Marginalized community, space of commons and autonomy: The case of the Deccan Development Society in South India Archana Patnaik PhD Student * , Guido Ruivenkamp Prof, Ir. Joost Jongerden Dr Sociology and Anthropology of Development, De Leewenborch, Building No-201, Hollandseweg 1, 6706 KN Wageningen, Wageningen University, The Netherlands article info Article history: Received 1 July 2016 Accepted 24 May 2017 1. Introduction Community seed banks (CSBs) can be described as ‘locally gov- erned and managed, mostly informal, institutions whose core function is to maintain seeds for local use’ (Vernooy et al., 2015: 2). CSBs function through the collective activity of a group (Lewis and Mulvany, 1997; Sthapit, 2012; Vernooy et al., 2015) with functions determined according to objectives set by the community, including conservation of agrobiodiversity, seed security, access to seeds and food sovereignty (Demissie and Tanto, 2000; Jarvis et al., 2011; Lewis and Mulvany, 1997; Shrestha et al., 2013; Vernooy et al., 2015). Various studies on CSBs have analyzed the community based management of seeds and its effects on agrobiodiversity conser- vation (Bezabih, 2008; Shrestha et al., 2005, 2006, 2013; Vernooy et al., 2015), with most of the empirical research on CSBs re- ported in the grey literature of reports and NGOs briefings (Vernooy, 2012). A recent study looked at functions of CSBs in different contexts and factors that influence their viability using 35 cases and theories from on-farm conservation literature (Vernooy et al., 2015). In this study we analyze the functioning and gover- nance 1 of CSBs by women of the Dalit caste (lowest caste), which has historically been oppressed and remains economically poor, socially and educationally backward (Chatterjee, 2012). This paper employs a socio-political approach in examining the collective resistance of the community through community seed banks (CSBs) strengthening commons in south India. It will help in establishing the relations between resource governance and marginalized communities, while also contributing to the literature on commons and CSBs. Specifically, the research reported here focuses on the ways in which women from a marginalized community have organized CSBs as a common-pool resource (CPR) in defense of their local food system based on millets. While millets are generally considered to be neglected (research) and under-utilized (commercial potential) in the mainstream food supply chain, they are vital for those who depend on them for their food and livelihood (Mal et al., 2010). To critically analyze the Dalit women's CSBs practice, this paper de- scribes CSBs organizational structure, characteristics, functioning and governance. It reflects on the multiple socio-political and cul- tural dimensions operative in the struggle of the Dalit women, borrowing from studies on seed networks as sites of contestation (see Aistara, 2011; Bezner Kerr, 2013; Da Via, 2012), and it refers to debates on new commons dimensions of governing seeds as commons. The paper structure is as follows. First, ideas about commons and CSBs practices are outlined and the research methodology is detailed. Then, an overview of the context of resistance to establish CSBs is presented, together with a trajectory towards culinary resilience. Next, the main part of the text describes the develop- ment and functioning of the CSBs studied, with a focus on how this creates a social space of commons through lived experiences of the community. The paper concludes with broad issues of commoni- sation of seeds by reflecting on development of the spaces of commons and culinary resilience by the community. 2. Theories of commons, CSBs and their practices Community based efforts to maintain common resources have drawn the attention of many scholars over the past few decades (Agrawal and Chhatre, 2006; Baland and Platteau, 1996; Benkler, 2004; Cahir, 2004; Ostrom, 1990; Ostrom et al., 1994; Wade, 1988). Scholars of Common-pool resources (CPRs) have particu- larly highlighted the relevance of managing commons through * Corresponding author. E-mail addresses: patnaik.sai@gmail.com, archana.patnaik@wur.nl (A. Patnaik), guido.ruivenkamp@wur.nl (G. Ruivenkamp), joost.jongerden@wur.nl (Ir.J. Jongerden). 1 Governance here refers to the process whereby people work collectively in groups for maintaining moral, legal, political and financial aspects of the commu- nity at the same time being accountable for their actions (Sthapit et al., 2015). Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Rural Studies journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jrurstud http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2017.05.019 0743-0167/© 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Journal of Rural Studies 53 (2017) 173e181