A few days ago, I attended a seminar organised by an NGO, alongside other civil society organisations, to discuss poverty and the challenges faced by the ultra-poor. While the event was well-intentioned, I was astonished and stuck on their re-invented new term and idea of ultra-poor. The term felt like a new label for the voiceless and marginalised as if renaming them would solve their problems. What stood out most was that none of these so-called ‘ultra-poor’ individuals were present at the event.
This reminded me of the early days of the HIV/AIDS epidemic when marginalised groups were blamed for the virus’s spread. Female sex workers (FSWs), men who have sex with men (MSMs), injecting drug users (IDUs), and even truck drivers were easy targets. It was difficult to identify them and easy to blame them. These groups lacked a collective voice, making them convenient scapegoats. It was not about addressing structural issues but labelling and blaming the vulnerable.
The term ‘poor’ is already laden with social, economic, and cultural meaning, enough to make a ground to do something for them. It conveys the need for help and development. So why degrade these individuals further by branding them ‘ultra-poor’? This feels like a new form of casteism, promoted by NGOs, funding agencies, and development organisations. This should be questioned, objected to, and stopped. Language shapes how we see others and, crucially, how we treat them. By creating a hierarchy of poverty, we risk dehumanising those we claim to help. There are arguments in favour of such categorisation that it will help to address the issues of the poorest of the poor or ultra-poor, but those people can be helped even without demeaning them or creating a poverty hierarchy.
In development work, terms like ‘ultra-poor’ are often used to attract donors and to mobilise funds. While effective for fundraising, this language comes at the expense of the dignity of those it describes. The constant reinvention of terms turns human lives into abstract concepts, suited for policy discussions but detached from reality. Even people suggest developing a paper on ultra-poor and teaching those in development studies, rural development, and other allied disciplines. Yes, it may help in mobilising funds but further demeans the people in the name of the ultra-poor.
This is not new. Marginalised communities have long been labelled and categorised in ways that strip them of their humanity. During colonial times, Indigenous peoples were called ‘savages’ to justify their exploitation. Today, we use terms like ‘ultra-poor’ to justify interventions, but these labels do not empower those they describe. Instead, they deepen the divide between the ‘helpers’ and the ‘helped.’
Addressing extreme poverty is, of course, vital. But how we approach it is equally important. If we want to help, we need to treat people as humans, not categories. We must stop labelling them and start including them in conversations about their lives. How often do we see the ultra-poor themselves at these seminars? How often do we hear their voices in debates about their future? They are spoken about, not spoken with.
There is a need to change the paternalistic approach of deciding for people. Experts, NGOs, and policymakers often assume they know best, ignoring the fact that those living in poverty understand their circumstances better than anyone. They are the most qualified to propose solutions. What they need is not more labels but platforms to voice their ideas and concerns.
Categorising poverty distracts from addressing its root causes. Poverty does not arise in a vacuum; it is the result of structural factors like economic policies, political corruption, social exclusion, and environmental degradation. Instead of debating whether someone is ‘poor’ or ’ultra-poor,’ we should focus on why poverty exists and what can be done to dismantle the systems that sustain it.
The language we use to talk about poverty matters. It shapes our attitudes, policies, and interventions. To truly help, we must stop dehumanising people with labels and start addressing the root causes of poverty. Most importantly, we need to include those affected in these conversations, giving them the power to shape their futures. Only then can we create meaningful, lasting change.
The author is a Professor at Xavier Institute of Social Service, Ranchi. The views expressed are personal. Email: pandeyanant@hotmail.com
