The three farm laws introduced by the BJP government in India in 2020 were a significant step toward strengthening the control of corporate monopolies on livelihood and food security issues of the majority of the rural population. Pro-people activists and intellectual sections effectively realised the severity of the government’s intention. It brought together all the peasant unions of Northern India to challenge the authoritarian and monopoly capital project of hijacking the agricultural production system and transforming farmers into the sub-contractors of corporate capital. The peasant movement forced the authoritarian government to repeal the three farm laws. The pro-people intellectual and activist circles globally celebrated this victory as a role model to challenge the authoritarian neoliberalism and corporate alliance. However, this article argues that this is only a temporary relief. Many important issues have remained unaddressed by the scholars and activists of the movement and need to be explored to examine the potential of such movements beyond a fight for the status quo.

The present paper will address four interrelated issues in light of these facts. First, it will unfold the authoritarian government’s politics of interlocking the rural population into the accumulation logic of global capital in the name of development. Second, it will examine the basis of unity among ideologically different (if not conflictual) organisations during the movement. Third, it will decode the politics of major farmers and other unions to bring out the limitations of their agenda for the resolution of the new agrarian question and, importantly, for socialist alternatives. Finally, it will highlight critical questions for the future politics of the left organisation from the perspective of the rural poor.

This paper reads the events known as the “2008 Kandhamal violence” to explore how and why decolonizing memory is fundamental to peace in the region. This incident is widely recognized as a “targeted violence against the Christian community in Kandhamal” (“Unjust Compensation” 2013), thus privileging the event as an instance of communalism or religious strife rather than an economic crisis. Murder, rape, arson, and looting left “54,000 people . . . homeless.” Through a close reading of the main events of this violence and critical analysis of sources—scholarly articles, media reports, and social media discussions—the paper proposes that there are three fundamental issues that cause “targeted violence against the Christian community” or the representation of an instance of violence as communalism in India and the manufacture of Christians of India as colonial leftovers: A) Being interpellated by ideology as “remembering.” That is, individuals are called or positioned by colonial ideologies, and their understanding of the world is shaped by these ideologies through a process that resembles remembering. Consequently, Christians of India are remembered as colonial products. B) Buying into the colonial narrative of the “civilizing mission” wholesale. This phrase refers to the act of unquestioningly accepting and adopting the ideas and justifications on Christianizing that colonial powers propagated during the colonial era. C) The need to decolonize memory in the national imagination. Historical narratives are often shaped by colonial perspectives that may marginalize or distort the experiences of indigenous or colonized peoples who happen to be Christians. Therefore, this is a call for reevaluating and reshaping the way historical events and narratives are remembered and represented within the context of a nation. The paper, in this manner, aims to inform scholars, policymakers, and activists committed to fostering peace and justice.

Human development and democratization characterized by public action have been the hallmarks of ‘Kerala model of development’. It has been celebrated as a unique successful model within India and across the world for its contribution and achievements in human development, reducing poverty, investment in public goods as well as for fostering vibrant civil societies and social capital since the 1970s. Similarly, Kerala model of decentralization, an offspring of the Kerala model of development, has also been hailed as one of the effective models in revolutionizing decentralization and devolution. The People’s Plan Campaign (PPC) of 1996, which spearheaded the Kerala model of decentralization has been likened to the Participatory Budgeting experiments undertaken in Porto Alegre in Brazil. While Kerala model of development has completed more than 50 years and Kerala model of decentralization have completed 25 years, the political hegemony of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) led Left Democratic Front (LDF) over these two “models” have led to the disintegration of development model and democratic decentralization. The ‘party society’ centered around Kerala model of development and the capture of local governments and its apparatuses have led to erosion of democratic spirit and democratic consensus in Kerala. Adversarial politics with a disruptive tenor has led to backsliding of democracy and decentralization in Kerala. The introductory part of the paper offers a brief profile of Kerala model of development and democratic decentralization. The second part discusses the factors that led to the backsliding of democracy and decentralization and its impact on the social fabric of Kerala. It is followed by a discussion and conclusion on ways to incorporate democratic framework and principles to critically revisit the Kerala model of development and decentralization.

This paper examines the role played by Human Capital (HC) in the development path of the well-known “Kerala Model”, with a special focus on the ways in which Kerala’s HC helped to connect Kerala and its socio-economic system with the global socio-economic system. A small state in India, Kerala became known among scholars by the 1970s for its relatively high Human Development indicators despite low economic growth. While some scholars expressed serious concern about the sustainability of this “Kerala Model of Development”, with no productive base, Kerala not only sustained and even enhanced its HD achievements, but in just a few years began to achieve high economic growth as well, eventually becoming one of the richest Indian states , indeed with the highest per capita income and consumption. The paper argues that that Kerala’s high HC, its educated and skilled workforce (many migrating abroad and sending remittances home) played an important role. It concludes by suggesting that early investments in HC generally lead to sustainable economic and social development.