Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Outcomes of Movement2

What are the likely outcomes in terms of achievement of the goals of collective action and nature of institution formed if the means adopted are legitimate but the ideology of movement is different? Ofcourse level of toleration will be different depending on what kind of political climate exists.


mayank k said...

In 1952 kashmir had a special status with its own flag and prime minister .This special status was pproved by government of INDIA.Shyama prasad mukherjee a prominent leader went on a hunger strike against this and died.This lead to widespread discontent and finally the special statues was removed.This shows that although at that time his ideology was against state but because his means were legitimate people did supported his cause and in a democracy state cannot go against public wishes to defend its ideology

Mehul Khare said...

If the very ideology of movement challenges the state the state would take stern measures to quell movement.No matter how legitimate the means used. Its hardly a big deal for people in power to redefine the legitimate and illegitimate.The Quit India movement ,for example took legitimate means but movement was against the British governemt. The Govt was very harsh and adamant on surpressing the movement. All the prominent leaders were behind bars and a leaderless movement was easy to surpress.
Mehul PRM32


The very goals of a collective action depends a lot on the ideology of the movement however it is also significant to keep in view the means adopted to achieve it. If the political leaders are having a authoritarian nature then even the legitimate means will not suffice as the political leaders will misuse their power to suppress the movement. It then depends on the leaders to mobilize the collective action to bear the brunt of politics then.
Prateek Parimal(32029)

salman haider said...

the goals of the movement are at risk due to the difference in ideologies. the kind of institution that may evolve will challenge the existing institution.The difference in the sort of institutions that Fateh and Hamas are show how difference in ideologies can effect the nature of institutions. moreover, in power Hamas always tries to harm the cause of Fateh even though the means hey have adopted are similar.
Salman Haider

Komal Makkad said...

Homosexuality was generally considered a taboo in Indian civil society and government but legalizing the same was a huge success realized in 2009.
The ideologies were different and the shift in attitude was due to the silent protest, advocacy by NGOs and international pressure by UN (to help fight against HIV AIDS). However, institutionalization has a long way to go in the light existing oppositions by religious groups.

mayank tiwari said...

In the People Power Revolution of Philippines (EDSA Revolution), the means adopted were a series of popular demonstrations (civil resistance). Marcos’ government was authoritarian and repressive. The movement was against regime violence and electoral fraud. A classic case where the ideology of the movement is different from the state but means are legitimate. There was some level of tolerance from the Marcos’ government as the movements involved over two million people. The protests culminated the departure of the dictator. Corazon Aquino was proclaimed as the legitimate President of the Philippines after the revolution.
Mayank Tiwari

Kamal Rangan said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Kamal Rangan said...

Here people are bringing to the front the inaction or inability of administrators to bring about change what people wants. Usually State will try out different methods to hijack the event and carry out its institutionalisation when they realize the capacity of the movement, in order to save their face in public. In authoritarian system, the movement itself will be thwarted or under constant suppression to retain State’s authority. The peaceful struggle for the independence of Tibet is such an example where State uses its power against public resulting in grave human rights violations, but denies the claims categorically.
Kamal Rangan (32075)

Mahesh(p32019) said...

In case of peaceful resistance in form of Satyagrah or Dharna aandolan against infrastusture or industrial projects, ideologies of protestors and state differs as that in case of Sardar sarovar project or SEZ projects. But state recognizes the peaceful means adopted legitimate until it becomes a political threat or rose to levels violence and conflict as been the case in above to examples. This shows that state tolerates movements until it considers it non- threatening to state’s stability and authority and afterwards tries to oppress it.
Mahesh Dharap (P32019)

Nilesh Sharma said...

In a democratic country, everybody has the right to put forward his views in legitimate manner. It does not matter whether they are in sync with the government or not. Infact government has to provide security if the collective action is endangered by anti-social elements. After independence Indian government did not want to create states on linguistic basis. But Potti Sreeramulu fasted until death for the state of Andhra . He got massive public support also and atlast government agreed to create separate telugu state. Generally outcome of any legitimate collective action depends majorly on people support.

Sarthak Mishra said...

After Indira Gandhi was found guilty of violating election laws by the Allahabad High Court in 1975, Jayaprakash Narayan demanded her resignation and advocated a program for social transformation which he termed “sampoorna kranti”. In response Indira Gandhi proclaimed National Emergency which led to the arrests of many politicians from opposition parties. This movement ultimately led to the fall of Congress government after the Emergency was lifted and elections were held in 1977 after 21 months of Emergency. This movement was successful but government tried to suppress it although the means of the movement were legitimate.
Sarthak Mishra