CHAPTER- I

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF PEASANT MOVEMENT AS

A SOCIAL MOVEMENT

Conceptually, radical peasant movements are collective actions by group(s) of

individuals, which try to bring about radical social changes in many aspects of

society through conflict and opposition, rebellion and revolt, based on ideology

and have their own mobilisation process, leadership and strategy. However,

revolutionary potential of the peasantry has been undermined by some social

scientists, even as few Marxists did.

Theoretically, peasant movements fall in the domain of social movements, with

the ideology of class conflict as their basis. However, social movements are

distinguished from other related phenomena on the basis of following characteristics:

1) Ideology or normative aspect,

2) Means employed and collective mobilization,

3) Organisational aspect,i.e.leadership, strategy, etc.,and

4) Change -orientation.

The first three aspects are crucial for said categorization. Sociologists of social

movement agree on two basic features-collective mobilization, and orientation to

change. But, differences persist of other aspects, such as ideology, organisational

tenets, etc.

However, peasant movements are social movements insofar as they call for reform

or seek change in the relationship pattern between the peasant (who subsists on

agricultural operation through labour) and the landlords or governments(who are

owners) in both social and political terms. The peasant movements are goal-

oriented, have ideology, have their own mobilization mechanism and communication

pattern, leadership and strategy.

Karl Marx considered both European [Marx, 1971 :229-31] and Indian peasantry

[Marx, New York Daily Tribune, 25 June 1853] to be passive and apathetic to

9

injustice, and quiescent to oppression and exploitation. Marx asserted that the

peasantry were devoid of revolutionary power and dubbed them as 'sack of

potatoes' [Marx,1971:231]. But Mao [1954:21], Lenin[1970:502] and

Fanon[197 4:4 7] placed the peasants at the centre of the revolution, and accorded

them the revolutionary status. lrfan Habib [1963:333-38] argued that the history

of Indian jacqueries proved Marx's contemptuous characterisation of the Indian

peasant as historically false.

Barrington Moore Jr.[1967] argues that Indian peasantry lack revolutionary potential

due to their division along caste and communal lines, rural power alignment and

class alliances. Moore's thesis has been challenged by number of authors- K.

Gough [1974], D. N. Dhanagare [1983], R. Guha [1983], A.R.Desai [1979] and

others. These authors assert that the Indian rural society was rocked by peasant

protests and revolts not only during colonial rule, but even an independent India

is witnessing peasant rebellions and revolts.

Some Marxist authors have discussed the 'revolutionary potential of indian

peasantry'. Eric Wolf [1971] Hamza Alavi [1965 and 1973] have asserted the

revolutionary potential of 'middle peasantry' . Whereas, Pouchepadass [1980]

has identified 'dominant peasantry' as the progenitor of peasant movement in

India . These two contending theoretical positions will be discussed in detail

later. However, it is important to note here that these authors have analysed the

class character of Indian peasantry in its historical setting together with its ideology,

goals, strategy and contradiction within it. This will enrich our analytical tool to

understand social formation of agrarian Bihar and emergence of senas (private

armies).

Further, there is interesting debate among Marxist scholars on the different forms

of Mode of Production and its impact on the agrarian social formation. Some

10

authors have analysed even the disintegration of Feudal Mode of Production and

emergence of Capitalist Mode of Production, and its impact on contemporary

agrarian social formation. But none of them have applied this theoretical

perspective to analyse senas. However, this perspective will be applied, in the

ensuing chapters, in new context to understand the sena phenomenon.

However, the focus of this paper will be centred around sociological dimensions

of social movements, because the two contending theoretical schools- the Marxist

and the Functionalists; have generated divergent concepts, tools and methods to

understand peasant movements . But very briefly we will touch upon the other

two dimensions, namely the Historical study and the Psychological study of social

movements.

The historical study of social movements focuses upon the sequential presentation

of dates, events, etc. of the movements. structural and organisational dimensions,

together with cause and effect are being ignored by and large. However, the

historical study is an important aid to the study of sociological dimension of the

social movement.

The psychological study throws light upon the psycho-analytical factors and

personality types as causes of the social movements. According to this perspective,

an individual joins social movement due to frustration, repression and failure to

achieve desired goals. However, study of this kind ignores not only impulses to

change, but the sociological dimensions as well, e.g. social mobilization and social

bases. Further,individual(s) may be pathological, but not the group(s). Therefore,

methodologically it is wrong to "apply categories of this kind to social entities like

groups and movements as if they were individuals"[Heberle,R., 1951:109].

However, treatise of social movements is enriched by two discordant theoretical

perspectives-- Functionalist and Marxist. These two contending streams of thought

11

provide diametrically opposite view points on the question of 'social change'and

'consensus value'. According to the Functionalist School, change is a deviation

from dominant pattern. The more deviation from consensus value, the more

possibility of social change. But equilibrium is achieved through built-in mechanism

within the system, which revblves around - "socialization" and "mechanism of

social controi"[Parsons,T., 1951 : 481-82]. Although, Functionalists believe that

changes in the social system may give rise to social movement. But the movement

continues only till consensus is reached, albeit at a higher level, which Parsons

terms as 're-equilibrium process' [see, Parsons,T., 1951 : 520-35]. Fuctionalists

do not accept the view that system contains inherent contradiction which can be

removed through revolution or structural transformation. For Funcionalists, change

is directly proportional to internalisation of standard value patterns. Therefore,

Functionalist School lays great emphasis on change within the system, and

completely ignores the possibility of change of the system, as viewed by the

Marxists.

On the other hand, for Marxists changes occur due to contradiction in the

economic base of the system, i.e. between forces of production and relations of

production. Different classes have divergent interests and values within the social

system, which lead to the development of antagonistic class relationships.This

can be resolved through structural change. This change will take place when

working class (proletariat) will be transformed from class-in-itself to class-for-itself.

This theoretical perspective is directly opposite to the Functionalist position.

Although, conflict school accepts the 'conflict' element in the social system. For

example, Dahrendorf says that conflict is ubiquitous, because constraint is

ubiquitous[Dahrendorf,R., 1969: 167]., Even Coser supports this viewpoint. But

even conflict school does not probe deeper into the "basic causes" of change

and socirl movements. As for Marxists the principal reason for the rise of social

12

movements is located in the contradiction of the economic infrastructure of the

social system.

Furthermore, due to its over emphasis on 'equilibrium', Functionalists do not view

social change as progress through various historical phases. Whereas, Marxists

argue that society develops through resolving contradictions in different historical

epoch. Therefore, "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of

class struggles" [ Marx and Engels, Trans. by Moore, S., 1885 : 40]. For

Marx,"revolution is the driving force of history"[Marx and Engels, 1964:50].

According to Karl Marx, the asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes

of production are epoch making progress in the economic development of society

[Marx 1977 : 21]. The Marxists regard each form of historical development to be

in fluid movement and so they take into consideration its transient nature.

In short, we can say that the Marxist perspective provide greater penetrating

tools and indepth analytical power to understand peasant movements in general

and radical agrarian movements in particular, and subsequent rise of senas.

Because the Marxist framework not only locates basic causes of the radical

agrarian movements, but also analyses the movement in its historical setting._

With the help of dialectical concept one can indicate the direction of the movement.

This perspective also provides analytical tools to understand organisational

mechanism of the movement. Further, vital linkage of ideology with class interests

takes us closer to analyse the aim, nature, consequences and limitations of the

radical agrarian movement and its bearing on senas. We will have an occasion

later in this chapter to discuss the above theoretical framework in detail.

I have taken here the help of the basic concepts of the Structural Marxists--

Aithusser, Poulantzas and Gramsci- to analyse the rise and growth of the Maoist

movement in central Bihar and its impact on the Sena phenomenon. The central

13

theme of this research paper starts with the hypothesis that landed gentry1 of

rural Bihar organised Senas to maintain their hegemonic position, which was

threatened by the revolutionary upsurge in the countryside. According to Gramsci,

"a crisis of authority is precisely the crisis of hegemony ... "[Gramsci, A., 1971 :

210]. The author goes on to argue that, "when hegemonic position of the ruling

class is threatened, it organises and re-organises to defeat the threat..." [Ibid. :

210-11]. However, Marxist school maintains that social movement starts due to

conflicting class interest in society, which in turn lead to contradiction in the

infrastructure. Contradiction in the mode of production is the principal contradiction.

But, the principal contradiction alone is not sufficient to induce a 'revolutionary

upsurge'. To do so, the principal contradiction must act in conjunction with the

dominant contradictions in the superstructure at that time [Aithusser, L., 1971 :

199-1 00]. Thus, Althusser does not link the superstructure to infrastructure in

simple manner, which is a marked departure from the theoretical position of the

Vulgar Marxists [for detail see, Ibid. : 101-7]. According to the author, elements

of superstructure have relative autonomy with their specific effectivity [Ibid. : 116].

Althusser's theoretical position brings us closer not only to understand the Sena

phenomenon in central Bihar, where caste and class are inter-linked and

mobilization of Senas has a distinct caste-class nexus, but also the structural

limitations of the Maoist movement in the region being exposed. Poulantzas"

theoretical concepts is that the ruling class is not homogeneous and has competing

interests, helps us to analyse as to why most of the Senas of the landed gentry

are mobilised, primarily, on the caste line. The author goes on to argue that

"state is relatively autonomous" [Poulantzas, N., 1972 : 279]. This helps us to

understand the limitations of Senas of the landed gentry, and nature of the state.

Further, Poulantzas' theoretical position highlights contradiction between short-

term and long-term economic interests and objective manipulation by various

classes and the state. This is an added theoretical tool to understand the

1. Although, originally this term came from French Jacquerie in 1357-58, but here the term is used for those who own large land holding and belong to dominant caste(s) of the area.

14

movement and rise of Senas. The above key concepts will be discussed in

detail, later in this chapter

As stated earlier, peasant movement is a distinct category of social movements.

Therefore, discussion of conceptual issues of social movements is important for

deeper understanding of the peasant movements.

Social Movements: Conceptual Dimensions

Conventionally, the study of social movements has been the domain of history

and political science. Till 1930 the sociological frame of movements has been

ignored by and large [Davis, J., 1930]. It is this field which attracted sociologists

and influenced this existing stock of knowledge. The famous French Revolution

and its aftermath, have inspired social and political philosophers from Comte,

Durkheim, Weber to Marx, from Von Stein, Sombart to Michels and Mosca.

According to Nisbet, all the great sociologists of 19th century were influenced by

the impact of French Revolution upon European society [Nisbet, R., 1966:32]. But

not much attention was paid to the meaning of the ideas of the people who made

up the movement, nor to the social structure of these groups, nor to the other

problems of sociological relevance [Heberle, R., 1951 :12]. Hence, sociological

perspective of the movements were absent by and large.

Sociologists being late entrants to this field were bound to be influenced by the

existing stock of knowledge and style of intellectual craftanship. Whereas historical

studies enrich the understanding of the present, and political studies of the

movements have helped us to study socio-economic structure, social processes

and their inter-relationships [Shah , G., 1990:9]. However, most of the great

philosophers and sociologists from Marx, Weber to Durkheim and Tocqueville of

19th century paid due attention to explain modern European social structures and

processes of change [Skocpol, T., ( ed. ), 1984:2]. Social movements logically belong

15

to the province of 'social change'2 . According to M.S.A.Rao,"social movements

logically belong to the area of processes having connections with structure and

change" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:1X]. According to Gusfield, "social movement is a

collective actions to bring about change" [Gusfield, J. R., 1970:1]. Earlier sociologists,

in the absence of appropriate sociological techniques and relevant frameworks,

viewed social movements as sporadic and transient in nature. So they did

not make any serious intellectual endeavour. Later they vanished from the scene

without leaving any great mark on 'the historical course of social change' [Wilson,

J., 1973:5].

The post-second World War era shattered many myths and raised many significant

questions. The threat of the Nazism and Facism, the glorious triumph of Bolshevik

Revolution brought the study of social movements to the level of more scientific

sociological analysis. Later sociologists realise that social movements provide a

persistent and effective impetus for social change through out history. which has

enough sociological frame of reference to be studied more scientifically,. According

to Wilson, "acting as a catalyst of political revolution, social movements have

wrought momentous changes all over the world"' [Wilson, J., 1973 : 5]. Today

study of social movements has distinct sociological flavour, precisely because of

its different theoretical frame of interpretation and explanation, objective and subject

matter.

1. Conceptual Issues

Before full length sociological analysis, it is important to deal with the 'conceptual

problems in the study of social movements' which are as follows :

2. This view is supported by Paul Wilkinson, Turner and Killian as well. According to Wilkinson, "the study of social movements is essentially a study of social change" [Wilkinson, P., 1971 : 29]. Killian says, "social movements is one of the most important ways through which social change is manifested" (Quoted in Anthony Oberschall, 1973:15]

16

i) Definition and typology,

ii) Differences from other related phenomena, such as trend, public

opinion, voluntary association, mobs, riots, political parties, etc., and

iii) Organisation and leadership, internal-dynamics, routinization, and

social consequences.

Following discussion will revolve around the above aspects.

1.1. Definition

social movements have. been defined in various ways following one or the

other criteria. According to M.S.A.Rao, "social movement is an organised

attempt on the part of a section of society to bring about either partial or

total change in society through collective mobilization based on ideology''

[Rao, M.S.A., 1978:2]. Paul Wilkinson has put it more succinctly, "social

movement is a deliberate, collective endeavour to promote change, having

atleast a minimal degree of organisation and founded upon the normative

commitment and active participation of followers or members" [Wilkinson,

P., 1971 : 104]. In this definition the problem is with 'minimum degree of

organisation'. It is difficult to say, precisely, what this 'minimum degree' is.

Bruce Cameron put it more comprehensively, "a social movement occurs

when a fairly large number of people band together in order to alter or

supplant some portion of the existing culture or social order'' [Cameron,

B., 1966 : 7]. Difficulty here is with the term 'large number' to which no

maximum or minimum limit is specified.

Four aspects of social movements have been generally stressed :

i) Ideology or normative aspect which binds its members together [Heberle, R., 1951 : 13].

17

ii) Collective mobilization and means employed.

iii) Organisational structure, i.e. recruitment, commitment and leadership, and

iv) Orientation to change, i.e. movement as an instrument of social change. The first three aspects distinguish social movements from other related phenomena.

Heberle emphasises on the integrative aspect of the ideological structure of the.

movement, which he defines as the 'constitutive values' [Heberle, R., 1968: 13].

According to Heberle, "it is the conscious volition of individuals acting collectively

that brings about the embodiment of ideologies in social · movements' [Heberle,

R., 1951:27]. Stressing on the same aspect Gusfield says, "social movements

are socially shared activities and belief directed towards the demand for change

in some aspect of the social order'' [Gusfield, J.R., 1970:2].

On the other hand, Paul Wilson focuses upon the second aspect, i.e. means

employed as an instrument of change. He says,"Social movement as a conscious

collective, organised attempt to bring about or resists large-scale change in the

social order by non-institutionalised means" [Wilson, J., 1973:8]. However, definition

of social movement based on either institutionalised or non-institutionalised means

is misleading.

Gerlach and Hine stress on the organisational character and recruitment aspects

of the movement [Gerlach and Hine, 1970: xiv].

Wendell King, Herbert Blumer, Turner and Killian, etc., lay emphasis on the fourth

aspect. According to Wendell King, social movement can be defined as "a group

venturing beyond a local community, or a single event and involving a systematic

effort to insurgent changes"[King, W., 1956:27]. Blumer defines social movements

as "collective enterprises to establish a new order of life" [Blumer, H., 1951:1 ].

Turner and Killian say, "social movement is a collectivity which acts with some

18

continuity, to promote or resist a change in the society or group of which it

is a party" [Turner and Killian, 1957: 308].

However, there is considerable agreement among sociologists of social

movements on two basic features- collective mobilization and change-

orientation; but they differ on other aspects, such as ideology, organisation

and nature of consequences; while defining social movement.

1.2 Distinctions

1.2.1 Movement and Trends

As stated earlier, three characteristics of social movement- namely,ideology,

means employed, and organisational structure; distinguish it from other related

phenomena. Wilson visualises social movement as "a conscious, collective,

organised attempt to bring about or resist large-scale change in the social

order by non-institutionalised means" [Wilson,J., 1973:8]. It is in this sense,

according to Wilson, social movement is different from other reflacted

phenomena. Gusfield says, while social movements possess both 'structure'

and 'sentiment', trends do not have these characteristics [ Gusfield,

J. R., 1970:8]. According to Heberle, group identity, feeling of solidarity and

group consciousness among members of social movement, set apart the

social movements from unconscious trends and tendencies [Heberle,

R., 1968:8-9]. Where as movements are integrated through its 'constitutive

values' [lbid.:13], trends are un-coordinated actions of many individuals [Ibid.:

439-44]. Robert Park, P. Selznick, Le Bon, Gabriel Tarde, Burke and L..

Broom bracketed social movements and other forms of collective behaviour,

such as crowds, riots, mobs, etc., in one category. According to them,

"collective behaviour is the study of relatively unstructured social situations

19

and their products such as crowds, riots, rumours, public opinion, fads and

social movements" [quoted in Oberschall, A., 1973: 15]. But, Michelet, Rude,

John Wilson, and Niel Smelser criticised the characterisation of all collectivities

as irrational behaviour and clubbed them together.

Following are some of the important differences between social movements

and other forms of collective behaviour, such as crowd ( we may also include

other related phenomena}:

i) Social movement has group identity, where as crowd does not possess this feature.

ii) Crowd is not organised and does not have structure, whereas social movements are organised collectivities [Wilson, J., 1973 : 8].

iii) Crowd exists relatively for a short period of time and are acephalous kind.

iv) Social movement unlike crowd behaviour rejects certain established beliefs and practices and brings about change in the existing authority and belief [Gusfield, J.R., 1970 : 6], and

v) Social movements are conscious, previsioned attempts to bring about change [Wilson, J., 1973 : 11 ].

Thus, the distinctive features of a social movement are ideology, organisation,

leadership, social conflict, control and change, which are absent in other

forms of collective behaviour.

1.2.2 Movement and Political Party

According to Wilson, where as social movements operate through non-

institutionalised means, Political Parties function through institutionalised

means [Wilson, J., 1973: 9-1 0]. M.S.A. Rao says, "When a movement with a

20

THESIS 333.315412 P8863 Ra

1111111111111111111111111 TH6164

defined ideology becomes a well established Political Party, it ceases to be

a movement" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978: 3]. But situation becomes complicated

when he says that due to internal dynamics party may lead to splinter

movements [lbid.:3]. Gusfield believes that movements may be organised,

"yet many movements are not organisations" [Gusfield, J.R., 1970:6]. The

author goes on to say that, certain degree of organisation is necessary for

movements. The scenario becomes puzzling. According to Heberle,

"apparently no clear- cut distinction between a movement and a party can

be made by this method of searching for a single distinguishing trait'' [Heberle,

R., 1968: 1 0]. Thus, the situation is complicated and puzzling.

However, for analytical purpose a movement can be distinguished as a

'process', and a political party as a 'structure' [Wilson, J., 1973: 57-58].

Whereas movement is a process directed towards change in organisation or

structure, political party is a structure to achieve monopoly of coercive power

and control over governance and administration.The above distinction is for

conceptual clarity, empirically both are two faces of the same coin.

1.3 Typification of Social Movements

Social movements have been classified by using one or another criteria-

namely, locus, objectives or the quality of change, scale and spatial spread,

dominant issues of interests, ideology, participants, etc. M.S.A. Rao finds

ideology and nature of consequences as critical criteria in defining nature

and scope of movement. He says, "while locus provides the substantive

aspect, the criteria of ideology and consequences provide the analytical foci

of a movement" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:3]. Chalmers Johnson classifies

movements as: i) Jacquerie, ii) Millinearism Rebellion, iii) Anarchist Rebellion,

iv) Militarised Mass Insurrection, v) Communist Revolution, and vi) Coup d'etat

\\1 \)It..\~ II ''1 ~ ,__;-: N ~tJ

[Johnson, C., 1964: 28]. Turner and Killian proposed three types of movements

in their text book Collective behaviour [1957: 327-29]: i) Value-oriented,, ii)

Power-oriented, and iii) Participation-oriented - this further sub-divided into

three types: i) Passive Reform Movements, ii) Personal Status Movements,

and iii) Limited Personal Movements. Wilson added four more typology

[Wilson, J., 1973 : 23]:

i) Transformative, ii) Reformative, iii) Redemptive, and iv) Alternative.

Gusfield typologies movements as:

i) Protest, ii) Withdrawal, and iii) Revolution [Gusfield, J.R., 1970: 85]. Taking

'scope' as variable, Smelser classifies two types:

i) Value-oriented, ii) Norm-oriented. T.K. Oommen's classification of social

movements is based on locality, language, issues, social categories and

sects [see, Oommen, T.K., 1977: 14-37]. However, all the above

typologies do not explain the 'dynamics' of the movements which undergo

change in the course of time.

Hence, the literature of social movements are full of typologies. These

range from purely descriptive, such as reactionary, utopian, escapist, to

those which have been deduced from a body of theory. However, there is

no single criterion for the classification of social movements and typologies

are not mutually exclusive. M.S.A. Rao goes one step ahead when he says

that any classification of movement is bound to remain inadequate, because

movement acquires new features in the course of its development and so

any classification can only be a relative to a particular phase in its

development [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:3]. Hence, while dealing with this aspect of

social movements we should be conscious about the complexities of the

situation and the limitations of typologies.

22

1.4 Collective Mobilization, Organisation and Leadership

We have stated earlier that minimum level of organisation is essential for

any social movement. According to M.S.A. Rao, "Social movements tend to

develop a loose federal structure with central and regional associations being

held together by relationships of local autonomy and external links based on

common interests" [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:9]. Gerlach and Hine also highlight

the organisational structure of social movement. He says, " a social movement

is usually a polycephalous organisation composed of units recticulated by

various personal, structural and ideological ties" [Gerlach and Hine, 1970:

xvii]. A similar view is expressed by John Wilson when he says, " because

. of its longer time span, social movements are much more likely to evolve a

normative structure [Wilson, J., 1973:7]. According to Ghanshyam Shah, "a

social movement must evince a minimal degree of organisation, though this

may range from a loose, informal or partial level of organisation to the highly

institutionalised and bureaucratised movement and the corporate group"

[Shah,G., 1990: 17].

But the controversy arises on the questions, whether social movement begins

with an organistion or it develops in the course of the movement. If social

movement starts with an organistional structure, then protests and agitations

may be excluded from the domain of movement because they may not have

an organisation to begin with [see, Shah, G., 1990:19]. The problem with

above definitions is that they have 'heuristic value'.

However, the essentiality of an organisation is highlighted not only by

sociologists but its necessity is also being felt by the protagonists of the

movement themselves.3 Further, collective mobilization, which is a crucial

3. See, V.I. Lenin, "One Step Forward Two Steps Back", in selected works, Vol. I, 1970, pp. 299-446. Also Karl Marx and F. Engels, "Address of the Central Communist League", in Selected Works, Vol.1, 1969, pp. 181-2

23

part of a movement, is connected with ideology, leadership and organisation.

Process of collective mobilization is stratified and based on division of labour.

While the talented and more skilled members formulate the ideology and

spread the message, those who are comparatively less skilled are recruited

as volunteers. Leadership, in the process of collective mobilization, exploits

caste, kin, traditional institutional framework, and linguistic ties for the

recruitment purpose. Popular idioms and symbols are also used together

with creating new units of organisation [Rao, M.S.A., 1978:8-9]. According

to Wilson, organisations are important because they perform the vital function

of Adaptation, Integration, and Goal Attainment. 'Adaptation' performs the

function of recruitment and commitment among its members. This process

is "generated by an act or an experience which seperates a convert in some

significant way from the established order, identifies him with a new set of

values and commits him to change patterns of behaviour'' [Gerlach and Hine,

1970:xvii].

'Integration' among rank-and-file is an important aspect for the sustenance

of any movement. Organisation performs this function through number of

social processes, such as "an administrative machinery in which jobs are co-

ordinated, mailing lists through which communications pass, and arrangements

of rewards and punishments by means of which discipline is administered"

[Wilson, J., 1973: 266] .. These functions may also be performed 'latently' by

rituals, mass meetings, propagandas, magazines,etc. [Ibid.].

'Goal attainment' through collective action is the raison d' etre of social

movements [Ibid.: 194]. However, the way goods and services are mobilised

for the attainment of goals is an important aspect of social movement and

leadership.

24

Traditionally, there an~ two approaches to study the leadership in social

movements:

i) Functional role analysis, and

ii) On the basis of legitimacy. On the basis of latter criterion Max Weber classified three types of leadership: i) Charismatic, ii) Traditional, and iii) Legal rational [Weber, M., 1964:328].

Following Dawson and Gettys, Blumer distinguishes four types of leaders depending upon various stages of movement -

i) Agitators, ii) Prophet, iii) Statesman, and

iv) Administrator [quoted in Wilson, J., 1973:195]. In subsequent study of

social movements Heberle finds two kind of leadership: i) Charismatic,

and

ii) Institutional [Heberle,R., 1951 :287].

According to Wilson, goal attainment is connected with the process of

establishment of pattern of and support for leadership, institutionalisation

of decision-making structure and conflict resolving mechanisms, and

allocation of responsibilities, and demarcation of area of operation [Wilson,

J., 1973: 194]. When the organisation of a movement gets formalised

and rigid, and it accumulates property, there is a possibility of schism to

develop and splits to occur. Three types of rifts might develop in the

course of a movement - i) personal rivalries, ii) divergent ideological

differences, and iii) complementary ideological differences, which

generally lead to splinter movements [Rao, M.S.A., 1978: 9-1 0].

Furthermore, social movement is prone to routinization. For example, a

protest movement starts with a radical ideology and rejects existing

institutions, but later develops its own institutionalised arrangements to

enforce a code of conduct [Ibid.: 1 0].

25

1.5 Social Consequences

Nature of social changes brought about by social movements is Sine qua

non for any meaningful understanding of social movements. According to

P.N. Mukherji, the relationship between social movement and social change

(or resistance to change) is incontrovertible.The author has propounded the

following four premises to support his above view [see, Mukherji, P.N., 1977:

38]:

i) Social movements lead to social change (can be both changed-promoting or change-resisting) and related to social structure.

ii) Social movements emerge out of structural conditions and are product of social structure.

iii) Social movements have their own structure and function related to their goals, and

iv) Social movements influence social structure.

In order to understand social movement, it is important to understand the

conceptual problem related to social change. However, nature of changes

brought about by a social movement is a crucial factor for the classification

of movements.Social changes can be classified, broadly, into two categories:

i) Changes in the position of the concerned section of a movement, and

ii) Their impact on the wider society, this further can be sub-divided into two groups-

a) Partial or total changes in the structure, and

b) Marginal changes to maintain the Status quo.

This distinction is similar to Smelser's distinction between 'Value' and

'Norm'oriented movements"[see, Smelser, N.J.,1962: 10-13].

26

Generally, marginal changes type of movements are launched by the

establishment in reaction to change-oriented movements, in order to

maintain their position. In contrast, structural change movements originate

among the deprived sections of society and directed towards change in

values, norms and structure of positional arrangements. M.S.A. Rao

visualises three levels of structural change-

i) Reform, ii) Transformative, and iii) Revolution [Rao, M.S.A., 1978: 12].

Reform movements bring about partial changes in the social system. In

contrast, the revolutionary movements are directed towards radical

changes in the totality of social and cultural systems. These changes

are sudden and guided by ideology, class conflict and political party. In

between these two streams fall transformative movements. It brings

about middle level structural changes. The element of class conflict is

sharper here than in reform movement, but is different from nature of

class conflict in revolutionary movement. While class conflict in

revolutionary movement is based on Marxist ideology and class struggle,

conflict in transformative movement is between ethnic groups, although

based on class struggle and their own variety of ideology. P.N. Mukherji

proposed three types of social; changes related to social systems :

i) Accumulative, ii) Alternative, and iii) Transformative [Mukherji,

P.N., 1977:43]. Change that takes place within the given structure(s)

are accumulative. Changes that occur due to elimination of or emergence

of additional structure(s) are alternative in nature. Finally, changes

occuring due to replacement of existing structure(s) by alternative

structure(s) are transformative [emphasis mine]. Ghanshyam Shah

classifies movements as- i) Revolt, ii) Rebellion, iii) Reform, and iv)

Revolution, to bring about changes in the political system [Shah, G., 1977:

63-64]. Reform movements do not challenge the political system per se

but attempt to bring about changes in the relations between parts of the

27

system. A revolt challenges the political authority, aimed at overthrowing

the government. Rebellion is an attack on existing authority without any

intention of seizing state power. In revolution, an organised struggle is

launched by a section of society in order to overthrow not only the

establised system, but also to replace it by an alternative social order.

T.K. Oommen typologies movements into-

i) Charismatic, ii) Ideological, and iii) Organisational. His typology is

related to the process of movement crystallization, the life style and the

phases of social movements. He argues, "social movements provide

the stage for confluence between the old and new values and,

structures" [Oommen, T.K., 1977:16].

However, structural change movements can be classified into two broader

categories -- movements aimed at i) Change within the social system,

and ii) Change of the social system [emphasis added]. Now, let us

dwell upon the dominant theoretical frameworks for the study of social

movements.

2. The Dimensions For The Study Of Social Movements

Broadly speaking, there are three dimensions in the study of social

movements:

i) The sequential study, also termed as historical study,

. ii) The Psychological study, and

iii) The Sociological study.

However, there is no water-tight compartmentalisation, neither the above

categories are mutually exclusive nor exhaustive. There is a considerable

degree of overlapping because modern social scientific approach is largely

28

inter-disciplinary. For example, even in sociological study of social movement,

considerable attention is paid in sequential growth of the movement, and the

motivational and psychological orientation of activists and leaders. But, the

purpose of the above categorisation is to highlight the Sociological matrices

of social movements. However, the prime concern of this paper is to study

the sociological dimensions of social movements, because: 1) Sociologists

of social movements have generally focused upon either the Functionalist or

the Marxist framework, and 2) Debate between the Functionalist and the

Marxist perspective have produced very interesting alternatives in the

sociological study of social movements. But very briefly, we will discuss the

other two dimensions as well.

2.1 The Historical Study Of Social Movements

Treatise of social movements are full of sequential studies. Intact,

majority of the study of social movements are of this nature. Focus of

these studies are on the sequential presentation of dates, events and

details of the movements. Much attention is not paid to the cause and

effect, structure and organisation of social movements. In short,

interpretative aspects of the movements are ignored,by and large.

However, historical study of social movement is an important aid in the

study of the sociological perspective. Sequential studies take into account

the genesis, conducive situation, ideology and opposition and alliance

of the movement [for detail see, Pridham, G., 1973, also Shirer, W.,

1960]. These studies focus more either on political history or individual

history of the movement [Kirkpatrick, 1., 1964]. Historical and sociological i:

study of social movements differ in terms of emphasis. Whereas

sequential study's emphasis is on structural conditions leading to a

movement. Sociologists stress more on short-term historical changes

29

in the socio-economic structures that lead to social movement. Secondly,

they also lay stress on organisational structure, leadership, ideology

and motivational factors which lead to social movement. However, there

is nothing inherently sociological or historical in the study of social

movement. The study of movement takes into account both historical

and sociological perspectives [Mukherjee, R., in Sharma H.P. and Gough,

K., 1973: 399-418].

2. 2 The Psychological Study Of Social Movements

Studies of this sort focus upon the motivational factors and personality

make up of the partisans of a social movement. The purpose is to

show that certain people, due to their personality type or because of

other psycho-analytical reasons (repression and failure) start and join

social movements. The sociological perspectives, such as social

mobilization and social bases of the movement, are not adequately

emphasised. According to Edward Spranger, there are political, social,

economic, aesthetic and religious personality types. The political

personality type is more attracted towards power and are the arch

inspirator of social movements [Heberle, R., 1968: 1 02"3]. H. Lasswell

relates motivational factors for political activism to childhood

repression and adolescent paranoia [Lasswell, H., 1960]. According

to W. Allport and H.T. Moore, atypical opinions are actuated by

partially repressed emotional desires [McCormack, T., in Mclaughlin,

B., (ed.), 1969: 77). In the study of McCarthy movement, R. Hofstadter

says, "the exponents of this movement have little in common with the

temperate and compromising spirit of true conservatism.... Their

political reactions express rather a profound if largely unconscious hatred

of our society and its ways" [Hofstadter, R., in Bell, D., (ed.), 1964:76].

30

According to Elmer Davis, "those who attracted to McCarthyism were

inspired by a widespread feeling of fear and frustration in the face of

the growing power of international Communism" [Davis, E., 1954: 35-

36].

Hence, the psychological study of social movement throws light more

on frustration and repression born out of failure to achieve desired goals

which lead to aggression. When this aggressiveness is not released, it

motivates to participate in social movements. However, studies of this

kind ignore impulses to change. According to Wilson, psycho-analytical

study of social movement "obscures, and on occasion totally conceals

impulses to change which emanate from within society itself. [Wilson,

J., 1973: 54]. But study of this kind has its own merits. According to

Heberle, "it may be interesting to enquire to what extent are neurotic

and psychopathic individuals more frequently found in social movements

than among the non-participating population" [Heberle, R., 1951: 1 03].

But, psychopathological individuals are minority in social movements,

even in the Nazi movement [Ibid.: 1 09]. Furthermore, individuals can

be but groups may not be pathological and hence methodologically it is

incorrect to "apply categories of this kind to social entities like groups

and movements as if they were individuals" [Ibid.: 1 09].

According to Mclaughlin, psychological study of social movements fails

to provide the total explanation of the origin of such movements

[l\t1claughlin,B., (ed.},1969: 1 09]. Johnson argues, "what ever the

psychological roots of their mobilization (family, ·society or born) ...

whether or not pressures (dysfunction) appear in society, economic

depression, national humiliation ... blocked channels of social mobility -

all these have conditioned ... revolutions" [Johnson, C., 1964: 26].

31

all these have conditioned ... revolutions" [Johnson, C., 1964: 26].

. Hence, psychological study emphasises on "who are the

Revolutionaries?",rather than "what causes revolutions in a social

system"? [Ibid.: 23].

To this end, we may say that study of this type ignores the social

bases of the social movement.

2.3 Sociological Studies Of Social Movement

Sociological treatise of social movements is enriched by two discordant

theoretical perspectives - Functionalist and Marxian. These two

contending theoretical frameworks advance divergent tools, concepts,

hypotheses, methods, arguments and presentations for the study of

social movements. Above perspectives will be discussed one by one.

2.3.1 The Functionalist Framework

Functionalism is not a single stream of thought. It represents a variety

of approaches and philosophical orientations, such as organic and

mechanical functionalism, structural functionalists and conflict theorists.

But above streams of thought share common concern and perspective.

This phenomenon distinguishes functionalism from Marxian framework.

One of the most important theoretical concern of this school is to

maintain order and function of the social system. Marxists and

Functionalists differ radically on the question of 'social change'.

According to K. Davis [1970] survival of any human society depends

upon conformity to its normative order.The author says,"the normative

order makes the factual order of human society possible" [Davis, K.,

32

1970: 53]. The master of structural- functional school, Talcott Parsons

views social system as a mode of organisation of action. This action is

based on individuals patterned interactive relationship which is governed

by common standard norms. Parsons terms it as "standard of value

orientation" [Parsons, T., 1951: 13] :

Cognative, Appreciative and Moral standards.

General consensus prevails among functionalists on the question of

'social equilibrium' .. 4 Talcott Parsons argues that social system does

undergo an ordertyS process of developmental change [Parsons, T., ·

op. cit.: 27].The author goes on to argue that social equilibrium is

achieved through institutionalisation process. This process is mediated

through cultural patterns which produce patterns of value - orientation

[Ibid.: 491 ]. For Alvin W. Gouldner, Parsons' main concern is to show

the way in which the social system preserves itself. Gouldner argues

that Parsons is concerned with, "the way social systems are endowed

with self- maintaining elements, with stablising characteristics internal

to the system".6 [Gouldner, A.W., 1971: 231]. Further, motivational '

process within the system is built to maintain equilibrium [emphasis

mine]. This process revolves around- "socialisation" and "mechanisms

of social control"7 [Parsons, T., op. cit.: 481-82].

4. See, I.L. Harowitz, "Consensus, Conflict and Cooperation", in N.J. Demeraeh Ill and A.A. Peterson, ed., 1967 System Change and Conflict, Free Press, New York, p. 267, also Talcott Parsons, 1951, op. cit., p. 490-491.

5. Here an 'orderly process' is contrasted with the disintegration of a system

6. See also, Talcott Parsons, 1975, Essays in Sociological Thought, Light and Life Publication, New Delhi, p. 230

7. See also, Talcott Parsons and E. Shils, ed., 1962, Towards a General Theory of Action, Harper and Row, New York, p. 227

33

Marxian theory offers a radical alternative to functionalists view on 'social

change'. Functionalists are being criticised because of their

overemphasis on social order. According to Gouldner, "the deepest

expression of functionalist's conservatism is in its facination with the

problem of social order" [Gouldner, A.W., 1971: 251]. For Talcott

Parsons, "a general theory of the process of change of social systems

is not possible in the present state of knowledge" [Parsons, T., 1951:

486].The author professes that to acquire such a theory will require a

millennium for social sCience. This will not come in our times and most

probably never [Ibid.: 534]. Although, he admits that society is dynamic

and does talk about 'moving equilibrium' [Ibid.: 503-5]. Functionalists

view change as a deviation from the established pattern due to

dysfunctions, tensions, and deviance8 . These variations either 'resolve

themselves' [Ibid.], or the chronic states of tensions come to be

'institutionalised and more or less stablised' through built-in mechanisms

of adjustment and control [Parsons, T., 1951 :496].

As stated earlier, functionalists view change as a deviation from dominant

pattern. For them, change is directly proportional to the internalisation

of standard value patterns [emphasis mine]. The more the deviation

from consensus value patterns, the higher the probability of change in

the social system. Further, these fissiparous tendencies of changes are

being institutionalised through cultural patterns which produce patterns

of value-orientation [Ibid.: 491-92, also Berghe, 1967: 295]. Changes

in the social system may lead to social movement. But movement

continues till consensus is reached, of course, at a higher level, which

Parsons terms as 're-equilibrium processes' [Parsons, T., op. ,cit.: 520-

35].

8. For details see, Pierre L. Van den Berg he, "Dialectics and Functionalism", in Demerath and Peterson, ed., 1967 op. cit., p. 295.

34

Static functionalist model of Parsons et. a/. is criticised by conflict theorists

and dynamic functionalists [Dahrendorf, R., 1969, also Coser, L.A., 1956],

apart from Marxian school. Static functionalist model is criticised on

two points - "change' and 'conflict'. According to Obserchall,

protagonists of static model have not realised that, "the truly dynamic

elements of conflict and collective behaviour occur due to the interaction

between mobilisation and control process" [Obserchaii,A., 1973: 23].The

author goes on to argue that Parsons does not comprehend mobilisation

and control as the two faces of the same coin [Ibid.: 21]. Dahrendorf

and Coser are critical on the notion of stable social equilibrium.

Dahrendorf agrues that as conflict generates change, so constraint

generates conflict. · He assumes that conflict is ubiquitous, since

constraint is ubiquitous whenever human beings set up social

organisations which are 'imperatively coordinated associations' rather

than social systems [Dahrendorf, R., 1969: 167, 206-218]. Coser also ·--put forward a number of propositions concerning the intensity and irrip~ct of conflict [Coser, L. A., 1956: 151- 56]. But, the essential similarity

between Parsonian et. a/. functionalism and conflict school is on the

question of 'basic causes' of conflict. Obserchall observes that none of

these functionalists try to find out the basic causes of conflict, but see

"how the initial causes of strains are mediated and filtered through

intervening social structures" [Obserchall, A., 1973: 23]. Dahrendorf and

Coser view conflict as a healthy and beneficial sign for social system in

certain cases. Furthermore, even conflict school argues that conflict,

revolution, or movement can not change the social system. [see,

Gusfield, J.R.,1970: 8, and Heberle, R.,1968: 458]. On this count

functionalists and Marxian theorists have maintained diametrically

opposite positions.

35

2.3.2 Structural Strain Theory

According to Functionalists following are five causes of social strain

which may lead to social movements [Gupta, D., 1982: 17]:

i) Structural Weaknesses - eco-political in nature.

ii) Rise of new power group.

iii) lncompatability of the existing system with new emerging

ideas.

iv) Maladjustments and disintegration; and

v) Relative deprivation.

Theory of relative deprivation developed by American scholar T.R. Gurr

[1970] is an important landmark in the study of agitations and mass

movements.

2.3.2.1 Relative Deprivation

The term was coined by Stouffer et. a/. [1949: 125] and elaborated

valuably fir~t by R.K. Merton,9 and then by W.G. Runciman,10 to denote

feelings of deprivation relative to others and not conditions of deprivation

relative to others [emphasis mine]. There is consensus among

sociologists that deprivation is a relative concept. According to Merton,

sociologists lay more stress on the term "relative" than on "deprivation"

[Merton, R.K., 1972: 288-90]. Further, existential conditions in

themselves are not sufficient to produce the sense of deprivation

9. R.K. Merton has used the concept of relative deprivation with the theory of reference group behaviour in the study of 'The american Soldier' as one of the significant conceptual and interpreative tool. See R.K. Merton 1972, Social Theory and Social Structure, Amerind Publications, New Delhi, pp. 281-88

10. Runciman's work is relevant in this context. His work not only show the practical relevance of the concept to contemporary problems, but also it is significant to the analysis of political behaviour. See W.G. Runciman, 1966, Relative Deprivation and Social Justice : A Study of

36

[Oommen, T.K., 1984: 140]. It is the ability to perceive deprivation that

matters. Empirical evidences show that people at the lowest level feel

less deprived than the people of middle level [see, Runciman, W.G.,

1966:3]. Generally, middle level and well-to-do peasants are most vocal

and vanguards of agrarian movements [see, Alavi, H., 1965: 241-77

and 1973: 23-62 and Wolf, E.,1971. Also, Pouchepadass,J., 1980:

136-55].

W.G. Runciman argues that in order to describe and explain relative

deprivation "reference group" adopted by individuals should be taken

into consideration [Runciman, W.G., 1966: 9-35]. Richard Sease in the

study of English and Swedish manual workers found that frequency of

relative deprivation and resentment were greater among the Swedish

workers than among the English [Sease, R., in Wedderburn, D., (ed .. ),

1974: 197-208]. This was because Swedish workers adopted more

broad-based comparative reference groups, which included both non-

manual and manual occupations, than their English counterparts. Thus,

we find that relative deprivation is directly proportional to the adopted

reference groups, preception and attitudes of resentments. According

to unciman, relative deprivation may vary in "magnitude, frequency or

degree". These three may not coincide. Therefore, there are three

dimensions of relative deprivation [Runciman, W.G., 1966:1 0]:

i) Magnitude - subjectivity perceived reality and the reality being expresse via the more objectified institutions of society,

ii) Frequency- number of individuals who actually feel deprived under similar conditions, and

iii) Degree - it is the intensity with which it is felt.

37

Therefore, contrary to the general notion that perception of absolute

deprivation leads to movements; it has been found that movements

start at the time of rising opportunity and prosperity. Revolutionary

movements in eighteenth century France and twentieth century Russia

support this point. These movements have shown that frequency,

magnitude and intensity of discontent were relatively rare in stable

hardship. This rose with the increasing opportunity [Runciman, W.G.,

1966: 19-21]. In the study of French Revolution, Tocqueville observed

that popular discontent was highest in those parts of France which

experienced most improvement. The author argues that during the height

of its power, feudalism in France did not inspire so much hatred as it

did on the eve of its eclipse [Tocqueville,Aiexis de, 1955: 176-77].

Following the same framework J. Davis says, "Revolutions are most

likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social

development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal" [Davis, J.,

1930: 85]. Masterman goes to the extent to argue that the poor are

not stung into Socialism by suffering. In author's own words,"Socialism

amongst the working people propagates and triumphs in times of plenty,

withers up and vanishes in times of depression". [Masterman, 1909:

150-51].

Contrary to the above view, i.e. deprivation is more sharpened during

the period of progress and prosperity, may also be true. The intensity

and frequency of relative deprivation may be heightened when times

get sharply worse. Although, irremediable steady poverty is the best

guarantee of conservatism and keeps relative deprivation low [Runciman,

W.G., 1966: 9 and 22]. Ralph Turner argues that it is not so much :'

Relative deprivation per se but the perception of the misfortune which

can be removed is more significant. To quote Turner, "a significant

38

social movement becomes possible when there is a revision in the

manner in which a substantial group looks at some misfortune, seeing

it no longer as a misfortune warranting charitable consideration but as

injustice which is intolerable in society'' [Turner, R., 1969: 391 ]. Rude

in his study, "Uprising of the People" in eighteenth century France, has

observed that rapidly deteriorating economic condition may spur social

movements [quoted in Oberchall, A., 1973: 35].

Therefore, the upsetting of expectations - either at the time of prosperity

or depression - provokes the sense of relative deprivation which provides

impetus for change [Runciman, W.G., 1966: 22].

Theory of relative deprivation, as any other theory of social sciences,

has its own limitations. According to Wilson, relative deprivation model

is ill-equipped to deal with those movements which do not have

economic, political, or status goals. He argues that social movements

do not rise and gain support simply because there is discontent in the

air ... , "not every feeling of relative deprivation leads one to join a social

movement" [Wilson, J., 1973: 81-84]. T.K. Oommen observes that theory

of relative deprivation views movements as 'temporary aberrations'

rather than as 'ongoing processes of change'. They do not deal with

the sources of deprivation [Oommen, T.K., 1977: 94]. M.S.A. Rao

emphasises that relative deprivation is a necessary but not a sufficient

condition for protest movements [Rao, M.S.A., 1979: 207]. According

to Ghanshyam Shah, theory of relative deprivation does not emphasise

the consciousness and ideological aspects of the participants. It explains

protest and movements of revolution .... Protest does not necessarily

lead to a movement.The author goes on to argue that deprivation,

primarily psychological, does not deal with the socio-economic structure

which is the source of deprivation [Shah, G., 1990: 26].

39

The Functionalist and the Marxian Schools have radically opposite view

points on the question of 'change and consensus value'.The following

discussion will revolve around the above theme.

Marxists believe in the change of the structure, where as Functionalists

lay emphasis on change within the structure. For Functionalists, change

is a deviation from established pattern. These variations either 'resolve

themselves' or get 'institutionalised' through 'socialisation' and 'social

control' [Parsons, T., 1951: 481-96]. They do not accept that there

may be some inherent contradictions in the system itself which may be

overcome by a revolutionary or structural transformation [Gupta, D.,

1982: 22]. Secondly, Functionalists put great emphasis on 'consensus

value'. For them, conflict arises in the social system due to breakdown

of consensus values. Therefore, change is directly proportional to the

internalisation of standard value patterns, which Heberle terms as

"constitutive values" [Heberle, R., 1968: 13]. Breakdown of consensus

value may lead to social movement. But it continues till consensus is

reached at higher level. According to Parsons, it is a "re-equilibrium

process" [Parsons, T., 1951: 520].

The above presentation will help us to explain Marxian framework for

the study of social movements.

2.3.3 The Marxist Framework

Marxist school is by no means an undifferentiated stream of thought.

A glance at the various studies on the subject reveal not only an

enormous range of view points, but also different interpretations of Marx.

After the death of Marx and Engels, Marxism has developed different

competing theories, which in turn were enriched by series of

interpretations, traditions and perspectives. Broadly speaking, there are

40

Vulgar Marxism, Critical or Western Marxism, Structural Marxists and

more recently Subaltern studies group.

Subaltern historians began to study history from below. They criticise

traditional Marxist historians for treating 'subaltern classes' as objects,

incapable to make their own history and often guided by advanced

classes. Subaltern historians argue that the traditional marxists have

undermined cultural factors and viewed a linear development of class

consciousness [for detail see, Guha, 1938a, 1938b, and Hardiman, 1987,

etc.]. On the other hand, subaltern historians are criticised for ignoring

structural factors and treating 'consciousness' as independent of

structural contradictions. They are accused of being Hegelian 'idealists'

[see, Chopra, 1982, Singh, 1984, Gupta, 1985, etc.]

Although, there is lively and intense debate among Marxist scholars on

theoretical and methodological issues. But, the main province of this

paper is not to go into the deepth of the debate, but to pick up the

common concern of Marxist scholars which provides critical and crucial

break between Marxist and non-Marxist sociology.

2.3.3.1 Dialectical Materialism

The first major theoretical work of Karl Marx was A Critique Of Political

Economy, as a materialist conception of history. For Marx, the way

material production is carried on (the mode of production) and is

organised (the production relation) is the basis of political organisation

and intellectual representations 'of an epoch. This conception has

'inverted' the young Hegelian's subjective-idealist position. In A

Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy [1977: 20-21], Marx

41

wrote: "In the .social production of their existence, men inevitably enter

into definite relations, which are independent of their will, namely relations

of production appropriate to a given stage in the development of their

material forces of production. The totality of these relations of production

constitutes the economic structure of society, the real foundation, on

which rises a legal and political structure and to which correspond

definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of

material life conditions the general process of social, political and

intellectual life".

Although, Marx adopted and adapted the concept of dialectics from

Hegel, but he radically inverted it, which is popularly known as "turning

Hegel upside down". According to Larson, "though Marx rejected Hegel's

content orientation, he retained his dialectical structure" [Larson, C.J.,

1973: 40]. Hegel aimed to transform social and political conditions

through mere change in consciousness. For Marx, the objective

(material) conditions need to be changed for such transformation.

Whereas, Hegelian system can be called "dialectical idealism", for Marx

it is "dialectical materialism". Marx's view point is founded upon

materialistic interpretation of history [emphasis mine]. Karl Marx wrote:

"in principle my dialectical method is not only distinct from Hegel's but

in its direct opposition. For Hegel, the life process of human brain, i.e.

the process of thinking, which he even transforms into an autonomous

subject under the name of 'the idea', is the demiurge of the real world,

which only represents its external phenomenon. For me, on the contrary,

the ideal is nothing but the material transposed and translated in man's

head" [as quoted in Althusser, L., 1969: 89]. Marx further argued, " it

is not the consciousness of men that determines their existence, but

their social existence that determines their consciousness" [Marx, K.,

1977: 21].

42

As stated earlier, Hegel was an idealist who asserted the primacy of

"mind", whereas Marx was a materialist who asserted the primacy of

"matter''. That is, "the world of the 'idea' for Hegel - 'the real world'

for Marx'' [Aithusser, L., 1969: 93]. Whereas Hegel viewed change as

the resultant of change of idea. For Marx, it is due to change in material

condition [Marx, K., 1977: 21-22]. Marx argues that change takes place

due to contradiction in the mode of production of society. To quote

Marx: "at a certain stage of development, the material productive forces

of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production, or

this merely expresses the same thing in legal forms - with the property

relations within the framework of which they have operated hitherto.

From forms of development of the productive forces these relations

turn into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution. The

changes in economic foundation lead sooner or later to the

transformation of the whole immense superstructure" [Marx, K., 1977:

21).

In the words of Stalin, "the dialectical method holds that the process of

development should be understood not as movement in a circle, not as

a simple repetition of what has already occurred, but as an onward

and upward movement, as transition from an old qualitative state to a

new qualitative state, from the lower to the higher" [as quoted by

Balmuth, J., 1968: 7-11].

Therefore, "all human history thus far is the history of class struggles"

[Marx and Engels, 1968: 35].

2.3.3.2 Social Location of Ideas

In contrast to Feuerbach, who viewed man in the abstract and

unhistorical, Marx argued that in reality, man's nature "is the ensemble

43

of the social relations" [Marx and Engels, 1964: 12-13]. Thereby, Marx

extended the domain of materialism to include the concept of human

society, marx and Engels, for the first time, in The German Ideology

elaborated the theory of historical materialism and created a scientific

theory of laws of development of nature and society. It is in this book,

Marx and Engels, put forward the proposition that the social being of

men determines their social consciousness and showed the decisive

role played by the mode of production in the whole social life of men.

For Marx, "it is not the consciouseness of men that determines their

existence, but their social existence that determines their consciousness"

[Marx, K., 1977: 21]. In the critical review of Hegelian philosophy Marx

argued, "my investigation led to the result that legal relations as well as

forms of state are to be grasped neither from themselves nor from the

so-called general development of the human mind, but rather have their

roots in the material conditions of life ... " [Marx, K., 1950 : 328]. Marx

goes on to argue that the production of ideas, of conceptions, of

consciousness, is directly interwoven with the material activity and the

material intercourse of men, the language of real life [Marx and Engels,

1964: 37]. Therefore, ideological forms in which men become conscious

of the contradiction and fight it out, must be understood in terms of the

material transformation of the economic conditions of production [Marx,

K., 1950: 329].

However, ideas belong to the realm of the superstructure and are

determined by the economic infrastructure. Therefore, prevailing

ideologies at any point of time reflect the world view of the dominant

class. According to Marx, ideology, politics, laws, morality, religion,

etc. are nothing but : "the ideal expression of the dominant material

relationships, the dominant material relationships grasped as ideas,

hence of the relationships which make the one class the ruling one,

44

therefore, ideas of its dominance. The individuals composing the ruling

class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore link.

In so far as they rule as a class ... they do this in its whole range, ... , as

thinkers, as producers of ideas, and regulates the production and

distribution of the ideas of their age : thus their ideas are the ruling

ideas of the epoch" [Marx, K., 1964: 60].

Therefore, in every epoch, the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling

class. The class that controls the means of material production also

controls the means of mental production. And those who lack the means

of mental production are subject to ruling ideas. On the other hand,

subordinate classes develop their ideology based on their class interests,

and transformed into class for itself from class in itself. Therefore,

according to Marx, various classes have their own ideology based on

their class interests.

In contrast to Functionalist perspective, Marxists view classes as

differentiated categories having contradictory interests. Historically,

society develops through contradictions and class struggles. For Marx,

"revolution is the driving force of history'' [Marx and Engels, 1964: 50].

Timasheff explains, " the established order becomes an obstacle to

progress, and a new order (the antithesis) begins to arise. A struggle

ensues between the class representing the old order and the class

representing the new order. The emerging class is eventually victorious,

creating a new order of production that is synthesis of the old and the

new. This new order, however, contains the seeds of its eventual

destruction and the dialectical process continues" [Timasheff, N. and

Theodorson, G., 1976: 60, emphasis mine]. K. Marx argues that the

asiatic, ancient, feudal and modern bourgeois modes of production are

epoch making progress in the economic development of society. The

45

bourgeois mode of production is the last antagonistic form of the social

process of production [Marx, K., 1977: 21 ]. At the same time, the

productive forces developing in the womb of bourgeois society create

the material conditions for the solution of that antagonism [Marx and

Engels, 1950: 329]. This antagonism, according to Marx, would come

to an end when the proletariat of the world would be sufficiently strong

and politically conscious, when capitalism would be finally overthrown

and socialism would be established [Ibid.: 328-29].

A modest assessment of Marxist perspective is in order:

Marx's theory of class is a comprehensive theory of social change.

According to Marxists, societies are inherently mutable systems, in which

changes are produced largely by internal contradictions and conflicts.

Changes occur due to contradiction in the economic infrastructure, i.e.

between forces of production and relations of production. In capitalist

society, contradiction between bourgeois and proletariat leads to

alienation among workers. The worker becomes estranged from himself,

from the process as well as the product of his labour, from his fellow

men and from the human community itself [Marx, K., 1956: 67-83].

The only way to resolve this progressive alienation is through revolution

[Marx and Engels, 1964: 14]. Alienation and exploitation will come to

an end when fifth and final state (Socialist) will be established. This

change will take place when working class (Proletariat) will be politically

conscious enough and ready to overthrow capitalist regime, i.e. when

they will be transformed from class in itself to class for itself.

Therefore, according to Marxist perspective, movement starts due to

irreconcilable contradiction in the economic base of the society. But

vital issue in the Marxist analysis is to understand the class character

46

of the movement. Class character of the movement, at one level, is

apparent in terms of socio-economic background of its adherents. But

at another level, the class character can be analysed on the basis of

its approach towards the dominant contradiction, i.e. contradiction in

the economic infrastructure of the society [see, Gupta, D., 1982: 23].

Although, determinant contradiction is in economic base of the society,

but this principal contradiction can not lead to social movement. To

induce a revolutionary situation, determinant contradiction must act in

conjunction with the forms of the superstructure, e.g. state, dominant

ideology, religion, tradition, political culture, etc., dominant at that time.

The dominant contradiction must be active in all these contradictions

and even in their fusion. [Aithusser, L., 1969: 1 00]. To quote Althusser:

"if the principal contradiction is to become 'active' in the strongest sense

... there must be accumulation of 'circumstances' and 'current' so that

what ever their origin and sense, they 'fuse' into a 'ruptural unity' ... of

course the basic contradiction dominating the period is active in all

these 'contradictions' and even in their 'fusion' [Aithusser, L., 1969: 99-

100].

Therefore, in order to understand nature and consequences of peasant

movement in general and radical agrarian movement in particular, it is

important to analyse the approach of the movement towards basic

contradiction, issues and its class interests, its ally and antagonistic

classes, and nature of change the movement is aiming for.

Now, we may glean certain important differences between Functionalist

and Marxist framework which may be useful for the study of the said

movement:

47

Whereas Functionalists put emphasis on "equilibrium", Marxists conceive

"conflict" as inevitable part of social system. Functionalism concentrates

upon the regulation of social life by value consensus, Marxists stresses

on the divergence of interests and values within the social system. This

lead to the development of antagonistic class relationships, which can

be overcome through structural change. Although, Marxists do not

negate the possibility of adjustments within the system, but argue that ·

due to structural limitations, contradictions in the system can not be

solved through reforms and adjustments, as viewed by the

Functionalists.

Functionalists, as stated earlier, do not emphasis the basic cause of

social movements. Although, conflict theorists do recognise the conflict

element in the social system. According to Dahrendorf, conflict is

ubiquitous, because contraint is ubiquitous. [Dahrendorf, R.,

1969: 167]. This view point is supported by Coser as well. But, even

conflict functionalists do not probe into the "basic causes" of social

movements. On the Other hand, Marxists argue that the basic cause

of social movements are located in the contradictions that exist in the

economic base of society, which is the principal cause for the rise of

social movements. On the contrary, functionalists maintain that

movement arise due to break down of standard value pattern, because

of dysfunction, tensions, and deviance. These variations either resolve

themselves, or get institutionalised through built-in mechanisms of

socialization and social control. According to Johnson, "movements

occur when non-violent evolutions have not taken place, and when

society does not possess a mechanism for absorbing discussions within

the order"[ Johnson, C., 1964: 6].

48

However, Functionalists do not view social change as progress through

various historical periods. This is because of their over emphasis on

equilibrium and maintenance of order of the social system. On the other

hand, Marxists see social change as the progress of history through

resolving of contradictions. The principal contradiction is between

bourgeois and proletariat, in Capitalist society, and the non-principal

contradictions are the outcome of the "overdetermining effect" of principal

contradiction and may be manifested in other spheres of the society

[Aithusser, L., 1969: 89-1 00]. The Marxists do not grant the fatality of

any given social order. They regard every historically development

form to be in fluid movement and therefore take into account its transient

nature [see, Gupta, D., 1982: 26]. Thus, Marxist framework provides

an opportunity to understand the outcome of the radical peasant

movements by virtue of its historical setting, and its class character.

Marxists historical concept and dialectical concept provide greater depth

and penetrating perspective to be able to analyse the revolutionary

peasant movements. It is not only locates the basic causes of the

movement, but also provides indepth analysis of direction and

mechanisms of social change. Fateful link of ideology with class

interests helps us. to analyse the nature, limits and outcome of the

radical agrarian movement and its impact on Senas.

3. The. Approach

In the light of the preceding discussion, it is clear that the Marxist framework

provides greater insight to analyse and explain the origin, nature, limitations,

and outcome of revolutionary peasant movements. As stated earlier, Marxists

49

believe that society progresses through resolving contradictions of the social

system. Contradictions will finally be resolved in socialist system, which is a

higher form of society. Therefore, the movements should be analysed in

relation to their stages in the historical epoch, whether they are progressive

or re-gressive in terms of resolving the contradictions in the process of their

historical progress.

The proposed research project has derived its theoretical strength from key

concepts of Althusser [1971 ], Poulantzas [1972] and Gram sci [1971]. These

structural Marxists, not only treat economic domain as the dominant aspect

of a social system, but also deal with the leading themes of my research

paper.

According to Marxist perspective, social movement starts due to divergent

class interests in society, which lead to contradiction in the economic structure.

The principal contradiction is the contradiction in the mode of production.

The dominant contradiction is necessary but not the sufficient condition to

induce a 'revolutionary situation' [emphasis mine]. In Althusser's words: " if

the determinant contradiction is to become 'active' in the strongest sense ....

there must be an accumulation of 'circumstances' and 'currents' so that

whatever their origin and sense ... they 'fuse'into a ruptural unity [Aithusser,

L., 1971: 99]. Author goes on to explain that the principal contradiction

must act in conjunction with the dominant contradictions in the superstructure

at that time. Although, contradictions in the forms of superstructure may not

have decisive impact on the epoch, but the principal contradiction which

dominates the period "is active in all 'these contradictions' and even in their

fusion" [Ibid.: 1 00].

Hence, for Althusser, the structure (economic base) determines the

superstructure but only in the last instance [see, Althusser, L., 1971: 111-

50

114, emphasis mine]. This theoretical concept is different from the theoretical

position of vulgar Marxists - "overdetermined contradiction" [Aithusser, L.,

1971: 101-7]; i.e. the economic base determines the superstructure in the

first and the last instance [emphasis mine]. Louis Althusser does not link

the superstructure in a simple manner to the economic base. He argues

that elements of super-structure have relative autonomy with their specific

effectivity. Althusser wrote: "the forms of superstructure have sufficient of

their own consistency and effectivity to survive beyond their immediate life

context, even to create, to ·secrete' substitute conditions of existence

temporarily'' [Ibid. : 116].

According to Nicos Poulantzas', the ruling class is not homogeneous and

has competing interests. Furthermore, state is relatively autonomous.

Therefore, it is factually incorrect to say that " the relationship between the

state and the ruling class is principally constituted by the ·interpersonal'

relation between the members of the state apparatus and those of the ruling

class" [Poulantzas, N., 1972: 279]. Poulantzas further argues that the

members of a class do not grasp their interests 'objectively', which is true

for working as well as for the whole range of classes in society. This point

is supported by Althusser. He explains in the context of Russian Revolution,

"the exacerbation of class struggles through out the country, not only between

exploiter and exploited, but even within the ruling classes themselves .... "

[Aithusser, L., 1971 : 96].

Whereas, Althusser's merit lies in the recognition that elements of

superstructure have sufficient autonomy and conditions of existence, which

signifies structural limitations of ,social movements. On the other hand, Nicos

Poulantzas' theoretical position is helpful to understand the movement

deeper, because it highlights the contradiction between longrun and shortrun

51

economic interests and analyse the objective grounds of maneuverability of

various classes and political parties and of the state. This theoretical concept

is further exemplified by Antonio Gramsci, in the analysis of state and civil

society.

According to Gramsci, " at a certain point in their historical lives, social classes

become detached from their traditional parties ... when such crises occur,

the immediate situation becomes delicate and dangerous, because the field

is open for violent solution, for the activities of the unknown forces ... "

[Gramsci, A., 1971: 21 0]. These crises of the ruling class's hegemony occur

due to failure of ruling class in some major political undertaking or forcibly

extracted the consent of the broad masses; e.g. war, or because huge

masses - especially peasants and petit-bourgeois intellectuals; have passed

suddenly from a state of political passivity to a certain activity ... an9 add up

to a revolution. Therefore, "a crisis of authority is precisely the crisis of

hegemony, or general crisis of the state" [Ibid.: 21 0]. Gramsci goes on to

argue that when hegemonic position of the ruling class is threatened, it

organises and re-organises to defeat the threat and surges to the extent of

some compromises and exposes itself to some extent[lbid.:210-11].

Some authors have applied Marxist framework to study peasant movements

in India. Issues like, 'the revolutionary potential of Indian peasantry' have

been discussed. For example, Eric Wolf [1971] and Hamza Alavi [1965 and

1973] have discussed the revolutionary potential of 'middle peasantry'. On

the oth,er hand, J. Pouchepadass [1980] has dismissed the 'middle peasant

thesis' and identified 'dominant peasantry' as the initiators of peasant

movements in India. Thesis of the respective authors will be discussed in

the ensuing chapters. However, it is important to note that the said authors

have examined the class character of the peasantry in its historical setting

52

as well as its ideology, goals and contradictions within it. Above perspectives,

further, provide analytical tools to study agrarian social formation of Bihar

and rise of private armies (Senas).

Although, some studies have been conducted on disintegration of Feudal

Mode of Production and emergence of Capital