Social Movements — NCERT Solutions

Given / Context: Sociologists distinguish between 'old' social movements (focused on economic issues — class, labour, land) and 'new' social movements (focused on identity, culture, environment, gender). The question asks us to examine whether this distinction holds in the Indian context.

Concept Used:

• Old Social Movements: Rooted in Marxist tradition; concerned with economic exploitation, class struggle, redistribution of resources (e.g., labour movements, peasant movements).
• New Social Movements: Emerged in the West from the 1960s–70s; concerned with identity, recognition, quality of life, environment, gender, ethnicity (e.g., feminist movements, environmental movements, civil rights movements).

Discussion:

1. The Western Framework:
The distinction between old and new social movements was developed primarily in the context of Western industrial societies. In the West, the 'old' labour movement was largely about class and economic redistribution, while 'new' movements shifted focus to post-material values like identity and lifestyle.

2. Why the Distinction is Blurred in India:

(a) Economic and Identity Issues Overlap:
In India, economic exploitation is almost always intertwined with caste, tribal, or gender identity. A Dalit agricultural labourer is exploited both because of class (economic) and caste (identity). It is impossible to separate the two. The anti-caste movement is simultaneously a movement for economic rights and for dignity and identity.

(b) Tribal Movements:
Tribal movements demand land rights (economic) and also assert their distinct cultural identity and right to self-governance (identity). The same movement carries both dimensions simultaneously.

(c) Women's Movement:
The Women's Movement demands equal wages and property rights (economic) as well as freedom from patriarchal norms, recognition of women's identity, and bodily autonomy (identity/cultural). These cannot be neatly separated.

(d) Environmental Movements:
As discussed in Question 4, environmental movements like Chipko or Narmada Bachao Andolan involve ecological concerns (new), but also the economic survival of forest-dependent communities (old) and the assertion of tribal/local identity (new).

(e) Peasant and Farmer Movements:
Peasant movements historically demanded land redistribution (old/economic). New Farmer movements demand remunerative prices and state support (economic), but also assert the identity and dignity of the farming community.

3. India's Specific Historical Context:
India's social structure is shaped by the unique intersection of caste, class, gender, tribe, and religion. Unlike Western societies where class was the primary axis of inequality, in India multiple axes of inequality operate simultaneously. Therefore, any social movement in India tends to address several of these dimensions at once.

4. Scholars' Views:
Sociologists like T.K. Oommen have argued that in India, civil society and social movements are deeply embedded in questions of nationhood, ethnicity, and caste — making the Western categories of 'old' and 'new' only partially applicable.

Conclusion: While the distinction between old and new social movements is analytically useful, it does not map neatly onto the Indian reality. Indian social movements are characterised by the simultaneous presence of economic, identity, cultural, and political demands. This reflects the complex, multi-layered nature of inequality and oppression in Indian society.

Given / Context: Environmental movements are typically classified as 'new' social movements concerned with ecology and the natural environment. The question asks us to examine how they also incorporate economic and identity dimensions.

Concept Used: Social movements are rarely one-dimensional. Environmental movements in India, given the country's social structure, inevitably intersect with questions of livelihood (economic) and community identity (cultural/identity).

Discussion:

1. The Chipko Movement (1970s):

• Environmental Dimension: Villagers in the Garhwal Himalayas hugged trees to prevent them from being felled by commercial contractors. The movement sought to protect forests from deforestation.
• Economic Dimension: The forests were the primary source of livelihood for local communities — providing fodder, fuel, timber for agricultural tools, and non-timber forest produce. Deforestation directly threatened their economic survival.
• Identity Dimension: The movement asserted the rights of local hill communities (particularly women) over their natural resources against outside commercial interests. It was also an assertion of a distinct hill community identity and their traditional relationship with the forest.
• Ramchandra Guha has described Chipko as a 'social history of an environmental movement,' emphasising these multiple dimensions.

2. Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA):

• Environmental Dimension: The movement opposed the construction of large dams on the Narmada river, arguing that they would cause massive ecological damage — submergence of forests, disruption of river ecosystems.
• Economic Dimension: Hundreds of thousands of people — mostly tribal communities, Dalits, and small farmers — faced displacement without adequate rehabilitation. Their agricultural land, homes, and livelihoods were to be submerged.
• Identity Dimension: For tribal communities, the forests and rivers are not merely economic resources but are central to their cultural identity, spiritual life, and sense of belonging. Displacement meant not just economic loss but the destruction of their entire way of life and community identity.

3. Anti-Mining Movements:
Movements against mining in tribal areas (e.g., in Odisha, Jharkhand, Chhattisgarh) similarly combine:

• Environmental concerns (destruction of forests, pollution of water)
• Economic concerns (loss of land and livelihood)
• Identity concerns (assertion of tribal rights over ancestral land; resistance to cultural displacement)

4. Why This Overlap Occurs in India:
In India, the communities most directly dependent on natural resources — forests, rivers, land — are also the most marginalised: tribal communities, Dalits, small and marginal farmers. For them, the environment is not an abstract concern but the very basis of their economic survival and cultural identity. Therefore, when the environment is threatened, their economy and identity are simultaneously threatened.

5. Broader Significance:
This overlap challenges the Western notion of environmentalism as a 'post-material' concern of the affluent middle class. In India, environmentalism is often a movement of the poor and marginalised fighting for their survival — what scholars call the 'environmentalism of the poor.'

Conclusion: Environmental movements in India cannot be understood purely in ecological terms. They are simultaneously struggles for economic survival and for the recognition of community identity and rights. This multi-dimensional character makes them powerful but also complex social movements.

Given / Context: Both peasant movements and New Farmer's movements involve people engaged in agriculture, but they differ significantly in their social base, demands, ideology, and methods.

Concept Used: Social movements reflect the specific social and economic conditions of the groups involved. Changes in agrarian structure — particularly after the Green Revolution — gave rise to a new type of farmer movement distinct from the older peasant movements.

Distinction between Peasant Movements and New Farmer's Movements:

Additional Points:

1. Peasant Movements:
These were rooted in the extreme inequality of the pre-Green Revolution agrarian structure, where a small class of landlords (zamindars, jagirdars) controlled most of the land while the majority of the rural population were poor tenants, sharecroppers, or landless labourers. The demand was fundamentally for land — 'land to the tiller.'

2. New Farmer's Movements:
The Green Revolution (1960s–70s) transformed Indian agriculture. A new class of prosperous, market-oriented farmers emerged, particularly in Punjab, Haryana, Maharashtra, and Karnataka. These farmers were integrated into the market and were affected by input prices and output prices. Their movements were not about land redistribution but about getting a better deal from the market and the state.

Conclusion: Peasant movements were essentially class struggles of the rural poor against landlords and colonial/semi-feudal structures. New Farmer's movements, by contrast, are interest-group movements of commercially-oriented farmers seeking better economic terms from the state and the market. The shift from one to the other reflects the transformation of Indian agrarian structure over the 20th century.