What is Kerala?

Kerala taught the developing world how to build human capital. The unanswered question is whether it can build the economy to match it.

Before we talk about what went wrong, understand what was built – across a century, not just a decade.

The Foundation: What No Other Indian State Could Replicate

Kerala in 1956 was a newly formed state stitched together from the princely states of Travancore and Cochin and the Malabar district of Madras Presidency. It had no significant industry. No mineral wealth. A rugged Western Ghats spine that made internal connectivity expensive. A coastline with limited natural deep-water port advantages compared with some of India’s major maritime hubs. A population density among the highest in Asia. On every conventional metric, it had every reason to fail as an economic unit.It didn’t.

By the 1980s, Kerala had achieved what development economists said required decades of GDP growth first. Near-universal literacy, when India’s national rate was below 45%. Infant mortality rates comparable to middle-income countries, achieved on a per capita income among India’s lowest. Female literacy and reproductive autonomy that outpaced states ten times wealthier. Life expectancy that matched parts of Eastern Europe.

The United Nations studied it. Nobel laureates wrote about it. Amartya Sen and Jean Drèze held it up in India: Development and Participation as definitive proof that human development does not require wealth as a prerequisite – that investing in people is the growth strategy, not the reward for it.

What other Indian states could not do, Kerala did.

• The Kerala Land Reforms Act of 1969 genuinely redistributed agricultural land to tenant farmers – something most Indian states legislated and never delivered. Nearly 1.5 million tenant families received ownership rights. Absentee landlordism, which had defined agrarian Kerala for centuries, was structurally broken within a decade.
• Child marriage was eliminated as a mass social practice – not through slogans but through female education, which made early marriage economically irrational for families that once depended on it as a survival strategy.
• The public health system reached villages before private hospitals reached cities. Primary Health Centres functioned. The state achieved maternal mortality rates that remained aspirational across most of South and Southeast Asia.
• The People’s Plan Campaign of 1996 devolved 35 – 40% of state plan funds directly to gram panchayats and urban local bodies – the most ambitious fiscal decentralisation experiment in Indian democratic history. The World Bank cited it. International development agencies flew in to study it. It demonstrated that ordinary citizens, given real resources and genuine decision-making authority, allocate public money with more local intelligence than any state capital can manufacture from above.
• The library movement – Grantha Shala Sangham – created one of the world’s densest networks of public libraries, making Kerala the only Indian state where reading was a mass working-class habit rather than an elite privilege.

This was not the achievement of one party or one ideology. Congress administrations, Left governments, the Nair Service Society, the Syrian Christian Church’s school networks, the Muslim League’s educational institutions, and the communist trade union movement – adversaries in every other arena – all contributed to the same outcome across generations: an educated, healthy, organised, rights-conscious population.

Kerala proved that a poor state, with sustained political will and broad social mobilisation, could invest its way to human dignity before investing its way to GDP.

That is the Kerala the world knows. It is real. It was earned across generations. And it deserves to be protected – which is precisely why the fiscal story that follows demands to be told plainly.

The Structural Wound Beneath the Achievement

Kerala built one of the most educated populations in the developing world. Then it failed to build an economy large enough to absorb its own talent.

This is the structural wound that precedes the fiscal crisis and runs deeper than any single government’s choices. Because Kerala produced skilled, educated, aspirational people faster than it produced productive employment for them, its most capable citizens left – to the Gulf, to Bangalore, to London, Toronto, and Singapore. The remittance economy that replaced domestic employment now accounts for approximately 23% of Net State Domestic Product.

That is an extraordinary number. It is also a structural warning.

An economy where one rupee in four comes from people working somewhere else is an economy that has outsourced its growth engine. And it creates a specific, compounding fiscal problem: remittance-funded consumption flows largely into goods manufactured in Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Maharashtra. The GST on those transactions, the employment multipliers, the production-stage value addition – all accrue to other states. Kerala receives the consumption but exports the productive chain.

This means Kerala’s tax base is structurally shallower than its income level would suggest. The state was always going to need more fiscal support than its economy naturally generated. What governments chose to do with that constraint – over the decade in question – is where the accountability story begins.

What Was Built – And Why That Matters

Any honest assessment must acknowledge that the decade from 2016 to 2026 was not devoid of development. Visible, real infrastructure was built and deserves to be stated plainly before it is questioned.

1. Technopark in Thiruvananthapuram continued significant expansion and remains one of India’s largest IT parks by employment. Infopark in Kochi grew substantially, attracting technology firms and creating thousands of high-skilled jobs. Kerala’s IT corridor helped grow software exports meaningfully and positioned the state credibly in the knowledge economy.
2. KIIFB-funded projects improved road connectivity in districts that had long suffered poor infrastructure. School buildings were upgraded across multiple districts. Public hospital facilities received investment. Digital public services expanded considerably – the state’s e-governance platforms drew national attention and genuinely improved citizen access.

Kerala’s institutional crisis-response capability proved exceptional. The 2018 floods – the worst in a century – were managed with a coordination efficiency that most Indian states cannot match. The COVID-19 response in 2020 was studied globally as a model of early containment, contact tracing, and community health mobilisation. These reflected deep institutional capacity that decades of social investment had built and that no balance sheet deterioration can instantly erase.

These achievements are real and must be acknowledged without qualification.

The question is not whether infrastructure was built.

The question is whether it was built sustainably – and whether the financing methods used were transparent, constitutional, and honest about the obligations they created for future generations.

A hospital built through transparent, budgeted borrowing is a public asset. A hospital built through liabilities structured outside the conventional budget framework is a public asset today and an undisclosed fiscal obligation tomorrow – one that future taxpayers will service without ever having voted on it.

The debate is not development versus no development. The debate is sustainable development versus debt-funded development – and whether the citizens who will repay the debt were told the full truth about its scale while it was being accumulated.

Kerala’s Great Contradiction

Kerala today contains two realities that coexist uneasily on opposite sides of the same balance sheet.

The first is visible to anyone who arrives:

World-class literacy sustained across generations. Strong public health outcomes that continue to outperform national averages. High life expectancy. Advanced digital adoption. Growing IT parks. An increasingly sophisticated service-sector economy. A globally connected diaspora that sends capital, skills, and professional networks back home.

The second is visible only in the numbers:

Outstanding debt of ₹5.07 lakh crore. Committed expenditure – salaries, pensions, interest – consuming 77 paise of every revenue rupee before a single discretionary decision can be made. A treasury that spent 262 days of 2025 surviving on emergency Reserve Bank of India borrowing, not in a crisis year but as a chronic operating condition. Capital expenditure at 1.3% of GSDP – the lowest among comparable states – meaning the physical infrastructure stock is being quietly starved precisely as the debt that was supposed to finance it compounds. Loss-making public enterprises carrying accumulated losses of ₹72,851 crore. A social sector share of plan expenditure that fell from 53.78% to 30.68% – the very investment that built Kerala’s identity, being gradually defunded.

For years, the visible success of the first reality obscured the quiet deterioration of the second.

The Kerala Fiscal Health Status Report, released by the Government of Kerala in June 2026, is significant precisely because it places both realities on the same page for the first time – in the government’s own words, with the government’s own data, without the cushioning of electoral cycles or political messaging.

The Decade of Fiscal Deterioration – and Who Presided Over It

The Left Democratic Front, led by the CPI(M), governed Kerala from 2016 to 2026. The fiscal deterioration documented in the status report occurred overwhelmingly during this period. This is not opposition framing. It is the timeline of the data in the government’s own baseline assessment of what the new administration has inherited.

KIIFB: Infrastructure Financing or Structural Off-Budget Borrowing?

In 2016, the LDF government established KIIFB in a form that enabled significant borrowing outside the traditional budget framework. The Chief Minister chaired its board. The Finance Minister chaired its Executive Committee. Its purpose was to finance infrastructure beyond what the FRBM Act’s borrowing ceiling permitted through the regular budget.

Get Abdu Samad NT’s stories in your inbox

Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.

Remember me for faster sign in

The C&AG subsequently classified all KIIFB borrowings as state liabilities – fundamentally altering Kerala’s true debt picture. An entity that borrowed ₹42,000 crore while being treated as fiscally independent from the state was, after the C&AG ruling, the state all along. The borrowing ceiling KIIFB was structured to work around was being breached through it.

KIIFB’s borrowing cost was consistently 1 to 1.5 percentage points higher than the government’s own market rate in every year but one. Over a ₹42,000 crore portfolio, even one percentage point represents approximately ₹420 crore in avoidable annual interest, recurring for the full life of the securities. The report’s assessment is direct: the argument that KIIFB saved money through more efficient market access is “simply not maintainable based on the evidence.”

The geographic distribution of KIIFB spending raises questions the report does not answer but clearly asks. Kannur district received over 20% of all approved KIIFB funds. Kannur, Thiruvananthapuram, and Ernakulam together absorbed nearly 50% of total spending. The report explicitly states that “neither human development indices nor economic need indices provide an obvious justification for this concentration.” Kannur is the historic organisational heartland of the CPI(M) in Kerala.

The CEO of KIIFB was conferred ex-officio Secretary-level government powers by a government order in 2017 – a structural irregularity that violated the Rules of Business of the State Government. It was corrected only in 2025, eight years later. For eight years, a non-governmental officer was issuing spending orders carrying the authority of a senior civil servant, on billions of rupees of public money, outside the normal accountability architecture of the state.

Fiscal Rules: Amended to Accommodate Non-Compliance

The Kerala FRBM Act required zero revenue deficit from 2014 – 15 and a revenue surplus from 2020 – 21. Neither target was achieved in any year. The response was not to reform expenditure composition. The Act was amended four times – revising targets downward when compliance became inconvenient. The report describes this directly: “revising targets when compliance becomes difficult rather than adjusting behaviour to meet original commitments.” This pattern, sustained across the decade, destroyed the credibility of the fiscal rules framework – a cost that is not merely reputational but operational, since the Ministry of Finance uses FRBM compliance as a criterion in determining Kerala’s borrowing ceiling.

Deferred Wages: The Hidden Cash Management Instrument

For years, Dearness Allowance to serving government employees and Dearness Relief to pensioners were withheld as a cash management mechanism when the treasury ran short. The new government inherited ₹21,670 crore in DA arrears owed to teachers, doctors, nurses, clerks, and other state employees. It inherited ₹14,387 crore in Dearness Relief arrears owed to pensioners. Total inherited obligations: ₹48,733 crore – nearly equal to one full year of net borrowing. These are not abstract fiscal numbers. They are owed to specific people who delivered public services and were not fully paid for them.

The PSU Ecosystem: Structural Drain Left Unreformed

132 state public sector enterprises, the majority loss-making, with accumulated losses growing from ₹31,517 crore in 2021 to ₹72,851 crore in 2024 – 25. The Kerala State Electricity Board carries a negative net worth of ₹35,149 crore – technically insolvent, sustained entirely by state budget support. KSRTC has loan arrears to the state government dating to 1983 – 84. Three utilities – KSEBL, KSRTC, and the Kerala Water Authority – account for the overwhelming share of losses and absorb thousands of crores annually in budget support while delivering services that constrain rather than enable private investment. No meaningful structural reform of these entities was undertaken across the decade.

What Was Sacrificed

Capital expenditure fell to 1.3% of GSDP – the lowest among all comparable states. Karnataka invests 2.32%. Telangana 3.21%. Maharashtra 1.89%. Andhra Pradesh 2.56%. Kerala invests approximately one-third of what its peers invest as a share of their economies, while running one of India’s highest fiscal deficits. The report identifies this as a systematic violation of the fundamental fiscal principle: borrowing that does not create productive assets compounds the debt burden without generating the revenue growth needed to service it.

While flagship infrastructure projects expanded, the share of development expenditure devoted to Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes fell to 3.85% – well below the constitutionally intended level of 12.64%. The report raises the uncomfortable question of whether Kerala’s development priorities became increasingly disconnected from its most vulnerable citizens precisely during the years when aggregate plan expenditure figures, inflated by KIIFB and PSU spending, appeared healthy on the surface.

What Kerala Now Carries

A government taking office in 2026 inherits: a treasury holding ₹2,212 crore against monthly committed outflows of approximately ₹11,000 crore. A state that spent 262 days of 2025 on emergency RBI borrowing as routine operating reality. Outstanding liabilities of ₹5.07 lakh crore. A ₹56,000 crore KIIFB pipeline of unrepaid loans and already-committed but unfunded projects. A 16th Finance Commission that eliminated Revenue Deficit Grants entirely – removing transfers worth ₹37,000 crore over the previous award period – and a resulting shortfall of ₹20,500 crore in current year central transfers versus what the interim budget assumed.

The report’s own language for day-to-day treasury operations: “fiscal triage.”

Why Investors Should Watch Kerala Closely – In Both Directions

Kerala remains one of India’s most structurally attractive destinations for knowledge-intensive investment. The fundamentals that matter for the long term – workforce quality, social stability, digital adoption, institutional depth, and diaspora connectivity – remain genuinely strong and are not dissolved by a balance sheet crisis.

Technopark and Infopark are real assets. The talent pipeline is real. The emerging startup ecosystem is real. A highly educated, English-fluent population with global professional exposure is a competitive advantage that most Indian states cannot replicate quickly regardless of capital expenditure.

The risk is not that Kerala lacks potential. The risk is that fiscal stress gradually and silently crowds out the investments that created that potential – and that by the time the erosion becomes visible in social indicators, reversing it will be far more expensive than preventing it.

The power sector is the most immediate practical constraint. With KSEBL technically insolvent and unable to finance significant capacity expansion, energy availability and cost will increasingly limit investment in manufacturing, data centres, cloud infrastructure, and advanced services – precisely the sectors the state needs most. The report explicitly calls for 6,000 MW of new solar and 8,000 MW of pumped hydro storage, and acknowledges that KSEBL has neither the financial capacity nor the execution track record to deliver this from its own balance sheet. Private and central public sector investment in power is not, in this context, a political preference. It is an arithmetic necessity.

Three indicators will reveal, more honestly than any budget speech, whether Kerala is turning its fiscal position around or deepening it:

• Capital expenditure as a share of GSDP – the single most honest measure of whether borrowed money is being used to build productive capacity or to service current consumption. Any sustained movement toward the 2.5 – 3% range would signal genuine structural improvement.
• Reform trajectory of KSEBL, KSRTC, and the broader PSU ecosystem – not announcements but measurable changes: cost rationalisation, tariff reform, and a declining requirement for annual budget support. These three entities alone absorb fiscal resources that could otherwise fund education, health, and infrastructure.
• Growth in private investment relative to public borrowing – the ratio that ultimately determines whether Kerala’s economy is becoming more self-sustaining or more dependent on state spending financed by debt. A rising private investment share alongside a stable or declining fiscal deficit would indicate that the underlying structural problems are being genuinely addressed rather than managed through borrowing.

If these indicators improve, Kerala has the human capital, institutional depth, geographic position, and diaspora network to build genuine economic leadership in knowledge-intensive sectors. The base is there. The potential is real.

If they do not, the gap between what Kerala’s social achievements promise and what its fiscal capacity can actually deliver will continue to widen – and the cost of that gap will fall, as it always does in the end, on the citizens least able to absorb it.

The Real Question

Kerala’s crisis is not a crisis of its people. It is a crisis of public finance and economic strategy.

The CPI(M)-led LDF did not create Kerala’s structural economic vulnerability – the shallow tax base, the remittance dependence, the historically weak industrial base. Those are older problems, some of them paradoxically rooted in the same social achievements that made Kerala exceptional: a workforce too educated, too mobile, and too aware of its own value to accept the wages that labour-intensive manufacturing has historically required.

What the LDF government did was choose, when faced with those structural constraints, to borrow significantly beyond conventional limits through off-budget mechanisms, to concentrate infrastructure spending in geographies that the report’s own data cannot justify on development grounds, to defer wages owed to its own employees as a recurring cash management tool, to amend fiscal rules rather than follow them, and to present budgets that its own successor government characterises as not credible.

The achievements of the decade are real. The question the status report now places on the table – in the government’s own words – is whether those achievements were built on a foundation capable of sustaining them, or on borrowed money that the next generation will repay without having been honestly informed about the terms.

Kerala already proved it can build human capital. That case was settled decades ago and the world took permanent note.

The unfinished task is different, and harder: building an economy strong enough to keep its talent at home. Making growth capable of sustaining welfare, rather than making welfare permanently dependent on borrowed growth. Restructuring public enterprises that have absorbed public wealth for decades while delivering declining services. Opening the power sector to the investment KSEBL cannot provide from its own balance sheet. Rebuilding the credibility of fiscal rules so that borrowing once again means what it should mean – a tool for productive investment, not a substitute for an economic strategy.

Kerala’s people built one of the most remarkable social transformations in the developing world – across decades, across governments, across ideological lines, through coalitions that had every reason to disagree on everything except the value of an educated, healthy, dignified citizen.

The question before this generation is whether they will build the economic transformation worthy of that foundation.

Not by borrowing against the future in the dark.

By building honestly, in the light, with the full cost visible and on the table.

All data and direct quotations sourced from Kerala’s Fiscal Health: A Status Report, Government of Kerala, June 2026.

www.niyamasabha.org/codes/16kla/Kerala_Status_Paper_consolidated%20Eng.pdf