Organizer: Manali Desai, University of California, Los Angeles
Chair: Ronald J. Herring, Cornell University
Kerala has recently been the focus of considerable attention because of its remarkably high social indicators of welfare compared with the rest of India. While much is known about the various state policies in the 19th and 20th century (from land reforms to extensive investments in health and education), more attention needs to be directed to one of its strongest determinants-the long history of radical mobilization in Kerala. The active intervention of various caste, agrarian, urban working class, religious and 'sectoral' movements in Kerala's politics presents a series of anomalies and historical puzzles when viewed in comparative perspective: (1) its early origins in the nineteenth century, both in Travancore and Malabar; (2) the early and rapid growth in urban, working class movements; (3) the early and enduring influence of communist leadership which linked caste, class, nationalist and agrarian movements; (4) mass-based communist governments whose social welfare expenditure was the highest of any state and land reforms the most extensive; (5) political and institutional developments that have underscored a vibrant and robust civil society relatively free of casteist and communal violence.
In various ways the papers draw on the existing literature on colonialism, collective action, the state and democracy. We believe it is important to draw out the comparative and theoretical implications of the issues raised here, in order to explain the anomalies raised by the Kerala experience.
Social Mobilization and State Capacity: Lessons from Kerala
Patrick Heller, Columbia University
The relationship between Kerala's long history of social mobilization and its successful social development is well documented. That such high levels of mobilization have been sustained across time and across sectors defies most theories of collective action and presents a unique comparative puzzle. Most explanations tend to emphasize historical-structural factors (the vibrancy of Tranvancore's 19th century civil society, the polarized class/caste structure of Malabar) or the role of the Communist Party. While recognizing the critical role of the Communist Party-one which was in large part shaped by structural factors-this paper argues that the sustained character of social mobilization can only be understood in terms of its interaction with the state. The broad-based and democratic character of mobilization in the 1940s transformed the state. The manner in which political and social demands were institutionalized in turn created new mobilizational opportunities. In contrast to theories that emphasize the difficulties that developing countries face in managing social mobilization, the case of Kerala suggests that organized societal demands and state capacity can be mutually reinforcing. The specific patterns of interest-aggregation that characterized lower class movements in Kerala enhanced the capacity of the state to undertake transformative projects. The formation of a welfare state and the "deepening" of democratic structures expanded the political and organizational resources for programmatic (as opposed to patronage-based) forms of mobilization.
"Fanaticism," Jacquerie, Movement and Party: Modes of Peasant Activism
in Malabar, 1836-1956
Ronald J. Herring, Cornell University
It is widely recognized that agrarian mobilization had much to do with the success of the left and thus Kerala's anomalous social-democratic spending priorities historically. The big comparative puzzle is why peasants in Kerala persisted so long, against such odds, with such success-in contrast to peasants in most places at most times. The puzzle begins with why there were such extensive outbreaks of violence in the 19th Century (the colonial diagnosis was "religious fanaticism"), and extends to why mobilization was successfully sustained for so long in Malabar, leading eventually to the first elected communist government of any size in the world. Kerala's peasant mobilization is often treated as a structurally inevitable outcome (given the extraordinary oppression of peasants in Malabar) or as a familiar story of lower caste mobilization in an unusual family-kin structure (the Nair hypothesis). This paper argues that the different modalities of peasant behavior in different periods of Malabar's history have much to do with explicitly political tactics at the top and bottom of society; that elite understandings of peasant history and politics contributed significantly to the long trajectory of successful mobilization; and that we learn something useful about continuities in apparently disparate forms of struggle from the theoretical logic of collective action.
Insurgency, Organization and "Subaltern" Classes: Some Comments on the
Case of Kerala
Manali Desai, University of California, Los Angeles
The long and successful history of "subaltern" mobilization in Kerala presents an extremely interesting case for theories of collective mobilization and insurgency. Within India, recent developments in historiography have attempted to delineate the "autonomy" of subaltern action, thereby critically addressing the emphasis on elite actions and motives in Indian history. Yet, the case of Kerala shows that urban working class, caste, agrarian and anti-colonial movements, which had their origins in the colonial period, were linked by communists to create a strong relationship between the state and the various movements. This feature in large part explains the success of subaltern mobilization in Kerala. It is thus necessary to inquire not simply into the "modalities" of peasant insurgency, but also its consequences. Why have some peasant or caste-based insurgent movements across India been successful and sustained themselves over time and not others? My paper examines these questions by focusing on the period from around the turn of the century to the 1940s in Travancore and Malabar.
State, Social Movements and the Constitution of Sectors of the Economy: Kerala
Fisheries and the Kerala Fishworkers' Movement
Subir Sinha, Northwestern University
It is commonplace to speak of economies at the national/state levels in terms of 'sectors,' industrial, agricultural and so forth, and to further identify subsectors within them. Planners take these sectors more or less as given, or as 'natural' categories. Given how 'development' is conceived, each such sector articulates with other sectors to form a national or regional economy. Planning aims to organize these sectors both as a set of activities (banking, manufacturing, etc.), and as a group of actors (factory owners, transporters, workers, etc.).
In this paper, I propose that sectors should be organized not only in line with planning imperatives, but follow given goals of development. Since development as an agenda is a constantly contested one, it follows that the definition and organization of sectors are sites of, as well as, results of state-society contestation. Using the example of Kerala fisheries, I will (1) show how this 'sector' is articulated externally with other 'sectors' of the Kerala economy; (2) and production relations within the sector are organized. I will then show how both sectoral articulation and organization were transformed by the Kerala fishworkers' movement. Particular emphasis will be placed on 'community development' projects within the sectors, to map out how a program of community quiescence became the basis for class consciousness.