changing phases of kerala’s development experience: examining the excluded with special reference...

8/12/2019 CHANGING PHASES OF KERALA’S DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE: EXAMINING THE EXCLUDED WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO STS

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/changing-phases-of-keralas-development-experience-examining-the-excluded 1/29

1

CHANGING PHASES OF K ERALA’S DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE: EXAMINING

THE EXCLUDED WITH SPECIAL R EFERENCE TO STS

D. Shyjan Lecturer, Dept. of Economics, University of Calicut

&

A. S. Sunitha Research Scholar, Centre for Development Studies, Trivananthapuram.

Paper accepted for Presentation at the Annual Conference on “ Equality, Inclusion and

Human Development” of the HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND CAPABILITY

ASSOCIATION (HDCA), New Delhi, 10-13 September 2008 Organised by Institute forHuman Development, New Delhi



2

Abstract

Kerala model of development experience had been characterized by high social sector

development with poor economic performance. There was a long-standing view that thedevelopment experience was based on certain ‘averages’ and therefore, there were ‘outliers’

to the unique social sector development of Kerala. The fisher-folk, Tribal groups and the

scheduled caste of Kerala were identified as the examples of outliers.

Recent literature shows that the development process of Kerala registered a

turnaround since the late-eighties imparting considerable economic growth

stimulus to high human development. A question that emerges is whether the

process of development in contemporary Kerala could encompass the erstwhile‘outliers’ to its mainstream OR the understanding of Kerala development

experience is continues to be on averages, leaving the marginalized unaffected?

This study is an enquiry into the status of marginalized communities in Kerala

with special reference to the tribal population.

A major contributor to the turnaround in Kerala has been identified as the service sector.

When we look at the structure of employment among the tribal population in comparison with

that of the non-tribal, we find that the growing sector of Kerala’s economy has not absorbedthe tribal population. The major chunk of the tribal population is still engages in agriculture

and allied activities whereas for the state as a whole the structure of the employment is

showing a transformation from the primary to the tertiary sector. It is also observed that the

change in the social and economic status of the tribal community has been marginal than that

of the average population of Kerala. Hence the study argues that the Kerala model of

development celebrated during the 1970s and the 1980s as well as the recent turnaround in the

growth shows only an average picture and the tribal population is kept out of the general

achievements made by the state. Therefore, the tribal population of Kerala is still to be

considered as the excluded from the development experiences of Kerala.



3

CHANGING PHASES OF K ERALA’S DEVELOPMENT EXPERIENCE: EXAMINING

THE EXCLUDED WITH SPECIAL R EFERENCE TO STS

I. Introduction:

A CDS-UN study in 1975 triggered curiosity and scholarly interest in Kerala’s developmentexperience. The study viewed Kerala as an exemplary case of achieving high levels of social

development with very low levels of economic advancement. Thus the so-called ‘Kerala

Model’ eventually became part of the global development discourse.

For almost three decades between the late 1950s and the late 1980s, Kerala’s economic

performance was rather dismal despite its high human development, reflecting a ‘human

development lopsided’ pattern of development. This long period of lopsidedness precipitated

a series of writings in the 1990s, which argued that Kerala economy is at the verge of a crisisdue to heavy burden on welfare expenditure and declining material production. In accordance

with the HDR (1996), these studies also anticipated that the economy would fall into a

situation of low income and low human development. George (1999) argued that a slow

expansion of the resource base (a low state income) would set a limit to Kerala’s social sector

achievement.

But in recent years, a series of studies observe a turnaround in the development experience of

Kerala. Subramanian and Azeez (2000), Ahluwalia (2002), Pushpangadan (2003) Achin

(2005) and Kannan (2005) have come out with the observation that economic growth has not

completely eluded Kerala. From 1994-95 onwards per capita income and its growth rate in

Kerala is greater than all India average. A striking feature of the Kerala economy in the

turnaround growth scenario is the drastic change in the pattern of sectoral composition of

output, increasingly inclining towards the tertiary sector.

Statement of the problem

It is quite natural that averages explain a phenomenon. However, as in all distributions, Kerala

has certain sections of its population for whom the general tendency or the pattern of the

development cannot be applied. Getting insights into such populations is important since the

credit of Kerala’s success is driven by enlightened state policy based on equity and public

action rather than market led-individual initiatives. Kurien (1995) attempts to provide some

statistics on Marine fishing communities as outliers to the ‘Kerala Model’ during the period of



4

lopsided development, whose indicators of the quality of life pose no paradox of the kind

noticed when considering the state as a whole. Yet, one is confronted with the associated poor

quality of life. So far there has been little empirical attempt to understand the other outliers in

the state, which are as vulnerable as or even more vulnerable than the marine fishing

community, the Scheduled Tribes. The extent to which the turnaround growth of Kerala

economy and its structural transformation could accommodate its outliers is an issue worth

serious research in the present context.

The basic purpose of this paper, therefore, is to highlight one of the outliers of Kerala’s

Development Experience - The Scheduled Tribes and to show how the development process

of the state has excluded the community. The study tries to understand whether the tribal

population in Kerala has managed to cope up with the overall structural transformation of the

state.

The following section gives a general profile of the ST population in comparison with that of

the general population of Kerala. The third section addresses the issue of educational and

socio economic deprivation of the ST population. In section four, the structural transformation

in the employment scenario of the state and the employment status of the ST population are

discussed. In the fifth section, we compare the status of the Scheduled Tribes of Kerala with

those of their counterparts elsewhere in the country. In section six, we seek an explanation for

the apparently paradoxical statuses as between the general population and the population of

scheduled tribes in the state. The conclusions that follow from the analysis constitute the last

section.

II. Tribal Population in Kerala: An over view

According to the 2001 Census, there are 35 communities notified in the list of Scheduled

Tribes in Kerala. Their total population is 364189, which constitutes 1.14 per cent of the total

Kerala population. The Tribal population is concentrated in three districts: Wayanad (which

accommodates about 37 per cent), Idukki (which accommodates for 14 per cent) and

Palakkad (which accommodates for 10 per cent). In Idukki, the tribal population is distributed

all over the district, but in Palakkad, it is concentrated in the region of Attapady. District wise

distribution of the tribal population is given in Table: 1.



5

TABLE: 1

Regional distribution of tribal population in Kerala, 2001

State/ Districts

% of ST to Kerala

Population

District-wise % to

total ST population

KERALA 1.14 100.00

Kasaragod 2.52 8.33Kannur 0.83 5.48

Wayanad 17.43 37.36

Kozhikode 0.21 1.63

Malappuram 0.34 3.37

Palakkad 1.52 10.89

Thrissur 0.16 1.33

Ernakulam 0.32 2.76

Idukki 4.51 14.00

Kottayam 0.94 5.04

Alappuzha 0.15 0.86

Pathanamthitta 0.53 1.80

Kollam 0.20 1.43Thiruvananthapuram 0.65 5.74

Source: Census, 2001

Kerala is running through the advanced phase of demographic transition: a situation in which

low birth rate and low death rate accompanied by slow growth of population (Rajan, 2004). It

may be seen that the rate of growth of general population of Kerala has been decreasing

during the past three decades in tune with the accepted trend. But tribal population through

out the period has been showing an unusual trend unlike the case of the general population(See Table:2).

Table: 2

Growth of Population

1991-2001 1981-1991 1971-1981

ST 13.47 22.75 -2.93

SC 8.23 13.22

EX SC/ST* 9.51 14.35

All Pop 9.43 14.32 19.24

Source: Census of India, 1971,1981,1991,2001

Note: * population excluding SC and ST

Tribal population has an unfavorable sex ratio unlike the general population, especially in the

districts of Palakkad and Idukki in which there is some concentration of tribal population. But

with respect to the child sex ratio, the case of scheduled tribes is better than that of others.



6

Table: 3

Sex Ratios of Population Excluding SC/ST, SC and others, 2001

Sex Ratio Child Sex RatioState/ Districts

Ex SC/ST* ST SC Ex SC/ST* ST SC

KERALA 1060 1021 1048 961 974 955

Kasaragod 1052 1005 1009 958 1040 958Kannur 1092 1039 1051 962 992 941

Wayanad 990 1019 993 956 977 938

Kozhikode 1059 1031 1043 958 967 971

Malappuram 1069 1046 1031 961 944 943

Palakkad 1070 984 1054 968 953 942

Thrissur 1095 1105 1066 960 1069 945

Ernakulam 1018 978 1032 955 1011 944

Idukki 990 998 1007 972 950 960

Kottayam 1024 1044 1034 964 908 950

Alappuzha 1082 1001 1056 957 1027 943

Pathanamthitta 1100 1057 1058 967 1050 964Kollam 1070 1121 1058 958 988 977

Thiruvananthapuram 1058 1113 1075 961 956 975 Note: * population excluding SC and ST

Sources: Census of India, 2001

.

III. (A) Educational Attainments

Education, the basis for capability building has not spread effectively among the tribal

population in Kerala and the educational distance between tribal population and rest of the

population is great. There is on an average 30-percentage point difference in the literacyattainment between STs and the general population in Kerala. While a difference of 26-

percentage point is found in male literacy, the difference is as high as 35 point in the case of

female. This shows that women are not only absolutely deprived but relatively too. The

highest difference in literacy is found in areas in which tribal population is highly

concentrated.



7

Table: 4

Literacy rates and percentage point difference in literacy, 2001

% Point difference Literacy rate (ST) Literacy rate(EX SC/ST)

Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females

KERALA 30 26 35 64 71 58 92 95 89

Kasaragod 18 14 23 71 79 63 86 92 81

Kannur 31 26 37 64 72 56 93 97 90

Wayanad 36 31 42 58 66 51 91 95 88

Kozhikode 30 28 32 65 70 61 93 96 89

Malappuram 41 34 47 54 62 46 90 94 87

Palakkad 46 42 51 47 54 40 87 92 83

Thrissur 28 24 32 67 73 62 94 96 91

Ernakulam 24 21 27 72 76 67 94 96 92

Idukki 23 19 27 70 76 65 92 94 89

Kottayam 6 5 6 91 92 89 96 98 95

Alappuzha 17 14 20 78 83 73 94 97 91

Pathanamthitta 17 16 18 80 82 78 96 97 95

Kollam 23 21 24 72 75 68 92 95 90

Thiruvananthapuram 11 10 11 81 84 78 90 93 87

Source: Census of India, 2001

Literacy is merely the ability to read and write. Being literate does not required to have a

formal schooling. Formal schooling develops one’s potentials and enlarges capabilities in a

systematic way. So a better way to gauge knowledge would be the average years of schooling

of an individual. The average years of schooling is calculated by taking the educational level

up to the higher secondary1. Hence 12 year is the optimum level of schooling. The formula

used for calculating average years of schooling is

(Pn * 4 + UPn * 7 + Sn * 10 + HSn * 12)/N

Pn = number of persons with primary education.

UPn = number of persons with upper primary education.

Sn = number of persons with secondary education.

HSn = number of persons with higher secondary education.

N = Total Number of persons excluding minors (0-6).

1 Here the number of persons who have level of education more than higher secondary has incorporated into

higher secondary.



8

Table: 5

Average years of Schooling All Population ST Population Percentage point difference

Persons Males Females Persons Males Females Persons Males Females

KERALA 5.5 6.4 6.0 2.8 2.9 2.6 50.1 54.3 56.5

Kasaragod 4.5 5.7 4.8 3.6 4.8 3.8 19.5 16.3 21.9

Kannur 5.6 6.6 6.1 2.2 3.2 2.6 60.3 52.3 58.1

Wayanad 4.6 5.5 5.0 2.1 2.9 2.3 54.7 47.4 53.2

Kozhikode 5.4 6.5 5.8 2.5 3.3 2.9 53.8 49.1 50.3

Malappuram 4.5 5.5 5.0 1.7 2.6 1.9 62.0 52.7 62.7

Palakkad 4.7 5.7 5.1 1.7 2.5 1.8 63.9 56.8 64.6

Thrissur 5.8 6.5 6.2 2.7 3.6 3.1 52.8 44.9 50.6

Ernakulam 6.2 7.0 6.6 3.7 4.4 4.1 39.9 37.2 37.2

Idukki 5.3 6.2 5.7 3.3 4.0 3.7 38.5 35.6 36.1

Kottayam 6.4 7.1 6.9 5.1 5.7 5.8 21.6 20.0 17.0

Alappuzha 5.9 6.8 6.3 3.8 4.6 4.4 35.3 31.7 30.0

Pathanamthitta 6.3 7.0 6.8 3.9 4.6 4.6 38.8 33.6 32.6

Kollam 5.8 6.7 6.2 3.3 4.1 4.0 43.0 38.2 35.7

Thiruvananthapuram 6.0 6.8 6.3 4.7 5.4 5.1 21.2 19.6 18.3

Source: Calculated from Census, 2001

Considerable differences are observed in the school education levels of the tribal population

in comparison with the general population of Kerala. It may be noted that the percentage point

difference is more than 50 in the districts with high tribal concentration (See Table :5).

Moreover, the difference is observed higher for the females than males. Thus, the foregoing

analysis indicates that in the case of literacy as well as in educational attainment, the tribal

communities in Kerala are far behind the general population. Table: 5 shows that the average

years of schooling of the tribal population are lower than that of the non-tribal population.

In addition to this, if we look at the retention rate2 of the ST and non-ST students, it reveals

that even in the recent decades only around 35% of the ST students are reaching their tenth

standard out of the total enrolled in class first (Table 6). It is also interesting to note that there

has been little improvement in the retention rate over the period from 1980s to 1990s.

2 Retention rate indicates the number of students reach to 10th standard out of 100 students enrolled in class first..



9

Table 6:

School Retention Rates of the Tribal and Non-Tribal Students

During 1981-82 to 1990-91 to1990-91 to 1999-00Retention index

Cohort Covering the period Social Group

Class I Class X

All Pupils 100 61.131981-82 to 1990-91

S T 100 33.62

All Pupils 100 66.581982-92 to 1991-92

S T 100 37.95

All Pupils 100 72.581983-84 to 1992-93

S T 100 37.52

All Pupils 100 70.731984-83 to 1993-94

S T 100 37.04

All Pupils 100 69.711985-86 to 1994-95

S T 100 36.75

All Pupils 100 72.641986-87 to 1995-96

S T 100 39.14All Pupils 100 71.321987-88 to 1996-97

S T 100 35.5

All Pupils 100 73.321988-89 to 1997-98

S T 100 35.09

All Pupils 100 74.581989-90 to 1998-99

S T 100 38

All Pupils 100 75.461990-91 to 1999-00

S T 100 35.1

Source: Chandrasekhar et al (2001)

In this context it will be worth to examine how the retained students perform in school. As an

indictor of their educational performance at schools here we furnish the higher secondary

examination results for March 2003 in Table: 7.

Table: 7

Higher secondary examination Results, march 2003

GENERAL CANDIDATED

Group Registered Appeared Passed Distn I class II class III class

Science 44120 100 76 23 46 27 4

Humanit. 16474 100 62 3 26 40 30

Commerce 24866 100 62 8 33 34 25

Technical 480 100 93 43 40 15 1

SCHEDULED CASTE CANDIDATES

Group Registered

Science 7229 100 40 8 37 44 12

Humanit. 4969 100 43 0 11 41 48

Commerce 4506 100 41 1 18 43 38

Technical 44 100 80 20 43 29 9

SCHEDULED TRIBE CANDIDATES



10

Group Registered

Science 511 100 39 5 33 45 16

Humanit. 478 100 42 0 11 40 48

Commerce 364 100 45 1 19 42 38

Technical 9 100 78 29 57 14 0

Source: Directorate of education, Kerala.

Table 7 shows that the proportion of students who pass in all the groups are few and also that

those who passing with high marks are even lower in the case of tribal communities. Majority

of ST students are passing with minimum marks.

III. (B) Index of deprivation

The NSSO estimates of poverty based on income cannot be applied for analysis at the district

level in Kerala because of the small sample size. Since poverty is a multi-dimensional

phenomenon, in order to understand deprivation and poverty, we develop a generalized index

of deprivation following the methodology followed in the Human Development Report of

Kerala. This index measures the deprivation in four basic necessities of well-being such as

ownership of housing, availability of safe drinking water (well, tube well and tap) within the

premises, good sanitation (availability of water toilet) and availability of electricity. The

formula for calculating the deprivational index is as follws.

Index of deprivation = [¼ (D1α + D2

α + D3α

+ D4α

)1/ α ]

D1 – Deprivation in owning a house i.e. per cent who doesn’t have own houseD2 – Deprivation in access to safe drinking water within the premises

D3 – Deprivation in good sanitation

D4 – Deprivation in Electrification

Alpha refers to weight. As alpha increases greater weight is given to that particular indicator.

Like human poverty index we have taken alpha as 3 indicating each indicator is equally

weighted.



11

Table: 8

Deprivation Index and its improvement over a decade

Index of deprivation, 1991 Index of deprivation, 2001 Percentage point change

SC ST All SC ST All SC ST All

Kerala 64 62 46 40 52 22 24 10 24

Kasargod 66 76 55 59 57 31 7 19 24Kannur 69 62 46 39 53 23 30 9 23

Wayanad 74 70 70 49 59 38 25 11 32

Kozhikode 58 64 45 44 46 24 14 18 21

Malapuram 60 68 49 43 53 23 17 15 26

Palakkad 69 74 59 49 66 31 20 8 28

Thrissur 55 59 38 34 33 16 21 26 22

Ernakulam 53 59 36 32 36 17 21 23 19

Idukki 70 58 63 50 62 42 20 -4 21

Kottayam 52 64 41 41 41 21 11 23 20

Alapuzha 47 61 47 40 34 23 7 27 24

Pathanamthitta 65 68 46 40 47 19 25 21 27

Kollam 52 61 44 38 39 18 14 22 26

Thiruvanandapuram 61 68 38 35 41 18 26 27 20

Source: Computed from Census, 1991 and 2001

The data show that in 1991, 46 per cent of the total population is deprived of basic amenities

whereas 62 per cent of tribal communities are deprived of basic amenities in the same period.

After a decade, in 2001, the percentage of population under deprivation came down by more

than one half, to 22 per cent but the reduction in the percentage deprivation was too lower in

the case of tribal communities. It came down only to 52 percent from 62 per cent. The decline

was only by 17 percentage in the case of the tribals, as compared to more than 50 per cent in

the case of the total population of the State.

Regional differences in the deprivation are also quite evident from this Table. The tribals

concentrated districts like Wayanad, Idukki, Palakkad have the highest proportions of people

under deprivation. It can also be noted that in the tribal concentrated districts the decline in

deprivation in terms of percentage points were much lower than in other districts. In the case

of Idukki district, the extent of deprivation is observed to have increased from 1991 to 2001.

Kunhaman (1986), while analyzing the tribal economy of Kerala, argued that Tribals in the

south and the middle of Kerala, who had been formerly under the princely states of

Travancore and Cochin, fared better than their counterparts in the Malabar region. He argues

that the better performance in the former case was due to the difference in patronage given by

rulers. The data above show that the 50 years of positive discrimination by the State has not



12

influenced significantly the situation of tribal communities in northern Kerala. The fruits of

the development experience of the State are not manifested in a similar way in the case of

tribal communities.

IV. Structural Transformation in Employment:

Long term analysis of the Kerala economy reveals two distant phases in its development. The

first phase prior to 1987, characterized by poor performance of the major economic indictors

vis-à-vis higher levels of social sector development and the second phase, post 1987 period,

which has registered significant growth in economic as well as social sector indicators.

During the turnaround growth phase, the structural composition of the economy has changed

dramatically; the tertiary sector’s growth has been surpassed by the performance of the

primary sector. The tertiary sector’s share increased by 37.5 per cent in income and 43 percent in employment during 1983 to 1999-2000, whereas the primary sector’s share decreased

by 26 per cent and 36 percentage respectively, during the same period (KHDR, 2004). In the

secondary sector, while the employment share increased by 27 per cent, the income share fell

by 24 percent.

To address the question of inclusive growth we shall take a look at the growing sector of the

State economy to find out whether it had any effect on the marginalized communities. There

is the problem of the data on income across social groups. Hence, we take into account the

pattern of change in the employment structure of the Kerala economy and compare it with that

of the SCs and STs. Before examining the structural change in employment, first, we compare

the work participation rates of SCs and STs with those of the general population; see Table 9.



13

Table: 9

Work Participation Rates, 2001

ST SC Ex SC/ST

Pop M F Pop M F Pop M F

KERALA 46 57 35 40 54 27 28 50 12

Kasargod 47 57 36 45 55 36 31 48 18

Kannur 45 56 34 40 54 26 30 50 14

Wayanad 48 58 39 43 54 33 35 55 18

Kozhikode 37 52 23 35 54 16 25 48 7

Malapuram 43 54 33 35 51 20 21 42 5

Palakkad 53 59 47 45 54 36 28 51 15

Thrissur 44 54 34 41 56 27 27 50 12

Ernakulam 42 55 29 41 57 26 32 55 15

Idukki 48 61 36 49 56 42 36 58 22

Kottayam 37 57 18 36 54 20 30 52 12

Alappuzha 40 55 25 39 52 27 31 49 18

Pathanamthitta 38 56 22 37 53 22 25 47 10Kollam 43 57 31 42 53 31 27 48 13

Thiruvananthapuram 38 54 23 39 55 24 28 51 12

Sources: Census, 2001

Table 9 shows that work participation rates for tribal populations are comparatively higher

than those of SCs as well as of the general population. The most striking feature is the female

work participation rate. In the case of the general population; the female work participation

rate is very low, only 12 per cent, whereas for the tribal women work participation rate is 35

per cent. However, the type of their work and rate of remuneration they receive when

compared to those of the general pattern of Kerala may quite different.

An attempt is made here to assess the change in the sectoral composition of employment of

the general population of Kerala vis-à-vis the SC and ST from 1971 to 2001 based on a 9-fold

classification of the Census data3. The pattern of employment in the three broad sectors is

examined first and then we move on to an the analysis based on the 9-fold classification.

3 The 9-fold classification of employment is not available for 2001. Hence we use the 4-fold classification of the

2001 Census.



14

Table: 10

Employment in primary sector Across Social Groups

EX SC/ST SC ST

State/Districts 1971 1981 1991 1971 1981 1991 1971 1981 1991

Kerala 56 47 44 77 74 70 88 90 88

Kasargod --- --- 47 --- --- 71 --- --- 66Kannur 58 49 41 76 67 54 84 79 89

Wayanad --- 76 70 --- 79 76 --- 98 95

Kozhikode 52 36 33 69 56 54 89 87 78

Malapuram 64 55 51 84 76 74 91 91 93

Palakkad 68 57 54 89 81 79 96 96 95

Thrissur 52 39 35 73 68 61 85 86 85

Ernakulam 43 34 30 71 65 59 93 39 34

Idukki --- 78 74 --- 90 87 --- 95 92

Kottayam 68 51 48 86 76 71 94 81 74

Alapuzha 52 41 37 86 79 72 70 37 34

Pathanamthitta --- --- 55 --- --- 83 --- --- 83

Kollam 54 49 43 70 77 67 91 87 80


Source: Computed from Census: 1971, 1981 and 1991

It can be noted that there is marked difference across social groups in the proportion of the

population employed in the primary sector during 1971-1991. While only 56 percent of the

general populations were engaged in the primary sector, the corresponding figures for SC and

ST are 77 and 88 percentages respectively. An important observation to make is the change in

the pattern of employment. It is evident from the Table: 10 that there existed considerable

decline in the percentage of the general population engaged in the primary sector during the

period 1971 to 1991, as is predicted by the theory of growth and structural transformation4.

But there has not been any change in the proportion of the ST population engaged in the

primary sector over the three decades. The pattern observed for Kerala is more or less similar

across the districts.

4 Clark (1940), Fisher (1933, 1939) and Kuznets (1957, 59) are prominent among others who putforward the

theory of growth and structural change. According to this theory, economic growth proceeds in a sequential

manner from primary to secondary and then to the tertiary sector. The output and employment in the primary

sector will be higher initially but would decline in course of economic growth. The decline in output and

employment in primary sector will be compensated by a corresponding increase in the secondary sector and inthe later stage by tertiary sector.



15

Table: 11

Employment in Secondary sector Across Social Groups

EX SC/ST SC ST

State/Districts 1971 1981 1991 1971 1981 1991 1971 1981 1991

Kerala 17 20 19 12 13 13 5 4 4

Kasargod --- --- 25 --- --- 16 --- --- 23

Kannur 18 24 22 11 19 19 8 5 2

Wayanad --- 6 6 --- 10 10 --- 0 1

Kozhikode 15 22 20 14 25 20 6 5 4

Malapuram 11 13 13 8 11 12 2 2 1

Palakkad 13 16 15 7 9 9 1 1 1

Thrissur 20 25 25 13 15 16 6 6 4Ernakulam 23 27 26 13 16 17 1 21 22

Idukki --- 6 6 --- 4 5 --- 1 1

Kottayam 10 15 15 6 9 8 1 4 4

Alapuzha 19 25 28 6 9 12 5 40 33

Pathanamthitta --- 11 --- --- 5 --- --- 2

Kollam 23 20 23 22 13 19 5 3 6



The reduction in the proportion of the population engaged in primary sector, however, has not

resulted in a corresponding increase in the proportion absorbed in secondary sector over the

decades: the pattern was similar for the SCs and STs population as was the case for general

population. Nevertheless we note that the percentage employed in the secondary sector among

the Tribal population was too meagre about 4 to 5 per cent, which is almost a quarter of the

proportions in the case of the general population.



16

Table: 12

Employment in Tertiary sector Across Social Groups

EX SC/ST SC ST

State/Districts 1971 1981 1991 1971 1981 1991 1971 1981 1991

Kerala 27 33 37 10 13 17 6 6 8

Kasargod 28 13 12Kannur 24 28 37 13 16 28 9 9 9

Wayanad 18 24 10 14 2 4

Kozhikode 32 42 47 16 19 26 5 10 17

Malapuram 24 32 36 7 13 15 10 7 7

Palakkad 19 27 31 5 10 12 3 3 4

Thrissur 27 36 40 14 18 22 9 8 11

Ernakulam 34 38 44 16 19 24 6 40 44

Idukki 16 20 6 8 3 6

Kottayam 22 34 37 9 17 20 5 15 21

Alapuzha 29 34 36 8 12 16 21 23 33

Pathanamthitta 34 12 15

Kollam 23 30 34 8 10 14 4 10 14



A significant feature of the recent growth pattern of Kerala has been the increasingly higher

share of tertiary sector both in income as well as in employment. It is observed that the

percentage of population engaged in the tertiary sector was consistently increasing over the

period from 1971 to 1991. It reached a level of 37% in 1991 from 27% in 1971. The

corresponding figures for the SCs and STs Population were 8 percentage and 6 percentages

respectively, indicating a near stagnation in the sectoral change of employment in the tertiary

sector.

For a disaggregated examination of the pattern of employment across social groups we use

below the nine-fold classification5 as given by the Census of India (see Table 13).

5

I CultivatorsII Agricultural Labourers

III Livestock, Fishing, Hunting and Plantations, Orchards and Allied ActivitiesIV Mining and Quarrying

V (a) Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing and Repairs (Household Industry)

V (b) Manufacturing, Processing, Servicing and Repairs (Other than Household Industry)

VI Construction

VII Trade and CommerceVIII Transport, Storage and Communications

IX Other Services



17

Table: 13

Change in the sectoral composition of employment from1971 to 1991

EX SC/ST I II III IV V (a) V (b) VI VII VIII IX

1971 18 31 7 0 4 11 2 9 4 14

1981 15 23 9 1 4 13 3 13 5 14

1991 14 21 9 1 3 12 4 14 6 16

SC I II III IV V(a) V(b) VI VII VIII IX

1971 2 66 10 1 4 7 1 1 2 8

1981 2 58 12 2 3 6 3 1 3 9

1991 3 54 11 2 2 7 4 3 4 11

ST I II III IV V(a) V(b) VI VII VIII IX

1971 18 63 8 0 2 2 0 1 1 5

1981 23 53 14 0 1 3 0 1 1 4

1991 17 55 15 0 0 3 0 1 2 5

Source: Computed from Census of India, 1971, 1981 and 1991

We observe a decline in the proportion of labour force engaged as cultivators and agricultural

laborers, for the general population. The decline in these sectors was compensated by a

corresponding increase in the service sectors, especially trade and commerce. But with respect

to the tribal population a positive change in the employment was observed in the III category,

i.e., Livestock, Fishing, Hunting and Plantations, Orchards and Allied Activities. This

indicates that as the economy progressed and the employment pattern was shifting towards the

service sector activities for the general population, the Tribal communities were still caught

up in the traditional economic activities.

For analyzing the recent phenomenon we rely on the four-fold classification of the 2001

Census since the 9-fold classification for the year is not available.

Table: 14

Sectoral Composition of Employment, 2001

Cultivators Agriculture Laborers Household industries Other Workers

SC ST Gen SC ST Gen SC ST Gen SC ST Gen)

KERALA 2 14 8 29 41 10 3 3 3 66 43 79

Kasaragod 1 3 6 17 7 7 9 17 8 73 73 77

Kannur 1 7 6 15 53 9 2 0 2 82 39 82

Wayanad 5 10 23 24 58 16 2 0 1 69 31 60

Kozhikode 1 1 3 14 16 5 3 1 1 82 83 90

Malapuram 1 3 7 33 47 12 2 1 2 63 49 79



18

Palakkad 2 13 11 55 57 22 3 2 3 41 29 63

Thrissur 1 1 6 24 16 7 4 1 4 72 82 82

Ernakulam 1 9 6 19 16 4 2 1 2 78 74 87

Idukki 4 37 25 29 34 23 1 1 1 66 28 51

Kottayam 2 11 9 28 11 9 2 1 3 68 77 79

Alapuzha 1 0 4 29 4 7 3 4 5 66 92 82

Pathanamthitta 3 8 15 42 35 11 1 1 2 54 56 71

Kollam 2 2 7 26 38 8 1 3 2 71 58 82

Tvm 1 15 4 19 16 8 3 2 3 77 67 85

Source: Census, 2001

The primary inference to make from this Table: 14 is that, while about 80 per cent of the

general population was involved in the case of employment of ‘Other workers’ which

includes industries and service sector, only half that proportion, that is 40 per cent of the tribal

population, was are involved in this category. The major chunk of the tribal population wasemployed as agricultural labourers and a very meager proportion was engaged as cultivators

and household industries.

The preceding analysis reveals that 88 per cent of the tribal population is still working in the

primary sector of the economy, while only 44 per cent of the general population works in this

sector. Only 8 per cent of the working population among tribals is into the tertiary sector as against

37 per cent of the general population. This clearly shows that the structural transformation in the

economy since the 1980s could not accommodate the tribal population at all. They remain still inthe periphery of the development process as outliers to the distribution of the fruits of

development6.

V. Tribal situations in Kerala in comparison with tribals in India.

In this context it will be worth studying the position of the tribal population in Kerala vis-à-

vis the tribal population in India. Here, along with all the variables in the deprivational index

discussed above, we have added two more variables, viz proportion of people having banking

service availability and the proportion of population that possess none of the specified assetsgiven by the Census, 2001.

6 For a district wise picture of the pattern of employment at nine-fold classification, see tables in appendix 1 tables A1

to A9



19

Table: 12

Deprivational Index, All India, 2001

States ST Pop Total Pop Per cent point diff.

India 79 58 21

Jammu & Kashmir 80 57 23

Himachal Pradesh 62 46 15Rajasthan 83 63 20

Uttar Pradesh 63 58 4

Bihar 85 74 11

Assam 79 69 10

West Bengal 78 62 16

Orissa 86 74 12

Chhattisgarh 78 63 15

Madhya Pradesh 83 61 22

Gujarat 80 51 28

Maharashtra 72 50 23

Andhra Pradesh 80 59 21

Karnataka 76 55 21

Kerala 71 51 20

Tamil Nadu 76 57 18

This shows that the percentage point difference in deprivational index is one of the highest in

Kerala. Assam has the lowest difference in material attainments between the general

population and ST population. One striking feature is that such difference is minimal in Bihar,Orissa, UP, etc. This might be because the general population in these states is also poor.



20

Table: 13

Structural Composition of Employment in India, 1991

Primary Secondary Tertiary

ST General ST General ST General

India 88 64 4 13 8 23

Andhra Pradesh 89 65 5 12 6 23Assam 88 71 2 6 10 23

Bihar 90 81 4 5 7 15

Gujarat 84 54 8 21 8 25

Karnataka 83 63 7 14 10 23

Kerala 88 48 3 17 9 35

Madhya Pradesh 93 73 3 10 4 18

Maharashtra 83 51 7 21 10 29

Orissa 91 74 3 8 5 18

Rajasthan 91 67 3 11 6 21

Tamil Nadu 85 55 6 18 55 27

Uttar Pradesh 84 71 5 9 11 19West Bengal 89 56 5 18 6 27

Source: Census, 2001.

This Table shows that in India 88 per cent of the tribal population is employed in the primary

sector, whereas it is only 64 per cent for the general population in India. Twenty theree per

cent of the general population is employed in the tertiary sector, while only 8 per cent of the

tribal working population is employed in this sector. The most striking observation from this

Table is that though the general population of Kerala in its composition is an outlier to the rest

of India, employing more in the primary sector, the tribal population of Kerala is quite

dissimilar. It is not at all an outlier to the general trend of the country, India but are outliers to

the general trend of the state, Kerala.

VI. Towards an Explanation: Why the Tribal Communities in Kerala are ‘Outliers’

As we mentioned earlier, there have been two distinct phases in Kerala’s development

experience; first, before the mid-1980s, characterized by a high social sector development and

low economic growth; and second, turnaround phase since the mid-1980s with high social

sector as well as economic development. A pertinent question that arises here is: why have the

tribal communities in Kerala remained deprived both in terms of social and economic

development unlike the average Keralite. Our macro explanation is that those very factors,



21

which stand in favour of the celebrated development experience of Kerala, themselves

constitute the reasons for the relative deprivation of the tribal communities in the state.

Various factors have been identified by scholars, within as well as outside the country, for the

social sector development of Kerala sans economic progress (CDS-UN, 1975; Franke andChasin, 1991). Most important among them are: a) politically motivated institutional

intervention, viz, the land reforms which gave entitlement to the tenants; b) the social reform

movements which paved way for the lower castes attaining a social space like entry into

temples, access to education, health care and c) the influence of the Christian missionaries in

spreading English education and literacy, etc. However, evidence suggests that these three

factors have not been imparted any influence on the tribal communities of the State.

There is a long-standing view that the tribal population of the State has not at all been the

beneficiaries of the programme of land reforms (Ravi Raman, 2002; 2003; 2005). Again their

cry for land and the agitation resulted in Muthanga firing is an eye opener in this regard.

Again, there is hardly any evidence to suggest that the social reform movements of the State

spread over the tribal belts unlike among the other communities, especially the Ezhava and

the Scheduled Castes. The role of Christian missionaries in spreading education and literacy

has been marginal among the tribal communities until recently. Thus, we may argue that the

various factors that contribute to the sector development of the State rarely imparted any

influence on the tribal folk and that the kind of social development enjoyed by an average

Keralite during the initial phase was therefore not inclusive of the Tribal communities.

Similarly, during the second phase, of the turnaround growth too, the tribal communities

remained as unaffected by the very factors that led to the turnaround. Studies point out that

factors such as economic reforms, remittances and human capital were the main source of the

turnaround since the mid-1980s (Chakravarthy, 2005; Kannan, 2005). In fact, these three

factors are mutually reinforcing. To Chakravarthy (2005), the outstanding levels of basic

education provided to the people of the State during earlier periods gave opportunities to them

to find employment outside the country. The overseas migration resulted in large increase of

private income (huge amounts of remittances). The outcome of economic reforms, according

to Kannan (2005) was the discontinuation of the fixed-exchange rate system, in favour of a

market-determined one, which contributed to the strengthening of the role of remittances.



22

Here education has been highlighted to be a precursor of the remittances and the subsequent

turnaround in economic growth of the state. Since the tribal population could not achieve a

significant improvement in educational standards, one may argue that their human capital

became of little competitiveness in coping up with the development process of the State.

Table: 17

Percentage of Emigrants, Return Emigrants and Non resident Keralaits, 2004

Community Emigration Return Emigrants Non- Resident Keralaits

SC/ST 3.1 2.5 5.6

Nairs 20.7 8.3 29.0

Ezhavas 16.2 9.6 25.8

Brahmins 36.1 5.4 41.5

Other Hindus 12.4 7.1 19.5

Roman Catholics 24.0 9.7 33.7

Latin Catholics 22.4 19.2 41.6Jacobite/Orthodox 36.o 15.0 51.6

Marthoma 69.5 29.6 99.0

CSI 22.6 15.1 37.7

Muslims 54.7 26.5 81.3

Kerala 26.8 13.1 39.0Source: Zachariah and Rajan, 2004

Notwithstanding the poor performance in education, the sheer chance of the Tribals to

emigrate was also rare. Available data on emigration give a clear picture that the percentage

of Tribals who migrated outside the country has been too small and that no comparison is

possible of their performance in this respect with that of any other single community of the

State. With a meager proportion of tribal NRKs, we cannot expect much by way of

remittances, to become of influence for the development of the ST communities. Thus, we

may argue that both in the lopsided and in the turnaround phases of Kerala’s development

experience, thanks to certain factors, the average population could perform well but the same

reasons ironically kept the ST population depressed and forced to remain as outliers.

VII. Conclusion:

The Kerala model of development experience has been widely discussed all over the world.

Its high social sector attainments attained with near stagnant economic growth rates were

hotly debated topic in the 1980s and the 1990s. But after the later 1980s the economy showed



23

a turnaround in the growth performance of the state when it translated its human development

into growth, basically in the service sector, thus making it a sound model of development.

In the period of lopsided development itself, it was found that there were outliers to this

central tendency. The foregoing analysis verifies this hypothesis, with reference to tribalcommunities of the state. It was found that deprivation was higher and the lack of educational

attainment much greater for the tribal people in Kerala than general population in the State.

The structural transformation of the State - increasing dependence on the tertiary sector and

the decreasing dependence on the primary sector - has not been applicable to this outlier

community. The whole development of the State happened in a context of its exclusion; could

not accommodate tribal communities in the distribution of the fruits of development.

Since the factors such as land reforms, educational attainments and foreign remittances have

contributed to the particular development pattern of the State economy and since these factors

impart little influence on the tribal population, the study raises a case for a second generation

land reforms which should reach the really deprived – the outliers – of society. Active

government intervention is also necessary to ensure quality education to the tribal and other

marginalised communities of the state in order to empower them with high human capital.



24

Reference:

1. Chackraborthy, Achin (2005), “Kerala’s Changing Development Narratives”,

Economic and Political Weekly, Feb, 5 2005.

2. CDS- UN (1975), “Poverty, Unemployment and Development: A case study of

selected issues with reference to Kerala”, Department of social and economic affairs,United Nations.

3. Franke, Richard and Chasin, Barbara (1991), ‘Kerala: Development Through Radical

Reform’, Monthly Review, New York, January

4. George KK (1993), “ Limits to Kerala Model of Development ”, Monograph series,

Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram

5. GoK (2005), “Kerala Human development Report 2005.” Planning Board of Kerala,Thiruvananthapuram

6. Kannan KP (2005), “Kerala’s turnaround in growth: Role of social development,

remittance and reform, Economic and Political Weekly, Feb, 5 2005.7. Kurien John (1995), “The Kerala Model: Its Central tendency and outliers, Social

Scientist, Vol: 23 No1/3 March.

8. Pushpangadan, K (2003), “Remittances, Consumption and Economic growth in

Kerala: 1980 - 2000”, Working Paper No.343, Centre for Development Studies,

Thiruvananthapuram

9. Ravi Raman (2002) "Breaking New Ground: The Adivasi Land Struggle in Kerala”, Economic and Political Weekly, March 9, 2002.

10. Ravi Raman (2003) "Muthanga: The Real Story: Adivasi Movement to Recover Land

”, Economic and Political Weekly, May 17, 2003:1975-82.

11. Ravi Raman (2005) "Belonging and Deprivation: The Political Economy of Adivasi

Resource Conflict in Kerala", Paper prepared for the Planning Commission Unit of theCDS, Thiruvananthapuram, 2005.

12. Subramanian, KK and Azeez (2000), “ Industrial Growth in Kerala: Trends andExplanations, Working Paper No: 310, Centre for Development Studies,

Thiruvananthapuram.

13. Zachariah, K. C et al (1994), “ Demographic transition in Kerala in the 1980’s”,

Monograph series, CDS, Kerala.



25

Appendix 1

Table A1: Sectoral Employment of ST population (nine-fold classification)

1991

ST

Main

Workers I II III IV V(a)

V(b)

VI VII VIII IX

Kerala 40 17 55 15 0 0 3 0 1 2 5

Kasargod 40 11 36 18 1 2 19 2 3 1 8

Kannur 35 5 73 10 1 1 1 1 2 1 5

Wayanad 42 10 66 20 0 0 0 0 0 1 3

Kozhikode 33 2 37 38 2 0 3 2 2 4 11

Malapuram 38 1 67 24 1 0 0 0 1 0 5

Palakkad 51 13 75 6 0 0 1 0 0 1 3

Thrissur 44 2 41 41 0 1 2 2 2 3 6

Ernakulam 36 1 18 15 0 2 18 2 7 14 24

Idukki 39 42 38 12 0 0 1 0 1 1 4

Kottayam 32 24 30 21 0 1 3 1 4 5 13Alapuzha 35 1 17 16 0 10 22 1 8 5 19

Pathanamthitta 29 22 55 7 0 0 1 0 3 2 9

Kollam 36 14 55 11 1 1 5 0 3 2 8

Thiruvanandapura

m 38 42 36 2 0 0 2 0 3 4 10


Table A2: Sectoral Employment of population excluding SC/ST (nine-fold classification)

1991

EX SC/ST

Main

Workers I II III IV V(a) V(b) VI VII VIII IX

Kerala 27 14 21 9 1 3 12 4 14 6 16Kasargod 29 14 21 10 1 0 22 3 13 4 11

Kannur 26 10 19 10 3 1 16 5 16 6 15

Wayanad 32 21 23 24 1 0 4 2 10 3 12

Kozhikode 23 7 11 13 2 1 13 6 20 10 17

Malapuram 21 15 29 6 1 2 7 4 14 6 16

Palakkad 31 15 35 3 0 3 10 2 13 6 12

Thrissur 34 11 18 6 1 5 16 4 17 7 16

Ernakulam 30 10 12 7 1 2 17 7 17 10 18

Idukki 34 22 21 30 0 1 3 2 8 3 10

Kottayam 29 17 20 10 1 2 9 4 14 6 17Alapuzha 30 9 19 8 0 10 14 4 13 5 17

Pathanamthitta 26 30 18 6 1 1 7 4 11 5 18

Kollam 27 18 17 7 0 2 17 3 13 5 16

Thiruvanandapuram 29 12 26 6 0 2 10 4 12 6 21


Table A3: Sectoral Employment of SC population excluding (nine-fold classification)



26

1991

SC

Main

Workers I II III IV V(a) V(b) VI VII VIII IX

Kerala 37 3 54 11 2 2 7 4 3 4 11

Kasargod 40 2 53 13 3 1 12 3 2 2 9

Kannur 32 3 32 14 5 3 10 5 6 5 16

Wayanad 38 5 33 37 1 4 4 2 3 2 10Kozhikode 29 2 36 10 7 4 7 9 4 6 16

Malapuram 33 2 65 3 4 3 3 5 2 3 10

Palakkad 44 2 74 2 1 3 3 3 2 3 7

Thrissur 38 2 48 10 2 3 8 5 4 5 13

Ernakulam 37 1 46 9 3 2 10 5 4 7 14

Idukki 44 3 21 63 0 1 3 1 2 1 5

Kottayam 33 3 56 11 1 2 4 3 4 4 13

Alapuzha 36 2 61 8 1 4 6 2 3 3 10

Pathanamthitta 35 6 70 6 1 1 3 1 2 3 8

Kollam 34 5 52 8 2 1 16 2 2 2 9Thiruvanandapuram 37 7 53 4 1 2 9 3 3 4 13



EX SC/ST, 1981

Main

workers I II III IV V(A) V(B) VI VII VII IX

Kerala 25 15 23 9 1 4 13 3 13 5 1

Kasargod

Kannur 26 15 25 8 2 2 19 3 13 4 1

Wayanad 31 25 30 21 0 1 4 1 8 2 8

Kozhikode 21 6 12 17 1 2 16 4 19 9 1Malapuram 20 15 32 8 1 3 8 2 13 5 1

alaghat 30 18 35 4 0 3 11 2 12 4 1

rissur 25 11 20 7 0 5 16 3 14 6 1

rnakulam 27 12 14 8 1 3 18 6 14 8 1

dukki 28 25 26 26 0 1 4 1 7 2 7

Kottayam 27 19 22 9 0 4 9 3 12 5 1

Alapuzha 25 12 20 8 0 9 13 3 13 5 1

athanamthitta

Kollam 23 23 18 8 1 4 14 2 11 4 1

hiruvanandapuram 29 10 29 6 0 4 12 3 11 6 2Source: Census of India, 1981



27


C, 1981

Main

workers I II III IV V(A) V(B) VI VII VII

erala 36 2 58 12 2 3 6 3 1 3

asargod

annur 37 2 54 9 2 3 14 3 2 3 Wayanad 39 6 35 38 1 5 4 1 2 1

ozhikode 29 1 38 12 5 7 9 9 3 5

Malapuram 36 1 69 3 3 5 3 4 2 2

alaghat 44 4 73 4 1 4 3 2 2 2

rissur 37 1 52 13 2 4 7 3 3 5

rnakulam 36 1 52 9 3 4 9 4 2 5

dukki 3 20 67 0 1 3 1 1 1

ottayam 32 2 61 12 1 3 3 3 2 3

lapuzha 34 2 66 10 1 4 5 1 2 2

athanamthittaollam 33 4 63 9 1 2 10 1 1 2

hiruvanandapuram 18 2 60 4 1 3 10 2 2 4


Table A6: Sectoral Employment of ST population excluding (nine-fold classification)

T, 1981

Main

workers I II III IV V(A) V(B) VI VII VII

erala 37 23 53 14 0 1 3 0 1 1

asargod

annur 39 7 53 18 1 2 2 1 1 1

Wayanad 43 12 73 13 0 0 0 0 0 0 ozhikode 35 2 47 35 2 1 4 1 4 3

Malapuram 44 4 75 12 0 1 1 0 1 0

alaghat 49 29 58 9 0 0 0 0 1 0

rissur 43 4 45 37 0 0 5 1 2 1

rnakulam 33 0 19 19 1 2 18 1 4 12

dukki 39 47 41 7 0 0 1 0 1 0

ottayam 29 36 27 18 0 1 2 0 2 4

lapuzha 30 0 16 21 0 14 25 1 6 4

athanamthitta

ollam 34 28 47 13 0 2 1 0 5 1 hiruvanandapuram 32 45 37 2 0 1 1 1 4 3




28


SC, 1971 I II III IV V (a) V (b) VI VII VIII IX

Kerala 2 66 10 1 4 7 1 1 2 8

Kannur 3 65 9 1 4 5 1 1 2 10

Kozhikode 1 58 10 2 5 5 2 1 3 13

Malapuram 1 81 2 1 5 2 1 0 1 6Palaghat 1 83 4 0 4 1 1 0 1 3

Trissur 1 66 6 1 6 4 2 1 3 10

Ernakulam 1 64 7 2 4 6 2 1 4 11

Idukki

Kottayam 3 39 43 0 1 3 1 1 1 7

Alapuzha 2 76 8 0 3 2 0 1 1 7

Pathanamthitta

Kollam 4 58 8 1 2 19 1 1 1 6

Thiruvanandapuram 2 59 4 1 4 11 1 1 3 13


Table A8: Sectoral Employment of ST population excluding (nine-fold classification)

ST, 1971 I II III IV V (a) V (b) VI VII VIII IX

Kerala 18 63 8 0 2 2 0 1 1 5

Kannur 7 69 8 0 2 4 1 1 1 6

Kozhikode 9 73 7 0 4 1 0 0 1 4

Malapuram 2 80 9 0 1 0 0 0 2 7

Palaghat 37 50 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 2

Trissur 0 74 10 1 2 2 1 1 2 6

Ernakulam 83 9 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 4

IdukkiKottayam 52 23 19 0 0 0 0 1 1 3

Alapuzha 3 65 2 0 3 2 0 2 3 15

Pathanamthitta

Kollam 41 40 10 0 3 2 1 1 0 3

Thiruvanandapuram 78 11 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 9





EX SC/ST, 1971

Proportion

of mainworkers I II III IV V(a) V(b) VI VII VIII IX

Kerala 29 18 31 7 0 4 11 2 9 4 14

Kannur 30 18 34 5 1 4 12 1 10 3 11Kozhikode 27 15 26 11 1 3 10 2 12 6 14

Malapuram 27 19 39 6 1 3 7 1 9 3 12

Palaghat 36 16 48 4 0 4 7 1 7 3 10

Trissur 28 14 33 5 1 6 13 2 10 4 13

Ernakulam 50 15 22 6 1 4 16 4 10 7 16

Idukki

Kottayam 30 24 26 17 0 2 6 1 7 3 12

Alapuzha 28 16 31 5 0 7 10 2 10 4 15

Pathanamthitta

Kollam 29 27 21 6 0 4 18 1 7 3 12Thiruvanandapuram 29 14 30 5 0 5 12 2 8 4 19


changing phases of kerala’s development experience: examining the excluded with special reference...

Documents