- Hello Visitor!
- Log In or Register
- Research Articles
- Perspectives
Human rights movements in India: State, civil society and beyond
Introduction
Though, since its origin, the human rights movement (HRM) in India
has made significant interventions in the shaping of democratic politics,
there has been, rather surprisingly, no serious reflection on the various
shifts that it has gone through and the emerging trends, phases and discourses
within it. In fact, a pertinent question, given the various new
shifts, is: is there a single HRM at all in India today? Or, instead, are
there multiple movements that either run parallel to each other or continue
to work on mutually exclusive assumptions? It is equally significant to
ask if there has been a gradual growth or decline of the HRM in terms of
its overall impact since various organisations have been pulling the movement
in different directions. This article attempts to trace the various
phases and assumptions underlying each in terms of the inter-relationships
between the state, civil society and democracy, along with locating the
possible directions that the HRM might take and its implications for politics
in general, and other radical social struggles in particular.
The first organised initiative, perhaps, to form a civil liberties organisation
was taken by Jawaharlal Nehru on 7 November 1936, with the
founding of the Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) with Rabindranath
Tagore as its president. Rights were articulated not only as guarantees
against the arbitrary state action that was so much a part of British colonial
rule, but also as the means necessary to achieve a more just and egalitarian
socio-economic order. It was this two-pronged strategy that formed the
basis of the anti-colonial struggle and the various instruments it set up,
including the Motilal Nehru Committee of 1928 and the Karachi session
of the Congress in 1931 which adopted the resolution on fundamental
rights. The strategy was a derivative of the conceptual distinction between
the natural rights tradition and the positivist tradition of articulating rights.
In the former, rights are envisaged as inalienable, having their origins in
nature, while in the positivist tradition ‘rights not only originate in the
action of the state, but are also entirely dependent on it for their existence’
(Singh 2005: 32). The state is the source and arbiter of rights and can
therefore legitimately even take them away in certain rare and wellspecified
situations. The civil liberties phase of the HRM movement in
the 1970s was primarily engaged with the state and was followed by the
democratic rights phase around the natural rights tradition. The latter was
looking to carve an autonomous civil societal sphere to locate and enlarge
the scope of the language of rights.1
1 See Aswini Ray (2003) for a more detailed historical narrative, as well as the collection
of papers submitted to the Indian civil liberties conference held in Madras on 16–17 July
1949, titled ‘Civil Liberties In India’, Nehru Memorial Museum and Library, New Delhi.
I am thankful to Ujjwal Kumar Singh for suggesting this important collection.
Human rights movements in India / 31
The history of the post-independence HRM in India can be traced back
to the early 1970s. The movement of the 1970s was located in a liminal
zone, between the shift from the Nehruvian era to Mrs Indira Gandhi
coming to power and the emergence of an authoritarian state on the one
hand, and the continued expectations from a welfarist state responsive
to the popular demands of the polity and its marginalised, on the other.
More than opposition to the state and the constitutional framework, it was
the everyday misuse of institutions and the violation of procedures that
formed the context for the beginning of the post-independence HRM in
State–civil society complementarity
In a meeting of Sarvodaya workers held in Bangalore in July 1972,
Jayaprakash Narayan advocated that a broad-based organisation should
be formed for the preservation and strengthening of democracy in India
and that the organisation should consist of all those who cherished democratic
values, but were not interested in power politics (Tarkunde 1991:
303). In an all-India conference convened in Delhi on 13–14 April 1974,
a non-party organisation called the Citizens For Democracy (CFD) was
formed with the objective of ensuring independence and autonomy, for
purposes of democratic and constitutional functioning, of various institutions
such as the judiciary, press, radio, bureaucracy, the office of the
President, the Election Commission and the Planning Commission,
among others. This experiment of building a pressure group for the more
effective and responsive functioning of state institutions was abruptly
cut short with the imposition of Emergency in the country on 25 June
1975 under Article 352 of the Constitution on the grounds that the ‘security
and integrity of India was in grave peril due to internal disturbance’.2
Jayaprakash Narayan and many of his followers were placed under preventive
detention. After his release, there appeared to be a need to expand
the scope of the CFD in order to protect the civil liberties or fundamental
rights of the citizens. In a well-attended conference held in New Delhi
2 Bipin Chandra (2003) completely ignores the role of JP in building the civil liberties
movement, and therefore reaches a one-sided conclusion that ‘Total Revolution’ had fascist
tendencies.
AJAY GUDAVARTHY
in October 1976, J.B. Kriplani, in the absence of Jayaprakash Narayan,
inaugurated the Peoples Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) (Tarkunde
1991: 305).
The focus of the PUCL, given the immediate context of the Emergency
and the recent memory of the larger legacy of the Nehruvian era, was
limited to (a) the restoration of the rights curtailed or eliminated during
the Emergency (undoing the preventive detention law, curtailment of the
jurisdiction of the courts, censorship of the press, and so on); (b) punishment
for those responsible for excesses, through available legal recourse;
and (c) safeguards against taking arbitrary recourse to Emergency provisions
out of mere subjective considerations (Ram 1986: 91).
The PUCL was constituted by political figures and sections close to the
Janata Party, apart from the Radical Humanist Association and the professional
bodies of lawyers, academics and a few independent Gandhians.
More than activism and mass mobilisation, the thrust was upon drawing
in eminent personalities who could exert pressure, moral or otherwise,
on individuals and institutions. The issue of civil rights, which had political
connotations, was considered essentially legal and therefore legal
action was often considered the most effective method for making institutions
responsive and for protecting the rights of the common people,
the citizens of the country. State institutions like the judiciary were considered
effective representatives of both civil societal concerns and public
On 23 March 1977, the Janata Party came to power after the Emergency
was lifted. Subsequently, the HRM temporarily lost its direction as
most office bearers of PUCL who had played an important role were also
members of the Janata Party. Ostensibly there existed no clear and effective
distinction between the state and civil society. And since it was institutional
reforms and the restoration of fundamental rights alone that was
the focus, the need for an independent human rights organisation was
no longer felt. In fact, ‘at a national convention held in August 1977, top
Janata leaders, like Krishna Kant, declared that there was hardly any need
for a civil liberties movement as democrats had come to power’ (CPDR
1991: 284). After a gap of a few years and with the return of Mrs Gandhi
to power, the PUCL was revived in November 1980. A national convention
of civil rights workers converted the PUCL into a membership
organisation. V.M. Tarkunde took over as president, while Arun Shourie
became its general secretary and Professor Rajni Kothari was elected as
president of the Delhi unit. Their immediate concern, following the earlier
focus on institutions, was to draft a new Prison Act and Jail Manual.
This was in many ways the first phase of the HRM—the civil liberties
phase—working within the framework of state-civil society complementarity.
Organisations such as the PUCL perceived themselves as harbingers
of the emerging link between the state and civil society in a newly
formed nascent democracy. They were of the firm belief that:
the link works both ways: on the one hand, these groups [such as the
PUCL—my addition] breed ideas and give impulse to the system; on
the other hand, the political system sets and modifies the frame of
action for civil society. There is a constant flow and exchange between
the two spheres (Frevert 2005: 68).
Civil society was being mobilised, not to stand outside the state, but to
make the state more responsive and recognise its constitutional obligations
towards its citizens. It was understood that while a vibrant civil
society is necessary to make the state accountable, it was equally important
to recognise that the state and its policies legitimately determine how
far the self-organising powers of the citizens would reach. In other words,
the state’s constitutional framework guaranteed certain basic freedoms
and they needed to be effectively and progressively realised. It is due to
this implicit understanding that the PUCL never emphasised mass mobilisation
as much as it did recourse to available legal means.3
The state-civil society complementarity was to be pursued and further
achieved around two conjoined programmes of first, (re) establishing
the autonomy and independence of institutions of both the state and civil
society, and second, entrenching and strengthening the project of citizenship
by effectively realising citizens’ civil, political and social rights.
3 See Balagopal (1987). He argues that even during this period: ‘Extensive use was
made of the Preventive Detention Act, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act and the
Defence of India Rules; over wide areas the army was employed and the promulgation of
“Disturbed Areas” was effected. But all these were mainly against the tribal nationalities
of the North East and the communist-led peasants and workers in the rest of the country.
This did not spoil the state’s reputation for constitutionality very much’ (1987: 41).
The various initiatives taken by the PUCL to restore the autonomy of
institutions such as the judiciary by protesting against the curtailment of
the jurisdiction of the courts, were considered the precondition for the
presence of a rule of law necessary to curtail the arbitrary use of power
and democratic transgressions. No meaningful equality before law could
be presumed without the necessary neutrality, accountability and openness
of the intermediary institutions. In turn, however, it needs to be recognised
that the PUCL believed that ‘institutional autonomy of the judiciary
draws sustenance from the axiomatic assumption that the state alone can
guarantee essential freedoms to the individual’ (Gupta 2004: 232). Similarly,
it emphasised the autonomy of civil societal institutions such as
the media and educational institutions, by protesting against the censorship
of the press to make way for informed political participation that
could put an accountable and responsive state in place. It was precisely
for this reason that the PUCL had, fairly early, stressed the importance
of electoral reforms as the right to vote was an extremely potent tool
with which to fight discrimination, specially for the most vulnerable and
marginalised social groups. However, in a highly segmented society like
India, mere institutional autonomy was thought to be insufficient for
either guaranteeing social equality or even augmenting public welfare.
Institutions could be greatly efficient and autonomous; however, precisely
for this reason, they might deny entry to disadvantaged groups. Thus,
the PUCL, along with emphasising the autonomy of institutions, also
struggled to recover a ‘rights based civil society’, where all citizens could
have access to fundamental rights.
The PUCL mobilised itself not only against draconian provisions such
as the preventive detention law, in favour of safeguards against arbitrary
recourse to emergency provisions or for a new Prison Act, but also for
positive social rights (such as the right to education) so that all individuals
and social groups, as citizens, could achieve equality of status. Recognising
all individuals, irrespective of their caste, class, gender and regional
identities as citizens would initially give them legal equality, eventually
pull them out of their specific disadvantages and duly accommodate them
as part of the developmental goals of the state. Thus, in the first phase of
the HRM, the PUCL believed that ‘civil society as an ethic of freedom
manifests itself in the modern democratic constitutional state by creating
citizens and by upholding institutional autonomy’ (ibid.).
Human rights movements in India
State versus civil society
The nature of the state under Mrs Gandhi underwent a dramatic transformation
with the authoritarian impulses of Nehru’s statist model of nation
building becoming more pronounced. Notwithstanding the welfare
orientation under Nehru, the state was also developed as a highly centralised
instrument to negotiate the different conflicts in civil society. Commenting
on this process, Bhikhu Parekh (1995: 44) observes that:
The state was the only conduit through which various parts of the society
related to one another and was a party to all disputes and conflicts.
It therefore became the sole centre of all political ambitions and energies
and an arena of powerful ideological passions.
It was this inherent trend of centralisation that Mrs Gandhi intended to
strengthen when she initiated a process of ‘deinstitutionalisation’ by
undermining intra-party elections; offering dubious concepts such as
‘committed bureaucracy’ and ‘committed judiciary’; encouraging a topdown
approach in order to hand pick chief ministers in various states;
and misusing Articles 356 and 352. More importantly, Mrs Gandhi was
using the idea of welfarism, the foundation of the state-civil society complementarity,
to further authoritarian and centralising tendencies. Centralised
planning, the use of modern technology and the role of ‘experts’
and technocrats became integral to governance. These methods, in the
name of maintaining efficiency, achieving ‘developmental’ goals and
preserving the ‘unity and integrity’ of the nation, increasingly created a
wedge between politics or popular participation and the government.4
This process was evident in the way a welfarist ‘20 point programme’
was announced during the Emergency. Welfarism was the new mode of
enhancing state control and disengaging the masses from popular participation
in the decision making process. Further, this was the period
when there was a fall in industrial growth. There were incidences of severe
drought and a sharp rise in food prices. The social base of the state
shifted to a newly emerging neo-rich or lumpen class, born largely out
of the leakages of the first phase of development. This class included
contractors, real estate dealers, liquor traders, rentiers, gamblers, speculators,
cinema producers and actors (Haragopal and Balagopal 1998: 360;
Sethi 1975: 25). The rise of the new classes was accompanied by a coercive
state which became increasingly evident in the use of force and rampant
manipulation of legal procedures. For instance:
those set free from preventive detention were brought back to prison—
often arrested outside the court premises or at the doorstep of the
prisons, on specific charges. A favourite device of some of the state
governments was the implication of individuals in a number of interlocking
cases. There was horizontal as well as vertical interlocking
(Ram 1986: 93).
In this period, the Armed Forces (Special Powers) Act was used in Assam;
the National Security Act was put on the statute books and then amended
twice to make it even more draconian and a Terrorist and Disruptive
Activities (Prevention) Act was enacted and employed widely all the
way from Punjab to Andhra Pradesh.5
This, broadly, was the social and political context for the shift in the
HRM from its earlier state-civil society complementarity framework to
its second phase—the democratic rights phase—during the 1980s, marked
by a new state versus civil society framework. The split in the PUCL and
the formation of the Peoples Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR) in
Delhi signalled the beginning of this phase:
A section of activists felt that the usage of the terms ‘civil liberties’
by the PUCL leaders restricted itself to (these) codified safeguards.
The more radical activists used the category ‘democratic rights’ as a
critique to the term ‘civil liberties’. It implied the freedom to claim
even non-codified rights, or, in other words, rights which citizens were
not endowed with under the existent legal system (Dutta 1998: 283).
5 See Balagopal (1987: 42). Balagopal notes that there were a host of lesser enactments
like the Postal Bill and the amendment to the Commissions of Enquiry Act which also
surfaced during this period. See Sumanta Banerjee (1987), also Kothari and Sethi (1991).
Human rights movements in India /
This was the phase when the Association for Protection of Democratic
Rights (APDR) was revived in West Bengal which later split with the
formation of the Association for the Establishment of Democratic Rights
(AEDR) on the issue that there are no democratic rights to ‘protect’ in
India. This radical perspective also marked the revival of the Organisation
for Protection of Democratic Rights (OPDR) and the Association for
Democratic Rights (AFDR) in Punjab, the Committee for the Protection
of Democratic Rights (CPDR) in Mumbai and the formation of the Manab
Adhikar Sangharsh Samiti (MASS) in Assam. In Andhra Pradesh, the
Andhra Pradesh Civil and Democratic Rights Association (APCDR) was
the first organisation to come into existence. It later split into the Andhra
Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) and the OPDR, broadly
representing two different factions of the Communist Party of India
(Marxist-Leninist) [CPI (ML)], but both working within the new ‘democratic
rights’ framework. Most of these organisations began working in
close proximity with different radical-militant struggles in their states
such as the armed Naxalite movement and the militant nationality struggles.
In its struggle for democratic rights, the APCLC initially focused on
organising fact finding committees on ‘encounter deaths’ and lock-up
deaths, providing legal assistance to the arrested activists of various
Marxist-Leninist parties and protesting for the right to organise public
meetings, processions and dharnas on behalf of the various mass organisations
of the Naxalite groups. In its second state-level convention, held
in Warangal on 4 May 1980, it adopted its manifesto and declared that its
central concerns were the protection of people’s right to struggle and
protest, opposing the atrocities of feudal landlords, capitalists and the
state machinery, condemning police excesses and also fighting for the
abolition of capital punishment (APCLC n.d.: 23). This was the activist
phase of the HRM, which went beyond looking for mere legal remedies.
Its members included leading lawyers, academics, artists, poets, journalists
and students, apart from several full-time activists. Paradoxically, in spite
of the shift to an activist phase, human rights organisations, contrary to
building a vibrant, independent and separate movement, were more concerned
with projecting themselves as a ‘platform’ or a ‘forum’ to ‘shield’
the radical political movements and struggle on their behalf to protect
their ‘right to protest’ and extend legal and constitutional safeguards to the
activists and leaders of these movements. The HRM was more than willing
to play second fiddle to the militant democratic, or the Marxist-Leninist
movements and was convinced of the urgent need to use militant ‘transformative
violence’ or ‘counter-violence’ against the state in order to bring
about a grand structural transformation. The HRM felt that in building a
militant civil society it had a very limited, although significant, role to
play by maintaining proximity with the radical militant organisations
and their struggles. The proceedings of the APDR, after self-introspection,
reached the conclusion that the ‘civil liberties organization (was) mainly
characterised by acting as a shield of the democratic struggles carried on
by the common people. In a sense, this role though limited (was) very
important’ (APDR 1991: 6, emphasis mine). The role was also ‘secondary’
in terms of its capacity to mobilise people numerically, as ‘the movement
(was) limited to few individuals and limited sections of people’ (ibid.).
However, as the 1980s was also a phase which saw the emergence of
various other social movements—women’s, Dalit, regional, minority and
environmental movements—apart from the Naxalite and nationality struggles,
human rights organisations began to gradually extend their scope
to protect the rights of the activists of these movements as well as their
political concerns. Various types of discriminations came to articulate
themselves in the democratic rights language. The PUCL and the PUDR,
in 1984, investigated and published a booklet titled ‘Who Are The Guilty’
on the anti-Sikh riots in Delhi. It directly named some of the culprits who
belonged to the ruling Congress Party. Some felt that with its publication,
‘groups fighting for civil liberties and democratic rights acquired a national
legitimacy’ (Desai 1991). It was true that no other organisation
had dared to openly record and reveal the names of those involved in
massacres, despite it being public knowledge. In Andhra Pradesh, the turning
point came with the gruesome Karamchedu massacre of Dalits in
July 1985. The APCLC investigated, again revealed the names of some
upper-caste landlords who had been involved and, working in tandem
with Dalit organisations, kept the issue politically alive till some of the
culprits were physically eliminated by armed squads of the then Peoples
War Group.6 Thereafter, the APCLC began to enlarge its scope and investigate
atrocities against women such as dowry deaths and domestic violence,
6 In October 2004, after their merger with the Maoist Communist Centre of Bihar, the
People’s War Group (PWG) was renamed the Communist Party of India (Maoist), prior to
the peace talks with the government of Andhra Pradesh.
as well as famine and hunger deaths in various districts and issues related
to environmental pollution. However, what is pertinent in this expansion
of the HRM into various other social and political issues is the fact that it
approached these issues strictly through the state versus civil society prism,
an approach born out of the HRM’s proximity to Marxist-Leninist groups.
For instance, it was the role of the ruling Congress Party that was stressed
by the PUCL and the PUDR in its report ‘Who Are the Guilty’, completely
undermining any dialogue on the growing communalism within civil
society. It was the caste (in this case Kamma) nexus, which actively
operated in various state institutions (the assembly, judiciary and the
police), that was the focus of APCLC’s investigation. This is not to say
that these issues, or for that matter the perspectives, were unimportant;
however, the HRM was not in any immediate sense concerned with highlighting
the existence and replication of power relations and forms of
discrimination at the civil societal level such as growing communalism
and rigid caste hierarchies. It did not consider the possibility that all forms
of human rights violations need not necessarily have emerged directly
from the state, although the state might have actively encouraged them.
This issue of human rights violation at the civil societal level became
starkly, and rather poignantly, evident with the accidental deaths of innocents
or common people in the course of military operations carried out
by the Naxalites against the police.7 In response to such incidents, human
rights organisations took recourse to the argument that ‘a civil rights
organisation was concerned only with state violence’ and the concern
for ‘private violence does not fall under its purview’—a stand initially
taken in an open letter written by leaders of the APCLC to the chief
minister in July 1985 and thereafter repeated ad nauseam whenever
questioned about their concern and responsibility vis-à-vis the victims
of ‘private violence’. Some of the leading activist-intellectual representatives
of the democratic rights phase, defending the actively ‘biased’
position, argued that:
The reason is very simple. Whereas, in a law-based state like India,
there exists an elaborate code, an entire ensemble of laws, procedures,
7 Common people also lost their lives sometimes, or rather most of the time, when
they were deliberately used as ‘shields’ by the police. For instance, the police continue to
opt to travel in public transport that common people use rather than their official vehicles
when they visit remote areas as part of their combing operations.
institutions and enforcement agencies to deal with private violence
or lawlessness, there is nothing comparable, no genuine checks or
controls, to take care of peaceful or violent lawlessness of the state,
which is potentially, and often in actual practice, the most powerful
violator of democratic rights in society (Singh 1993: 82).
However, this position stood in contrast to the interventions that the
APCLC, on more than one occasion, made to mitigate ‘private violence’
that erupted in the inter-group rivalry and killings between the various
factions of the revolutionary movement. These interventions were more
a result of the APCLC’s proximity with the revolutionary parties rather
than any sustained self-reflection on the issue. Despite growing criticism
from various quarters of civil society, as well as the deliberate and
manipulative use made of this hiatus on the part of the HRM by the state,8
the democratic rights organisations refused to critically reflect on their
state versus civil society framework.
This initial reluctance could be understood in the immediate context
of a repressive state which, to counter the growth and expansion of the
HRM, was by then arresting, or physically attacking and kidnapping,
leading civil rights activists all over the country. To cite a few instances,
in Assam, Parag Das, who had political and organisational proximity with
the United Liberation Front of Assam (ULFA), was with MASS and was
a popular editor of a leading Assamese daily, was shot dead by the SULFA
(‘Surrendered ULFA’) with the active connivance of the state police. In
Andhra Pradesh, Gopi Rajanna, Narra Prabhakar Reddy and, more recently,
Purshottam (all office bearers of the APCLC), were brutally killed by
the police; K. Balagopal was attacked, assaulted with knuckle-dusters
and kidnapped by an outfit calling itself Prajabandhu (August 1989),
and V.M. Tarkunde (the then president of the PUCL) and K.G. Kannabiran
(the long-term president of the APCLC) were assaulted at a public meeting
in Madurai. A subsequent president of APCLC, Laxman, was also kidnapped
in November 2003 by surrendered Naxalites operating as private
mercenaries, again with the active involvement of state police (APCLC
1985: 77). Such increasing physical attacks only reinforced the human
rights organisations’ understanding of the state as the primary, and perhaps
8 State officials, bureaucrats and the police often argued that this entailed ‘double
standards’, and also exposed the proximity HRM had with ‘outlawed’ organisations.
the sole, violator of human rights and thereby vindicated their state versus
civil society framework. These attacks, coupled with the sacrifice and
resolution of the activists, provided them with a ready ‘moral’ reasoning
of the correctness of their politics. Thus, the HRM was not prepared to
reflect on the ‘conceits of the civil society’ or let go of their singular focus
on the state, which only meant weakening civil society and the movements
it constituted, and strengthening the state. The implicit fear was that by
equating and conflating the various types of violations (whether carried
out by revolutionary movements or the state), the state would be let off
the hook. Interestingly, while in the first phase of the HRM, it did not
want to absolve the state by overlooking its constitutional responsibilities
to its citizens, in the second, it did not miss any opportunity to dismantle
and delegitimise the state.
Thus, the 1980s marked a rupture in the HRM with efforts to construct
civil society as a pure ‘realm of freedom’ that stood squarely outside the
state and consisted of various militant and radical social movements.
They consciously worked, as much as possible, outside formal institutions
such as courts, in an attempt to delegitimise and minimise the arena of
state control. Civil society now signified political action, rather than a
mere site for forming public opinion.9 Organisations such as the PUDR
and the APCLC strongly believed that what brought the various social
movements in civil society together was:
their shared perception that the state is the repository of coercive force
which is frequently directed against the citizens. The fact that the
state is a potential and actual transgressor of individual liberty and
that its might must be collectively challenged gives coherence to the
otherwise diverse units of civil society (Mahajan 2004: 181).
9 Within the liberal tradition, civil society was envisaged as a ‘space where citizens
could meet in order to socialize with their fellow-citizens, to exchange ideas and discuss
issues of common concern, to form political opinion. It was not a sphere where those
opinions translated into political action and decision-making’ (Frevert 2005: 63, emphasis
mine). Such a distinction between thought and action emanates from the classical liberal
formulation of J.S. Mill, granting ‘absolute freedom of opinion and sentiment on all subjects,
practical or speculative, scientific, moral, or theological’ (Levi 1963: 138), coupled
with elaborate restrictions on the ‘freedom to act’. The earlier phase of HRM was close to
this kind of liberal articulation and therefore left the action to the state, which combines
legislative and administrative powers.
They, therefore, worked relentlessly to expose the state on the one hand,
and protect the coherence of civil society on the other. Everything else
came later.
The rigid state versus civil society framework, however, became increasingly
untenable with the beginning of the 1990s. The context this
time around was provided by the simultaneous unfolding of multiple
contradictions manifested in the growing conflicts within and between
various social movements. The HRM was, in a sense, caught unawares
and the radical articulations by the Dalit, women’s and regional movements,
not only against the state but also vis-à-vis each other, escaped its
rigid binaries and neat totalities. An important starting point for this can
be traced to the Koyyur kidnapping on 30 January 1993 in Andhra Pradesh,
when a tribal MLA was kidnapped from Vishakapatnam district by the
PWG. Various Dalit organisations, the most prominent among them being
the Dalit Maha Sabha, raised serious objections to Dalit leaders (who in
any case were few and far between) who were weak and vulnerable being
picked up as ‘soft’ targets and used as hostages in exchange for fulfilling
of demands with which they had nothing to do. They raised pertinent
ideological and political questions on what they referred to as ‘casteblind
politics’ of the far-left groups.10 The state, too, took its own time to
react, allowing the new growing conflicts to brew. What was brought out
was the fact that mere anti-state activity neither exhausted nor addressed
the concerns of the other social struggles; neither did it provide for unifying
them unproblematically in a ‘coherent civil society’.
The APCLC intervened to resolve the ‘crisis’ and demanded the release
of the kidnapped. Refuting their earlier position on ‘private violence’,
perhaps for the first time, the then president of the APCLC wrote:
The practice of taking as hostages persons unconnected with the specific
issue between the government and the PWG is a practice we in
APCLC never approved of. We have been as human rights activists
against this type of political practice. Whether the police hold people
in illegal custody or the Naxalites kidnap and take as hostages persons
unconnected with the specific issues involved our stand has been the
same (Kannabiran 1993: 495).11
10 For a detailed debate between the Dalit and Marxist-Leninist groups in Andhra
Pradesh and their changing perception of each other, see Gudavarthy (2005).
11 See also Haragopal (1993).Human rights movements in India /
The break from the rigid state versus civil society framework was
further strengthened with new questions:
For human rights activists, Koyyuru (and earlier Gurthedu) (raised)
issues regarding the concepts of human rights itself, the advisability
of expanding the concept and thereby enlarging the field of operation
of human rights work. What should be its relations with radical and
democratic movements? Has it any transforming role while operating
the institutions available within a democratic set up? Should it merely
confine itself to maintaining a crime audit of the state? All such and
related questions need to be debated (Kannabiran 1993: 498).
This trend of problematising power dynamics and human rights violations
at the civil societal level was expressed and took centre-stage through
the series of questions that the young activists of the APCLC raised in
their state and district-level meetings. During the Kurnool convention in
1993, they began by raising a sensitive issue—pointing out that a large
number of those killed by the Naxalites as ‘informers’ were from the SC,
ST and OBC communities and who, due to the absence of any form of
social networking, failed to return to the so-called ‘mainstream’ life, and
often succumbed to police pressure and passed on (sometimes very
crucial) information after surrendering. Similarly, accusations of ‘silent’
discrimination and violence against women were levelled against male
members active in the various social movements which could not be ignored
as either a ‘personal’ or a ‘private’ matter. Discussion papers carrying the
old perspective—that is, reinforcing the state versus civil society framework
while arguing that there cannot be an independent ‘human rights
perspective’ that was different and autonomous from and, more importantly,
critical of the ‘revolutionary perspective’—and the new perspective
which brought into relief a more critical approach to civil societal
violations, were printed and circulated among the members, and the
debate continued at all district-level meetings for over a couple of years.
A national convention on ‘Democratic Movements and Human Rights
Perspectives’ was organised in Hyderabad in June 1996, with the aim of
making the debate public, as well as gathering the views of other nationallevel
democratic rights organisations. Later, during the Guntur convention
of the APCLC towards the end of 1997, they voted on the two contending
perspectives, as a result of which APCLC split and a new organisation
called the Human Rights Forum (HRF) was formed.
Civil society versus political society
The formation of the HRF marked the beginning of the third phase of the
HRM—the human rights phase—which now worked within a new civil
society versus political society framework.12 The immediate focus of the
new framework in identifying and constructing the new political society
was to stress the importance of locating and condemning human rights
violations at the civil societal level including those committed by radical
social movements, thereby politicising a larger array of social issues.
The new approach also highlighted the inadequacy of maintaining or
striving for the unity of various social struggles around an anti-state activity
without recognising the independent sites and methods of discrimination,
the possible areas of mutual conflicts between them and thereby
the need for autonomous movements along different axes of discrimination.
The HRF, in its inaugural pamphlet, explained its differences
with the ‘democratic rights perspective’ as against the new ‘human rights
perspective’, which had foregrounded the adverse impact of human rights
violations at the civil societal level. The pamphlet stated, ‘We believe
that unjust and unfair use of violence even by a popular movement must
be openly condemned, not because it is violence but because it is unjust’
(Human Rights Forum 2000: 4). It further made a plea for treating all
discrimination independently and at par, and argued that:
The political structure of the state and the social-economic structures
of caste, class and gender have received some recognition as oppressive
structures, but are yet to assume equal importance, in the eyes of the
12 The concept of political society used here does not refer strictly to the way it has
been recently conceptualised by Partha Chatterjee and instead refers to a broader process
of politicising a larger array of social issues and practices. However, it cannot be denied
that there are overlaps in terms of a critique of hegemonic practices in civil society, a
mapping of civil society as a site of power relations and a recognition of the need to politically
negotiate with the choices, radical or otherwise, of subalterns. For Partha Chatterjee’s
idea of political society, see Chatterjee (2004).
Human rights movements in India
rights movement. The state–class framework continues to dominate
for no cogent reason. But both caste and gender are major sources of
not only violent suppression but also routine and insidious denial of
rights. There is no scale on which their effect can be adjudged less severe
than that of state and/or class (HRF 2000: 1)
Finally, stressing the inadequacy (and perhaps the impossibility) of a
solidarity based around just anti-state activity, it further argued:
The state–class framework that unconsciously guides our thinking of
rights has come from militant-leftist movements and the problems of
suppression they have faced from the state and the exploiting classes.
But if we are ready to learn equally from the dalit movement and the
women’s movement and the politics of various minorities, religious,
ethnic or linguistic groups then these movements have mostly sought
to empower themselves by making use of and enlarging the democratic
political space and the political and civil rights available in the present
state and the political system (ibid.: 2).
At almost the same time, an independent organisation known as the Committee
of Concerned Citizens (CCC) came into existence. Its vision constituted
a ‘search for a democratic space’, initially between the state and
the radical political movements, but also between the various conflicting
interests within civil society. Interestingly, it drew its members largely
from the various civil rights organisations in Andhra Pradesh which had
professed to be handicapped at the stalemate that had ensued between a
repressive state and the civil rights organisations working within a rigid
state versus civil society framework. In the foreword to the first report
the committee published, it made it a point to proclaim that:
The group which came to be known as the Committee of Concerned
Citizens (Puara Spandana Vedika) was not formed at the instance of
any authority or organisation. It emerged on its own, open to reflect
the voice of large democratic sections of the society which is tired at
being reduced to a mute spectator in the game with peoples lives played
by the state and the revolutionary parties (Committee of Concerned
Citizens 1998: 1).
Unlike the previous phase, in this one the HRM began by looking for a
space between the state and revolution. It is from this independent vantage
point that it wished to raise a series of questions at the behest of a political
society. Perhaps the single most important concern for the CCC was how
to privilege and preserve the choice of political participation for the subaltern
masses and prevent spiralling violence between the government and
naxalite groups, leading to an escalating suffering of the most vulnerable.
This concern led the CCC to raise pertinent points regarding the
possible ways of understanding the relation between the ‘people’ and the
(Marxist-Leninist) ‘party’. Can the Naxalite groups claim that all their
actions were actions by the people? Can all actions (read excesses) of the
party be condoned because they were carried out in the ‘larger’ interests
of the people? In what ways is the party responsible, and what ought to
be their response to the growing suffering of the people under conditions
of ‘circular violence’? Similarly, they also stressed the need to engage
with the available ‘democratic’ institutions of the state and civil society,
for instance by recognising the opportunities the 73rd Amendment provided
for Dalits and women in local governance institutions and therefore
the need for periodic elections without violence. It is also in this context
that the CCC re-emphasised the need to protect principles such as the
‘rule of law’, instead of delegitimising them as either bourgeois principles
or a mere ‘juridical illusion’ (Meszaros 1985: 196–211). Finally, the CCC
unequivocally condemned the brutality of the Naxalite groups when
dealing with the people ‘as no less abominable than the third degree methods
used in police camps’ (CCC 1998). Such violence not only further brutalises
society, but also reduces the space for the fearless expression of
opinion and political action for the masses at large, thereby robbing people
of the experience necessary to take control of their lives, crucial for both
existing and post-revolutionary societies.13 The revolutionary parties, on
the other hand, also lay claim to representing the concerns of a political
society by engaging with the conflicts in civil society as well as the issue
of free political participation by the people themselves. They argued
13 The growing significance of the shift in HRM could also be felt in the response of
PWG to these observations of CCC. In their reply, PWG observed, ‘though there are
some shortcomings in the report of the concerned citizens, we feel that the Committee of
Concerned Citizens has exhibited an essentially democratic approach’ (Committee of
Concerned Citizens 1998: 18).
that the revolutionary parties did recognise the conflicts in civil society
and, therefore:
It is exactly here that the masses should be guided by the revolutionary
leadership to understand the contradictions among the people and the
united front that they have to forge in order to make the revolution
successful. When they understand these two things then the excesses
in people’s courts, the occupation of land of even some middle class
peasantry on some occasions and other wrong ways of dealing with
contradictions among the people will get automatically solved (Ravi
1993: 1471).
Similarly, the revolutionary process is engaged with encouraging mass
participation. However, the human rights groups need to realise that in
the course of such a process, there are bound to be mistakes and excesses,
and it is undialectical to imagine the process to be otherwise. It is therefore
important to understand that:
When the leadership itself deals with the village-level contradictions
it is likely to reduce the excesses, but when the initiative is left to the
masses then such anarchy is bound to be there in an anti-feudal struggle,
but their experience will leave in them a higher level of consciousness.
The first option is absolutely impractical and even if it is practical,
which is preferable ... which is the correct mass line? Which is centralizing
the power? Which will guarantee the future egalitarian society?
The initiative of the masses or the superimposed directions from the
leadership? (ibid.).
It is against these claims and counter-claims to political society that the
CCC initiated the process for peace talks between the state and the revolutionary
parties. The talks between 15–18 October 2004 centred around
the basic premise that both the state and the revolutionary movements
should strive to reduce the perpetual fear and uncertainty that the common
people were labouring under and that it is their choice and voice that
needs to be prioritised over everything else.14
14 For a detailed account of the recent peace talks between the government of Andhra
Pradesh and the Communist Party of India (Maoist) see Committee of Concerned Citizens
The third phase of the HRM was an attempt to expand its scope by
locating the power relations and the consequent human rights violations
in civil society and gradually moving towards a political society that engaged
with the complex micro-processes of social transformation.15
Therefore, political society had a democratising effect in terms of politically
negotiating the different social issues that had been hitherto neglected
by the rights movement, as also the differences and conflicts between
the various movements. The HRM, however, was struck with a difficult
question: ‘what prevents political society from splitting into warring
factions or degenerating into a congeries of inward-looking particularistic
“interests”’? In other words, ‘is there a viable distinction between the
multiple “special interests” of the political society and the common “public
interest”’? If yes, how, and by whom, will this public interest be safeguarded
around certain “common principles”’?16 The HRM quickly grasped
the difficulty of foregrounding the new broadened ‘human rights perspective’
solely around the issue of preserving one’s interests and identity.17
It had to relocate itself in making an effort, in whichever way possible,
to ‘bring the dialectic of self-transformation and self-reflection to the
very heart of identity formation itself’ (Giri 2005: 220). It is this issue of
negotiating with the conflicting implications of the ‘human rights
perspective’ of pursuing interest-based politics and radical politicisation
that located the HRM in a liminal space, which it wished to overcome to
avoid stagnation.
The contemporary moment: Beyond the political?
The contradictory implications of a political society marked by empowerment
through the protection and politicisation of interests on the one
hand, and a process of fragmentation of political struggles with their
15 For an elaborate argument on how, after the collapse of the East European socialist
regimes, western political theory has constructed the arena of civil society as an alternative
political space which is devoid of any conflictual power relations, see Chandhoke (2001,
16 For a series of similar questions being discussed, see Foley and Edwards (1996).
17 It is this issue of the inadequacy in explorations of the limitations of interest-based
politics that we focused on in our critique of Partha Chatterjee’s notion of ‘political society’;
see Gudavarthy and Vijay (2007). It is also for this reason that I place emphasis on differentiating
my use of political society in this article.
Human rights movements in India /
self-arrogating discourses on the other is sought to be overcome in the
contemporary moment of the HRM by, ironically, moving beyond the
domain of the political that constituted the core character of political
society. The HRM seems to be reformulating its civil society versus political
society framework through the underpinning of a new ethical
dimension.18 As a significant departure, it seems to be hinting at recasting
the ‘human rights perspective’ by arguing that ‘primarily rights are ethical
norms and any attempt to treat them as primarily or explicitly political
can only lead to sectarian divisions and stagnation in the human rights
movement’.19 In such a framework, the HRM itself is not a political movement.
Instead, the ‘political movement and human rights movement as
such exist in two planes: the planes of interests and values’ (Balagopal
forthcoming). This relocation of the HRM in an ethical domain is being
sought in order to rethink the way social transformation has occurred in
history during struggles of the oppressed, where ‘what they have fought
is not oppression as such but the oppression of the Other that has hurt
their interests’.20 The struggle against oppression as such happens, or is
possible, only in the realm of ethics or morals, and:
18 The following position is being articulated primarily by Dr K. Balagopal (a leading
human rights activist and theoretician and office bearer of the HRF), with a few members
and activists of the HRM and other social movements gravitating towards a position that
reflects the possibility of a new political society versus an ethical society framework.
However, it is yet to take a definitive institutional form, though again there are hints that
the HRM is being implicitly driven by this new shift. I, therefore, prefer to refer to this
new framework as a moment, rather than a definitive phase, of the HRM.
19 Balagopal (forthcoming). For a brief summary of the contents of this forthcoming
book, see Gudavarthy and Vijay (2004). Upendra Baxi also seems to agree with the essential
moral underpinnings of HRM, and argues that: ‘The social theory of human rights, of
necessity, has to find bases for ethical judgment concerning “good” and “bad” social
movements .... It does seek to provide a “predetermined directionality” in human social
development by articulating an ethic of power, whether in state, civil society, or the market’
(Baxi 2002: 120–21). It is, however, not clear as to how he places this ‘ethical judgment’
vis-à-vis the political moment in social movements in general, and the HRM in particular.
He seems to agree with the idea that there is some essential distinction between the way
the HRM relates to the idea of (political) ‘power’ and the way other social movements do,
and it is therefore ‘then understandable that most contemporary social theory and history
of new social movements does not focus on human rights movements as social movements’
(ibid.: 121).
20 Balagopal (1995: 59). Similar ideas of emancipation going beyond the achievement
of immediate interests can be located in a large array of writers.
this rebuilding has wrongly been seen as a direct continuation of the
struggle against injustice. This notion that the force that is necessary
to destroy unjust social structures will by itself lead to the reconstruction
of society on a just basis ... has been sufficiently proved an illusion
by the happenings of this century (Balagopal 1995: 60).
The struggles in the ‘material’ or political realm do not have a direct impact
or a necessary continuity with ‘moral evolution’.21 Thus, while the
HRM is the embodiment of the human struggle to restore (universal) ethics/
values, political movements protect the (particularistic) interests of various
social groups. The HRM, therefore, has the difficult task of standing
at a distance while working in tandem with political movements. It needs
to retain its autonomy in order to generate a discourse of ethical praxis,
and maintain proximity in order to effectively cut across all political
This attempt to de-link the political and the moral and locate the HRM
exclusively within an abstract ethical domain comes as a response to
the subterranean divide between the moral and political dimension, in
the discourses of various political movements including the Dalit and
frameworks. For instance, Paulo Friere, the famous Latin American philosopher and educationist,
argues that in order for radical social struggles ‘to have meaning, the oppressed
must not in seeking to regain their humanity become in turn oppressors of the oppressors,
but rather restorers of the humanity of both ... this then is the great historical and humanist
task of the oppressed: to liberate themselves and their oppressors as well’ (1972: 31).
Gandhi argued that the oppressed need to hate oppression, such as the practice of
untouchability, and not the oppressor, and therefore there is no place for violence, and
there is a need to incorporate into our struggles the necessary efforts for the ‘change of
heart’ of the oppressor. See Iyer (1978).
21 This idea of a separation between the ‘material’ and the ‘moral’, which has emerged
in the context of the present-day HRM locating itself vis-à-vis the various radical struggles,
seems strangely to have parallels with the way the anti-colonial national movement
perceived itself vis-à-vis the colonial rulers. Partha Chatterjee observes: ‘Anticolonial
nationalism creates its own domain of sovereignty within colonial society well before it
begins its political battle with the imperial power. It does this by dividing the world of
social institutions and practices into two domains—the material and the spiritual’ (1993:
6; emphasis mine). It was this separation that was later superimposed on the ‘political’
struggle against colonialism. For a critique of such a separation and its dualistic implications
(which is perhaps relevant in the context of the present-day HRM too, and the new direction,
marked by its ethical dimension, that it seems to be taking) in a graded society like India,
see Aloysius (1998).
the Naxalite movements.22 Ironically, in responding to the already existing
moral essentialism of the political movements, the HRM seems to slip
into an obverse moralism of its own by condemning political movements
to a delimited struggle for interests and arrogating to itself the larger
task of entrenching abstract ethics.23 The contemporary response of the
HRM could be traced to some of the variants of moral essentialism that
it had to face in its interaction with the various political movements. The
more existentialist reason for such a shift can be traced to the fact that
socially (caste, class and gender-wise), most activists who seem to be
gravitating towards such arguments for a bifurcation between the political
and the ethical belong to the more ‘privileged’ upper echelons. They often
face a serious sense of isolation, as political movements around them are
demanding exclusive organic linkages with those who wish to lead them,
or even be part of their struggles.24 This self-valorisation (or moralisation)
of identities is perceived by the HRM as a shift on the part of political
movements into an insular mode which is fraught with pragmatic responses
to and within the emerging political dynamic, and, most importantly,
bereft of a moral dimension. The HRM, therefore, now wishes to
superimpose and externally inject its own variant of an abstract ethical
22 In fact, constructing the political society, as opposed to civil society, was an attempt
at critiquing moralisation, which is, for instance, evident in the self-valorisation of each
movement or, for that matter, the valorisation of the arena of civil society as against the
state. HRM used the concept of political society to critique abstract moralising as against
contextualising the choices available to subalterns. However, here, having initiated the process,
there seems to be an apparent retreat, only to reintroduce the moral-political divide.
23 This divide, therefore, lets political movements off the hook by reconciling their
struggles with the realm of interests. Some scholars have suggested in response to this
formulation that what is called for, instead of the divide between the moral and political
dimensions, is ‘transforming the moral self into the political self and moral questions
into political ones. This certainly does not call for super-imposing an arrogant moral discourse
on the politically disunited people’s movements’ (Patnaik 1995: 1202). Also see
Gudavarthy (1996).
24 For instance, the Dalit Maha Sabha makes it a point to emphasise that ‘only dalits’
shall occupy the dais in all their meetings, and that no upper-caste activist, however sympathetic
and radical she/he might be, will be allowed to do so. This process of ‘othering’
makes all others permanent ‘outsiders’ to the movement. This indeed is a variant of moral
essentialism in the Dalit movement. However, the question as to why political movements
take this route to find a space for themselves in the existing political domain needs to be
historicised, and is predominantly a political question. For a more detailed account, see
Gudavarthy (2005).
dimension which will open the way for a democratic dialogue and space
for all those not organically linked to these movements.
The nature of the social base of the HRM was always suspect. The
militant left movement always characterised it as ‘petty bourgeoisie’ in
a derogatory sense, and often referred to it mockingly as the ‘middle
class wing of revolution’. Many activists in the HRM themselves shared
this perception. This anecdote sharply highlights the ambiguity:
At a discussion in Delhi (under the auspices of the PUCL) the problem
of ‘legitimacy’ of human rights activism, astonishingly surfaced and
there was even some talk of the need for human rights communities
to ‘woo the middle classes’ back to the value /mission ... (n)ot long ago
many leading human rights communities critiqued, rightly (prescinding
the question of moral opportunism in practice of politics) the middle
class support to the anti-Mandal agitation (Baxi 1998: 349).
In another context, a long-term vice-president of the APCLC and now
member of the CCC argues, ‘In fact, the middle class becomes spineless
and loses the nerve against a repressive state. Some liberal activists shift
their stand very fast. They not only compromise but also gradually degenerate
into a self-seeking and self-aggrandizing class of individuals’
(Haragopal and Balagopal 1998: 367). This perceived inherent moral
weakness never allowed the HRM to articulate itself as an independent
and credible political movement, apart from the other related reasons stated
earlier.25 The HRM, therefore, now feels the need to pose issues in explicit
moral/ethical terms, both as a response and as a means to overcome this
perceived handicap. This compulsive tension within the HRM will persist
as long as it is not prepared to carry out an independent (as it continues
to share this perception with militant left groups) and a more positive
25 Further, whenever individuals within HRM raised questions that were uncomfortable
for radical left struggles, they juxtaposed the sacrifice of the militant underground activists
against the comfortable ‘middle class lives’ of human rights activists. The level of sacrifice
thereby settled the authenticity and correctness of their political positions. Often, in private,
human rights activists expressed discontent over what they referred to as a silent ‘moral
blackmail’, while those activists in HRM close to the radical left valorised such arguments.
There is a different kind of moralisation operating here, as compared to the previous
point. There is a (de)moralisation of the middle class which stands accused of a permanent
lack of morality.
Raymond Williams critiquing the conventional position of radical
left groups on the role of the middle class argues:
The significance of predominantly middle-class leadership or membership
of the new movements and campaigns is not to be found in some
reductive analysis of the determined agencies of change. It is, first, in
the fact of some available social distance, an area for affordable dissent.
It is, second, in the fact that many of the most important elements of
the new movements and campaigns are radically dependent on access
to independent information, typically though not exclusively through
higher education and that some of the most decisive facts cannot be
generated from immediate experience but only from conscious analysis
(1983: 254–55).
The HRM is definitely a movement that is dependent on ‘available social
distance’ and involved in constructing a refracted ‘political culture’, which
at times (though not always) is difficult to ‘generate from immediate
experience’.
Finally, a moral/ethical resolution to avoid ‘stagnation’ in the HRM
is sought due to the moral ad hocism within both Marxist theory and
radical left movements, as well as the latter’s refusal to develop consistent
political principles around the means-ends issue. Steven Lukes, in his
interesting study on ‘Marxism and Morality’, argues that:
On the one hand Marxism has treated morality as ideological, historically
relative, shaped by social and class determinants and so on,
26 ‘Thus, at its core CRM (the Civil Rights Movement) is a movement for a specific
kind of “political culture”—a culture that socializes a society with democratic temperament.
A belief in the possibility of institutionalization and protection of norms and practices
that govern the state-society relationship is central to the efforts of the CRM .... This is
both the strength and weakness of the movement .... It is (also) a weakness in the sense
that it imposes severe constraints on the mobilization potential of the CRM. Vast masses,
who have to struggle for their basic daily-bread, cannot be mobilized into the fold of the
CRM. Even if the CRM could mobilize the masses against a background of severe repression,
it would be more an ad hoc type of mobilization .... Thus owing to its objective—
generating democratic culture—the CRM, at least the core of it, is, bound to be, oriented
towards the middle classes’ (Kakarala 1993: 415–16).
purporting itself to reject any moral or moralizing discourse ... on the
other hand Marx’s and Marxist writings abound in moral judgments,
implicit and explicit (1985: 4).
This unexplored continuum between ethics and politics re-emerges as
moral ad hocism mostly on the basis of ‘consequentialist reasoning’.
For instance, Herbert Marcuse argues for limitations on revolutionary
violence by establishing ‘general norms’, and E.P. Thompson recommends
humanist attitudes ‘whenever and to the degree that contingencies
allow’, so that they do not negate the very end for which the revolution
is a means.27 Beyond such contingent moral advocacy, Marxist theoreticians
were hesitant to suggest the means of converting moral principles
into political norms, and vice-versa. For instance, radical left movements
never conceptualised exactly what constituted ‘revolutionary violence’.
Some attempts on the part of the HRM to engage with issues of permissible
or impermissible ‘strategies’ and ‘tactics’ were unsuccessful. It is
this loss of such historical moments in concretising values that re-emerges
as the eternal wait for the moment of pure morality (very like the ‘last
instance’ in Althusser). Strangely, the radical left movement (which the
HRM accuses of an absence of the explicit recognition of morality) was
27 See Geras (1990: 29, 34). Here, while ‘general norms’ can become abstract moralism,
contingent attitudes can slip into pragmatism. The challenge really is generating political
principles that emerge into moral norms, which are in turn open to political practice. How
do we combine the self-belief and certainty required for political praxis with the openendedness
necessary to avoid abstract moralism? In the powerful memoir of a communist
revolutionary from South Africa, the author writes, ‘In 1975 I was a young, very idealistic
revolutionary, and I was prepared to die for my beliefs. I felt a strong connection with all
those who had gone before me, and with all those who had faced similar tortures; and
I felt a responsibility to the traditions of our liberation movement. That is what gave me
strength. That is what made my resistance possible. And that is why I did not simply
succumb to torture or lapse into despair. Writing this now, 24 years after my arrest, I don’t
seem as single-minded as I was back then. I now tend to see myself as having been rather
naïve. All the same, it remains true that single-mindedness was the weapon that got me
through (Suttner 2001: 3).
In other words, how do we generate activists who fight for socialism with certainty
and yet are open-ended about its success? For an initial discussion (by no means exhaustive
or sufficient) on this issue, see Geras (1994). Further discussion on this point, though necessary,
is beyond the scope of this article.
accused of pure moralism by feminist writers during the Telangana armed
struggle. They argued that the Communist Party could not evolve a policy
on problems of childbirth, unmarried women and sexuality etc. Women
comrades were forced to give away children after they were born and
single women were considered a problem. While most cases were settled
as and when they arose, the underlying issue they posed was ‘diluted
into a moral problem, a guilt at having violated family happiness. Once
again there is no analysis on it as a political issue that had to be addressed
if the movement was serious about women’ (Stree Shakti Sanghatana
1989: 27, emphasis mine). As absence of morality is a problem now, the
presence of morality was a problem then.
Aloysius, G. 1998. Nationalism Without a Nation. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC). 1985. The State vs Civil Liberties
Organisations—The Case of APCLC, Lokayan Bulletin. 3 (3): 77–80.
———. n.d. Paura hakkula avagahana charcha patralu. Hyderabad: APCLC.
Association for the Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR). 1991. Two Decades of APDR
and Human Rights. Calcutta: APDR.
Balagopal, K. 1987. Our Democratic Future. Lokayan Bulletin. 5 (4–5): 37–44.
———. 1995. Democracy and the Fight Against Communalism. Economic and Political
Weekly. 31 (1): 57–60.
———. (forthcoming). Human Rights Movement in Andhra Pradesh: A Theoretical Reflection.
In Ajay Gudavarthy and G.Vijay (eds) Understanding Contemporary Andhra
Banerjee, Sumanta. 1987. Turning our Ears to Discord: Response of the Democratic Rights
Movement to the Question of Violence. Lokayan Bulletin. 5 (4–5): 45–53.
Baxi, Upendra. 1998. The State and Human Rights Movements in India. In M. Mohanty
and Partha N. Mukherji (eds) People’s Rights: Social Movements and the State in
the Third World, pp. 335–52. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
———. 2002. The Future of Human Rights. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chandhoke, Neera. 2001. The ‘Civil’ and the ‘Political’ in Civil Society. Democratisation.
8 (2): 1–24.
———. 2003. Conceits of Civil Society. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chandra, Bipin. 2003. In the Name of Democracy. New Delhi: Penguin.
Chatterjee, Partha. 1993. Nation and its Fragments. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
———. 1994. Development Planning and the Indian State. In Terence J. Byres (ed.) The
State and Development Planning in India, pp. 51–72. New Delhi: Oxford University
Contributions to Indian Sociology (n.s.) 42, 1 (2008): 29–57
56 / AJAY GUDAVARTHY
Chatterjee, Partha. 2004. Politics of the Governed: Reflections on Popular Politics in Most
of the World. Delhi: Permanent Black.
Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR). 1991. The Civil Liberties Movement:
A Perspective. In A.R. Desai (ed.) Violation of Democratic Rights in India.
Vol. 3: 98–105. Mumbai: Sangam Books.
Committee of Concerned Citizens. 1998. In Search of Democratic Space. Hyderabad: CCC.
———. 2006. Negotiating Peace. Hyderabad: CCC.
Desai, A.R. 1991. Governmental Lawlessness and Organised Struggles. Mumbai: Popular
Dutta, Nilanjana. 1998. From Subject to Citizens: Towards a History of the Indian Civil
Rights Movement. In M.R. Anderson and Sumit Guha (eds) Changing Concept of
Rights and Justice in South Asia, pp. 275–88. New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Foley, Michael and Bob Edwards. 1996. The Paradox of Civil Society. Journal of Democracy.
7 (3): 38–52.
Frevert, Ute. 2005. Civil Society and Citizenship in Western Democracies: Historical
Developments and Recent Challenges. In Rajeev Bhargava and Helmut Reifeld (eds)
Civil Society, Public Sphere and Citizenship, pp. 59–83. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Friere, Paulo. 1972. Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Middlesex: Penguin Books.
Geras, Norman. 1990. Discourses of Extremity. London: Verso.
———. 1994. Democracy and the Ends of Marxism. New Left Review. 203 (1): 92–106.
Giri, Anant. 2005. Civil Society and the Limits of Identity Politics. In N. Jayaram (ed.)
On Civil Society, pp. 218–37. London: Sage Publications.
Gudavarthy, Ajay. 1996. Marxism, Authoritarianism and People’s Movements. Economic
and Political Weekly. 31 (13): 847–49.
———. 2005. Dalit and Naxalite Movements in Andhra Pradesh: Solidarity or Hegemony?
Economic and Political Weekly. 40 (51): 5410–18.
Gudavarthy, Ajay and G. Vijay. 2004. Andhra Pradesh: Some Contemporary Trends. Economic
and Political Weekly. 39 (16): 1571–74.
———. 2007. Antinomies of Political Society: Implications of Uncivil Development.
Economic and Political Weekly. 42 (29): 3051–59.
Gupta, Dipankar. 2004. Civil Society or the State—What Happened to Citizenship? In
C.M. Elliot (ed.) Civil Society and Democracy, pp. 211–37. Oxford: Oxford University
Haragopal, G. 1993. The Koyyur Kidnap: Question of Human Rights. Economic and
Political Weekly. 28 (49): 2650–55.
Haragopal, G. and K. Balagopal. 1998. Civil Liberties Movement and the State in India.
In M. Mohanty and Partha N. Mukherji (eds) People’s Rights: Social Movements
and the State in the Third World, pp. 353–72. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Human Rights Forum. 2000. Untitled Pamphlet. Hyderabad: HRF.
Iyer, Raghavan. 1978. The Moral and Political Thought of Gandhi. New Delhi: Oxford
University Press.
Kakarala, Seetharamam. 1993. Civil Rights Movement in India. Ph.D. Dissertation. Centre
for Social Studies, Surat.
Kannabiran, K. 1993. Koyyuru: Reflections on a Kidnap. Economic and Political Weekly.
28 (12–13): 495–98.
Human rights movements in India / 57
Kothari, Rajni. 1988. State Against Democracy. New Delhi: Ajanta Publications.
Kothari, Smitu and Harsh Sethi (eds). 1991. Rethinking Human Rights. New Delhi:
Lokayan Publications.
Levi, A.W. (ed.). 1963. The Six Great Humanistic Essays of John Stuart Mill. New York:
Washington Square Press.
Lukes, Steven. 1985. Marxism and Morality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mahajan, Gurpreet. 2004. Civil Society and its Avatars—What Happened to Freedom and
Democracy. In C.M. Elliot (ed.) Civil Society and Democracy, pp. 167–90. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Meszaros, Istvan. 1985. Philosophy, Ideology and Social Science. New York: Prentice Hall.
Parekh, Bhikhu. 1995. Jawaharlal Nehru and the Crisis of Modernisation. In Upendra
Baxi and Bhikhu Parekh (eds) Crisis and Change in Contemporary India, pp. 21–56.
New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Patnaik, Arun K. 1995. Burden of Marx and Morals. Economic and Political Weekly.
31 (20): 1202–04.
Ram, Mohan. 1986. Civil Rights Situation in India. In A.R. Desai (ed.) Violation of Democratic
Rights in India. Vol. 3: 91–95. Mumbai: Sangam Books.
Ravi, N. 1993. Democratic Movements and Dialectics. Economic and Political Weekly.
18 (32): 1469–71.
Ray, Aswini. 2003. Human Rights Movement in India. Economic and Political Weekly.
38 (32): 3409–15.
Sethi, J.D. 1975. India in Crisis. New Delhi: Vikas Publications.
Singh, Randhir. 1993. Five Lectures in Marxist Mode: Crises of Socialism; of Reservations;
Communalism in Contemporary India; Terrorism, State Terrorism and Democratic
Rights; In Memory of Punjab Revolutionaries of 1914–15. New Delhi: Ajanta
Publications.
Singh, Ujjwal Kumar. 2005. Democratising State and Society: Role of Civil Liberties and
Democratic Rights Movements in India. Contemporary India. 4 (1–2): 31–56.
Stree Shakti Sangathana.1989. We were Making History: Life Stories of Women in Telangana
People’s Struggle. New Delhi: Kali for Women.
Suttner, Raymond. 2001. Inside Apartheid’s Prison. Melbourne: Ocean Press.
Tarkunde, V.M. 1991. In Defence of Freedom. In A.R. Desai (ed.) Expanding Governmental
Lawlessness and Organised Struggles, pp. 302–09. Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.
Williams, Raymond. 1983. Towards 2000. London: Hogarth Press.
About the Author
- Login to post comments
Recommended Reading
- Terms of Use
- Privacy Policy
Powered by Phase2 Technology
Social Movements: Civil liberties and human rights movements
Social movements mainly take the form of non-institutionalised collective political action which struggle for political and /or social transformation. In India, these movements occurred since past time. The phrase 'movement' is often used differently by different social activists, political leaders and scholars. Some academics use the term 'movement' interchangeably with 'organisation' or 'union'. Other social researchers use it to mean a historical trend or tendency. Some claim to launch movements by issuing press statements on public issues.
'Social movement' grown in European languages in the beginning of nineteenth century. This was the period of social disturbance. The political leaders and writers were concerned with the liberation of exploited classes and the creation of a new society by changing value systems as well as institutions and/or property relationships. Their philosophical orientation is reproduced in their description. Nevertheless, since the early 1950s, various scholars have provided detail account of the notion of social movements. According to social theorists, A social movement is a deliberate collective endeavour to promote direction and by any means, not excluding violence, illegality, revolution or withdrawal into 'utopian' community. Social movements are thus clearly different from historical movements, tendencies or trends. It is important to note, however, that such tendencies and trends, and the influence of the unconscious or irrational factors in human behaviour, may be of crucial importance in illuminating the problems of interpreting and explaining social movement.
Many sociological scholars and theorists elaborated the phrase social movement. Herbert Blumer stated that Social movements can be viewed as collective enterprises to establish a new order of life. They have their inception in the condition of unrest, and derive their motive power on one hand from dissatisfaction with the current form of life, and on the other hand, from wishes and hopes for a new scheme or system of living. According to William Kornhauser, mass movements mobilize people who are alienated from the going system, who do not believe in the legitimacy of the established order, and who therefore are ready to engage in efforts to destroy it. The greatest number of people available to mass movement will be found in those sections of society that have the fewest ties to the social order. Doug McAdam described that social movements are those organized efforts, on the part of excluded groups, to promote or resist changes in the structure of society that involve recourse to non-institutional forms of political participation. Sidney Tarrow inferred that rather than seeing social movements as expressions of extremism, violence, and deprivation, they are better defined as collective challenges, based on common purposes and special solidarities, in sustained interaction with elites, opponents, and authorities.
Social movements often ascend with the objective to bring about changes on a public issue, such as safeguarding the right of the tribal population to use the forests or the right of displaced people to settlement and compensation. While social movements social change, counter movements sometimes arise in defence of status quo.
Features of social movements are as under:
- An important feature of social movement is the sense of belonging and group consciousness. Such consciousness can be brought about through active participation of the group members.
- Social movements lead to the formation of an entirely new social, economic, and political order.
- Most of the social movements tend to develop a new set of ideas, which become obligatory for the members of the group to adopt and follow.
- It is understandable that the social movements involve collective action instead of individual action.
- Social movements may be organized or unorganized.
- Social movements may be nonviolent in nature or they may also turn violent.
- The objective of a social movement is to bring about or resist social change in the society.
- The life of the social movement is not certain. This is because it may continue for a long period or it may die out soon.
There are many instances of social movement. When Raja Ram Mohan Roy campaigned against sati and formed the Brahmo Samaj, protectors of sati formed Dharma Sabha and appealed the British not to enact against Sati. When campaigners demanded education for girls, many protested that this would be catastrophic for society. When crusaders campaigned for widow remarriage, they were socially embargoed. When the so called 'lower caste' children registered in schools, some 'upper caste' children were withdrawn from the schools by their families. Farmer movements have often been viciously suppressed. The social movements of former excluded groups like Dalits have often invoked retaliatory action. In simple term, these movements emerged and highlighted some of the major issues such as gender and environment.
Main analyst and participant in social movements in India, Sanjay Sangvi, recognized the major agendas of them as "Movements of landless, unorganised labour in rural and urban areas, adivasis, dalits, displaced people, peasants, urban poor, small entrepreneurs and unemployed youth took up the issues of livelihood, opportunities, dignity and development."
Popular movements in India are Chipko movement, Save Silent Valley, Narmada Bachao Andolan, Koel Karo, Chhattisgarh Mukti Morcha, Jhola Aandolan chutmarika (fighting polythene), Appiko movement, Save Kudremukh, Lok Satta Movement, Swadhyay Movement, Swatantra Sharad Joshi, Karnataka Rajya Raitha Sangha.
These movements mainly dissociated themselves from political parties, or attempted to cut across the philosophies of the political parties. Yet many of them entrenched themselves or drew from ideologies of the Mahatma Gandhi.
Civil liberties:
Civil liberties is associated with basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or deduced through the years by courts and legislators. Civil liberties are personal assurances and freedoms that the government cannot curtail, either by law or by judicial interpretation without due process.
The evolution of civil liberties movement in India be traced back in pre independence era when the national liberation struggle was stirring up against the British tyranny. Main focus of these movements was on indefinite detention without trial which posed a serious threat to the civil liberties. Hence civil liberty movement got speed as a part of national movement. As a consequence, Indian civil liberty union was established by Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru in 1931 (Asish Kumar Das,, 2007).
Though the range of the term differs amongst various nations, basic Civil liberties include:
- Freedom of speech
- The right to privacy
- The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
- The right to a fair court trial
- The right to marry
- The right to vote
Other civil liberties include the right to own property, the right to defend oneself, and the right to bodily integrity. Within the distinctions between civil liberties and other types of liberty, distinctions exist between positive liberty/positive rights and negative liberty/negative rights.
Human rights movements:
Human Rights are described as all those rights which are indispensable for the defence and maintenance of self-esteem of individuals and create conditions in which every human being can develop his personality to the fullest extent. Human rights become operative with the birth of an individual. Human rights are intrinsic in all the individuals regardless of their caste, religion, sex and nationality. Because of their vast significance to human beings; human rights are also called fundamental rights, basic rights, inherent rights, natural rights and birth rights. Human rights are the unchallengeable rights of a person by virtue of being a human. All or some of these may or may not be written in the Constitution and laws of a country. These rights are considered to be widespread and have been concretised in various categories. These may be political, economic, social, or cultural. Theoretically, human rights belong to each individual, they are indivisible, and valid for all times.
Several social and political activist groups use the term 'human rights' in the context of the rights of an individual which are 'natural', inherent in our nature 'and without which we cannot live as human beings'. These rights should not be violated by the state. In other words, they require to be protected against the authority of the state. Simultaneously, ironically, it is anticipated that they need to be protected and enhanced by the state. These rights are generally included in 'civil' and 'democratic' rights. As the time passed from ancient period, these rights came with different philosophical roots. Their meanings have undergone change from time to time and in different contexts. For traditionalists, human rights include the rights personified in religion which validate ownership of private property including the system of slavery and bonded labour. Liberals and leftists believed that equality and dignity of all individuals to sustain life are the main human rights. There is intense debate among political philosophers and jurists to explain human rights (Baxi 2002).
In India, the Protection of Human Rights Art, 1993 stated that "human rights" means the rights relating to life, liberty, equality and dignity of the individual guaranteed by the Constitution or embodied in the International Covenants and enforceable by courts in India. Fundamental rights include freedom of expression, association, religious freedom, equality before law, and directive principles are related to socio-economic rights, such as, rights to education, equal wages, and dignity of an individual indiscrimination before laws. The former are justiciable while the latter remain guidelines for legislation. They both include broad range of different civil and democratic rights. Justice P.N. Bhagwati elaborated the scope of Article 21 of the constitution to incorporate the right to food, clothing and shelter in term 'life' in the Article.
The dialog on rights of an individual and movements around these philosophies were heated from ancient time and rooted in western society. The movements that developed in the west during the French and American revolutions during the eighteenth century influenced a small section of Indian intellectuals. Social transformation and political movements of different groups and the Congress provided base for debate and declaration of the rights. The advocates of the rights were social reformers, liberal political leaders championing for equality of Indians as 'citizens' with the British before law and there were also the defenders primarily concerned with shielding the economic interests of the landed class.
Social reformers attempted to involve for reforming social customs and traditions so as to protect women and the lower layers of society. The liberals were concerned with individual freedom of expression and association and the recognition of equality before law for all citizens. One of the many factors which led to the organisation of the Indian National Congress in 1885 was the disappointment of Indians to get the Ilbert Bill passed in its original form proposing to give Indian magistrates the power to try British subjects in criminal cases. In the end of century, this consciousness crystallised in a new generation. Congress leader stated that 'with new thoughts and new ideas, impatient of its dependent position and claiming its rights as free citizens of the British Empire' (quoted by Dutta 1998: 277). Sitharamam Kakarala discerned that the rights consciousness was concomitant to the advent of organized landed gentry and middle class. They tended to observe 'civil liberties' as something that only advanced sections of the natives can enjoy and appreciate. It can be said that 'rights' became 'advantages' conferred by the colonial rule on the advanced part of India. This attitude was further consolidated by the leaders of the Indian National Congress (INC) during the first three decades of its practice.
It is documented in studies that ancient history of human rights movement can be drawn from 13th century. Magna Carta 1215, the petition of rights 1628, Bill of Rights 1689, Virginia Declaration of Rights 1776, The American Declaration of Independence 1776, the French Declaration of Rights man and citizens 1789, and the Bill of Righs 1791, were the documents which gave human rights their initial constitutional status. Most of these documents were the result of long scuffles of the people. After the first world war, world populace began to show its concern for global mechanisms to shield Human Rights. After the creation of the League of Nations, first international effect was made for human rights on 25th June in 1930 and a conference was held on forced labour. On 10th December 1948, UN embraced the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and afterward adopted two more covenants on 16th December 1966 and they came into force on 3rd January, 1976 and 23rd march 1976 respectively.
In the year of 1918, the Congress made a declaration of rights submitted to the British parliament. It encompassed the freedoms of speech, expression and assembly, the right to be tried according to law, and above all, freedom from racial discrimination (Dutta 1998). Later, the Motilal Nehru committee of 1928 claimed all fundamental rights to Indians 'which had been denied to them'. Though the demands were overruled by the British government, the Congress passed a resolution on fundamental rights in the Karachi session in 1931.
The first human rights group in the country, the Civil Liberties Union was formed by Jawaharlal Nehru and some of his associates in the early 1930s with the aim of providing legal support to nationalists accused of sedition against the colonial authorities. In 1936, Jawaharlal Nehru came forward to form the first civil liberties organisation. The Indian Civil Liberties Union (ICLU) was established in Bombay in 1936 with Rabindranath Tagore as its president. Nehru said in his address to the founding conference of the ICLU, that the notion of civil liberties is to have the right to oppose the government. In 1945, Sir Tej Bahadur Sapru brought forth a constitutional proposal emphasising the importance of fundamental rights. They were integrated in the Indian constitution. Thus, liberties and rights protected in the Indian constitution were product of the freedom struggle of the people of India (Haragopal and Bala-gopal 1998). The historical interpretation of the civil rights movements during the colonial period is vague and very brief.
India was actively participating in all these developments, Finally, Government of India introduced the Human Rights Commission Bill in the Lok Sabha on 14th May 1992. On 28th September 1993, President of India publicised an ordinance namely Protection of Human Rights Ordinance. This ordinance was replaced by the Protection of Human Rights Act 1993 which was passed by both the Houses of Parliament. The bill became an Act, having received the assent of the president and it was published in the Gazette of India, Extra ordinary part II, section-I.
The human rights movement in the post-independence period is normally divided into two phases: pre- and post-Emergency. The Civil Liberties Committee was formed in West Bengal in 1948 to dissent against the state repression on the communists (Dutta, 1998). There is no account of this phase of the movement. The major civil liberties movement began in the late 1960s with the cruel attack by the state on the naxalites (Kakarala 1994). The movement elevated the issue of democratic rights of the oppressed sections of society for justice and equality. While detailing the struggle, Kakarala contended that democratic rights are needed by those who have to struggle for justice while the fundamental rights are adequate for the privileged. The struggle for democratic rights is the struggle to assert the rights already guaranteed formally but not ensured in practice. Denial of democratic rights takes the form of a spasm on the right to assert rights already guaranteed (1994).
In the regime of Smt. Indira Gandhi, the Emergency imposed on 25 June 1975 brought new prevalent impetus to the civil rights movement. She suspended the fundamental rights suing that they were used by the privileged section to prevent her from carrying out programmes in the interest of the 'majority' (Rubin 1987). The liberal intellectuals was surprised by the realisation of the 'built-in authoritarian tendencies within the political system, and the drawbacks endemic in any assumption of the durability of the democratic process, as heretofore. This formed the intellectual and political setting that led to the origin of the civil and democratic rights movement (Ray 1986). Numerous recent civil liberties organisations emerged during this period to fight for civil and democratic rights.
It has been observed recently that there are several groups in different states working on human rights. The most important and famous are the People's Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) and the People's Union for Democratic Rights (PUDR). They have their formal or informal branches and/or network organisations in many states with the same names, though autonomous.
Moreover, the important and active state-level organisations are as under:
- The Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC)
- The Committee for the Protection of Democratic Rights (CPDR) in Maharashtra
- The Association for Democratic Rights (AFDR) in Punjab
- The Naga People's Movement for Human Rights in Nagaland
- Lok Adhikar Sangh in Gujarat
- Citizens for Democracy in Delhi, Mumbai and other places.
These organisations are not membership-based. They have office bearers such as the convenor, president, secretary, etc. In some places, the executive committee functions jointly. They do not have definite objectives or constitutions to lay down their functions. When there is requirement, they form committees and subcommittees to carry out certain functions. Committees of Concerned Citizens have been formed in several states from issue to issue and time to time. Sometimes, they try to intercede between the state and political groups engaged in direct actions and become the victims of so-called 'encounter' actions of the police or military. They have a temporary character in terms of organisation and functioning. Such loose organisational structures may provide flexibility for undertaking activities. But they may lack stability of members and activities. Several observers represented that these groups are often limited to a small group of individuals largely from the academia, media, writers, artists, lawyers and other professionals. Except in Andhra Pradesh, where APCLC and APDR have enticed relatively huge numbers of participants, human rights groups are mainly from the middle class (Ray 1986; Kakarala 1993).
Many reports have shown that human right movements face a constant predicament on the issue of violence practiced by the strugglers and activists as well as the violence of the state. In 1948 the Civil Liberties Committee of West Bengal which protested against the repression of the state on the communist activists faced the question of its stand on the violence practised by the mass movement. Dutta observes that:
Most of the communist activists, whose rights were under attack, were accused of practicing violence, and the liberals, who joined the CLC, had to answer the government's charge that they were condoning violence. On this issue, the CLC leaders took a stand that was, in fact, an extension of the ideal that the primary task of the movement was to oppose the authoritarian tendencies of the state. In defending the communists, they presumed that the state violence was more harmful to civil society than the violence against the state practiced by the revolutionaries (1998: 280-81).
To summarize, a social movement is s huge movement and a joint attempt of people to bring social change, or to struggle for any change. The notion central to any social movement is that people interfere in the process of social change, rather than remaining mere spectators or passive participants in the web and flow of life. There are many types of social movement. Human Rights are the basic human needs and demands. They are essential for the all-round development of a human being. Henceforth, it is expected that civilized state will incorporate these rights in its constriction and try to guarantee that its citizens can live comfortably.
- UPSC Final Results 2019 New
- UPSC Mains Results 2022 [ New ]
- Free CSAT Practice Test
- Practice Prelims Test Series 2024 [ New ]
- UPSC Videos
- Daily UPSC Current Affairs Quiz [ Free ]
- UPSC Results
- Prelims Question Papers
- Prelims Marks Distribution
- General Studies Notes [ Free ]
- Current Affairs
- UPSC Prelims Syllabus
- UPSC Mains Syllabus
- UPSC Jobs List
- UPSC Subjects
- UPSC Age Limit
- IAS Full form
- Free UPSC Material
- IAS Exam Book
- How to prepare for prelims 2023
- How to prepare for CSAT
- UPSC Study Material
- UPSC Interview Questions
- UPSC IAS Exam Questions
- Economic Survey 2020-21 Download
- Union Budget 2020-21 Download
- National Education Policy 2020 Download
- Daily UPSC Current Affairs Quiz
- Union Budget 2024-25 [ New ]
Civil Service Essay Contest March 2024
- Changing trends in the female workforce, how it can be harnessed for better growth.
- How is the startup scene in India contributing to the GDP?
Civil Service Essay Contest (December 2023)
- Is the caste barrier breaking due to increased love marriages in India? Views : 1436
- Is the caste barrier breaking due to increased love marriages in India? Views : 1940
Current Affairs Analysis
Upsc civil service examination 2024 notification to be out on february 14, check details.
Views : 5022
Tsunamis are here to stay as it hits Japan
Views : 6768
Floods and the Monsoon in India
Views : 6623
Use of AI in the field of meteorological research
Views : 1229
Update on National TB Elimination Programme
Views : 7896
Goa Liberation Day
Views : 7538
About Civil Service India
Civil Service India is a website dedicated to the Civil Services Exam conducted by UPSC. It guides you through the entire gambit of the IAS exam starting with notification, eligibility, syllabus, tips, quiz, notes and current affairs. A team of dedicated professionals are at work to help you!
Stay updated with Us
Phone : +91 96000 32187 / +91 94456 88445
Email : [email protected]
25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. Take the first step today
Here’s your new year gift, one app for all your, study abroad needs, start your journey, track your progress, grow with the community and so much more.
Verification Code
An OTP has been sent to your registered mobile no. Please verify
Thanks for your comment !
Our team will review it before it's shown to our readers.
- Indian Exams /
Human Rights Movement in India
- Updated on
- Jul 24, 2021
Every country, culture, and ethnicity has one thing in common, irrespective of where they come from, everyone in the world holds certain rights as a human being. These are the rights that we have as human beings; they are not granted by any state. Human rights are inherent to everyone but every now and then, communities get together to fight for a right that is rightfully theirs. Even in India, there have been many stories that sing the saga of human rights and their implementation. While some happened in the vicinity of a house, some created an impact so large that Indians now get to reap its benefit today. Let us know about some of these human rights movements in India that changed the course of life:
This Blog Includes:
Human rights in ancient india, after the emergency, women in human rights movements in india, dalit movements.
The trace of the concept of human rights can be paved back to the Vedas period of the 15 Century B.C. In Vedas, human rights are signified with the concept of equality. The Charter of equality of all is defined in the Vedas with the following words- ‘No one is superior or inferior, all should strive for the interest of all and should progress collectively’.
Kautilya summed up the concept of the welfare state by saying that the happiness of the state lies in the happiness of its subjects. During the period, civil and legal rights were first formulated by Manu that included a number of economic rights. The importance of human rights was well supported by Jainism, Buddhism and other minority religious groups. King Ashoka worked day and night for the protection of human rights.
Also Read: Kalinga War: Cause, Effect, Year, Result
The emergency was put by the government of India in 1975. Hundreds of thousands of people joined massive rallies to protest against the anti-democratic acts of the government and to mobilize public opinion to safeguard Indian democracy.
Organizations such as Citizens for Democracy, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), People’s Union for Civil Liberties and Democratic Rights (PUCLDR), and Chhatra Yuva Sangharsh Vahini were at the forefront of human rights struggles at the national level.
Dozens of state-level and city-based groups were also formed during this period. For example, the Committee for Protection for Democratic Rights (Mumbai), Association for Protection of Democratic Rights (APDR), and Andhra Pradesh Civil Liberties Committee (APCLC) in Hyderabad.
During the 1980s, those who were concerned only about formal democracy confined themselves to the ‘civil liberties movement’. Organizations working against the repression of workers, poor, peasants, Dalits, women, and tribal people joined the ‘democratic rights movement’. This set the tone for human rights movements in India during the 1990s that established their networks from local and regional to a global level.
Now, we have reached a stage where social movements of all ideological hues accept the ‘emancipatory potential’ of human rights. Even the mainstream institutions—universities, print and electronic media, religious organizations, and political parties—with mutually exclusive interests talk about ‘violation of human rights in their campaigns.
Also Read: Human Rights Courses [Exciting Career Paths]
Nationwide anti-rape campaign in 1980 resulted in the emergence and proliferation of autonomous women’s organizations in several cities and towns of India. They did agitation and propaganda work against series of rape cases in a custodial situation, domestic violence, and dowry harassment. The groups soon realized that to work on a sustained basis for rehabilitative aspects of violence against women, it was important to evolve institutional structures for support to the women victims of violence based on feminist principles of solidarity (mutual counseling) and sisterhood.
Initially, they concentrated on women-specific issues such as wife battering and dowry murders, domestic violence, rape and eve-teasing, honor killing, pornographic films, plays, and literature on harassment of women at the workplace. Militant actions, social boycott, gherao of tormentors, raiding of the matrimonial homes for retrieval of dowry had to be resorted to because of antipathy/lethargy of the state apparatus. From these experiences of direct action, the activists of the women’s groups learned the power relations operating within modern families (working class, middle class, and upper class), different religious communities, and various caste organizations.
Human rights violations of vulnerable groups in contemporary India are a result of complex nexus between the politics of identity, exclusion, inclusion, and segregation, rooted in history, cultural ethos, politics, and economics
Beginning in the 1920s, various social, religious, and political movements rose in India against the caste system and in support of the human rights of the Dalit community. In 1950, the Constitution of India was adopted, and largely due to the influence of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar (chairman of the Constitutional Drafting Committee), departed from the norms and traditions of the caste system in favor of justice, equality, liberty, and fraternity, guaranteeing all citizens basic human rights regardless of caste, creed, gender or ethnicity. The implementation and enforcement of these principles have, unfortunately, been an abysmal failure. Despite the fact that ‘untouchability’ was abolished under India’s constitution in 1950, the practice of ‘untouchability’—the imposition of social disabilities on persons by reason of their birth in certain castes—remains very much a part of India.
These movements inspire us to speak about the injustice that happens. For more content like this, make sure you follow Leverage Edu on Facebook , Instagram , and LinkedIn . Do let us in the comments down below what you think about the different movements that have taken place.
Team Leverage Edu
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Contact no. *
Leaving already?
8 Universities with higher ROI than IITs and IIMs
Grab this one-time opportunity to download this ebook
Connect With Us
25,000+ students realised their study abroad dream with us. take the first step today..
Resend OTP in
Need help with?
Study abroad.
UK, Canada, US & More
IELTS, GRE, GMAT & More
Scholarship, Loans & Forex
Country Preference
New Zealand
Which English test are you planning to take?
Which academic test are you planning to take.
Not Sure yet
When are you planning to take the exam?
Already booked my exam slot
Within 2 Months
Want to learn about the test
Which Degree do you wish to pursue?
When do you want to start studying abroad.
September 2024
January 2025
What is your budget to study abroad?
How would you describe this article ?
Please rate this article
We would like to hear more.
Social Movements, State Formation and Democracy in India: An Introduction
- First Online: 27 November 2016
Cite this chapter
- Alf Gunvald Nilsen 5 &
- Kenneth Bo Nielsen 6
Part of the book series: Rethinking International Development series ((RID))
617 Accesses
6 Citations
India, as Thomas Blom Hansen (1999: 5) notes, presents us with “the longest, most sustained, and most successful trajectory of democracy anywhere in the postcolonial world …”. The coming of national independence in 1947 witnessed the introduction of universal franchise and a system of electoral democracy that—with the exception of the Emergency period from 1975 to 1977 1 —have remained stable for close to seven decades. As media pundits are quick to point out every time India gears up for general elections, this makes for a favourable comparison with other countries and regions in the global South where democratic rule has tended to rest on feeble foundations and often has given way to outright authoritarianism. “For the 64 years since independence, democracy has perhaps been India’s greatest asset,” wrote one commentator in 2012, “the magic that has kept the country’s dizzying array of linguistic, ethnic and religious groups together as a nation” (Denyer 2012). Moreover, Indian democracy is unique in the sense that the poor exercise their right to vote more eagerly and in greater proportion than India’s middle classes and elites: “In India alone, the poor form not just the overwhelming majority of the electorate, but vote in larger numbers than the better-off. Everywhere else, without exception, the ratio of electoral participation is the reverse” (Anderson 2012; see also Thachil 2014 and Banerjee 2014).
- Social Movement
- Democratic Rule
- Electoral Democracy
- Indian Politics
- Indian Democracy
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
- Available as PDF
- Read on any device
- Instant download
- Own it forever
- Available as EPUB and PDF
- Durable hardcover edition
- Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
- Free shipping worldwide - see info
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Agnihotri, I., & Mazumdar, V. (1995). Changing terms of political discourse: Women’s movement in India, 1970s–1990s. Economic and Political Weekly, 30 (29), 1869–1878.
Google Scholar
Anderson, P. (2012). After Nehru. Retrieved from http://www.lrb.co.uk/v34/n15/perry-anderson/after-nehru
Banerjee, M. (2014). Why India votes? Delhi: Routledge India.
Banerjee, N. (1998). Whatever happened to the dreams of modernity? The Nehruvian Era and woman’s position. Economic and Political Weekly, 33 (17), WS2–WS7.
Banerjee, S. (1984). India’s simmering revolution: The naxalite uprising . London: Zed Books.
Basu, A. (1987). Grass roots movements and the state: Reflections on radical change in India. Theory and Society, 16 (5), 647–674.
Article Google Scholar
Basu, A. (1992). Two faces of protest: Contrasting modes of Women’s activism in India . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Breman, J. (2016). On pauperism in present and past . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Book Google Scholar
Brown, J. (1972). Gandhi’s rise to power: Indian politics 1915–1922 . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chandra, B. (1988). Indian national movement: The long term dynamics . Delhi: Har Anand Publications.
Chandra, B. (2003). In the name of democracy: JP Movement and the emergency . London: Penguin.
Chandra, B., Mukherjee, A., Mukherjee, M., Mahajan, S., & Panikkar, K. (2000). India’s struggle for independence . London: Penguin.
Chandra, K. (2000). The transformation of ethnic politics in India: The decline of congress and the rise of the Bahujan Samaj Party in Hoshiarpur. The Journal of Asian Studies, 59 (1), 26–61.
Chandrasekhar, C. P., & Ghosh, J. (2012). Consumption inequality in India. Retrieved from http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/c-p-chandrasekhar/consumption-inequality-in-india/article3569657.ece
Chandrasekhar, C. P., & Ghosh, J. (2013). The changing face of urban poverty. Retrieved from http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/opinion/columns/c-p-chandrasekhar/the-changing-face-of-urban-poverty/article4379020.ece
Chatterjee, P. (1986). Nationalist thought and the colonial World: A derivative discourse? London: Zed Books.
Chatterjee, P. (1993). The nation and its fragments . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Chibber, V. (2003). Locked in place: State-building and late industrialization in India . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Corbridge, S., & Harris, J. (2000). Reinventing India: Liberalization, Hindu nationalism and popular democracy . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Corbridge, S., Harriss, J., & Jeffrey, C. (2012). India Today: Economy, politics and society . Cambridge: Polity Press.
Denyer, S. (2012). In India, the World’s Largest Democracy, Some See System as a Handicap. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/in-india-the-worlds-largest-democracy-some-see-system-as-a-handicap/2012/01/27/gIQAebCZmR_story.html
Desai, M. (2007). State formation and radical democracy in India . London: Routledge.
Desai, R. (2007). Gujarat’s Hindutva of capitalist development. South Asia, 34 (3), 354–381.
Dhanagare, D. N. (1983). Peasant movements in India, 1920–50 . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Drèze, J., & Sen, A. (2013). An uncertain glory: India and its contradictions . London: Penguin.
Duncan, I. (1999). Dalits and politics in Rural North India: The Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh. Journal of Peasant Studies, 27 (1), 35–60.
Fernandes, L. (2006). India’s new middle class: Democratic politics in an era of economic reform . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Forbes, G. (1996). Women in modern India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Frankel, F. (2005). India’s political economy: The gradual revolution 1947–2004—The gradual revolution . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Gandhi, N., & Shah, N. (1991). The issues at stake: Theory and practice in the contemporary Women’s movement in India . New Delhi: Kali For Women.
Gundimeda, S. (2015). Dalit politics in contemporary India . New Delhi: Routledge India.
Gupta, D. (2014). From poverty to poverty: Policies for translating growth into development. In N. Gooptu & J. Parry (Eds.), Persistence of poverty in India . New Delhi: Social Science Press.
Guru, G., & Chakravarty, A. (2005). Who Are the Country’s poor? Social movement politics and dalit poverty. In R. Ray & M. F. Katzenstein (Eds.), Social movements in India: Poverty, power, and politics . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Hansen, T. B. (1999). The saffron wave: Democracy and Hindu nationalism in modern India . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Harriss, J. (2011). “How far have India’s economic reforms been “guided by compassion and justice”? In S. Ruparelia, S. Reddy, J. Harriss, & S. Corbridge (Eds.), Understanding India’s new political economy: A great transformation? London: Routledge.
Harriss-White, B. (2014). Labour and petty production. Development and Change, 45 (5), 981–1000.
Hasan, Z. (1998). Quest for power: Oppositional Movements and post-congress politics in Uttar Pradesh . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Heller, P. (2000). Degrees of democracy: Some Comparative lessons from India. World Politics, 52 (4), 484–519.
Heller, P., & Fernandes, L. (2006). Hegemonic aspirations: New middle class politics and India’s democracy in comparative perspective. Critical Asian Studies, 38 (4), 495–522.
Jaffrelot, C. (2000). The rise of the other backward classes in the Hindi belt. Journal of Asian Studies, 59 (1), 86–108.
Jaffrelot, C. (2003). India’s silent revolution: The rise of the lower castes in North India . London: C. Hurst and Company.
Jaffrelot, C., & Kumar, S. (Eds.) (2009). Rise of the plebeians? The changing face of India’s legislative assemblies . New Delhi: Routledge.
Jayadev, A., Motiram, S., & Vakulabharanam, V. (2011). Patterns of wealth disparities in India: 1991–2002. In S. Ruparelia, S. Reddy, J. Harriss, & S. Corbridge (Eds.), Understanding India’s new political economy: A great transformation? London: Routledge.
Jessop, B. (1982). The capitalist state: Marxist theories and methods . Oxford: Martin Robertson.
John, M. E. (2005). Feminism, poverty, and the emergent social order. In R. Ray & M. F. Katzenstein (Eds.), Social movements in India: Poverty, power, and politics . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Jones, D. E., & Jones, R. W. (1976). Urban upheaval in India: The 1974 Nav Nirman Riots in Gujarat. Asian Survey, 16 (11), 1012–1033.
Kamat, S. (2002). Development hegemony: NGOs and the State in India . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Katzenstein, M., & Ray, R. (2005). And in the beginning there was the Nehruvian state. In R. Ray & M. Katzenstein (Eds.), Social movements in India: Poverty, power, and politics . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Kaviraj, S. (1997). A critique of the passive revolution. In P. Chatterjee (Ed.), State and politics in India . Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Kohli, A. (2006a). Politics of economic growth in India, 1980–2005—Part 1: The 1980s. Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (13), 1251–1259.
Kohli, A. (2006b). Politics of economic growth in India, 1980–2005—Part 2: The 1990s and beyond. Economic and Political Weekly, 41 (14), 1363–1371.
Kohli, A. (2012). Poverty amid plenty in the New India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kothari, R. (1964). The congress ‘system’ in India. Asian Survey, 4 (12), 1161–1173.
Krishna, G. (1966). The development of the Indian National Congress as a mass organization, 1918–1923. The Journal of Asian Studies, 25 (3), 413–430.
Levien, M. (2013). The politics of dispossession: Theorizing India’s “land wars”. Politics and Society, 41 (3), 351–394.
Lockwood, D. (2016). The communist party of India and the Indian emergency . New Delhi: Sage Publications.
McLane, J. (1977). Indian Nationalism and the early congress . Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Michelutti, L. (2008). The vernacularisation of democracy: Politics, caste and religion in India . Delhi: Routledge.
Nayyar, D. (2006). India’s unfinished journey transforming growth into development. Modern Asian Studies, 40 (3), 797–832.
Nilsen, A. G. (2010). Dispossession and resistance in India: The river and the rage . London: Routledge.
Nilsen, A. G. (2015). For a historical sociology of state-society relations in the study of subaltern politics. In A. G. Nilsen & S. Roy (Eds.), New subaltern politics: Reconceptualizing hegemony and resistance in contemporary India . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Chapter Google Scholar
Omvedt, G. (1993). Reinventing revolution: New social movements and the socialist tradition in India . New York: East Gate.
OPHDI. (2015). OPHI Country briefing Dec. 2015: India. Retrieved from http://www.ophi.org.uk/multidimensional-poverty-index/mpi-2015/mpi-country-briefings/
Oskarsson, P., & Nielsen, K. B. (2014). Development deadlock: Aborted industrialization and blocked land restitution in West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh, India. Development Studies Research, 1 (1), 267–278.
Pai, S. (2002). Dalit assertion and the unfinished democratic revolution: The Bahujan Samaj Party in Uttar Pradesh . New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Pandey, G. (2002). The ascendancy of the congress in Uttar Pradesh: Class, community and nation in Northern India, 1920–1940 . London: Anthem Press.
Parry, J. (2014). Introduction: On the persistence of poverty in India. In N. Gooptu & J. Parry (Eds.), Persistence of poverty in India . New Delhi: Social Science Press.
Patnaik, U. (2012). Trends in urban poverty under economic reforms: 1993–94 to 2004–05. Economic and Political Weekly, 45 (4), 42–53.
Pedersen, J. D. (2011). Why Did India become a democracy and Why Did It remain democratic: A survey of the literature and some comments to the scholarly debate. In S. T. Madsen, K. B. Nielsen, & U. Skoda (Eds.), Trysts with democracy: Political practice in South Asia . London: Anthem Press.
Rao, A. (2009). The caste question: Dalits and the politics of modern India . Berkeley: University of California Press.
Ray, R. (1984). The naxalites and their ideology . New Delhi: Oxford University Press.
Ray, R. (1999). Fields of protest: Women’s movements in India . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Ray, R., & Katzenstein, M. F. (2005). Introduction: In the beginning, There Was the Nehruvian state. In R. Ray & M. F. Katzenstein (Eds.), Social movements in India: Poverty, power, and politics . Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
Riley, S., & Desai, M. (2005). The passive revolutionary route to the modern World: Italy and India in comparative perspective. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 49 (4), 815–847.
Roosa, J. (2001). Passive revolution meets peasant revolution: Indian nationalism and the Telangana revolt. Journal of Peasant Studies, 28 (4), 57–94.
Roy, S. (2014). New activist subjects: The changing feminist field of Kolkata, India. Feminist Studies, 40 (3), 628–656.
Roy, S. (2015). The Indian Women’s movement: Within and beyond NGOization. Journal of South Asian Development, 10 (1), 96–117.
Rukmini S. (2014). India’s staggering wealth gap in five charts. Retrieved from http://www.thehindu.com/data/indias-staggering-wealth-gap-in-five-charts/article6672115.ece
Samaddar, R. (2015). The Indian Railway workers and the crisis of 1974. WorkingUSA, 18 (4), 575–594.
Sarkar, S. (1983). Modern India, 1885–1947 . London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sarkar, S. (2015). Popular movements and “middle class” leadership in late colonial India . Delhi: Aakar Books.
Shah, G. (1977). Protest movements in two Indian states: A Study of the Gujarat and Bihar movements . New Delhi: Ajantha Publications.
Tarlo, E. (2003). Unsettling memories: Narratives of the emergency in Delhi . London: C. Hurst and Co. Publishers.
Thachil, T. (2014). Elite parties, poor voters: How Social services win votes in India . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vakulabharanam, V., & Motiram, S. (2011). Political economy of agrarian distress since the 1990s. In S. Ruparelia, S. Reddy, J. Harriss, & S. Corbridge (Eds.), Understanding India’s new political economy: A great transformation? London: Routledge.
Vanaik, A. (1990). The painful transition: Bourgeois democracy in India . London: Verso.
Vanaik, A. (2001). The new Indian right. New Left Review, 9 , 43–67.
Vishwanath, R. (2014). The pariah problem: Caste, religion and the social in modern India . New Delhi: Navayana.
Walker, K. L. M. (2008). Neoliberalism on the ground in rural India: Predatory growth, agrarian crisis, internal colonization, and the intensification of class struggle. Journal of Peasant Studies, 35 (4), 557–620.
Williams, P., Vira, B., & Chopra, D. (2011). Marginality, Agency and Power: Experiencing the State in Contemporary India. Pacific Affairs, 84 (1), 7–23.
Witsoe, J. (2013). Democracy against development: Lower-caste politics and political modernity in postcolonial India . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Wood, J. R. (1975). Extra-parliamentary opposition in Bihar: An analysis of populist agitations in Gujarat and Bihar. Pacific Affairs, 48 (3), 313–334.
Yadav, Y. (2000). Understanding the second democratic upsurge: Trends of Bahujan participation in electoral politics in the 1990s. In Frankel, F. et. al. (eds.), Transforming India: Social and political dynamics of democracy (pp. 120–145 ) . Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Zérinini, J. (2009). The marginalisation of the Savarnas in Uttar Pradesh. In C. Jaffrelot & S. Kumar (Eds.), Rise of the plebeians? The changing face of India’s legislative assemblies . New Delhi: Routledge.
Download references
Author information
Authors and affiliations.
Bjørkestøl, Lillesand, 4790, Norway
Alf Gunvald Nilsen
Landingsveien 48, Oslo, 0767, Norway
Kenneth Bo Nielsen
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Editor information
Editors and affiliations.
University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway
Copyright information
© 2016 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Nilsen, A.G., Nielsen, K.B. (2016). Social Movements, State Formation and Democracy in India: An Introduction. In: Nielsen, K., Nilsen, A. (eds) Social Movements and the State in India. Rethinking International Development series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59133-3_1
Download citation
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59133-3_1
Published : 27 November 2016
Publisher Name : Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN : 978-1-137-59132-6
Online ISBN : 978-1-137-59133-3
eBook Packages : Political Science and International Studies Political Science and International Studies (R0)
Share this chapter
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
- Publish with us
Policies and ethics
- Find a journal
- Track your research
Home — Essay Samples — History — History of the United States — Civil Rights Movement
Essays on Civil Rights Movement
Hook examples for civil rights movement essays, anecdotal hook.
Imagine standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, listening to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his iconic "I Have a Dream" speech. This moment in history epitomized the Civil Rights Movement's power and importance.
Question Hook
What does it mean to fight for civil rights? Explore the complex history, key figures, and lasting impact of the Civil Rights Movement in the United States.
Quotation Hook
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter." — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. How did civil rights activists like King refuse to stay silent and ignite change?
Statistical or Factual Hook
Did you know that in 1964, the Civil Rights Act was signed into law, prohibiting discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin? Dive into the facts and milestones of the Civil Rights Movement.
Definition Hook
What defines a civil rights movement? Explore the principles, goals, and strategies that distinguish civil rights movements from other social justice movements.
Rhetorical Question Hook
Was the Civil Rights Movement solely about racial equality, or did it pave the way for broader social change and justice? Examine the movement's multifaceted impact.
Historical Hook
Travel back in time to the mid-20th century and uncover the roots of the Civil Rights Movement, from the Jim Crow era to the landmark Supreme Court decisions.
Contrast Hook
Contrast the injustices and systemic racism faced by African Americans prior to the Civil Rights Movement with the progress made through protests, legislation, and activism.
Narrative Hook
Meet Rosa Parks, a seamstress who refused to give up her bus seat, sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Follow her courageous journey and the ripple effect it had on the Civil Rights Movement.
Controversial Statement Hook
Prepare to explore the controversies within the Civil Rights Movement, such as differing strategies among activists and debates over nonviolence versus militancy.
The Outsiders: Challenging Stereotypes
Contributions of jackie robinson, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.
Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences
+ experts online
Analysis of "Ain't I a Woman"
The history of the civil rights movement in the united states of america, the civil rights movement: a struggle for equality, history of the civil rights movement in america, let us write you an essay from scratch.
- 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
- Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours
Civil Rights Movement and The Struggles of African Americans During Those Times
The impact of martin luther king on civil rights movements, the contradicting outcome of the civil rights movement in america, the role of martin luther king jr. and malcolm x in civil rights movement, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.
Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind
How The Civil Rights Movement Helped African Americans Achieve Their Rights
Martin luther king jr: influential figure in the civil rights movement, how martin luther king jr, rosa parks and malcolm x organized the civil rights movement, the role of the media in ushering the civil rights movement, development of racial tendencies in the united states, the civil rights movement of the 1950’s and 1960’s, a deeper look at the civil rights movement in america, generation of the civil rights movement, black lives matter in the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement about african american people, the civil rights movement and african american discriminations, a report on the events that helped martin luther king jr.'s prominence in america to push the civil rights movement, the civil rights movement about national indentify, the influence of jazz musicians on the civil rights movement, rosa parks and the civil rights movement, the contribution of local grass-roots activists to the civil rights movement, rosa parks: the lady of the civil rights, brown vs board of education, the way rosa parks leadership style changed the history, rosa parks: how one bold decision made a world leader.
United States
Racism, segregation, disenfranchisement, Jim Crow laws, socioeconomic inequality
W.E.B. Du Bois, Jesse Jackson, Martin Luther King, Jr., Henry MacNeal Turner, John Oliver Killens
Civil rights movement was a struggle of African Americans and their like-minded allies for social justice in United States that came to national prominence during the mid-1950s. The purpose was to end legalized racial discrimination, disenfranchisement and racial segregation in the United States.
“Jim Crow” laws were established in the South beginning in the late 19th century with a purpose to separate Black people from white people. Black people couldn’t use the same public facilities as white people or go to the same schools. Although, Jim Crow laws weren’t adopted in northern states, Black people still experienced discrimination.
Forms of protest and civil disobedience included boycotts, such as the most successful Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955–1956) that lasted for 381 days in Alabama; mass marches, such as the Children's Crusade in Birmingham in 1963 and Selma to Montgomery marches (1965) in Alabama; "sit-ins" such as the Greensboro sit-ins (1960) in North Carolina and Nashville sit-ins (1960) in Tennessee.
The Great March on Washington was held in Washington, D.C., on August 28, 1963. The purpose was to advocate for the civil and economic rights of African Americans. It was organized and attended by civil rights leaders such as A. Philip Randolph, Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King, Jr., who delivered his historic "I Have a Dream" speech.
On July 2, 1964, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, and later sexual orientation and gender identity. The act "remains one of the most significant legislative achievements in American history".
The civil rights movement had tragic consequences for two of its leaders. On February 21, 1965, Malcolm X was assassinated at a rally and Martin Luther King, Jr. was assassinated on his hotel room’s balcony on April 4, 1968.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 was signed into law by United States President Lyndon B. Johnson during the King assassination riots. It prohibited discrimination concerning the sale, rental, and financing of housing based on race, religion, and national origin.
The 20th-century civil rights movement produced an enduring transformation of the legal status of African Americans and other victims of discrimination.
Relevant topics
- Great Depression
- Manifest Destiny
- Pearl Harbor
- Westward Expansion
- Industrial Revolution
- American Revolution
- Imperialism
- Frederick Douglass
By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email
No need to pay just yet!
We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .
- Instructions Followed To The Letter
- Deadlines Met At Every Stage
- Unique And Plagiarism Free
Essay on Social Movements in India
Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Movements in India in their schools and colleges. And if you’re also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic.
Let’s take a look…
100 Words Essay on Social Movements in India
Introduction to social movements.
Social movements in India have played a major role in shaping the nation’s political, social, and economic landscape. These movements are mass efforts demanding change and justice.
Pre-Independence Movements
Before independence, movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi were instrumental in India’s struggle for freedom.
Post-Independence Movements
Post-independence, movements like the Chipko Movement and the Narmada Bachao Andolan highlighted environmental concerns. Meanwhile, the Anti-Corruption Movement of 2011 demanded political transparency.
In conclusion, social movements in India have been catalysts for significant change, reflecting the power of collective action in a democracy.
250 Words Essay on Social Movements in India
Introduction: the landscape of social movements in india.
India, a country with a rich history of social movements, has witnessed a multitude of grassroots campaigns aimed at societal transformation. These movements, often led by ordinary citizens, have sought to address a range of issues, from caste and gender discrimination to environmental protection and human rights.
Historical Perspective
Historically, social movements in India have been powerful tools for social change. From the Dalit movement led by Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, which sought to eradicate caste discrimination, to the Chipko movement, an environmental campaign that highlighted the importance of forest conservation, these movements have played a pivotal role in shaping India’s socio-political landscape.
Contemporary Social Movements
In the contemporary context, social movements continue to be a force for change. The Right to Information Act, for example, was a result of a grassroots movement that demanded transparency and accountability from the government. Similarly, the recent protests against the Citizenship Amendment Act demonstrated the power of citizen-led movements in challenging unjust laws.
Impact and Challenges
Despite their significant impact, social movements in India face numerous challenges. They often encounter resistance from political establishments and are sometimes marred by violence. Moreover, while these movements have brought about substantial change, they have not completely eradicated the social issues they aim to address.
In conclusion, social movements in India, though faced with numerous challenges, have been instrumental in driving social change. They represent the collective power of citizens to challenge injustices and shape a more equitable society. As India continues to evolve, the role of social movements in shaping its future cannot be underestimated.
500 Words Essay on Social Movements in India
Introduction.
India, with its diverse and vibrant society, has been a fertile ground for numerous social movements. These movements have played a pivotal role in shaping India’s socio-political landscape, often acting as catalysts for change and progress. They have addressed a wide range of issues, from caste and gender inequality to environmental conservation, and from human rights to political corruption.
The Pre-Independence Era
The genesis of social movements in India can be traced back to the pre-independence era. The 19th century witnessed the emergence of several reform movements aimed at eradicating social evils and practices. The Brahmo Samaj, Arya Samaj, and the Ramakrishna Mission were instrumental in challenging societal norms such as casteism, untouchability, and child marriage. These movements, though religious in nature, had profound social implications and laid the groundwork for a more egalitarian society.
The Post-Independence Era
The post-independence era saw a shift in the focus of social movements. The emphasis was now on issues like land rights, poverty alleviation, and political representation. The Bhoodan Movement led by Vinoba Bhave, for instance, aimed at redistributing land to the landless, while the Dalit Panthers movement sought to assert the rights and dignity of the marginalized Dalit community.
The Contemporary Scenario
In recent years, social movements in India have become more diverse and complex. They encompass a broad spectrum of issues, including environmentalism, gender equality, and LGBTQ+ rights. The Chipko Movement and the Narmada Bachao Andolan stand as notable examples of environmental activism. The Pink Chaddi campaign, the #MeToo movement, and the recent protests against discriminatory citizenship laws illustrate the power of social media in mobilizing public opinion and action.
Social movements in India have undeniably brought significant changes. They have led to the enactment of progressive laws, helped in democratizing the political space, and fostered social awareness and empowerment. However, these movements also face numerous challenges. Limited resources, state repression, and societal backlash often impede their progress. Moreover, the lack of unity and ideological differences within these movements can also undermine their effectiveness.
Despite the challenges, social movements in India continue to be a potent force for social change. They represent the collective voice of the marginalized and the disenfranchised, striving for a more equitable and inclusive society. As we move forward, it is essential to recognize the transformative potential of these movements and ensure their active participation in the democratic process. In the end, the success of social movements in India will be determined by their ability to bring about lasting and meaningful change.
That’s it! I hope the essay helped you.
If you’re looking for more, here are essays on other interesting topics:
- Essay on School Safety in India
- Essay on Role of Science in Make in India
- Essay on Position of Woman in India
Apart from these, you can look at all the essays by clicking here .
Happy studying!
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Civil Disobedience Movement: Essay & Important Notes
Beginning of the movement.
The Salt Satyagraha was one of the factors that led to the initiation of the Civil Disobedience Movement. The Dandi March was conducted by Mahatma Gandhi and his several followers to break the salt law. The Salt Satyagraha led to the extraction of salt from seawater and it was on the culmination of the Dandi March that Gandhiji announced the Civil Disobedience Movement. The announcement of this movement filled the people of India with new energy to fight for their independence.
Activities During the Movement
The sole aim of Mahatma Gandhi was to organize non-violent protests across the nation to attain the aim of Purna Swaraj. For this, several non-violent protests and activities were undertaken across the nation. The objective of the movement was to defy the British government and its laws that were imposed on Indians. Boycott of foreign goods, clothes, and liquor marked the movement and its protests.
In Bihar and other states, anti-Chowkidari tax campaigns were launched wherein villagers refused to pay any money for protection to the local guards. In Gujarat, a no-tax campaign was carried out. As per this campaign, no revenue was paid to the British government. Forest laws were also defied in many regions where the tribal population was pre-dominant. In Uttar Pradesh as well, no tax and no-rent campaigns were organized.
Martial Law
Mahatma Gandhi was arrested after the Dandi March and the people of India were outraged. There were widespread arrests across the country and the people participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement with more fervor. The British government used highly repressive measures like mass arrests, lathi charges, and police firing. However, people continued to defy the British laws by continuing strikes and therefore a martial law was imposed in the country in 1930.
The Political and Economic Policy of Mahatma Gandhi and the Reaction of the British Government
After the release, Mahatma Gandhi launched another phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement by specifying a political and economic policy. This policy stated the abolition of salt tax and reduction in land revenue by 50%. The policy also indicated the demands on the middle-class in terms of reserving coastal land for Indians and keeping a check on the rupee-sterling exchange rate. The political demands of the policy were to bring changes in the Arms Act, changes in the working of the Central Intelligence Department, prohibition of intoxicants in the country, and reduction on military expenditure.
To address the policy reforms, the British government formed the Simon Commission and convened the First Round Table Conference in the year 1930. This was boycotted by the Indian National Congress, but attended by the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and others.
However, without the participation of the Congress, the conference did not have any meaning, so the Congress was persuaded to join the Second Round Table Conference. It was made clear that the government was not interested in India’s independence and the conference met with a failure.
In 1939, the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn as the government repression intensified. A resolution was passed by the leaders in India to form a constituent assembly elected by the people of India. The movement laid down the foundation for an independent India and ignited the right to freedom in every Indian.
Important Notes
- Under the leadership of Gandhiji, the Civil Disobedience Movement was launched in 1930. It began with the Dandi March.
- Gandhiji and his followers protested against the Salt Law.
- In Tamil Nadu, C Rajagopalchari led a similar march from Trichinopoly to Vedaranyam. In Gujarat, Sarojini Naidu protested in front of the salt depots. Lakhs of people including a large number of women participated actively in these protests.
Practically the whole country became involved in the movement. There were large-scale boycotts of schools, colleges, and offices. Foreign goods were burnt in bonfires. People stopped paying taxes.
Related Posts
Industrial Revolution: Essay & Important Notes
The Idea of Satyagraha
Black Power Movement
Chipko Movement: Essay, Important Notes
The Growth of Nationalism in Europe After the 1830s
Narmada Bachao Andolan: Essay and Important Notes
Add comment cancel reply.
- History Classics
- Your Profile
- Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
- Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
- This Day In History
- History Podcasts
- History Vault
Civil Rights Movement
By: History.com Editors
Updated: January 22, 2024 | Original: October 27, 2009
The civil rights movement was a struggle for social justice that took place mainly during the 1950s and 1960s for Black Americans to gain equal rights under the law in the United States. The Civil War officially abolished slavery , but it didn’t end discrimination against Black people—they continued to endure the devastating effects of racism, especially in the South. By the mid-20th century, Black Americans, along with many other Americans, mobilized and began an unprecedented fight for equality that spanned two decades.
Jim Crow Laws
During Reconstruction , Black people took on leadership roles like never before. They held public office and sought legislative changes for equality and the right to vote.
In 1868, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution gave Black people equal protection under the law. In 1870, the 15th Amendment granted Black American men the right to vote. Still, many white Americans, especially those in the South, were unhappy that people they’d once enslaved were now on a more-or-less equal playing field.
To marginalize Black people, keep them separate from white people and erase the progress they’d made during Reconstruction, “ Jim Crow ” laws were established in the South beginning in the late 19th century. Black people couldn’t use the same public facilities as white people, live in many of the same towns or go to the same schools. Interracial marriage was illegal, and most Black people couldn’t vote because they were unable to pass voter literacy tests.
Jim Crow laws weren’t adopted in northern states; however, Black people still experienced discrimination at their jobs or when they tried to buy a house or get an education. To make matters worse, laws were passed in some states to limit voting rights for Black Americans.
Moreover, southern segregation gained ground in 1896 when the U.S. Supreme Court declared in Plessy v. Ferguson that facilities for Black and white people could be “separate but equal."
World War II and Civil Rights
Prior to World War II , most Black people worked as low-wage farmers, factory workers, domestics or servants. By the early 1940s, war-related work was booming, but most Black Americans weren’t given better-paying jobs. They were also discouraged from joining the military.
After thousands of Black people threatened to march on Washington to demand equal employment rights, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802 on June 25, 1941. It opened national defense jobs and other government jobs to all Americans regardless of race, creed, color or national origin.
Black men and women served heroically in World War II, despite suffering segregation and discrimination during their deployment. The Tuskegee Airmen broke the racial barrier to become the first Black military aviators in the U.S. Army Air Corps and earned more than 150 Distinguished Flying Crosses. Yet many Black veterans were met with prejudice and scorn upon returning home. This was a stark contrast to why America had entered the war to begin with—to defend freedom and democracy in the world.
As the Cold War began, President Harry Truman initiated a civil rights agenda, and in 1948 issued Executive Order 9981 to end discrimination in the military. These events helped set the stage for grass-roots initiatives to enact racial equality legislation and incite the civil rights movement.
On December 1, 1955, a 42-year-old woman named Rosa Parks found a seat on a Montgomery, Alabama bus after work. Segregation laws at the time stated Black passengers must sit in designated seats at the back of the bus, and Parks complied.
When a white man got on the bus and couldn’t find a seat in the white section at the front of the bus, the bus driver instructed Parks and three other Black passengers to give up their seats. Parks refused and was arrested.
As word of her arrest ignited outrage and support, Parks unwittingly became the “mother of the modern-day civil rights movement.” Black community leaders formed the Montgomery Improvement Association (MIA) led by Baptist minister Martin Luther King Jr ., a role which would place him front and center in the fight for civil rights.
Parks’ courage incited the MIA to stage a boycott of the Montgomery bus system . The Montgomery Bus Boycott lasted 381 days. On November 14, 1956, the Supreme Court ruled segregated seating was unconstitutional.
Little Rock Nine
In 1954, the civil rights movement gained momentum when the United States Supreme Court made segregation illegal in public schools in the case of Brown v. Board of Education . In 1957, Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas asked for volunteers from all-Black high schools to attend the formerly segregated school.
On September 4, 1957, nine Black students, known as the Little Rock Nine , arrived at Central High School to begin classes but were instead met by the Arkansas National Guard (on order of Governor Orval Faubus) and a screaming, threatening mob. The Little Rock Nine tried again a couple of weeks later and made it inside, but had to be removed for their safety when violence ensued.
Finally, President Dwight D. Eisenhower intervened and ordered federal troops to escort the Little Rock Nine to and from classes at Central High. Still, the students faced continual harassment and prejudice.
Their efforts, however, brought much-needed attention to the issue of desegregation and fueled protests on both sides of the issue.
Civil Rights Act of 1957
Even though all Americans had gained the right to vote, many southern states made it difficult for Black citizens. They often required prospective voters of color to take literacy tests that were confusing, misleading and nearly impossible to pass.
Wanting to show a commitment to the civil rights movement and minimize racial tensions in the South, the Eisenhower administration pressured Congress to consider new civil rights legislation.
On September 9, 1957, President Eisenhower signed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 into law, the first major civil rights legislation since Reconstruction. It allowed federal prosecution of anyone who tried to prevent someone from voting. It also created a commission to investigate voter fraud.
Sit-In at Woolworth's Lunch Counter
Despite making some gains, Black Americans still experienced blatant prejudice in their daily lives. On February 1, 1960, four college students took a stand against segregation in Greensboro, North Carolina when they refused to leave a Woolworth’s lunch counter without being served.
Over the next several days, hundreds of people joined their cause in what became known as the Greensboro sit-ins. After some were arrested and charged with trespassing, protesters launched a boycott of all segregated lunch counters until the owners caved and the original four students were finally served at the Woolworth’s lunch counter where they’d first stood their ground.
Their efforts spearheaded peaceful sit-ins and demonstrations in dozens of cities and helped launch the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee to encourage all students to get involved in the civil rights movement. It also caught the eye of young college graduate Stokely Carmichael , who joined the SNCC during the Freedom Summer of 1964 to register Black voters in Mississippi. In 1966, Carmichael became the chair of the SNCC, giving his famous speech in which he originated the phrase "Black power.”
Freedom Riders
On May 4, 1961, 13 “ Freedom Riders ”—seven Black and six white activists–mounted a Greyhound bus in Washington, D.C. , embarking on a bus tour of the American south to protest segregated bus terminals. They were testing the 1960 decision by the Supreme Court in Boynton v. Virginia that declared the segregation of interstate transportation facilities unconstitutional.
Facing violence from both police officers and white protesters, the Freedom Rides drew international attention. On Mother’s Day 1961, the bus reached Anniston, Alabama, where a mob mounted the bus and threw a bomb into it. The Freedom Riders escaped the burning bus but were badly beaten. Photos of the bus engulfed in flames were widely circulated, and the group could not find a bus driver to take them further. U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy (brother to President John F. Kennedy ) negotiated with Alabama Governor John Patterson to find a suitable driver, and the Freedom Riders resumed their journey under police escort on May 20. But the officers left the group once they reached Montgomery, where a white mob brutally attacked the bus. Attorney General Kennedy responded to the riders—and a call from Martin Luther King Jr.—by sending federal marshals to Montgomery.
On May 24, 1961, a group of Freedom Riders reached Jackson, Mississippi. Though met with hundreds of supporters, the group was arrested for trespassing in a “whites-only” facility and sentenced to 30 days in jail. Attorneys for the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ( NAACP ) brought the matter to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed the convictions. Hundreds of new Freedom Riders were drawn to the cause, and the rides continued.
In the fall of 1961, under pressure from the Kennedy administration, the Interstate Commerce Commission issued regulations prohibiting segregation in interstate transit terminals
March on Washington
Arguably one of the most famous events of the civil rights movement took place on August 28, 1963: the March on Washington . It was organized and attended by civil rights leaders such as A. Philip Randolph , Bayard Rustin and Martin Luther King Jr.
More than 200,000 people of all races congregated in Washington, D. C. for the peaceful march with the main purpose of forcing civil rights legislation and establishing job equality for everyone. The highlight of the march was King’s speech in which he continually stated, “I have a dream…”
King’s “ I Have a Dream” speech galvanized the national civil rights movement and became a slogan for equality and freedom.
Civil Rights Act of 1964
President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 —legislation initiated by President John F. Kennedy before his assassination —into law on July 2 of that year.
King and other civil rights activists witnessed the signing. The law guaranteed equal employment for all, limited the use of voter literacy tests and allowed federal authorities to ensure public facilities were integrated.
Bloody Sunday
On March 7, 1965, the civil rights movement in Alabama took an especially violent turn as 600 peaceful demonstrators participated in the Selma to Montgomery march to protest the killing of Black civil rights activist Jimmie Lee Jackson by a white police officer and to encourage legislation to enforce the 15th amendment.
As the protesters neared the Edmund Pettus Bridge, they were blocked by Alabama state and local police sent by Alabama Governor George C. Wallace, a vocal opponent of desegregation. Refusing to stand down, protesters moved forward and were viciously beaten and teargassed by police and dozens of protesters were hospitalized.
The entire incident was televised and became known as “ Bloody Sunday .” Some activists wanted to retaliate with violence, but King pushed for nonviolent protests and eventually gained federal protection for another march.
Voting Rights Act of 1965
When President Johnson signed the Voting Rights Act into law on August 6, 1965, he took the Civil Rights Act of 1964 several steps further. The new law banned all voter literacy tests and provided federal examiners in certain voting jurisdictions.
It also allowed the attorney general to contest state and local poll taxes. As a result, poll taxes were later declared unconstitutional in Harper v. Virginia State Board of Elections in 1966.
Part of the Act was walked back decades later, in 2013, when a Supreme Court decision ruled that Section 4(b) of the Voting Rights Act was unconstitutional, holding that the constraints placed on certain states and federal review of states' voting procedures were outdated.
Civil Rights Leaders Assassinated
The civil rights movement had tragic consequences for two of its leaders in the late 1960s. On February 21, 1965, former Nation of Islam leader and Organization of Afro-American Unity founder Malcolm X was assassinated at a rally.
On April 4, 1968, civil rights leader and Nobel Peace Prize recipient Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated on his hotel room's balcony. Emotionally-charged looting and riots followed, putting even more pressure on the Johnson administration to push through additional civil rights laws.
Fair Housing Act of 1968
The Fair Housing Act became law on April 11, 1968, just days after King’s assassination. It prevented housing discrimination based on race, sex, national origin and religion. It was also the last legislation enacted during the civil rights era.
The civil rights movement was an empowering yet precarious time for Black Americans. The efforts of civil rights activists and countless protesters of all races brought about legislation to end segregation, Black voter suppression and discriminatory employment and housing practices.
A Brief History of Jim Crow. Constitutional Rights Foundation. Civil Rights Act of 1957. Civil Rights Digital Library. Document for June 25th: Executive Order 8802: Prohibition of Discrimination in the Defense Industry. National Archives. Greensboro Lunch Counter Sit-In. African American Odyssey. Little Rock School Desegregation (1957). The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute Stanford . Martin Luther King, Jr. and the Global Freedom Struggle. The Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute Stanford . Rosa Marie Parks Biography. Rosa and Raymond Parks. Selma, Alabama, (Bloody Sunday, March 7, 1965). BlackPast.org. The Civil Rights Movement (1919-1960s). National Humanities Center. The Little Rock Nine. National Park Service U.S. Department of the Interior: Little Rock Central High School National Historic Site. Turning Point: World War II. Virginia Historical Society.
Photo Galleries
Sign up for Inside History
Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.
By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.
More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us
Neo Farmer Movement in Contemporary India Sociology Optional UPSC | Sociology Optional for UPSC Civil Services Examination | Triumph IAS
Table of Contents
Neo Farmer Movement in Contemporary India
(Relevant for Sociology Optional for Civil Services Examination)
Introduction:
India has a long history of of farmer movement dating back to colonial times. Those movements were generally considered as peasant movements. However it is being replaced with farmer movement for a simple reason that post-independence the development paradigm has made a new category of market oriented farmers. Recent reforms like green revolution, new technology and government subsidies have created a new category of rich farmers. The struggle of these farmers resorted to in recent years has been conceptualised as NEO FARMER MOVEMENT.
Reasons for Beginning of Neo Farmer Movement
- Terms of trade going against the agriculture
- Declining purchasing power
- Unremunerative prices
- Agricultural becoming losing proposition
- Increase in input prices
- Declining per capita income from agriculture
FEATURES OF NEO FARMER MOVEMENT.
- These movements do not believe in romanticising their life style or social life. They are more inclined to economic issues like protests for MSP, Debt waiver etc.
- They advocate transcending local boundaries , emphasizing internationalism over narrow nationalism.
- Unified and undifferentiated struggle is a key tenet , rejecting the division of social categories based on economic status. This stance prevents them from labelling their movement as solely representing affluent peasants, as they view all social segments aexperiencing poverty due to biased government policies.
- Their contention is that successive governments’ biased policies have led to growing rural poverty, leading them to assert that the “debt of the farmer” is a manufactured concept by the government. This declaration manifests in their call for “Kharja Mukti.”
- The core objective of the farmers’ movement is analysing backwardness through the lens of achieving fair prices for agricultural products. They believe that remunerative prices can trigger a trickle-down effect, ultimately eradicating rural poverty and underdevelopment .
- Gail Omvedt , a prominent researcher on peasant movements, argues that these movements present a novel perspective on exploitation. In contrast to traditional movements, they contend that exploitation is rooted in a larger market system that extends beyond localities, potentially encompassing national or even global markets.
- Use of new techniques: like social media ,music and gaining international tractions has been new methods to used by farmers in their movement.
Ideology of the Neo Farmer Movement
- Farmers’ movement lacks a singular ideology due to fundamental differences in addressing farmers’ issues.
- The Karnataka movement identifies as Gandhian, with some alignment to Dependency theory . It attributes Third World underdevelopment to post-colonial exploitation, including cheap goods, technology dumping, and urban-biased policies.
- Maharashtra’s Shetkari Sangathana stands out with its “Bharat versus India” ideology, emphasizing native and traditional values versus exploitation inherited from British colonial rule . Sharad Joshi argues that “India corresponds to that notional entity that has inherited from the British the mantle of economic, social, cultural educational exploitation; on the contrary “Bharat” is that notional entity which is subject to exploitation a second time even after the termination of the external colonial regime
- The movement critiques state intervention and supports economic freedom for farmers’ prosperity.
Social base and related criticism of neo farmer movement
- These Neo farmer movement are often criticised for their class bias . The Neo Farmer movement are often criticised for their class bias. It is often argued that the Neo Farmer movement is highly biased towards market-oriented farmers than those who are living in the subsistence economy. All through their struggles, these movements have raised such issues which have helped either the rich farmers or the middle farmers. For example, their argument in favour of writing off loans, remunerative prices, declaring agriculture as an industry, abolition of tractor loans etc. ultimately helped the big or the rich/middle peasantry or the farmers.
- Even the movements have not addressed the issues beyond irrigated are The issues of non-irrigated areas have received scant focus in their discourse.
- It is also said that these movements have never become all caste movement . For example Punjab and Uttar Pradesh movement has become JAT movement. In Tamil Nadu there is very low representation of Dalits and Muslims.
- Nonetheless they have not been effective in bringing radical transformation in the country side . This is because of the fact that the neo farmer movement, from the very beginning, were unable to overcome the internal conflicts as well as contradictions . Secondly, they did not carry any radical agenda from within- for example they never bothered to demand radical land reforms, nor were they concerned about the atrocities perpetrated on marginal classes including the Dalits in the country side .
Conclusion:
The neo farmer movement did bring about a paradigm shift in the discourse, analysis and perception about farmers in India. It made the policy makers to address the deep rooted crisis of agriculture as well as agrarian classes in India. It has also helped the farmers to be a part of international movement against such issues as globalisation, imperialism and capitalism.
To master these intricacies and fare well in the Sociology Optional Syllabus, aspiring sociologists might benefit from guidance by the Best Sociology Optional Teacher and participation in the Best Sociology Optional Coaching. These avenues provide comprehensive assistance, ensuring a solid understanding of sociology’s diverse methodologies and techniques.
META TAGS: Neo Farmer Movement, farmer movement sociology, Farmer movement upsc, Neo Farmer Movement Sociology Optional, Farmer movement in India, farmer movements in contemporary India Neo Farmer Movement, farmer movement sociology, Farmer movement upsc, Neo Farmer Movement Sociology Optional, Farmer movement in India, farmer movements in contemporary India Neo Farmer Movement, farmer movement sociology, Farmer movement upsc, Neo Farmer Movement Sociology Optional, Farmer movement in India, farmer movements in contemporary India
Explore Sociology Optional Syllabus
FUNDAMENTALS OF SOCIOLOGY
- Modernity and social changes in Europe and emergence of sociology.
- Scope of the subject and comparison with other social sciences.
- Sociology and common sense.
- Science, scientific method and critique.
- Major theoretical strands of research methodology.
- Positivism and its critique.
- Fact value and objectivity.
- Non- positivist methodologies.
- Qualitative and quantitative methods.
- Techniques of data collection.
- Variables, sampling, hypothesis, reliability and validity.
- Karl Marx- Historical materialism, mode of production, alienation, class struggle.
- Emile Durkheim- Division of labour, social fact, suicide, religion and society.
- Max Weber- Social action, ideal types, authority, bureaucracy, protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism.
- Talcott Parsons- Social system, pattern variables.
- Robert K. Merton- Latent and manifest functions, conformity and deviance, reference groups.
- Mead – Self and identity.
- Concepts- equality, inequality, hierarchy, exclusion, poverty and deprivation.
- Theories of social stratification- Structural functionalist theory, Marxist theory, Weberian theory.
- Dimensions – Social stratification of class, status groups, gender, ethnicity and race.
- Social mobility- open and closed systems, types of mobility, sources and causes of mobility.
- Social organization of work in different types of society- slave society, feudal society, industrial /capitalist society
- Formal and informal organization of work.
- Labour and society.
- Sociological theories of power.
- Power elite, bureaucracy, pressure groups, and political parties.
- Nation, state, citizenship, democracy, civil society, ideology.
- Protest, agitation, social movements, collective action, revolution.
- Sociological theories of religion.
- Types of religious practices: animism, monism, pluralism, sects, cults.
- Religion in modern society: religion and science, secularization, religious revivalism, fundamentalism.
- Family, household, marriage.
- Types and forms of family.
- Lineage and descent.
- Patriarchy and sexual division of labour.
- Contemporary trends.
- Sociological theories of social change.
- Development and dependency.
- Agents of social change.
- Education and social change.
- Science, technology and social change.
INDIAN SOCIETY: STRUCTURE AND CHANGE
Introducing indian society.
- Indology (GS. Ghurye).
- Structural functionalism (M N Srinivas).
- Marxist sociology (A R Desai).
- Social background of Indian nationalism.
- Modernization of Indian tradition.
- Protests and movements during the colonial period.
- Social reforms.
SOCIAL STRUCTURE
- The idea of Indian village and village studies.
- Agrarian social structure – evolution of land tenure system, land reforms.
- Perspectives on the study of caste systems: GS Ghurye, M N Srinivas, Louis Dumont, Andre Beteille.
- Features of caste system.
- Untouchability – forms and perspectives.
- Definitional problems.
- Geographical spread.
- Colonial policies and tribes.
- Issues of integration and autonomy.
- Social Classes in India:
- Agrarian class structure.
- Industrial class structure.
- Middle classes in India.
- Lineage and descent in India.
- Types of kinship systems.
- Family and marriage in India.
- Household dimensions of the family.
- Patriarchy, entitlements and sexual division of labour
- Religious communities in India.
- Problems of religious minorities.
SOCIAL CHANGES IN INDIA
- Idea of development planning and mixed economy
- Constitution, law and social change.
- Programmes of rural development, Community Development Programme, cooperatives,poverty alleviation schemes
- Green revolution and social change.
- Changing modes of production in Indian agriculture.
- Problems of rural labour, bondage, migration.
3. Industrialization and Urbanisation in India:
- Evolution of modern industry in India.
- Growth of urban settlements in India.
- Working class: structure, growth, class mobilization.
- Informal sector, child labour
- Slums and deprivation in urban areas.
4. Politics and Society:
- Nation, democracy and citizenship.
- Political parties, pressure groups , social and political elite
- Regionalism and decentralization of power.
- Secularization
5. Social Movements in Modern India:
- Peasants and farmers movements.
- Women’s movement.
- Backward classes & Dalit movement.
- Environmental movements.
- Ethnicity and Identity movements.
6. Population Dynamics:
- Population size, growth, composition and distribution
- Components of population growth: birth, death, migration.
- Population policy and family planning.
- Emerging issues: ageing, sex ratios, child and infant mortality, reproductive health.
7. Challenges of Social Transformation:
- Crisis of development: displacement, environmental problems and sustainability
- Poverty, deprivation and inequalities.
- Violence against women.
- Caste conflicts.
- Ethnic conflicts, communalism, religious revivalism.
- Illiteracy and disparities in education.
Why Vikash Ranjan’s Classes for Sociology?
Proper guidance and assistance are required to learn the skill of interlinking current happenings with the conventional topics. VIKASH RANJAN SIR at TRIUMPH IAS guides students according to the Recent Trends of UPSC, making him the Best Sociology Teacher for Sociology Optional UPSC.
At Triumph IAS, the Best Sociology Optional Coaching platform, we not only provide the best study material and applied classes for Sociology for IAS but also conduct regular assignments and class tests to assess candidates’ writing skills and understanding of the subject.
Choose T he Best Sociology Optional Teacher for IAS Preparation?
At the beginning of the journey for Civil Services Examination preparation, many students face a pivotal decision – selecting their optional subject. Questions such as “ which optional subject is the best? ” and “ which optional subject is the most scoring? ” frequently come to mind. Choosing the right optional subject, like choosing the best sociology optional teacher , is a subjective yet vital step that requires a thoughtful decision based on facts. A misstep in this crucial decision can indeed prove disastrous.
Ever since the exam pattern was revamped in 2013, the UPSC has eliminated the need for a second optional subject. Now, candidates have to choose only one optional subject for the UPSC Mains , which has two papers of 250 marks each. One of the compelling choices for many has been the sociology optional. However, it’s strongly advised to decide on your optional subject for mains well ahead of time to get sufficient time to complete the syllabus. After all, most students score similarly in General Studies Papers; it’s the score in the optional subject & essay that contributes significantly to the final selection.
“ A sound strategy does not rely solely on the popular Opinion of toppers or famous YouTubers cum teachers. ”
It requires understanding one’s ability, interest, and the relevance of the subject, not just for the exam but also for life in general. Hence, when selecting the best sociology teacher, one must consider the usefulness of sociology optional coaching in General Studies, Essay, and Personality Test.
The choice of the optional subject should be based on objective criteria, such as the nature, scope, and size of the syllabus, uniformity and stability in the question pattern, relevance of the syllabic content in daily life in society, and the availability of study material and guidance. For example, choosing the best sociology optional coaching can ensure access to top-quality study materials and experienced teachers. Always remember, the approach of the UPSC optional subject differs from your academic studies of subjects. Therefore, before settling for sociology optional , you need to analyze the syllabus, previous years’ pattern, subject requirements (be it ideal, visionary, numerical, conceptual theoretical), and your comfort level with the subject.
This decision marks a critical point in your UPSC – CSE journey , potentially determining your success in a career in IAS/Civil Services. Therefore, it’s crucial to choose wisely, whether it’s the optional subject or the best sociology optional teacher . Always base your decision on accurate facts, and never let your emotional biases guide your choices. After all, the search for the best sociology optional coaching is about finding the perfect fit for your unique academic needs and aspirations.
Follow us :
🔎 https://www.instagram.com/triumphias
🔎 www.triumphias.com
🔎https://www.youtube.com/c/TriumphIAS
https://t.me/VikashRanjanSociology
Find More Blogs
- Pingback: Methodology, Values, and Objectivity in Sociological Research | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
- Pingback: Various Forms of Environmental Movement | #1 Best Sociology Optional Coaching
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
the autonomy and independence of institutions of both the state and civil. society, and second, entrenching and strengthening the project of citizenship. by effectively realising citizens' civil, political and social rights. 3 See Balagopal (1987). He argues that even during this period: 'Extensive use was.
the Civil Rights Movement in India. It is true that, it is only after the emergency, Civil Rights Movement became more organised and took the shape of a nation-wide movement. The atrocities committed by the state machineries, suspension of fundamental rights and violation of democratic procedure and values during that period resulted into a ...
Abstract. Human rights movement in India got its germination during the Emergency Rule during 1975-1977 and developed during the post Emergency period. Two major trends were marked by Civil ...
Combines the study of contemporary trends with historical legacies of social movements in India; Caters to the emerging field of humanities by exploring social and audio-visual media as tools social protest; Offers fresh insights on public sphere studies and post-colonialism in India
social bias bu-ilt within the democratic. and political oppression and human indigni-. ties in contemporary India constitutes the. concern of the civil and democratic rights. movement. While its tasks are. so dauntingly. ship, as Indira Gandhi so often proved by institutions. They are aiso the inequitable.
Abstract. Human rights movement in India got its germination during the Emergency Rule during 1975-1977 and developed during the post Emergency period. Two major trends were marked by Civil liberties concerns and the rights based perspectives. In the last 35 years, the human rights movement has been enriched by collective wisdom emerging from ...
This article is an attempt to trace the various phases of the human rights movement (HRM) and the assumptions underlying each of them in terms of the inter-relationships between the state, civil society and democracy. The 1970s witnessed the first phase of the HRM— the 'civil liberties phase'—working within the framework of state-civil ...
A critical distinction was made The civil and democratic rights movement in India, and in its India's republican constitution between the first generation intellectual discourse, though part of the global human rights of human rights consisting of civil and political rights which were discourse, are constantly faced with many ofthese specific ...
Abstract. For the last few years, dissents and protests are being seen almost everywhere in the world. Some of them were violent and occupation movements against consumerism, traditional institutions, and capitalism, with little success; while some were peaceful protests against racism, corruption, and the state's policies.
Abstract. In this essay, I present a schematic survey of social movements in India from around 1800 to the present. While recognizing the inherent limits of such an exercise, given the vast and diverse array of social movements, I suggest that perhaps one could discern three broad phases within which these movements have occurred.
beginning. This would become amply clear if we compare India's record of civil liberties and human rights with other developing post-colonial societies. Evidently, the human rights that the people of India enjoy, in however limited a measure, is primarily a legacy of our national movement. If you look at the records and documents of the ...
Introduction. India, the world's largest democracy, has been experiencing a democratic decline. Multiple organizations have downgraded India to a "partly free" (Freedom House) or "flawed" democracy (Economist Intelligence Unit), signaling that its electoral integrity is at risk, while others now classify it not as a democracy but as an "electoral autocracy" (V-Dem Institute).
The concept of civil society moved from 'civilized society' to a socially located debating and acting groups emerged now outside the political arena. However, its identity fixes next door to politics. Advancement of democracies pushed the civil society movement on world scene, in both the developing and developed societies equally.
Human rights are the unchallengeable rights of a person by virtue of being a human. All or some of these may or may not be written in the Constitution and laws of a country. These rights are considered to be widespread and have been concretised in various categories. These may be political, economic, social, or cultural.
Organizations working against the repression of workers, poor, peasants, Dalits, women, and tribal people joined the 'democratic rights movement'. This set the tone for human rights movements in India during the 1990s that established their networks from local and regional to a global level. Now, we have reached a stage where social ...
Human Rights Watch's 2016 report acknowledges India's foremost human rights issues. Government critics are intimidated and subject to lawsuits, while civil society organizations are harassed. There is enough evidence to look at the probability of a crisis in human rights management. All persons, regardless of origin, race, religion,
India, as Thomas Blom Hansen (1999: 5) notes, presents us with "the longest, most sustained, and most successful trajectory of democracy anywhere in the postcolonial world …".The coming of national independence in 1947 witnessed the introduction of universal franchise and a system of electoral democracy that—with the exception of the Emergency period from 1975 to 1977 1 —have ...
In India, by the late 1970s, the decline of all institutions gave rise to several mass-based political movements and grassroots activism. The anti-caste movement, the struggle for gender justice, the movement for civil liberties, for a sound environment, and against mega development projects that have displaced thousands of poor
If you aim at writing an civil rights movement essay, make sure to outline main events and check samples of the well-written papers and essays on this topic. You can recognize a worthy piece by reading its introduction and conclusion. As you explore, civil rights movement essay topics, make an introduction and mention that the civil rights ...
Students are often asked to write an essay on Social Movements in India in their schools and colleges. And if you're also looking for the same, we have created 100-word, 250-word, and 500-word essays on the topic. ... movements like the Non-Cooperation Movement and Civil Disobedience Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi were instrumental in India ...
In 1939, the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn as the government repression intensified. A resolution was passed by the leaders in India to form a constituent assembly elected by the people of India. The movement laid down the foundation for an independent India and ignited the right to freedom in every Indian.
The civil rights movement was a struggle for justice and equality for African Americans that took place mainly in the 1950s and 1960s. Among its leaders were Martin Luther King Jr., Malcolm X, the ...
3. Industrialization and Urbanisation in India: Evolution of modern industry in India. Growth of urban settlements in India. Working class: structure, growth, class mobilization. Informal sector, child labour; Slums and deprivation in urban areas. 4. Politics and Society: Nation, democracy and citizenship.