EPW Article Rebuttal: A Response to Recent Criticisms

In an unprecedented display of academic solidarity, a group of nine scholars and activists have published a sharp rebuttal to what they describe as a “flagrant misrepresentation” of Kerala’s ASHA workers’ struggle. The response, originally intended for the Economic and Political Weekly (EPW), was published independently after the journal insisted on subjecting it to peer review despite the urgent nature of the issue.

The controversy centers on a commentary published in EPW titled “Labouring on the Margins: ASHA Workers’ Protests in Kerala and Working-class Solidarities” by Binitha Thampi and Varsha Prasad. According to the nine authors of the rebuttal, Thampi and Prasad’s piece not only mischaracterizes the ongoing ASHA workers’ protest but also “parrots the CPM troll position” and undermines a critical women workers’ movement.

The rejoinder specifically challenges several aspects of the original commentary. First, it refutes the characterization of ASHA workers as “honorary women volunteers,” arguing that such framing obscures the exploitative nature of their working conditions. The authors emphasize that women from resource-poor families who serve as ASHA workers carry a “triple burden” of providing care and health services while maintaining community infrastructure.

“When these women reject the label of volunteers, demand that their labour be recognised with adequate wages, and complain that they are exploited by the state, how can the authors continue to refer to them as ‘voluntary’ workers?” the rebuttal asks pointedly.

A second major criticism targets Thampi and Prasad’s comparison between ASHA workers and other informal sector women workers like waste collectors. The rebuttal argues that such comparisons create a false equivalence that ignores the specialized nature of ASHA workers’ duties, which require specific training and skills. The nine scholars highlight that ASHA workers in Kerala have undergone at least nine rounds of training modules since 2007, making them far from “non-specialist” as claimed in the original article.

The rebuttal also challenges the accusation that ASHA workers are undermining broader working-class solidarity by advocating for their specific needs. Instead, they point to numerous instances of solidarity shown by the protesters toward anganwadi workers, school mid-day meal cooks, and civil police officer candidates.

“The repeated comparisons of various working class peoples, with the intention of giving no one a pay hike, reminds one of feudal Travancore where Dalit farm workers were paid very little wages, but some Dalit workers were paid even less,” the authors write, suggesting that such comparison serves to divide rather than unite working-class interests.

The authors particularly object to Thampi and Prasad’s characterization of public support for the ASHA workers as merely “middle-class” sentimentality. They describe how the protest has gained backing from a broad coalition including feminist groups, leading CPM-friendly intellectuals, public health scholars, and Kerala’s People’s Science Movement.

“Far from being charity, the 1000/month for ASHAs campaign was an open declaration of allyship by Kerala’s oppositional civil society and workers,” the rebuttal states, noting that working-class citizens including women hawkers, autorickshaw drivers, and retired headload workers have made daily contributions to the strike fund.

In their conclusion, the nine scholars express dismay at what they see as an attack on women workers disguised in academic language. They suggest that despite using Marxist-feminist terminology, Thampi and Prasad’s characterization of the protest serves the interests of a “technocratic left government” that is increasingly focused on suppressing dissent and denigrating women workers’ struggles.

The ASHA workers’ protest, which has now continued for eight months, represents a pivotal moment for both women workers’ rights and the future of public health in Kerala. With the state government allegedly considering partnerships with corporate giants like Reliance, Amazon, and Flipkart, the authors believe that the protest “must win at all costs.”

This fierce academic exchange highlights the ongoing tensions within Kerala’s progressive political landscape as women workers increasingly assert their rights against what they perceive as exploitation by the state.