareness of the ecological harm created by goats, they were the more preferred livestock than sheep, with a ready, thriving market. These interventions meant that even in years of poor harvests, families had fallback sources of income and food.
Building Knowledge and Confidence
Equally important was farmer education. RUHSA field workers taught not only improved agricultural practices but also financial literacy, record keeping, and cooperative methods. Farmers learned to see themselves not merely as subsistence workers but as managers of productive enterprises. Cr
Impact on Poverty Reduction
The results were tangible. Families with livestock could withstand drought with greater resilience. Those who diversified crops were less likely to fall into debt. Young people, seeing farming as more viable, were less compelled to migrate. Step by step, livelihoods became sturdier, and poverty lessened.
Lessons Learned
The experience confirmed that agriculture for the poor must be more than survival farming. With the right support, it becomes a platform for stability, dignity, and growth. Sustainable agriculture and livelihood security are inseparable from poverty reduction.
Part II: The Practice
Dairy and Reducing Poverty
Milk is often called a complete food. For poor families in rural Tamil Nadu, it could also be a complete livelihood. Dairy farming emerged as one of RUHSA’s most successful poverty reduction strategies, combining nutrition for households with steady income for women and men alike.
From Subsistence to Enterprise
In many villages, families already kept a cow or two, but milk was primarily for home use. RUHSA encouraged them to see dairy as an enterprise. Training was provided in cattle management, feeding practices, and disease control. Farmers were taught how to maintain milk records, access veterinary care, and organise collective marketing.
Women at the Centre
Dairy work naturally involved women, who were often responsible for feeding and milking. By formalizing their role as income earners, dairy strengthened women’s position in the household and in the community. The daily cash flow from milk sales gave them greater decision-making power and reduced dependence on moneylenders.
Coping with Drought
Perhaps the greatest strength of dairy was its role as a drought buffer. In years when crops failed, cows still produced milk. This gave families a lifeline, ensuring that children had nutrition and households had at least some income. In 2002, during one of the worst droughts, families with cows expressed confidence that they could withstand hardship, even if agricultural earnings disappeared.
Multiplying Benefits
The benefits of dairy went beyond income. Dung was used as manure, enriching the soil. Surplus dung supported biogas units, providing energy for cooking and reducing dependence on firewood. Thus, dairy contributed to both household well-being and environmental sustainability.
Challenges Faced
There were, of course, hurdles: veterinary services were not always accessible, feed prices could rise sharply, and market fluctuations affected milk prices. Yet collective organisation helped overcome many of these obstacles. Cooperatives allowed small producers to negotiate better rates and access inputs more reliably.
Lessons Learned
Dairy farming proved that poverty reduction strategies work best when they integrate nutrition, income, women’s empowerment, and sustainability. A single cow could transform not only a family’s diet but its economic resilience. In this way, dairy became a cornerstone of RUHSA’s contribution to rural poverty reduction.
Part II: The Practice
Poultry and Poverty Reduction
For the rural poor, poultry may seem small — a few hens in a backyard, or a small flock tended by women and children. Yet in RUHSA’s experience, poultry became one of the most effective entry points for poverty reduction. Its low investment, quick returns, and nutritional value made it uniquely suited for families with very limited resources.
Why Poultry?
Unlike cattle, poultry requires little land or fodder. A small investment could buy chicks, which within weeks, began to provide both eggs and meat. This meant households had access to protein-rich food while also earning cash from surplus sales. For the poorest families, poultry represented a livelihood they could start with almost nothing.
Building the System
RUHSA helped organise training in basic poultry management — feeding, housing, disease control, and marketing. Field staff guided families on how to scale up gradually, moving from a few backyard birds to more organised units. Care was taken to ensure that poultry did not remain only a side activity but could become a stable source of income.
Role of Women
As with dairy, poultry naturally brought women into the economic process. Women often managed the birds, collected eggs, and handled sales. Their earnings, even if small, contributed directly to children’s food, clothing, and school fees. In this way, poultry became both a livelihood and a tool of empowerment.
A Cushion for the Poor
Because poultry cycles are short, families could recover quickly from setbacks. If crops failed or if illness reduced income from labour, poultry sales provided a cushion. Often, it was poultry income that allowed families to repay debts or meet sudden medical expenses.
Challenges and Limitations
There were difficulties. Disease outbreaks wiped out flocks, and fluctuating market prices sometimes discouraged families. But because the initial investments were small, the risks were manageable. With support and training, families learned to adapt, vaccinate, and diversify their stock.
Lessons Learned
Poultry showed that poverty reduction does not always require large-scale interventions. Sometimes, small, practical, and replicable steps make the biggest difference. For the poorest, poultry was not just about food and income — it was about dignity, confidence, and the first rung on the ladder out of poverty.
Part II: The Practice
Health and Catastrophic Expenditure
For poor families, ill health is not just a medical crisis — it is an economic disaster. A single hospitalisation can wipe out years of savings, push families into debt, or force them to sell land and assets. At RUHSA, we saw again and again how health and poverty were inseparable. To reduce poverty, we had to reduce the burden of catastrophic health expenditure.
The Vicious Cycle of Illness and Debt
When illness struck, poor families had few choices. Private care was costly, but public facilities were often distant, overcrowded, or under-equipped. Many turned to moneylenders to meet immediate medical expenses, falling into debt that they could not repay. Poverty increased vulnerability to illness, and illness deepened poverty — a vicious cycle.
Accessible Rural Health Care
RUHSA’s model sought to break this cycle by bringing accessible, affordable, and quality health services closer to the people. The rural hospital at RUHSA Campus, backed by sixteen weekly peripheral clinics, along with community health workers in the villages, provided primary and secondary care without the costs and delays of referral to distant centres. Preventive care — immunisations, antenatal services, health education — reduced the incidence of severe illness. Both primary and secondary health care were heavily subsidised so that no poor patient was denied the needed health care.
Maternal and Child Health
Special focus was given to mothers and children, who bore the greatest risks. Trained birth attendants, improved antenatal coverage, and later government incentives for institutional delivery, backed by supplying mobile phones to health workers, sharply reduced maternal mortality. Immunisation and nutrition programs cut child deaths. These were not only health successes but also poverty reduction measures, sparing families the economic devastation of losing a breadwinner or child.
Lessons Learned
The experience confirmed that health is both a cause and a consequence of poverty. Health is both a means and a measure of development. Reducing catastrophic expenditure requires more than treating disease; it requires preventive care, accessible facilities, and safety nets that protect families from financial ruin. Poverty reduction cannot succeed without health security at its core.
Part II: The Practice
Environment-Friendly Approaches
If sustainability is about the future, then protecting the environment is one of the most sustainable contributions any development organisation can make. At RUHSA, our work taught us that poverty reduction cannot be separated from environmental care. Drought, deforestation, poor sanitation, and overuse of natural resources all deepened the suffering of the poor. Our interventions were modest, but they revealed the close link between environment and poverty.
Water Quantity and Quality
K.V. Kuppam is a drought-prone area. Each cycle of drought drove farmers to dig deeper wells, steadily depleting groundwater. RUHSA promoted water-saving crops such as jasmine, mango, and mulberry to replace water-hungry sugarcane, bananas, and paddy. Livestock like dairy cattle and poultry also provided income without the same dependence on irrigation.
On drinking water, ignorance was widespread at the start. Families often drank from open wells and lakes. With UNICEF support, over one hundred borewells were introduced across the block. Over time, safe water became accessible for poorer households, reducing waterborne diseases and freeing women and children from the burden of fetching water from distant sources.
Forests and Trees
The barren hills along K.V. Kuppam’s northern boundary symbolised the challenge. RUHSA promoted social and agroforestry: supplying seedlings of teak, jackfruit, bamboo, and subabul, and mobilising communities to protect saplings. Watershed projects, like the one in Thuthithangal (1983–87), combined contour bunding, check dams, and tree planting to conserve soil and water. Slowly, patches of green began to return. The government took responsibility in this area. Now, most hills that were barren then are now covered with dense greenery of trees.
Sanitation and Hygiene
Latrines proved a tougher challenge. Even when toilets were constructed, many families preferred open defecation. Some used the new structures as storage for firewood. Behaviour change required more than infrastructure — it required shifts in attitudes, which proved slow. To this day, sanitation remains one of the least successful areas of intervention.
Fuel and Energy
Firewood was the dominant cooking fuel, contributing to deforestation. RUHSA introduced individual household biogas plants using cattle dung, reducing dependence on wood and improving indoor air quality. Though adoption was uneven, families who used biogas valued its convenience and health benefits.
Biodiversity
Monoculture, especially eucalyptus plantations, posed risks to soil and water. RUHSA emphasised planting a variety of species, anticipating the later global emphasis on biodiversity. With growing demand for herbal medicine, biodiversity conservation took on added significance.
Population Pressure
Finally, population growth placed relentless pressure on resources. Family planning programs, particularly tubectomy, slowed growth rates. Over time, stabilisation of population levels promised to ease the strain on land and water.
Lessons Learned
RUHSA’s environmental work underscored that poverty and ecology are intertwined. Families cannot rise out of poverty if their natural resource base is destroyed. Equally, environmental protection cannot succeed unless the poor see tangible benefits for their lives. True sustainability requires joining the fight against poverty with the care of creation.
Part II: The Practice
RUHSA and the Millennium Development Goals
When the United Nations launched the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) in 2000, it offered the world a common framework for measuring progress in reducing poverty, improving health, and advancing education. At RUHSA, we had already been working on these issues for decades. Although the MDGs were not in place when RUHSA began in 1977, our experience coincided with the MDG era. We realised that much of our data could be mapped against these global goals, offering both local evidence and global relevance.
Collecting the Data
Gathering reliable data was never easy. Some indicators, such as immunisation coverage and nutrition status, came from routine records collected by trained field staff. Others required special studies. Maternal mortality, one of the most difficult statistics to obtain, was studied by a student from Emory University and later published. Teams from the University of South Australia conducted representative surveys to fill the gaps in information. Despite the challenges, we were able to document progress in most of the MDG areas.
Goal 1: Eradicate Extreme Poverty and Hunger
Using purchasing power parity at $1 per day, poverty in our service area fell dramatically from nearly 90% in 1978 to 43% in 2004. Nutrition also improved: underweight children declined from 44.6% in 1982 to 17.2% in 2001, and stunting reduced by almost half. These numbers reflected tangible improvement in livelihoods and food security.
Goal 2: Achieve Universal Primary Education
While RUHSA did not directly run schools, just as development inputs contributed towards improvements in health, it also contributed towards improving education. Additionally, successful family planning programmes also reduced the number of children in each family, encouraging the education of fewer children. Girls, once left behind, began to outperform boys in completing primary school. Literacy gaps narrowed, and families increasingly valued education.
Goal 3: Promote Gender Equality and Empower Women
SHGs and other interventions created spaces for women’s participation. By law, one-third of local elected seats were reserved for women, though often exercised by male relatives. Yet women gradually found their voice, especially through collective action.
Goal 4 & 5: Reduce Child Mortality and Improve Maternal Health
Child mortality declined steeply with effective immunisation. Maternal mortality remained harder to reduce, requiring higher-level interventions, but antenatal care and institutional deliveries expanded steadily, especially after government incentives.
Goal 6: Combat HIV/AIDS, Malaria, and Other Diseases
RUHSA’s contribution was primarily educational — raising awareness of HIV/AIDS, promoting condom use, and supporting rehabilitation. Malaria was not a significant issue in our area, but tuberculosis control, in partnership with the government, achieved high treatment completion rates.
Goal 7: Ensure Environmental Sustainability
Drinking water supply reached nearly universal coverage, but sanitation lagged. Even when latrines were constructed, many families did not use them. Electricity spread widely, but reliance on firewood and crop residues for fuel remained high. In a small way, individual household biogas plants were constructed.
Goal 8: Develop Global Partnerships
RUHSA’s partnerships were modest but meaningful. Links with Bishopston in the UK and with the University of South Australia provided both solidarity and technical exchange.
Lessons Learned
The RUHSA experience with MDGs showed both the possibilities and limitations of global frameworks. Local progress was real and measurable, but the MDGs themselves were not widely known among frontline workers or communities. Without grassroots involvement, such global goals risk remaining abstract.
Our conclusion was clear: poverty reduction frameworks must not only be set from above but also informed from below. RUHSA’s story illustrates what is possible when local practice meets global aspiration.
Part III: The Wider World
Education: The NSM Hostel Model
Education is often called the great equaliser, but for poor rural children, it is also the great divider. Schools exist, but many children — especially girls — are unable to attend regularly or complete their studies. Distance, poverty, and lack of support at home push them out long before they reach their potential. At RUHSA, education was not our primary mandate, but we could not ignore its role in poverty reduction.
I had the privilege of serving on the Board of Navjeevan Seva Mandal (NSM). Among other services, NSM provided education for children living in underserved areas. The NSM Hostel Model became one of our most significant contributions in this area.
The Challenge of Rural Education
Government schools provided basic access, but dropout rates were high. Many children from poor families were expected to work in the fields, care for siblings, or contribute to household chores. Distances made access difficult. Girls in particular faced cultural and economic barriers that kept them from completing even primary education. Literacy gaps between boys and girls were stark.
The Hostel Model
To bridge this gap, the NSM Hostel was established to provide a safe, supportive environment for children from poor families to continue their schooling. Hostels were set up in nearby towns with good government schools. By offering food, accommodation, and mentoring, the hostel removed the daily obstacles of distance and household labour. Children could focus on learning from these government schools without the distractions and pressures that pulled them out of school.
Equal Opportunity for Girls
The hostel placed special emphasis on girls’ education. Families were more willing to allow daughters to study when they knew they would be cared for in a supervised environment. Over time, the literacy rate for girls caught up with and even surpassed that of boys in some age groups. Girls who might otherwise have remained illiterate completed primary school and moved into higher levels of education.
Ripple Effects
Education had ripple effects beyond the individual child. Families began to see the value of schooling when daughters and sons brought home books, certificates, and new skills. Educated youth became role models, inspiring others in their villages. Over time, the perception that “education is not for us” began to change. Over time, girls especially took up the challenge of going to distant places and utilised opportunities to study and come up in life.
Lessons Learned
The NSM Hostel Model proved that targeted support can break cycles of exclusion. Education is not only about classrooms; it is about creating conditions in which poor children can learn, persist, and succeed. By giving children the chance to study, we were giving families and communities a chance to rise out of poverty.
Tamil Nadu in Global Perspective
Much of India’s development story is told by comparing one state to another. Tamil Nadu is often praised in contrast to less developed states, as though success can only be measured against failure. But such comparisons are limited. Tamil Nadu deserves to be assessed not only within India but alongside nations that have faced similar challenges and achieved similar progress.
Beyond Indian Benchmarks
Tamil Nadu has long stood out for its advances in education, health, and social development. Female literacy rose steadily, fertility rates declined, and child survival improved faster than in most other Indian states. Industrial growth and urbanisation created jobs and opportunities. Yet to understand the scale of its achievement, we must look beyond India’s borders.
Comparisons with Asia
Placed beside countries like Thailand and Malaysia, Tamil Nadu shows striking parallels. Like them, it combined investments in human development with industrial growth. Both Thailand and Tamil Nadu saw rapid declines in fertility and gains in life expectancy in the same decades. In manufacturing, Tamil Nadu’s automotive and textile sectors resemble the industrial strategies of Southeast Asian nations.
Comparisons with Southern Europe
At the same time, Tamil Nadu’s trajectory can be fruitfully compared with Southern European countries like Portugal and Greece. These nations emerged from poverty in the mid-twentieth century with a strong emphasis on social protection and state-led development. Tamil Nadu’s mix of welfare programs — noon-meal schemes, subsidised food distribution, and affirmative action—mirrors such efforts, adapted to local realities.
Learning from and Contributing to the World
By placing Tamil Nadu in a global perspective, two things become clear. First, poverty reduction here is not an isolated story but part of a wider movement in the Global South where human development and economic growth reinforced one another. Second, Tamil Nadu has lessons to share. Its public distribution system, for instance, has few parallels in scale and effectiveness.
Lessons Learned
Tamil Nadu’s development cannot be reduced to a story of “better than Bihar.” It belongs in the company of regions and nations that faced similar challenges and overcame them through deliberate social and economic investments. Recognising this shifts the frame: Tamil Nadu is not just an Indian outlier — it is part of a global conversation on poverty reduction, human dignity, and inclusive growth.
Part III: The Wider World
From MDGs to SDGs
When the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) came to an end in 2015, the world took a step forward with the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The SDGs were broader, covering not only poverty, health, and education but also climate change, inequality, peace, and partnerships. In many ways, they were more ambitious — aiming not just to halve poverty, but to end it in all its forms everywhere by 2030.
Continuity and Change
For those of us who had worked within the MDG framework, the SDGs felt both familiar and new. Familiar, because they retained the emphasis on measurable targets, time-bound commitments, and shared global responsibility. New, because they expanded into areas that had previously been left out: sustainability, gender equity beyond education, and the interlinkages between economic growth, environment, and justice.
The Grassroots Gap
Yet one concern persisted. Just as with the MDGs, awareness of the SDGs was limited at the grassroots. Field workers, local organisations, and communities who could have contributed most were rarely consulted or informed. Without their participation, global goals risked becoming top-down exercises, driven by consultants and policymakers far removed from daily realities.
Lessons from RUHSA
Our experience at RUHSA illustrated what global frameworks often miss: the knowledge and resilience of poor communities themselves. We had learned that progress is possible, measurable, and real — but it depends on trust, participation, and long-term commitment. These are not things that appear easily in international reports.
Questions for the Future
The SDGs raise important questions. Will the global community find ways to listen to grassroots implementers? Will space be created for voices from villages, small towns, and local organisations — or will the same international consultants continue to dominate? Will data collection once again be shaped by what is easy to measure, rather than what truly reflects change in people’s lives?
Lessons Learned
The SDGs are a valuable global commitment. But if they are to succeed where the MDGs fell short, they must bridge the gap between lofty targets and lived realities. Poverty reduction is not only about what is decided in New York or Geneva — it is about what happens in K.V. Kuppam, in Tamil Nadu, and in thousands of communities like them across the world. Unless the poor are participants, not just subjects, the promise of the SDGs will remain unfulfilled.
Part III: The Wider World
Organisation Models for Poverty Reduction
Poverty is never reduced by individuals alone. It is reduced when people come together — in communities, in cooperatives, and through organisations committed to change. Across India and beyond, organisations have developed models that demonstrate how poverty reduction can be practical, sustainable, and rooted in people’s participation.
RUHSA as a Model
RUHSA itself is one such model: a community-based approach combining health, livelihoods, education, and empowerment. It worked because it engaged directly with people’s realities, collected data to measure progress, and built long-term trust with communities. Its lessons show how institutions anchored in practice can become engines of poverty reduction.
Navjeevan Seva Mandal (NSM)
Navjeevan Seva Mandal (NSM) is another example. Based extensively in Gujarat, Jharkhand and Tamil Nadu, NSM worked to transform education for children from poor families. Through hostels, mentoring, and support for rural students, NSM created pathways out of poverty by giving young people the chance to complete their schooling. Education, combined with community engagement, proved to be one of the most powerful levers for breaking cycles of deprivation.
Other Models
Across India, many other organisations — small and large — have shown creativity in addressing poverty:
SEWA (Self-Employed Women’s Association) in Gujarat, organising women in the informal sector for rights and livelihoods.
MYRADA in Karnataka, pioneering self-help groups as a vehicle for women’s empowerment.
BRAC in Bangladesh, now the world’s largest NGO, demonstrating how large-scale interventions can still be rooted in local realities.
Countless smaller NGOs working quietly in villages, slums, and tribal areas are rarely written about, but are making lasting changes.
Shared Characteristics
Though diverse, effective organisations share some characteristics:
Community Participation – programs are not imposed but shaped by the people themselves.
Integration – addressing not just one need (like credit or education) but the interwoven causes of poverty.
Sustainability – building systems that last beyond external funding.
Empowerment – ensuring the poor gain voice, dignity, and control over their lives.
Lessons Learned
The lesson is simple: poverty reduction requires institutions. Not institutions that are distant and bureaucratic, but those that are close to the ground, rooted in communities, and willing to walk with the poor. These institutions become the bridges between people’s struggles and broader systems of support. Without them, poverty reduction remains a slogan. With them, it becomes a lived reality.
Research on Poverty Reduction Strategies
Introduction
Understanding what works in reducing poverty is central to designing effective development interventions. Research should go beyond ideology or charity, focusing instead on strategies that reduce poverty through enhanced human capability, dignity, and sustainable livelihoods. This chapter examines how research can evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of different poverty reduction approaches and provides a framework for comparing strategies systematically.
Evaluating Strategies: Key Considerations
Research on poverty reduction should systematically examine each approach along several dimensions:
- Effectiveness – the impact on household income, enterprise resilience, and overall well-being.
- Efficiency – resources, cost, and time required to achieve results.
- Contextual Applicability – the conditions under which the strategy works best (rural vs urban, cultural or infrastructural factors).
- Scalability – potential for expansion without loss of effectiveness.
Common approaches include:
- Microfinance – small-scale credit for income-generating activities.
- Institutional business support – financial assistance combined with mentoring, training, and market access.
- Skill-building, education, and health-linked programs – building human capabilities.
- Infrastructure projects – enhancing access to markets and services.
Each approach has strengths and limitations. Systematic research allows policymakers and practitioners to identify what works, under what circumstances, and at what cost, providing a foundation for more effective poverty reduction interventions.
Comparative Analysis: Microfinance-Only vs Institutional Business Support
A particularly relevant comparison in research is between microfinance-only approaches and institutional business support approaches, which may or may not include microfinance as a component.
Microfinance-Only Approaches:
- Provide direct credit to households to pursue self-employment.
- Strengths: accessible, rapid deployment, immediate financial inclusion.
- Limitations: vulnerability to market risks, limited skill development, and potential over-indebtedness.
Institutional Business Support Approaches:
- Combine financial support with structured guidance, mentoring, skill-building, and market linkages.
- Strengths: addresses multiple constraints, often leading to sustainable income growth, resilient enterprises, and broader community impact.
- Limitations: higher initial investment and organizational complexity.
By systematically comparing these approaches along effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, contextual suitability, and scalability, research can reveal which strategies achieve better outcomes under specific conditions and highlight opportunities for integrated or hybrid models.
Conclusion and Comparative Framework
The following table summarizes the key dimensions for comparing microfinance-only and institutional business support approaches, providing a concise framework for research and practical application.
| Dimension | Microfinance-Only Approaches | Institutional Business Support Approaches |
| Primary Focus | Small-scale loans for self-employment and income generation | Financial support + mentoring, skill-building, and market linkages |
| Effectiveness | Immediate financial inclusion, incremental income growth | Greater long-term income growth, business resilience, and community impact |
| Efficiency | Low entry barrier, rapid deployment | Higher upfront cost and coordination effort |
| Sustainability | Moderate; dependent on market conditions and borrower skills | Higher; addresses multiple constraints simultaneously |
| Contextual Suitability | Works in areas with entrepreneurial potential but limited resources | Works in contexts needing comprehensive support and guidance |
| Scalability | Relatively easy to scale but risks over-indebtedness | More complex to scale; requires organizational capacity |
| Key Strengths | Accessibility, rapid deployment | Integrated support, multi-dimensional impact |
| Key Limitations | Risk of over-indebtedness, limited skills development | Requires higher investment, complex coordination |
This framework highlights the importance of evidence-driven research in guiding poverty reduction strategies. By evaluating individual approaches and conducting comparative analyses, researchers can provide actionable insights for policymakers and practitioners seeking to maximize impact, sustainability, and human development outcomes.
Books and the Struggle Against Poverty
Ideas matter. The way poverty is understood shapes the way it is addressed. Over the decades, many books have tried to grapple with poverty — some grounded in real-life struggles, others abstract and distant. Looking back, these writings reveal both the richness of debate and the limits of mainstream thought.
Voices Grounded in Reality
Some authors wrote from the ground up. Amartya Sen reframed poverty as the deprivation of basic capabilities, not merely low income. Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee pioneered randomised trials that tested what actually worked for the poor. John Kenneth Galbraith, long before them, reminded economists that affluence on one side of the world coexisted with mass poverty on the other. These voices, though not always dominant, offered approaches rooted in lived experience and practical relevance.
Broader Voices, Limited Direct Impact
Other authors brought poverty into global conversation, but from a more distant vantage. Jeffrey Sachs, for example, argued for bold international investments to end poverty. Joseph Stiglitz exposed how globalisation and inequality hurt the poor. Paul Krugman and others highlighted the failures of market fundamentalism. These perspectives broadened understanding but often remained at the level of policy and international advocacy, with less direct connection to grassroots realities.
Radical and Alternative Visions
Still others challenged not only economics but the very nature of development. Paulo Freire, in Pedagogy of the Oppressed, saw education as liberation for the poor. E.F. Schumacher, in Small Is Beautiful, argued for human-scale economics that served people rather than systems. Ha-Joon Chang exposed how rich countries “kicked away the ladder” after using protectionist policies to build their wealth, leaving poor countries trapped by free-market orthodoxy.
Lessons from Asia
Books like Joe Studwell’s How Asia Works demonstrated how land reform, industrial policy, and financial discipline lifted millions out of poverty in East Asia. These insights resonate with Tamil Nadu’s story, showing that poverty reduction depends as much on structural choices as on individual effort.
Lessons Learned
Taken together, these books remind us that poverty reduction is both intellectual and practical. Theories matter, but without grounding in real lives, they remain incomplete. The struggle against poverty cannot be left to economists alone, nor to practitioners alone. It must be a dialogue — between ideas and experience, between books and villages, between scholars and the poor themselves.
Part IV: The Way Forward
Re-centring Economics on Poverty Reduction
Economics was never meant to be only about markets, trade, or growth. At its heart, it is about people — how they live, what choices they have, and whether their basic needs are met. Yet over time, mainstream economics drifted away from this foundation. Poverty was treated as a side issue, while elegant models of growth and efficiency dominated. To move forward, we must bring poverty reduction back to the very centre of economics.
The Moral Compass of Economics
An economy that grows while leaving millions hungry is not successful. A market that functions efficiently while excluding the poor is not just. Economics needs a moral compass — one that recognises that human dignity is as important as productivity, and that justice is as important as efficiency. Poverty reduction provides that compass.
Learning from Practice
Theories alone cannot guide us. RUHSA’s experience, along with that of other organisations, shows that real poverty reduction is possible when interventions are grounded in people’s lives. Access to health care, education, livelihoods, and empowerment are not side issues but central pillars of economic well-being. Economists must learn from such grassroots practice and let it inform policy and theory.
Reshaping Priorities
Re-centring economics on poverty reduction means asking different questions:
Not just How fast is the economy growing? But who is benefiting from growth?
Not just Is the market efficient? But is it fair?
Not just What is the return on investment? But what is the return on human dignity?
A Broader Vision
This shift requires courage — from scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. It means valuing insights from villages as much as from universities, recognising that the poor are not passive recipients but active participants in shaping their future. It means acknowledging that reducing poverty is not charity but justice, not optional but essential.
Lessons Learned
If economics is to serve humanity, it must once again put poverty reduction at its core. Growth, trade, and markets all have their place, but they must be measured by how they affect the poor. To re-centre economics is to restore its true purpose: building societies where every person has the chance to live with dignity.
Part IV: The Way Forward
Conclusion: Returning Poverty Reduction to the Centre
This portal has brought together stories, reflections, and lessons from decades of practice. From the rooftops of Vellore to the villages of K.V. Kuppam, from self-help groups to dairy farms, from global debates on economics to grassroots organisations, one truth stands out: poverty reduction is not an optional add-on to development — it is the heart of it.
What We Have Seen
We have seen how poverty reduction disappeared from mainstream economics, sidelined by theories of growth and efficiency. We have seen how practice — in RUHSA and in other organisations — kept the flame alive, proving that real change is possible when communities participate and institutions listen. We have placed Tamil Nadu in a global perspective and examined the voices of economists and thinkers who tried, in different ways, to put the poor back into the conversation.
What We Must Do
Now we face a choice. We can continue along the path of abstract models and top-down policies, or we can re-centre economics and development on the lived realities of the poor. Re-centring means recognising that the measure of success is not GDP growth but whether the hungry are fed, the sick are treated, the children are educated, and the excluded are empowered.
A Call for Participation
This is not work for one person, one organisation, or one government. It is a collective journey. Practitioners, academics, policymakers, communities, and the poor themselves must come together to shape the future. This portal is one step in that journey — a place to gather knowledge, spark dialogue, and inspire action.
It would be useful if individuals or organisations add their stories to this portal so that much more experiences than that of RUHSA is brought out. This additional information on poverty reduction will make a stronger appeal to bring reducing poverty to the forefront and real change is observed among the poorest.
Giving Glory Where It Belongs
For me personally, this work is not mine alone. It is the outcome of God’s guidance, provision, and faithfulness over many decades. Without His leading and wisdom, none of this would have been possible. As we look to the future, I give all glory to God, and I pray that this portal will be used to serve the poor, to promote justice, and to bring hope.
Glossary (Shared Understanding)
The language of poverty reduction can sometimes feel technical or abstract. To keep this portal clear and accessible, here are some key terms explained in simple words:
Empowerment – Giving people the confidence, skills, and opportunities to make decisions about their own lives.
Inclusion – Ensuring that no group is left out of development processes.
Sustainable Development – Meeting today’s needs without destroying the ability of future generations to meet theirs.
Community Participation – Involving people directly in decision-making that affects their lives.
Catastrophic Health Expenditure – When medical costs are so high that they push families into debt, forcing them to decrease their living standards.
Livelihood Security – Having stable and reliable income, food, and resources that allow families to live with dignity.
Capability Approach – Amartya Sen’s idea that poverty is not just low income but the inability to live the life one values.
Self-Help Group (SHG) – Small groups of women pooling savings, providing loans, and supporting one another socially and economically.
Grassroots – The village or community level where real life is lived and change begins.
Biodiversity – The variety of plants, animals, and microorganisms in an ecosystem. Protecting it sustains food security and livelihoods.
Trickle-Down Economics – The belief that benefits given to the wealthy will eventually reach the poor — an idea that rarely worked in practice.
Structural Adjustment – Economic reforms in the 1980s–90s that often harmed the poor by cutting social spending and opening markets too quickly.
Participatory Development – Approaches that involve communities at every stage of development, recognising them as active partners.
Rajaratnam Abel 