NCERT Textbook - Pattern of Social Inequality and Exclusion | Old & New NCERTs for IAS Preparation (Must Read) - UPSC PDF Download

 Page 1


Chapter 5.indd   69 9/1/2022   5:09:07 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Page 2


Chapter 5.indd   69 9/1/2022   5:09:07 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
The family, caste, tribe and the market – these are the social institutions that 
have been considered in the last two chapters. These institutions were seen from 
the point of view of their role in forming communities and sustaining society.  
In this chapter we consider an equally important aspect of such institutions, 
namely their role in creating and sustaining patterns of inequality and exclusion.
For most of us who are born and live in India, social inequality and exclusion 
are facts of life. We see beggars in the streets and on railway platforms.  We see 
young children labouring as domestic workers, construction helpers, cleaners 
and helpers in streetside restaurants (dhabas) and tea-shops.  We are not 
surprised at the sight of small children, who work as domestic workers in middle 
class urban homes, carrying the school bags of older children to school.  It does 
not immediately strike us as unjust that some children are denied schooling.  
Some of us read about caste discrimination against children in schools; some of 
us face it.  Likewise, news reports about violence against women and prejudice 
against minority groups and the differently abled are part of our everyday lives.  
This everydayness of social inequality and exclusion often make them 
appear inevitable, almost natural.  If we do sometimes recognise that inequality 
and exclusion are not inevitable, we often think of them as being ‘deserved’ or 
‘justified’ in some sense.  Perhaps the poor and marginalised are where they 
are because they are lacking in ability, or haven’t tried hard enough to improve 
their situation?  We thus tend to blame them for their own plight – if only they 
worked harder or were more intelligent, they wouldn’t be where they are.  
A closer examination will show that few work harder than those who are located 
at the lower ranks of society.  As a South American proverb says – “If hard labour 
were really such a good thing, the rich would keep it all for themselves!”  All over 
the world, back-breaking work like stone breaking, digging, carrying heavy weights, 
pulling rickshaws or carts is invariably done by the poor.  And yet they rarely 
improve their life chances.  How often do we come across a poor construction 
worker who rises to become even a petty construction contractor?  It is only in 
films that a street child may become an industrialist, but even in films it is often 
shown that such a dramatic rise requires illegal or unscrupulous methods.  
Identify some of the richest and some of the poorest people in your 
neigbourhood, people that you or your family are acquainted with.  (For 
instance a rickshawpuller or a porter or a domestic worker and a cinema hall 
owner or a construction contractor or hotel owner, or doctor… It could be 
something else in your context). Try to talk to one person from each group to 
find out about their daily routines.  For each person, organise the information 
in the form of an imaginary diary detailing the activities of the person from the 
time they get up to the time they go to sleep on a typical (or average) working 
day.  Based on these diaries, try to answer the following questions and discuss 
them with your classmates.
Activity 5.1
Indian Society
70
Chapter 5.indd   70 10/6/2022   12:53:33 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Page 3


Chapter 5.indd   69 9/1/2022   5:09:07 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
The family, caste, tribe and the market – these are the social institutions that 
have been considered in the last two chapters. These institutions were seen from 
the point of view of their role in forming communities and sustaining society.  
In this chapter we consider an equally important aspect of such institutions, 
namely their role in creating and sustaining patterns of inequality and exclusion.
For most of us who are born and live in India, social inequality and exclusion 
are facts of life. We see beggars in the streets and on railway platforms.  We see 
young children labouring as domestic workers, construction helpers, cleaners 
and helpers in streetside restaurants (dhabas) and tea-shops.  We are not 
surprised at the sight of small children, who work as domestic workers in middle 
class urban homes, carrying the school bags of older children to school.  It does 
not immediately strike us as unjust that some children are denied schooling.  
Some of us read about caste discrimination against children in schools; some of 
us face it.  Likewise, news reports about violence against women and prejudice 
against minority groups and the differently abled are part of our everyday lives.  
This everydayness of social inequality and exclusion often make them 
appear inevitable, almost natural.  If we do sometimes recognise that inequality 
and exclusion are not inevitable, we often think of them as being ‘deserved’ or 
‘justified’ in some sense.  Perhaps the poor and marginalised are where they 
are because they are lacking in ability, or haven’t tried hard enough to improve 
their situation?  We thus tend to blame them for their own plight – if only they 
worked harder or were more intelligent, they wouldn’t be where they are.  
A closer examination will show that few work harder than those who are located 
at the lower ranks of society.  As a South American proverb says – “If hard labour 
were really such a good thing, the rich would keep it all for themselves!”  All over 
the world, back-breaking work like stone breaking, digging, carrying heavy weights, 
pulling rickshaws or carts is invariably done by the poor.  And yet they rarely 
improve their life chances.  How often do we come across a poor construction 
worker who rises to become even a petty construction contractor?  It is only in 
films that a street child may become an industrialist, but even in films it is often 
shown that such a dramatic rise requires illegal or unscrupulous methods.  
Identify some of the richest and some of the poorest people in your 
neigbourhood, people that you or your family are acquainted with.  (For 
instance a rickshawpuller or a porter or a domestic worker and a cinema hall 
owner or a construction contractor or hotel owner, or doctor… It could be 
something else in your context). Try to talk to one person from each group to 
find out about their daily routines.  For each person, organise the information 
in the form of an imaginary diary detailing the activities of the person from the 
time they get up to the time they go to sleep on a typical (or average) working 
day.  Based on these diaries, try to answer the following questions and discuss 
them with your classmates.
Activity 5.1
Indian Society
70
Chapter 5.indd   70 10/6/2022   12:53:33 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Activity 5.1 invites you to rethink the widely held commonsense view that 
hard work alone can improve an individual’s life chances.  It is true that hard 
work matters, and so does individual ability.  If all other things were equal, 
then personal effort, talent and luck would surely account for all the differences 
between individuals.  But, as is almost always the case, all other things are 
not equal.  It is these non-individual or group differences that explain social 
inequality and exclusion.  
5.1 What Is Social a bout s ocIal InequalIty and e xclusIon ?
The question being asked in this section has three broad answers which may 
be stated briefly as follows. First, social inequality and exclusion are social 
because they are not about individuals but about groups.  Second, they are 
social in the sense that they are not economic, although there is usually a 
strong link between social and economic inequality.  Third, they are systematic 
and structured – there is a definite pattern to social inqualities.  These three 
broad senses of the ‘social’ will be explored briefly below.  
SociAl InequAlity In every society, some people have a greater share of valued resources – money, 
property, education, health, and power – than others.  These social resources 
can be divided into three forms of capital – economic capital in the form of 
material assets and income; cultural capital such as educational qualifications 
and status; and social capital in the form of networks of contacts and social 
associations (Bourdieu 1986).  Often, these three forms of capital overlap and 
one can be converted into the other. For example, a person from a well-off 
?	 How many hours a day do each of these persons spend at work?  What 
kind of work do they do – in what ways is their work tiring, stressful, 
pleasant or unpleasant?  What kinds of relationship does it involve 
with other people – do they have to take orders, give orders, seek 
cooperation, enforce discipline….?  Are they treated with respect by 
the people they have to deal with in their work, or do they themselves 
have to show respect for others? 
It may be that the poorest, and in some cases even the richest, person you 
know actually has no real ‘job’ or is currently ‘not working’.  If this is so, do 
go ahead and find out about their daily routine anyway.  But in addition, try 
to answer the following questions.
?	 Why is the person ‘unemployed’?  Has he/she been looking for work?  
How is he/she supporting herself/himself?  In what ways are they affected 
by the fact of not having any work?  Is their lifestyle any different from 
when they were working?  
Patterns of Social Inequality and Exclusion
71
Chapter 5.indd   71 9/1/2022   5:09:09 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Page 4


Chapter 5.indd   69 9/1/2022   5:09:07 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
The family, caste, tribe and the market – these are the social institutions that 
have been considered in the last two chapters. These institutions were seen from 
the point of view of their role in forming communities and sustaining society.  
In this chapter we consider an equally important aspect of such institutions, 
namely their role in creating and sustaining patterns of inequality and exclusion.
For most of us who are born and live in India, social inequality and exclusion 
are facts of life. We see beggars in the streets and on railway platforms.  We see 
young children labouring as domestic workers, construction helpers, cleaners 
and helpers in streetside restaurants (dhabas) and tea-shops.  We are not 
surprised at the sight of small children, who work as domestic workers in middle 
class urban homes, carrying the school bags of older children to school.  It does 
not immediately strike us as unjust that some children are denied schooling.  
Some of us read about caste discrimination against children in schools; some of 
us face it.  Likewise, news reports about violence against women and prejudice 
against minority groups and the differently abled are part of our everyday lives.  
This everydayness of social inequality and exclusion often make them 
appear inevitable, almost natural.  If we do sometimes recognise that inequality 
and exclusion are not inevitable, we often think of them as being ‘deserved’ or 
‘justified’ in some sense.  Perhaps the poor and marginalised are where they 
are because they are lacking in ability, or haven’t tried hard enough to improve 
their situation?  We thus tend to blame them for their own plight – if only they 
worked harder or were more intelligent, they wouldn’t be where they are.  
A closer examination will show that few work harder than those who are located 
at the lower ranks of society.  As a South American proverb says – “If hard labour 
were really such a good thing, the rich would keep it all for themselves!”  All over 
the world, back-breaking work like stone breaking, digging, carrying heavy weights, 
pulling rickshaws or carts is invariably done by the poor.  And yet they rarely 
improve their life chances.  How often do we come across a poor construction 
worker who rises to become even a petty construction contractor?  It is only in 
films that a street child may become an industrialist, but even in films it is often 
shown that such a dramatic rise requires illegal or unscrupulous methods.  
Identify some of the richest and some of the poorest people in your 
neigbourhood, people that you or your family are acquainted with.  (For 
instance a rickshawpuller or a porter or a domestic worker and a cinema hall 
owner or a construction contractor or hotel owner, or doctor… It could be 
something else in your context). Try to talk to one person from each group to 
find out about their daily routines.  For each person, organise the information 
in the form of an imaginary diary detailing the activities of the person from the 
time they get up to the time they go to sleep on a typical (or average) working 
day.  Based on these diaries, try to answer the following questions and discuss 
them with your classmates.
Activity 5.1
Indian Society
70
Chapter 5.indd   70 10/6/2022   12:53:33 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Activity 5.1 invites you to rethink the widely held commonsense view that 
hard work alone can improve an individual’s life chances.  It is true that hard 
work matters, and so does individual ability.  If all other things were equal, 
then personal effort, talent and luck would surely account for all the differences 
between individuals.  But, as is almost always the case, all other things are 
not equal.  It is these non-individual or group differences that explain social 
inequality and exclusion.  
5.1 What Is Social a bout s ocIal InequalIty and e xclusIon ?
The question being asked in this section has three broad answers which may 
be stated briefly as follows. First, social inequality and exclusion are social 
because they are not about individuals but about groups.  Second, they are 
social in the sense that they are not economic, although there is usually a 
strong link between social and economic inequality.  Third, they are systematic 
and structured – there is a definite pattern to social inqualities.  These three 
broad senses of the ‘social’ will be explored briefly below.  
SociAl InequAlity In every society, some people have a greater share of valued resources – money, 
property, education, health, and power – than others.  These social resources 
can be divided into three forms of capital – economic capital in the form of 
material assets and income; cultural capital such as educational qualifications 
and status; and social capital in the form of networks of contacts and social 
associations (Bourdieu 1986).  Often, these three forms of capital overlap and 
one can be converted into the other. For example, a person from a well-off 
?	 How many hours a day do each of these persons spend at work?  What 
kind of work do they do – in what ways is their work tiring, stressful, 
pleasant or unpleasant?  What kinds of relationship does it involve 
with other people – do they have to take orders, give orders, seek 
cooperation, enforce discipline….?  Are they treated with respect by 
the people they have to deal with in their work, or do they themselves 
have to show respect for others? 
It may be that the poorest, and in some cases even the richest, person you 
know actually has no real ‘job’ or is currently ‘not working’.  If this is so, do 
go ahead and find out about their daily routine anyway.  But in addition, try 
to answer the following questions.
?	 Why is the person ‘unemployed’?  Has he/she been looking for work?  
How is he/she supporting herself/himself?  In what ways are they affected 
by the fact of not having any work?  Is their lifestyle any different from 
when they were working?  
Patterns of Social Inequality and Exclusion
71
Chapter 5.indd   71 9/1/2022   5:09:09 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
family (economic capital) can afford expensive higher education, and so can 
acquire cultural or educational capital. Someone with influential relatives and 
friends (social capital) may – through access to good advice, recommendations 
or information – manage to get a well-paid job. 
Patterns of unequal access to social resources are commonly called social 
inequality.  Some social inequality reflects innate differences between individuals 
for example, their varying abilities and efforts.  Someone may be endowed with 
exceptional intelligence or talent, or may have worked very hard to achieve their 
wealth and status.  However, by and large, social inequality is not the outcome 
of innate or ‘natural’ differences between people, but is produced by the society 
in which they live.  Sociologists use the term social stratification to refer to a 
system by which categories of people in a society are ranked in a hierarchy.  
This hierarchy then shapes people’s identity and experiences, their relations 
with others, as well as their access to resources and opportunities.  Three key 
principles help explain social stratification:
1. Social stratification is a characteristic of society, not simply a function of 
individual differences. Social stratification is a society-wide system that 
unequally distributes social resources among categories of people.  In the 
most technologically primitive societies – hunting and gathering societies, for 
instance – little was produced so only rudimentary social stratification could 
exist.  In more technologically advanced societies where people produce a 
surplus over and above their basic needs, however, social resources are 
unequally distributed to various social categories regardless of people’s 
innate individual abilities.  
2. Social stratification persists over generations.  It is closely linked to the 
family and to the inheritance of social resources from one generation to 
the next.  A person’s social position is ascribed.  That is, children assume 
the social positions of their parents. Within the caste system, birth dictates 
occupational opportunities. The ascribed aspect of social inequality is 
reinforced by the practice of endogamy. That is, marriage is usually restricted 
to members of the same caste, ruling out the potential for blurring caste 
lines through inter-caste marriage.
3. Social stratification is supported by patterns of belief, or ideology.  No 
system of social stratification is likely to persist over generations unless 
it is widely viewed as being either fair or inevitable.  The caste system, for 
example, is justified in terms of the opposition of purity and pollution, 
with the Brahmins designated as the most superior and Dalits as the most 
inferior by virtue of their birth and occupation.  Not everyone, though, 
thinks of a system of inequality as legitimate.  Typically, people with the 
greatest social privileges express the strongest support for systems of 
stratification such as caste and race.  Those who have experienced the 
exploitation and humiliation of being at the bottom of the hierarchy are 
most likely to challenge it.
Indian Society
72
Chapter 5.indd   72 9/1/2022   5:09:09 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Page 5


Chapter 5.indd   69 9/1/2022   5:09:07 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
The family, caste, tribe and the market – these are the social institutions that 
have been considered in the last two chapters. These institutions were seen from 
the point of view of their role in forming communities and sustaining society.  
In this chapter we consider an equally important aspect of such institutions, 
namely their role in creating and sustaining patterns of inequality and exclusion.
For most of us who are born and live in India, social inequality and exclusion 
are facts of life. We see beggars in the streets and on railway platforms.  We see 
young children labouring as domestic workers, construction helpers, cleaners 
and helpers in streetside restaurants (dhabas) and tea-shops.  We are not 
surprised at the sight of small children, who work as domestic workers in middle 
class urban homes, carrying the school bags of older children to school.  It does 
not immediately strike us as unjust that some children are denied schooling.  
Some of us read about caste discrimination against children in schools; some of 
us face it.  Likewise, news reports about violence against women and prejudice 
against minority groups and the differently abled are part of our everyday lives.  
This everydayness of social inequality and exclusion often make them 
appear inevitable, almost natural.  If we do sometimes recognise that inequality 
and exclusion are not inevitable, we often think of them as being ‘deserved’ or 
‘justified’ in some sense.  Perhaps the poor and marginalised are where they 
are because they are lacking in ability, or haven’t tried hard enough to improve 
their situation?  We thus tend to blame them for their own plight – if only they 
worked harder or were more intelligent, they wouldn’t be where they are.  
A closer examination will show that few work harder than those who are located 
at the lower ranks of society.  As a South American proverb says – “If hard labour 
were really such a good thing, the rich would keep it all for themselves!”  All over 
the world, back-breaking work like stone breaking, digging, carrying heavy weights, 
pulling rickshaws or carts is invariably done by the poor.  And yet they rarely 
improve their life chances.  How often do we come across a poor construction 
worker who rises to become even a petty construction contractor?  It is only in 
films that a street child may become an industrialist, but even in films it is often 
shown that such a dramatic rise requires illegal or unscrupulous methods.  
Identify some of the richest and some of the poorest people in your 
neigbourhood, people that you or your family are acquainted with.  (For 
instance a rickshawpuller or a porter or a domestic worker and a cinema hall 
owner or a construction contractor or hotel owner, or doctor… It could be 
something else in your context). Try to talk to one person from each group to 
find out about their daily routines.  For each person, organise the information 
in the form of an imaginary diary detailing the activities of the person from the 
time they get up to the time they go to sleep on a typical (or average) working 
day.  Based on these diaries, try to answer the following questions and discuss 
them with your classmates.
Activity 5.1
Indian Society
70
Chapter 5.indd   70 10/6/2022   12:53:33 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Activity 5.1 invites you to rethink the widely held commonsense view that 
hard work alone can improve an individual’s life chances.  It is true that hard 
work matters, and so does individual ability.  If all other things were equal, 
then personal effort, talent and luck would surely account for all the differences 
between individuals.  But, as is almost always the case, all other things are 
not equal.  It is these non-individual or group differences that explain social 
inequality and exclusion.  
5.1 What Is Social a bout s ocIal InequalIty and e xclusIon ?
The question being asked in this section has three broad answers which may 
be stated briefly as follows. First, social inequality and exclusion are social 
because they are not about individuals but about groups.  Second, they are 
social in the sense that they are not economic, although there is usually a 
strong link between social and economic inequality.  Third, they are systematic 
and structured – there is a definite pattern to social inqualities.  These three 
broad senses of the ‘social’ will be explored briefly below.  
SociAl InequAlity In every society, some people have a greater share of valued resources – money, 
property, education, health, and power – than others.  These social resources 
can be divided into three forms of capital – economic capital in the form of 
material assets and income; cultural capital such as educational qualifications 
and status; and social capital in the form of networks of contacts and social 
associations (Bourdieu 1986).  Often, these three forms of capital overlap and 
one can be converted into the other. For example, a person from a well-off 
?	 How many hours a day do each of these persons spend at work?  What 
kind of work do they do – in what ways is their work tiring, stressful, 
pleasant or unpleasant?  What kinds of relationship does it involve 
with other people – do they have to take orders, give orders, seek 
cooperation, enforce discipline….?  Are they treated with respect by 
the people they have to deal with in their work, or do they themselves 
have to show respect for others? 
It may be that the poorest, and in some cases even the richest, person you 
know actually has no real ‘job’ or is currently ‘not working’.  If this is so, do 
go ahead and find out about their daily routine anyway.  But in addition, try 
to answer the following questions.
?	 Why is the person ‘unemployed’?  Has he/she been looking for work?  
How is he/she supporting herself/himself?  In what ways are they affected 
by the fact of not having any work?  Is their lifestyle any different from 
when they were working?  
Patterns of Social Inequality and Exclusion
71
Chapter 5.indd   71 9/1/2022   5:09:09 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
family (economic capital) can afford expensive higher education, and so can 
acquire cultural or educational capital. Someone with influential relatives and 
friends (social capital) may – through access to good advice, recommendations 
or information – manage to get a well-paid job. 
Patterns of unequal access to social resources are commonly called social 
inequality.  Some social inequality reflects innate differences between individuals 
for example, their varying abilities and efforts.  Someone may be endowed with 
exceptional intelligence or talent, or may have worked very hard to achieve their 
wealth and status.  However, by and large, social inequality is not the outcome 
of innate or ‘natural’ differences between people, but is produced by the society 
in which they live.  Sociologists use the term social stratification to refer to a 
system by which categories of people in a society are ranked in a hierarchy.  
This hierarchy then shapes people’s identity and experiences, their relations 
with others, as well as their access to resources and opportunities.  Three key 
principles help explain social stratification:
1. Social stratification is a characteristic of society, not simply a function of 
individual differences. Social stratification is a society-wide system that 
unequally distributes social resources among categories of people.  In the 
most technologically primitive societies – hunting and gathering societies, for 
instance – little was produced so only rudimentary social stratification could 
exist.  In more technologically advanced societies where people produce a 
surplus over and above their basic needs, however, social resources are 
unequally distributed to various social categories regardless of people’s 
innate individual abilities.  
2. Social stratification persists over generations.  It is closely linked to the 
family and to the inheritance of social resources from one generation to 
the next.  A person’s social position is ascribed.  That is, children assume 
the social positions of their parents. Within the caste system, birth dictates 
occupational opportunities. The ascribed aspect of social inequality is 
reinforced by the practice of endogamy. That is, marriage is usually restricted 
to members of the same caste, ruling out the potential for blurring caste 
lines through inter-caste marriage.
3. Social stratification is supported by patterns of belief, or ideology.  No 
system of social stratification is likely to persist over generations unless 
it is widely viewed as being either fair or inevitable.  The caste system, for 
example, is justified in terms of the opposition of purity and pollution, 
with the Brahmins designated as the most superior and Dalits as the most 
inferior by virtue of their birth and occupation.  Not everyone, though, 
thinks of a system of inequality as legitimate.  Typically, people with the 
greatest social privileges express the strongest support for systems of 
stratification such as caste and race.  Those who have experienced the 
exploitation and humiliation of being at the bottom of the hierarchy are 
most likely to challenge it.
Indian Society
72
Chapter 5.indd   72 9/1/2022   5:09:09 PM
Rationalised-2023-24
Often we discuss social exclusion and discrimination as though they 
pertain to differential economic resources alone. This however is only partially 
true. People often face discrimination and exclusion because of their gender, 
religion, ethnicity, language, caste and disability. Thus, women from a privileged 
background may face sexual harassment in public places. A middle class 
professional from a minority religious or ethnic group may find it difficult to 
get accommodation in a middle class colony even in a metropolitan city. People 
often harbour prejudices about other social groups.  Each of us grows up as 
a member of a community from which we acquire ideas not just about our 
‘community’, our ‘caste’ or ‘class’ our ‘gender’ but also about others.  Often 
these ideas reflect prejudices.
Prejudices refer to pre-conceived opinions or attitudes held by members 
of one group towards another.  The word literally means ‘pre-judgement’, that 
is, an opinion formed in advance of any familiarity with the subject, before 
considering any available evidence.  A prejudiced person’s preconceived 
views are often based on hearsay rather than on direct evidence, and are 
resistant to change even in the face of new information.  Prejudice may be 
either positive or negative.  Although the word is generally used for negative 
pre-judgements, it can also apply to favourable pre-judgement.  For example, 
a person may be prejudiced in favour of members of his/her own caste or 
group and – without any evidence – believe them to be superior to members 
of other castes or groups. 
Prejudices are often grounded in stereotypes, fixed and inflexible 
characterisations of a group of people. Stereotypes are often applied to 
ethnic and racial groups and to women.  In a country such as India, which 
was colonised for a long time, many of these stereotypes are partly colonial 
creations.  Some communities were characterised as ‘martial races’, some others 
as effeminate or cowardly, yet others as untrustworthy.  In both English and 
Indian fictional writings we often encounter an entire group of people classified 
as ‘lazy’ or ‘cunning’.  It may indeed be true that some individuals are sometimes 
lazy or cunning, brave or cowardly.  But such a general statement is true of 
individuals in every group.  Even for such individuals, it is not true all the time 
– the same individual may be both lazy and hardworking at different times.  
Stereotypes fix whole groups into single, homogenous categories; they refuse to 
recognise the variation across individuals and across contexts or across time.  
They treat an entire community as though it were a single person with a single 
all-encompassing trait or characteristic.
If prejudice describes attitudes and opinions, discrimination refers to 
actual behaviour towards another group or individual. Discrimination can 
be seen in practices that disqualify members of one group from opportunities 
open to others, as when a person is refused a job because of their gender or 
religion.  Discrimination can be very hard to prove because it may not be open 
or  explicitly stated.  Discriminatory behaviour or practices may be presented 
as motivated by other, more justifiable, reasons rather than prejudice.  For 
Patterns of Social Inequality and Exclusion
73
Chapter 5.indd   73 9/1/2022   5:09:09 PM
Rationalised-2023-24