Popular movements are organised, collective mobilisations by citizens — outside the formal structures of electoral politics — to demand social justice, policy change, rights recognition, or the redressal of grievances. They are a critical feature of democratic life, operating in the space between the individual citizen and the state.

In India, popular movements have been among the most powerful instruments of democratic deepening — forcing the state to recognise rights it had ignored, giving voice to communities excluded from formal politics, and expanding the meaning of citizenship beyond the ballot box.

• Mass participation: Involve large numbers of ordinary citizens — farmers, women, tribals, workers, students — not just political elites or party cadres
• Issue-based mobilisation: Centred on specific grievances — environmental destruction, land rights, caste discrimination, gender justice, livelihood threats — rather than the capture of state power
• Democratic & non-violent methods: Predominantly use peaceful means — protests, dharnas, rallies, hunger strikes, legal advocacy, media campaigns — drawing from Gandhian satyagraha tradition
• Leadership & ideology: Range from charismatic individual leadership (Medha Patkar, Sunderlal Bahuguna) to leaderless, decentralised mobilisation (anti-arrack movement). Ideologies span Gandhian, Marxist, feminist, Ambedkarite, and environmental frameworks
• Extra-institutional: Operate outside formal electoral politics — but interact with state institutions through litigation (PIL), policy advocacy, and media pressure
• Transformative potential: Seek not just policy change but shifts in social consciousness — challenging dominant development models, caste hierarchies, or patriarchal norms

India’s environmental movements emerged from the tension between rapid industrialisation and the livelihoods of communities dependent on forests, rivers, land, and coastal ecosystems. Unlike Western environmentalism (which often focuses on conservation for its own sake), Indian environmental activism is fundamentally about livelihood, justice, and survival — what Ramachandra Guha calls “environmentalism of the poor.”

• Development debate: Environmental movements challenge the dominant development model — questioning whether large dams, mining, and deforestation serve “national interest” when they dispossess tribal and rural communities
• Grassroots activism: Most movements are rooted in affected communities — Chipko in Garhwal’s women, NBA in Narmada valley’s adivasis, anti-POSCO in Odisha’s farmers — not in urban NGOs
• Policy impact: Environmental movements have achieved significant policy victories — the Forest Rights Act (2006), Environment Impact Assessment requirements, National Green Tribunal, and the recognition of environmental rights within Art. 21

• Background: Commercial forestry contractors were allotted forest land in Garhwal (Uttarakhand) while local communities — dependent on forests for fuel, fodder, and livelihood — were denied access
• Key figures: Sunderlal Bahuguna (Gandhian activist), Chandi Prasad Bhatt (Dasholi Gram Swarajya Mandal), Gaura Devi (village leader who led the iconic tree-hugging protest in Reni, 1974)
• Role of women: Women were the primary participants and leaders — their direct dependence on forests for daily survival made them the most motivated defenders. Chipko became a foundational example of eco-feminism in India
• Policy impact: Led to the 15-year ban on green felling in Himalayan forests; influenced the Forest Conservation Act (1980); inspired the Appiko movement in Western Ghats (1983); and put community forest rights on the national agenda

The NBA (Save Narmada Movement), led by Medha Patkar from 1985, is India’s most significant and sustained environmental-social movement. It opposed the Sardar Sarovar Dam on the Narmada river (Gujarat-MP-Maharashtra) due to the massive displacement of tribal and rural communities without adequate rehabilitation.

Judicial Interventions

• Supreme Court (2000): Allowed construction to continue but mandated rehabilitation and resettlement before each phase of dam height increase — a significant but contested compromise
• World Bank withdrawal (1993): Following the Morse Commission report documenting environmental and rehabilitation failures, the World Bank withdrew from the project — a major victory for the NBA internationally
• Ongoing issues: Despite legal mandates, rehabilitation remains incomplete; many displaced families have not received promised land or compensation

• Historical roots: The caste system — hierarchical, hereditary, endogamous — has been India’s most enduring system of social stratification. “Untouchability” relegated Dalits (formerly “untouchables”) to the lowest social position with systematic exclusion from public spaces, occupations, and dignity
• Constitutional safeguards: Art. 17 (abolition of untouchability); Art. 15 (prohibition of discrimination); Art. 46 (promotion of educational and economic interests of SC/STs); SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989; reservation in education and government employment
• Post-independence mobilisation: Ambedkar’s conversion movement (1956 — mass conversion to Buddhism); Republican Party of India; BSP under Kanshi Ram and Mayawati; numerous Dalit literary, cultural, and political movements across states

• Social exclusion: Despite constitutional abolition, untouchability persists in practice — in villages, temples, schools, and social interactions. Manual scavenging continues despite prohibition
• Economic marginalisation: Dalits are disproportionately represented among landless labourers, informal workers, and the urban poor; access to credit, markets, and productive assets remains limited
• Atrocities: Caste-based violence — lynchings, honour killings, rape as caste punishment, social boycotts — persists; conviction rates under the Atrocities Act remain low
• Political representation: Reservation has created a Dalit political class (MPs, MLAs, panchayat leaders), but substantive power remains limited; “elite capture” within Dalit politics means benefits often accrue to a narrow stratum
• Intersectionality: Dalit women face “triple oppression” — caste, class, and gender; Dalit Muslims and Dalit Christians are excluded from SC reservation benefits, creating an additional layer of discrimination

• Origin: Founded in 1972 in Mumbai by Namdeo Dhasal and J.V. Pawar; directly inspired by the Black Panther movement in the USA; Ambedkarite in ideology
• Context: Growing frustration with the pace of social change despite constitutional guarantees; increasing atrocities against Dalits in rural Maharashtra; feeling of betrayal by mainstream parties (including Congress)
• Ideology: Militant assertion of Dalit dignity; rejection of caste Hindu patronage; solidarity with all oppressed groups (labourers, women, landless); literary and cultural expression as a tool of liberation (Dalit literature movement)

• Land reforms (1950s–70s): Zamindari abolition largely successful; but tenancy reforms and land ceiling laws were poorly implemented in most states (exceptions: Kerala, West Bengal) — leaving the agrarian structure semi-feudal in large parts of India
• Naxalbari uprising (1967): Peasant revolt against feudal landlords in West Bengal; spawned the Naxalite/Maoist movement that continues as India’s longest internal security challenge (covered in Crisis of Democratic Order module)
• New farmers’ movements (1980s onwards): Shifted from land reform to agricultural pricing, input costs, and market access — BKU (Bharatiya Kisan Union), Shetkari Sanghatana, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha
• 2020–21 farm laws protests: Massive farmer mobilisation against three agricultural reform laws; year-long protest at Delhi’s borders; laws eventually repealed — demonstrating the continued power of agrarian movements in Indian democracy

• Growth & leadership: Founded in 1978; became a major force under Mahendra Singh Tikait in western UP during the 1980s. Revived under Rakesh Tikait during the 2020–21 farm laws protests
• Demands: Remunerative prices for agricultural produce (MSP); reduction in input costs (electricity, fertiliser, diesel); crop insurance and loan waivers; opposition to corporate entry into agricultural markets
• Methods: Mass rallies (the 1988 Boat Club rally in Delhi — estimated 500,000 farmers); road and rail blockades (rasta roko, rail roko); gherao of government offices; non-payment of electricity bills
• Role in agrarian politics: BKU represents the “new farmer” movements that are distinct from the Naxalite tradition — they are led by middle and rich peasants (not landless labourers), demand better market terms (not land redistribution), and use democratic methods (not armed struggle)

• Formation: Established in 1978 as a federation of fish workers’ unions across India’s coastal states; led by Thomas Kocherry (Kerala)
• Livelihood rights: Advocated for traditional fishing communities’ rights against mechanised trawling, deep-sea fishing by foreign vessels, and industrial pollution of coastal waters
• Coastal communities: Represented some of India’s most marginalised communities — artisanal fisherfolk who depend on the sea for sustenance but lack formal property rights or political visibility
• Key achievements: Influenced the Marine Fishing Regulation Acts in various states; contributed to the Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) notification debate; raised awareness of climate change impacts on coastal livelihoods
• Environmental justice: NFF framed fishing rights as environmental justice — linking livelihood protection with marine ecosystem conservation, challenging the false opposition between “development” and “environment”

• Origin: Began in Nellore district, Andhra Pradesh (1992) when women in adult literacy classes discovered that arrack (country liquor) was destroying their families — domestic violence, economic ruin, health damage
• Women’s participation: Entirely women-led — women attacked liquor shops, organised raids on illegal distilleries, and blockaded arrack distribution networks. The movement spread across AP within months
• Link with social reform: The movement demonstrated the connection between literacy, gender consciousness, and social action — the adult literacy programme (Total Literacy Campaign) had given women both the analytical tools and the collective identity to act
• Political impact: Forced the AP government to impose total prohibition (1995); influenced the 1994 AP elections (N.T. Rama Rao promised and implemented prohibition); established women’s issues as electoral concerns

Women’s Movements

• Phase I (1950s–70s): Focus on legal reform within existing frameworks — Hindu Code Bills (1955–56); dowry prohibition; equal inheritance. Led primarily by urban, educated women within Congress and Left parties
• Phase II (1970s–90s): Autonomous women’s movements emerged — anti-dowry (Dahej Virodhi Andolan); anti-rape (Mathura case → Criminal Law Amendment 1983); anti-Sati (Roop Kanwar case, 1987); anti-arrack; women’s reservation demand
• Phase III (2000s–present): Intersectional feminism — recognising caste, class, and religious dimensions of gender oppression; #MeToo; Shaheen Bagh; Nirbhaya movement → Criminal Law Amendment 2013; workplace harassment (Vishakha → POSH Act 2013)

Legal Reforms

• Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 — equal coparcenary rights for daughters
• Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
• Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 2013 — expanded definition of sexual offences
• Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Act, 2017 — 26 weeks paid leave
• Women’s Reservation Act, 2023 — 33% reservation in Lok Sabha and state assemblies (pending delimitation)

Political Participation

• 73rd and 74th Amendments (1992) — 33% reservation in panchayats and ULBs — over 1.4 million women in local governance, the world’s largest experiment in women’s political representation
• Yet women constitute only ~15% of Lok Sabha (18th Lok Sabha) — far below global average

• Deepening of democracy: Popular movements have expanded the democratic space beyond elections — making governance accountable to citizens between election cycles through protests, PIL, media campaigns, and social audits
• Accountability & participation: RTI movement → RTI Act (2005); anti-corruption movement → Lokpal Act (2013); right to food campaign → National Food Security Act (2013) — all demonstrate how movements force institutional accountability
• Policy influence: Forest Rights Act (2006), MGNREGA (2005), Land Acquisition Act (2013), POSH Act (2013) — all are direct products of sustained popular mobilisation
• Expanding citizenship: Movements have expanded the meaning of citizenship — from mere voting rights to substantive entitlements (right to food, work, information, forest rights, clean environment)
• Giving voice to the marginalised: Tribal communities, Dalits, women, fisherfolk, and urban poor have gained political visibility through movements that formal party politics often ignores

• Role of civil society: A vibrant civil society is essential for democratic health — it provides the organisational infrastructure for collective action, policy advocacy, and government monitoring that elections alone cannot
• Non-violent resistance works: From Chipko to the farm laws protests, non-violent methods have consistently proved more effective than violent ones in achieving lasting policy change — both because they attract broader support and because they operate within India’s democratic-constitutional framework
• Democratic engagement is iterative: Movements rarely achieve all their goals at once — the NBA’s struggle continues 40 years on; Dalit assertion is an ongoing process, not a single event. Democratic change is incremental and requires sustained engagement
• Movements need institutional translation: Activism alone is insufficient — movements must translate their demands into legislation, judicial precedent, and administrative practice to achieve durable change (e.g., RTI movement → RTI Act → information commissions)
• Intersectionality matters: The most effective movements recognise the intersection of caste, class, gender, and environment — the anti-arrack movement succeeded because it linked alcohol, gender violence, and poverty; Chipko linked forests, women’s labour, and ecology

Importance of Participatory Democracy

India’s popular movements demonstrate that democracy is not just about governance “of the people” through elections, but governance “by the people” through active, sustained civic participation. The movements covered in this module — environmental, agrarian, caste, gender, and livelihood-based — have collectively expanded the rights, voice, and dignity of India’s most marginalised communities.

Need for Constructive Engagement

• State responsiveness: Governments must view popular movements as legitimate democratic expressions, not threats to order — dialogue and policy reform should be the default response, not repression
• Institutional translation: Movement demands must be translated into enforceable legislation with adequate implementation mechanisms — the gap between law and practice (e.g., FRA, MGNREGA, POSH) remains India’s governance challenge
• Movement accountability: Civil society organisations must also be transparent, democratic, and accountable — self-regulation and public disclosure strengthen their legitimacy

Future of Popular Movements

• Climate justice: Environmental movements will increasingly focus on climate change impacts — coastal erosion, water scarcity, extreme weather — affecting the poorest communities most
• Digital rights: Data privacy, surveillance, algorithmic bias, and platform accountability are emerging movement themes for the digital age
• Intersectional mobilisation: Future movements will increasingly link caste, gender, environment, and economic justice — recognising that India’s challenges are interconnected and require integrated responses