What Ethnographic Interviews Reveal: The Unwritten Rule

Introduction

In late May, I moved beyond surveys to spend eight hours in a small village in Ratnagiri, speaking with 11 residents, mostly domestic workers and small-scale farmers, and one retired BMC officer. People were reluctant at first. Rapport came through small talk; only then did stories about schemes emerge. Responses were partial and guarded, but together they sketched a system where access is personal, political, and fragile.

Life and work context

Women between 45 and 75 balanced housework with plantation or nursery labor. Men mostly farmed. A disabled farmer had never applied proactively; another waited months for agricultural support. Welfare typically arrived late in life, supplementing decades of underpaid or unpaid work.

Access pathways: how schemes enter people’s lives

Panchayat officers were the primary gateway. Most residents learned of schemes through personal visits and offline paperwork: Aadhaar, ration cards, land records, thumbprints. Attempts to self-apply often stalled. Leadership changes could freeze progress overnight.

Inclusion and exclusion: who gets in, who is left out

Perceived fairness hinged on politics and discretion. A change in Nagar Sevak altered outcomes. Eligibility rules felt selectively applied: some with sturdier houses received Awas while poorer families did not. Corruption was suspected but rarely challenged.

Trust in systems and technology

Despite limited digital literacy, most believed computers would decide more fairly than people.

This produced a paradox: hope in machine neutrality, but barriers to using digital systems directly.

Identity and discrimination

Many Kunbi respondents reported little overt discrimination today. Some voiced concerns of reverse bias; others were resigned, neither expecting nor demanding benefits.

Citizen suggestions and local knowledge

• Better roads, parking, and a dam to manage monsoon water.
• Underground wiring and lower electricity bills.
• Peer learning: beneficiaries encouraging others to apply.

Four themes that stood out

Conclusion

These interviews surface the human rhythms behind policy: dependence on officers, politics that bends rules, and a longing for impartiality. Lived experiences complicate the tidy edges of survey charts: beneficiaries keep quiet, caste is downplayed yet present, resignation coexists with hope.

Looking ahead: Can machines really do better?

If villagers trust computers to be fair, can AI earn that trust? In Part 4, I examine where algorithms help, where they harm, and how SARAL uses transparency to restore trust rather than replace people.