MPSE 007 ASSIGNMENT ANSWERS

SECTION A

ANS. 1 – The political mobilization of Dalits in India has

been a journey of struggle, resistance, and assertion
against centuries of systemic oppression. Historically
marginalized under the caste system, Dalits faced social,
economic, and political exclusion. However, through
education, activism, and constitutional safeguards, they
gradually found a voice in the democratic process. Among
the many movements and leaders advocating for Dalit
rights, Dr. B.R. Ambedkar stands as the most influential
figure. His emphasis on political empowerment as a
means to achieve social justice laid the foundation for
later Dalit political mobilization, culminating in the
emergence of the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) in the late
20th century.

Founded in 1984 by Kanshi Ram, the BSP became the

most significant political force representing Dalit
interests. Kanshi Ram recognized that mere constitutional
provisions were not enough; political power was
necessary to dismantle caste-based oppression. His
slogan, “Vote hamara, raj tumhara, nahi chalega” (Our
vote, your rule, will not continue), captured the need for
Dalits to assert their political agency. Unlike earlier
attempts at Dalit representation, the BSP adopted a
broad-based approach, aligning with other backward and
marginalized communities under the concept of
“Bahujan” (the majority of oppressed groups). This
strategy allowed the BSP to expand Its base beyond
Dalits and challenge the dominance of upper-caste
politics.

The rise of Mayawati, Kanshi Ram’s protégé, further

solidified the BSP’s political influence. She became India’s
first Dalit woman Chief Minister, a historic moment that
symbolized the breaking of caste and gender barriers.
Under her leadership, the BSP focused on policies aimed
at Dalit welfare, such as scholarships, land reforms, and
reservation in education and jobs. The party also invested
in symbolic assertion, erecting statues of Dalit icons and
renaming public institutions after Dalit leaders, a move
criticized by opponents but seen as a powerful assertion
of identity by supporters.

Despite its successes, the BSP has faced significant

challenges. One of its major criticisms is its shift from an
assertive Dalit-first agenda to a more pragmatic approach
of caste coalitions, often allying with upper-caste groups
for electoral gains. While this strategy helped the BSP win
power in Uttar Pradesh, it diluted its core ideological
appeal to many Dalit activists. Additionally, Mayawati’s
governance style, accused of being authoritarian and
focused on personality-driven politics, alienated sections
of the electorate. The party’s decline in recent elections,
losing ground to both the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and
the Samajwadi Party (SP), indicates the limitations of its
political model in the changing landscape of Indian
politics.

However, the BSP’s impact on Dalit political

consciousness remains profound. It proved that Dalits
could be not just voters but rulers, that political power
was within their reach. It also forced mainstream parties
to take Dalit issues more seriously, leading to broader
representation in Indian politics. While its electoral
influence has waned, the BSP’s legacy continues to
inspire Dalit movements across the country. The future of
Dalit politics may no longer rest solely with the BSP, but
its foundational role in empowering millions of
marginalized people ensures its place in history as a
transformative force in India’s democratic evolution.

ANS. 2 – Social movements emerge when people come

together to challenge injustice, demand rights, or push
for social change. Two major theories that explain why
and how social movements form are the Resource
Mobilization Theory (RMT) and the Relative Deprivation
Theory (RDT). While both help us understand social
activism, they approach the issue from different angles—
one focuses on resources and organization, while the
other highlights emotions and perceptions of injustice.
Resource Mobilization Theory (RMT) argues that social
movements don’t just emerge from frustration or anger
but require proper organization, leadership, and
resources. This theory suggests that even if a group faces
severe oppression, it cannot mobilize effectively unless it
has access to funding, communication networks, and
influential allies. Movements succeed when they can
gather resources—such as money, media attention, and
committed activists—and use them strategically. For
example, the Civil Rights Movement in the U.S. was
successful not only because African Americans faced
racial discrimination but also because leaders like Martin
Luther King Jr. built strong networks, secured financial
support, and gained media coverage. Similarly, India’s
Dalit movement gained momentum when leaders like Dr.
B.R. Ambedkar utilized education, legal knowledge, and
political platforms to fight caste discrimination. In this
view, grievances alone don’t create movements—
resources and strategy do.

On the other hand, Relative Deprivation Theory (RDT)

emphasizes emotions and perceptions. It argues that
people join movements when they feel deprived
compared to others around them, even if their absolute
conditions have improved. It’s not just about being poor
or oppressed, but about realizing that others have more
rights, opportunities, or privileges. This sense of injustice
fuels anger and collective action. For instance, many anti-
colonial movements were driven by the realization that
the colonizers enjoyed privileges that native populations
were denied. Similarly, the feminist movement grew
when women, despite making progress in education and
work, saw that men still dominated leadership positions
and earned higher wages. The perception of unfairness,
rather than just economic hardship, is a powerful
motivator for social action.

Both theories are crucial in understanding why

movements succeed or fail. A movement driven by
relative deprivation may create a strong emotional spark,
but without proper resource mobilization, it might fade
out. On the other hand, a movement with great resources
but no deep emotional connection to the masses may
struggle to gain widespread support. Consider the Arab
Spring—while the protests were sparked by frustration
over economic and political deprivation, they gained
momentum through social media, international attention,
and grassroots organization.

In reality, most social movements combine elements of

both theories. People first feel deprived and develop a
sense of injustice, but for their movement to last and
achieve real change, they need to gather resources, build
alliances, and sustain momentum. Whether it’s Black
Lives Matter, climate activism, or labor movements, the
success of any struggle depends on both the fire of
injustice and the fuel of organization. Understanding
these theories helps us see that change is not just about
suffering—it’s about turning suffering into strength
through strategy and solidarity.

ANS. 3 – Studying social movements in India requires

multiple approaches because movements arise from
diverse historical, economic, and cultural contexts. From
anti-colonial struggles to contemporary rights-based
movements, Indian social movements have taken
different forms, each needing a unique lens for analysis.
Broadly, scholars use four major approaches to
understand these movements: the structural, cultural,
resource mobilization, and new social movement
approaches.

The structural approach examines social movements by

looking at large-scale social and economic changes. It
argues that movements emerge when structural
conditions—such as poverty, economic policies, or caste
and gender inequalities—create deep grievances. For
example, the farmers’ movements in India, whether
during the Green Revolution or the 2020 protests, can be
analyzed through this lens. When government policies
favor corporations over farmers, or when economic
reforms create distress, farmers organize to resist.
Similarly, the Dalit movements can be understood
through structural oppression in caste hierarchies. This
approach helps us see how historical and economic forces
shape social struggles, but it sometimes overlooks
individual agency and emotions.

The cultural approach shifts the focus to symbols,

identity, and the role of ideas in social movements. It
suggests that movements are not just about economic
and political struggles but also about cultural resistance.
This is evident in movements like the assertion of Dalit
identity through Ambedkarite ideology, renaming public
spaces, or rejecting caste-based rituals. The Chipko
movement, where villagers in Uttarakhand hugged trees
to prevent deforestation, was not just about land rights
but also about the cultural connection between
communities and their environment. This approach
reminds us that social movements are also about
changing perceptions, reclaiming dignity, and creating
new narratives.

The resource mobilization approach argues that

grievances alone don’t lead to successful movements—
organizations, leadership, and access to resources
determine whether a movement can sustain itself. The
success of the Indian National Movement, for example,
was not just due to the oppression of British rule but
because leaders like Gandhi and Nehru built strong
networks, gained international support, and mobilized
financial and human resources effectively. The rise of the
Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) as a political force for Dalits
also showcases how political and social movements need
structured planning, funding, and alliances. However, this
approach has been criticized for downplaying the
emotional and ideological motivations of movements.

The new social movement approach focuses on

movements that do not fit traditional categories of class-
based or economic struggles. It looks at movements
based on gender, environment, human rights, and digital
activism. Feminist movements, LGBTQ+ rights
movements, and campaigns against internet censorship
in India are examples. These movements are often
decentralized, use social media as a tool, and emphasize
individual rights. For instance, the Shaheen Bagh protests
against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in 2019-20
were unique because they were led by women, had no
single leader, and relied on digital platforms to mobilize
people. This approach highlights the changing nature of
activism in the modern world.

Each approach offers valuable insights, but no single

framework can fully capture the complexity of Indian
social movements. A holistic understanding requires
combining structural analysis, cultural perspectives,
organizational strategies, and contemporary digital
activism. Social movements are dynamic, shaped by
history and innovation, oppression and resistance,
making their study an evolving and deeply human
endeavor.

ANS. 4 – Ethnic movements in India emerge from a deep

sense of identity, belonging, and, often, a feeling of
historical injustice. With its immense diversity of
languages, cultures, and communities, India has
witnessed numerous ethnic movements, ranging from
demands for autonomy and recognition to struggles
against discrimination. These movements arise due to a
mix of historical grievances, economic inequalities,
political marginalization, cultural assertion, and external
influences.

One of the primary factors leading to ethnic movements

in India is historical marginalization. Many ethnic
communities feel that their history, traditions, and
identity have been ignored or suppressed, either by
colonial rulers or by post-independence policies. For
instance, the demand for separate statehood in Northeast
India stems from the perception that these regions were
historically distinct and were later forcefully integrated
into the Indian state without full consent. The Naga
movement, one of the longest-running ethnic struggles, is
rooted in a belief that Nagas have a unique identity
separate from mainstream India. Similarly, movements
like the Telangana struggle emerged from the feeling that
certain regions were historically exploited and left
underdeveloped.

Economic inequalities also play a significant role. When

ethnic groups feel that they are being economically
disadvantaged compared to other communities, they
mobilize to demand greater control over their resources.
This was a major reason behind the Jharkhand
movement, where Adivasi communities felt that their land
and natural wealth were being taken over by outsiders
without benefiting the local population. In the Northeast,
movements like the Assam Agitation (1979-1985) were
fueled by the perception that local Assamese people were
losing jobs and resources to migrants, particularly from
Bangladesh. Economic frustration often translates into a
demand for political and cultural assertion.

Another crucial factor is political marginalization. Many

ethnic movements emerge because communities feel
underrepresented in government structures and decision-
making processes. For example, in Punjab, the demand
for greater Sikh autonomy led to the rise of the Khalistan
movement in the 1980s. Similarly, in Kashmir, the long-
standing discontent over political representation and
autonomy fueled ethnic and separatist sentiments. When
communities feel that their voices are not heard in
mainstream politics, they seek alternatives through
protests, militancy, or demands for new states.
Cultural and linguistic identity is another powerful force
behind ethnic mobilization. India’s linguistic diversity has
led to movements demanding recognition and protection
of regional languages. The Dravidian movement in Tamil
Nadu emerged as a response to the perceived imposition
of Hindi, leading to a strong assertion of Tamil identity.
The creation of linguistic states, such as Andhra Pradesh
in 1953, was the result of movements where people
demanded that state boundaries reflect cultural and
linguistic identities. Even today, debates over language
policies continue to spark tensions in various states.

Finally, external influences and globalization have also

shaped ethnic movements. The spread of global human
rights discourses has strengthened indigenous and ethnic
assertions, with communities demanding recognition of
their traditional rights. Additionally, cross-border
influences, such as the Tamil movement’s connection to
Sri Lankan Tamil nationalism, show how ethnic
movements are not always confined to national
boundaries.

Ethnic movements in India are deeply tied to history,

economics, politics, and culture. They are not just about
division but about dignity, self-determination, and the
fight for fair representation. While some movements have
led to the formation of new states, others continue to
struggle for recognition and justice. Understanding these
movements requires empathy—seeing them not as mere
conflicts but as powerful expressions of people’s
aspirations for identity, equality, and respect.

ANS. 5 – The politics of reservation in India is deeply

intertwined with the country’s history of caste-based
discrimination and the struggle for social justice.
Reservation policies were introduced as a means to uplift
historically marginalized communities, primarily
Scheduled Castes (SCs), Scheduled Tribes (STs), and later,
Other Backward Classes (OBCs). Over time, the
reservation system has expanded, sparking intense
political debates, legal battles, and social tensions. While
it has undeniably improved access to education and
employment for disadvantaged groups, it has also led to
controversies regarding meritocracy, economic-based
inclusion, and electoral manipulation.

The roots of India’s reservation policy lie in the vision of

Dr. B.R. Ambedkar, who saw affirmative action as
essential to breaking the cycle of caste oppression. The
Indian Constitution, through Articles 15 and 16, provided
for reservations in education and government jobs to
ensure a level playing field for marginalized communities.
Over the years, the Mandal Commission (1980) expanded
this policy by recommending 27% reservation for OBCs, a
move implemented in 1990 despite protests from upper-
caste groups. More recently, in 2019, the government
introduced a 10% quota for Economically Weaker
Sections (EWS) among upper castes, marking a shift from
caste-based to income-based reservations.

The political dimension of reservations cannot be ignored.

Reservation policies have been a powerful tool for
political parties to secure votes, especially in states like
Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Tamil Nadu, where caste-based
politics dominates. Parties often align with specific caste
groups, promising increased reservations or resisting
changes based on their voter base. The rise of regional
parties, such as the Bahujan Samaj Party (BSP) and
Rashtriya Janata Dal (RJD), has further shaped the politics
of reservation, making it a central electoral issue rather
than just a policy of social justice. However, this
politicization has also led to frequent demands for
reservation extensions, even by relatively better-off
communities such as Jats, Marathas, and Patidars, who
argue that economic distress affects them as much as
traditionally backward communities.

The implications of reservation are both positive and

complex. On one hand, it has enabled generations of
Dalits, Adivasis, and OBCs to access quality education
and stable employment, breaking historical cycles of
deprivation. Today, we see more representation of
marginalized communities in bureaucracy, academia, and
politics—something unimaginable a few decades ago.
Reservation has given millions a sense of dignity and
social mobility. However, critics argue that it has also
created resentment among upper-caste groups who feel
excluded, leading to counter-demands for economic-
based reservations. Some also believe that the policy has
benefited the "creamy layer" (wealthier sections) within
backward groups, leaving out the most disadvantaged.

One of the biggest challenges is ensuring that reservation

policies do not become a permanent crutch but a
stepping stone. While it is necessary to address historical
injustices, real empowerment requires improving primary
education, healthcare, and skill development. Simply
expanding quotas without addressing systemic
inequalities may not lead to true equality.

The politics Of reservation is, at its core, a reflection of

India’s ongoing struggle between tradition and
modernity, privilege and justice. It is not just about
quotas—it is about who gets to participate in shaping
India’s future. Balancing social justice with economic
fairness remains one of the most difficult challenges for
Indian democracy.

SECTION B
ANS. 6 –
(A) The All India Trade Union Congress (AITUC) is
India’s oldest trade union federation, founded in
1920 with the goal of protecting workers’ rights and
improving their working conditions. It emerged at a
time when industrialization was growing under
British rule, but workers faced harsh exploitation, low
wages, and no job security. The formation of AITUC
gave them a collective voice, uniting workers across
different industries and regions.
From the beginning, AITUC was not just about
economic demands—it was deeply tied to India’s
freedom struggle. Leaders like Lala Lajpat Rai and
later, communists such as S.A. Dange, saw workers’
rights as part of the larger fight against colonial rule.
The organization played a crucial role in organizing
strikes and protests, demanding fair wages, an eight-
hour workday, and better working conditions. Over
time, as India gained independence, AITUC aligned
itself with socialist and communist ideologies,
advocating for workers against capitalist exploitation.
Throughout its history, AITUC has been at the
forefront of major labor movements, from the
struggles of textile workers in Mumbai to coal miners
and plantation laborers. It has consistently pushed
for policies like minimum wages, job security, and
 social security benefits. However, with economic
liberalization in the 1990s and the rise of contract
labor, trade unions, including AITUC, faced
challenges in adapting to a changing workforce.
Despite declining influence in a rapidly privatizing
economy, AITUC remains a strong voice for labor
rights, standing against corporate exploitation and
government policies that weaken worker protections.
It symbolizes the ongoing struggle of millions of
Indian workers, reminding us that labor movements
are not just about wages—they are about dignity,
fairness, and the right to a better life.

(B) The Bharatiya Kisan Union (BKU) is one of the

most influential farmer organizations in India,
fighting for the rights of farmers and rural
communities. It was founded in 1978, but it gained
prominence in the 1980s under the leadership of
Mahendra Singh Tikait, who mobilized lakhs of
farmers in northern India. The BKU was born out of a
deep frustration with the government’s neglect of
farmers, unfair pricing for crops, rising debts, and the
increasing power of big corporations in agriculture.
At its heart, BKU is not just an organization—it is a
movement of ordinary farmers, standing together to
demand fair prices, loan waivers, better irrigation
facilities, and protection from exploitation by
middlemen. In the 1988 Meerut rally, Mahendra
Singh Tikait gathered over five lakh farmers, forcing
 the government to listen. It was a powerful moment
that showed the strength of collective action.
Over the years, BKU has played a key role in shaping
India’s agricultural policies. It has consistently
opposed policies that harm farmers, including free-
market reforms that allow corporations to control
agricultural prices. The 2020-21 farmers’ protest
against the three farm laws saw BKU, led by Rakesh
Tikait, emerge as a key force, uniting farmers from
different states in a historic movement. The protest
was not just about laws—it was about farmers’
survival, dignity, and their right to fair earnings.
Despite divisions within the BKU and changing
political landscapes, the union remains a symbol of
farmers’ resistance and solidarity. In a country where
farming still sustains millions, BKU’s struggles remind
us that the voice of the farmer is essential—not just
for agriculture but for the nation’s future.

ANS. 7 –
(A) The Bodos of Assam are one of the largest
indigenous communities in the Northeast, with a
distinct language, culture, and identity. For decades,
they have struggled for autonomy, seeking
recognition and greater political control over their
homeland. Their movement is deeply rooted in a
sense of historical injustice, economic
marginalization, and the fear of losing their identity
due to migration and state policies.
The demand for a separate Bodoland began in the
late 1960s when the Bodos and other tribal groups
felt sidelined in Assam’s political and economic
landscape. The movement gained momentum in the
1980s under the All Bodo Students’ Union (ABSU),
which called for a separate state under the slogan,
“Divide Assam, Fifty-Fifty.” However, the struggle
soon turned violent with the emergence of militant
groups like the Bodo Liberation Tigers (BLT) and the
National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB),
leading to years of conflict, displacement, and loss of
lives.
In response, the government signed multiple peace
accords with Bodo leaders, the most significant being
the Bodo Accord of 2003, which created the
Bodoland Territorial Council (BTC), granting limited
self-governance. However, demands for full
statehood continued, leading to another accord in
2020, which promised greater political rights,
economic support, and protections for Bodo identity
while keeping Assam united.
Today, while violence has reduced, the Bodos still
face challenges like unemployment, land rights
issues, and internal divisions. Yet, their struggle is a
reminder of how deeply people value their cultural
roots. The Bodo movement is not just about borders
—it is about dignity, self-determination, and the right
to shape their own future in the land they call home.
(B) The Narmada Bachao Andolan (NBA) is one of
India’s most well-known social movements, fighting
to protect the rights of people displaced by large
dams on the Narmada River. Led by Medha Patkar,
the movement emerged in the 1980s when
thousands of villagers, Adivasis, and farmers realized
that projects like the Sardar Sarovar Dam would
submerge their homes, lands, and forests—without
fair rehabilitation or compensation.
For those affected, the struggle was not just about
losing property; it was about losing a way of life
passed down for generations. The government
promised development, but for the displaced, it
meant being forced into poverty and uncertainty.
NBA questioned the idea that progress should come
at the cost of people’s lives, arguing that big dams
often benefited industries and cities while ignoring
local communities.
The movement used non-violent protests, hunger
strikes, and legal battles to challenge the dam
projects. Medha Patkar and her supporters sat in Jal
Satyagraha—standing in rising waters for days to
show the world their suffering. Their efforts forced
the Supreme Court and global organizations like the
World Bank to rethink dam funding and rehabilitation
policies. While the dams were eventually built, NBA’s
fight brought rehabilitation rights, environmental
concerns, and the voices of displaced people into
national debates.
Today, the NBA’s impact goes beyond the Narmada
River. It has inspired many struggles for
environmental justice and the rights of marginalized
communities. While it could not stop all dams, it
proved that people’s voices matter, that
development must be fair, and that true progress
should never come at the cost of humanity. The
NBA’s legacy is a reminder that development should
uplift, not displace.