A fluid arena
The 1990s was a watershed era. A new entity called non-government organisation emerged at the grassroots level which redefined the nature of non-party political formations
Social as political.Sourced by the Telegraph
As a young journalist working for a weekly newspaper in the early 1990s, I did an interview with Harkishan Singh Surjeet, the leader of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) and one of the most influential politicians at that time. I was curious to know his views on the future of progressive politics in the Hindi-speaking states where the Bharatiya Janata Party had already become a powerful political entity. Surjeet did not give a politically-correct reply. Accepting the ever-declining influence of the Left parties, he made a very insightful comment. He said that the Left parties and progressive groups were not sufficiently involved in social action activities at the grassroots level. As a result, the politics of protests and demonstrations, which were intrinsic to progressive politics, had eventually become episodic and unconvincing. According to Surjeet, this would have a direct impact on electoral mobilisation as well.
Surjeet’s critical comments have a wider relevance. The political parties still organise protests, demonstrations, rallies, road shows and yatras to assert themselves in public life. But these forms of collective action are now reduced entirely to electoral politics. In fact, a new form of counter-protest has emerged in recent years, where protests are organised against an ongoing protest. The demonstrations led by a section of pro-BJP groups in support of the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 are a good example in this regard. The idea of protest as a political technique in this sense has somehow become contested.
It is important to remember that the political parties did not emerge entirely as electoral entities in colonial India. The British State, no doubt, expressed its commitment to responsive government and fair representation of communities/interest groups. Yet, the expected role of a political association was to advise the colonial State to function smoothly. The initial growth of the Congress, the Muslim League and the Hindu Mahasabha demonstrates this trajectory. The rise of nationalism in the first decade of the 20th century encouraged political groups to invent new political techniques to assert their demands. At the same time, there was a need to have broad-based mass mobilisation. In this context, public protest as a form of political action came into existence.
It was M.K. Gandhi who introduced the idea of satyagraha to make the notion of protest more meaningful and effective. Protest in the Gandhian schema had at least three dimensions: purpose; commitment; and effect. Gandhi made it clear that protest should have a purpose. This means that protest as satyagraha must be carefully organised to assert a thoughtful demand. According to Gandhi, “Satyagraha is never adopted abruptly and never till all other and milder methods have been tried” (Young India, January 14, 1926). Gandhi was equally concerned about commitment-building. He asked an individual satyagrahi to rethink his/her association with the larger cause. Finally, Gandhi was keen on building public opinion before organising any big protest. That was one of the reasons why Gandhian protests were deeply linked to his social action. The recent work of the Gandhian scholar, Dhanajay Rai, on Gandhi’s ‘Constructive Programme’ is very relevant to understanding Gandhi’s redefinition of protest politics.
The Gandhian influence on forms of collective action continued to survive after Independence. Even though electoral politics emerged as the defining future of the political system in India, political parties did not give up on the idea of social action. In a way, electoral politics was seen merely as a tool to achieve a wider social transformation from a variety of ideological vantage points. This led to the proliferation of a number of social initiatives. Cultural organisations like the Indian People’s Theatre Association and Gandhian movements like bhoodaan functioned as a bridge between political processes and the people at the grassroots. The spread of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and the Jamaat-e-Islami in the 1950s and the formation of the Vishwa Hindu Parishad in the later years should also be seen in this political context.
Two crucial developments in the 1970s were very significant in the postcolonial story of protest politics. On the one hand, a new kind of people’s movement emerged in the country. The movements against displacements, Dalit and Adivasi struggles for dignity and equality, and the women’s movement against various forms of patriarchal dominance redefined the nature of protest politics in a significant way. Around the same time, the anti-Emergency protest paved the way for a number of civil liberty organisations to emerge. Jayaprakash Narayan’s famous movement against Indira Gandhi’s authoritarian policies in this sense was a crucial reference point to what the political scientist, Rajni Kothari, calls the “non-party political formations”.
These movements highlighted the fact that the social arena should always be recognised as the site for political negotiations and dialogues. The emphasis on the ‘social’ gave them a tremendous capacity to influence mainstream party politics. The politics of protest also found a new meaning in this phase. Protest became a technique to demonstrate the stated objectives and larger goals of the movement in such a manner that the social segment concerned could adequately be sensitised for mobilisation purposes; at the same time, a direct and clear message could be sent to the political class.
It is worth noting that the VHP began its Ram temple agitation in the early 1980s. The aim was to mobilise Hindus for the construction of a temple on the site of the Babri masjid in Ayodhya to mark the birthplace of Rama. In response to this agitation, a non-party Muslim coalition, the Babri Masjid Movement Coordination Committee, was also formed in 1986. These formations were entirely religion-centric. Unlike other people’s movements, they did not have any clear agenda for wider social transformation. Nevertheless, the spread of these organisations created the possibility for a new form of protest politics based on communal considerations.
The 1990s was a watershed era. A new entity called non-government organisation emerged at the grassroots level which redefined the nature of non-party political formations. The NGOs did not replace the people’s movements; rather, they created and shaped an issue-based and funding-driven discourse in which all the stakeholders had to operate. The outcome of this process was obvious. The people’s movements became ‘sector-oriented’ and somehow deviated from the agenda of wider
social change.
This process had two direct implications. One, the people’s movements lost their mobilisational capabilities. As a result, their protest politics got converted into issue-based demonstrations. Second, this deviation also helped organisations like the VHP to occupy the social arena completely. It is now easier for them to nurture the Hindutva-centric discourse of identity at the grassroots level without facing any ideological resistance. The dominance of Hindutva politics at the social level has helped the BJP communicate directly with various segments of society. The non-BJP parties do not have that advantage. Rahul Gandhi perhaps is the only Opposition leader who recognises the value of the social arena. His two Bharat Jodo Yatras must be seen as a new beginning. It will be interesting to observe how the outcome of the 2024 election will shape the contours of protest politics in the future.
Hilal Ahmed is Associate Professor, CSDS, New Delhi
North Bengal records 77.57% voter turnout amid accusations of 'mischief' by Mamata
Congress knows it can't win, so its 'yuvraj' is threatening that country will be on fire: PM
Manipur: Four EVMs damaged by unidentified people across different polling booths
Lok Sabha polls: Security personnel on election duty dies due to cardiac arrest in Mizoram
Heatwave conditions will continue to prevail in south Bengal: MeT department
Use of children in pornographic materials matter of serious concern: Supreme Court
Three killed in UAE as result of heavy flooding caused by record-setting rains
Any form of government or societal structure is only as “good” as the people who make up that body, whether it is based in capitalism, communism, socialism or totalitarianism. In these cases, I would define “good” as something that works well for the benefit of those involved. Given the vast complexities of the interactions of individuals within those structures, as well as the complexities of each of the individuals themselves, creating a societal situation that is “good” for all is an immense, if not impossible, task.
Since the government of the United States of America was built on the ideal of it being a self-governing nation based on the premise that all men are created equal and that it is a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”, it reflects the characteristics of the people who are both the governing and the governed.
Because human beings are always in the process of living (hopefully), which involves both expected and unexpected events and the necessary decisions and actions regarding those events, every moment represents a new frontier, of sorts, that people must face with either the tools that they have created in moments passed or new tools created in order face the new events. Since all of this is usually a venture into the unknown, mistakes are easily made and undesired consequences may be encountered. This is always a challenge to our government.
“We the people” are only human, after all, and because it is essential for us to have the ability to move beyond our mistakes, we must be able to learn from those mistakes and, in order to not “throw the baby out with the bathwater” when addressing those responsible for the mistakes, we must be able to forgive those people. To be able to forgive, we must also love and respect and have compassion for one another. This is not an easy task.
For any form of self-government to function for the good of all involved, all who are involved must, in some way, work for the good of all who are involved. When factions of those governed do not seek to work harmoniously with others for the good of all involved, then that government will fail in its quest unless it can somehow bring those recalcitrant factions into alignment with rest of those who are governed. This action will then infringe the rights of freedom of action of that “recalcitrant” faction and that faction will see itself as being repressed. This is the crux of the conundrum facing any form of self-government.
In a totalitarian state, the freedoms of the “recalcitrant” faction do not matter and that faction can easily be either suppressed or destroyed, depending on the whim of the government. Under a form of self-government dedicated to working for the greater good, the concerns of that out-of-step faction must be taken into consideration and addressed with respect and compassion. Only then will things be able to be sorted out.
Without mutual respect, compassion, consideration, trust and, yes, love, self-government, whether based on democratic or republican ideals, becomes an impossibility.
It is only by conquering our own minds, each one of us, and involving ourselves respectfully with one another in our societal interactions, that we will ever develop a form of government that actually works to the benefit of all involved.
“Love is my religion.”
-Ziggy Marley
“We got to let love rule.”
-Lenny Kravitz