Ethnic Movements with Special Reference to Tribals | Sociology Optional for UPSC (Notes) PDF Download

• The tribals provide the most appropriate examples of the ethnic movements in the country. In their case, almost all factors, both real and imagined, which the tribal communities share among themselves – culture, customs, language, race, religion (indigenous or otherwise), economic issues, contribute to their mobilisation. Even if the their mobilisation starts with a single marker, it is the multiple markers which come to play their roles in the due course. Tribal ethnic movements find their expression in all forms — insurgency, protection of the culture and economy of the “sons of the soil” from the outside exploiters, secession from the Union of India, autonomy movements/ demand for the separate state; and, ethnic conflicts and riots.
• The most common issues which account for the tribals’ ethnic mobilisation are: perceived or real threat to their indigenous culture and economy including the natural resources like mineral, forest and modern market opportunities by the outsiders (non-tribals middle classes, businessmen, moneylenders, bureaucrats); their discrimination by the state, especially at the central levels and its representatives (central government employees, army, police, etc.).

Who are Tribals?

Unlike the Scheduled Castes, there are differences among the scholars on the criteria to identify the tribals or the Scheduled Tribes. While the Scheduled Castes consist of the erstwhile untouchable castes placed in the lowest rung of the Hindu society, the tribals follow multiple religions in the country – Buddism, Christianity, Islam or their indigeneous religions. However, there is almost a unanimity among the scholars on certain characteristics of the tribals. The principal of these characteristics are as follows:

• Their close association with nature, mainly the forests;
• Relatively traditional means of cultivation and less developed market;
• Near absence of the rigid division within the community and discrimination on the basis of birth, unlike the caste division among the Hindus;
• Presence of the traditional chiefs or headmen and better position of women as compared to the non-tribals;
• Attachment/reverence to traditional customs and culture.

Article 342 of the Constitution attributes “isolation, backwardness and cultural distinctiveness” as the characteristics of the Scheduled Tribes.
These characteristics, however, have undergone changes as a result of modenisation – education, impact of Christianity on many tribes, changing cropping pattern or penetration of market, economic differentiation and emergence of middle classes and in some cases decline in the authority of the traditional chiefs. These changes have given rise to the ethnicisation of tribes reflected in their ethnic movements. Article 342 mentions 212 Scheduled Tribes in the country. The tribes are found in all parts of the country – all states of north-east India, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Rajasthan, Jharkhand, Guajarat, Dadra Nagar Haveli and Lakshdweep Islands. The tribals of north-east are called frontier tribes and those of other parts of the country are called non-frontier tribes. Of the entire tribal population 11 per cent are found in north-east India and 89 per cent are found in other regions. Tribals have been involved in the collective action for one or the other goals. (Ghanshyam Shah, pp.92-96).

Tribals of North-East India

• North-East India as a single region has the largest number of the tribal population in the country. They follow different religions especially Christianity, Budhism, Hinduism and indigenous religious tenets. They can further be divided between the plain and hill tribes. Almost all state of North-East India have witnessed one or the other forms of ethnic movements. In this sub-section we will deal with some ethnic movements with examples from states of North-East India – Nagaland, Assam and Meghalaya.
• It is important to note ethnic issues of North-East India are related to the geographical factors, its regional dimensions. Though there are differences among different tribals of North-East India in terms of their cultural practices, they share common experience of deprivation due to their regional location. A large amount of literature exists on the North-East which seeks to explain the ethnic problems of the region. But there are wide differences in the discourse on explaining the ethnic issues of the region. 
• And the divide in the discourse also reflect on the basis of the formation of the ethnic identities and the movements in the regions. The problems of the North-eastern region – insurgency, autonomy movements, ethnic conflicts, riots, etc., have been explained by mainly two perspectives: first, the modernisation/development/”nationstate building” perspective and; second, the “federation-building perspective”.
• The followers of the first perspective largely argue that the problems of the North-East are related to the issues of “nation-state building”; conflict between the new middle classes, especially among the tribals of the region, which has emerged as a result of the modernisation/development/transition Democratisation) with the traditional leadership; inability of the system to meet the rising aspiration of this group. 
• The main advocates of this perspective are S K Chaube, B P Singh, B G Verghese and Myron Wienor. Most of these writers do not hail from the region. The second perspective is actually the critique of the first one and is available in the writings of the scholars who hail from the region. The principal adherents of this perspective are Sanjib Baruah, Udyan Sharma, Sanjay Hazarika, Sajal Nag, M P Bezbaruah. They argue that problems of the NorthEast India arose because the nation leadership overlooked the perspective of the people of the region in their quest for “nation-building”.
• In order to build “nation-state” the central government adopted “step motherly” treatment towards the North-East; ignored the “periphery” and the smaller nationalities; shown arrogant attitude towards them; have been indifferent to the human rights violation in the region. They argue for a “Federation-Building” perspective in place on the “nation-state” building perspective. (Jagpal Singh (2005), “Challenge of Ethnicity to Federalism: Discourse on the North-East India” in Akhtar Majeed (ed.), Federal India: A Design for Good Governance, Centre for Federal Studies in association with Manak Publications, New Delhi). 
• The need for a “Federation-building” perspective has been most prominently underlined by Sanjib Baruah in his books India Against Itself: Assam and the Politics of Nationality (Oxford University Press, 1999) and Durable Disorder: Understanding the Politics of North-East India ( Oxford University Press, 2005). Let us now discuss some examples of Ethnic movements of tribals in North-East India.

The Nagas

• Movement of the Nagas which is often referred to as Naga insurgency is called the Naga national movement by the Nagas. It is the oldest movements relating to the ethnicity or the nationality question in the country. The nationality/ethnicity in Nagaland had all dimensions relating to the ethnic movement – demand for autonomy, secession from India and ethnic conflicts. Nagas believe that they form a nation which is different from other ethnic groups or nationalities/nations in India. They had always enjoyed their sovereignty with distinct culture, customs and history. 
• A section among them believe that they have never been part of India and they would like to retain their identity, by joining Indian Union their sovereignty would be compromised. They do not recognise the merger of Nagaland with the Union of India and and consider it as done under coercion. That is why many Nagas did not recognise the Indian Constitution, the VI Schedule meant for the North-East India and participate in the first general election held in 1952.
• The Nagas elite consisting of the those educated in the Christian educational institutions and few neighbouring village headmen formed Naga Club in 1918 to take up the social and administrative problems of the people of Naga Hills. In a memorandum to the Simon Commission in 1929, the Naga Club pleaded to exclude the Nagas from the administrative reforms which it was supposed to recommend and retain the Nagas directly under the British administration. At the initiative of the Deputy Commissioner of the Naga Hills Dist rict, District Tribal Council, an organisation of the individual Naga Councils was formed in 1945. In 1945, the name of the District Tribal Council was changed to the Naga National Council (NNC). 
• The NNC reached an agreement on a 9-point programme with the representative of Government of India, the Governor of Assam, Sir Akbar Hydery on 27-29 June, 1947. The main provisions of the agreement included – protection of ttribal land from alienation, creation of administrative autonomy and special responsibility of Government of India to implement the agreement. Asserting that Nagas are a separate nation from India, they announced formation of the Honkin Government or the “People’s Sovereign Republic of Nagaland”. This resulted in violence between the Indian Army and Nagas. This was followed by a 16-point agreement between the Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru and the Nagas in July 1960. This finally led to creation of Nagaland as a separate state on August 1, 1960, out of Assam of which it was a part.
• It should be noted that there were differences among the Naga leadership over the issue of Nagaland as a separate state within the Union of India and Nagaland as a sovereign state/nation. The former founded Nagaland Nationalist Organisation (MNO) and the latter formed the Democratic Party of Nagaland. The MNO which was active in getting the Nagaland made a separate state were in favour of giving up the violence and accepting the Constitution of India. The question assumed a new dimension following the singing of Shillong Accord in 1975. According to it the Nagas accepted the Indian Constitution, deposited their arms to the Government of India, and in  turn  the government released Naga political prisoners and promised their rehabilitation.
• The  signing  of Shillong  Accord was not welcome by  a section of  the Nagas.  The  latter denounced the Accord for compromising their sovereignty and betraying Christianity. They now sought to mix the issue of Naga sovereignty with Mao’s ideology of socialism and formed National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN) led by a Tanghkul Naga T. Muivah and Isak Swu. The NSCN leadership has guided the Naga movement while staying outside India. In their negotiations with the Government of India under the Prime Mastership of Atal Bihari Vajpayee and Manmohan Singh they have raised two main issues – the issue of sovereignty of Nagaland and creation of a Nagalim, territory merging all areas of the North-Eastern states where Nagas stay. Apart from Nagaland, these states are Manipur, Arunachal Pradesh and Assam. 
• They argue that while creating the boundaries of various states, the Government of India merged the territories inhabited by the Nagas into different states. This divided them. They demand that the Nagas should be reunited into Nagalim. This demand has provoked opposition from these states. This has repercussion on  the ethnic relations within these states.  The Nagaland also has witnessed the ethnic riots and conflict between two major tribes of the state – Nagas and Kukis. The former allege that the latter are not the original inhabitants of the state, while the latter refute it.

Bodos of Assam

• The tribals of Assam – Bodos, Karbis and Adivasis have been involved in collective ethnic mobilisation since 1980s. The Bodos and Karbis are demanding creation of the separate states respectively from within the present Assam. The Bodos and Karbis are the indigenous tribes inhabiting their respective habitats. The former are found in lower Assam districts like Kokhrajhar, and Karbis inhabit Karbi Anlong district of the state. The Advasis consist of tribes like Oraons and Santhals who mainly immigrated to the state during the colonial period as tea plantation labourers principally from Orissa, Bihar and eastern Uttar Pradesh. Apart from the working as the plantation labourers, they also cultivate land as poor peasants. The Adivasis demand protection of their rights in terms of reservation in the government jobs, protection from the dominant ethnic tribes as there have been several instances of violent ethnic riots between the Bodos and the Adivasis.
• The tribals of Assam participated in the six year long Assam agitation led by the All Assam Students Union (AASU) from 1989 to 1985. The movement which was directed against the foreigners united major communities of Assam — tribals and non-tribal Assamese, on the common perception they shared common experience in terms of their belonging to a backward and discriminated state, facing the challenge of the foreign infiltration, especially from Bangladesh and Assam. In the course of time, however, the differences between Bengalis who had been living in the state since the 19th century and were the citizens of the country and the Begladeshi immigrants got blurred. 
• Led mainly by the students and the middle classes, the movement had become violent on a number of occasions. But as soon as AASU transformed itself into a political party – the Assom Gana Parishad (AGP) and formed the government following its victory in the 1985 assembly elections, the tribes like Bodos and Karbis which had participated in the AASU agitation started agitation for creation of their separate states. They felt that the AASU movement was led by the dominant communities of Assam utilised the support of the smaller tribes like them. Once the AASU signed Assam. Accord with the government of India and formed AGP government in the state, the AASU leadership did not give due recognition to the smaller tribes like them and attempted to impose their cultural code on them.
• They asserted that they were different from the Assamese. Ragarding this Sanjiv Baruah quotes a Bodo source saying “We Are Bodos, Not Assamese” in his book India Against Itself (Chapter 8). The new generation of leaders provides leadership to the Bodo movement. The All Bodo Student Uniot (ABSU) presented a 92-point Charter of demands to the government, which included demands for the recognition of their culture, language and provinding opportunities for their educational and economic development. For achieving these demands they demand a separate state of Bodoland. It must be noted that like Karbis they also do not question of the sovereigntry of the Indian state. Unlike ULFA (United Liberation Front of Assam) they want a separate state for them within thin Union of India under the Constitution of India. They have resorted to violent means targeting the state agencies, especially those belonging  to the central government and the armed forces.  They have also directed their violence against the Adivasi immigrants, triggering of the ethnic violence. The government has responded by setting up Bodo Autonomous Councils to grant them local autonomy. But it has not responded to their demand for creation of separate state.

Tribes of Meghalaya

• Meghalaya has three main tribes – Khais, Jaintias and Garos, who inhabit Khasi, Jaintian and Garo hills of the state. They are distinct for the existence matrilineal system which accords better position to women as compared to the patrilineal found among other communities of India. Like some other tribes of the North-East India, educated Christian elite had already emerged among them in the state, especially the Khasis during the pre-Independence period. Shillong which remained capital for around a centurty of Assam, of which areas consisting present Meghalaya state were constituent, provided a suitable place for the growth of an elite section among them. The tribals of Meghalaya have been coexisting with non-tribals in Meghalaya, especially Shillong since the late 19th century, following shifting of the capital of Assam from Cherrapunjee to there. The non-tribals who migrated into Shillong and other parts of Meghalaya since the late 19th century consist of mainly Bengalis, Biharis, Rajasthanis, Sikhs and till formation of Megalaya as a separate state in 1972, the Assamese. The non-tribals despite their differences form a separate ethnic groups in the sense that their culture, features, customs, etc. are different from those of the tribals.
• The 1960s witnessed the movement of the ethnic groups of areas of Assam, which later assumed the form of a separate state of Meghalaya, for creation of a separate. This movement saw the involvement of all ethnic groups – tribals and non-tribals of the region. It was their combined resentment against the language policy of the dominant group, the Assamese. They resisted against the language policy of Assamese government which sought to make the Assamese as a medium of instruction in schools and also an official language. This was seen as an imposition of the Assamese on the non-Assamese including the tribals and the non-tribals. Both set of ethnic groups – tribals and non-tribals jointly particiapted in the movement for creation of Meghalaya as a separate state.
• The relations between the tribals and non-tribals of Meghalaya, however, underwent changes following the formation of the state in 1972. These were now marked by the ethnic divide. The state government in the state introduced land regulations prohibiting the transfer of land from the tribals to non-tribals, reserved seats in the legislative assembly for the tribals (56 out of 60 assembly seats for the tribals), reserved 85 per cent state government jobs for the tribals. This provoked reaction from the non-tribals of the state; who alleged that their contribution to the economy of the state was not recongised and they were being discriminated against. The views of the tribals are articulated specially by the organisations of women, students and politicians, most assertive among them being the Khasi Students Union (KSU) and the Federation of Khasi, Garo and Jaintia people (FKJGP).
• The KSU and other tribals representatives argue that due to the influx of the outsiders – the non-tribals, their cultural identity is eroded, economic opportunities are exploited. The central government symolised by  the army, central paramilitary forces is seen to be encroaching upon their rights. Therefore, the tribals of the state demand: the cancellation of trade licenses of the non-tribals, their removal from the state, increase in the reservation for the tribals in the state government jobs, etc. The KSU and other tribal organisations often raise these issues through pamphlets, in the rallies, newspapers, etc. The divide between the ethnic groups also resulted in ethnic riots on some occasion. Since the late 1990s the state has also seen the rise of some insurgent groups.

Tribals of Regions other than North-East India

• The tribals of other regions than the North-East or the Frontier tribes of the states of Madhya Pradesh/Chhattishgarh, Bihar/Jharkhand, Gujarat, Rajasthan and several other states have been mobilised on ethnic lines on several occasions. In modern history their revolt had been conspicuous against the intervention of the British authorities in the power of the tribal chiefs and against exploitation of their natural resources by the British and their collaborators such as the outside businessmen and bureaucrats or dikus. The tribal chiefs mibilised their fellow tribals in order to restore their power and resources and evoked their golden past in order to retain their ethnic identity and autonomy. The British administration retaliated against these movements with ruthless violence including assassination of the leaders of these movements. Birsa Munda revolt in Chhotanagpur was among the most prominent of such movements during the preIndependence period. Such movements have been termed as “millenarian movements” by K S Singh.
• The issues which formed the basis of collective mobilisation of the non-frontiers tribals in the post-independence period have varied from state to state. These have included the movements for creation of separate states for the tribals out of the existing states like Jharkhand out of Bihar and Chhattisgarh from Madhya Pradesh or separate districts within the same state like demand by the Dang tribes for creation of a separate state within former Bombay state; against the encroachment of tribal land for the creation of dams resulting in the displacement like in the Narmada Valley. Some scholars have observed that during the 1990s the tribals have been mobilsed by the Hindutva forces against the Christian and Muslim tribals in some states, especially Guajarat, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan. This contributed to the division of the tribals on the communal basis (Shah, 2004).
• The movement for autonomy expressed in the form of demands for separate states, districts out of present states or creation of autonomous administrative bodies are among the most commonly raised demands of the tribal movements. The basis for such demands are their grievances against the dominant for political formations: their cultural and linguistic identities are under the threat of erosion; their economic resources and opportunities are appropriated by others/outsiders; they are not given due recognition, etc. The tribal leadership, both traditional and modern, mobilises the tribals into collective actions. The acceptance of their demands depends on the political circumstances. But once a set of demands is accepted, the leadership looks for other issues. For example, after the creation of separate state of Jharkhand out of Bihar, the tribal leaders attempted to change the domicile laws. Similarly, after the creation of a separate state of Meghalaya, the tribal leadership introduced legislation changing the rules regarding inheritance and transfer of land. Thus, the ethnic mobilisation is a continuous process in a democracy.

Social Movements and Democracy 

‘People’ are central in the democratic system. But people are not homogeneous. In a stratified society there are some people who are economically, socially and politically very powerful. And on the other hand, many people are powerless. They depend on the powerful for their economic survival. People of different social and economic strata have different interests. They have different life chances. Their perception of the system differes. In such a stratified and plural society the term ‘people’ become complex and elusive.

Ingredients of Democracy

• Democracy has three essential and overlapping ingredients. They are: (1) political institutions; (2) political processes, and (3) substantial functioning. In democratic system political institutions such as electoral system and legislature provide scope and necessary mechanism to citizens to participate directly or indirectly in decision making processes. They elect their representatives to from the government which takes decisions on behalf of the people for society as a whole. These representatives execute their decisions through various agencies like bureaucracy, police and military. They  enjoy  authority  over societal  resources  and  their  management. When  the citizens  are not satisfied with their representatives in their functioning, decisions and use of power, people change them and elect other representatives. In that sense people have final authority who should manage the state and society. This is a formal institutional aspect of democracy.
• The elected representatives cannot rule society according to their whims. Rule of law is an essential component of the democratic system. That means that the rulers/ representatives are not above law. The representatives exercise their power and take decisions within the Constitutional framework – written or by convention- that spells out their power and responsibility. In democracy political power of any one institution is not absolute. Different institutions maintain check on each other. It is a system of checks and balances. The rulers are the representatives of the people and are accountable to people for decisions and management of social affairs. Political institutions are mechanism to attain the substantive objectives of the system –serving common good. The functioning of these institutions therefore has to be transparent so that people can judge and differentiate between right and wrong.
• Democracy without politics is body without soul. Politics means conflict and struggle of interests and ideologies. Politics is concerned with control over resources, their use and distribution. It involves debates and decisions on identifying priorities in policy making regarding use of resources and generation of surplus. It is a system in which different points of views and ideological formations on societal matters contest with each other. They compete for power and influence political decisions. It involves the process of monitoring political institutions and policy makers as well as the executive.
• Mere elections and government of elected representative do not make the political system democratic. Democracy in substance does not mean number game: rule of, for and by majority. It cannot be called democratic system if the government by majority vote prevents dissent and opposition parties or majority wipes out minority communities or prevents them to follow their religion. In democratic system, management or governance is hinged on certain basic moral, social and political principles – not only to protect but also to enlarge secular and humane interests.
• Objectives of the political institutions are to cater to the needs and aspirations of the people. It should function and aim at ‘development’ of all; and not one or small section of society. In that sense democratic system in ‘developing’ societies in the Third world, is a process of social transformation so that all citizens can participate in the system with equal capacity. Social and economic equality is therefore the core of effective and viable democracy. Besides other principles and objectives, equality before laws is necessary but not sufficient condition for free and equal participation of all people in decision-making process, particularly those who are at lower and most exploited strata. Inequality in substance hampers effective functioning of the political system.
•  Such a situation has potentiality to reduce democratic institutions as a game of musical chair limited to those who have money and muscle strength. Greater inequality results into lesser possibilities for effective and meaningful participation of the deprives section(s) in political processes. Their vulnerability in social, cultural and economic spheres provide them less space to be equal with those who are in upper echelon in production and reproduction system. Capacity of the powerful to manipulate choices of the vulnerable is related to the extent of gap between the two. Wider inequality tends to provide less opportunity to the deprived for asserting their needs and rights. For the health of the democratic system an ideal of ‘equal capabilities’ needs to be translated into reality. 
• Dr. Ambedkar rightly emphasised before the Constituent Assembly, “We must make our democracy a social democracy  as well. Political democracy  cannot last unless  there lies at the base of it social democracy. What does  social democracy mean? It means a way of life which recognizes liberty, equality and fraternity as the principles of life. These principles of liberty, equality and fraternity are not to be treated as separate items in trinity. They form a union of trinity in the sense that to divorce one form the other is to defeat the very purpose of democracy…”.

Mass Politics and Mass Movements 

• Some social scientists like by William Kornhauser, Robert Nisbet, Edward Shils argue that democratic system has evolved various institutions to manage societal affairs on behalf of the people. The system provides opportunities to express their desires, grievances and problems to their representatives through periodical elections. People can change their representatives in elections. But according to these scholars direct collective actions in the forms of mass movement is ‘antidemocratic’. Such movements bring unnecessary pressure on the elected representatives and hamper efficient functioning of the political institutions. The government is often pulled in different directions and forced to take policy decisions under pressures rather than merits of the issues. 
• This paves way to populist politics. Therefore, these scholars are in favour of excluding movements from democratic system. In the 1950s and 1960s some Indian scholars who approved of the agitation for independence from foreign rule, did not approve of agitations in the post-Independence period. They condemned them outright as ‘dangerous’ and ‘dysfunctional’ for ‘civilized society’. One of them argued, ‘One can understand, if not justify the reasons which led the people in a dependent country to attack and destroy everything which was a symbol or an expression of foreign rule. But it is very strange that people should even now behave as if they continue to live in a dependent country ruled by foreigners’. they blame the opposition parties, leaders and trade unions for instigating the masses to direct action.

Rising Expectations, Frustration and Democratic System

• Number and coverage of social movements in different forms have increased in all societies including in democratic system. This is primarily because the rising aspirations of the people are not adequately met by  existing  political institutions which are rigid or incompetent. Many  scholars such as Huntington, Rajni Kothari and several others observes that as the gap between expectations of people and performance of the system widens mass upsurge in the forms of movements increase. 
• Alain Touraine and Jurgen Habermas argue that democratic system in post-modern society is not able to guarantee individual freedom, equality and fraternity. In the view of these theorists, democracy is degenerating into an authoritarian, technocratic state. The state in turn has become subjugated to market forces. The state’s technocracy and the forces of the market thus dominate people. There are no longer workers, but only  consumers. 
• The old  class of workers has ceased to be a class in production process. Instead people’s main social role has become that of consumers. In this role, people are manipulated entirely by the market. For Habermas, social movements are seen as defensive reactions to defend the public and the private sphere of individuals against the inroads of the state system and market economy. While highlighting limitations of parliamentary democracy in India A.R. Desai argued in 1960s:
• “The parliamentary form  of government, as a political institutional device, has proved to be inadequate to continue or expand concrete democratic rights of the people. This form, either operates as a shell within which the authority of capital perpetuates itself, obstructing or reducing the opportunities for people to consciously participate in the process of society, or is increasingly transforming itself into a dictatorship, where capital sheds some of its democratic pretensions and rules by open, ruthless dictatorial means. 
• Public protests will continue till people have ended the rule of capital in those countries where it still persists. They will also continue against those bureaucratic totalitarian political regimes where the rule of capital has ended, but where due to certain peculiar historical circumstances Stalinist bureaucratic, totaliterian political regimes have emerged. The movements and protests of people will continue till adequate political institutional forms for the realization and exercise of concrete democratic rights are found.”
• Rajni  Kothari also believes that ‘democracy’ in India has become a playground for growing corruption, criminalisation, repression and intimidation of large masses of the people. “There is discontent and despair in the air––still highly diffuse, fragmented and unorganised. But there is a growing awareness of rights, felt politically and expressed politically, and by and large still aimed at the State. Whenever a mechanism of mobilisation has become available, this consciousness has found expression, often against very heavy odds, against a constellation of interests that are too powerful and complacent to shed (even share) the privileges. 
• At bottom it is consciousness against a paradigm of society that rests on deliberate indifference to the plight of the impoverished and destitute who are being driven to the threshold of starvation––by the logic of the paradigm itself.” In such a scenario mass mobilisation at the grassroots level is both necessary and desirable. Electoral system, political parties and established trade unions do not provide space to the masses to bring social transformation. “In their place there is emerging a new arena of counteraction, of countervailing tendencies, of counter-cultural movements and more generally of a counter-challenge to existing paradigms of thought and action’.

Movements and Democratisation 

• As we have seen above that many scholars believe that social movements play positive role in democracy in different ways. One, social movements are the outcome of people’s political consciousness. It is an expression of people’s consciousness for asserting their demands. Two, social movements encourage participation of people on political issues. While articulating agenda of the struggle the leaders discuss/explain various aspects of the issues with the participants. Such process of discourse also contribute in developing and sharpening consciousness of the people. Political participation and consciousness of the people are backbones of democracy. 
• Third, success and effectiveness of social movements depend on extent of mobilisation. Greater mobilisation tends to expand political horizon and lead to further democratisation of society. Fourth, Social movements express aspirations, needs and demands of the people who can only assert through collective action and become effective. They keep the policy makers on toe and accountable of their decisions. Fifth, number of social movements influence policy makers and compel them to enact laws to meet their demands – advancing or protect their interests. The followings are illustrations.
• During the 1920s and 1930s there were number of peasant movements in different parts of the country. Some of them were spontaneous of local peasants and some were organised by Kisan Sabha, Gandhians and left parties. These movements were against the landlords demanding land to the tenants/share croppers/tillers. In several places the demand was for abolition of forced labour. Such movements influenced the Congress party, which led the freedom movement. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru observed, “the growth of the National movement under the leadership of the Congress, resulted in the peasant masses joining the Congress and looking to it for relief from their many burdens. 
• This increased the power of the Congress greatly and at the same time it gave it a mass outlook. While the leadership remained middle class, this was tempered by pressure from below, and agrarian and social problems occupied the Congress more and more… The struggle for independence began to mean something much more than political freedom, and social content was given to it”. The Congress Manifesto of 1946 declared that “The reform of the land system which was urgently needed in India involves the removal of intermediaries between the peasant and the state”. Soon after Independence several state/provincial government initiated action to enact laws for the abolition of the intermediary interests in land. Zaminadari system, forced labour etc. were made illegal.
• However, these laws were not implemented with speed and efficiently in most of the states. By the late 1950s series of poor peasant movements took place in different parts of the country against landlords and rich peasants. Most effective and widespread movement was Naxabari, which bean in West Bengal and spread in many parts of the country. In the 1960s socialist and Left parties organised land grab movements. There were also number of grassroots movements of agricultural laborers demanding higher wages and distribution of surplus land. In order to pacify these classes and woo them in elections, Indira Gandhi gave a slogan of “garibi hatao”; and formulated number of programmes for eradication of poverty. However, movements of the poor peasants and laborers have not been widespread and strong since 1970s.
• In the 1920s Dr. Ambedkar organised number of movements of dalits against untouchability which included temple entry, use of water from public tank, use of public roads etc. In 1930s he launched a movement for separate electorate. Gandhi and Hindus opposed it. Gandhi then went on fast against the demands of dalits. That lead to famous Poona Pact between Gandhi and Ambedkar. As a result Gandhi had accepted reserved seats, and Ambedkar had accepted a joint electorate. This struggle influenced the later events. 
• M.S. Gore notes, “One wonders whether without the Poona fast and the subsequent emphasis that Gandhi gave to untouchability work, there would have been a sufficient change of opinion by 1947 for the Constituent Assembly to have declared untouchability to stand abolished, to have provided for reserved seats for ‘scheduled castes’ in the legislatures for a period of ten years to begin with and to have agreed to the provision of special protective measure for t hem. It is equally possible that without Ambedkar’s protest and astute leadership, there would neither have been the Poona fast and pact nor the subsequent churning of public opinion.”
• One can assess similar kind of impact of movements such as of women, adivasis, organised working class etc. on formation of state policies on different issues. Regional and ethnic movements of Nagas and Mizos, people of Punjab, Andhra Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand etc. resulted into formation of linguistic or ethnic states. The Navniraman movement of 1974 in Gujarat on the issue of corruption in general and of political corruption in particular resulted into the change of the government. The ministers and members of the state assembly were forced to resign.