(a) Peasants and Farmers Movements

Peasant is a broad usage of the term. It means who are dependent on agriculture for their livelihood. But Eric Wolf has defined it in a narrower sense, referring to the population that are existentially dependent on cultivation and make autonomous decisions regarding cultivation. This definition excludes landless laborers, because they can’t take autonomous decisions. So, he refers to a peasant as any small and middle land holding farmer.

As far as peasant movements are concerned, scholars tried to divide Indian society premodern and modern times. In pre moderns times Barrington Moore Jr and Eric Stokes have tried to portray an image of peasantry as a largely passive and docile. Caste system emphasis more on duties them rights, Peasantry is a class based identity in a caste based society. It was an identity where there were many castes. For all these people peasantry was a class. So, they say that peasant movements belong only to modern times. But scholars like Kathleen Gough, A.R. Desai, and D.N.Dhanagare challenge this view. They are of the view that in pre-modern times, in India, there were atleast 77 revolutions. For example: - Jat uprising, Maratha uprising, Santhal uprising etc. These scholars also say that, in atleast 12 revolutions, out of the 77, peasants were mobilized in thousands we can’t say that peasantry was ‘passive and docile’ they say that, peasant movements existed even in pre-modern times. In modern times, peasant movements should be classified into two types.

(a) Pre independent peasant movement (Naxalbadi, Telangana).

(b) Post independent agrarian movements (Bhartiya Kishan Union etc.)

Kathleen Gough classifies both pre modern and modern peasant movements into 5 types:

(a) Restorative movement

(b) Religious based movement

(c) Social Bandits movement

(d) Terrorist movement

(e) Mass insurrection movement

(a) Restorative movement: for example: 1857 revolution. Sociologists say that 1857 revolutions involved lot of peasant unrest. In Awadh and

other areas, mobilization of people was due to class based interests. Santhal rebellion of 1856 was tribal in nature, but the fight was on the issue of land alienation.

(b) Religion based: Most of the Muslim peasants were mobilized on religious basis. Moplah uprising in Kerala, Wahhabi movements, Farsi movement in East Bengal

were on these lines.

(c) Social Bandits: Social bandits were called Bagis not Dakus. They enjoyed social support. They fought against exploitations landlords.

(d) Terrorists movements: Khalistan movement

(e) Mass insurrections: Telangana and Naxalbadi movements.

On the basis of comparative study of various movements, sociologists identified various causes for peasant movements.

(1) Arbitrary eviction of tenants, so demands by tenants for security of tenure.

(2) Rack renting

(3) Exploitation of share croppers (Tebhaga movement)

(4) Arbitrary taxation (Kheda Bardoli)

(5) Demands for redistribution of land. For example: Naxalbadi movement, Ultra left

movements CPI (MC), PWG

(6) High price rises of food grain and living expenses.

(7) Sexual abuse of peasant women.

(8) Protest against practices of bounded labor (Vethi)

(9) Most of peasant movements in rice growing areas than wheat growing areas. 80% of small farmers tended to be higher here and also it was labor intensive.

(10) Peasant movements were more successful where there were alliances

between peasants and political parties, particularly with those of left ideology.

Most of leadership came from middle peasants.

(11) Mutiny in Awadh Area. Kisan Sabha movement in Uttar Pradesh, Santhal Rebellion, Krishak Sabha movement Indigo revolution, Farsi in Bengal/ Bandoli, Kheda/ Pabna movement, Wahabi in Bihar, Maratha rebellion of 1875 Moplah Preferably.

Since the early 1970’s the farmers movement has become one of the most important nonparliamentary political forces in India. From one state to another, farmers have formed organizations for better economic conditions in an increasingly commoditized agriculture economy. Their main target has been the state which intervenes in the agrarian economy by supplying agricultural inputs and regulating the markets. The farmers demand higher subsidies on inputs like seeds, fertilizers, pesticides, electricity and water. They also demand lower taxes and debt relief. Likewise, they demand higher prices for their products such as grains, cash-crops, vegetables and milk. They argue that terms of trade between industry and agriculture is increasingly favoring industry as against agriculture. The farmers movement began in Tamil-Nadu and Punjab in the early 1970’s and later spread to Karnataka, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Haryana, Western Uttar Pradesh and some neighboring regions. Today the most important movements are Shetkari Sanghatana in Maharashtra, and Bharatiya Kisan Union in Punjab and Western Uttar Pradesh.

Their central message is symbolized in simple and powerful slogan: Bharat against India! Sharad Joshi leader of farmers’ movement in Maharashtra says “The real contradiction is not in the village, not between big peasants and small, not between owners and landless, but between agrarian population and rest of society.”

The strong populist appeal has enabled the mobilization of broad rural masses. The

strength of the farmers union is considered by many to derive from their concentration on one single issue i.e. economic remuneration of farming. It has taken hold of vast groups of rural people belonging to diverse castes, religions and classes and has grown into movements that challenge the existing state and the way politics and economic negotiation are transacted.

But this shouldn’t mean that farmers’ movement equally represents the interest of all rural class and strata. Behind the appeal, there is a definite class basis, of rich and capitalist farmers in alliance with middle and even poor peasants, who rally behind these movements because of their precarious position in an increasingly commoditized agriculture economy, in which prices to a large extent politically determined via state intervention. Rural laborers are only indirectly benefitted.

Women’s Movement

It can be broadly classified into two types according to Gallombelt, a Swedish scholar settled in Maharashtra.

(1) Equality movement

(2) Liberation movements

Equality movements are moderate in character. They don’t question the existing socioeconomic structure. They don’t’ seek drastic changes. They are concerned primarily with extension of rights to women. They accept that men and women are different, but by virtue to being a human, she has to enjoy certain rights.

Liberation movements challenge basic structure of family, distinction of sexual division of labor including mothering role. Indian feminism has been largely confined to equality movements. According to Romila Thapar, reason for this is that in West there is a large section of professionally qualified women seeking high ranking jobs. And the traditional family role is acting as a barrier. So, they are questioning the fundamental sexual division of labor. Unlike that, in India, as education among women is restricted, Indian feminism is discouraged, and has been primarily concerned with equality movement.

Women’s movement can be of two types:

(a) Movements for women or which involve large scale participation of women but not necessarily led by women

(b) Movements for women led by women, where they also present an alternate ideological world view.

Most movements in India fall in the first category. This is the reason for not having genuine women movements in India so far. Most conspicuous character of women

movement in India was around following:

(1) Caste based oppression

(2) Hindu religious beliefs

(3) Colonial rule

(4) Joint patriarchal family

These are the factors which dominated the discourse in wake of women’s movement. The early phase of movements was socio-religious reform movements where social hierarchy and Hindu religion were the main issues. The major thrust of these movements was fight against inhuman practices like Sati, denial of widow remarriage, fight against Purdah, right to education etc.

Justice Ranade’s Sarvajanik Sabha, Periyar’s Dravidian movements were fights against inhuman practices on women concerning infanticides, child marriages etc. All men leading these movements except, for Pandita Rama Bhai. Men who led these movements were mainly from upper caste. They didn’t question the patriarchal caste structure. Movements were more of a gesture of humanism that guided them.

These movements were confined to elite in urban areas. Generally oppression of women was high in Dwija Castes. In Non-Dwija castes, there was not high discrimination of women. So, movements were led by men and Dwija castes and they hardly touched 2-3% of population. Others remained oblivion of these movements.

After these movements, colonial rule dominated the discourse. Gandhi played a very

important role. Feminists like Devaki Jain, Vina Mazumdar etc. regard Gandhi as a great liberator. Women adopted an active role in freedom movement, Swadeshi movements and picketing of liquor shops etc. women, now for the 1st time moved out of family to fight for cause of nation.

But more radical feminists say that Gandhi was also insufficient. Though Gandhi wanted women to be active in community life, yet he also didn’t challenge the patriarchal structure.

Women in freedom movements were helpers than comrades, even in other movements like Tebhaga movement, Telangana movement, Naxalbadi movement etc. there were attempts to mobilize women. Azad Hind Fauz of S.C. Bose had women’s wing. In all these movements’ women played a supportive but not equal roles. Number of individual activists like Sarojini Naidu, Nalini Dutta, Sucheta Kriplani etc. emerged as leaders in the freedom struggle. Even after independence, women participated in many number of issues, but they were not women related issues. For example: Chipko, Appico, and Narmada Bachao Andolan movement saw rise of eco-feminism in India. Women participated in issues of environmental degradation, drought relief movements etc. they were also seen in tribal movements, trade unions etc. in all these movements there is no direct focus concerning women’s problems.

Today, number of autonomous, agitational and conscious raising groups emerged. They are grass root and mass based organizations fighting on issues of tribal rights, women head load workers. Some organizations are working to provide emotional support to women. There are also professional women organizations of lawyer, professors and Journalists etc. there are also women’s wing of political parties.

According to Rohini Sujatha and Neelima women’s movement, now, follows 3 different patterns or norms:

(1) Fight of woman against atrocities like Rape, pornography, and prostitution etc.

(2) Fight through unions for improvements in standards of life and conditions of

work. They also participate in general movements like price rise, ecology issue etc.

(3) Social organizations which demand social recognition their of role as house wives.

Madhu Kishwar identified contemporary issues for which women are fighting.

(1) Rape, wife beating, harassment on street and public transport

(2) Violence in family

(3) Demand for common civil code to ensure gender justice

(4) Problems of working women

(5) Protests against trafficking in women

(6) Exploitation of women belonging to Dalit and minority communities.

(7) Pornography, obscene portrayal of women, issues of commodification of women

(8) Problems of women in slums, in informal sector etc.

(9) Protest against system of temple prostitution for example: Devadasi prostitutes

(10) Superstitions and witchcraft where women are accused as witches.

(11) Issue of female feticide.

Though there is ample proof of ingenuity and commitment to women, yet autonomous women’s movement have not taken a stable form in India. According to Rohini Sujatha and Neelima, at the ideological level, identification of women as an oppressed group which becomes a rallying point for mobilization has not yet emerged in India. Shared oppression does give women a strong sense of cohesion, but that itself can’t give sense of power and strength to prolong a sustained fight against this oppression in absence of a stable organization. Women movements are only a reactive response rather than a sustained fight in India.

Backward Class Movements

Backward class has a confusing meaning. In one view of Backward class it refers to all ‘socially and economically’ deprived sections of society because the word used here is class. However, other sociologists point out that this meaning is too large. They say that, meaning should be restricted. They say that, the word class was not used by British in Marxist sense.

They used two terms:

(a) Depressed classes

(b) Other backward classes (OBC)

Supreme Court in its judgment clarified this issue, saying that, the term ‘classes’ cannot be equated with castes. So, British usage of depressed class is with regard to SC and ST as per schedule attached to Government of India Act 1935.

Other sections which were also victims of ‘socio-economic deprivation’ of hierarchical society in India came to be referred as OBC. OBC today means castes belonging to middle rung. They are ‘neither Dwijas nor SC’. That is how ‘BC or OBC’ came to be accepted. [BC—OBC—MBC] These backward class movements are a term used to refer to movements led especially by members of Non-Dwija castes and non-SC castes though sometimes they tried to incorporate SC also within them.

Most of backward class movements were in Western and Southern India, while in North India there have been backward class mobilizations, but no backward class movements as such: why?

(1) Traditional caste hierarchy particularly in ritual dimension referring to ‘puritypollution’ dimension was never rigid in north compared to south.

(2) In North, after rise of Bhakti movement and Islam rule traditional notions or ‘purity-pollution’ came to be weakened Sikhism had no practice of untouchability which is a result of Bhakti movement.

(3) Caste system has two dimensions:

(a) Ritual/religious dimension

(b) Secular dimension

Secular dimensions means w.r.t. ownership of land, access to education, high ranking occupations etc. Religious dimensions are w.r.t. purity-pollution notions. So, in the North, domination in secular hierarchy was not consciously narrowed in hands

of Brahmins only who were considered as chief ideologists of socializing and legitimizing caste system. In many professions like law, teaching, journalism etc. that emerged, Brahmins were dominant, but they weren’t alone. Secular hierarchy of power and prestige was shared with number of people.

(4) In economic dimensions, land was rarely owned by Brahmins. ‘Thakur’s and Ashraf Muslims’ were dominant landlords in North India.

(5) As far as commercial capital was concerned, it was largely controlled by members of ‘Vyshya community’. So, there was a ‘dispersed stratification’ in North India. In south India, in Madras presidency, ritual hierarchy was very rigid. In Kerala at one time there were strict rules that distance between ‘Dalit and Namboodari’ Brahmins should be 36 meters. Dalit were not allowed to wear slippers and were not allowed to cover upper portion of body. Even secular hierarchy tended to be cumulative rather than dispersed. Brahmins who dominated ritual hierarchy also dominated secular hierarchy. They were leading in education also. In Madras presidency, Brahmins constituted 3%, but more than 2/3% of graduates were Brahmins. In many districts of south India, sometimes entire administration used to be controlled by Brahmins and sometimes from same lineage. Brahmins also dominated in political sphere. They were the middle men, who aided British to consolidate their kingdom. Iyers and Iyengars totally dominated the scene from 1840-1920. As, being powerful both as a community and also because entire lineage was involved, tracing of problem and prevention of mal-administration became a challenge for British.

By this time politics was becoming Pan-Indian and militant, even congress leaders were mainly Brahmins in South like T. T. Krishnamachari, Chakravarti Rajagopalachari. So, in response to them, anti-caste, anti-Brahmins movements developed. For example: Dravidian movement, Satyashodhak Samaj, etc. British also promoted these movements. They had a vested interest to divide society and so it encouraged. In entire Tamil-Nadu of today, there is no Kshatriya, Dwija or forward caste exercising political power. This is due to these movements. Today power is mainly exercised by OBC and thus they are referred to as forward Shudras’. Except for ‘Chettiars and Reddiars’, there is also novysya linked caste.

In Maharashtra, after establishment of Maratha confederation headed by Peshwa based at Pune, Brahmins came to dominate politics. Even in Maharashtra, there were no Kshatriya caste dominating. Kerala also saw domination of Brahmins. Brahmins and Nair communities jointly controlled everything. So, because of overlapping of secular and ritual basis of hierarchy any attempt towards equality would mean attack on caste system. As caste system was subscribed by Brahmins. So, there were many Anti-Brahmins movements and Anti-caste movements in all these areas.

Unlike South, as said earlier, in North India, Brahmins was dominant only in the ritual dimension. Through movements like Kisan Sabha etc. INC was also taking care of secular interests of middle class. Sardar Patel, Nehru, Rajendra Prasad emerged out of Kisan movements only. Also, the ritual dimension was not so obnoxious, so, not many backward class movements in North India. Backward class movements were mainly concentrated in Bombay and Madras presidencies. There was also an ideological similarity in these movements. Both these movements took aid of ‘Racial caste theory’ given by oriental scholars like H.H. Risley, Max-Muller etc. It says that caste system in India developed due to racial divide which developed due to migration of Aryans from central Europe and racially indigenous people. Migrant Aryans belonged to different stocks. For example: Rig-Vedic.

Study from Andhra University also confirms this. Study shows that, gene of father in European, but gene of mother is Asian. Migrant Aryans were women deficient. Aniloma was promoted but Prathiloma was prohibited.

In Aniloma, Aryan men could marry local women. But Pratiloma meant Non-Aryans men marrying Aryan women. Which was not allowed, this racial theory made caste hierarchy to develop?

Later on they say that race component became less important after inter caste marriages began. Racial divide was weakening. Most gods were dark colored. Krishna and Ganesha, due to their dark complexion were called Shudra gods and later accepted by Brahmins.

Those who controlled political and economic power became upper castes and those were subjugated became lower castes. Aryans were called descendants of Manu. Later on hierarchy became dependent on ritual dimension. This racial theory was made use by different people for different theorists. Tilak used to inculcate it for self-confidence. Lower castes made use of theory, to say that we are the real sons of soil. So Adi-Dravidain, Adi-Andhra, Adi-Kannade movements among Dalits claiming their rights as original inheritors. This theory was made use even by Backward class

movements and its leaders, particularly in the two most prominent ones:

(a) Satya Shodak Samaj (Pune)

(b) Dravidian movement (Tamil-Nadu)

H.H. Risley puts his theory in the form of a law of race contact. It runs roughly as follows: white men in contact with people of color will take women from the colored group but will not give their own women. When the whites have bred enough white women, “they will close their ranks” and form a superior caste. The mixed bloods will then close their ranks, forming additional castes with degree of superiority based on lightness of color. Color question was at the root of the Varna system is apparent from the meaning of the word Varna (complexion) and from the great emphasis with which the Vedic Indians distinguished themselves from Non-Aryans in respect to color. The class which retained the utmost purity of color by intermixture naturally gained precedence in the social scale.

Brahmins: white

Kshatriyas: Red

Vaisyas: because of large absorption of black blood were yellowish like mulattoes of

America,

Sudras: Black.

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule was inspired by racial ideology and launched a movement called Satya Shodak Samaj. The movement was against domination of Brahmanism in political and caste system in general. He tried to spread the message that:

(1) He made a distinction between original inhabitants and outsiders

(2) Upper castes are outsiders and most importantly Brahmins are outsiders.

(3) He wanted to unite rest of the population who are actually Non-Dwija castes. He wanted Shudhism—Athishudhism unity. Rationale for that is, they were all original inhabitants.

Mahatma Jyotiba Phule wanted to reform the society by attacking Brahminical Hinduism and assaulting Brahminical power clout. He wanted large unity among all Non-Brahmins. He attacked brahminical movements of Maharashtra like that of Ranade’s Sarvajanik Sabha. He also attacked nationalistic movements saying. Nationalism should wait till Dalits get uplifted. He criticized them as pro-upper castes. He referred to carrion (dead meat) eating by Dalits due to their poverty. He considered Brahmins more dangerous than British and so he aligned with British.

He said that Aryans were Brahmins who robbed land, political and economic power from natives. He said that-Shudras, Athishudras, Malis, Bheeds, and Mahars etc as original inhabitants of the land. He says that all these sections were exploited by conquering Brahmins and hence should be freed.

He wrote a book called ‘Shetkaryacha Asooth’ which literally means predicament of peasants. He simultaneously presents a critiques, British government and Brahmins system. He attacked both ritual and secular dimension of caste system. According to Gail Olvrdt, she says his solutions are strikingly modern and ahead of his times. He suggested biotechnology and watershed development. He suggested building dams and canals. He talked of returning land to tribal occupied by British. He spoke of interbreeding of cattle to produce high yielded milk and both. He held agricultural exhibitions and training program for peasants. He also talked of paid employment to farmers. He emphasized Vidya as opposed to shastra. He defended and praised Pandita

Ramabai and thus emphasized gender equality. He laid down a new system called ‘Sarvdhanik Satya Dharma’. Which was a simple religious practice, which was ritual free and no Brahmins was required to practice. He advocated simple marriages to be solemnized without Brahmins.

Dalit Movements

What is meant by Dalit?

Dalit means ‘oppressed and exploited’. It was a Sanskritic word. Many sections of Indian society are Dalits. SC/ST/Women/minorities like Muslims etc. are also Dalits. So, Dalits refer to all exploited sections of society.

Initially, the terms was interpreted in broad sense but later on the term came to be used in restricted sense only SC (Scheduled Caste). SC are certain caste which are enumerated in constitution. They are referred to as Panchamas (5th category), Athi-Shudras (by Phule), Exterior castes (by Horton), Harijans (by Gandhi), Depressed classes (by British), untouchables (by Maharaja of Baroda). Today sections of society are called Dalits. This term is a recent addition to labels used to refer them. It was first used 1870’s when there was a movement in Maharashtra led by educated Mahars. Following the example of U.S.A, where there was a movement of blacks called ‘Black Panther movement’, they launched a ‘Dalit Panther movement’ in India which initially incorporated all suppressed classes.

Later on, due to political compulsions, they included only SC’s under name of Dalits. Why they needed a new name? Dalit is a consciousness and it signifies a new consciousness, a new level of awareness and an attitude of militancy to fight against various injustices. These sections suffered from cumulative deprivation. They had a degraded social status which involved socio-cultural deprivation. They were termed as untouchables which excluded them from mainstream. They belonged to marginalized group, denied school education, access to temples, wells etc. They were also denied representations in community institutions like Panchayats. Most of them didn’t have any economic resources like land. Thus their condition as untouchables was most humiliating.

They were also politically powerless. Also, they were not a homogenous community in term of economic deprivation. Mahars in Maharashtra, Malas in Andhra were relatively better off than other Dalit. But these kinds of castes were few and most of them lived in chronic poverty and had no dignity of human life.

In history of Dalit protest, initial phase of protest was against socio-cultural deprivation. For example: Vaikom Satyagraha, temple entry movements etc. Their struggle for removal of untouchability was also given legitimacy through Art 17 of constitution. The word of untouchables was not mentioned anywhere in the scriptures. As time passed by, socio-cultural deprivation of Dalit in urban areas vanished and in rural areas it declined. This was no longer an issue. Now the fight moved onto political deprivation. Earlier also they sought power, but due to dependence on dominant castes, they had to be a junior ally of dominant castes.

Today, Dalit are becoming a rallying point for mobilization as they are a sizeable

number. Dalit identity is being arrested. Dalit today don’t accept the word Harijan. Harijan means being under the tutelage of dominant caste. But Dalit signifies being independent and to get politically mobilized against dominant caste.

They also abandoned the Sanskritizing trend. They don’t aspire to imitate the upper castes. Mayawati says “Chamari Hoon, Kunwari Hoon, Tumhari Hoon”. Though the Dalit label is recent, their discontents and protest is age old. Buddha was the first who raised his voice against rigid hierarchy of caste which assigned a degraded status to certain sections. Buddha said that, “No one is Brahmin/Shudra by birth, but one is Brahmin/Shudra by deed”. Moderate protest against caste system as it accepts meritocratic inequality. Buddhism did help in decline of untouchability. But by 2nd century,A.D., Hinduism came back. Manusmriti says to subjugate Dalit. ‘Hiuen Tsang’ who visited during Harsha’s time confirmed to untouchability practices. Next came the Bhakti movement. Ravidas was a leather worker and Kabir was a weaver. They rejected brahminical rituals and suggested development as path of salvation. But except for a few saints, largely most of the saints were from upper/middle castes. So, they never challenged the secular basis of caste system. Later on these movements formed multi caste organizations and turned into religious sections.

There was not a significant change in caste hierarchy and practice of untouchability.

During the British there were socio-religious reform movements led by Brahmins. But they were mainly in urban areas. They attacked caste system. Conversion was another route of protests. Many Dalit converted to Christianity. Today more than 60% Christians in India are Dalit. On the other hand middle classes and artisans converted to Muslims. After these, there emerged some movements which challenged brahminical authority in various parts of India. For example: Sree Narayana Dharma Paripalan movement (SNDP) in Kerala. It was by Ezhavas of Kerala who were Todi workers. After success of SNDP movement, in Kerala, among Polyans, Sadhu Jana Paripalan Sangam emerged. There was depressed class mission in Maharashtra by Shinde. There was also Mahar movement led by Ambedkar. Dravidian movements also claim to be addressing to Dalit in order to increase their members. But later on Dalit were disillusioned with Dravidian movement as it catered to only upper and middle castes.

In Tamil-Nadu M.C. Rajah established depressed class mission. Ayyankali was another leader from Travancore in Kerala. Some movements like Adi-Dravida, Adi-Andhra movement etc. were also inspired by radical ideologies. Even Gandhi joined Dalit and started living in Bhangi colonies and called them Harijans during freedom movement. Gandhi made the upper castes, accommodative for demands of lower castes. On the other hand Ambedkar made Dalit self-confident. This is the reason why Dalit demands were accommodated with minimum violence. Thus roles of Ambedkar and Gandhi in this issue were complimentary to each other. Most of these movements were fighting against socio cultural deprivation and seeking help from colonial state. After independence there was a ‘lull’ in 1950’s and 1960’s in Dalit movements in hope of INC promise to uplift Dalit, But after 1960’s disillusionment due to failure of leaders.

After 1960’s there was increasing tendency towards compromise and Dalit leaders took to band wages politics. On these lines Republican Party in Maharashtra was established. Due to spread of Western and secular education there emerged intelligentsia in Dalit who propagated idea of ‘equality and liberty’. So, a literacy movement called Dalit Panthers movement was started in 1970’s. K.S. Chalam and Suraj Bhan. But spread of education touched only 1-2% of Dalit. Also scope of Dalit term got reduced to SC only as other castes gained mobility. In 1980’s and 1990’s this spread of discontent spread to many parts of India. This saw rise of parties like BSP by Kanshi Ram and Puthiya Tamilagam by Dr Krishnaswamy.

Now Dalit movement entered second phase of struggle fighting for political empowerment has not yet emerged and is yet to come. Also there is increasing tendency of mobilization of Dalit by ultra left parties. Jehanabad riots saw Dalit mobilization based on class and not on caste. So, there emerged a Dalit movement under an ultra left ideology. This is due to extreme inhuman lives.

Though there is success in their movements, yet the problem is of fragmentation. Dalit are fragmented among themselves as much against other castes. They are not being able to influence adequately the national politics in their favor.

Environmental Movements

Environmental movements are attempts at social mobilization against various ecological disturbances which result in wake of adoption of modern technology universally, we have adopted capitalistic mode of production, development, where efficiency and profitability determines rules of game. Technology which is driven by capitalist mode of production/development is incompatible with ecological balance.

In fact in the entire economic theory, nature and natural resources have been treated as free goods as if they exist in abundance. The entire outlook of industrial civilization is to control and dominate nature rather than harmonies with it. Ideology of capitalism is never ending search for profit. Never ending eagerness for profitability raises issue of sustainability of this mode of development. Also this process of industrial development came to be synonymous with nation building and development is also spreading consumerist ethos which is creating various ecological imbalances.

Environment movements are associated around two issues in India:

1) Stop the use of those aspects of environment which are causing damage to the environment like mining, industrial deforestation, townships, etc.

2) Upgradation of environment like afforestation so that a better environment can be developed.

Gadgil and Guha identified four Perspectives of environment movement in India:

(1) Gandhian Thought: Gandhi emphasized on moral necessity to restrain excessive use of natural resources and ensure justice to poor and marginalized groups. Gandhi was the first to question the desirability of industrial civilization. He called it satanic civilizations. He said that industrial civilization leads to debasement of human beings. He emphasized on ‘delimitation of needs’. More we control desires more godly like we become. Inspired by Gandhian thought (ideology) a number of movements developed. In other words, it emphasized revitalization of environment by stopping excessive use and exploitation of environment.

(2) There was also a ‘Marxian perspective’. It sees cause of ‘ecological imbalance’ and ‘environmental degradation’ in unjust social order (though Marxism was also in practice state capitalism). It is on the line of Marx which is active against the exploitative system and believes in control of the poor over the environment. Tribal violent movements, on the issue of ‘Jad, Jungle, Zameen’ the main issues.

(3) Scientific community responses: It emphasized on use of appropriate technology. They professed to build an indigenous technology to suit socio-political environment. Upgradation of environment through afforestation, plantation, stopping use of plastics.

(4) There were also spontaneous responses by people at grass root levels to protect their immediate environment, for example: Chipko movement. Accordingly Ghanshyam Shah, classified ecological movements into the following ways:

(a) Protection and conservation of forest and land: Issues involved here are conservation of forest resources, right of access to people for forest resources.

They were opposing the move to commercialize natural resource. Most conspicuous example of this kind of movement, Chipko movement (1973) in Gadwal by Sunderlal Bahuguna. One special feature of this kind of movement is the active participation of poor and women to whom commercializationwould directly affect.

(b) Movement for prevention of land degradation: Excessive use of fertilizers, and water lead to degradation of land. For example: Appiko (`to embrace`) movement in Karnataka (1983).

(c) Regarding marine resources and Aquaculture: People were protesting against trolling and commercialization of shrimp and prawn cultivation. They wanted to protect and preserve their marine resources and for implementation of coastal zone regulations. For example: Chilika Bachao Andolan in Orissa, National Fishermen forum of Kerala fought for these.

(d) Industrial pollution: There were protests for strict pollution controls and measures for providing compensation to victims. Zahiro gas Morcha in Bhopal, Ganga Mukti Andolan in Bihar campaigned against reckless expansions of industries. Also they focused on livelihood issues of local people who get displaced and adversely affected. There were also movements against pollution of Son River by Vidushak Karkhana group etc.

(e) Irrigation projects: Protests were mainly against dams. Issues involved were regarding protection of tropical forests, preservation of ecological balance etc. Also there was a concern about rise of seismic activity due to creation of big dams/ reservoirs if there are fault lines. Also there was issue of displacement and rehabilitation of poor. For example: Narmada Bachao Andolan, Silent Valley movement in Palghat, Tehri Bandh Virodhi Sangharsh Samiti in Gadwal etc.

(f) Power Projects: Jan Andolan in Dabhol protested against Enron, Koe-Kaio Jan Sangathan in Bihar protested against mining and overuse of mineral resources, Anti Bauxite movement in Orissa, Anti mine movement in Din Nallely etc. There were also protest against military bases which threatened ecology. There was Baliapal movement against Anti-missile test in Orissa. There were protest against wildlife Sanctuaries regarding displacements and rehabilitation of people in Sanjay Gandhi National Park and in Bhimashankar region of Maharashtra.

Ethnicity and Identity Movements

Ethnicity is a socio-cultural expression of race. Hence, a group which is having common language, culture, food habits etc. who belong to a particular race can be called an ethnic group.

According to Ghanshyam Shah there are two approach to understand ethnic movement in India:

1) Ancient approach, which believes that since a group of people having common biological and cultural characteristics, emotionally associated themselves and are not ready to tolerate outsiders and hence protest or oppose them is the reason of ethnic or identity movement.

2) Instrumental approach, believes that every ethnic group wants special privilege socio-economically and politically in a particular area and if they feel that their privileged position is challenged, they unite themselves. To elaborate, Ethnicity refers to identification of a group on the basis of certain characteristics like race, culture, language, religion and even economic experiences. They are a group of people who share certain characteristics in common. Often in ethnicity, multiple criteria are involved.

Members of a group have similar racial characteristics. They are those attributes of people which breed true. Breed true implies that they transmit from one generation to another generation. For example: Blood group, Skin color, sometimes racial characteristic may be too large. So, they are subdivided into many groups. North East people in India are racially ‘Brachycephalic Mongoloids’. So, among Mongoloids ‘consists of Chinese’, ‘Red Indians’, ‘Japanese’, ‘South-East Asia’ etc. But among them they have many languages, identities, religious and customs. For example: Nagas fight with Kukis.

Race is only one element but not the sole element. But it is the most important element because people who share that tend to be an endogamous group. That is why similar characters tend to continue and continue to be racially distinct.

In ethnicity multiple characteristics needs to be concerned. But in ethnicity mobilization of certain characteristics are over emphasized. People are identified based on ethnic characters. That is why there is an element of arbitrariness. What is ethnic identity depends on leaders. It is constructed depending on situation and based on situation certain attributes are highlighted and others may not. Shiv Sena talks of Maharashtra for Marathis. But who is a Maharashtrian. Is it decided based on ability to speak Marathi language? So, it all depends what characters leader use to mobilize people. Certain primordial identities are highlighted in practice. Every element is not taken. Ethnic identities are difficult to define. It is difficult to classify people based on ethnicity. For example: In Manipur there are Manipuri tribal, Naga, Kuki and also non-tribal Manipuris; so very difficult to identify.

One thing universal to all ethnic identity is that it is a ‘primordial identity’. It is primarily by birth and not by achievement and choice. It so happens that members of an ethnic group may share common existential groups and form social interests shared in common.

In Assam fight against outsiders in because of massive, illegal migration of Bangladeshi. They tended to develop a movement which involves ethnic Assamis. In this case it was a common social interest. Same fear also exists in England that Asians will outnumber the whites. When one ethnic group because of common existential circumstances tends to develop a commonality of interests and when they experience a common relative deprivation due to threatening from other ethnic group or state machinery, ethnic conflicts arise. When Maharashtrian attack Bihari migrants, it is fight against other ethnic groups. But Khalistan movement, NSCN movement in Nagaland is an ethnic movement directed against Indian state. Even issue of Kashmir is ethnic identity. Kashmir wants separation from India and it is an ethnic movement directed against Indian state.

The perceived sense of relative deprivation may be real or imagined. In pre-independence India, caste based or other primordial identities were used to undertake ethnicity based movements. Dravidian movement is a movement based on Tamil ethnicity. Santhal, Koya and Rampa rebellion are some of the ethnic based movements based on tribal identities. In post-independence India, reason for cause of relative deprivation varied from movement to movement. In the case of tribal movements, the reasons for relative deprivation were:

(1) Land alienation

(2) Laws of political autonomy

(3) Dilution of traditional identities and culture.

In case of Dravidian movement, reasons for relative deprivation were:

(1) Lack of representation of Backward classes in government services.

(2) Socially humiliating practices even after the wake of secular egalitarian ideology, after spread of British rule. It threw up a movement for self-respect (Ramaswamy Naicker alias Periyar) to gain human dignity. So, there were only socio-political factors. Economic factors were not involved.

But ethnicity based movements developed more conspicuously after independence. North-East has witnessed so many particularly because of laws of political autonomy. Mizos demanded a separate Mizoram. In Nagaland the insurgency for a separate state is down but not out. Most important leader was Fizo who initiated a movement for separate nation of Nagaland. Later on Khasi and Garo also wanted to assert their distinctive identities. There has been a demand for political autonomy and separate state. Also in 1979-80, All Assam students union (AASU) developed an ethnic movement of Assamese to drive out migrants. AASU was converted to AGPS, captured power in state. After this the movement declined. But of these ‘Splinter movements’ developed. ULFA demanded secession. BODOS and KHADVIS demanded a separated state within Assam. BODOS were earlier part of AASU, but they have redefined their identity as BODOS. Throughout 1980’s and early 1990’s we had secessionist movements in Punjab based on Sikh religion and Punjabi language.

Actually these movements grew out of relative deprivation. In case of Punjab, numbers of factors were involved.

(1) Distortion in federal structure with arbitrary use of Article 356.

(2) Inequalities created by Green revolution.

After initial prosperity it started plateauing (reach a stable state of little change) and led to increase in incidence of poverty and inequality. Also influence of westernization and modernity led to alcoholism, disorganizations of family life, lack of sexual morals etc., and the general trend was towards decrease in traditional identity as a Sikh.

Kashmir continues to witness secessionism since 1989. This is also an ethnic movement. Here the reasons are:

(1) Dilution of autonomy. India witnessed a centralizing tendency. Also there was problem of widespread corruption.

(2) Abdullah family came as heroes, but after acquiring power, they degenerated to like an autocratic patriarch. Sayeed Salahudeen who now runs a terrorist outfit Pakistan was an ordinary politician in India (JandK) and was one of a key initiator of peace process. But he migrated to Pakistan realizing as there was no hope for fair politics in Kashmir.

The real causes for ethnicity based movements are different. Also distortions caused by development, general neglect of agriculture, failure of Mahalanobis model to create employment opportunity brought about rural poverty. So, there was an increase in migration which led to over urbanization. These imbalances led to ethnic movements. One of the prominent imbalances was demographic imbalance.

Ethnicity is seen as a type of populism. It has become a tool for political mobilization. Most of these ethnicity movements emerged out of imbalances in nation’s development. As people succeed in using these, they use it. Indian democracy has been degenerated into competitive politics. Along with this ethnic consciousness there are deliberate attempts to assert distinctive ethnic identities today.

These kinds of movements may tear the fabric of the country delicately woven for centuries. Inclusive growth through inclusive governance is the answer. ‘Forest Rights Bill’ is one of the right steps that government took recently. Also developing with region specific approach especially in North-East will bring them into mainstream.