Chapter 3 Kerala’s Development Approach and Adivasis Introduction One of the drawbacks in tribal policies of the state has been the lack of integrated, cohesive and analytical approaches towards the existential problem of tribal communities. While economic development and development in some social sectors have played a major role in improving the quality of life of non- tribal people, the ground reality is that adivasis in Kerala are largely ignored. The virtual alienation of tribal communities from forests has added to their problems. With reference to Kerala’s development approach, it is argued that the cause of conflicts involving tribal communities in Kerala is the misplaced development strategy adopted by the state. The shift in policy regime has only engendered a process of new social exclusion by pushing the adivasis to the fringes of development. While it is true that government has introduced so many development programs for the tribes in Kerala, this paradigm swing in policy has not helped in reducing illiteracy, unemployment, hunger and utter destitution of these people. This chapter is an attempt to analyze the development issues of adivasis in Kerala. Social development in Kerala Kerala state lies in the south-western corner of India and is bounded by the forested hills of the Western Ghats in the east and the Arabian sea in the west. The state has a pattern of development, characterized by high levels of social development. This achievement in the social sphere was made possible by state policies in response to the series of social movements and mobilizations by politicized interest groups (Narayanan, N.C., 2003). Aikya Kerala Movement was taken over by the Communist party in the 1950s. It helped to manipulate the regional patriotism on an all Kerala basis. There was mass and class mobilization of people, for the fulfillment of their immediate day-to-day needs and the ultimate aim of independence and social advance. These struggles embraced the entire spectrum of social life, with special emphasis on abolition of untouchability, land reforms, the rights of workers, educational advancement, and cultural revival. No doubt, the communists won the hegemony in the popular movement. The EMS Ministry introduced reforms in the popular social reform fields like land reforms, decentralization of power, educational reforms etc. But land reforms ended up as a failure. The successive
25
Embed
Kerala’s Development Approach and Adivasisshodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/2732/14/14_chapter 3.pdf · and development in some social sectors have played a major role
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Chapter 3
Kerala’s Development Approach and Adivasis
Introduction
One of the drawbacks in tribal policies of the state has been the lack of integrated, cohesive and
analytical approaches towards the existential problem of tribal communities. While economic development
and development in some social sectors have played a major role in improving the quality of life of non-
tribal people, the ground reality is that adivasis in Kerala are largely ignored. The virtual alienation of
tribal communities from forests has added to their problems. With reference to Kerala’s development
approach, it is argued that the cause of conflicts involving tribal communities in Kerala is the misplaced
development strategy adopted by the state. The shift in policy regime has only engendered a process of
new social exclusion by pushing the adivasis to the fringes of development. While it is true that government
has introduced so many development programs for the tribes in Kerala, this paradigm swing in policy
has not helped in reducing illiteracy, unemployment, hunger and utter destitution of these people. This
chapter is an attempt to analyze the development issues of adivasis in Kerala.
Social development in Kerala
Kerala state lies in the south-western corner of India and is bounded by the forested hills of the
Western Ghats in the east and the Arabian sea in the west. The state has a pattern of development,
characterized by high levels of social development. This achievement in the social sphere was made
possible by state policies in response to the series of social movements and mobilizations by politicized
interest groups (Narayanan, N.C., 2003). Aikya Kerala Movement was taken over by the Communist
party in the 1950s. It helped to manipulate the regional patriotism on an all Kerala basis. There was mass
and class mobilization of people, for the fulfillment of their immediate day-to-day needs and the ultimate
aim of independence and social advance. These struggles embraced the entire spectrum of social life,
with special emphasis on abolition of untouchability, land reforms, the rights of workers, educational
advancement, and cultural revival. No doubt, the communists won the hegemony in the popular movement.
The EMS Ministry introduced reforms in the popular social reform fields like land reforms,
decentralization of power, educational reforms etc. But land reforms ended up as a failure. The successive
64
governments altering between left and right, were also no exceptions. How land reforms became a
failure in the adivasi context will be discussed later in this chapter.
Jean Dreze & Amartya Sen (1996) and many others have analyzed the social and economic sector
development in Kerala. “Kerala Model Development” has been the hypothesis of development that took
shape in Kerala during the first three decades following the formation of the State. The characteristic
feature of this model was the priority given to the democratic culture in development. This is often
highlighted through the following indicators: land reforms which gave entitlement to the tenants through
politically motivated interventions, a generally high literacy rate, a low population growth rate and high
life expectancies, greater accessibility to essential services like health, water, electricity, public distribution
system, roads etc. These indicators are important because they are attributes available to and in fact
experienced by a large section of population to show up significantly when measured on a spatial or per
capita basis. The “Kerala Model” has in fact laid the foundations for the development of a new model
based on knowledge-intensive industries and services and modernization of traditional agriculture and
cottage industries.
But the internationally acclaimed “Kerala Model” came under sharp criticism in the late eighties. It
was criticized for its failure to produce enough wealth to satisfy the growing demands of a consumerist
society. It was apprehended that the model would not even help to produce enough wealth and
employment to sustain levels of living already achieved. The study of George, K.K & Ajith Kumar,
N. (1997) points out that Kerala is a relatively egalitarian society where skewness of income and assets
is not extreme. On the economic front too, there have been great achievements especially in the fields of
transport, communication and financial infrastructure. But the state failed to transform these achievements
into self sustaining economic growth. This slow economic growth has put a limit to the development in
the social sectors. It is quite possible that social development did not trigger off economic growth in the
state because the state by spreading its resources too thin did not attain the critical minimum threshold
level of quality in its social services which is necessary to transform social development into economic
growth. Joseph Tharamangalam (1999) also views Kerala Model of Development as unsustainable.
According to him there is a three-fold economic crisis for this model of development; a progressively
worsening fiscal situation, prolonged economic stagnation and even decelerating growth, and the
continuing inability of the economy to generate employment for the people of Kerala. These problems
are inherent in the model itself and are not anomalies that can be easily overcome. Along with this,
evidence suggests that these social sector development practices have not had any influence on the
adivasi communities in Kerala. Each of these aspects will be discussed in the coming sections. Before
going into the details of this, we will analyze the profile of adivasis. A detailed discussion on their special
distribution and other aspects is given below.
65
The Scheduled Tribes of Kerala
The Scheduled Tribes constitute the most backward group among the weaker sections in the state.
In postcolonial Kerala the Adivasis were characterized by poverty, malnutrition, illiteracy, socio-economic
and sexual exploitation by settlers and the depletion of their traditional resource base (C. P. Balan Vaidyar,
1997). The Scheduled Tribes lag behind the ‘others’ of Kerala Model of Development in their basic
achievements like education and health, which has played a central role in Kerala’s development process(
Human Development Report 2005, 2006).
Statistical profile
The Scheduled Tribe population is 3,641,89 (2001 census), which is nearly 1.1 per cent of the state
population. Their population is steadily increasing from 1981 census onwards, though their growth-rate
has declined from 22.75 per cent in 1991 to 13.47 percent in 2001. The number of different ST groups
in the state in 1961 census was 38 with some area restrictions and they constituted 1.26 percent of the
total population of the state. There was no change in the number of ST groups in the 1971 census and
their proportion to the total population also remained the same. In 1981 some changes were incorporated
in the list of STs, reducing the total number of STs to 35. In 1981, there was 0.23 per centage decline in
the proportion of STs to the total population. This lower proportion might be due to changes incorporated
as per the 1976 revised list, deleting ‘Pulayans’ from the ST list. The Western Ghats region that dominates
the cultural geography of Kerala is an area where most of the tribes live. The district-wise population of
tribesfolk in Kerala is given in table 3.1.
The highest percentage of STs is in Wayanad District wherein they form 17.43 percent of the total
population (2001 census). The coastal district of Alappuzha has the lowest percentage (0.15 percent).
More than 37 percent of the ST population is concentrated in Wayanad district and another 14 percent is
in Idukki. Thus more than 50 percent of the total population of STs in the state is concentrated in the hilly
districts of Wayanad and Idukki. There are 10 districts viz. Kannur, Kozhikode, Malappuram, Thrissur,
Ernakulam, Kottayam, Alappuzha, Pathanamthitta, Kollam and Thiruvananthapuram having proportion
of ST to total population less than the state proportion of 1.14 percent showing that southern districts
have lower proportion of ST population. The four districts having proportion higher than the state average
are Kasargode, Wayanad, Palakkad and Idukki. Kasargod and Palakkad together constitute more than
19 percent of the ST population in the State.
Communities
There are 35 tribal communities in the State. Among them Paniyas form the majority (67948
as per 1991 census which is 21.17 % of the total Scheduled Tribe Population in the State). Adiya, Paniya,
66
Table. 3.1District-wise details of ST population Census 2001
Kakkoth, Seetha, (2005), ‘The Primitive Tribal Groups of Kerala: A Situational Appraisal’, Stud. Tribes
Tribals, 3(1).
Kerala Development Report (2008), Planning Commission, Government of India, New Delhi.
Kjosavik, Darley Jose, (2006), ‘Between Decentralized Planning and Neo-liberalism: Challenges for the
Survival of the Indigenous People of Kerala: India’, Social Policy & Administration, 40(6), December.
Kottathara Panchayat Human Development Report: Wayanad District (2009), CDS, Thiruvananthapuram.
Krishnan, C. ((1999), Awareness and Utilisation of Educational Development Schemes by Tribesfolk of
Wayanad, Kerala, Kerala Research Programme on Local Level Development, Centre for Development
Studies, Thiruvananthapuram, p.17.
Mahendra Kumar, Mishra (1996), Strategies of Tribal Education for Intervention, CED, OPEPA, Orissa.
Making Citizens’ from Below (2007), www.wilsoncentre.org, Accessed on 1st January 2010.
Mathur, P.R.G. (2010), Tribal Land Issue: Festers Again, The Hindu, July 13th. .
Mathur, Hari Mohan, Tribal land issues in India: Communal Management Rights and displacement,
www.adb.org/documents/books/Land-Cultural/Survival/Chap06.pef, Accessed on 5th November
2008.
86
Mona,Sedwal, and Sangeeta, Kamat, (2008), Education and Social Equity: With a Special Focus on
Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in Elementary Education, Research Monograph No 19.
www.create-rpc.org/pdf_documents/PTA19.pdf. Accessed on 5th January 2010.
Murickan, Jose, et.al. (2003), Development-Induced Displacement, Indian Social Institute, Bangalore &
Loyola College of Social Sciences, Thiruvananthapuram.
Narayanan, N.C., (2003), ‘For and Against the Gain: Politics of Rice in Kerala, India, Working Paper
No.376, Institute of Social Studies, The Heague.
Oommen, M.A. (1975), A Study of Land Reforms in Kerala, Oxford, New Delhi.
Oommen, M.A. (2004), ‘Deepening Decentralized Governance in Rural India: Lessons from the People’s
Plan Initiative of Kerala, Centre for Socio-economic & Environmental Studies, December.
Pratheep, P.S., Globalization, Identity and Culture: Tribal Issues in India, www.iscac.msu.ac.th/book/
149pdf, Accessed on 26th December 2010.
Radhakrishnan (2007), ‘Nadinodu Inakkavumai(Malayalam)’, Deshabhimani, 29th April, p.3.
Report on the Implementation of Safeguards and Development Programmes for SC/ST (2000), Government
of Kerala, Thiruvananthapuram, p.15.
Sainadh(2007), ‘One Farmer Suicide Every Thirty Minute’, The Hindu, Nov 15.
Sam, Mohanlal (2001), Mother Tongue Education and Psycho-Societal Involvement in Tribal Communities:
A Case of Paniya Tribe, Language in India, Vol.1:3 May.
Sharma, Rashmi, (2003), ‘Kerala’s Decentralization: Idea in Practice’, Economic and Political Weekly,
September 6.
Tharamangalam, Joseph (1999), ‘The Social Roots of Kerala’s Development Debacle’, Oommen, M.A.
(ed.), Rethinking Development: Kerala’s Development Experience, Vol. 1, Institute of Social Sciences
& Concepts Publications, New Delhi.
The Tribal Blood Muthanga: A Struggle for Survival, www.nchro.org/index.php?option=co.for, Accessed
on 31st December 2010.
Thehalka(2010), 7 (27), July 10.
Unknown (2011), “The ‘Alienated Tribal Land Restoration’ Issue in Kerala”, www.Oxy-i-
gen.blogspot.com, Accessed on 15th December 2010.
87
i 55th round of N.S.S. (1999-2000) data shows that the landless labourers and marginal farmers predominate the ruralIndian society. Due to seasonal nature of agricultural activities they remain unemployed during a major part of theyear. The distribution of members of Rural Labour Households by their usual occupation show that majority of themembers of households were without occupation. At all-India level, out of the average household size of 4.67persons, 2.69 persons were without occupation during 1999-2000. Of the remaining 1.98 persons per household,1.44 persons were engaged in agricultural labour, 0.30 persons in non-agricultural labour and 0.24 persons in otheroccupations. All the major states reported more than 50% members of households to be without occupation exceptAndhra Pradesh and Tamil Nadu. Agricultural labour was observed to be the most prominent occupation among theScheduled Tribes households in almost all the states. Most of the members of the Scheduled Tribe Rural LabourHouseholds were also found without work. See also Rural Labour Enquiry Report on General Characteristics ofRural Labour Households, Labour Bureau, Government of India.
ii Seasonal unemployment is a characteristic feature of agriculture and underemployment of man power is inherent inthe system of family farming. On an average an adult male agricultural labourer was employed on wages for 189 daysin agricultural work and for 29 days in non-agricultural work i.e. 218 days in all. They were self-employed for 75days. Casual male workers found employment for only 200 days, while attached workers were employed for 326 daysin a year. Women workers were employed for 134 days in a year. See also Kulamani, Padhi (2007), ‘AgriculturalLabour in India: A Close Look’, Orissa Review, March.
iii At all-India level, there were 79.63 million agricultural labourers among Rural Labour Households in 1999-2000 ofwhich 28.53 million were Scheduled Castes, 12.62 million Scheduled Tribes and 26.34 million were Other BackwardClasses. Similarly, of 16.41 million non-agricultural labourers, 5.02 million were Scheduled Castes 2.11 millionwere Scheduled Tribes and 6.07 million were Other Backward Classes. About 60.55% of the agricultural labourers(all classes) were males, 36.81% were females and 2.64% were children. At all-India level, the percentage of childagricultural labour from the Scheduled Tribe categories increased by 12.57% in 1999-2000 over 1993-94. Amongstnon-agricultural labourers, about 81.81% (all-classes) were males, 16.39% were females and 1.80% were children in1999-2000. As compared to previous survey, during 1999-2000 the number of non-agricultural labourers increaseddrastically by 133.47% at all-India level. The number of both men and women showed a sharp increase whereas amarginal decrease was noticed in the case of child labourers. Similarly, the Scheduled Tribe non-agricultural labourersalso registered an abrupt increase of 233.97% over the previous survey. See also Rural Labour Enquiry Report onGeneral Characteristics of Rural Labour Households, Labour Bureau, Government of India.
iv A majority of the persons of the Scheduled Tribe Households were without any occupation. At all-India level,52.04% of the persons with cultivated land were without occupation, 33.07% were agricultural labourers, 6.58%were non-agricultural labourers and 8.30% were engaged in other occupations. About 51.22% of the persons whodid not own cultivated land were without occupation. See also Rural Labour Enquiry Report on General Characteristicsof Rural Labour Households, Labour Bureau, Government of India.