We have seen a number of movements in our times like Naxalism, Jharkhand movement, the BSP movement led by Kanshiram, the Chipko –Tehri movement. What triggers these movements? Is there a difference between people’s movements & social movements?
If we closely look at them we see that most of the struggle start because of a social strain like in the BSP where a particular section of the society had been feeling strained not only socially but also economically and politically. Individual dissatisfaction also triggers an action which may take form of a movement as seen in the case of Naxalites. We may see feelings of deprivation in the Jharkhand movement not from the immediate past but over centuries together. Another reason for the triggering of the agitation leading to movements is the disruption of the status quo. There was no explicit struggle existing on the Gujjar-Meena issue, but a small policy change/declaration brought the issue to limelight which led to immense violence, loss of lives and destruction of property. This was disturbing the status-quo.
People’s movement are focused on specific issues, while social movements are larger in nature and focus on social/ political change. An important question emerges at this point is whether people’s movement take the shape of social movement or vice-versa? Looking at different examples from contemporary India, we may observe that most of the social movements have emerged from people’s movement, while many of the people’s movement have terminated themselves at the issue level. For example, the Jharkhand struggle started more as a people’s movement with no strategic intention to become a social movement however, over a period of time it transformed into a social movement when the people started changing their tribal culture, adopted modernization, divided themselves into classes and so on. If we look at the recent Gujjar-Meena conflict, it was a struggle to oppose some of the Govt.’s policies favoring a particular group of the society. Once the Govt. revised the policies, the agitation stopped. This could not take the shape of a social movement.
What Sustains the Movements?It is important to understand as to how these movements gets sustained. What is the driving force for them to continue apart from the issue itself? In every movement, whether people or social, we see that leadership is key to its sustenance. When we say leadership, it might not be linked to “a” person but a philosophy which run in the top management. For example, Kanshi Ram followed by Mayawati kept the issue alive of Dalit empowerment and played a pivotal role in establishing the BSP at a national level. Chipko and Tehri movement saw a number of leaders like Gaura Devi, Sudesha Devi, Bachni Devi, Chandi Prasad Bhatt, Sunderlal Bahuguna, Govind Singh Rawat, Dhoom Singh Negi, Shamsher Singh Bisht who were all tied to a common philosophy.
The second driver important to a movement is reiteration of the cause by external agencies like media, multi-lateral organizations, NGOs etc. We have seen this factor strongly in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, where media intervention, the attention of the international development community has kept alive the fire for over 25 years now.
And finally, it is important to acknowledge the economics of the movement in order to sustain it. Many movements are not successful, when their economics go wrong. By economics I do not mean, financing, but the gains and losses of various stakeholders and distribution of benefits amongst various stakeholders. If we closely see the Tehri movement, it is often termed as a failure and largely it is attributed to lack of healthy economics in the movement.
Conclusion A natural question which emerges from here is that whether the people’s movement be fuelled to take the shape of social movement or they be terminated after the closure of the issue? Strong arguments exist for both the views and it would be impractical to prove a point.
People’s movement is for an issue, the issue can be small or big, but is something which is causing dissatisfaction and grievance in a section of the society. It is always for the betterment to resolve the issue and construct systems around them which do not lead for any future dissatisfaction. However, if it could be envisaged that the issue could lead to further betterment of the society in the long run, it would be better to let the people’s movement grow into a societal movement. Further, if we look at the issue of termination of movements, we see that they never terminate but take a different form. As said - “The only thing constant in our lives is CHANGE”.
If we closely look at them we see that most of the struggle start because of a social strain like in the BSP where a particular section of the society had been feeling strained not only socially but also economically and politically. Individual dissatisfaction also triggers an action which may take form of a movement as seen in the case of Naxalites. We may see feelings of deprivation in the Jharkhand movement not from the immediate past but over centuries together. Another reason for the triggering of the agitation leading to movements is the disruption of the status quo. There was no explicit struggle existing on the Gujjar-Meena issue, but a small policy change/declaration brought the issue to limelight which led to immense violence, loss of lives and destruction of property. This was disturbing the status-quo.
People’s movement are focused on specific issues, while social movements are larger in nature and focus on social/ political change. An important question emerges at this point is whether people’s movement take the shape of social movement or vice-versa? Looking at different examples from contemporary India, we may observe that most of the social movements have emerged from people’s movement, while many of the people’s movement have terminated themselves at the issue level. For example, the Jharkhand struggle started more as a people’s movement with no strategic intention to become a social movement however, over a period of time it transformed into a social movement when the people started changing their tribal culture, adopted modernization, divided themselves into classes and so on. If we look at the recent Gujjar-Meena conflict, it was a struggle to oppose some of the Govt.’s policies favoring a particular group of the society. Once the Govt. revised the policies, the agitation stopped. This could not take the shape of a social movement.
What Sustains the Movements?It is important to understand as to how these movements gets sustained. What is the driving force for them to continue apart from the issue itself? In every movement, whether people or social, we see that leadership is key to its sustenance. When we say leadership, it might not be linked to “a” person but a philosophy which run in the top management. For example, Kanshi Ram followed by Mayawati kept the issue alive of Dalit empowerment and played a pivotal role in establishing the BSP at a national level. Chipko and Tehri movement saw a number of leaders like Gaura Devi, Sudesha Devi, Bachni Devi, Chandi Prasad Bhatt, Sunderlal Bahuguna, Govind Singh Rawat, Dhoom Singh Negi, Shamsher Singh Bisht who were all tied to a common philosophy.
The second driver important to a movement is reiteration of the cause by external agencies like media, multi-lateral organizations, NGOs etc. We have seen this factor strongly in the Narmada Bachao Andolan, where media intervention, the attention of the international development community has kept alive the fire for over 25 years now.
And finally, it is important to acknowledge the economics of the movement in order to sustain it. Many movements are not successful, when their economics go wrong. By economics I do not mean, financing, but the gains and losses of various stakeholders and distribution of benefits amongst various stakeholders. If we closely see the Tehri movement, it is often termed as a failure and largely it is attributed to lack of healthy economics in the movement.
Conclusion A natural question which emerges from here is that whether the people’s movement be fuelled to take the shape of social movement or they be terminated after the closure of the issue? Strong arguments exist for both the views and it would be impractical to prove a point.
People’s movement is for an issue, the issue can be small or big, but is something which is causing dissatisfaction and grievance in a section of the society. It is always for the betterment to resolve the issue and construct systems around them which do not lead for any future dissatisfaction. However, if it could be envisaged that the issue could lead to further betterment of the society in the long run, it would be better to let the people’s movement grow into a societal movement. Further, if we look at the issue of termination of movements, we see that they never terminate but take a different form. As said - “The only thing constant in our lives is CHANGE”.
No comments:
Post a Comment