‘De-Nairization of Malayalee Culture’ Revisited

Almost a decade ago, in 1998, this writer wrote a paper with the title ‘De-
Nairization of Malayalee Culture: A Few Observations on a Proposed Dalit Cultural
Counter-Offensive in Kerala. When the paper was written, I was in that particular phase
of critical inquiry into the social contexts of literature and art when I considered subaltern
assertion and empowerment, especially in relation to the Dalits in India as the most
important form of counter-hegemonic discourse. The Marxist notion of class was not
rejected, but was observed as falling short in dealing with the phenomenon of caste in
India. The other informing notion was that in the changed conditions, the hegemons
perpetuated their dominance through their stranglehold on culture rather than through the
deployment of the instruments of state like the police or the army. This brief paper
attempts to recapitulate the major arguments in the original paper and examine how the
writer has modified or altered some of them in the light of his attempts to access more
material on the subject and to reconsider his views on the basis of the new developments
in the field.

The observations on the cultural appropriation and propaganda offensive resorted

to by the Savarna-dominated state in India to counteract the increasing awareness of
Dalits about their social identity and political rights and to check their attempts to close
ranks to ally themselves with other marginalized or oppressed sections of society are, I
believe, still relevant to an understanding of cultural hegemony as it operates in India in
general and Kerala in particular. However these observations must be supplemented by
an examination of the varied ways in which global capital co-opts the Savarna elite and
promotes Savarna culture as the mainstream. This has to be explicated in detail not only
with reference to the internationalized media, but also to the bourgeoning tourist industry.
This would naturally undermine the position adopted by certain Dalit intellectuals and
organizations that global capital can be co-opted in the struggle against Savarna
hegemony. In this context the writer would also find it necessary to stress the
observation that Dalits and other oppressed marginalized groups and communities are
among the first victims of global capital in India and the show of solidarity with Dalits
and other marginalized sections is only a way of lulling them into a false sense of
security.

In fact the writer would go even further to state that Dalits and other marginalized
sections of society ought to, ideally, lead the struggle against global capital. At present
the Savarna elite is in the vanguard of all struggles against global capital. But their
commitment to the struggle is at best suspect because, courtesy their position in the social
hierarchy, they are ever prone to co-option by global capital. And as in many other
struggles in the past, including the Independence Movement, they are likely to remain
marginalized or subjected to new indignities in any new dispensation. This position is a
modification of the neo-Marxist position (briefly espoused by a section of the CPI (ML)
led by K Venu, who is for all practical purposes an apologist of global capital) that the
working class should lead nationalist struggles.
 The position taken in the original paper that Malayalee nationalism is thinly
disguised Savarna Malayalee nationalism remains unchanged. The point needs to be
stressed more than before because certain intellectuals, traditionally Marxist in
orientation, have jumped on to the bandwagon in defense of Malayalee nationalism and
in the process valorizing icons of the mainstream like P Kunhiraman Nair whom they
themselves had once rejected as reactionaries. Also noticeable, and allied to this
valorization, is the migration of several of these intellectuals to ‘soft Hindutva.’ This is
facilitated by the appropriation into exclusive domains of concepts like secularism.

The title of the paper certainly needs to be altered in the light of certain social
developments which were even at that time in the formative stage. The term
‘Nairization’ (and its antonym de-nairization) was found to be a viable substitute in the
Kerala context for M N Srinivas’s term ‘Sanskritization ‘ because the Nairs formed the
bulk of the Savarna elite in Kerala and because it was the Nair lifestyle that was
constructed as the mainstream Kerala culture. The upward mobility of the Ezhavas the
most numerous caste in Kerala has resulted in their, virtually, occupying the slot
occupied by the Nairs in many parts of the state as the dominant caste, especially in
Malabar. The antagonist postures of the Savarna elite are today virtually espoused by the
Ezhavas. This has elevated Ezhavas in Kerala to the level of the Savarnas. So the title
would sound more appropriate as De-Savarnization of Malayalee culture.

The original paper made a fairly extensive analysis of Malayalam literature,

cinema and the print and electronic media to point to the all-pervasive Savarna hegemony
in Malayalee culture. Ten years down the line the instances have only multiplied, with
the assaults on Dalit, minority and other marginalized sections of society becoming much
more vicious and insidious. The construction of the ‘other’ to the mainstream goes on in
a much more systematic manner than it did ten years ago.

The paper concluded with the observation that a cultural counter-offensive led by
the Dalits and other marginalized sections of society was the need of the hour and that
such a counter-offensive should keep itself free from sectarian or parochial interests of all
kinds. This paper should like to modify the observation and state that the cultural
counter-offensive is already happening in Kerala. There is an exuberant burst of creative
and theoretical writing from Dalit intellectuals in Kerala which has irked traditional
literary pundits who have taken upon the task of denigrating these intellectuals at every
opportunity. However, the hope that the counter-offensive would be free from parochial
or sectarian interests of all kinds has not materialized. Such interests are unfortunately
operating within this cultural counter-offensive. The silver lining is that there is a
churning in this counter-offensive and that sectarianism and parochialism are also being
vigorously combated from within.