SOCIAL MOVEMENTS IN INDIA A Review of Literature Ghanshyam Shah Praise for the First Edition Prof. Shah deserves to be richly congratulated for his painstaking intellectual effort in giving us this invaluable reference tool. — Deecan Herald ... represents a feat of excellence in the realm of research. — Indian Historical Review ... an excellent contribution to an important area which demands greater attention by scholars and researchers. — Social Action ...an important contribution to the understanding of social movements in India. —Choice: Journal of the American Library Association Social movements primarily take the form of non-institutionalised collective political action which strive for political and /or social change. While India has witnessed many such movements over the centuries, it is only recently that scholars have begun to study them in depth. This thoroughly revised and updated version of a seminal book divides studies on social movements in India into nine categories based on the participants and issues involved: peasants, tribals, dalits, backward castes, women, students, middle class, working class, and human rights and environmental groups. Each of the nine chapters is divided according to the major components of most social movements: issues, ideology, organisation and leadership. Based on these divisions, Professor Shah critically examines and reviews the literature concerning social movements in India from 1857 to the present. In the process he discusses the theoretical issues raised by various scholars while analysing major trends in different movements. In conclusion, he suggests areas for future research. Proposing a logical classification of social movements in modern India, this book will be widely welcomed by social activists as well as by political scientists, historians and sociologists. It will also be invaluable as a text m courses on social movements. CONTENTS Abbreviations Preface to the First Edition Introduction 2. Peasant Movements 3. Tribal Movements 4. Dalit Movements 5. Backward Caste/Class Movements 6. Women’s Movements 7. Industrial Working Class Movements 8. Students’ Movements 9. Middle Class Movements 10. Human Rights and Environmental Movements 11. Conclusions and Future Research ABBREVIATIONS ADMK Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam AEP Adivasi Ekta Parishad AFDR All India Trade Union Congress AFDR Association for Democratic Rights AITUC All India Trade Union Congress AIWC All India Women’s Conference APCLC Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee BJP Bharatiya Janata Party BKU Bharatiya Kisan Union CITU Centre of Indian Trade Unions CMSS Chhattisgarh Mines Shramik Sangh CPDR Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights CPI(M) Communist Party of India (Marxist) CSE Centre for Science and Environment CSV Chhatra Sangharsh Vahini DMK Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam HMS Hind Mazdur Sabha ICLU Indian Civil Liberties Union ICSSR Indian Council of Social Science Research ILP Independent Labour Party INC Indian National Congress INTUC Indian National Trade Union Congress KPSM Kerala People’s Science Movement KSSP Kerala Shastra Sahitya Parishad MISA Maintenance of Internal Security Act MKSS Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan NBA Narmada Bachao Andolan NGO Non-government Organisation NHRC National Human Rights Commission OBC Other Backward Castes POTA Prevention of Terrorism Act POW Progressive Organisation of Women (in Hyderabad) PUCL People’s Union for Civil Liberties PUDR People’s Union for Democratic Rights PWG People’s War Group RCDA Rural Community Development Association {Tamil Nadu) SC Scheduled Caste SCF Scheduled Castes Federation SEWA Self-employed Women’s Association SNDP Yogam Association for the Maintenance of Dharma founded by Shri Narayana ST Scheduled Tribe TADA Terrorist and Anti-Disruptive Activities Prevention Act TISCO Tata Iron and Steel Company UGC University Grants Commission UNO United Nations Organisation UP Uttar Pradesh PREFACE TO THE SECOND AND ENLARGED EDITION I am happy that the book received a wide response from teachers, students and researchers from different disciplines. More than two years back Mr Tejeshwar Singh suggested a new edition which I agreed to revise and update. While working on the revision I frequently felt like rewriting the whole book as my own theoretical framework on social movements and social transformation has undergone a change since 1990, but then it would have resulted in a new book which in the given time and with my other commitments was not possible. However, I have completely rewritten the chapter on women’s movements and added a new chapter on human rights and environmental movements. I hope the readers will find them useful. The Fellowship at NIAS (Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences), Wassenaar, the Netherlands provided conducive environment and facilities which enabled me to complete the revision. I thank the institute and its librarian Harriet de Man for support. I also thank Jaya Dalai for meticulous and thoughtful copy editing. But for the gentle perseverance and frequent reminders of Tejeshwar Singh I would have not completed this work. I thank Uma Chakravarti, Mary John, K.R. Nayar, Virginius Xaxa, Sharit K. Bhowmik and Shitharamam Kakarala for their help with different chapters of the book. Kalpana as usual not only patiently suffered my moods but also shared my thoughts as I read various studies and revised this text. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION This monograph aims to review the literature on social movements in India. The Advisory Committee of the Indian Council of Social Science Research (ICSSR) for the second round of the Research Survey-in Political Science assigned the task to me. The purpose of this exercise is to gauge broad trends—coverage of the subject in terms of social groups, geographical areas and periods, theoretical debates, approaches, major findings, etc.—and to point out the gaps so that the ICSSR can decide the priorities in funding research. Such a review may also be useful to scholars for planning their studies and avoiding duplication. ‘Social movements’ are not the concern of political science only. In fact, for a variety of reasons, political science has by and large ignored this subject. One who is interested in understanding the nature of the state, political power, and conflict in society cannot but help studying social structure, social processes, culture, economic structure, and the inter- relationships between them all. Some of the social movements in post-independence India have their antecedents in the colonial period, and they cannot be delinked from movements that took place in the last century or early in the twentieth century. Historical studies enrich our understanding of the present. Hence, a study on ‘social movements’ cannot be confined by the boundaries of separate academic disciplines. It should have not so much more of an ‘inter-disciplinary’ approach as understood by academia, as it should be ‘non-disciplinary’ to avoid the burden of one or another discipline. Though I have not been able to overcome my concern with political science in reviewing the literature, I have not confined myself to studies by political scientists only. When I began this study, I was faced with two questions. Should I confine the study to merely the contemporary movements of the post-independence period? Should I cover only ‘mass’ movements, irrespective of social strata or classes involved therein? First, in order to come to a meaningful understanding of the present, one has to understand the past, but because of the constraints of time and resources, one has to draw a cut-off line. I have decided to cover the studies dealing with ‘social movements’ since the establishment of the British Raj. Again, because of the above-mentioned constraints, I have not adequately dealt with socio-religious and freedom movements. My excuse would he that socio-religious movements only marginally affect state power at a given point of time. In the case of the freedom movement, the studies are many and it is difficult for one scholar to cover them all. Also, many of the studies on the freedom movement have dealt with the decision-making and the action of the elite rather than of the masses. Second, I believe that most of the social movements are largely, though not always, confined to one or another class or social stratum. Many of the studies are class/strata-specific like those on peasant, women’s and dalit movements. I therefore decided to categorise them as they are found in literature rather than clubbing them together or making thematic rearrangements. Thematic arrangements are not only complex but also problematic when one actually looks into the studies. That would have led one to ignore several studies which are otherwise interesting and informative. I have covered a larger canvas than was expected by the committee. This is partly because I hoped, when 1 started the work, to comprehend the overall pattern of various types of movements and the lessons that activists and ‘committed’ scholars interested in social transformation can draw for understanding various social groups and classes, their militancy, their actions, the potentialities and limitations of their movements at different points of time. I am still struggling to fully comprehend the complexities of reality; therefore I have resisted the temptation to discuss this aspect in the concluding chapter. I do not feel confident enough to arrive at generalisations on social movements. More debate with myself and with others is needed. The present exercise may provide the background, But for this assignment, I would not have read so many studies on social movements in India. I am grateful to the ICSSR for giving me this opportunity and bearing with me for the inordinate delay in completing the study and giving permission for its publication. The Centre for Asian Studies (CASA) at the University of Amsterdam provided a congenial environment and necessary facilities during my stay there as Visiting Fellow in July-August 1988 which enabled me to revise the manuscript. I am thankful to CASA, and its director, my friend Jan Breman. My gratitude is due to many friends and colleagues, at the Centre for Social Studies, Surat and elsewhere, who supplied references, read the manuscript either in full or in part and gave candid comments. Among them, special mention must be made of A. R. Desai, D. L. Sheth, Jan Breman, D.N. Dhanagare, David Hardiman, Vibhuti Patel, Pradip Kumar Bose, Neera Desai, Parita, Hein Streefkerk, Rakhahari Chatterji, S.P. Punalekar, Sudhir Chandra, Bhagirath Shah and Babubhai Desai. Kalpana, my wife, not only read and made very useful suggestions and comments on the chapter on women’s movements, but also bore with my moods and idiosyncrasies. M.R- Mac and Hina Shah were always helpful in getting me books and journals, and also bibliographical details. K.M. Bhavsar typed and retyped several drafts of the manuscript with great involvement and care. Anupam Pruthi provided editorial assistance. Of course, the limitations and errors of style and judgement in the study are mine alone. My friend, Thakorbhai Shah, a former Gandhian who was active in the Congress Seva Dal for three decades, between the 1940s and the 1960s, was my guide during my formative years in and outside school. He became a Marxist-Trotskyist and gave up bourgeois politics. He has led a number of working class struggles in and around Baroda. I admire his dynamism, commitment to the oppressed classes and constant search for alternatives. Though I differ with him on many issues, he and many such dedicated activists inspire and remind me constantly to combine theory with practice. I dedicate this work to Thakorbhai Shah with admiration and hope. INTRODUCTION There have been many studies on social movements in India during the last three decades, though compared to many other areas and the incidence of movements, their number is very small. A majority of the studies are recent, published after the mid-1960s. Most of them are by historians, sociologists, political activists or journalists. Political scientists have, by and large, ignored this area till recently. Historians have for long concentrated on political history, which is mainly the history of rulers and of the elite. British historians, in whose footsteps Indian historians, for good or for bad, followed, focused their studies on the activities of the British as the actors on the stage of history with India as a shadowy background (Stokes 1959). Social history came onto the scene very late. And for a long time, it limited its scope to the ‘history of people with the pol- itics left out’. It has been largely confined to social policies of the government, educational and cultural history, social reform movements, the growth of the middle class, etc. (Bhattacharya 1982). Recently, social historians have produced very stimulating studies on social movements in general and peasant movements in particular. Sociology is a relatively-new discipline. Although the first generation of sociologists maintained a broader horizon, the second generation has confined its focus to the tradition-modernity paradigm. A majority of their studies are related to kinship, caste and village society. Their interest in social movements was largely focused on Sanskritisation and socio-religious reform movements, excluding the political dimension as beyond their scope, until political sociology or the sociology of politics began to take shape in the late 1960s. Political science is still lagging behind. The Indian Journal of Political Science has published only 10 articles on movements, out of as many as 370 articles between 1965 and 1978. Out of 906 doctoral dissertations in political science accepted by Indian universities between 1857 and 3979, only 15 dealt with movements. The situation has not changed in the 1980s and 1990s. The first trend report of research in political science commissioned by the Indian Council of Social Science Research {ICSSR) in 1971 did not include them as a topic for the review of the literature. During 1969 and 1994-95 ICSSR sponsored 672 research projects in history, political science, sociology and anthropology. Among these, only 17 (less than 3 per cent) were related to social movements (ICSSR I990, n.d-). Even those movements which have a direct political character explicitly directed against the government, not to speak of social movements in general, have largely been considered by Indian political scientists to be beyond the purview of their academic discipline/Political science in India has largely concentrated on political institutions such as the executive, legislature, parties and elections. The study of the politics of the masses, their aspirations and demands, the articulation of their problems and their modus operandi in the assertion of their demands outside the formal institutional framework have been, by and large, ignored by political science academia. However, ‘development’ policies and welfare programmes, governance, etc, are on the agenda of teaching and research of Indian political science. But the focus is on the objectives and role of the government, and evaluation of the programmes rather than the processes of formulation of the policies. For instance, the policy of land reform is taught without analysing the struggles which forced the state and political parties to undertake the policy. Mrs Indira Gandhi’s garibi hatao policy is not analysed in the context of the numerous struggles of the rural and urban poor in the 1960s. It is often forgotten that the functioning of the state cannot be fully understood without an understanding of the politics of the masses. Perception, beliefs, aspirations and the views of the subaltern classes can help us to define and redefine our concepts, and question our textbook-based knowledge. One of the reasons for such an approach is the heritage of Indian political science. Though the heritage of the formal discipline is western, the notion of politics represented by the dominant intellectuals remains the same, cutting across cultural boundaries- Intellectual pursuit to understand, analyse and theorise politics is as old as the formation of collective life when rituals, rules and regulations, division of authority, distribution of resources and the existence of formal institutions for governance evolved. The Geeta and Mahabharata are treatises on politics. They discuss the duties and responsibilities of the rulers and the nagarjans at length. Kautilya’s Arthashastra is also a documented political treatise. Socrates and Plato’s works are well-known and widely taught to students of political science in our country. But all these are largely confined to rulers’ political and religious authority. Such a conceptualisation of politics dominates discourse on charting out the scope of teaching and research in political science as an academic discipline in the modern education system (Shah 2001). Earlier, under the influence of British tradition, political science in India was confined to political philosophy, formal government institutions and international relations. Empirical studies, including the functioning of the institutions, are of recent origin—from the late 1950s—influenced by the behavioural school developed in America. Positivism dominated analysis, and the question ‘why’ has been relegated to oblivion. Second, the concept of politics adopted by political scientists influenced s by American and British traditions is narrow, confined to the political system whose functions are: rule making, rule application and rule adjudication (Almond and Coleman 1960). For many political scientists, ‘polities’ means who gets what, when and how in society (Lasswell and Kaplan 1950). For others, the definition of politics is ‘authoritative allocation’ of values. Elaborating on the meaning of ‘authoritative’, David Easton points out, “... a policy is clearly authoritative when the feeling prevails that it must or ought to be obeyed . . . that policies whether formal or effective, are accepted as binding’ (1953: 76). Thus, these definitions delimit the study of politics to the functions of the government and the state, or the politics of the ruling class or elite. Therefore, it is not surprising that, in America and Britain, some universities have departments of ‘government’ or ‘public law’, and in India of ‘civics and administration’ or ‘public administration’, instead of ‘polities’ or ‘political science1. These definitions delimit the study of politics to the functions of the government and the state. Third, thanks to the dominance of post-World War II liberal political ideology and the structural-functional approach, there is greater emphasis in social science literature on equilibrium and harmony rather than on conflict and change. Political science, though primarily concerned with power and conflict, has refrained from researching the issue of societal conflict for social change (Sathyamurthy 1987). Political scientists have primarily remained interested in studying the internal conflict of the power elite and not the conflict between the masses and the rulers. According to them, societal conflicts have to be resolved by the government and political institutions. Their area of concern begins when conflict enters the political orbit of the government. For them, conflict resolution is more important than the causes of conflict. A majority of political scientists are liberal in their ideology and for nearly two decades of independent India, considered the constitution sacrosanct. They had and still have confidence that existing political institutions can solve all social conflicts (Aiyar 1966). There are innumerable constitutional channels to solve conflicts, and people should explore various constitutional methods rather than resort to direct action. Even in ‘a desperate situation’ in which the constitutional system fails to solve conflict, the path of social wisdom, liberal political scientists believe, ‘would lie in collectively exploring more rational and more humane forms of settling social conflicts’ (ibid.: 33). They believe that people should develop the habits of obedience and respect for authority. Democracy ends when power shifts to the masses. The masses have to be kept in check, political scientists used to advise (Srinivasan 1966). Of course now they are baffled as they find that political institutions increasingly fail to cope with unrest in society. A small section of political scientists, both liberal and radical, do not abide by this narrow definition of the subject. They have begun to explore the area of social movements for a greater understanding of social transformation beyond liberal and Marxist frameworks. This monograph is a review of literature and not a research study and analysis of social movements in India. Therefore, the most difficult riddle’, which often baffled me in writing this essay, has been: Which studies should be included and which excluded? There is no precise definition of the term ‘social movement’ accepted by scholars of all disciplines or even scholars belonging to the same discipline. Like many other terms, such as ‘democracy’, ‘masses’, ‘popular’, ‘equality’, the term ‘movement’ is often used differently by different social activists, political leaders and scholars who have written on ‘movements’. Some scholars use the term ‘movement’ interchangeably with ‘organisation’ or ‘union’. Some use it to mean a historical trend or tendency- It is fashionable for political leaders and social reformers to call their activities ‘movements’ even though their activities are confined to the forming of organisations with less than a dozen members. Some claim to launch movements by issuing press statements on public issues. Like many other words, the term ‘movement’ is still regarded as a ‘hurrah! word’, to use T.D. Weldon’s memorable classification (Weldonl955). The term ‘social movement’ gained currency in European languages in the early nineteenth century. This was the period of social upheaval. The political leaders and authors who used the term were concerned with the emancipation of exploited classes and the creation of a new society by changing value systems as well as institutions and/or property relationships. Their ideological orientation is reflected in their definition. However, since the early 1950s, various scholars have attempted to provide ‘thorough-going’ definitions of the concept of social movements. The works of Rudolf Heberle (1951, 1968), Neil Smelser (1963) and John Wilson (1973) are important, though each one’s definition is not without difficulties. Paul Wilkinson gives the following working concept of ‘social movement’: A social movement is a deliberate collective endeavour to promote cTisirigelnany direction and by any means, not excluding violence, illegality, revolution or withdrawal into ‘utopian’ community. Social movements are thus clearly different from historical movements, tendencies or trends. It is important to note, however, that such tendencies and trends, and the influence of the unconscious or irrational factors in human behaviour, may be of crucial importance in illuminating the problems of interpreting and explaining social movement. A social movement must evince a minimal degree of organization, though this may range from a loose, informal or partial level of organization to the highly institutionalized and bureaucratized movement and the corporate group. Indeed, it will be shown that much of the literature of social movements has been concerned with natural histories, models or theories of movement development. Such models have attempted to simulate changes in movement structure and organization ranging from states of initial social unrest and excitement and the emergence of a charismatic leadership, to a revolutionary movement’s seizure of power. A social movement’s commitment to change and the raison d’etre of its organization are founded upon the conscious volition, normative commitment to the movement’s aims or beliefs, and active participation on the part of the followers or members. This particular characterization of social movement in terms of volition and normative commitment is endorsed by something approaching a consensus among leading scholars in this field. Heberle, for example, conceives of these belief-systems as an expression of the collective will of the people among whom they are accepted. He is emphatic that it is the element of volition that makes the beliefs socially effective. It is the conscious volition of individuals acting collectively that brings about the embodiment of ideologies in social movements (1971:27). The working concept above does not claim to offer a precise definition. It is too broad, and includes collective action for change ‘in any direction1 through legal means within the boundaries of the institutions (such as voting in elections or presenting memoranda), as well as violent extra-institutional collective action. The ‘minimum degree of organization’ is problematic. It is difficult to say precisely what this ‘minimum degree’ is. One also wonders whether the social movement begins with setting up an organisation with committed members, or does the organisation evolve in the course of time as the movement develops? Such a definition may exclude protests and agitations which may not have an organisation to begin with. Notwithstanding the difficulties with Wilkinson’s working concept, it has a heuristic value. It should be mentioned here that studies on social movements in India have not yet made a systematic effort to define the concept in the Indian context (Chandra 1977). Needless to say, like many other concepts, the meaning given to the term ‘social movement’ by the participants has temporal and cultural contexts. Objectives, ideology, programmes, leadership, and organisation are important components of social movements. They are interdependent, influencing each other. However, Ranajit Guha’s warning needs to be kept in mind. He points out that though these components are found in all types of movements or insurgencies, including the so- called ‘spontaneous’ rebellions, their forms vary—from very unstructured to well- organised. He challenges the contention of some historians who opine that peasant insurgencies were spontaneous and lacked political consciousness and organisation. Such insurgencies lacked, ‘neither in leadership nor in aim nor even in some rudiments of a programme, although none of these attributes could compare in maturity or sophistication with those of the historically more advanced movements of the twentieth century’ I realise that if I use a precise definition in this essay, which I formulated to analyse the particular collective action in the 1970s (Shah 1977), to include or exclude some studies, I would land myself in a number of difficulties. It may lead me to sacrifice some very interesting, well-documented and analytical studies. This would be detrimental not only to the understanding of the nature of social movements in India but also various theoretical perspectives as well as the changes therein over a period of time. Since the purpose of this essay is not to analyse empirical data collected by myself, nor does it aim at being a theoretical essay on social movements per se, it needs to be pragmatic and adopt a broad concept to cover a wide variety of studies on social movements. However, our theoretical equipment and time constraints compel us to demarcate our scope and cover only certain kinds of collective action and to exclude others from this essay. This essay pays attention to those studies which examine non-institutionalised legal or extralegal collective political actions which strive to influence civil and political society for social and political change. Collective actions which follow the path of acquiescence for social mobility and change in status are excluded. Action which is legally permitted and widely accepted as binding in society or part of society (Johnson 1966: 21) at a given point of time is institutionalised action. Such actions include petitioning, advocacy, lobbing, voting in elections, and fighting legal battles in courts of law. However, sometimes these methods are accompanied by other collective actions and are used as tactics. In such cases, we treat them as a part of the social movement and include them in the scope of this essay. Sometimes, resistance of the people against dominance, direction and commands of the dominant groups and the state is treated as a social movement. Resistance is certainly an expression of protest. But so long as it remains at an individual level and desists from confrontation involving collective action it is not a movement (Scott 1985; Guha 1989). The present study is largely confined to the direct actions of a group of people confronting authority. In David Bayley’s words, it is ‘illegal public protest’ (1962). The term ‘illegal’ raises many questions and it is a matter of interpretation of law and the constitution. A particular action can be interpreted as illegal by those who are in authority or support the status quo, but the same action may be interpreted as legal by those who strive for social change. ‘Direct action can be defined’, according to Rajni Kothari, ‘as an extra-constitutional political technique that takes the form or a group action, land] is aimed at some political change directed against the government in power’ (1960: 27). The term ‘extra-constitutional’ can be a matter of perspective. Kothari’s concept of ‘political change’ in the 1960s was narrow, confined to change in the government (he has since moved away from this concept). We believe that political power is not solely confined to the government; it is also located at various levels m society. All those who strive for ‘political change’ do not always struggle against the government alone. The collective actions of the people are at various levels against dominant culture, caste, class and ideology. Non-institutionalised collective action takes several forms, such as, protests, agitations, strikes, satyagrahas, hartals, gheraos, riots. Agitations or protests are not strictly social movements, if we follow the working definition quoted earlier. But, more often than not, a social movement develops in course of time, arid it begins with protest or agitation on a particular issue which may not have the ‘organisation’ or ‘ideology’ for change. For instance, when students of an engineering college in Gujarat protested against the mess bill, it was a relatively spontaneous act. But that protest led to the Nav Nirman Andolan of 1974 in Gujarat (Shah 1977). Moreover, a particular collective action may be only an agitation for some scholars, and a movement for others, depending upon the level of analysis and the perspective. For example, the collective action of a section of society demanding the formation of linguistic states in the 1950s was viewed as an ‘agitation’ by some and as a ‘movement’ by others; the same scholars, at a later stage,