Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Outcomes of Movement3

Leader of a movement is discredited by the state when the means adopted are illegitimate, but the goal of collective action is same as that of state. What happens to the outcome in terms of achievement of aims and nature of institutionalisation in such contexts of discredited leaders?

6 comments:

Rohitash Jain said...

Everyone in the country is suffering from corruption problem. In 2001, Tehelka.com exposed the alleged culture of bribery at the Ministry of Defence (India) by setting up a bogus London-based company, and contacted MoD officials. The government turned the tables on Tehelka with an investigation into its conduct. Company was ruined badly by political parties. Organization size reduced from 120 to 1. Each staff members faced criminal charges for using illegitimate means.
Rohitash 32088

Jainee said...

In times like today where corruption, red-tapism and nepotism are so widespread amongst all parts of governing bodies, the people have started using their own means to achieve the desired goals for the state. And though there is no open acceptance, the fact that many people are in favor of such discredited leaders, is seen by the new age movies like “The Wednesday” which is highly appreciated and talked about the entire country.
- Jainee Nathwani
32071

shashank- EXPLORING MYSELF said...

One example of it Kirori Singh Bainsla a retired Lieutenant Colonel and leader of Gurjar Arakshan Sangarsh Simiti and Led the protests across Rajasthan. Several highways were blocked and railway tracks were removed five protesters and a police officer was killed. The goal of collective action was same that of state that is upliftment of gurjars by giving them reservation. After 25 days of violent protest Gurjar community got status of special reserved category, however the Gurjars are still fighting for the special reservation (5%).
Shashank Singhania

kajal kumari said...

If the state shares the same ideology as the the movement but is not in agreement with the means used, it may end up becoming the leader itself and taking the movement further. I feel this is what happened in the Godhra riots wherein the political party in power had the same anti-muslim ideology which it carried on for more than a year even after the "Sabarmati Express" mob action.

Abhinav Deep Sinha said...

A lot of movements are not recognized by the state,at least initially. Their leaders are discredited and supporters are victimized even though the movement and the state may be sharing common goals. However, history is witness to the fact that such movements acquire legal sanction with retrospective effect once these movements become successful. For eg. in Cuba, when the communists initiated a movement, it was opposed by the state and the state called them "rebels". After acquiring power, the communists became the "state" and legitimized their rule and their movement.

Rajendar Reddy said...

Considering example in AP state, where Communist party tried to distribute the government/public lands to the landless, leaders and supporters were only arrested and released on bail. No strong sanctions were imposed on these leaders as they were not considered as threat to the state or challenging the state's power. State tries to discredit the leaders (arresting etc…) by restricting them in performing the collective action. If the state is not successful in discrediting the leaders, it might institutionalise the rules to do so.

Rajendar Reddy (32015)