Some thoughts on Kerala's social history

Kerala, till the late nineteenth century was one of the most casteist society ("mad house of castes" as Swami Vivekananda described). As late as the nineteenth century, women were treated very low dignity in Kerala, perhaps worse than anywhere in Madras Presidency. Its matrilineal society stuff that is a staple explanator of the state's development is, I think, inaccurate. The matrilineal succession has less edifying reasons. 

But it cannot also be denied that there was something different about the way women were seen. The state, for example, has the largest number of Devi temples. The presiding deity of most of the tens of thousands of family temples (the larger extended family has a temple associated with them) is Devi. This goes much far back in history.

What changed it was several genuine social reform movements and supported by a few enlightened rulers of Travancore and Cochin. These social reformers, led by Sree Narayana Guru, got lower castes into temples, women's dignity protected, established large numbers of schools, even a Sanskrit College. Given the levels of oppression, the social transformation achieved in about 50 years must count as one of the most impressive ones anywhere in the world (unfortunately very less discussed). What sustained it was the communist governments post-independence, and the role of various caste and religious groupings to focus on education. The Nairs, Ezhavas, and Christians all have associations which run hospital and school/college chains across the state. 

The contrast with West Bengal is interesting - the state had less social divisions to start with, an enlightened leadership class (bhadralok), more widely known social reform movements, and a Communist government. It still could not entrench the level of public institutions and civil society that Kerala did. I guess, the role of those social reformers of Kerala in the late 19th and 20th century is one of the less discussed corners of Indian history. 

Finally, it may also have contributed that all the three-religious groups and the major caste groups were numerically similar, if at least by order of magnitude - there was no one overwhelming majority. Further, unlike WB, the social reform leadership emerged from within the lower castes.