Neither Rural nor Urban: Spatial Formation and Development Process Author(s): T. T.

Sreekumar Reviewed work(s): Source: Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 25, No. 35/36 (Sep. 1-8, 1990), pp. 1981-1983+19851987+1989-1990 Published by: Economic and Political Weekly Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4396713 . Accessed: 18/02/2012 09:10
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Economic and Political Weekly is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Economic and Political Weekly.

http://www.jstor.org

Neither

Rural

Nor

Urban

Spatial Formation and Development Process

T T Sreekumar

In manyrecentanalysesof urbanpatternsin India, Keralaemergesas a special case. Posing as it does certain problemsin the very definitionof an urbanunit with its high ruraldensity and big villages. This articlelooks at the origin and causes of this uniquespatialformation. Its problematicrevolvesround two major issues:(i) In whatrespects the temporal are changesin thespatialstructure Kerala of different from otherthirdworldregions? (ii) Whatare the major determinants the production of spatialforms in Kerala? of
assumed relationshipbetweenurbanisation and economic development has been 'proved' by several scholars using highly AT the beginning of the 19th century less sophisticated mathematical techniques than threeper cent of the world population [Losch, 1954].The modernisationtheorists the lived in urbanareas.Towards end of the would argue that the industrial urban is 20th centurywhat we experience an urban developmentin the west and the urbanprorevolution by which half of the world cess in the thirdworldtodayis the samebarpopulation have become urban dwellers. ring the fact that they are greatly separated Prior to the second world war the process in time and space [Reisman, 1964]. The of urbangrowthwas accentuatedby highly originof this approachgoes back to the post industrialised regions.Today,the majorrole second world war period which saw an unin the global dynamics of urban growth is precedented spurt in the literature on playedby less opulentcountriesto whichthe economic development. Now there is a equivocal term 'third world' is commonly general recognition that the historical process of urbanisation in the third world is applied. The practical and political significance of this new phenomenon is distinctly different from that of the inreflectedin the increasingattention accord- dustrialisedcountries. It is also noted that ed to the field of comparative urban the class structureand ecology of the third research. But a cursory glance at the ever world cities also differ from their counteraccumulating literatureon the third world parts in the West [Safa, 1982:3].The most urban process would also reveala growing fundamentalproblem with the modernisadisillusionment among researchers with tion paradigm is that its conception of theoreticalmodels that change is overly linear, teleological and some of the pop'ular try to explain the complexities couched in historical [Chinchilla, 1986: 146-8]. It the spatial dynamics of these regions. It is equates the process of change with movethe *surprisingthat although the empirically ment betweentwo fixed points. Further, of perspective this approach orientedstudiescontinueto expandat a con- non-materialist framework issues fails to providean interpretative siderablepace, most of the conceptua1l for examining the spatial expansion of still remain unresolved. The major approachestowardsthe inter- capitalismand its impact in the thirdworld pretationof the spatialcategoriesand social [Stater, 1986:10]. In the dependency approach we find an processesin the third world can be broadly classified into two: (i) the modernisation exact inversionof the fundamentalassumptheory and (ii) the dependencytheory.The tion of modernisationtheory regardingthe logical pillarof the modernisationtheory is nature of relations between industrialised a traditional-modernduality thesis where countries and the third world. Dependency is underdevelopment conceptualisedas the theory gives emphasis to the fact that the originalstate of affairs manifestedby tradi- underdevelopmentof the third world is in while develop- fact the negative effect of external domitionalismand backwardness ment is envisualisedin terms of the wither- nance.Thus,the principalinsightthis theory .ing away of these features. In a Rostovian provided is that the specific historically sense [Rostov,1960]development appearsto determined characterof the social formabe a path already traced that societies are tions in the third world cannot be analysed -supposedto follow if they manifest a spirit properlywithoutplacingthe questionof imof enterprise [Castells, 1977:401. perialistdominationat the centreof the proWithin the modernisationparadigmone blematic [Quijano, 1983:107].The classic can delineatethreeinterrelated aspectsof ur- referenceto this approach is Frank [1967]. banisation. One is the sequential sectoral The dependency theory was linked to the developmentof the economy. Second, the analysis of urban question initially by growing concentration of population in Castells [1977]. He arguedthat the process is of areaswheresecondaryand tertiaryactivities of urbanisation the expression the social are located. Third, the diffusion of the dynamic of the penetrationof the capitalist development process leading to the dis- mode of production historically formed in differences.This Europe, into the remainderof the World. appearanceof rural-urban

I Introduction

FollowingCastells, Safa [1982]also argued that the different patterns of urbanisation in the less developed countries originate fromtheirlate entryinto the globalcapitalist system and dependenceon advancedcountries for capital, export market and has technology.Generallyurbanisation been treated as one specific feature within the overallformulationsof dependencytheory, and the problemsconventionallyassociated such as economicdevelopwith urbanisation only through ment wereviewedas resolvable the breaking of dependency relations and actuation of a process of revolutionary transformation [Slater, 1986:2]. Although the dependency approach in terms of analytical rigour enjoys tremendous superiority over the modernisation approach, any formulationwhich neglectsthe ecological and other historical differences that exist among the third world countries influencingthe productionof spatial forms, would lead to partial and reductive conclusions. In this study we have taken the case of in spatial transformation Keralastateas our particular object of analysis. Some recent macro level disaggregated studies which analysethe emergingurbanpatternin India, leaves out Keralaas a special case [Mohan and Panth, 1982;Nagaraj,1985].According to them, Keralaposes certain problems in the definition of an urban unit itself with its high rural density (556 per sq km) and big villages with a population more than 5,000. Every form of matter has history,or ratherit is its history [Castells, 1977].So an understandingof origin and causes of this unique spatial formationdoes constitutean object of study.Thus the problematicof the present enquiry revolvesround two major issues (i) In what respectsare the temporal of difchangesin the spatialstructure Kerala ferent from other third world regions? of (ii) What are the major determinants the production of spatial forms in Kerala?

II Kerala and World System

The political and social conditions of Malabar at the end of the 15th century immediately before the arrival of the Portuguese in 1498 presents some striking features.Therewas nothingin the natureof royalpowerand the whole land was divided 1981

Economic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990

into a number of petty principalities. The developmentof the transportsystemin rate of growth of urban population is higher Technological backwardnesswhich was a north Keralawas particularlycharacterised in Kerala than all-India, the pace of urbanicharacteristic featureof Malabaragyrk61ttfre by the growth of railways which was in- sation has not experienced any secular continued unimpaired even during this troduced for the movement of military acceleration since the turn of the century. period.Withthe riseof the Portuguesethere troopsinto the interior. these suggestthat From 1901 to 1931, what we discern is an acAll was a diversion of trade from Calicut to colonialism had playeda significant role in celeration in the rate of urbanisation whereas Cochin and Goa which weakenedthe hold the processof urbanisationin Kerala.In a it decelerated in the following decade. An of the Zamorins.Portuguesefactorieswere sense, urbanisationin Keralawas a depen- unprecedented speed is experienced in the built at Cochin, Quilon and Cannanore. dant one as in the majority of third world decade 1941-1951 followed by a sharp They also built fortresses at Thankasseri, countries. deceleration in the subsequent decades.4 Cranganore and Beypore. Following the The latest picture is one of acceleration Portuguese, the Dutch also built up a URBANISATION SINCE 1901 again. lucrativecommercealong the Keralacoast. Keralahas had a relativelyslow but conThe urban rural growth differential (the A real turning point in the urbanhistory of the regionis the arrival the BritishEast sistent growth in its urban population (see difference betweenthe annual rate of growth of 2). India company.The British got possession Table From7.1 percent in 1901the degree of rurai population and urban population, of all Dutch factories one by one and of urbanisation(the percentageof popula- hereafter URGD) shows that for Kerala, the emerged as the undisputed masters of the tion liv,ingin urban areas as defined in the pace of urbanisation was higher only durto Malabartrade.The most convenientlyplac- census)has increased 18.8percent in 1981. ing the 1941-51 decade only. In the last two ed villagesbegan to growinto townsbecause But a cursoryglance at Table2 would reveal decades we find a convergence in the trends they wereadministrative centresfrom which that Kerala has been invariably lagging in URGD for Kerala and India. The variathe districtofficersof the companyand later behind the correspondingall-India figures tions in UROD are likely to be the result of the the British government could tour and throughout eight decades.Despitethe re- the variations in the rate of growth of rural in supervise the country side.' Smallltowns cent acceleration the paceof urbanisation population. Thus URGD becomes highly also sprangup around cantonmentsand as in Kerala,especiallyin the last two decades, sensitive to the emergence of new urban trade develqped leading to functional it is one of the lowest in India. Keralaranks units and declassification of urban units as specialisation and links between villages, only thirteenthamong Indian states in the rural[Nagaraj, 1985]. It has already been noted that the degree urbanismbegan to get imbricatedinto dif- level of urbanisation. The differentindicesof urbanisation given of urbanisation in Kerala is very low (18.8 ferentparts of the region. It must be noted that till the second half of the 19thcentury in Table2 indicate that though the annual per cent). But the town density (number of there was hardly any systematicincreasein TABLE 1: POPULATIoN GROWTH AND EXPANSION OF CULTIVATION the numberof towns or increasein the size of already existing trading centres. Cultivated Total Yearly Average Geometric Rate Expansionof cultivation,development of Year Area in Increase in of Growth of Population transportfacilities, population growth,etc, Acres Cultivation Population are some of the factors which actuatedthe Area for (Per Cent) in in processof urbanisation Kerala the-latter the Whole of the 19th century.Till the beginning half Period of the 19th century attention was concen(Per Cent) tratedon the cultivationof staple food items like paddy,tapioca,coconut, etc. Ryotsgrew (i) Malabar 1826 581,120 927,705 pepper on limited scale and hill tribes col1,146,544 2,365,035 lected wild cardamomsonly as plantation 1881 1.45 1,296,462 3,015,119 1.15 products.The investmentof Britishcapital 1911 and efforts of ChFistian missionaries,initia- Travancore 702,560 906,587 ted the process of eommercialised agri- 1820 2,401,158 culture. Waste lands were cleared and in 1881 1911 1.95 1,942,803 3,428,975 1.14 swampy areas reclamation schemes were workedout. Food cropslike paddy,tapioca, Source: T C Varghese [1972:71]. coconut etc. becamecommercialproductsin addition to plantation crops like pepper, TABLE 2: GROWTH OF URBAN POPULATION iN KERALA AND INDIA, 1901-1981 coffee, tea, rubber, cardamom etc. The volumeof tradealso increased considerably,2 Kerala India Degree Another major developmentwas the specAnnual Urban Degree Annual Urban of UrbaGrowth tacularincreasein population in the second Year Rural of UrbaGrowth Rural nisation Rate of Growth nisation Rate of half of the 19th century. This also might Growth Urban DifferUrban Differhavecontributed the expansionof cultivato Populaential Populaential tion. Table I gives the data regarding tion tion cultivatedarea and population in Malabar It and Travancore. can be seen that the rate 1901 7.11 11.0 of expansion,of cultivation was higher in 1911 7.34 1.54 0.39 10.4 0.0 - 0.61 than in Malabar.T C Varghese 1921 Travancore 8.73 2.29 2.23 11.3 0.79 0.97 attributes this to the differences in [1972] 1931 9.64 3.46 1.39 12.2 1.77 0.83 tenurial patterns that existed in these two 1941 10.84 3.05 1.60 14.1 2.82 1.71 regions.The increasein the volume of trade 1951 13.48 5.27 3.35 17.6 3.52 2.70 and increase in population led to a rapid 1961 1-5.11 3.99 1.75 18.3 2.34 0.46 of development transportfacilitiesin Kerala 1971 it .24 3.57 1.11 20.2 3.26 1.29 in the latter half of the 19th century.3The 1981 18.78 3.76 2.20 23.7 3.86 2.11 roadsand canalswerebuilt fromeast to west the facilitating movementof plantationpro- Note: The figures for India exclude Assam and Jammu and Kashmir. ductsto differentpartsalong the coastalline. Source: Census of India, 1981a.
1982 Economic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990

towns per 1,000 sq km) is relativelyvery high.Table3 showsthe figuresfor towndensity in the four South Indian states and allIndia for the years 1961, 1971and 1981.It can be seen that only Andhra Pradesh is strikingly similarto the all-IndiapictureNot surprisinglyKeralais on the other extreme. Higher town density is an indication of the better diffusion of town and also urban features over space. The picture of towns densityacrossdifferentsize classes wouldbe of much interest.Table4 gives the number of towns in each size class and town density for the years1961,1971and 1981.It shows that the crowd of medium towns in Kerala accounts for its higher town density. High town density in itself does not of precludethe possibilityfor the emergence new towns. The majorityof towns are now clustered in the coastal low land. Another set of towns have emerged'in the midland along the Main.-Central in Trivandrumroad Kottayamstretch.Of the six Class I towns, five are on the coastal strip. Towns in the high land region including the remaining class I town are in the Palghat gap. To study the rate of growth of towns belonging to different size classes two methodsare usually adopted:(i) the instantaneous method and (ii) the continuous method.5 In the first method tabulations are based on size classes without making allowance to the fact that the number of towns in each size class may changebetween censuses. In the second method in orderto calculatethe growthratesfor towns belonging to different size classes, the same set of urban units are considered. This gives a preciserecordof the growthperformance of different towns across size classes. Table 5 gives the growth rates for towns in different size classes for the period 1961-1981 calculated using the continuous method. It can be sten that except for class Ill towns, there are wide variations in the

growth performance of towns. Class III towns show a remarkable degree of consistency in their growth. Class IV towns also show a comparatively lower variation. But bigger towns are wavering too much in their growth performance. The sluggishness of class II towns in the second decade is indeed striking. Invariably for towns in all size classes, the growth rate has come down in 1971-81 decade. Analysis of migration statistics is of vital significance in the study of urbanisation. Conventionally, it is argued that certain 'pull factors' operate in the urban areas which attract people in the rural countryside and thus contribute to urban growth, suburbanisation, etc. Along with this, there could be some 'push factors' in the rural areas which force people to quit village life and migrate to cities. The major streams of migration are (i) rural to rural (ii) rural to urban (iii) urban to rural and (iv) urban to urban. Table 6 gives a picture of these migration streams. It can be seen that migrants are heavily concentrated in the rural to rural stream.6 But it must also be noted that the 1971 census shows a decline in the percentage share of rural to rural migrants compared to 1961 census. At the same time the share of urban to rural migrants has increased over time (from 6.1 per cent to 8.7). The second important stream is however the rural to urban stream. It shows a very marginal increase from 10.9 in the 1961 census to 11.7 in 1971. The figures for urban to urban migration seems to be quite insignificant. At this juncture, a close look at the volume of rural to urban migration in Kerala would be in order. The contribution of rural to urban migrants to the urban population of Kerala is 15.5 per cent (see Table 7). The same for all India is 21 per cent (Singh, 1986:93). Table 7 also illustr4tes that at the district level, the majority of the rural migrants in urban areas are front within the state Kerala's urban population Oontains only less TABLE 3: NUMBEROF TOWNS PER 1000 KM2 than one per cent of population from rural 1961-1981 areas of other states. The proportion of rural migrants in urban population is highest in India/State 1961 1971 1981 Cannanore (26 per cent) and lowest in Kozhikode (11 per cent). Kerala 2.367 2.264 2.728 Urbanisation has two positive compo1.999 Talnil Nadu 1.845 1.884 nents and one negative component [Nagaraj, Karnataka 1.111 1.184 1.304 1985]. They are (i) the net addition to the Andhra Pradesh 0.771 0.749 0.851 population of already existing towns which India 0.79 0.770 0.987 continue to be towns either due to immigraSource: Sreekumar [1988:301. tion or natural increase in population (we
TABLE

TABLE5: GROWTH RATEFORTowNs BELONGING To DIFFERENTSIZE CLASSES, 1961

Size Class

Decadal Growth Rates 1961-1971 1971-1981 53.06 16.22

I II III
IV

20.92 18.20
55.34

9.99 16.26
34.06

and Source: Censusof India [1961,1971 1981].

OF TABLE6: PERCENTAGE DISTRiBUTION INTRASTATELIFETIMEMIGRANTSIN KERALA IN 1961AND1971

Migration Stream

1961

1971

Rural-rural Urban-rural Rural-urban Urban-urban Total

78.6 6.1 10.9 4.3 100.0

75.9 8.7 11.7 3.7 100.0

Source:J P Singh [1986:92]. call this incremental component)(ii) increase in urban population due to the emergence of new towns (we call this extensionalcomponent) and (iii) decreasein urbanpopulation due to declassificationerstwhileurban areasas rural(we call this decremental component). Table 8 shows the comparative figures for the components of urbanisation in Keralaand Tamil Nadu. It can be seen that in the case of Keralaboth the extensional and the decremental componentshave played a more significant role.

III Modern Urban System

Conventionally an urban system would mean the set of cities and towns in a region or nation and its attributes.But it has been rightly pointed out that the urban systems are morecomplexmechanismscharacterised by the inter-dependency urban units and of their interactionwith the rural hinterland. Thiscomplexityis the recognition that urban systemsaresocial systemsratherthan simply mechanicalor naturalsystems.Nor arethey strictly economic or political systems. As
social systems, an urban system could be inherently complex, highly unstable and continually evolving in response to influences from outside. Such system might also exhibit an impressive internal capacity for self regulation through mechanism that could dictate their form and evolution.7 In this section we would like to understand the basic features of Kerala's urban system in terms

4:

NUMBER OF TOWNS AND TOWN DENSITY ACROSS SIZE CLASS

1961-1981

Size Class 1961 1 11 III IV V VI 4 5 31 33 18 7

Number of Towns 1971 5 7 40 25 9 2

1981 6 8 64 21 6 1

1961 0.103 0.129 0.768 0.849 0.463 0.026

Town Density 1971 0.129 0.180 0.029 0.643 0.232 0.051

1981 0.154 0.206 1.647 0.540 0.154 0.026

of its hierarchicalfabrication, functional structure,stability. As we have seen in the last section the majority of the towns in Keralaare along the coast. Initially there were few links
between these towns. They served as gateway

Source: Census of India 11961, 1971 and 19811.

cities8of internationaltradeby colonialists. But with the development of transport facilitiesthese towns wereby and largecongrafted into a regionalurbansystem. There 1983

Economic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990

was a steady increase in the road and rail densityin the state in all the three regionsMalabar, Cochin and Travancore since 1900 [Ibrahim1978].In the post colonial period also there was an impressive transport growth. Now-Kerala has the highest road 'density (242 kilometres per 100 square kilometres of area among Indian states [State Planning Board, 1983]. Only West Bengal and Tamil Nadu have come nearer to Kerala's performance.Keralapossesses a fairly well-developedroad network which links the towns with their corresponding hinterlands.

system is the conspicuous absence of such a dominant node. It is seen that the degree of concentrationof population and urban activity in the biggest city is the lowest in Keralacompared to Calcutta, Madrasand Bombay in their respectiveurban systems 1977]. Coming to the [Sankaranarayanan, urbansystem, roleof Class I cities in Kerala's we would argue that they have become the nodes of the six urbansub-systemsof towns in Kerala. lut at the same time it must be noted that the averagesize of these Class I cities in Keralais less than that of all-India 1977]. [Sankaranarayanan, Equallyimportantis the fact that Kerala URBAN HIERARCHY exhibits a low degree of concentration of populationin the big cities. Table9 gives the Usually urban systems are characterised concentration of urban population in difby the existence of a dominant mode, i e, a ferentsize classes of towns in year 1981for primatecity. This is-manifested the share the South Indian states. It can be observed by of the biggestcity in its total urbanpopula- that the Keralapatternis distinctlydifferent. tion and urban economic activities. One In all the otherthreestateswe find that more fundamental feature of Kerala's urban than 50 per cent of the urbanpopulation is concentratedin the big cities. The role of OF TABLE 7: PERCENTAGE RURAL-UPABAN small and medium towns in these states are BY To TOrAL URBAN POPULATION NIGRANTh quite insignificant. DisTRICTS, 1971 Functional classification of towns is an importantfield in urbanstudieswhichessenMigrants from Total District Within Outside tially deals with the spatial ordering in the District District of and distribution structure urbanfunctions in an urban system [Smith, 1965]. Uneven 27.7 1.8 25.9 Cannanore economic processes of development in a 0.4 11.8 11.4 Kozhikode nation state or geographical unit result in 12.7 0.3 12.4 Malappuram different patterns of urban evolution and 1.1 20.5 19.4 Palghat spatial structuringof the economic base of 21.1 0.3 20.8 Trichur differentcities and towns. Thus, the towns 0.7 15.7 15.0 Ernakulam and cities of an urban system are made up 1.1 21.6 20.5 Kottayam of a series of layerswhich ostensibly reflect 14.6 0.3 14.3 Alleppey the spatial imprint of development [Berry 16.5 1.3 15.2 Quilon and Horton, 1970]. 14.6 2.4 12.2 Trivandrum An attempt to understandthe functional 0.9 15.5 14.6 Total fabrication of the urban settlements in The Keralawas first made by Janaki 11954]. Source: J P Singh [1986:961.
TABLE

8: COMPONENTS

OF URBANISATION IN KERALA AND TANIIL NADU.

1961-1981

Kerala 1971-81 1961-71 I Incremental component 11 Extensional component 111Declassificatory component Total 26.3 (73) 23.3 (62) -13 (-36) 36 (100) 27.00 (71.8) 22.00 (58.5) - 11 (-30) 38 (100)

Tamil Nadu 1971-81 1961-71 35.07 (91.23) 7.78 (20.23) -4.40 (-11.46) 38.44 (100) 26.17 (94.18) 2.50 (9.01) - 0.089 (-3.19) 27.78 (100)

main objective of this study was to examine the influence of physical and economic factors on the functions of towns in Kerala and of the interrelation between the functions and growth of towns. It was argued that the towns in Kerala originated as fishing villages or as seats of local chieftains as in China and many of them were fortified and garrisoned by subsequent invaders and commerce became the most important function. Apart from commercial and industrial functions three other functional groups were delineated. They are (i) administrative towns, (ii) agricultural market towns and (iii) temple towns. Alleppey, Nlattachery, Cannanore, Ernakulam, Palghat, Cochin, Quilon and Nagercoil (now in Tamil Nadu) were identified as commercial and' industrial towns. Trivandrum and Calicut were serving predominantly administrative functions. Changanassery, Kottayam and Neyyanttinkara were identified as major agricultural market towns. Varkala, Ettumanoor and Vaikom were some of the famous temple towns. A precise quantitative classification ot' towns was not attempted due to lack of information [Janaki, 19541. We would argue that before classifying towns into functional groups an enquiry into their resource base is in order. Historically export of indigenous commodities like pepper, coir, timber, spices etc has been of paramount importance in the economy of Kerala. This, in fact had tremendous impact on the emanation of trade-based urban centres along the coastal plane. Hill produces were thus the primary resource base of the trade centres. In the 1872 census the port towns of Cannanore, Tellicherry, Calicut and Cochin along with 33 other minor and medium ports were identified as specialising in the export of various plantation as well as other hill produces. A preliminary analysis of the 1971 census data also revealed that the predominance of plantation products in the trading spectrum of urban centres in Kerala still persist. Sixtyf isc per cent of the towns in 1971, manufactured commodities related to plantation based products. In 58 per cent of the towns plantation products are the most important commodity manufactured. Ninety-two per cent of the towns import plantation-based products. In forty-four per cent of the towns the major export items were plantationbased products [Chathopadhyaya, 1985].9 Processing and trading activities based on commercial agriculture forms an integral part of Kerala's economy. This is naturally retlected in the employment pattern observed in the urban settlements. The 1971 census had classified the towns in Kerala into three broad categories (i) mono-functional and bifunctional multi(ii) (iii) functional. Of the 25 mono-functional towns in '1971, 13 were under primary activity. There were nine towns where industrial employment was the major component. In two towns she major share of employment

Source: Census of India [1971 and 19811. OF BY POPULATION SIZECLASS ToWNS,1981 OF 9: TABLE SHARE URBAN Size Class Kerala I 11 III IV V VI 39.84 10.74 42.38 5.93 1.02 0.09 Population Concentration Karnataka Tamil Nadu 62.19 15.99 12.52 7.40 1.76 0.14 58.60 6.46 17.75 13.74 2.87 0.58 Andhra Pradesh 53.69 16.17 20.95 7.32 1.75 0.12

Source: Sreekumar [1988:441.

was in the service activity. Secondary ac1985

Economic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990

tivities do not play a very significant role in the urbaneconomyof the state.On the other hand the primary sector has a greater say compared to the all-India picture. It must also be noted that it is the agro-processing industriesthat dominate the secondarysector in Kerala. In the study of urbansystems the notion of stability and instability is of vital significance.This refersto the proliferation of and disappearance urbanunits in a given area.The practicalvalueof the geographical concept of stability in the study of urban system have been discussed elsewhere [see Nagraj, 1985]. Since the urban units are defined in termsof spatial concentrationof population on the basis of certain limits of dimensiondensity and occupationalheterogeneity, the stability of the system constitutedby these units is influencedby three major factors.They are populationgrowth, migration streams and occupational structure. In fact these three factors are interrelated in a specific manner. Population growth eitlier due to natural increase or migration cannot in itself generate urban forms. As per the definition of urbanarea, only when the agriculturalcharacterof a particular region changes it could be designatedas urban. Populationgrowthcan change the occupational ordering in a

worldmarket, capitalist the modeof production exists, although only in a formal sense. The integrationof particularregionsinto the global dynamicsof capitalistaccumulation in turn had effectedthe transformation of the spatial imprint in those regions. Agglomeration of population and productive forces in places of location advantage bechmethe rule. Many of the urbancentres emergedas specialising exportof various the cash crops. Transportfacilities weredeveloped in such a manner that the plantation produce could be brought from the ghats directlyto the ports. Manyof the roadswere built from east to west cutting across the main land. In addition to this Kerala possessed numerous navigable waterways flowing down from the ghats to the coasts. During the 19th century canals were dug under colonial initiative which linked up these natural water ways. Factories were establishedat rivermouths and these canals wereused for transporting timberand other hill produce including plantation products and for the carriage of heavy and bulky articles such as laterite,tiles, coconut products, etc [Subramanyam, 1932]. This peculiar nature of transport development affected the spatial system in a unique manner.Thoughtradebegan to absorblarge numbersof the population [Varghese, 1972] region. We have seen in the last section that the it did not lead to large-scale agglomera-. tion of population and activities in partiincrease in urban population due to the cularregion.Insteadthere'developed crowd a emergenceof new towns (i e the extensional of small towns along the coast which were component) and the decrease in urban in fact naturalharboursor ports builtunder population due lo de-classification of colonial initiative. Some inland towns also existing towns into villages is higher in developedas centres of exchangeand agroKerala. This points to a high degree of processing industries. This partly explains disorder in Kerala'surban system. the uniquespatialdispersalof townsand the absence of a dominant node in Kerala's IV urban system. The latter can also be due to Spatial Forms and Development the fact that the colonial administrative Process operations in the region were mainly concentratedin Madraswhich might haveacted Productionof spatialforms in any society as a primate city. is the result of complex mechanisms . The degree of urbanisation, as we have operating at severalstructurallevels. These seen, was always very low in Kerala.Limits vary from region to region. In this section concenobviouslyexistedto the progressive we intend to providea scaffold of explanatrationof productiveforcesand population tion for the specificities related to the proin the few dominant centres.Larget-scale incess of spatial formationin Kerala.To begin dustrialisation,leadingto agglomeration of with let us recapitulatethe major peculiapeople and capital did not take place. It can rities involvedin the process.We found that be observedthat in Travancore, majority the characterisedby a very low degree Kerala-is of industries were of the agro-processing of urbanisationwith a high spatialdispersal type. The major industriesin Keralaarestill of towns. The level of population concentration is only very moderate.The dispersal his Theoriesof Surplus Valuewhile making based on the natural resourceendowment and of the region[Subramanian Pillai, 1986]. of towns appeared to be confined to the a distinction between different colonies: In addition to this there was a tendency narrowcoastal strip. Majority of the towns There are colonies proper,such as the United among some of the major industries are clusteredin the lowland.The degreeand States, Australia, etc. Here the mass of the like beedi, coir, cashew, handloom, etc, to spread of urbanisationin the highland and farming colonists although they bring with percolate down to small-scale production verylow.The the midlandare comparatively them a larger or smaller amount of capital and then to household production."1 townsin the coastalstripin fact formsa confrom the motherland, are not capitalists, nor concentration Thus insteadof a progressive tinuous belt making the ruralurbandistincdo they carry on capitalist production. They of productiveforces, productionwas decenThe modern urban tions almost difficult. are more or less peasants who work themsystem as it developed in Keralais characselves and whose main object, in the first tralisedand it was movingdown fromhigher forms of organisation to lower forms. So terised by the conspicuous absence of a place, is to produce their own livelihood. In there were some structural limits for the the big colonjes-plantationsthe second type of dominant node. The role played by speculationfigurefrom small towns to grow at an acceleratedpace. wherecommercial citiesin the urbansystemis also moreor less is the startand production intendedfor the Thus it appears that the colonial factor is of insignificant.The functionalstructure the
system appears to be highly diversified. Another majoifTeature of the urban system is that it is highly unstable. The emergence of new towns which contribute to urban extension has. played a very significant role in 1960s and 1970s At the same time the degree of declassification was also very high. This indicates a high degree of disorder in the emerging urban system in Kerala. The already existing towns on the other hand showed very poor growth rates. These salient features of Kerala's urban evolution cannot be viewed in isolation. Instead, the intricate relations of these specific patterns with the historical geography of the development process must be-scrutinised properly. We have seen in Section I that towns began to emerge in Kwala as a result of its integration into the world system of capitalism. In fact the influx of British capital began entering into the region to a considerable extent only during the second half of the 19th century. British capital was mainly invested in the plantations [Varghese 1972]. The area under cash crop cultivation increased considerably during that period. In Travancore, various steps such as the creation of titles to land, changes in the system of taxation and mode of payment, abolition of slavery, the introduction of the kangani system of recruiting labour in the plantations, the abolition of viruthi, treatment of waste lands, import of paddy which in effect released land and labour from food crop cultivation, etc, were taken under state initiative to promote cash crop cultivation. ln the early decades of the 20th century, almost all the cash crops produced in Kerala had a growing demand from outside, and there was a increase in the area under cash crops in Travancore Cochin and Malabar during this period. More and more plantation companies were opened. Within a span of 40 years beginning from 1905 there was a phenomenal increase in the number of plantation companies. The expansion of area under plantation crops is equally fascinating. It is observed in all the three regions, agriculture was diverted to produce goods for the world market and the peasants became dependent on the world market in two ways. On the one hand they were forced to buy goods produced in foreign countries and on the other hand they were forced to sell their produce in the international market [Parameswaran, 19511. Marx [1972] in fact had observed this in

1986

Economic and Political Weekly

September 1-8, 1990

largely responsible for the emergence as well as the differential evolution of urban process in Kerala. PArrERN AND URBAN SETTLEMENT PROCESS Another major factor which conditions the modern urban system as it emerges in Kerala is the peculiar settlement pattern. It has been argued that the settlement pattern in Kerala has always been of the dispersed type [Mencher, 1966: 184]. But this seems incorrect since the early settlers who entered Kerala through the Palghat gap, Shenkota and Gundalloor mountains might have formed nucleated settlements and gradually started spreading out to the midlands and the low lands [Gurukkal, 1986: 231]. However, by the time of the visit of Ibun Batuta in the 14th century, the dispersed pattern had become dominant. Batuta records that: We next came to the country of black pepper, Malabar. Its length is a journey of two months from Sindabar to Kawlam... And in all this space of two months journey, there is not a space free from cultivation. For every man has his own orchard with his house in the middle and a wooden fence around it [Batuta, 19291. William Logan has noted that this description was equally applicable to the Malabar coast of his period also [see Logan, 1981:111].But as we have already noted, the original tendency was to cluster together rather than disperse. The most probable primary form of rural settlement would be an agglomerated one [Demangion, 1962]. It is argued that grouping would be the first effort of man and the ancient familial organisation would be the framework of the first village communities. The transformation of these grouped settlements into dispersed settlements coincided with agricultural progress [Demangion 1962]. Menon [1954] who identified both dispersed and nucleated settlements in different parts of Kerala (the dominant being the former) has illustrated at length how the specific geographic features conditioned particular settlement types. In the coastal region and the laterite plateaus where water is abundant and no co-operative effort is needed for cultivation we find dispersed settlements. Nucleated settlements are confined to the more difficult regions of the gaps, the

would be a danger of inundation in the streets as most of the water would be discharged immediatelyfrom the housesand yards into the street. One must be skeptical of projecting hydrologic conditions as the single explanatory variable for the emergence of particularsettlementpatterns.Examplesof settlementtypes whereone cannot establish any strong correlation between hydrologic conditions and population distributionare cited by Demangion [1962]." In fact a more plausible hypothesis in the case of Kerala would be to relate the evolution of this unique,settlement patternwith the organisation of property conditioned by Brahmin colonisation. Generally,from a geographic stand point the states of social and economic evolution are the following: (i) Food gathering stage, (ii) the stage of specialisedcollectors, (iii) the stage of clan peasantry, (iv) the stage of feudally or autocraticallyorganised agrariansocieties, (v) the stage of early urbanism and rent, capitalism and (vi) the stage of modern capitalism[Bobeck, 1962].It seems that the stage of autocratically organised agrarian systemwas forcedon the indigenoussociety by Brahmin colonisers [Gurukkal, 1987]. This new organisation of production as characterised a landed aristocracyat the by apex, a crowdof small tenantsat the middle and agrestic slaves at the bottom. In the Baltic countries (Latvia, Lithuania, Estonmia), for example, large land owners preferredto divide their domains among a large number of tenants and adopted the systemof dispersedsettlement[Demangion, 1962]. The unit of exploitation (as it hap-

pened in Kerala)was largeenough to occupy and supporta family.The houses of tenants werebuilt separatelyon such big lands. This processwas completed before 11thand 12th centuries [Gurukkal, 1986]. This would suggest that the settlement patternin Keralawas determinedboth by its physical geography as well aE socioeconomic organisation.

The settlement pattern in turn had a tremendous impact on the process of urbanisationin Kerala.As we have noted there is a diffused spatial ordering of separate homesteadsamidst coconut orchardswhich resultedin a situation wherethe fixation of the village boundary becomes arbitrary. Coupled with this there is a very high populationpressure. With respectto population densityKeralaranksfirstin India.Thus the averagesize of a Keralavillage stands in shaip contrast to their counterparts elsewhere in India. Nearly 88 per cent of villages in Kerala have population 5,000 whereasit is only one per cent in all India. These big villages, themselves with high population dimension and density can for all practical purposes be considered as agriculturaltowns.14But since, the census definition gives emphasis to the nonagriculturaldiversification of the occupational structure,these villages do not come underthe categoryof urban.But when their economic structure change they slowly graduate to urban status. The new towns which emerged in the 1960s and 1970s are mediumand small towns.In contrastto this, in Tamil Nadu of the 155 new towns that emergedin 1971only twenty were medium towns [Sankaranarayanan, 1977].The rural

EncyclopaedicDictionary of Economics (5 Volumes)-N. B. Ghodke, Rs. 200 each CJ India as I Knew It-Michael O' Dwyer, Rs. 350 O India in the Year A.D. 2000-Iqbal Narain & Surendra K.

Gupta,Rs.100

[ISBN81-7099-135-8]

foothills of main ghats and the high land

region, where there is a dearth water or

O Rural Economy of India-N. L. Murthy & K. V. Narayana (Eds.), 1989,Rs;250

CONTRIBUTORS *P.NARENDRABABU oN. M. DAS *P.HUSSAIN KHAN * V. ANANDA KUMAR *M. 'K. V. NARAYANA *A. MADHUSUDAN *N. LINGAMURTHY*V. BRAHMANANDAM R. PATEL *B. NAGA RAJA *P. RAMAIAH*CH. BALA RAMULU *A. MURALIDHAR RAO *K. SEETHARAMA RAO *B. JANARDHANRAO *P. RAo *K. CHAKRADHAR NARASIMHA RAO *T. PAPI REDDY 'A. RANGA REDDY *S. V. L. N. Row *A. M SATYA *O. S. SRIVASTAVA K. M. TIWARI *

unfavourable conditions for economic

development. Mechner [19661 also seems to support this hypothesis. Sourirajan [1932] argued that the Tharavadu which was the main household system in Kerala, resembled the seperate farm houses in Assam. 2 He suggested that it could be in areas where there is a threat of frequent floods, people live in such isolated homesteads. Dann [1932] pointed out that excessive rainfall

Rush your order to:

Phone: 5552070

MITTAL PUBLICATIONS
GARDEN A-110, MOHAN

itself tou1d be a reason for the open compound since it ensuresa more rapiddisposal of water. If houses are closely built there Economic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990

(INDIA) NEW DELHI-110059

1987

4 The first post colonial census was in 1951 economic structure on the other hand is and this was conducted with more rigour characterisedby a relative dominance of leading to lesser under counting than non-agriculturalactivities. Forty-two per previous censuses. In 1%1, however there cent of all male workersin rural Keralaare were some major definitional changes as to employedin non-primaryactivities.The indesignate an area as urban resulting in the stability which we observed in Kerala's declassifi'cation of many of the erstwhile modern urban system is partly due to this urban areas as rural. peculiarity of the economic structure. 5 For a discussion on the relative merits and Generallyit could be arguedthat the urbandemerits of these methods see Mohan and rural economic continuum in terms of Panth 119821. physicalamenities of life and development 6 Rural to rural migration is the dominant of trading activities based on commercial stream in many Indian States. In terms of agriculture changes the economic structure volume this stream seems to be smaller in of the villages and they graduateto urban Keralacompared to other states. For examstatus. Historically, there is a fairly imple in Bihar it is 86 per cent and in West pressivespread of health and educational Bengal it is 81 per cent according to 1971 facilities in this region."5 Similarly the census [see Singh 1986]. decayof traditionalindustries,ruralto rural 7 For a detailed account of the argument see migration,inability of particularregionsto Bourne and Simnons [1978]. absorb the increased population in non8 A model of development of gateway cities agriculturalactivities, etc, could resultin a is provided in Johnston [1982]. very high degreeof de-classification.There 9 Expert does not mean report to outside is also a fall in the fertility rates bringing Kerala only. This includes transfer of prodown the natural increasein population.'6 ducts from towns to other places also. This is manifestedby the slow rateof growth 10 Marx's analysis of the question of space under capitalism is discussed in Harvey of towns in the absence of a strong ruralto [1985]. urban migration stream. V 11 See Kannan, [19881, Isaac [1985], Pyarelal [1986] Rajagopalan [1986], etc. 12 It is the physical form and not the familial organisation that is taken into account. 13 The humid lands of frequent rains in WesternEurope is characterisedby dispersed settlements. In a relativelyhomogeneous lime stone region in France, the Caux, we find dispersed settlements in the west and agglomeratedsettlements in the east. On the plateau of the Ardeanes, though there is a super abundance of springs,the inhabitants opted for compact, grouped villages. Another example is on the Hungarianpuzia where water is found in a shallow depth which can be reached by the most elementary wells as in the case of Kerala. Here people have formed nucleated settlements. Therefore geographers argue that the question of water in traditional societies plays only a secondary role. 14 In Russia, for example there are many aggrogorodas meaning agriculturaltowns [see Valentey 1978]. 15 See for a discussion of these aspects Tharakan[1984]Panikarand Soman [1986], etc. 16 For a discussion of the reasons for the tall in the fertility rates in Kerala. See Panikar [1984], Nair [1981],Leela Gulati [19761and Krishnan [1976], etc.

C:iatells,M (1977), The Urban Question: A Marxist Approach, Edward Arnold, London., Cenisus of India (1961), Kerala, General Population Tables, Vol VII, Part 11-A. -(1971), Kerala, 'General Population Tables, Series 9, Part Il-A. (1981), Kerala, 'General Population Tables', Series 10, Part Il-A. Chathopadhyaya, S (1985), 'State of Urbanisation in Kerala', Centre for Earth Science Studies, Trivandrum, (forthcoming in Agarwal, A (ed), State of Urban Environment in India, Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi). Chilcote, R H and Johnson, D L (eds) (1983), Theoriesof Development, Mode of Production or Dependencv? Sage, Beverly Hills. Chinchilla, N S (1983), 'Interpreting Social Change in Guatimala: Modernisation, Dependency and Articulation of Models of Production' in Chilcote, R H and Johnson, D L (eds), op cit. Dann, R (1932), 'The Urban Geography of Malabar' in The Journal of Madras Geographical Association, Vol VI, Nos 3 and 4. Damangion, A (1962), 'The Origins and Causes of Settlement Types' in Waguer and Mikesell (eds), op cit. Frank, A G (1969), Latin America. Underdevelopment or Revolution-EssaYs on the Development of Underdevelopment antdthe Immediate Enemy, Modern Reader, New York. Gulati, L (1976), 'Age of Marriage of Women and Population Growth' in Economic and Political Weekly, special Number. Harvey, D (19851,The Urbanisation of Capital: Stdies in the History and Theory of Capitalist Urbanisation, Basil Blackwell, Oxford. Ibrahim, P (1978), 'The Development of TransportFacilities in Kerala:A Historical Review' in Social Scientist Vol 6, No 8, March. Isaac, T T M (1984), Class Struggle and Industrial Structure: A Study of Coir Weaving Industry in Kerala 1859-1980, unpublished PhD thesis submitted to the Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Janaki, V A (1954), 'Functional Classification of tLrban Settlements in Kerala'in Journal of M S University of Baroda, Vol 3. Johnsoii, R J (1982), The American Urban Sys ten.: A Geographical Perspective, Longnan. London. Kantian, K P (1988), Of Rural Proletarian Struggles: Mobilisation and Organisation of Rural Workers in South West India, Oxford University Press, Delhi. Krishnan,T N (1976), 'Demographic'lansition in Kerala: Facts and Factors' in Economic and Political Weekly Special Number. Logan, W (1981), Malabar, Charithram Publications, Trivandrum. Losch, A (1967), Economics of Location, Yale University Press, London. Marx, K (1972), Theories of Surplus Value, Lawrence and Wishart, London. Mencher, J (1966), 'Kerala and Madras: A Comparative Study of Ecology and Social Structurc' in Ethnology, No 5. Menon, V K;J(1953), 'Geographical Basis for

Conclusion The aboveobservationsbring to light the fact that the urban process in Kerala,the transformation the relationshipbetween of society and space is rather unique. The statisticalempiricismof the census definitions need not necessarily capture the dynamisminvolvedin the process.One has to look for other meaningfulmeasuresand criteria for delineating urban centres in Kerala.Space is socially produced, it may take varied forms. Logan (1981) had remarked that towns and towns life are not congenial to the tastes and habits of Malayalees.The various historical process had ultimatelycreateda situation wherethe emergingspatial form is neither rural nor or urban.They can be eithercalled 'rurban' semi-urban.But it must be borne in mind and that it is underdevelopment deprivation whichled rather thaneconomicdevelopment to this unique spatial ordering. Notes
[The author wishes to thank P K Michael Tharakan, P Mohanan Pillai, Srikumar Chattopadhyaya,K P Kannanand G N Rao foi helpful comments.] I Similarprocessesare observedin other parts of world also. See for eample Peil and Sada [1984:18]. 2 The nature of these economic processes in Ttavancore has been analysed in detail by Nadar [1980]. 3 The development of modern transport began in Keralaon in the sesbnd half of the 19th century though the first land routes were built during 1776-1793. For a discussion on the history of transport development in Kerala, see Ibrahim [1978].

References
J Berrey, L and Horton, E F (1970), Geographic Perspectives on Urban Systems, PrenticeHall, Engelwood Cliffs, New Jersey. Bobeck, H (1962), 'The Main Stages in the Socio:Economic Evolution from a Geographic Stand Point' in Wagnerand Miksell (eds), Readings in Cultural Geography,The University of Chicago Press. Bourne, L S and Simmons, J W (eds) (1978), System of Cities, Readings on Structure, Growth and Policy, Oxford University

Press,New York.

rconomic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990

1989

the Distribution and Pattern of Rural Settlement in Kerala'in Journal of the M S University of Barods, No 2. Mohan, R and Panth, C (1982), 'Morphology of Urbanisation in India: Some Results from 1981 Census'" in Economic and Political Weekly,Vol XVII, Nos 38 and 39. Nadar, M (1980), 'Commercialisation of Agricultural Products and the New Economc Order in Tlavancore. 1860-1900' in Journal of Kerala Studies, Vol VII, Parts 14. and Nagraj, K (1985), 7Twnsin TamKYarnataka Andhra Pradesh. A Study of Population and Spatial Configurations, 1961 to 1981, Working Paper No 54, Madras Institute of Development Studies, Madras. Nair. P R G (1981), 'Decline in Birthrate in Kerala' in Economic and Politicaf Weekly Annual Number. Panikar, P G K (1981), TowardsDemystifying Kerala's Fertility Experience, Working Paper 122, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum. Panikar,P G K and Soman, C R (1985), Health Status of Kerala: The Paradox of Economic Backwardness and Health Development, Studies, Centre for Development Trivandrum. Parameswaran, S (1951), The Agrarian Question in Kerala, Peoples Publishing House, Bombay. Peil, M and Sada, P(1984), African Urban Society' Johnviley and Sons, New York. Pyarelal, R (1986), Organisationof Production in Beedi Industry: A Study of Cannanore District, 1920-1985,MPhil thesis submitted to JawaharlalNehru University, New Delhi. Quijano, A (1983)Imperialism, Social Classes, and the State in Peru, 1890-1930' in Chilcote, R H and Johnson D L (eds), op cit. Rajagopalan, V (1986), Handloom Industry in North and South Kerala:A Study of Production and Marketing Structure, unpublished MPhil thesis submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, Studies, Centre for Development Trivandrum. Samooham: Rajan Gurukkal (1987), 'Keraleeya Janmi Sambradayathilekkulla Parinama Prakriyakal' in Vichinddnam AprilSeptember. Reisman, L (1964), The Urban Process, Cities in Industrial Societies, Cjlencoe, Illinois. Rostow, W W (1960), The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Safa, H I (1982), Towardsa Political Economy of Urbanisation in Third WorldCountries, Oxford University Press, Delhi. Sankaranarayan, V (1977), Urbanisation in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, Some Contrasts, Working Paper No 57, Centre for Development Studies, Trivandrum. Singh, J P (1986), Patterns of Rural Urban Migrationin India, Inter India Publications, New Delhi. Slater, D (1986), 'Capitalism and Urbanisation at the Periphery:Problems of Interpretation and Analysis with reference to Latin America in Urbanisation, in The Developing World, Croom Helm, New Hamshine. Smith, R H T (1965), 'Method and Purpose in Functional Town Classification' in Annals

of the Associations of American GeoGeographical Association, Vol VI, Nos 3 graphers,IV, No 3, September. and 4. Sourirajan, V K (1932), 'Agricultural Subramani4m, K K and Mohanan Pillai, P Geography theMalabar of District' The in (1986), 'Kerala's Industrial Backwardness: Journalof MadrasGeographical AssociaExploration of Alternative Hypotheses' in tion, Vol VI, Nos 3 and 4. Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XXI, T Sreekumar, T (1988),Urbanisation Kerala, in No 14. 1900-1981' unpublished MPhildissertation Tharakan, M P K (1984), 'Socio-Economic submitted Jawaharlal to NehruUniversity, Factors in Educational Development: Cm New Delhi, Centre for Development of Nineteenth Century Tlavancore' in Studies,Trivandrum. Eiconomicand Political Weekly,Nos 45, 46. StatePlanning Board(1983),Transport System Valentey,D I (edX1978),The Theory of Populain Kerala, Background paper for the High

Level Committee Physical on Infrastructure Publishers, Moscow. and Transport'l Tivandrtm. Varghese, T C (1972), Agrarian Change and Subramanayam, M (1932), 'A Note on Economic Consequences Land Tenuws in Transport and Communications in Kerala, 1850-1960, Allied Publishers, Malabar' in The Journal of Madras Bombay.

tion: Essays inMarxist Research, Progress

A B C OF KNOWLEDGE...

A State-wide literacy campaign is on ... To make every Keralitelitecate, To make Keralathe first Indian State to achieve cent per cent literacy... True, Keralahas often been called the most literate and the Malyalees the most educated ... And yet, about 10 per cent of the population is still far away from the world of alphabet, the world of words... The Left Democratic Front Government of Keralais committed to the eradication of illiteracy ... Progress and Prosperity through literacy. .. A long-cherished dream comes true.

Department of Public Relations Government of Kerala.

Economic and Political Weekly September 1-8, 1990