THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Thanks to the unlikely but successful pairing of the state and the Christian missionaries, `welfarism’ was inlaid in the Kerala development model at least a century before Amartya Sen propounded the Capabilities Approach.
But one consequence of this model w a s d e f t l y masked: Along with the spread of modern capabilities, the State, especially under the Marxists, had consciously plotted the erosion of the resources, dispositions, and skills of many lower-caste groups.
Even the Land Reforms Act, in certain respects, was an act of denial.
This subtle Marxian betrayal was expostulated by J Devika of Centre for Development Studies here in a `special article’ published in the latest issue of the in the most respected journal of Leftist discourse, Economic and Political Weekly.
Those cast away from the central development tendency of the state, Devika calls the ``outliers’’.
Pulaya labour, for instance. It was considered indispensable; yet it did not qualify to be treated as a disposition worth harnessing, the way the anticaste disposition of the underprivileged was harnessed and channelised, even when there was evidence that Pulayas wanted to develop it into a full-fledged capacity and conjoin it with ability.
Ayyan Kali, in 1912, had spoken of how the Pulayas were rec o v e r i n g was telands but were being driven out. He also made repeated requests for training in “science, agriculture, and industry” for Pulaya teachers, and the inclusion of agronomy in the curriculum for the Pulayas. The wisdom was wasted.
As early as the 1930s, E M S Namboodiripad recommended substantial expansion of the access of Dalit labourers to basic capabilities. ``But he ignored the possibilities of their existing dispositions and skills. This was clearly because (1) they appeared “less advanced” - less than the proletariat - within the Marxist notion of progress, and (2) it appeared strategically unwise to support their claims.’’ Devika says this perspective informed the land reforms of the 1970s, in which the landless labourers mainly gained house plots, which did enhance their well-being but did not deepen their disposition towards agriculture into a fullfledged capability.
The Commission on the Socio-economic Condition of the SC and ST in Kerala, whose report came out in the 80s, pointed out that these groups were “the backbone of agriculture”, but had neither scientific knowledge nor land, and were exposed to the risk of being displaced by new technology because even the Land Reforms Act has extended very marginal help to them.
Similar was the case with tribals.
Their knowledge, skills and rights were subordinated to the state’s need to bring forests under its control. And during the 20th century when large-scale migration took place, the rights of tribals were further compromised.
While the commercial farming of migrants was seen as something done in national interest, the ecologically-sustainable livelihood practices of tribals were not.
Devika says the civilisational discourse played a role, especially in the 1960s.
``A Marxist version of this discourse underlay the support of Communists to migrant farmers and their relative neglect of tribal interests: the latter, associated with “primitive communism”, must be integrated into the churning of the forces of production or perish. The result was massive erosion in the material and moral resources of tribal people,’’ she writes.
The non-recognition of the rights of outliers was so profound that as Devika says: `` the provision of abilities by the state in the form of public education and other welfare entitlements to the present outlier groups could not bridge the gap in well-being.’’