Introduction

In this chapter we further explore the answer to our general problem by asking a question which is made very pointed by a comparison of the Sri Lanka experience with that of India and Malaysia: in what ways have collective socio-cultural identities – as opposed to the commonalities of material interest dealt with in Chapter Seven – contributed or not contributed to the evolution of a common ‘rural consciousness’ which could underpin a ruralist economic programme? The Indian and Malaysian experiences indicate that class or socio-cultural categorisations have given broad swathes of the farming population a sense of common identity over and above that generated by simply sharing a common occupation. Ruralist political programmes can be more easily communicated and realised if a large proportion of the farming population can be persuaded that they share, for example, a linguistic, ethnic or caste identity which simultaneously unites them and sets them apart from other social categories – food consumers, industrial groups, public officials, landlords, or urban people generally – who can then be presented as opponents or exploiters. The kinds of collective identity which have been exploited to mobilise Indian and Malaysian farmers – caste, ‘peasantness’, rurality in a broad sense, or intra-rural conflicts between landlord and peasant, large and small farmers, or agricultural labourers and employers – have not been available to the exploited in Sri Lanka in the same way.