Are social movements primordial in means and progressive in agenda? Explain. (2018)
The proposition splits a movement’s vehicle from its destination. “Primordial”, in the sense given by Edward Shils (1957) and Clifford Geertz (“The Integrative Revolution”, 1963), refers to attachments of birth, blood, language, region and custom that carry an ineffable coercive force. A “progressive agenda” means modern, universalist goals: equality, rights, redistribution, dignity. In India the formula describes a real and recurring pattern, but it is a tendency rather than a law.
Why the means are often primordial
- Availability of networks. John D. McCarthy and Mayer N. Zald (1977) showed that a movement’s cheapest resource is a pre-existing network. In India those networks are jati panchayats, caste associations, temples and gurdwaras, clan councils and kin groups.
- Frame resonance. David Snow and Robert Benford argue that a frame mobilises only when it fits beliefs people already hold. A sacred or ancestral idiom achieves that instantly; an abstract rights idiom does not.
- Not pre-political. Ranajit Guha, in Elementary Aspects of Peasant Insurgency in Colonial India (1983), rejected Eric Hobsbawm’s description of such revolt as primitive and pre-political (Primitive Rebels, 1959). Insurgency was “a motivated and conscious undertaking”; kinship, ethnicity and co-residence supplied its modality, not a substitute for politics.
Why the agenda is usually progressive
| Movement | Primordial means | Progressive agenda |
|---|---|---|
| Mahad satyagraha (1927) | A ritual act, drinking from the Chavdar tank | Equal citizenship; B. R. Ambedkar burnt the Manusmriti |
| Conversion at Nagpur (1956) | Religious affiliation | Exit from graded inequality |
| Chipko (1973) | Devotional idiom and village women’s kin ties | Forest rights and subsistence |
| Maratha quota agitation | Jati mobilisation, village revenue records | A constitutional entitlement |
Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne Hoeber Rudolph (The Modernity of Tradition, 1967) called this the paradox of Indian democracy: caste associations became the carriers of modern participation. Manoj Jarange-Patil’s Azad Maidan fast, which ended on 3 September 2025 with a government resolution recognising the 1918 Hyderabad Gazette, has yielded over five lakh Kunbi certificates; the means is caste, the end is a share of state resources.
Where the formula breaks down
- Means are not always primordial. Charles Tilly’s repertoires change: unions, public interest litigation, right-to-information campaigns and hashtags. The general strike of 12 February 2026, spanning more than 600 districts against the four labour codes, mobilised class, not community.
- Agendas are not always progressive. Myron Weiner’s Sons of the Soil (1978) explains nativism as competition for modern jobs; anti-reservation agitations, khap resistance to inter-caste marriage and the Dharma Sabha’s defence of sati (1829) are regressive.
- Means can capture the ends. Paul Brass’s instrumentalism shows elites objectifying one marker; recognition then rewards subdivision, as with the Supreme Court’s permission to sub-classify Scheduled Castes in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh (2024) and the Meitei-Kuki conflict in Manipur since May 2023.
- Fredrik Barth (Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, 1969) adds that the primordial is itself constructed: the boundary is political, not ancient.
Conclusion
Indian movements typically travel on traditional vehicles towards modern destinations, which is what Yogendra Singh (Modernization of Indian Tradition, 1973) meant by modernity arriving through tradition. Whether primordial means remain servants of a progressive agenda depends on whether group claims are converted back into equal citizenship or frozen into rival enclosures.