 So what are we asking here? So there are theoretically two points. One conjecture is if lower caste people are living close to upper caste people, they might get positive benefit from the upper caste researchers, say, education, roads, transport. There's another orthodox conjecture that says if lower caste people or sugar caste people, they live closer to upper caste dominated areas. They might suffer oppressive disadvantage. So we don't know what the net effect is, and this question is very important, and it's very important to see how that affects education and occupational mobility. In addition, we also explore what Wigard and like Aryan and his co-authors like looked into called Enclave Effect, which is like if one lives in their own dominated village, does it help or does it hurt its own group members? So if I don't get time, so just briefly telling like our contributions are we go beyond individual level, social group differences and study the impacts of social and community dynamics on educational and occupational mobility. We are able to investigate how this traditional caste hierarchy over the generation, is it helping or hurting mobility? And we also investigate the community dominance. What role does it play? So just a quick preview, so we find upward education or occupational mobility is lower for all social groups. So by social groups, I'm going to talk about Shidul caste, Shidul tribe, other backward caste and Muslims in comparison to upper caste. For Enclave Effect, the result is kind of mixed for education. There's positive effect for Shidul caste, but negative for Muslims. For occupation, there is only positive effect for Shidul caste. So living in upper caste dominated village, which we call the proximity effect, has a positive effect for Shidul caste for both education and occupation. So we use the India Human Development Survey round two and we focus on grandfather, father pair and father, son pair, which we call G1, G2 and G2, G3. And so father implies the head of the household. So that's how we make the distinction. Educational categories is very standard and it has been done in the literature quite a lot and I'm not going to try to motivate here. So it's categorized into seven groups. It's from lowest to highest and occupational categories is similar. So agriculture and other manual labors would be the lowest group and professional would be highest group. So does people from here move upward or how does this go? So we define upward mobility at the individual level. It is a dummy that takes a value of one. If educational attainment between generation is positive, zero, otherwise same for land dominance. So dominance for land is defined at the village level. The group that holds majority of the land is deemed to be the dominant group. So here's an interesting plot which might be a bit confusing for most people but let's see if I can try to do it within time. So this axis shows which group is dominant by population and this shows land dominance and this shows the percentage. So we see that OBCs, whether they are population dominant they are also living in the same, so they are also land dominant. Same for upper caste as well. Same for Muslims as well. Same for schedule caste as well. But not so much for schedule, sorry, same for schedule tribes as well but not so much for schedule caste. So there's like lots of variation here. When we look into now by individual level, so this is like the groups. So OBCs, SC, SD, Muslim and upper caste and this is where they are living. So OBCs are still like the dominant group with a major fraction. Upper caste is like, it's still dominant here. SCs is a very small fraction. SDs, where they're like they're living in their own areas and same for Muslims. So this is a Sankey plot which, so imagine this is like the grandfather, this is the father and this is the son. I don't want you to focus too much on the graph but all I want you to see is you see a lot of illiterate grandfather and the son got more literate and the same trend persist. What about for occupation? Well, the result is not so clear. So there has been like some stagnation, some downward mobility, some upward mobility. If you just look at the farmers. And you see the similar trend here as well between father and the son. So some upward movement but a lot of downward movement. So at the lowest end, there has been some upward movement but for all the other groups, there has been like mixed movements. So what is our empirical specification? So we like, so this would be the intergenerational mobility measure for let's say father son or like grandfather father on the left hand side. This is like the social group indicator where the social groups are schedule caste, schedule tribe, OBCs and Muslims. And then we like see if the group, social group is the dominant group in the village. How does that affect? Does it help? Does it hurt? And we call this on clave effect. Here the proximity effect is the social group. If they live in a village which is upper caste dominated does it help or does it hurt them? So what do we find? I think, yes. So in comparison to upper caste, all the groups are doing much worse. So what happens when we look into like own dominated villages? So for schedule caste, living in their own dominated village has a significant and positive effect. For STs, OBCs, the results are, so for OBCs there's one significant effect. For Muslims, the effect is negative. For upper caste, it's insignificant. So what about when they live in upper caste dominated village? Schedule caste, when they live in upper caste dominated village, they benefit for education. What about for occupation? So for occupation, so most of the effect is negative. Here we can just see there is literally no significant effect going on throughout. So this is the grandfather and father generation. What about for the father son generation? Similar trend, there's in comparison to upper caste, OBCs, SCSTs and Muslims are doing much worse. Schedule tribe, when they live in their own dominated village, they're worse off. And upper caste in the basic model, they are like better off if they live in their own dominated village, but the result doesn't last. What about for occupation? So here negative effect as well. And for schedule caste, when they live in upper caste dominated village, they have a positive effect. So just to take a moment and think through what might be the mechanisms for what we are seeing the results. So we look into a lot of different mechanism and different channels. So I'm not gonna show all the results, but we think the village public goods, like village infrastructure, roads, electricity, distance to like a proper road, water, these are quite important indicators. And I will just quickly show you village level shocks, agroecological zones, these are also important factors, schools and schooling proficient. These are quite important social cohesion. So does like a political influence matter for like the social education and occupational mobility. And the discrimination affects come from the oppressive like proximity effect, whether there's a positive effect or is there a negative effect. So just to show you village good provision. So permanent road. So there's for a schedule cause, there's no significant effect for schedule tribe. Everything is Warsaw in comparison to the reference group, which is the OBC. And for Muslims, permanent road, in comparison to the OBCs, the Muslims are Warsaw for like permanent road, distance to permanent road, pipe, water and bus stop. For upper caste, the results are insignificant. So what about for educational provision? So pride is primary school. Like if a village has like a primary school made is middle school, secondary school and this is high secondary school. So what do we find? So like in comparison to the OBCs, SCs are Warsaw, STs are also Warsaw for all the segments apart from like the primary school and the high secondary, which is insignificant for Muslims, similar trend process. And for upper caste, they're also Warsaw, at least in the primary and in the middle school. So just to quickly wrap up, we find that there has been upward education and occupational mobility. So mobility for all the social group is much worse in comparison to upper caste. Results are mixed when they live in their own dominated village. And living in upper caste dominated village has a positive effect on just a schedule cast for education and occupation. And yeah, I would like to wrap up. So thanks.