Off track: Whither the Socialist Movement and its disciples?

Mass movements remain indispensable to democratic life. They awaken societies, challenge complacency, and push governments toward reform.

But history shows that mobilising people is often easier than transforming institutions. Lasting change requires not only protest but also patient policymaking, consensus-building, and effective governance. The street may ignite change, but only institutions can sustain it.

Movements create their legacies. They produce leaders, conscientious citizens, organisations, and even political parties. The bigger the movement, the bigger the impact and longevity of the legacy. This is true for the pre-Independence national movement, which gave us leaders like Gandhi, Nehru, Patel, Bose, and Bhagat Singh. It gave us the Indian National Congress, whose legacy endures even today. It also gave us various political trends, each with its own leaders and organisations, such as the socialists, communists, sarvodayis, Hindutva nationalists, and Ambedkarites. Jayaprakash Narayan, Lohia, Namboodiripad, Vinoba, Ambedkar, and Shyama Prasad Mukherjee are among the leaders who emerged as prominent figures in Indian politics. All these political trends continue even today in various avatars.

The late 1960s saw the emergence of the Naxalite movement, which created another upheaval in Indian society and politics, particularly capturing the imagination of the youth and the poor peasantry, aiming to build an equitable society free from class and caste exploitation and oppression. Its legacy has refused to die and continues to be pursued by its adherents, both in parliamentary and non-parliamentary ways. Southern India witnessed anti-caste movements directed at breaking the stranglehold of the Brahminical order. In northern India, socialists, particularly Lohia with his theory of Sapt Kranti, are credited with generating the anti-caste movement, which translated politically into anti-Congressism, as Congress symbolised the ultimate rule of the upper castes despite building a coalition of castes under its umbrella during the freedom struggle and even after. This anti-Congressism led to the dislodging of Congress from power in several states during the 1967 assembly elections when the socialists joined hands with the Hindu nationalist party, Jan Sangh. Several backward caste leaders emerged from this movement.

However, it is the student movements of 1974, which gradually culminated in a people's movement against the Congress in power, that can be credited with having the greatest impact on Indian politics in the post-Independence era. It dislodged Congress from power in the Centre for the first time. Under the overall guidance of Jayaprakash Narayan, it called for Sampoorn Kranti (an overall change, not just a change in the party in power). Many leaders who rose to stature and in power positions emerged from this movement. Lalu Prasad Yadav and Nitish Kumar, the two most prominent politicians in Bihar, and many other leaders who played leading roles in the movement, were then students. They rightly call themselves the product of the 74-movement. Two important streams branched out from the movement - the socialists and the Hindu nationalists. Lalu, Nitish, and Mulayam Singh Yadav (who too emerged from the student movement of the late 1960s) represented the socialist stream and remained key political figures for more than four decades. Now the reign of their ideology and party has passed down to their sons and daughters and other family members.

Today, when the Bhartiya Janata Party is in power, with or without them, in their respective states, people wonder what happened to the ideals of socialism - Sapt Kranti and Sampoorn Kranti? How much socialism did these tall leaders themselves practise? Abolition of caste was on the agenda of Sapt Kranti. This was best theorised and advocated by Ambedkar in his long essay, Annihilation of Caste. History is witness that both socialists and Ambedkarites used caste as a mobilisation strategy to fight against caste oppression. In the process, they gave prominence to caste as a powerful identity. Now, more than five decades of socialist political practice show how individual castes have sought caste as their crucial identity marker and used it to bargain for representation in the political system. Sadly, socialist leaders after Lohia focused on representation and patronage to their individual castes, not even the caste category to which they belonged. Dalits remained off the agenda of the socialist leaders. Hence, castes remain fragmented and compete with each other for resources and patronage. Ironically, annihilation of caste is no longer on the agenda of socialists in contemporary India.

Sapt Kranti also advocated economic equality and women’s emancipation. Needless to say, they failed to project any vision or plan for equality. They mindlessly followed the route of privatisation, liberalisation and globalisation. When in power, they did not invest adequately in the development of human resources among the backward castes and Dalits. The pre-existing trends of poor-quality schooling, health facilities, and skill training, landlessness, poorly paid, low-quality informal jobs, and low participation of women in the workforce did not reverse during their rule in their respective states. Nor did they fight for equality when they were part of the coalition of parties in power at the Centre. Since the 1990s, none of these leaders has made efforts to build labour organisations or participated in labour movements. Today, the states they ruled and India as a whole are more iniquitous than at any time in its post-Independence history. The theory of Sampoorn Kranti aimed at social reforms to eradicate corruption and political reforms to decentralise power. Both of these goals are even further distant from where Lalu Prasad, Nitish Kumar, and Mulayam Singh Yadav began their journeys.

It is not the failure of Jayaprakash Narayan or Ram Manohar Lohia that India could not take the path that would have led to the realisation of the ideas of Sapt Kranti and Sampoorn Kranti. Political theorists will continue to dissect these theories, find their strengths and weaknesses, and compare them with other theories that may seem more promising. But the Indian masses will definitely evaluate the performance of the practitioners of the kind of socialism propounded by Jayaprakash and Lohia. Alas, many times disciples prove unworthy of their gurus. Lalu, Nitish, and Mulayam are not Jayaprakash or Lohia.

The movements that rocked the nation

Vishalandhra Movement: Sparked intense regional mobilisation in the 1950s for a separate Telugu-speaking state carved out of Madras State, culminating in the death of freedom fighter Potti Sriramulu and the creation of Andhra Pradesh in 1953.

Anti-Hindi Agitations: Widespread protests primarily led by the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) in Tamil Nadu (peaking in 1965) against making Hindi the sole official language, which solidified Dravidian politics and secured constitutional safeguards for federal languages

The Naxalite movement: Originating as a peasant uprising in the village of Naxalbari, West Bengal, in 1967, the movement sought to overthrow the Indian state through armed rebellion and redistribute land and resources to marginalised tribal communities

Bihar Movement (J.P. Movement): A massive 1974 student-led protest against government corruption and economic stagnation in Bihar, spearheaded by Jayaprakash Narayan. It evolved into a broader "Total Revolution" movement that unified opposition parties.

India Against Corruption (IAC): A nationwide civil movement in 2011 led by Anna Hazare and civil society activists, demanding the implementation of a strong Lokpal (ombudsperson) bill. It utilized mass hunger strikes and social media to capture public sentiment, reshaping the contemporary political landscape.

How does a student movement transition from protesting fee hikes to demanding the removal of a government? Such developments did not occur in a political vacuum

Pushpendra is former Professor, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai; Views presented are personal.