35 Non-Political Political Fronts and Grassroots Alternatives

Kaushiki Das

 

Introduction

 

In the period following the first decade of post-independence, there was immense discontent and disillusionment with the state of democracy in India. Eminent political scientist Rajni Kothari (1984) states that although liberal paradigm of progress, equality and democracy celebrates the concept of participation; as the impoverished, marginalized masses have tried to enter politics, its multiple contradictions and flaws have come to the forefront. He argues that populist politics and populist economics have used all sorts of pretexts to insidiously keep the masses away from organised economy and organised politics. Populist rhetoric, he says, intends to depoliticise not only the masses and the development process but also the political system; to make them reliant on the techno-bureaucratic class and the skilled experts in the media [Kothari, 1984: 1].

 

In this module, we will consider the growth of non-party political formations in India and their contribution to the larger political process of democratization in the Indian context. In section one, we will look at the socio-political context that made possible the emergence of non-party political formations. In section, we shall consider, some of these non-party political fronts and their role within the political sphere wherein they see themselves as grass-root alternatives. Finally in section three, we critically evaluate the contributions of non-party political fronts to the larger process of democratic politics in the Indian context.

 

Section-I

 

CONTEXT OF EMERGENCE OF NON PARTY POLITICAL FRONTS

 

D. L. Sheth (2004) points out that most of these groups were born during the national freedom struggle, particularly Gandhian, socialist, communist and social reform movements. These had been diffused post-independence due to the imposition of the liberal, modernist (Nehruvian) ruling elite [Sheth, 2004: 2]. Gradually, they broke away from their respective parties as autonomous activists and continued working on the margins of electoral politics. Sheth adds that they were reinvigorated particularly due to Jaya Prakash Narayan’s movement for intensifying participatory democracy, challenging elite political rule and reviving lokshakti (people’s power) in democracy. Kothari too outlines the circumstances that were responsible for the rise of these groups.

 

Withdrawal of State: Encouraged by the dominant elite not keen on a distributive and mass-oriented state role, the state has minimised its interventions over the years. They instead urged the state to act as an agent for ushering in technological modernization.

 

Repressive State: The state had become more repressive, lashing out vengefully at any critical local movements. This situation stemmed due to the sluggish economic growth and volatile political environment. Kothari states that the dominant elite had been reluctant to allow redistributive schemes, thus exacerbating the tensions among the masses. The state had also become besieged by agents who are relying on the military, police and local mafias and goons to maintain control.

 

Rise of Local Power holders: The government was also being undermined by the emergence of local landlords, and hegemonical castes in rural areas. Villages and tribal regions were increasingly witnessing the seeping of commercial interests, emergence of contractors, illegal alcohol and gambling dens, protected by local bureaucrats, politicians and police [Kothari, 1984: 3].

 

Emergence of Communal Forces: Fourthly, due to the gaps in the government’s authority, fascist and fundamentalist forces were surfacing on the horizon. Kothari argues that organisations like Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Jamaat e-Islami had threatened secularism and its institutional form, the state. As such, the graver social and economic issues were being sidelined by the growing communalism in society.

 

Failure of Economy and Development: Kothari attacked the insidious network of middlemen, who under the guise of promoting planned economic development, were siphoning off public assets, corrupting the production process and spurned any attempts to hold them accountable. Development, Harsh Sethi (1984) argues, remained on paper and hardly transpired on ground. Most development schemes alienated the masses and favoured the dominant elite. The state’s role as a mediator was also being chipped away. The rise of this criminal, illicit economy enhanced the gaps in the state’s role and increased strife and uncertainty in the society. The state, D. L. Sheth argues, having failed to respond to the economic demands of the marginalised, resorted to diversionary tactics like ‘ethnicizing and communalising’ economic issues. Also, the mixed economy, comprising of the public sector and the private sector, had hardly delivered any employment opportunities and had instead impinged upon the existing resources. As for the agricultural and forest economy, they had been ravaged by pro-business interests, leading to the loss of traditional livelihood of the impoverished masses. In addition, populist economics by the Planning Commission, like Garibi Hatao, was merely harping on removing poverty, without dealing with any of its real, structural root causes.

 

Rise of Capitalism: Kothari also identifies certain international factors. The bolstering of the capitalist system, armed with technology and weapons had posed a serious problematic. On one hand it plied the latter with capital, technology and weapons to shelter the middle class from the problems that the poor masses suffer from and, on the other hand it extorted raw materials, natural resources and manufactured consumer goods from the Third World and regulates the working classes, a condition of the IMF and World Bank’ structural adjustment policies [Kothari, 1984: 4]. In an insecure environment where development had only ended up dividing the society, favouring the elite and neglecting the masses, and democracy had been besieged by ills like corruption and criminalisation; the masses have no access to either a functional economy or a political sphere.

 

According to Kothari, democratic politics had suffered a massive setback. The Parliament, the Planning Commission and the Executive had failed to deal with demands of the masses and function properly in an environment of aggression. Politicians were easily being replaced by technocracy and masses were asked to withdraw from the political process, supposedly in their “best interests”. Moreover, a formal democratic polity based on a foundation of inequality had oppressed and inflicted humiliation on the people. As such, people had become dejected with the string of political parties that have occupied power at the Centre. In addition, Sudipta Kaviraj (1982) wryly comments that politicians do not seem to have much choice among the current policies. Hence, instead of minimising the fallouts of the structural crisis, they end up intensifying it.

 

Crisis of Theory: Kothari is also critical of theory and argues that its deficitwas partly responsible for the breakdown of the system. He attacks the liberal theory for wrongly conceptualising the market as the mediator of interests. The social democratic theory’s notion of a generous, welfare state too fell apart since growth rates were minimal and there was hardly any surplus left with the state. The radical Marxist theory also did not work in a society which lacked a considerable proportion of working class; where the village economy was in a state of decay; where technology did not provide jobs; where the poor were embroiled in a vicious cycle of marginalization and violence; and where the local polarisations did not actualised at the national and global levels [Kothari, 1984: 5]. Kothari argues that these theoretical conceptualisations, proposed in an altogether different context, do not find any resonance within the local society. Even theories of participation falter. He laments that the production of knowledge is suffering in the country, since the social sciences are suffering a serious crunch of ideology, while the science and technology centres have not produced any innovative ideas, thus striking a serious blow to the country’s claims of autonomy and self-sufficiency.

 

Failure of Left Parties: People were disillusioned with the work of the opposition, like trade unions, peasant organisations, opposing political parties and left-wing intellectuals. For instance, trade unions ended up instigating bargains within the working class and ignoring workers in the unorganised sector. Radical left parties, which had earlier posed a serious challenge to feudalism and colonialism, too have failed to deliver. They were not able to reach out to the marginalized, impoverished masses who have been subjugated by the state and other private vested interests. In fact, positioning themselves as the revolutionary vanguards, the Left could not see them as amenable to political mobilization and believed that their votes cannot be aggregated fruitfully.

 

The disillusionment with conventional macro-organisations, not just the Left, was also because they are structured in an inflexible, hierarchical manner. Also, they were limited in their approach  to change, envisioning it only in one sphere, either economic, social or cultural and hence, fails to articulate a broader spectrum of issues affecting the marginalised sections of society.

Declining Political Discourse: In addition, D. L. Sheth argues that the political discourse in the Parliament had deteriorated, devolving into merely legal positions of the executive and supported by the courts, instead of stemming from an engagement with democratic politics [Sheth, 2004: 3]. There was therefore a serious void— intellectually, politically and ethically— in the country.

 

Section-II

 

THE RISE OF NON-PARTY POLITICAL FRONTS AND GRASS-ROOT ALTERNATIVES

 

Despite such a disappointing scenario, it is heartening to see that people have not been alienated completely from the political process. People are becoming increasingly conscious about their rights and are conveying their discontent against the state and the privileged elites. Kothari states that the failure of all these elements has spawned the formation of non-party political front/NPPF. Also known as grassroots movements, Non-party political fronts are ‘counter-hegemonic’ and began to mushroom from 1980s onwards, although DL Sheth traces their origin even further to the 1970s. Political consciousness and action are now being galvanised in completely different and novel ways. These organisations, though outside the party system and the government, are not alienated from the democratic struggle, but in fact are a part of it. They strive to widen the ambit of politics which had so far been limited to legislative and electoral process. Sethi mentions that there is a marked shift away from the patron-client relationship traditionally harboured by political parties. Moreover, the hitherto unrecognized issues in politics have now become an integral part of it, such as women’s rights, forest rights, health and nutrition, education, tribal rights, anti-dam movements and so on. For instance, Nav Nirman Movement in Bihar; Chipko Movement; Self-Employed Women’s Association in Gujarat; domestic workers’ association in Pune; Manushi Forum for Citizens’ Rights; Ryot Coolie Sangham in Andhra Pradesh; the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha; the Bodh Gaya Movement; the Chattisgarh miners’ agitation; Narmada Bachao Andolan; farmers’ demonstration in Tamil Nadu; Karnataka and Maharashtra (1980-1981); textile strikes in Mumbai, women’s movement, movements for caste equality and so on. DL Sheth states that the anti-globalisation protests during 1990s have further unified these groups at the provincial and national levels.

 

Explaining the kind of issues that were taken up by these movements, political commentator Aditya Nigam (2005) states that the farmers’ movement like the Ryot Coolie Sangham began in early 1970s, demanding remunerative prices for agricultural produce, cheaper input costs, especially electricity rates, and against imposition of new water taxes [Nigam, 2005: 18]. The Dalit Panther Movement on the other hand was a powerful cultural critique of the dominance of the upper castes. Harsh Sethi also gives instances of groups like the Shramik Sangathan, Dhulia and Bhoomi Sena, Thana. They sit with the Tarun and Mahila mandals and regularly review and ratify the decisions taken by the latter. Another example is Chattisgarh Mazdoor Shramik Sangha which works on issues of children’s education, health care and against alcoholism. Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union works on tribal rights, deforestation, besides wages and bonus [Sethi, 1984: 5].

 

Nigam has further identified a new wave of non-party movements, such as anti-communalism struggles, struggles for enhancing democratic accountability, anti-nuclear arms campaign, the homosexual rights movement, the free speech and anti-censorship movements, etc [Nigam, 2005: 6].

 

Protection of civil liberties was one of the issues. People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights, formed in 1976, critically questioned the violation of civil liberties by the State, especially during the imposition of the Emergency. Post-independence, it took on a supervisory role with regard to the state, demanded the release of political prisoners and also campaigned for the abolition of death penalty [Nigam, 2005: 6]. It has now widened its definition of violated civil liberties to include those caused by caste and communal violence.

 

Another issue taken by the Non-Party Political Groups is of communal violence. For instance, the Nagrik Ekta Manchgrew as a response to the 1984 anti-Sikh riots. The Sampradayikta Virodhi Abhiyan, Hyderabad Ekta, The People’s Movement for Secularism, Aman Ekta Manch and Combat Communalism are several organisations working to counter communal violence in society, conducting peace marches, running relief camps for survivors of riots, distribution of relief materials, keeping a tab on media reports, following court proceedings, offering legal aid to survivors, and executed educational programmes to raise awareness.

 

Nigam states that urban development has also been focussed upon by these organisations, particularly issues of contestation over urban space. Delhi Janwadi Adhikar Manchwas formed to protest against the Supreme Court’s contentious decision to shut down a number of industrial units in Delhi. It linked and raisedissues of urban planning, environmental degradation and workers’ rights. The other campaign on rights of the urban poor and zoning was carried out by an alliance between locality-based associations, the Sajha Manch. Its members undertook surveys and collected data about the facilities like water and electricity in resettlement colonies where the labouring class resides [Nigam, 2005: 10].

 

The question of political accountability has also been raised by these groups. Vivek Ramkumar (2004) cites the example of the Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan, which is an organization run by peasants and farmers. It had earlier run a successful campaign for the “Right to Information”, which demanded access to government account records on entitlements. It demanded a platform for the people to enable them to participate in governance and to hold the state responsible to the people. During the state assembly elections in 2003, it had tried to amend the voter registration process, to raise awareness about the candidates vying for electoral office and  to ensure that the Code of Conduct is followed to weed out faulty candidates. The other campaigns undertaken by it are the “Right to Work” campaign and “Jan Nithi Abhiyan”.

 

The women’s movement has been actively waging autonomous, non-party campaigns since 1977. They were disappointed with the tendency of other parties to be dominated by men and their patronising attitude towards women’s issues. The Left was criticised for its exclusive focus on class issues as well as its neglect of patriarchy and domestic violence perpetrated by working-class men. Some women’s groups gradually broke away with their parties and waged independent campaigns. Multiple women’s centres like Sakhi Kendra and Saheli sprung up in cities, imparting legal aid, healthcare, counselling and even employment. They often held workshops to celebrate women’s creativity through songs, drama and painting, thereby spawning a new definition of political activism.

 

In addition, Nigam highlights the Peace Movement, which grew out of the anti-nuclear arms campaigns, particularly against the detonating of nuclear weapons by India in May 1998. He cautions that it should not be confused with the communist-led movements like the All India Peace and Solidarity Organisation during the Cold War period. The Peace Movement is autonomous. Organisations like Anumukti, Parmanu Bam Virodhi Andolan and the Movement in India for Nuclear Disarmament had struggled against nuclear energy. Eventually, the all-India Coalition for Nuclear Disarmament and Peace evolved to campaign against the Iraq war waged by the US.

 

Fairly recently, the Alternative Sexualities movement has surfaced on the horizon with several LGBT rights groups like NAZ challenging the stigmatization of the homosexual and sex workers community by the government, particularly the imposition of Section 377. They protested vigorously against the assault of the fundamentalist forces on the screening of Deepa Mehta’s film Fire, portraying lesbian relations.

 

Kothari states that these movements are unique since they do not just include political and economic demands, but also include ecological, educational and cultural concerns. These organisations have donned new roles, since they have given up the traditional roles of political parties depending on charismatic appeals and have identified issues that are not just created locally and nationally but also stem from international factors. He adds that these movements are not targeting a single enemy, but are targeting the larger ills like alcoholism, unhygienic habits, etc., which is akin to “Swarajya” struggle against internal decay [Kothari, 1984: 6]. These associations are not the same as other voluntary welfare and philanthropic groups working on development programmes.

 

The Non-Party Political Front groups have ushered in an era of participatory democracy. D. L. Sheth argues that presently democratic theory perceives participation as legal-constitutional rights of citizens and political duties [Sheth, 2004: 16]. Participation is limited to electoral institutions and liberal representative democracy is believed to be the peak of political state. He cites Fukuyama (1992) who believed that the end of history is signalled by the spread of liberal

 

democracy across the world. These theories could justify such a claim by asserting that the history of democracy is linear and grew progressively complex from the Athenian participatory democracy to the present representative democracy; constantly “improving” to handle larger issues affecting the people. Any sign to revive participatory democracy is seen as a degenerative move. In India, the notion of the village republic was dismissed on similar grounds. Secondly, these theories promote the idea that participatory democracy is simple and populist. According to them, political decision-making is too complicated and technical for ordinary people to engage in and must be left to the expertise and knowledge of the specialists. The dominant elite in India has endorsed this view, calling for the limitation of elected representatives’ power, otherwise majoritarian decisions will be taken which will do more harm than good. The non-party political groups have challenged these flawed theories, although their critique is not grounded in theory but springs from their experiences of concrete political struggles. These groups have evolved new strategies for inviting participation, such as participatory surveys and studies as well as pad yatras (conscious raising marches). For instance, in 1991, Manye Prante Chaitanya Yatra, a pad yatra organised to agitate against the state’s decision to permit bauxite mining in tribal-populated Vishaka, Andhra Pradesh. Another example is of Manushi Foum for Citizen Rightswhich aims to protect economic rights of street hawkers and rickshaw pullers. It conducted documentary screenings and public hearings are held to highlight the corrupt practices of the local police who bother them and the fallouts of pro-rich economic reforms. A third example is the movement led by Mohan Hirabai Hiralal, to empower gram sabhas (village assemblies) to enable people to participate in the village’s decision-making process.

 

Kothari claims that they are attempting to forge new ties with the global political movements spearheaded against imperialist forces by non-state actors, not limited to any particular territory. This is significant since so far, the global issues have not been touched by ruling political parties, satiated with the global status quo and not even by the radical Left, except for few passing references to them.

 

Sometimes, the movements of Non-Party Political Front may culminate into the formation of organised formal parties. For instance, the regional political parties, that were born out of movements for regional autonomy in Assam, Jharkhand, Karnataka, where centralised rule was challenged and decentralisation was demanded. These “satellite centres” whose resources have long been extorted by the Centre, now demanded their right to preserve their language, culture and environment as well as demand jobs. A specific example would be the demand during 1990s for recognizing a separate Uttarkhand state, carved out of the hill regions of Uttar Pradesh. The Uttarkhand Kranti Dalasserted a distinct identity, culture and language of the Garhwali and Kumaoni people. There also have been movements for cultural and linguistic autonomy. For instance, Nigam mentions the Assam Movement during the 1980s, which rose out of the concerted efforts of the Assamese literary personalities to challenge the hegemony of the Bengali culture. Nigam adds that the groups also realize the importance of deepening their impact on the formal political process. Hence, they field local candidates in elections or try to establish an alternative agenda. For example, during the 10th Lok Sabha elections, groups like All Jharkhand Students’ Union, Naga People’s Movement for Human Rights, Bhopal Gas Peedit Mahila Udyog Sangathan, Jan Vikas Andolan, Nirman Mazdoor Panchayat Sangam, etc came together to put the People’s Manifesto (1991), an amalgamation of all their core issues, into effect. Although this effort did not bear fruit, it did boost further efforts for such movements to participate directly in elections. The next attempt was in 2004 elections when there was an attempt to form a “movement party”.

 

Harsh Sethi states that the Non-Party Political Fronts are concerned with articulating the voices of the masses. He claims that this tendency can be traced to not only the Gandhian heritage, but also stems from a response to the Left’s ignorance of the political potentiality of the non-industrial working classes. At the same time, the groups are not oblivious to the diversity within the community, unlike the Left’s perception of a homogenous working class. The Left fails to realize that India particularly is such a fragmented, intersectional society that one cannot clearly identify a single category like class or caste or linguistic identity or citizen. These groups face a similar dilemma, but they still strive to organise and mobilize different communities depending on the issues that the latter hold crucial to them.

 

The other quandary faced by the Non-Party Political Fronts is the question of organizational structure. Since these groups are distrustful of the Left and other formal political parties’ proclivity to an authoritarian, hierarchical, non-participatory and undemocratic structure, they have opted for loose organisational structures.

 

Section-III

 

CRITIQUE

 

Rajni Kothari and Harsh Sethi outline the criticisms levied against the Non Party Political Fronts. They are feeble, disjointed and have few resources. Secondly, they are not seen as ushering any change into the overall political system and are only seen as the first step to the Left parties’ capture of political power. These groups may denigrate into narrow localism, anti-revolutionary and diversionary tendencies. Thirdly, they are limited to the local level and have not led to national or international mobilisations. Fourthly, their organisational structures, being loose, are often ineffective. Fifthly, these groups are unable to deal with issues that go beyond their limited local capacities. Moreover, since they are diminutive in size, they are not very stable and are frequently plagued by financial issues. Their organisational democracy does not last for long and in cases of change in leadership, they are not able to survive.

 

Harsh Sethi also cautions against a serious tendency of these groups to ‘set up absolute objectives—the desire to usher in an egalitarian, exploitation free, non-scarcity society using democratic, open-ended and participatory means—without reference to the socio-historical context in which the attempt is being made’ [Sethi, 1984: 9].  Kothari responds to these criticisms by arguing that contrary to commonsensical notions, these groups have not sprung out of immediate causes. They in fact have a significant part to play today and have definitely opened up a novel alternative space for expressing dissent. Only by operating outside the extant political structure, these groups are affecting a change, unlike the former revolutionary parties who were only focussed on replacing the ruling class. Demonstrating a novel, deeper understanding of history, they do not strive for simply capturing state power and representative institutions. These are also not temporary phenomenon but involve sustained struggle. Their contribution is in contrast to the middle class’s demand for withdrawal of politics.

 

Harsh Sethi adds that these groups work precisely because they are well acquainted with the intricacies of the local situation. They are flexible, are aware of the need to empower the vulnerable masses and are skilled at mobilization and organisation, which Left parties have failed to do so [Sethi, 1984: 5].

 

He also defends the Non-Party Political Fronts against the charge of localism, by arguing that they had undertaken three strategies to counter this. Firstly, they may join a formal political party, albeit at the risk of losing their distinctive character. The positive is that the political party may have to make its bureaucratic structure more flexible. Secondly, some of the Non-Party Political Front groups may try to form a coalition with similar groups. For instance, Jabaran Jot was a federation of tribal groups in Maharashtra demanding the renewal of cultivation rights to tribals on cleared forest land and the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, an alliance of tribal and backward castes in Bihar, Bengal and Orissa seeking a separate state in the Indian Union [Sethi, 1984: 6]. The problem is, these tie-ups among the groups do not last for long due to the internal tensions. For instance, the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha’s participants were at loggerheads since the backward castes and tribals had a long history of exploitative relationship. Thirdly, they remain independent but forge a working relationship with another political party. But, Sethi laments, such collaboration transpires only during elections, as the larger political party tries to take advantage of the Non-Party Political Front’s popular base of followers.

 

CONCLUSION

 

In conclusion, despite all its faults, the emergence of the Non-Party Political Fronts has kept Indian democracy alive and vibrant. They have contested the notion that only political parties are the medium to achieving social change people. In addition, they have ignited a tiny spark of political consciousness among otherwise apolitical, passive and apathetic. This, Harsh Sethi argues, has proved to be a counterfoil to the State’s depoliticisation agenda, particularly its intention to resolve political issues in a technical-managerial manner. The media’s tendency to highlight the corruption among politicians serves to strengthen the middle classes’ revulsion

 

towards politics, which furthers the people’s depoliticisation. But, Harsh Sethi makes a very pertinent argument that “A critique of politics should not be confused with a condemnation of politics. The solution lies not in being non-political. . . ” [Sethi, 1984: 11]. The emergence of such groups has subverted this attempt to deter the masses from engaging in politics and has renewed the popular understanding of political activity. By encouraging people to join in the political decision-making, these groups have to a certain extent rescued democracy from its earlier denigrated state — plebiscitary, manipulative and populist. It has also opened up a different conception of democracy, other than the liberal representative form. According to D. L. Sheth, no longer is participatory democracy a marginal theoretical idea and practice. This is commendable given that it has materialised even in the current globalisation scenario where representative institutions have been undermined. Aruna Roy and Nikhil Dey (2004) have stated that these groups have also successfully strived to partake in governance by drawing the attention of the state to their livelihood issues and linking the latter with the democratic decision-making process.

 

There is an urgent need to boost the confidence of Non-Political Party Fronts and to encourage them to wage their campaigns. There is also a pressing need to rejuvenate political ideologies which had so far depended upon the alienated systems like the state, revolutionary vanguards and technology to liberate the masses.

 

FURTHER READING