• India is a highly diverse society marked by multiple and overlapping inequalities, and when these inequalities are challenged through collective action, they give rise to social movements.

• Social movements are organised forms of collective mobilisation that seek social change and improvement in the conditions of aggrieved and marginalised sections of society.

• Some social thinkers conceptualise this collective arena as a social movement industry, highlighting the organised, sustained and issue-based nature of social mobilisation.

• This social movement industry has flourished in India for a long time because Indian society contains numerous structural fault lines, which are repeatedly exposed and contested by social movements.

• Discriminations and widespread dissatisfactions based on caste, class, gender, tribe and region have historically provided a fertile ground for the growth of social movements in India.

• From the Bhakti movements to modern rights-based movements, India exhibits a continuous and evolving tradition of social movements.

• Women, backward classes and tribal communities have historically been at the receiving end of social injustice, and consequently, the history of social movements in India largely overlaps with struggles led by and for these groups.

• In recent times, Indian social movements have expanded beyond identity-based issues to also focus on quality of life concerns, such as environment, livelihood, health, dignity and rights, indicating a broadening of the social movement agenda.

Nature of Social Movement in India

• Social movements in modern India are multi-dimensional and expanded with the growth of education, communication media, political awareness of rights and new modes of mobilisation, which created a conducive environment for collective action.

• Social movements began meaningfully during the British period, gained greater articulation after Independence, and their demands and goals kept changing with historical, political and social contexts.

• According to T. K. Oommen, social movements can be analysed through three approaches: historical, psychological and sociological, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding their evolution.

• T. K. Oommen differentiated 20th century Indian social movements using two criteria: the type of collectivity on which the movement is based (biological, civil or primordial) and the nature of goals pursued (instrumental or symbolic).

• On the basis of these criteria, the evolution of social movements in India is divided into three phases: the Colonial Phase (1900–1947), the National Building Phase (1948–1989) and Contemporary Social Movements (1990–present).

• According to Dhanagare, the historical method has been preferred by sociologists like I. P. Desai, M. S. A. Rao, P. N. Mukherji and T. K. Oommen, as it helps in developing broad generalisations and explanations of social movements.

• In line with global trends, New Social Movements emerged in India during the 1970s, marking a shift in the nature and orientation of collective action.

• According to Rajendra Singh, New Social Movements originate in grassroot politics, are plural in structure, act as a response to overarching systemic forces, and represent an effort to protect the cultural sphere of life.

• In the Indian context, the middle class has largely acted as the torchbearer of New Social Movements, shaping their leadership and discourse.

• Unlike classical movements seeking radical transformation, New Social Movements are largely symbolic, focusing on identity, culture, environment and quality of life, rather than immediate structural overhaul.

Peasants and Farmers Movements

• Peasants are conceptually different from farmers, as farmers cultivate land primarily for commercial purposes with larger landholdings, whereas peasants possess small, subsistence-oriented landholdings and often engage in part-time wage labour during lean seasons, leading to distinct problems and vulnerabilities.

• The term peasant in India has multiple meanings, with Anand Chakravorti viewing peasants as an underclass, Javed Alam highlighting their caste-based characteristics varying regionally, and their conditions differing due to diverse modes of production such as feudal, semi-feudal and capitalist, making Indian peasantry non-uniform unlike China or Russia.

• Because of this diversity, peasant movements in India address the concerns of actual cultivators, agricultural labourers and agrarian artisans, rather than a single homogeneous class.

• According to A. R. Desai, pre-Independence agrarian struggles were predominantly peasant movements, whereas post-Independence struggles increasingly became farmers’ movements, reflecting a shift towards capitalist mode of production, with farmers demanding more than mere subsistence.

• Colonial policies such as loss of traditional rights, marketisation of land, usurious land revenue, begaar (unpaid labour), forceful evictions, backward agricultural technology, famines, forced cash-crop cultivation, trade restrictions and dumping severely deteriorated peasantry and triggered peasant unrest.

• Pre–Kisan Sabha movements (till 1920s) arose due to Zamindari exploitation, forced labour, food scarcity and revenue oppression, exemplified by the 24 Pargana Revolt, Pabna Revolt and Deccan Revolt, which were locally led, interest-driven and often short-lived, ending after goal achievement or colonial repression.

• Post–Kisan Sabha phase (1920s–1947) saw peasant issues being linked to the national movement, acquiring a pan-Indian character, with the Communist movement playing a key role in integrating peasants and agricultural labourers into the broader freedom struggle.

• Organisational consolidation occurred with the formation of the Bihar Provincial Kisan Sabha (1929) and the All India Kisan Sabha (1936) as an umbrella organisation, with leadership from within as well as national figures like Swami Sahajanand Saraswati and N. G. Ranga.

• According to Dhanagare, leadership often came from the urban middle class and politicians, addressing general issues like poverty, indebtedness and high taxation, while also representing small landlords and farmers, and significantly enhancing peasant participation in the national struggle.

• Major movements of this phase included the Champaran Movement led by Gandhi against indigo exploitation in Bihar, the Bardoli Movement led by Sardar Patel for tax relief in Gujarat, the Tebhaga Movement in Bengal demanding reduced landlord share, and attempts by Communists to integrate peasant and worker struggles as seen in the Telangana movement.

• Post-Independence but pre–Green Revolution phase witnessed a decline in agrarian mobilisation due to optimism about the welfare state and land reforms, with significant exceptions being the Bhoodan and Gramdaan movements, which relied on moral persuasion to supplement state efforts.

• During this period, localised movements like the land grab movement in the 1960s in Basti district of Eastern Uttar Pradesh, led by CPI cadre, along with roles played by individual activists, civil society organisations, voluntary groups and NGOs, kept agrarian issues alive.

• Post–Green Revolution movements emerged from unequal benefits of the Green Revolution, faulty land reforms and fading welfare optimism, with the earliest expression seen in the Naxal Movement and similar struggles like the People’s War Group in Andhra Pradesh.

• These movements drew leadership from middle-class intelligentsia, CPI cadre and local activists, adopted violent methods such as guerrilla attacks, parallel courts and destruction of records, and prompted state responses like TRYSEM and IRDP to pacify agrarian discontent.

• Although violent peasant movements were not successful in achieving their immediate objectives, they forced the government to rethink its development strategy, highlighting deep structural agrarian issues.

• Alongside these, new farmers’ movements emerged, driven by interest ideology, aiming to extract maximum benefits from state policies, reflecting the commercialisation of agriculture.

• A parallel stream led by middle-class intelligentsia and committed social activists linked peasant issues with broader social and environmental concerns, with the Narmada Bachao Andolan led by Medha Patkar being a prominent example.

• Peasant movements, according to Partho Chatterji, were not pure class movements as they were strongly influenced by regional, ethnic and caste considerations, were highly elastic, clubbed multiple issues like caste, poverty and language, and poor peasants faced dual burdens of economic deprivation and social discrimination.

• Farmers’ movements are conceptually different from peasant movements in terms of organisation, purpose and ideology, are largely a post–Green Revolution phenomenon, emerged in prosperous regions, and are often termed new farmers’ movements.

• In the post-Independence and globalised capitalist context, interests of capitalist farmers and peasants often clash, as rich farmers maintain subordinate and exploitative relations with peasants and labourers, leading to a widening income and class divide.

• Scholarly interpretations of farmers’ movements differ, with Harrington viewing them as a harmonious mix of environmental and peasant rights movements, many sociologists seeing them as interest groups, Dhanagare treating them as class-based capitalist movements, Paul Brass categorising them as New Social Movements addressing state policies along with gender and environmental issues, and Gail Omvedt interpreting them as a reaction against state–market collusion, inclusive of all categories of farmers, not only the affluent.

• Green Revolution made agriculture commercially profitable for rich farmers, mainly from dominant castes, who sought to retain profitability through demands like higher MSP, free electricity and water, subsidised fertilisers, and accused the state of urban bias in keeping food prices low for cities at the cost of farmers.

• Early farmers’ movements were led by communist leadership, but later independent organisations emerged such as Bhartiya Kisan Union led by Mahendra Singh Tikait in North India and Shetkari Sanghthan led by Sharad Joshi in Maharashtra, with leadership from within and membership largely from dominant castes like Jats of Haryana and Jats–Yadavs of western UP.

• According to Vibha Arora (2001), post-Independence farmers’ movements emerged in the late 1970s, peaked in the late 1980s, resurfaced in 1993 and mid-1997 during the post-liberalisation phase, driven by rising productivity without commensurate income growth due to low farm-gate prices and high input costs.

• These movements were concentrated in economically advanced rural regions such as Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and evolved into pressure groups using strategies like demonstrations, withholding crops, refusal to pay utility bills and loans.

• Political impact of farmers’ movements included a role in the overthrow of the incumbent government in the 1989 elections and influencing policies like the pan-India farm loan waiver by the UPA government in 2008.

• Core issues mobilising farmers post-Independence included poor implementation of land reforms, disparities from Green Revolution, lack of institutional credit, usurious private money lending, demands for MSP, free water and electricity, drought and irrigation dependency, absence of social security, and local conflicts such as caste violence in Bihar affecting poor farmers.

• In the wave of new farmers’ movements, interests of poor peasants and agricultural labourers are largely ignored, despite their participation, as demands for higher wages are sidelined and sometimes met with violence by rich farmers and landlords.

• According to T. K. Oommen, agrarian mobilisation issues have changed drastically, with slogans like “land to the tiller” losing relevance due to land scarcity, decline of anti-tenancy movements, dilution of proletarian revolution discourse by Communist parties, and limited attention to Dalits and Adivasis in contemporary peasant struggles.

• Farmers’ strong lobbying has resulted in policy gains such as free electricity in Punjab and MSP levels higher than statutory recommendations, and has expanded to oppose WTO, globalisation, retail FDI, MNCs, contract farming and GM seeds.

• Global inequality in farm subsidies has fuelled mobilisation, as US farmers received around $57,901 annually per farmer, compared to only about $99 support to Indian farmers in 2016, yet developed nations demand subsidy withdrawal in developing countries, pushing farmers’ movements to a global scale.

• A severe agrarian crisis has emerged marked by starvation deaths and farmers’ suicides, with starvation deaths prevalent in backward regions like Andhra Pradesh, Odisha and Rajasthan, and suicides driven by indebtedness, crop failure and market distress even among prosperous farmers in Punjab, Maharashtra and Karnataka, notably in Vidarbha.

• This crisis is a wake-up call for policymakers, highlighting the need to rethink the Green Revolution, redesign it with focus on dryland farming, and enhance farmers’ incomes in backward and neglected regions.