20 Social Movement and Nation-State in India

Contents

1. Objective

2. Introduction

3. Learning Outcome

4. Social movement vs. nation-state

5. Social movement and nation state- Antagonistic in terms or reciprocally integrated?

6. Summary

1. Objective

Relationship between social movement and nation-states boils down to a protracted issue in the mainstream sociology, i.e. the dialectical relationship between movement and institution. There are two diametrically opposite perspectives on the relationship between nation-states and social movements. According to one perspective, social movement is a pathological syndrome of an ailing system; whereas, other glorifies it as the accompaniment of the ongoing process of social transformation. Despite the projection of them into antagonistic terms in some literatures, a durable processual linkage between them can be identified. In the present module an attempt will be made to explore the said relationship in the Indian context.

2. Introduction

Social movement is often conceptualized as a deliberately designed collective action, informed by an ideology, and assisted by an institutional structure with an intention to bringing about intended social transformation. It may be violent or non-violent in nature, depending upon the type of its mobilization. Though social movements originate and guide against institutions, they also need some institutional back up to consolidate their gains. A typical dialectical relationship can be observed between social movements and nation states. For example, the birth of organization/institution out of a social movement is deemed as a natural outcome, which in turn leads to institutionalization of social movement by routinisation of charisma, and the proliferation of the maze of stifling bureaucratic structure. Hence, social movement eventually loses its temper and degenerates into mere protest. However, it is worth noting here that institutions do not produce movements, in fact, movements need institutional frameworks to thrive. It is often argued that social movement poses a serious challenge to the existence of nation-states, as social movement is normally guided against nation states. However, barring a particular type of social movement, emanating on the basis of primordial collectivizes like regional, linguistic, religious and caste groups, other types of social movements do not pose any direct threat to nation-state since they do not challenge the territoriality of the nation state. Such generalization is based on an obsolete conceptualization of nation states, which depicts state as necessarily a coercive apparatus. In fact, the said relationship is contingent upon the nature of the state concerned. For example, in an authoritarian state, (either governed by a military junta, or religious fundamentalist outfits or for that matter any racist group) any sprout of social movement is treated as a direct affront to the state authority and hence, to be suppressed at any cost. The relationship is no better in case of a one-party dominant state system. Here, active contenders to state authority are identified for execution, but it does not suspect the intention of social movement per se. In fact, there are occasions where social movements are nurtured by the single-party dominant state system to push through its agenda. The aforementioned relationship is far more cordial in a multi-party state system, where the rate of proliferation of social movement is relatively high. Social movements find congenial environment to develop in a multiparty system. In the following section an attempt will be made to clarify the complex interrelationship between the nation states and social movement.

3. Learning Outcome

This module will provide the learner a thorough exposure to different aspects of social movement especially its puzzling relationship with the nation state in the Indian context, in particular.

4. Social Movement vs. Nation-states

The state-social movement relationship has two facets; on the one hand, movement originates as a response to the nation state, especially the politics within the nation state; and on the other hand, the said relationship also includes the state response to social movements, which is anything but uniform. It is mostly determined by the nature of mobilization of the movement concerned. For the analytical convenience the relationship between social movements and nation states can be discussed under two heads: first, Social Movement as a challenge to nation states; and second, nation state’s response to social movements.

4.1. Social Movement as a challenge to nation states:

Social movement is said to have hit the very core of the nation state. However, it would be an overstatement to say that each and every variant of social movement is a veritable challenge to nation-state. In fact, there are many types of social movements which do not pose any direct threat to the existence of nation state. Hence, it would be suffice to say that social movements are the responses to the policies adopted by the nation states. The above statement would have been better appreciated had we draw on the categorization by Ghanyasham Shah (1990). Ghanyasham Shah has classified social movement into three broad categories, based on fixity –flexibility continuum. They are namely, biological collectivities, civil collectivities, and primordial collectivities. “Biological collectivities, formed on the basis of sex, race and age group, are largely given, although often buttressed by socio-cultural collectivities; the attributes of civil liberties are invariably acquired, a product of entirely socialization / enculturation process. In the case of primordial collectivities, it is partly given and partly acquired (Shah: 1990: 165). Owing to apparent fixity and flexibility criteria, the intensity and the level of crystallization of collective conscience differ from one type of collectivities to another. For example, the fixity criterion in case of biological collectivities is very strong comparing to other kinds of social collectivities; whereas, flexibility is the hallmark of civil liberties. In case of the first category of social movement, barring race, no other marker poses any serious threat to the security of nation states. The other two important markers of biological collectivities like gender or age do not pose any fundamental challenge to the existence of nation states as the idea of a society made of exclusively male or female or similar age group is a conceptual fallacy. Among the markers of biological collectivities, race constitutes one of the major threats to nation state. However, it becomes more lethal when race acquires territorial anchorage. In fact, the state susceptibility to social movement increases manifold if the race comes in combination with the primordial collectivities like idea of region, linguistic or ethnicity. The second categories of social movement, i.e. civil collectivities do not raise any demand for separate statehood as such. Some of them occasionally take up the role of leadership in bringing about fundamental social transformation, either through revolution or through reform. But these activities can hardly be interpreted as a direct threat to nation state. The third category of social movement, which springs out of primordial identities like, caste, tribe, religion, language and region, presents real challenge to the integrity of nation state. The social movement born out of loyalties to primordial identities, may assume symbolic or instrumental or both the goals. In normal cases, when primordial social movement is pursuing a symbolic goal, it hardly destabilizes the social fabric of the society concerned, let alone putting any strong resistance to the nation-state. However, such movement with symbolic goals may engender many other social movements in its wake, which may weaken national social texture. If social movements with primordial bases assume instrumental goals, they generally rest their mobilizations on bargaining and pressure group politics. Hence, no serious harm is caused to nation state either. But instrumental demands by the primordial collectivities may often jeopardize the secular ethos of the society.

However, there is no denying of the fact that the emergence of social movement is indicative of a systemic malfunctioning or systemic incapacity to redress people’s grievances. If the normal democratic institutions ventilate popular aspirations and demands properly and in regular basis, the probability of collective mobilization in the form of social movement minimizes to a greater extent. The necessity of organizing a movement is felt only when the normal channel of communication is either broken or blocked. Though, it does not mean that all types of mobilization of popular aspiration necessarily affect the legitimacy or the credibility of the state. In fact, the nature of the mobilization is dependent upon the nature of state responses to it. Examples galore, where social movements emerge as a mere protest or agitation following legitimate course of action, but eventually escalated to strong social movement due to lack of proper handling of the situation by the nation states. There are plenty of occasions when nation state are in a denial mode and refuse to take proper cognizance of the popular anguish and demand. This non-recognition of popular demands has further fomented popular anguish, which in effect has been capitalized by several fissiparous forces.

4.2 Nation-state’s response to Social Movements:

It is worth reiterating here that though this subsection deals with the nation-state’s response to social movement, the response does not fall into any unilinear pattern. In fact, state’s response to social movement may vary from situation to situation, depending upon the nature of social mobilization guided against it. If we historicize the evolution of social movements vis-a-vis nation state, four stages can be identified: the first stage is known as pre-political or stateless phase, when social movement in its present form did not originate. Movements at this stage were nothing more than mere spontaneous congregations or collective activities such tribal outbreaks, slave riots and so on. These movements were primarily guided against primordial collectivities like clan, tribes. The second phase of social movement was known as anti-imperialist and anti-colonial mobilizations. With the expansion of human communities in terms of its magnitude and complexities, the nature of social movement had undergone a sea change. Instead of taking on the primordial collectivities in the past, social movements in this phase were targeting more organized central authority systems like empire, nation-states and colonies. The third phase was marked by sharp class antagonism manifested in the form of working class movements and peasants’ revolutions. Originated in the wake of industrial revolution and the concomitant development of modern capitalism, social movements in this phase either foregrounds the structural overhauling of the class character of the authority structure or facilitates those who champion the causes of the marginal sections in the society. The final phase of social movement heralds the dawn of post-industrial societies and the proliferation of international movements on human rights, dignity of women, disarmament, environmental protection, ecological balance and so on. However, the above sequencing of development of social movement vis-a-vis the changing contour of authority structure is anything but heuristic. In fact, growths of social movements are mostly contextually determined. Moreover, the sequencing of social movement temporally also carries the risk of over-simplification. For neither of the said categories can be confined within the frozen boundary of time. Hence, post-industrial phase may be coincided with pre-political phase of statelessness. So the state response to social movement is more or less contingent upon environmental milieu within which they emerge and flourish. At least four conceptual possibilities regarding the state’s response to social movements can be conjured up in the empirical settings, which include among others the policies of facilitation, toleration, discreditation and repression (Shah:1990). In this section we will take up the above responses one by one:

Firstly, when there is congruence in the ideology between the state and social movements and the means adopted in the mobilization is also legitimate, the state may facilitate a social movement. In such situations, state’s response to social movement may appear to be far more accommodative and facilitating. For example, if we take the socialist mobilizations in India, the above stately response may be exemplified. The Indian socialist mobilization, unlike other parts of the world, had lot of improvisations to comply the local conditions as the total transition of society in accordance with the socialistic pattern within a liberal constitutional framework was a distant possibility. Hence, the socialistic experimentation in India had to temper its revolutionary zest and to adopt the electoral politics along with the programme of peaceful transition of society. Keeping these compulsions in mind, the communist parties in India once seized the political authority, started modifying its style of functioning vis-a-vis several social mobilizations led by workers, peasants and several other subaltern groups. Hence, the state responses to social movements under the communist regimes have undergone sea changes. Instead of sanctioning social movements as the challenge to the existence of nation states, states under socialist regime facilitate them through several measures like – neutralization of police to adopt pro-labour stand, power accorded to local party bosses so that bureaucracy had to follow their instructions and the induction of a large number of party sympathizers into bureaucracy and so on. 

Secondly, where the ideology of a movement differs from that of the state but not the means of it, the state’s response to that social movement may be of toleration. For example, the Sarvodaya movement eminently qualifies this kind of state response to social movement. Ideologically speaking, this movement widely differs from that of the state as it questioned the very institution of private property and foregrounds an idealistic notion of collective ownership through trusteeship of property. The uniqueness of this movement was that it did not advocate any violent or coercive means to reach the goal of trusteeship of private property. Instead, the movement had relied on techniques of non-violent militancy as popularized by Mahatma Gandhi like satyagraha (passive resistance), padyayatra (protest walk) and a host of voluntary donations like ‘bhoodan’ (gift of land), gramdan (gift of village), sampatidan (gift of property), budhidan (gift of knowledge), jeevandan (gift of life). Interestingly, despite the presence of radical elements, the state had tolerated the Sarvodaya movement for the following reasons: one, the aforementioned techniques of non-violent militancy and voluntary donations did not pose any serious threat to the nation state as the state did not consider it as entirely illegitimate. Two, the movement had additional source of legitimacy as it drawn on Gandhian philosophy of trusteeship. Three, the movement was tolerated by the state as some of its constructive programmes were in tune with agrarian reforms.

Thirdly, in a situation where the ideology of a movement corresponds but the means differ, the state may resort to discreditation of the social movement. That is, the state may discredit a social movement despite its ideological congruence with the movement if it resorts to illegitimate means of protest. Normally, social movement starts with absolutely legitimate constitutional means of protest, but eventually it falls prey to extra-constitutional and illegitimate means of protest to attract the attention of the state. History of social movement is replete with examples where social mobilizations based on constitutional means do not get proper official cognizance until they are considered instrumental for the stability of the state. Hence, the apparent non-recognition of the popular demands often snowballed into a serious difference between state and movement. Consequently, state may discredit the movement. The Gujjar movement in the Northern parts of the country may be a case in point. The movement in the beginning was nothing more than an innocuous demand for state protection under special constitutional safeguards for scheduled caste and tribes. Hence, ideologically this agitation did not oppose the ideology of the nation state. Rather it reposed its faith on the constitutional framework of the nation state. But the means adopted by the agitators soon have gone beyond the constitutional and the legitimate means of protest. The entire North India had come under seize due to the continuous blockades in the important railway networks and highways. Eventually, the state had discredited the movement by applying force.

Fourthly, in those situations where both ideology and the means of a movement differ from that of the state, the state may resort to the policy of repression. This response can be illustrated with the help of the following case studies.

Case Study-I: Lalgarh Movement

This particular movement of the tribal people in the West Midnapur district was purportedly against the state ideology of neo-liberalism especially its recipe of development based on SEZ, and free market. The means of protest adopted in the movement was also viewed as a direct affront to the state authority. As a result of which the state had resorted to the policy of repression. However, the movement did not originate overnight. The problem began with the acquisition of land (which is supposed to be distributed among the tribals as a part of land reform initiatives undertaken by the Left Front government) by the state government for a proposed steel factory by the Jindal group of company in Salboni area of West Midnapur district. A strong sense of deprivation was prevalent among the tribals about the proposed loss of their land. The radical element especially the Maoists had tried to seize the opportunity to mobilize the dispossessed people. In the meantime, a landmine explosion, allegedly by the Maoists, on the convoy of the then chief minister of West Bengal and union minister had provided the state government a strong excuse to launch a massive operation against the increasing visibility of Maoists in the area. The government of West Bengal had launched a series of man haunts to flash out Maoists from the area. However, such move on the part of the police had enraged the tribals as the police went on rampages, torturing advasi people indiscriminately to know the Maoist hideouts. The movement began with the incident of police excesses. On 5th November, 2008 police injured Chhitamoni Hembram, a Santal woman, seriously. She lost her left eye due to a deadly blow by the butt of a rifle. Immediately, the Bharat Jakat Majhi Marwa, a social organization of the Santhals, decided to oppose the police entry into Lalgarh and formed the People’s Committee against Police Atrocity. Initially the aggrieved people of the Lalgarh area brought out peaceful rallies and sought public apology for the police atrocities. But the administration did not pay heed to their grievances; instead the police had dispersed the rally by using force and rounded off innocent villagers. Such administrative responses had further fomented the situation. Armed with their traditional weapons the tribal people of the entire jangal mahal region rose up to the occasion and created a liberated zone for the tribals. Roads were dug up and tree trunks were placed on the road to obstruct the entry of administrative and police vehicles. The local administration and police were forced to retreat from the region. Even the mainstream political parties did not dare to negotiate with the tribals. The movement was virtually controlled by the Maoists. The situation continued for more than six months until it was eventually crushed by a joint operation of police-military in June 2009.

Case Study-II: Nandigram Movement

Nandigram movement was a (in)famous social movement in the East Midnapur district of West Bengal in the recent past that had rocked the Country. The movement was indicative of the not only a movement against neo-liberalism, but also it brought forward the protracted issue of development, i.e. development-induced displacement in the form of the protest movement against the proposed land acquisition. In case of Nandigram movement both the ideology and the means of mobilization differ from that of the state. Hence, the state response to Nandigram movement was one of blatant repression. The movement began with the West Bengal government’s decision to acquire about 10,000 acres of land for an Indonesian company – Salim group, to establish its chemical hub under SEZ . The local people vehemently resisted the attempt of land acquisition by the government by digging up roads and creating blockades in the important cross-section of road leading to Nandigram. Initially the administrative efforts of dissuading villagers from non-cooperation had met with violent backlashes from the agitators. Several police and administrative personnel had sustained injury. The state administration in a bid to foil the popular resistance launched a massive offensive. Armed with at least 3000 police personnel, and armed CPI(M) cadres state administration quashed popular resistance and recaptured Nandigram. At least 14 people were killed in this clash. This incident drew a huge media attention throughout the country and ultimately determined the future course of politics in the state.

However, the ground level reality does not always comply the above conceptual possibilities of state responses. Though the conceptual possibilities mentioned in case of the second categories where ideological incongruence between state and movement is tolerated if there is a methodological compatibility, there are occasions when state may resort to the strategy of repression in same conditions. The Singur movement was a case in point. The above responses to social movement can be better appreciated if we draw on the case study of Singur movement in West Bengal.

Case Study-III: Singur Movement

The Singur movement was an outcome of a perennial dilemma of development, i.e. development-induced displacement. The movement began with the issue of land acquisition for a proposed small car factory of TATA motors. Riding on the crest of overwhelming electoral mandate for seventh consecutive terms, the Left Front government under Mr. Buddhadev Bhattacharaya took a paradigm shift in industrial policy by adopting neoliberal prescriptions of development. As a part of this neoliberal development programme, the state government made an agreement with TATA motors to set up a manufacturing unit for one of their flagship projects ‘Nano car’ in Singur of Hooghly district. A total area of 1000 acres of fertile farmlands had been identified for the purpose. Accordingly the Govt of West Bengal had plunged into the task of acquiring the land for TATA motors using a draconian colonial act of land acquisition – the Land Acquisition Act of 1894. The proposed project feared to have displaced more than 1,50,000 people who have been dependent upon this land for their livelihood. Understandably, a spontaneous movement originated from Singur where the dispossessed lot vehemently protested the car project and demanded their lands to be returned. Several opposition parties joined the protest of the displaced. Interestingly, in case of Singur movement, means of mobilization was absolutely peaceful and constitutional. But unlike the second category of state responses as conjured up by Shah (1990), in case of Singur movement, the state response was one of repression. But the irony was that the repressive measures hardly put out the ember of the movement. The resoluteness of the dispossessed people led by the opposition leaders ultimately stands vindicated and the TATAs have decided to abandon the project. Though this incident is often projected as a death knell for the industrial prospect of the state, it also signifies the inherent strength of social movement. Moreover, the illegality of the land acquisition act was exemplified by the Calcutta high court which categorically mentioned that the Act had a provision of acquiring private land for public purposes not for the private business.

5.  Social Movement and Nation States- Antagonistic in terms or reciprocally integrated?

This sub-section deals with the interrelationship between social movement and nation states. As mentioned in the beginning, social movement and nation state has a reciprocal relationship. Whereas (social) movements are deliberately formed through collective mobilization, intending to bring about relatively rapid social transformation, institutions (states) are the instrumentalities which have been guided against nation states to bring about certain change or to resist certain possibility of changes. Similarly movements are necessary for the survival of institutions. Social movement acts as boon in disguise for institution. If an institution keeps on ignoring periodic challenges guided against it, there is a strong possibility that it may become structurally and culturally irrelevant. Therefore, institutions retain their relevance by being exposed to intermittent social movements. In other words, a social movement offers an institution with the unique opportunity of re-legitimation. On the other hand, institution or the process of institutionalization is equally important for the sustenance of social movement. Any social movement, no matter how path-breaking and sensational it is, requires an institutional mechanism to translate its ideology into programme and theory into praxis. But that said does not anyway mean that institutionalization of social movement is an unadulterated blessing. In fact, institutionalization also carries the risk of docility as the crux of any social movement, i.e. act of mobilization is gradually fizzled out in the process of institutionalization. Hence, institutionalization carries the seeds of movement within itself.

Hence, ‘institutions and movements are reciprocally linked to three significant ways: “First, institutions and structures are cleansed by movements. What are often labelled ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘revivalist’ movements are essentially attempts to rescue institutions from their current ‘degeneration’ and render them back to their pristine purity as defined by the visionaries of these movements. Conversely, institutions tend to correct movements from their ‘adventurism’. Secondly, movements deliberately create institutions which are new vehicles to fulfil the present vision and aspirations. Similarly, institutions may float movements to sustain their legitimacy. Third, movements tend to redefine old institutions; the effort being not simply to purify and inject institutions with new verve and vitality, nor to abandon them completely and create new ones, but to recreate them.” (Shah 1990: 152-153). If we take the example of Indian nation state, the said relationship is crystallized under two value perspectives: one considers the origin of movement in a political system is indicative of the crisis in the system; whereas the other perspective views it in a far more positive light to indicate continuous process of social transformation. In the following sub- sections we shall explore these two value perspectives.

5.1. Social Movement as a direct affront to Nation state

According to this perspective social movement is treated as a veritable challenge to the integrity of the nation states. Among those who subscribe to this opinion can be divided into the following distinct categories: first, the political mainstream represented by the Indian National Congress. It labels any threat to state authority at the centre as a direct attack on the nation state. Second, the cultural mainstream, composed of Hindi-speaking twice-born Hindus, considers any mobilization against what it defines as Hinduism or/and Hindi is a threat to the nation-state. Third, ‘the economic mainstream constituted by the all India bourgeoisie wants to maintain and nurture as wide a domestic market as possible under the prevalent state-protected capitalism and hence any challenge to the nation-state goes against its interest too’ (Shah: 1990).

5.2 Social Movement as a sign of continuous social transformation and conducive for national development

Here M.S. Gore’s discussion warrants some elucidation:

First, social movements are not idiosyncratic social expression. They relate to the value framework of societies which by nature moves in the quest of freedom, equality and social justice. Second, social movements carry historical agency and express this agency in social actions for change in favour of a new value framework of a society. Third, the structure of movement in history follows a dialectical path of ever evolving actualizations of freedom and justice and not towards a fixed and frozen destiny of class revolution where history exhausts its movements, the way Marx and his adherents would like to think. Fourth, there exist agents and actors of such an agency and actions, an individual or small group of individuals, who carry on the process of effecting (desirable) changes in the value framework of society (As quoted by Shah 1990).

6.  Summary

In the foregoing analysis, an attempt has been made to discuss social movement especially its relationship with nation-states. This relationship can be discussed within the framework of the classical sociological debate between movement and institution. The relationship is of mutual interdependence. However, birth of post-modern politics in the wake of globalization has brought a paradigm shift in the conceptualization of social movement and its threat perception towards the nation states. The decline of so-called meta-narratives of politics and the OSM (Old Social Movement), has paved the way for temporal politics of uncertainty and fluidity, marked by NSM (New Social movement). Hence, the very conceptualization of the relationship between social movement and nation-state has undergone a sea change. Therefore, any comment on the said relationship at this juncture would run the risk of oversimplification of reality.