Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Exclusions in inclusive programs: state-sponsored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in Kerala, India

  • Published:
Agriculture and Human Values Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We critically discuss the impact of sustainable development initiatives in Kerala, India, on biodiversity and on women farmers in the matrilineal Adivasi community of the Kurichya-tribe in Wayanad. By contextualizing development programs regarding the specifically gendered access to land, division of labor, distribution of knowledge and decision-making power, we situate our analysis within the theoretical framework of feminist political ecology. We first outline women’s gaining of social and political space in local self-government institutions (Panchayath) and then critically discuss the impacts of women’s farming groups (Joint Liability Groups: JLGs). Decentralization and development programs have aimed at empowering women and reducing poverty through improved food security. However, little success has materialized, as patriarchal power structures concerning decision-making processes as well as control over the most valuable resources (land and rice) and traditional knowledge have been maintained. Whereas women’s self-help groups (Kudumbasree) in Kerala have enhanced their position, women’s farming groups (JLGs), by contrast, have brought little betterment. In some cases they have even downsized women’s management and knowledge of resources related to agriculture and do not integrate or enhance Kurichya women’s knowledge. As some women are now introducing high-yielding rice seeds and fertilizer and as it is impossible for them to control land and get access to traditional rice seeds—the domain of men—we contest the notion of women being considered the preservers of agrobiodiversity. We argue, rather, that the construction and transformation of ecological traditional knowledge is highly dependent on the gendered multi-scaled power structures of state and community.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These groups live in social and economic interdependency with Hindu castes and Christian as well as Muslim populations. The relationship between the heterogeneous indigenous groups is marked by hierarchy, with owning land being the indicator for hegemony (Münster and Suma 2012).

  2. Panchayath literally means assembly (ayat) of five (panch). In the past, Panchayaths were traditional institutions of high-caste people and were expected to be fair and just in their role of dispute settlement.

  3. The constitution of independent India in 1950 did not give these institutions a central place but rather stated that they should function as units of local self-government, meaning that local authorities could assert certain legal rights and were eligible to, e.g., raise local taxes (Buch 2010: 12). In this regard, Panchayaths have more recently acquired a new meaning as institutions of local self-government (LSG) (Oommen 2004).

  4. Gramam in Malayalam—the local language in Kerala—means village.

  5. With the Amendment of Article 243(D) of the Panchayathee Raj Act in 1994, Kerala increased the ratio of reserved seats for women from 33 to 50% to enhance equity in political participation and development.

  6. Today, there are 1,940,000 NHGs, over 17,000 ADSs and 1061 CDSs subsumed in the Kudumbashree program.

  7. During festivals and rituals, all invited elderly male members occupy the space of the front yard and eat, chew tobacco, and talk there.

  8. All names of interviewees have been anonymized.

  9. For more information see www.kudumbashree.org.

  10. Moreover, as women are not allowed to enter the front yard of the joint family household or to enter the granary, the Odekkaran has to take rice from its storage place and then hand it over to the Odekkarathi for daily cooking.

Abbreviations

ADS:

Area Development Samithi

CDS:

Community Development Samithi

DfID:

British Department for International Development

FAO:

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations

FPE:

Feminist Political Ecology

JLGs:

Joint Liability Groups

NHG:

Neighborhood Groups

NPP:

National Perspective Plan for Women

SC:

Scheduled Castes

ST:

Scheduled Tribes

UNECED:

United Nations Conference on Environment and Development

WED:

Women, Environment and Development

WID:

Women in Development

References

  • Agarwal, B. 1994. A field of one’s own: Gender and land rights in South Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Agarwal, B. 1992. The gender and environment debate: Lessons from India. Feminist Studies 18(1): 119–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhaskaran, S., S. Jayasree, and A. Vijayan. 2006. Women in Panchayathi Raj. Thiruvananthapuram: Sakhi Women’s resource Centre.

    Google Scholar 

  • Biehl, J. 1991. Rethinking ecofeminist politics. Boston: South End Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buch, N. 2010. From oppression to assertion: Women and Panchayats in India. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakko, K.D. 1994. Kurichyarude lokam. Trivandrum: Kerala Bhasha Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead. 2004. Introduction: repositioning feminisms in development. IDS Bulletin 35(4): 1–10. (Special Issue Repositioning Feminisms in Gender and Development).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cornwall, A., E. Harrison, and A. Whitehead. 2007. Gender myths and feminist fables: Struggles for interpretive power in gender and development. Development and Change 38(1): 1–20. (Special Issue).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dankelman, I., and J. Davidson. 1988. Women and environment in the third World: Alliance for the future. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dankelman, I. 2003. Introduction: Gender, environment and sustainable development: understanding the linkages. In Natural resources management and gender: A Global source book, ed. M. Valk, S. Cummings, and H. van Dam, 13–20. Oxford: Oxfam Publisher.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elmhirst, R. 2011. Introducing new feminist political ecologies. Geoforum 42(2): 129–132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elmhirst, R., and B.P. Resurreccion. 2008. Gender, environment and natural resource management: New dimensions, new debates. In Gender and natural resource management: Livelihoods, mobility and interventions, ed. B.P. Resurreccion, and R. Elmhirst, 3–22. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • FAO—Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. 2005. Building on gender, agrobiodiversity and local knowledge: A training manual. ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/y5956e/y5956e00.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.

  • Fulvio, M. 2006. Western science and traditional knowledge: Despite their variations, different forms of knowledge can learn from each other. EMBO Reports. http://www.nature.com/embor/journal/v7/n5/full/7400693.html. Accessed 1 July 2015.

  • Gadgil, M., F. Berkes, and C. Folke. 1993. Indigenous knowledge for biodiversity conservation. Ambio 22(2/3): 151–156. http://www.mtnforum.org/sites/default/files/publication/files/indigenous_knowledge_for_biodiversity_conservation.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.

  • Howard, P. 2003. Women and plants: Gender relations in biodiversity management and conservation. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson, C. 1993. Women/nature or Gender/history? A critique of ecofeminist “development”. Journal of Peasant Studies 20(3): 389–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jewitt, S. 2000. Unequal knowledges in Jharkhand, India: De-romanticizing women’s agroecological expertise. Development and Change 31(5): 961–985.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumar, N.A., G. Girigan, and P. Parameswaran. 2010. Genetic erosion and degradation of ecosystem services of wetland rice fields: A case study from Western Ghats, India. In Agriculture, biodiversity and markets: Livelihoods and agroecology in comparative perspective, ed. S. Lockie, and D. Carpenter, 137–153. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leach, M. 2007. Earth mother myths and other ecofeminist fables: How a strategic notion rose and fell. Development and Change 38(1): 67–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menon, V. 2012. Cultural knowledge and heritage conservation at the cross-roads of museum and anthropology. Humankind 8: 51–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mies, M., and V. Shiva. 2014. Ecofeminism. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Münster, U., and V. Suma. 2012. In the jungle of law: Adivasi rights and implementation of forest rights act in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly 47(19): 38–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oommen, M.A. 2004. Deepening decentralised governance in rural India: Lessons from the people’s plan initiative of Kerala. http://www.csesindia.org/admin/modules/cms/docs/publication/11.pdf. Accessed 1 July 2015.

  • Padmanabhan, M. 2011. Women and men as conservers, users and managers of agrobiodiversity: A feminist social-ecological approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics 40(6): 968–976.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ravivarma, K.T. 2004. Matrilini: Tribal matriliny and northern practices. Thiruvanandapuram: State Institute of languages.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, D. 1994. Participatory research and the race to save the planet: Questions, critique, and lessons from the field. Agriculture and Human Values 11(2): 4–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rocheleau, D., B. Thomas-Slayter, and E. Wangari. 1996. Feminist political ecology: Global issues and local experience. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodda, A. 1991. Women and the environment. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shand, H. 1997. Human nature: Agricultural biodiversity and farm-based food security. Ottawa: RAFI—Rural Advancement Foundation International.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiva, V. 1989. Staying alive: Women, ecology and survival in India. London: Zed Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sontheimer, S. 1991. Women and the environment: A reader. London: Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Suma, T.R. 2014. Customary vs state laws of land governance: Adivasi joint family farmers seek policy support. The case of Kurichya joint families in Wayanad, Southern India. Rome: International Land Coalition.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valdivia, C., and J. Gilles. 2001. Gender and resource management: Households and groups, strategies and transitions. Agriculture and Human Values 18(1): 5–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vayaleri, K. 1996. Kurichyarude jeevithavum samskaravum [The life and culture of Kurichyas]. Trivandrum: Current Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vedavalli, L., and N.A. Kumar. 1998. Case study. Wayanad, Kerala. In Gender dimensions in biodiversity management, ed. M.S. Swaminathan, 96–106. New Delhi: Konark Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Véron, R. 2001. The “new” Kerala model: Lessons for sustainable development. World Development 29(4): 601–617.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kristina Großmann.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suma, T.R., Großmann, K. Exclusions in inclusive programs: state-sponsored sustainable development initiatives amongst the Kurichya in Kerala, India. Agric Hum Values 34, 995–1006 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9758-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10460-016-9758-4

Keywords

Navigation