Kerala’s political fortunes and election outcomes have long interested researchers, but the phenomenon of ‘party villages’ and their centrality to electoral democracy in Kerala have been underexplored. Nitasha and Nisar offer us a glimpse into their study of everyday politics in a party village.
Nitasha Kaul and Nisar Kannangara
Kerala is in many ways an outlier when compared with the rest of India. The state was formed in 1956, and it soon elected a communist government through a popular ballot. This unusual ideological spread of communism—though the Communist Party in India functions within the social democratic context like any other political party—invited significant international attention in the 1950s and 1960s. From the 1970s, Kerala gained prominence in the development studies literature with its Kerala Model of Development. The wide presence of co-operative labour, financial, self-help movements and volunteer organisations actively working in the field of health and other social services give weight to the exceptionally progressive social, economic, and political characteristic of Kerala in India.
The alternation of political power between the Communist-led LDF and the Congress-led UDF in Kerala at the state level follows a pattern, but a further interesting characteristic is the phenomenon of enduring party loyalties at the village level. While the two different coalitions come to power at the state level, within the specific region of Kannur in the state, several villages always vote for the same party (Communist CPI-M). This shows political dominance over geographically defined areas where a single political party or ideology has held a clear electoral as well as social sway for a long period of time. The formation and persistence of ideological and political loyalties in Kerala can be connected to many intertwined factors—social, planning, and participatory interventions, cooperative labour and financial institutions, the public library movement, and cultural and religious institutions. In our work (Kaul and Kannangara 2021), we focused on analysing the everyday life of democratic practices and the interplay of ideologies and political dynamics in Kerala at the village level in Kannur district.
Che Puram1, a village located in the north of Kannur district is a prominent Communist party village (party–gramam) in Kerala. A party village is a village where a single political party dominates the social, economic, and political life of the people. In Che Puram, most of the population claims loyalty to the Communist Party of India-Marxist (CPI-M). The Communist Party has been ruling without any opposition in the Che Puram grama panchayat (the rural local self-government) since the latter’s inception. Our research sought to understand the social, political, and other dynamics resulting from the dominance of the CPI-M in Che Puram. We found a paradox in how the communist party with an egalitarian ideology has had to adapt at the grassroots party village level to regressive Hindu caste hierarchies, thus deriving political profit from such hierarchies while claiming to challenge them. As compared to the 1960s and 1970s, when the geographical segmentation of party loyalties had not yet been entrenched in this way, the phenomenon of party villages in present-day Kerala is a firmly established political dynamic that perseveres after decades of electoral democracy.
In the official narratives of the CPI-M, the party village is portrayed as a model village in terms of social and economic development, people’s planning, and political literacy. However, rival political parties criticise party villages for their lack of freedom. Amid these contradictory perspectives, we know very little about what everyday life and politics are like in a party village. With a combination of ethnographic, theoretical, and conceptual methods, we aimed to illuminate this space, and thereby answer some important questions: How do regionally entrenched political loyalties sustain themselves in democratic contexts where oppositional political affiliations and political cleavages (for example, landowner/labourer) are standard? What are the limits of revolutionary progressive politics in a democracy? There are many ways in which political interests are produced and implemented at the village level, shaped by histories of social, economic, cultural and political transformations. We went beyond the conventional broad-brush analyses that compare electoral or survey data, and sought to combine political theory with ethnographic observation and analysis. In academic terms, our research enriches political science understanding on patterns of political cleavages and constraints of progressive politics in a democratic mould, and work in the political ethnography of Kerala. Thus, we provide a fine-grained and bottom-up answer to why there is a geographical dimension to political alignments in Kerala, and also show that, contrary to theoretical expectations, democratic consolidation over time does not necessarily translate into a multi-party democratic competition.
Communist, communal, and casteist social forces have historically co-existed in Kerala, often in highly institutionalised organisations. In north Kerala—where Che Puram is located—region specifically marked by the histories of caste oppression, concentrated land ownership amongst elite Hindu upper castes, peasant revolt, and a mix of anticolonial, nationalist, and Communist mobilisation, the desire to succeed in electoral competition has produced party villages. We show how a party village is much more than a political stronghold or a pocket borough2 since it is neither small nor defined only by the electoral result, and everything from political loyalty and dynamics to visual appearance and everyday life of people and place in such a village is tied to a particular party. Though not all the party villages are Communist, many in this region that has witnessed high levels of political violence over previous decades, are.
Che Puram, the village that was our anchor, has archaeological evidence of centuries-old inhabitation. Folk traditions such as Theyyam and Pooram Kali are testaments of the existence of pre-Hindu traditions in this region, and of subsequent Brahminisation. Historians’ account of the Mathavilasam Koothu, a ritual in the Shiva temple of Che Puram, argues that it is a sign of Brahminical co-optation of the Buddhist influences that prevailed in this region in the medieval ages. In the 7th or 8th century, Namboothiri Brahmins arrived in the village, following which a number of social transformations took place, among them the establishment of a feudal social structure. The Namboothiris established a hierarchical structure in which they occupied the highest rungs, and maintained this structure through myths and rituals. The caste system also became not only ritually significant, but also socially and economically important due to its entanglements with the mechanisms of paddy cultivation in the feudal era. This hierarchical arrangement of the different social strata continued undisturbed until the modern era. It was during British rule that newly introduced policies, colonial education, social reform movements and the accompanying awakening of political consciousness that these structures started being challenged in the early 20th century.
Hierarchy is, of course, not just a vertical arrangement of ethnic groups; it is also an instrument of exploitation. In the early 20th century, the spread of nationalist movements, which initially attracted the educated people from the upper caste communities, and the reformist ideas of Vakbhadananthan, which largely attracted the Thiyya community, played a significant role in shaping political consciousness among the castes in the middle of the hierarchy in the village. The agricultural tenants and labourers were organised as Karshaka Sangham (farmers’ collective in Malayalam), which was very active in the village. Educated members of the mid-hierarchy castes such as the Nair, Maniyani, and Thiyya were initially a part of the Karshaka Sangham, and then absorbed into the Communist Party. The agricultural tenants and labourers organised under the Karshaka Sangham and later, the Communist Party began challenging the exploitation of the local feudatories, and started demanding greater rights. In 1946, five such tenants and workers were killed in police firing at a demonstration aimed at resisting the landlords’ attempts at transporting paddy. This event took place during the severe famine that had engulfed this region during World War II, and which was further exacerbated by the actions of the landlords. This event would have a significant role later moulding this village as a party–gramam.
The Grama Panchayat that Che Puram belongs to consists of 14 wards. Before 1964, the CPI had ruled the Grama Panchayat without any opposition. In 1964, the CPI-M was formed after a faction broke away from the CPI. Since then, the CPI-M and its allied parties have been the sole victors in the elections. All the winning candidates belong to the Left Democratic Front (LDF), and no candidates belonging to any other party have ever been elected by Che Puram voters.
Che Puram is predominantly a Hindu village. Less than 10% of the total population of the village comprises Muslims and Christians. There are 29 caste groups within the Hindu population. Namboothiri Brahmins, who form a statistically insignificant portion of the total population, hold a major portion of agricultural land in the village. The Brahminical religious and ritual apparatus that includes mythical and ritualistic traditions and practices which produced and reproduced the Brahminical hegemony in the cultural and political life of the village have been active since the feudal times. Such is the prevalence of caste in Che Puram that even the residential settlements, friendship networks, neighbourhood collectives, and graveyards too are separated on the basis of caste. The Pulayas and the Chakliyas do not have graveyards of their own in the village; apart from these two castes, all others have their own separate graveyards. The ritual practices within the fold of Hinduism are also hierarchical in nature, owing to the nature of certain practices which are considered exclusive to certain groups. Brahmins have been the only caste allowed to perform poojas in the temples owned and controlled by them or in those shrines associated with the Nair community. Brahmin priests do not perform the rituals or poojas in any temple associated with a caste lower than the Nairs in the caste hierarchy. However, the Brahmins, Nairs, as well as the members of the lower castes claim loyalty to the CPI-M. The middle-hierarchy castes such as the Nairs, Vannan, Maniyani, and Thiya are more represented than other caste groups in the party machinery and its activities.
The religious practices that maintain, produce, and reproduce the hierarchy and its associated inequalities are deep-rooted in the social structure of Che Puram.3 The political dominance of the Communist Party (first through the CPI, and later, the CPI-M) has not led to a waning of the influence of myths and rituals in this region; neither have they resulted in a diminishing of discriminatory practices. The majoritarian logic underlying democracy is also reflected in the continuing domination of communist power in Che Puram. The middle-hierarchy castes, which are also the most numerically dominant, proclaim their loyalty to the party, and are also able to thus control the party’s functioning, and reap the benefits of this dominance. Even though the CPI-M draws its memberships from the different caste groups in the village, it is rare to see a Pulaya or Chakliya party member fraternising with a Brahmin or Nair party member. It has also been noted that when a party member dies, they will be cremated in the graveyard belonging to their caste group, whereas the Pulaya and the Chakliya members are cremated in the public cemeteries. Hierarchical Hindu religion and the communist ideology together shape the social structure of Che Puram. The temple festivals stimulate the agency of religion and elections stimulate the functioning of the communist party. Actors in both temple festivals and elections are members of the communist party. During elections, the social dynamics of the village are starkly visible.
In our work, we explain the ways in which both the ideological and repressive state apparatuses (to borrow terms from Althusser) are at work in the village.4 It is between the 1960s and now that specific and systematic territorial demarcations emerged in the form of party villages, and political violence against the ‘anti-party’ has never been atypical in the region. As we know from the work of scholars like Kathleen Gough, in the 60s, social life in Kerala’s villages was dominated by inter-party competition and party conflict that reflected the class struggle. In later decades, we find that party success relied on sustaining and accommodating Hindu caste hierarchies; a particular pathway of egalitarian revolutionary politics in the electoral democratic mould.
References
- Althusser, Louis. 2001 [1970]. Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. Manhattan: New York University Press.
- Kaul, Nitasha and Kannangara, Nisar. 2021. ‘The Persistence of Political Power: A Communist ‘Party Village’ in Kerala and the Paradox of Egalitarian Hierarchies’. International Journal of Politics, Culture, and Society. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10767-021-09411-w.
About the Authors:
Nitasha Kaul is Associate Professor of Politics and International Relations at the University of Westminster. See https://nitashakaul.com/CURRICULUM_VITAE.html for links to her multidisciplinary academic and creative work. She tweets @NitashaKaul.
Nisar Kannangara is a political anthropologist by training. He is a postdoctoral associate at the Inequality and Human Development Programme, National Institute of Advanced Studies.
It is an awesome Ethnographic exploration of empirical reality of democracy and political ideology in grass root level.