23 Globalisation and Anti-Systemic Social Movements: Recent Debates

CONTENTS

1. Introduction

2. Objectives

3. Learning Outcome

4. Definitions

4.1 Globalisation

4.2 Social Movement

4.3 System & Anti-system

4.4 Understanding System as ‘World System’

5. Anti-Systemic Movements: Towards a Conceptual & Theoretical Understanding

5.1 Immanuel Wallerstein on anti-systemic movements

5.2 Anti-Systemic Social Movements: Towards a Marxist understanding

6. Anti-Systemic Movements: 1848, 1968 and ‘Setback’ of 1989

6.1 1848: Year of Revolution

6.2 The Revolution of 1968

6.3 The Revolution of 1989

7. Anti-Systemic Movements: Special Reference to India

8. Summary

1.  Objectives

The main objective of the Module is to make the user understand the notion of social movements and subsequently to make him/ her aware of nature, content & forms of anti-systemic movements. The module aims to make the user understand when, how & why of the emergence of such movements. The module ends with highlighting the relevance & forms of such movements in contemporary times of globalization.

2.  Introduction

The present module discusses the notion of anti-systemic movement both at the conceptual as well as theoretical levels. It traces the emergence of such movements and touches upon three instances of ‘world revolution’ as 1848, 1968 and 1989. The main objective of the module is to locate anti-systemic movements in its historiography and its relevance in today’s global times. Although it is not under the purview of the current Module, however one can locate the recent uprisings / revolts / protests across the world manifested in various revolutions like ‘Jasmine Revolution’ of Tunisia (December 18, 2010 to January 14, 2011), Arab Spring (18 December 2010), Occupy Wall Street (OWS) protest movement (September 2011, New York City) among others within the framework of anti-systemic movements.

3.  Learning Outcome

After going through the module, the user will:

a. have an understanding of notions of system and anti-system elements and activities;

b. be able to locate the modern capitalist economy within the framework of world-system;

c. gain knowledge regarding the historicity of anti-systemic movements across the world;

d. appreciate the importance and relevance anti-systemic movements given the fact that the modern capitalist economy is exploitative in nature; and

e. be better equipped to understand the sociology of protest which has become too much visible in today’s global times.

4.  Definitions

This Section briefly outlines some of the important definitions of the key terms used in this Module such as globalization, social movement, System and Anti-System among others.

4.1  Globalisation

Globalisation as an economic social change can be understood as the linking and interconnecting of the domestic/national/ regional economy with that of global/international economy. At the level of politics (polity), it “has a profound impact on political institutions and discourse both internationally and nationally” (Koshy, 2002: 83). We also witness the emergence of trans-national institutions and organizations like World Trade Organisation (WTO) & World Bank (WB) which redefine the sovereign boundaries of nation-states in a significant manner. In an important way, Anthony Giddens (1990) has defined globalisation “as the intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa” (Giddens, 1990).

4.2  Social Movement

At a very conventional sense social movement is a collective effort by organized and mobilized mass who are in agreement with each other that they are suffering from common form of deprivation – real or imagined – (both material & non-material), and thus seek to change the social order seeking to be included in the main stream of the society in the near future. According to Blumer (1969: 99), ‘Social movements can be viewed as collective enterprises seeking to establish a new order of life.’ In this way, movements can be seen as “mechanism of transfer of power from the entrenched vested interests …. to the hitherto powerless and marginalized” (Oommen, 2004: 184). It has ideology, organization, means & modes of mobilization (the process of collective action), leadership & mass of people (either as followers or as activists having differential access to resources, and opportunities) as its constituent elements. As movements tend to change the existing social order, sometimes they are also addressed as revolutionary or transformative activities.

4.3  System and Anti-System

One way to begin to understand the dynamics of anti-systemic movement is to begin with understanding System. System, at a very basic level, according to Oxford Dictionary is ‘A set of things working together as parts of a mechanism or an interconnecting network; a complex whole’. In this context, it can mean ‘The prevailing political or social order, especially when regarded as oppressive and intransigent’.1 Additively, it can be also seen as ‘a group of related parts that move or work together’ and/or ‘an organized society or social situation regarded as stultifying or oppressive.’2 However, in the present context, “The system referred to here is the world-system of historical capitalism, which ….. has given rise to a set of anti-systemic movements” (Arrighi et al. [1989] 2011: 1). In this way, anti-systemic movements or activities can be seen as those activities which challenge and critique the system or the state. It is anti to the system as it does not approve the mechanisms and modalities of its functioning which bestows the resources of the society in the favour of few and thus renders a huge mass outside of its purview.

1. Definition of system in English. Ref : http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/system (accessed on 21st May 2014)
2. System. Ref : http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/system (accessed on 21st May 2014)

4.4  Understanding System as ‘World System’

Immanuel Wallerstein while elaborating on the ‘world system’ thesis outlined three systems which are constituent elements of global order. These are “mini systems ….. small in space and highly  homogenous;  ‘world  empires  ….  Which  are  vast  political  structures  ….  based  on extraction of tributes; … ‘world economies’ …. where the basic logic is that the accumulated surplus is distributed unequally in favour of those able to achieve various kinds of temporary monopolies in the market networks” (Wallerstein, 2002a: 285). The world system in this way “is a world economy with a hierarchical division of labour for the production of different kinds of goods. There are economically and militarily powerful countries in the core, dependent, and dominated regions in the periphery, and a middle sector of countries (the semi-periphery) in which states have intermediate levels of economic and political/military power” (Chase Dunn, 2002: 49).

5  Anti-Systemic Movements: Towards a Conceptual & Theoretical Understanding

At a very basic level, anti-systemic movements are those movements which challenge the ‘system’ (modern capitalist) as the former sees it oppressive and discriminatory to their needs, rights and entitlements. Herein the system is critiqued and like-minded people are mobilized so as to seek change in the existing social order. As has been already outlined earlier that the term system has to be understood in terms of capitalist system which is very much pervasive as it encircles both the polity in terms of new forms of political structure as well as the thought process of the mass mediated through the logic of consumer culture.

5.1         Immanuel Wallerstein on anti-systemic movements

Immanuel Wallerstein is most known for his World System as a theoretical concept which is manifested in the emergence and subsequently hegemonic modern capitalist economy (system). According to him, this world system is constituted by the free and uninterrupted flow of capital from the developing and/or underdeveloped Third World countries towards the First world or the developed countries. In this process, three constitutive elements of this system emerges which are the ‘Core’ developed countries, ‘Periphery’ represented by the third world and in between lies the ‘Semi-periphery’ which itself is the ‘Core’ of the ‘Periphery’ and at the same time ‘Periphery’ to the developed countries. As Immanuel Wallerstein has outlined in his oft-quoted writing “New revolts against the System” (2002) wherein he “coined the term ‘antisystemic movement’ in the 1970s in order to have a formulation that would group together what had, historically and analytically, been two distinct and in many ways rival kinds of popular movement—those that went under the name ‘social’, and those that were ‘national.’”3 For him, “[to] be antisystemic is to argue that neither liberty nor equality is possible under the existing

3  New revolts against the System. Immanuel Wallerstein. New Left Review 18, November-December 2002. 

Ref : http://newleftreview.org/II/18/immanuel-wallerstein-new-revolts-against-the-system (accessed on 21st May 2014) system and that both are possible only in a transformed world” (1990: 45) and most importantly that “there has been uprising after uprising, mobilization after mobilization, victory after victory of antisystemic movements for the whole of the twentieth century” (Wallerstein, 2001: 27). Some of the important anti-systemic movements outlined by him include social democratic reform movements of Western Europe and North America, the revolutionary movements of the former socialist bloc and the nationalist movements of the Third World. One can mention here that the Eastern Bloc was established by the Soviet Union at the end of World War II by occupying several countries like Poland, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, East Germany, Albania and Yugoslavia. These were subsequently politically and economically styled according to the philosophy and practice of Communism.

According to Wallerstein, there are two variants of anti-systemic movement, i.e. social movements and national movements. Elaborating on their features he states that “Social movements were conceived primarily as socialist parties and trade unions; they sought to further the class struggle within each state against the bourgeoisie or the employers. National movements were those which fought for the creation of a national state, either by combining separate political units that were considered to be part of one nation—as, for example, in Italy— or by seceding from states considered imperial and oppressive by the nationality in question— colonies in Asia or Africa, for instance.”4 At another place (1991: 75-76), he has outlined six varieties of antisystemic movements which are “In the Western countries, there are “old left” movements in the form of the trade-unions and segments of the traditional left parties – labour and social-democratic parties; In the same Western countries, there is a wide variety of new social movements – of women, “minorities”, Greens, etc.; In the socialist bloc, there are the traditional Communist parties in power; In this same socialist bloc, a network is emerging ….

Emphasis on the themes of human rights and anti-bureaucracy; in the Third World, there are segments (1991: 75-76).

5.2  Anti-Systemic Social Movements: Towards a Marxist understanding

In a significant way, the anti-systemic movements can be also located in the Marxian framework not only because it “see capitalism as an inhuman and inegalitarian system of exploitation that needs to be overthrown” (Saul, 2006: 55) but also because “it sees the social world as a constant making and unmaking of social structure of human needs and capacities – structures that are constructed through the conflictual encounter what we call social movements from above and social movements from below” (Nilsen and Cox, 2013: 64-65). The idea of capitalism and its related exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie is important here. Bourgeoisie is a word

4  New revolts against the System. Immanuel Wallerstein. New Left Review 18, November-December 2002.

Ref : http://newleftreview.org/II/18/immanuel-wallerstein-new-revolts-against-the-system (accessed on 21st May 2014). However, elsewhere he has argued that “As the two varieties of anti-systemic movements have spread (the labour-socialist movements from a few strong states to all others, the nationalist movements from a few strong peripheral zones to every where else, the distinction between the two kinds of movement has become increasingly blurred” (Wallerstein, 1983: 71). For details see Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1983. Historical Capitalism with capitalist civilization. London: Verso. from the French language. It was used in Marxist theory to characterize class of those people who own the means of production in any given society. Karl Marx in his ‘The Communist Manifesto’ (1848) outlined the role of Bourgeoisie in the grand schema of social change. However, with the passage of time, it itself becomes exploitative of other class, the Proletariat. Marx developed the concept of capitalism in ‘Capital: A Critique of Political Economy’ Volume I (1867) and II (1878). According to him, it is the system based on surplus value and profit. Here the class which owns the means of production (Bourgeoisie) exploits the labour class (wage labour) for its own profit and thus private property and ownership becomes too visible. According to Taylor (1997: 1-17), “Socialism as an antisystemic movement derives from, or is directly influenced by, the writings of Karl Marx” (ibid. 9) …. thus … “Socialism as a political practice represented by the U.S.S.R. therefore created its own cul de sac in the history of the modern world-system” (ibid. 10).

However, it is important to note that no clear strands of social movement are visible in Marxian writings. However, as he and his writings are more in tune with revolution & total transformation of the social order, we can locate a similarity between both the perspectives. It is in this context that Nilsen (undated: 1) has argued that “it is precisely its origins in and orientation towards the crucible of forces and struggles that have shaped and continue to shape the modern capitalist world that endows Marxism with a prescient relevance in terms of understanding and advancing of the forms of oppositional collective action commonly grouped under the “social movement” rubric.”5 Central to the theme of Marxian notion of social movement is ‘spices being’ which denotes an individual who is conscious enough to realize and become aware of the exploitative social order and is able to negotiate with the existing system ways of change and revolution. This process can be termed as praxis wherein the individual is not only constituted and constructed by his/her concrete historical situation but on the other hand also tends to modify his / her existence in the process of fulfilling his / her needs.

6. Anti-Systemic Movements: 1848, 1968 and ‘Setback’ of 1989

The beginning as well as the versions of the anti-systemic movements can be located in two ‘world revolutions’ of recent history; the first one is 1848 (sometimes referred to as Spring of Nations, Springtime of the Peoples or the Year of Revolution) and the second one is 1968 as these “were successful in that they gave birth to enduring anti-systemic movements and also transformed the terrain and organizational forms for future struggles” (Sitton, 1996: 223). The period from 1830 to 1848 is very significant in the social and political history of Europe as it was in this period various revolutions took place which shook the exploitative and authoritative political structure to its core and resulted in the transfer of power (although temporarily) to the workers and commoners.

6.1  1848: Year of Revolution

The Revolutions first started out in France in 1848 where the people wanted universal suffrage. Shortly it spread to Germany, Austria, Italy and other European countries except Britain. Although these revolutions could not live up to the expectations and were unable to solve (or dissolve) the exploitative structures of both polity & economy completely, yet in one of the most resounding and emphatic observation on 1848 by Eric Hobsbawm in his monumental The Age of Revolution: 1789 – 1848 ([1962] 1996) has pointed out that: “This was the ‘spectre of communism’ which haunted Europe, the fear of ‘the proletariat’ which affected not merely factory-owners in Lancashire or Northern France but civil servants in rural Germany, priests in Rome and professors everywhere. And with justice. For the revolution which broke out in the first months of 1848 was not a social revolution merely in the sense that it involved and mobilized all social classes. It was in the literal sense the rising of the labouring poor in the cities—especially the capital cities—of Western and Central Europe. Theirs, and theirs almost alone, was the force which toppled the old regimes from Palermo to the borders of Russia. When the dust settled on their ruins, workers—in France actually socialist workers—were seen to be standing on them, demanding not merely bread and employment, but a new state and society” (Hobsbawm, [1962] 1996: 305).

6.2         The Revolution of 1968

Here it is pertinent to point out the reason and locale of the 1968 revolution not only because “it was one of the great, formative events in the history of our modern world-system, the kind we call watershed events” (Wallerstein and Zukin, 1989: 431) but also because “this was a tumultuous year when the floodtide of mass revolt swept over the narrow confines of capitalism and threatened the very foundations of the system” (Taaffe, 2008).6 It is pertinent here to point out at least two major epicentres of 1968 revolution which were United States of American and France (apart from Italy, Japan, Mexico and Czechoslovakia’s Prague Spring). In the former “radicalization was essentially based upon two things—the Vietnam War and the resistance to it, and the Black liberation movement” (Geier, 2008) whereas in the latter “it was a sudden, spontaneous explosion—which was started by students. It spread to young workers, and from young workers it spread to the working class as a whole” (ibid.)7 apart from “collapse of the Bretton Woods Arrangements, the suppression of the Prague Spring, the growing influence of Maoism after the Sino-Soviet Split and the growth of Euro-communism, as well as the earlier crisis over Algeria.”8

6.3         The Revolution of 1989

However, the 1989 revolution was ideologically different from both revolutions of 1848 and 1968 as it was “the moment when the Cold War, and communism, lost out to democracy, the free market, and nationalist aspirations, in Central Europe and across the world” (Kenney, 2002: 2). It 6  Taaffe, Peter. 2008. 1968 Year of Revolution. 17th April. 7  Geier, Joel. 2008. 1968 The year that shook the world. International Socialist Review (ISR), Issue 59, May–June. Ref.: http://www.isreview.org/issues/59/feat-geier.shtml (accessed on 25th May 2014) 8  Paris May-June 1968. Ref.: http://www.marxists.org/history/france/may-1968/ (accessed on 25th May 2014) was the collapse of the Soviet Union’s European empire (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Romania, and Bulgaria). An historic moment of this time was the ‘Collapse of the Berlin Wall’ on the night of November 09-10, 1989 as “in that one night the entire picture of Europe constructed in the mind of almost all of its citizens for forty years underwent an irreversible phase shift …… where …. the future of the Communist regime of Eastern Europe suddenly seemed very bleak indeed’ (Stokes, 1993: 142). It can be mentioned here that Berlin Wall was the boundary erected between the East Germany and West Berlin and represented the era of ‘Cold War’. It was operational from 13th August, 1961 to 9th November 1989. The Wall was not only the physical and concrete dividing line between two geographical places but it was also symbolic of the ideological rift between the Communism in East Germany and Democracy in West Berlin. Another event of importance was the June 4th 1989 incident of Chinese military’s occupation of Tiananmen Square which itself was not less than a massacre. It is in this contest the events 1989 is seen as setback as it could not sustain its protest against the capitalist system.

7.  Anti-Systemic Movements: Special Reference to India

After outlining the trends and themes of anti-systemic movements at the global level, an attempt here has been made to locate some of such movements in India. An important facet of anti-systemic movement/s in India is that these also aimed at capturing the state and thus to transform the same in accordance with their ideology and philosophy of movement. However, there seems to be differences in approach in analysing the character of a movement. Thus, on one hand, we witnessed the vibrant ‘Total Revolution’ led by Jayaprakash Narayan (widely known as JP or Loknayak). J.P. movement (sometimes referred to as Bihar movement) of the 1970s, aimed at changing the nature and character of the then existing political order. But, it was non-violent in its philosophy and practice. On the other hand, we also come across a radical and violent explosion of the Maoist philosophy manifested in Maoist movement spread across India. As compared to the JP movement, the Maoist movement is largely violent in nature and also it tends to undermine the structure of the state itself. Again, the JP movement wanted to redefine State, whereas the Maoist movement sought annihilation of the State itself. The module in brief specifically looks into two such anti-systemic movements, i.e. the ‘Total Revolution’ initiated and led by Jayaprakash Narayan and the Maoist movement.

Jayaprakash Narayan in the latter half of 1950s outlined the distinction between “lokniti [Polity of the people], as opposed to rajniti [Polity of the state]”. It was this philosophy that was germane to the popular people’s movement known as the peaceful ‘Total Revolution’ (Sampooran Kranti) during 1974-75 (JP gave a call for ‘Total Revolution’ on 05th June, 1975). The promulgation of a state of Internal Emergency under Article 352 of Indian constitution on 26th June 1975 made him more firm in his belief that the only way out for the common Indian mass was to radically change the System itself. As an offshoot to it, he founded the People’s Union for Civil Liberties in 1976. The prevailing socio-economic and most importantly political scenario leading to “Total Revolution” and what ought to be done now has been outlined by J.P. in his two important writings namely A plea for reconstruction of Indian polity (1959) and Swaraj for the people (1961). In his own words, “From the very beginning I have been saying in the course of my speeches that the objective of our movement is total revolution. In other words, this movement aims at bringing about a revolutionary change in all aspects of the life of both society and individual. The objective of this movement is not merely to change the Government, but also to change the society and the individual. That is why I have called it total revolution. You can also call it a comprehensive revolution.” 9 Dandavate and Narayan (2002: 7) have stated that “JP’s concept of total revolution … encompasses economic, social, cultural, educational, moral and structural aspects in their totality.” At that time the Indian political order was governed by the Indian National Congress characterized by absolute dominance of Indira Gandhi. The socio-economic sphere was reeling under the exploitation & discrimination resulting from the existing system of feudalism manifested in Zamindari system. Here it is important to note that ‘Total Revolution’ coincided with the growing student unrest both in Bihar and Gujarat. In the former, the Chhatra-Yuva Sangharsha Vahini (main constituent of Bihar movement & JP’s political platform) was instrumental in disseminating and practicing the principles of ‘Total Revolution’ whereas in the latter it became part of ‘Nav Nirman movement’. The subsequent years in the India politics saw the period of Emergency, many important political leaders including JP being put behind bars and a state of total anarchy in favour of Congress led by Indira Gandhi.10 The final curtain to the JP led philosophy of total and political transformation was the elections held in January 1980 which brought back Congress (I) again to the helm of power and thus ended the ‘Total revolution’ midway. Maoist movement (sometimes also referred to as Left radicalism) on the other hand, has challenged and still challenges the system through what Mohanty (2006: 3163-3168) has termed “revolutionary violence”. In was in the year 2004, September that the Communist Party of India (Maoist) was formed after the merger of Communist party unity and Maoist Communist Centre (MCC). Although it is banned by the Government of India,11 yet according to Left Wing 

9  Total Revolution

Ref : http://www.mkgandhi.org/jpnarayan/total_revolution.htm (accessed on 09th August 2014)

Also see Narayan, Jayaprakash.1975. Towards Revolution. Arnold-Heinemann Publishers. (India). Original from, the University of California. Dandavate, Madhu. 1981. Jayaprakash Narayan, the man and his ideas. Bombay: Popular Prakashan for Jayaprakash Foundation, New Delhi. Raj, Sebasti, L. 1986. Total revolution: The final phase of Jayaprakash Narayan’s political philosophy. Madras: Satya Nilayam Publications. Bhattacharjea, Ajit. 2003. Transforming the Polity: Centenary readings from Jayaprakash Narayan. New Delhi: Rupa and Co.

10  See Chandra, Bipan. 2003. In the name of democracy: JP movement and the emergency. New Delhi: Penguin Books. Also see Dandavate, Madhu. 2005. Dialogue with life. New Delhi: Allied Publishers Private Ltd. Pp. 64-119.

11      Banned Organisations: List of Banned Terrorist Organisations Under Section 35 of Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967 (As on 27-01-2014)

Ref.: http://www.mha.nic.in/BO (accessed on 13th August 2014)

Extremism (LWE) Division, Ministry of Home Affairs, “The States of Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Odisha, Bihar, West Bengal, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh are considered LWE affected, although in varying degrees.”12 The spread is also referred to as ‘Red Corridor’ which is waging the war against the State. As of 31st May 2014, altogether total LW incidents in 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 are 2258, 2213, 1760, 1415, 1136 and 509 respectively and related figure of deaths are 908, 1005, 611, 415, 397 and 158 respectively.13 The State has responded to these incidents in the framework of maintaining ‘internal security’ and in one instance has initiated ‘civil route’ manifested in ‘Salwa Judum’ more prominent in and around Bastar, Chhattisgarh since June 2005 only to be pronounced illegal by the supreme Court on 5th July, 2011.14

It has been rightly pointed out by Chakrabarty and Kujur (2010) that “From a rebellion for land rights to a socio-political movement critiquing India’s state-led development paradigm and finally to a serious threat for country’s internal security, the Maoist movement has indeed come a long way.” The Marxism, Leninism and Maoism as the ideological roots of contemporary Maoist movement go back to the Naxalbari peasant rebellion / revolution in 1967 (sometimes referred to as ‘Spring Thunder’ led by Charu Majumdar) and subsequently mediated through Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) of 1970 (Banerjee, 2006: 3159-3163). One can go even more in the past to underline its importance through Tebhaga peasant movement (1946-47) in Bengal by the Kisan Sabha (the peasant organization of Communist Party of India)15 and Telengana Uprising (1946-51) in Telengana, Andhra Pradesh. Its focus on ‘redefining democracy’ mixed with equitable distribution of economic resources through ‘armed resistance’ has garnered the movement enough dedicated supporters and activists “among the adivasi peasantry and dalit labouring classes in particular” (Gupta, 2006: 3174). With the increasing dispossession of whatever resources the poor and rural mass had, the incidents of clash between the Maoists and the State are here to stay.

12 Left Wing Extremism (LWE) Division

13 Statistics of LWE violence (2009 to 2014)

14 For details see, Sundar, Nandini. 2006. “Bastar, Maoism and Salwa Judum”, Economic and Political Weekly, July 22, 3187-3192. PUDR, New Delhi, 17 May 2005: When the state makes war on its own people: Violation of people’s rights during the Salwa Judum.

Web Address: http://cpjc.wordpress.com/reports-by-fact-finding-teams-on-salwa-judum/ Also see, Pandita, Rahul. 2011. Hello Bastar: The Untold Story of India’s Maoist Movement. Tranquebar Press. For an historic account of Bastar  and  emergence  of  Left  Wing  Extremism  see  Sundar,  Nandini.  2008.  Subalterns  and  Sovereigns:  An Anthropological history of Bastar 1854-2006, Delhi: Oxford University Press.

15 For details see, Dasgupta, Satyajit. 1986. The Tebhaga movement in Bengal, 1946-47. CSSSC Occasional Paper No. 89. Calcutta: Centre for Studies in Social Sciences.

8.  Summary

The main objective of the module was to conceptualise and elaborate on the notion of anti-systemic movement. The module began by defining and differentiating between system and anti-system and subsequently outlined the key features of World-System. In the process, the contribution by Immanuel Wallerstein among others was highlighted so as to underline certain features of World-System. It was followed by a brief introduction to globalization and social movement. The next section of the Module traced the theoretical strands of anti-systemic movement in the Marxian analysis of ‘movements from below’ and argued that to counter the modern capitalist economy system, the writings by Marx are very much relevant.

Way back at home in India, the Module discussed two variants of anti-systemic movement. The first one was the non-violent ‘Total Revolution’ led by JP. It was aimed towards addressing various issues like corruption in civic and political life, unemployment, lopsided land reform measures and most importantly the way of functioning of the then Prime Minister through Congress ‘System’. It achieved its goal temporarily as a new political party Janata Party was formed and it captured the political power at the Centre. However, infighting and factional politics within the government led it to its demise. On the other hand, the Maoist movement is characterized by violence and absolute annihilation of the State. It aims at overthrowing the State with the philosophy of ‘Power flows from the barrel of the gun’. In terms of geographical spread and intensity, it is more violent and threatening to the System than the JP movement. While the ideals and legacy of JP are still reverberating in today’s times, only the coming time will tell us more about the relevance and stature of Maoist philosophy.