☰
Rise of Popular Movements
The movements and protests strengthen democracy in the following ways :
(i) These non-party movements are neither sporadic in nature nor are these a problem. These movements came up to rectify some problems in the functioning of party-politics and should be seen as integral part of democratic politics. In the first twenty years after independence, poverty and inequalities persisted on a large scale. Many politically active groups lost faith in democratic institutions and electoral politics. They therefore chose to step outside of party politicsd and engage in mass mobilisation for registering their protests. Dalit Panthers tried to stop atrocities against Dalits because the political parties like the Republican Party of India which supported the Dalit could not be successful in electoral politics. g
(ii) Popular movements ensured effective representation of diverse groups and their demand. This reduced the possibility of deep social conflict and disaffection of these groups from democracy. For example, the BKU mobilised the farmers of the north, the anti-arrack movement in the south mobilised women in the southern State of Andhra Pradesh demanding a ban on the sale of alcohol in their neighbourhoods.
(iii) The movements suggested new forms of active participation. In Nellore, the women forced closure of the wine shop. The Narmada Bachao Andolan leader Medha Patkar and other activists adopted the method of Jalsamadhi as a protest. They organised a boat rally too. This broadened the idea of participation in Indian democracy.
(iv) Movements increase the awareness among the people. For example, the anti-arrack movement contributed a great deal in increasing overall social awareness about women’s problems. And ultimately demands were made for equal representation for women in politics.
Sponsor Area
.....nearly all ‘new social movements have emerged as corrective to new maladies–environmental degradation, violation of the status of women, destruction of tribal cultures and the undermining of human rights-none of which are in and by themselves transformative of the social order. They are in that way quite different from revolutionary ideologies of the past. But their weakness lies in their being so heavily fragmented......................a large part of the space occupied by the new social movements seem to be suffering from ..various characteristics which Have prevented them from being relevant to the truly oppressed and the poor in the form of a solid unified movement of the people. They are too fragmented, reactive, ad hocish, providing no comprehensive framework of basic social change. Their being anti-this or that (anti-West, anti-capitalist, anti-development, etc.) does not make them any more coherent, any more relevant to oppressed and peripheralised communities. —Rajni Kothari
(a) What is the difference between new social movements and revolutionary ideologies ?
(b) What according to the author are the limitations of social movements ?
(c) If social movements address specific issues, would you say that they are ‘fragmented’ or that they are more focused ? Give reasons for your answer by giving examples.
Sponsor Area
Sponsor Area