Introduction
Chapter – 1
- There have been many studies on social movements in India over the last three decades, but their number is relatively small compared to the incidence of movements.
- Most studies are recent, published after the mid-1960s, and are by historians, sociologists, political activists, or journalists.
- Political scientists have largely ignored this area until recently.
- Historians have focused on political history, mainly the history of rulers and elites, and British historians emphasized British activities in India.
- Social history emerged later, initially focusing on social policies, educational and cultural history, social reform movements, and the middle class.
- Recent social historians have produced studies on social movements and peasant movements.
- Sociology is relatively new in India, with early sociologists having a broader focus, while later ones focused on tradition-modernity and kinship, caste, and village society.
- Interest in social movements in sociology initially concentrated on Sanskritisation and socio-religious reform, excluding political dimensions.
- Political science in India has lagged behind in studying social movements, with limited articles and dissertations on the topic.
- The Indian Journal of Political Science published only 10 articles on movements from 1965 to 1978, and 15 out of 906 doctoral dissertations in political science between 1857 and 1979 dealt with movements.
- The first trend report by ICSSR in 1971 did not include social movements in the literature review.
- ICSSR sponsored 672 research projects between 1969 and 1994–95, with only 17 related to social movements.
- Indian political scientists have largely ignored movements that are politically directed against the government and social movements in general.
- Political science in India has focused on political institutions like the executive, legislature, parties, and elections, neglecting the politics of the masses and their assertions outside formal institutions.
- Development policies and welfare programs are studied for their objectives and roles rather than the processes behind them.
- Historical political science traditions in India are influenced by Western models, focusing on rulers and formal institutions.
- Traditional Indian political thought includes texts like the Geeta, Mahabharata, and Kautilya’s Arthashastra, which focus on rulers’ duties and political authority.
- Modern political science in India, influenced by British and American traditions, has been confined to political philosophy, formal government institutions, and international relations.
- Empirical studies and behavioral approaches in political science began only in the late 1950s, with positivism dominating analysis.
- Definitions of politics in American and British traditions are narrow, focusing on rule-making, rule application, and rule adjudication.
- Some universities in America and Britain have departments of ‘government’ or ‘public law,’ and in India, ‘civics and administration’ or ‘public administration,’ instead of ‘politics’ or ‘political science’.
- Post-World War II liberal political ideology and the structural-functional approach emphasize equilibrium and harmony over conflict and change in social science literature.
- Political science, focused on power and conflict, has largely avoided researching societal conflict for social change.
- Political scientists have been interested in internal conflicts within the power elite, rather than conflicts between masses and rulers.
- Societal conflicts are seen as issues to be resolved by the government and political institutions.
- Conflict resolution is prioritized over understanding the causes of conflict.
- Many political scientists, influenced by liberal ideology, have viewed the constitution as a solution for all social conflicts and preferred constitutional methods over direct action.
- There is a belief that people should respect authority and that democracy ends when power shifts to the masses.
- Some political scientists are now exploring social movements for a broader understanding of social transformation beyond liberal and Marxist frameworks.
- This monograph is a literature review on social movements in India, not a research study.
- Defining which studies to include or exclude in the review has been challenging due to varying definitions of ‘social movement.’
- The term ‘movement’ is often used interchangeably with ‘organization’ or ‘union’ and can refer to historical trends or tendencies.
- The term ‘social movement’ gained prominence in European languages in the early nineteenth century during a period of social upheaval.
- Early uses of the term were concerned with class emancipation and creating a new society through changes in value systems, institutions, or property relationships.
- Scholars have developed various definitions of social movements, including those by Rudolf Heberle, Neil Smelser, and John Wilson, each with its own difficulties.
- Paul Wilkinson defines a social movement as a deliberate collective effort to promote change by any means, including violence, illegality, revolution, or withdrawal into a ‘utopian’ community.
- Social movements differ from historical movements, tendencies, or trends.
- A social movement must exhibit a minimal degree of organization, ranging from informal to highly institutionalized forms.
- Much literature on social movements deals with the natural history, models, or theories of movement development, from initial unrest to revolutionary power seizure.
- Social movements are characterized by a commitment to change, normative commitment to aims or beliefs, and active participation by followers.
- Consensus among scholars includes the idea that social movements involve collective volition and normative commitment, as emphasized by Heberle.
- Heberle argues that the effective element of social movements is the collective will of people and their conscious volition in embodying ideologies.
- The working concept of social movements is broad, encompassing collective action for change in any direction, including legal and extra-institutional means.
- There is difficulty in defining the ‘minimum degree of organization’ for a social movement, leading to challenges in distinguishing between movements and other forms of collective action.
- The concept of social movement may exclude protests or agitations that start without formal organization.
- Studies on social movements in India have not systematically defined the concept within the Indian context.
- The term ‘social movement’ has temporal and cultural contexts, influenced by objectives, ideology, leadership, and organization.
- Ranajit Guha warns against the assumption that all movements have structured leadership and programs, arguing that even ‘spontaneous’ rebellions had some level of organization and aim.
- Using a precise definition might exclude valuable studies, impacting understanding and theoretical perspectives on social movements.
- The essay adopts a broad concept to include a variety of studies on social movements, focusing on non-institutionalized collective actions aiming at social and political change.
- Institutionalized actions, such as petitioning or voting, are excluded unless accompanied by other collective actions.
- Resistance at an individual level is not considered a movement unless it involves collective action.
- The study focuses on direct actions confronting authority, which may be legally or extra-legally interpreted.
- Rajni Kothari defines direct action as an extra-constitutional technique for political change directed against the government, though political power is also located at various societal levels.
- Non-institutionalized collective actions include protests, agitations, strikes, satyagrahas, hartals, gheraos, and riots.
- Agitations or protests may evolve into social movements over time, and their classification can vary based on perspective and level of analysis.
- Riots labeled by authorities may be part of ongoing movements, such as the Deccan riots, which were part of a larger peasant movement.
- Sociologists often include movements with political objectives in their studies, while political scientists also use the term ‘social movement.’
- The phrase ‘new social movement’ refers to recent movements such as women’s, environmental, and identity movements, but some argue these are not distinctly ‘new’ or post-modern.
- There are questions about the applicability of the ‘new social movements’ paradigm to Indian society and whether issues like identity and economic content are relevant.
- Andre Gunder Frank and Marta Fuentes distinguish between social and political movements, suggesting social movements seek autonomy rather than state power.
- Critics argue this distinction glosses over the realities of political processes and the complexities of movements seeking social justice and transformation.
- The difference between ‘social’ and ‘political’ movements may be more semantic, as both involve struggles for justice and rights impacting political authority.
- Studies on social movements generally follow either a Marxist or non-Marxist framework, but not all studies fit neatly into these categories.
- Some scholars do not use a preconceived theoretical framework and are not ‘well equipped’ with theories.
- There is often a blending of Marxist and non-Marxist approaches when dealing with empirical situations.
- Marxist scholars focus on revolutionary change towards a socialist system, locating the causes of social movements in the economic structure of society.
- Marxists argue that antagonistic interests between propertied and labor classes generate contradictions and conflicts, leading to collective actions by the exploited classes.
- Marxist analysis traditionally emphasizes structural economic causes but is increasingly considering ethnic, religious, and cultural factors.
- Some Marxists are re-examining notions of class and class relationships, acknowledging the complexity of community and class identity.
- Marxist scholars debate theoretical and methodological issues, including the roles of parties, trade unions, and the concept of a ‘vanguard class.’
- Non-Marxist scholars vary widely in their approaches and ideological positions on social and political change.
- Some non-Marxists view mass movements as products of mass societies that are anti-democratic and extremist, advocating exclusion of the masses from day-to-day politics.
- Indian scholars who supported independence agitations later criticized post-independence agitations as ‘dangerous’ and ‘dysfunctional’ for society.
- Some non-Marxist scholars advocate for political change limited to government and political institutions, differing from Marxist class analysis.
- Non-Marxist analyses may emphasize individual psychological traits, elite power struggles, or cultural factors rather than economic causes.
- In the mid-1960s, political scientists questioned the scale of violence in India and criticized opposition parties and trade unions for instigating direct action.
- Some scholars argue that Indian culture’s ‘multilinear character’ and hierarchical structure make mass movements unlikely, while others refute this by highlighting ongoing struggles.
- Protests and agitations in post-independence India are seen by some as conflicts between ‘tradition’ and ‘modernity,’ with ambivalent attitudes towards authority.
- Scholars of political development argue that rising aspirations unmet by rigid political institutions lead to instability and mass upsurges.
- Rajni Kothari argued that ‘direct action’ is inevitable in India’s parliamentary democracy due to frustrations with existing institutions.
- David Bayley argued that public protests have functional utility in a parliamentary system, addressing inadequacies in institutional redress.
- Kothari and Bayley focused on direct actions against the government, not on protests against socio-economic dominance.
- A.R. Desai criticized Kothari and Bayley for their formal-level discussion, asserting that their analysis lacks insight into fundamental problems.
- The parliamentary form of government is inadequate for expanding democratic rights and can either perpetuate capital’s authority or transform into a dictatorship.
- Public protests will persist until the rule of capital ends or until adequate political institutional forms for democratic rights are established.
- Desai (1986) argues that the Constitution does not protect civil and democratic rights, leading to increased movements for their protection.
- Rajni Kothari (1984, 1986) claims that democracy in India has become corrupt, criminalized, and repressive, undermining the role of the state in social transformation.
- Discontent is growing, with increased awareness of rights and political expression, often against powerful and complacent interests.
- Kothari believes that grassroots mobilization is necessary, as real counter-trends emerge outside traditional political systems and trade unions.
- The theory of relative deprivation, developed by Gurr (1970), has been used in studies of agitations but is criticized by Indian scholars for not being sufficient for explaining protest movements.
- M.S.A. Rao (1979) argues that relative deprivation alone is not enough; participants need understanding and awareness of their situation.
- Shah (1979) contends that relative deprivation ignores ideological aspects and does not explain revolutionary movements.
- T.K. Oommen (1977) criticizes deprivation theorists for viewing movements as temporary and not addressing the sources of deprivation.
- Studies on social movements in the 1970s categorized them based on objectives: revolt, rebellion, reform, and revolution.
- Shah (1977) distinguishes movements as revolt (challenging authority), rebellion (attacking authority without seizing power), and revolution (overthrowing government and socio-economic structure).
- Partha Mukherji (1977) describes social movements as accumulative, alternative, and transformatory.
- M.S.A. Rao (1978) offers typologies: reformist, transformatory, and revolutionary.
- T.K. Oommen believes movements represent a confluence of old and new values, with typologies related to movement crystallization and phases.
- Typologies do not account for the dynamic nature of movements and changes in objectives over time.
- David Bayley (1962) classifies coercive public protest into legal and illegal, and further into violent and non-violent.
- Movements are also classified based on issues, such as forest, civil rights, anti-untouchability, linguistic, and nationalist.
- Participants and issues can overlap, leading to classifications such as peasant, tribal, dalit, backward caste, women’s, industrial working class, students’, and middle class movements.
- New categories include human rights and environmental movements, often led by the middle class but addressing issues affecting deprived classes.
- Categorization is complex and may not fully capture the diverse nature of movements and their participants.