4 SOCIAL SCIENTIST diversity of culture and history and differential growth of peoples' movements. The response to the initiative of AKG Centre for Research and Studies, Thiruvananthapuram to bring together scholars from different disciplines in the broad area of Kerala studies and concerned sociopolitical activists in an International Congress (August 27-29, 1994) was overwhelming. Perhaps, such an initiative had indeed been long overdue. Around 1600 persons (nearly 700 being academic scholars from more than two dozen disciplines) attended the Congress. There were participants from 23 foreign countries and nearly all the major states in India. Over 600 papers were presented and discussed in 66 technical seminars and 6 symposia. Altogether 170 hours of discussions took place in 17 venues of the Congress. No attempt is made here to undertake a comprehensive survey of all the papers presented at the Congress. Our effort is only to present a-selective reading of presentations around certain major connectedi themes that one can discern in the proceeding: Kerala's development experience, the contemporary crisis and new initiatives. Kerala's development experience has come to be summed up in a commonly used phrase, *Kerala Model*. A considerable number of papers presented at the Congress mentioned this term in a bewildering variety of notions—some in explicitly normative terms. As a result a growing discomfort with the concept was discernible.1 The broad ideological approaches with regard to the concept that were expressed in discussions are analysed in Section I followed by an analysis of the problems of contemporary economic stagnation and socio-political challenges in Section II. ^ The Congress was not expected to come up with an action pla;]^ and clear cut conclusions. It was to be an open and democratic dialogue with the widest participation. Even the normal practice of an individual delivering the valedictory address at the conclusion of the conference wa^ done away with and instead, a panel of experts of divergent persuasions were asked to sum up what the Congress meant to them. Therefore, our discussion emphasising the importance of production and productivity (Section IV), a new development strategy (Section V), reassessment of educational and health policies (Section VI), importance of decentralisation (Section VII); need for the left to enter into dialogue with believers without compromising with casteism and communalism (Section VIII and IX) and the gender questions (Section X) should not be taken as an exhaustive agenda for future or a consensus reached by the Congress. At best, they may be termed as the emerging perspectives, as read by the authors.