Nativism in a Metropolis: the Shiv Sena in Bombay 9780804771894, 0804771898

Citation preview

NUNC COGNOSCO EX PARTE

TRENT UNIVERSITY LIBRARY PRESENTED BY PROF. P. BANDYOPADHYAY

Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2019 with funding from Kahle/Austin Foundation

https://archive.org/details/nativisminmetropOOOOgupt

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS: THE SHIV SENA IN BOMBAY

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS: THE SHIV SENA IN BOMBAY

By DIPANKAR GUPTA

MANOHAR 1982

s

u-

©Dipankar Gupta First Published 1982 Published by

Ramesh Jain for Manohar Publications 2, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002 Printed by

Asia Composer at Sunil Printers, 1067, Ajay Palace, Naraina New Delhi-110028

G

p

.CD

To my parents and my wife, Harmala

Preface

This work is a revised and abridged version of my Ph.D. thesis on the Shiv Sena, which I submitted to Jawaharlal Nehru University in 1977. It deals with the Shiv Sena during the years 1966 to 1974, that is from the time the Shiv Sena started till roughly before the Emergency was declared in 1975. In 1974 I also wound up field work for my doctoral dissertation on the Shiv Sena. I could have of course gone back to Bombay after 1976 to add a postscript and chronologically update my work. However, I felt such an effort was unnecessary for my major premises and the conclusions I drew from them, were unlikely to be affected by a mere accretion of additional sequential information. To illustrate what I mean, the fact that the Shiv Sena supported Mrs. Gandhi without any reservation during the Emergency, and that the latter in turn did not choose to ban the Shiv Sena when all other so-called communal organisa¬ tions were banned, speaks volumes for the close ties that ex¬ isted between the two organisations. A state of affairs that I had already mentioned in my thesis. I, of course, met some Shiv Sainiks during the Emergency and also had occasion to read some of the Sena’s ideological rationale for supporting Mrs. Gandhi. The two most frequent arguments, that the Shiv Sainiks came up with were that by supporting Mrs. Gandhi they were at least able to function. What has Jana Sangh got out of opposing her? And secondly, Bal Thackeray, the Shiv Sena leader, had always said that India needed a “benevolent dictator”, so Mrs. Gandhi was doing the right thing after all. All other ideological and practical considerations were blotted out from the scene. This, however, does not mean that the Shiv Sena was particularly active in this period, as organised political action was effectively stamped out in those 19 months. Moreover, most Shiv

viii

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

Sainiks were accustomed to the police and the state govern¬ ment backing them up and were therefore in no hurry to disobey Thackeray (and by implication the Emergency decritals), and land themselves in gaol. These are some of the hard facts about the Shiv Sena during the Emergency and they should also drive home the fact that the ability of the Shiv Sena to assume such forbidding potency in Bombay was to a great extent be¬ cause of the official patronage it received. But for such official backing to be forthcoming and effective a mass base is required. Elow the Shiv Sena acquired this mass base and how it strove to consolidate it are the questions to which this book is largely devoted. My research interest in the Shiv Sena began in 1972, when I chose to write a short M.Phil dissertation on it. The reasons why I chose the Shiv Sena were several. I shall men¬ tion here only the more important ones. Firstly, at the time I started work, there was no full length account on the Shiv Sena, and the materials that existed were mainly in the nature of political pamphlets, newspaper articles, or occasional papers, like those of K.K. Gangadharan and Mary Katzenstein, in a few learned journals. Secondly, as the Shiv Sena was then a comparatively recent phenomenon which in a short span of time had gained tremendous popularity, and was one of the few on-going movements in India, I was naturally intri¬ gued to study it. Moreover, by virtue of it being an on-going and recent movement, I thought it would be a good opportu¬ nity to know in detail the complexities and dynamics of the movement first hand from its sponsors. Thirdly, I had spent a considerable part of my life in Bombay, both during my school going years and after, and the fact that if I pursued the Shiv Sena I would not be on unfamiliar terrain definitely helped to make up my mind. My exposure to the Shiv Sena during 1972 for the purpose of my M.Phil dissertation was brief, but it was fascinating enough to prod me on to study it in greater detail for my Ph.D. thesis. I was in Bombay at a stretch from February to December 1973 on field work for my thesis and most of the data that I have used in this volume were collected during that period. I subsequently went back to Bombay for several short visits in 1974 to fill in some gaps in my data.

PREFACE

IX

Barring my ineptitude and ignorance, which account for many of the drawbacks in this work, the book itself would have been substantially better had the Shiv Sainiks, especially the leadership, been more co-operative. By and large they withheld any sympathy for my endeavour, and treated my recurring presence as something of a nuisance. They were reluctant to grant interviews and often failed to keep their appointments. The leaders of the Shiv Sena were general¬ ly more accessible and the fact that I showed up with them publicly on several occasions helped to break the ice with some of the rank and file in the organization. The Shiv Sainiks, however, barring a few, were afraid or hesitant to talk freely, and very often I found that they reported my interviews with them to Bal Thackeray. I was also suspected variously of being a police agent, a communist agent or a newspaper re¬ porter intent on vilifying the organization. This, in spite of the fact, that I carried credentials from the University which verified my status as a bonafide research scholar. In fact my connection with Jawaharlal Nehru University itself came un¬ der sharp scrutiny, as many members of the Shiv Sena erroneously believe that this University is the hot bed of communist and Muslim League activity. The Shiv Sena’s anti¬ pathy towards both these organizations is well known. It is quite possible, however, that the fault lay with me. As a researcher I was unable to establish complete rapport with the Shiv Sainiks. The fact that I am not a Maharashtrian may have also contributed to their cool response. Though I generally believe that the problem of establishing rapport with the Shiv Sainiks will be faced by any scholar who studies the Shiv Sena, given its dictatorial character and method of functioning. Furthermore, as the organ¬ ization is still quite informal and as very little attempt is made to maintain and classify documents, it becomes difficult for the investigator to supplement his observations with documentary evidence. If I have been able to complete my work with a reason¬ able degree of competence then it is primarily due to my supervisor, Professor Yogendra Singh, of the Centre for the Study of Social Systems, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University. I am very grateful to him for

X

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

guiding me in the study of social movements and for sensitiz¬ ing me to the theoretical complexities involved in this field. I am also indebted to Dr. Satish Saberwal of Jawaharlal Nehru University who patiently went through several portions of this work and offered valuable comments which helped me to tighten up my arguments. I should like to thank Prof. A.R. Desai of Bombay University and Prof. Y.B. Damle of Poona University for their comments on my thesis. It is largely on the basis of their comments that I reworked my thesis for publication. I am especially grateful to Prof. Desai for the advice he gave me in the early stages of my field trip. I am also indebted, in no small measure, to the faculty members and students of the Centre for the Study of Social Systems, Jawaharlal Nehru University, who helped me overcome the numerous problems I faced in the course of writing my thesis. My field trip to Bombay would not have been quite as fruitful or pleasant had it not been for the warm hospitality of Shri Anil Kumar Bhave. His intimate association with the Shiv Sena enabled me to observe the organisation at close quarters. He also helped me in the arduous task of translating Marathi language publications, especially the Marmik, into English. His enthusiasm and interest in my thesis often surpas¬ sed my own. I am deeply indebted to him for his friendship and co-operation. I am afraid he will perhaps not be very happy with the position I have taken on the Shiv Sena, but 1 know he is big enough not to let ideological differences come in the way of friendship. I should also like to take this opportunity to thank all those members of the Shiv Sena who helped me in the various stages of my work. Acknowledgements are due to Prof. Ramachandran of the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, and to my friends Mr. Yinay T. Gautam for assisting me with the tables, Mr. A.W. Rohankar for preparing the maps, and Mr. Ramesh Alve for providing some general assistance to me. There are several others who performed labour gratis and assisted me in securing information for my thesis, but who would not like to be acknowledged by name. This does not in any way reduce my indebtedness to them. The manuscript for publication was finalised after much

PREFACE

XI

revision while I was working in the Centre for Social Studies, Surat, in 1979. This naturally meant that for some time I had to disengage myself from active service in the Centre. My other colleagues in the Centre covered up for me in this period, which allowed me to finalise my manuscript at a leisurely pace. To these colleagues at the Centre—to Prof. I.P. Desai, Prof. Ghanshyam Shah and Dr. Pradip Kumar Bose—my very special gratitude. I also salute Mr. K.M. Bhavsar and Mrs. Silloo Mehta of the Centre for the speed and efficiency with which they typed out the manuscript. In spite of the fact that they were laden with other official duties they always returned at the first opportunity to my manuscript. Had it not been for their conscientious efforts it would have taken much longer for this volume to appear. It is difficult to adequately thank my wife, Harmala, who cheerfully bore the trials and tribulations of being married to a Ph.D. scholar. In spite of her academic commitments she always found time to discuss perplexing issues and to read through several preparatory drafts offering valuable suggestions. Her literary standard, moreover, is something that I have aspired towards, but never achieved. The errors and shortcomings of this work are, needless to say, my responsibility.

Jawaharlal Nehru University 1982

Dipankar Gupta

■

Contents

Preface I II III IV \V VI

An Introduction Movements

vjj to

the

Study

of

Social

The Shiv Sena: Background Factors and Causes The Shiv Sena Organization: Its Structure and Mass Base Ideology of the Shiv Sena: Its Articulation and Perception Areas of Shiv Sena Activism—1966-1974: The Issues and Constraints Summing Up

\ 39 70 118 154 185

Appendices Appendix I—Interviews and Questionnaire Appendix II—Household Income Distribution in the Various Wards of Bombay Appendix III—Number of Seats Contested in Bombay Municipality Election, 1968, and the Total Number of Votes Polled by Differ¬ ent Political Parties and also Percentage of Votes Polled by Each of Them

Bibliography Index

201 204

205

206 221

List of Tables

Page I Break-up of Greater Bombay Population by Major Linguistic Communities II Age Distribution of Unemployed in Greater Bombay III Distribution of Migrant Workers by State of Birth and Education IV Per Cent of Migrant Workers in Each Occupa¬ tion Division by State of Birth in Greater Bombay V Caste, Age, Education and Income of the Top 10 Leaders of the Shiv Sena VI Father's Income and Background, and Personal Background and Employment Status of Top 10 Leaders of Shiv Sena VII Caste, Education, Political Background of Parents and Father’s Income of the Middle Order Shiv Sena Leaders VIII Background of the Middle Order Leaders of the Shiv Sena in Terms of their Social and Political Affiliation Before Joining the Shiv Sena, their Years of Stay in Bombay, their Income and Whether they are Self-employed or Not IX Rank Correlation Cofficient Between Votes Polled for the Shiv Sena, the Other Major Parties and the Linguistic Groups of those Born and Brought up in Greater Bombay X Rank Correlation Coefficient Between Votes Polled for the Shiv Sena and Other Major Parties and the Linguistic Break-up of Migrants to Greater Bombay

48 50 51 51

105

106

107

107

110

110

LIST OF TABLE

Rank Correlation Coefficient Between Votes Polled for the Shiv Sena and the Other Major Parties and the Levels of Income in Greater Bombay XII Reasons Given by Shiv Sainiks for Joining the Shiv Sena, Arranged According to their Hierar¬ chical Standing in the Organization XIII Reasons Given by Shiv Sainiks for Joining the Shiv Sena, Arranged According to the Caste of the Respondents XIV Reasons Given by Shiv Sainiks for Joining the Shiv Sena, Arranged According to the Age of the Respondents XV Reasons Given by Shiv Sainiks for Joining the Shiv Sena, Arranged According to the Income Level of the Respondents

XV

XI

111

141

142

143

144

List of Maps

1 2 3

4

Maharashtra in India Facing page Transport Network of Maharashtra Facing page Urban Population of the District as Per Cent of Total Urban Population of the State of Maharashtra—1901-1931 Facing page Urban Population of the District as Per Cent of Total Urban Population of the State of Maharashtra—1941-1971 Facing page

39 47

48

49

CHAPTER 1

An Introduction to the Study of Social Movements

The study of social movements has traditionally attracted historians and political philosophers. Though very little systematic work had been done on the sociology of movements before 1930,1 it is this field which interested the forebearers of modern sociological thought. The upheavals in France, the glorious French Revolution and its aftermath, not excluding the historic Paris Commune, have inspired generations of social and political philosophers. Yet, by and large, the conventional approach to the study of the phenomena has been a historical and philosophical study of their ideas and theories. These were interpreted and analysed as if they were systems of philosophy; they were submitted to critical evaluations in terms of empirical truth, logical consistency and ethical standards. Not much attention was puid to the meaning of these ideas to the masses of people who made up the movement or party, nor to the social struc¬ ture of these groups, nor to other problems of sociological relevance.2 (emphasis mine) In short the sociological frame of reference in the analysis has been missing. The study of social movements is essentially a study of social change.3 The earlier “academic” sociologists, influenc¬ ed by the conventional model of equilibrium were perhaps deterred from studying this area because many of them believed social movements to be of an essentially transient (though

2

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

traumatic) character which did not deserve serious intellectual cogitation, as they disappear without leaving any great impres¬ sion on “the historical course of social change”.4 After the Second World War, a lot of myths and a great many complacencies were shattered. The threat of the Nazi and the Fascist Movements, the success of the Bolshevik Revo¬ lution led to a more serious examination of movements on a scientific sociological plane. Social movements today are important, sociologically, for a variety of very pertinent reasons. Firstly, it has now been recognised in the main body of “academic” sociological thought that both system main¬ taining and change inducing factors are present in every society.5 Social movements being eminently in the field of social change, their study naturally assumes importance. Secondly, as a follow up it would be interesting to enquire of the possible avenues for the manifestations of social move¬ ments. Thirdly, to a certain extent, the study of movements might help formulate realistic social planning, social engineer¬ ing as well as administration, to the degree possible, in order to keep social discontinuities and strains at a low level. Alternatively, it may also help the propagators of a social movement to understand the social structural ramifications of the movement. Fourthly, a detailed and indepth study of social movements—their types, their causes, their stages, their relationship with the system, their limitations and possibili¬ ties—helps not only to enrich sociological theory but also adds a dimension to one’s social existence. Our concern in this book is to study the Shiv Sena move¬ ment. But in order to do so we think it relevant to under¬ stand some of the issues involved in the sociological study of movements. First of all we should be clear as to what we understand by movements and we should also know in this connection what are the types of social movements. Secondly, it is necessary to evaluate the theoretical perspectives applied to the study of various social movements, in order to understand their limitations and advantages, in the light of which the theoretical perspective that we shall employ to study the Shiv Sena will be justified. We have deliberately tried to keep the following discussion on concepts and theoretical perspectives simple and elementary,

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

3

for this might, especially in the discussion on perspec¬ tives, involve a more intimate participation by those readers, who like us, are groping towards a unity between theory and empirical research. With the help of Landsberger we may posit a sociological scheme for the study of social movements. The study should investigate (u) societal changes preceding the establishment of the social movement, (b) goals and ideologies of the move¬ ment, (c) its means and methods, (d) the mass base of the move¬ ment, (e) conditions facilitating organisations e.g., a history of communal co-operative effort, (f) its allies and antagonists, (g) the outcome of the movement or the conditions for success and failure, i.e., “determination of its success and failure, particularly in view of the allies of which it disposes and the antagonists it faces.'''' This may include structural constraints.6 (emphasis mine) 1. THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL MOVEMENT

Social movement as a concept must first of all be clear before any full length sociological treatment of it is under¬ taken. It is necessary (i) to distinguish it from other related phenomena such as riots, mobs, crowds, historic trends, voluntary associations and political parties; (ii) to examine the structure and organisation of a movement, i.e., its component parts and characteristics. By examining the above, the concept of “social movement” will be clear. Our following discussion will revolve around the above mentioned themes. 1.1 Definitions A social movement has been defined in various ways. But Bruce Cameron puts it most succinctly when he says: “A social movement occurs when a fairly large number of people band together in order to alter or supplant some portion of the existing culture or social order The difficulty that arises with such a definition is in maintaining the unambiguity of the terms involved, such as “large number” to which no exact maximum or minimum limit can be specified. In the definitions offered by various scholars four aspects

4

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

have been generally stressed: (a) the ideology or the normative views which bind the members of a movement;8 (b) the means the movement employs, and (c) the organisational structure of the movement. The above three aspects are also employed to distinguish social movements from other related phenomena as well; and finally (d) the movement is also viewed as an instrument of social change. Paul Wilkinson emphasises most of these aspects when he defines a social movement as “a deliberate, collective endeav¬ our to promote change, having at least a minimal degree of organisation and founded upon the normative commitment and active participation of followers or members”.9 Joseph Gusfield’s definition emphasises the first aspect. According to him social movements “are socially shared activities and beliefs directed towards the demand for change in some aspect of the social order”.10 Gusfield like Heberle, lays a great deal of stress on the integrative character of the normative and ideological beliefs of the members and followers of a move¬ ment. These according to Heberle are the “constitutive values”.11 Or as Wilkinson elaborates: “A social movement’s commitment to change and the raison d'etre of its organiza¬ tion are founded upon the conscious volition and active parti¬ cipation on the part of the followers or members”.12 Indeed on this count there prevails a general consensus of opinion.13 John Wilson on the other hand defines a social movement as a “conscious, collective, organized attempt to bring about or resist large scale change in the social order by non-institutionalized means”.11 Here the emphasis is on the means employed by the social movement as an instrument of change. Wilkinson allows for a variety of means which may be employed by a social movement, such as violence, illegality, revolution or withdrawal into “utopian” community.15 It is misleading to construct the concept of a social movement on the existence or non-existence of institutionalization alone, as Gusfield does in a rather pronounced manner. He wishes to focus on only those movements which “attempt to achieve goals through peaceful political or moral persuasion”. Gerlach and Hine have laid stress on the organizational character of social movements and also significantly on the recruitment of members.16 Heberle, while he offers no clear

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

5

definition of a movement also feels that the lack of organiza¬ tion characterises a social movement.17 A feeling which by no means is shared by all. There seems to be a consensus, however, on the view that social movements are agents and instruments of social change. Some authors have limited the thrust of their definitions to this aspect alone. Herbert Blumer defines social movements as “collective enterprises to establish a new order of life”.18 For Wendell King it is “a group venturing beyond a local community, or a single event and involving a systematic effort to institute changes”.19 On a slightly variant strain Turner and Killian note that a movement is a “collectivity which acts with some continuity, to promote or resist a change in the society or group of which it is a part”.20

1.2 Distinctions 1.2.1 Movements and Trends The characteristics which the various authors emphasise while defining a social movement are echoed when distinctions are drawn between movements and other related phenomena. For Heberle the conceptual requirement of group conscious¬ ness, group identity and the feeling of solidarity which exists between members and followers of a social movement, dis¬ tinguishes it from unconscious trends and tendencies.21 The fundamental characteristic of a movement for Heberle is the integration of the movement by its “constitutive values”. Likewise according to Gusfield the distinction between trends and movements is that the latter “possess both structure— some organisation of people—and sentiments—beliefs about what ought to be done and what will come to pass”.22 The difference is clear, for trends are after all similar but uncoordi¬ nated actions of many individuals.23 L. Broom and P. Selznick in the tradition of Robert Park bracketed social movements with other forms of collective behaviour such as crowds, riots, etc. They felt that “collective behaviour is the study of relatively unstructured social situa¬ tions and their products such as crowds, riots, rumour, public opinion, fads and social movement”.24 This statement is in

6

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

the tradition of Burke who in his Reflections on the Revolution characterises the “Assembly” derogatorily. This set the tone for later authors who characterised all collectivities as epito¬ mizing irrational behaviour. In this connection the names of Le Bon and Gabriel Tarde easily come to mind. However, Neil Smelser-5 and more recently George Rude 6 have turned their backs on such shibboleths. Rude like Michelet sees the crowd as people; whereas Burke and lumin saw them as “rabble”.27 What then would be the distinction between a movement and a crowd? (We also include mobs, riots, etc.) The important differences are: (i) the crowd does not have a group identity born out of the integrative effect of constitu¬ tive values;28 (ii) it is not organised and does not possess a differentiation of structure; (iii) it exists generally for a short period of time; and (iv) as Gusfield has pointed out, a social movement unlike crowd behaviour embodies a rejection of certain accepted practices and beliefs and it attempts to bring about change against the resistance of prevalent belief and authority.29 The crux of the difference being that a movement has an organization and ideology which suggests how and what things should be changed. It has a more or less deliberate plan of collective action. Also, as Landsberger has pointed out, a movement does not indulge in expressive actions alone, like a ‘jacquerie’. Its actions are more instrumental, i.e., they are oriented towards a goal.30 The distinctive features of a movement are therefore organization, leadership and control which are absent in either surging crowds or wild cat strikes. 1.2.2 Movement and Political Party The trickiest distinction is that between movements and political parties. According to Gusfield, movements can be distinguished from political parties by the fact that “many movements and many aspects of movements, do not display the degree of organisation, definiteness and permanent establishment enjoyed by . . . political parties”. But then he goes on to say that movements may be organized, “yet many movements are not organizations”.31 Furthermore the author also says that a certain degree of organisation is necessary for movements. The situation is undoubtedly puzzling. Heberle

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

7

does not make matters any better when he says, like Gusfield, that a political party has a formal organisation.32 Wilson believes that political parties operate through institutional means and movements “attempt to bring or resist large scale change in the social order by non-institutionalized means”.33 James Jupp in Political Parties distinguishes a movement from a party because the former with its commitment to an ideology, mobilization of enthusiasm and its scorn for establ¬ ished political institutions and practices is clearly different from political parties.34 “Apparently”, as Heberle said, “no clear cut distinction between a movement and a party can be made by this method of searching for a single distinguishing trait.”35 The situation is further confounded by the fact that many political parties may be involved with a movement or several movements. However, for the sake of conceptual clarity, we may distinguish a movement as a process, anc! a political party as a structure,36 A

movement is a process that brings about

organizational

change, i.e., reordering or supplanting some elements of the existing social structure, or a structw al change, i.e., a complete structural transformation of the system?1 As it is eminently a process, a social movement when successful is self destructive. A political party on the other hand is essentially a structure for achieving or trying to achieve monopolization of the means of coercion, as well as control over administration and governance. It is in the nature of things self perpetuating. But this is only

a conceptual distinction because empirically the two pheno¬ mena are often embodied in the same physical entity. 1.3 Typology of Movements There is no uniform criterion for a typology of social movements. They have been typologised on the basis of their structure, or on the basis of their goals, strategy, etc.38 Sociologists now no longer, like either Lorenz von Stein or even Sombart, believe a social movement to be only “the conception of all the attempts at emancipation on the part of the proletariat”.39 Scholars of social movements no longer find it necessary to restrict their study only to proletarian movements.40

8

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

Turner and Killian41 classify movements according to three fundamental types: (i) value oriented movements, (ii) power oriented movements, and (iii) participation oriented move¬ ments. And Wilson building up on this adds 3 further types: (iv) The transformative, (V) the redemptive, and (vi) the alienative.42 Chalmers Johnson has his own classification: (i) jacquerie, (ii) millinearism rebellion, (iii) anarchist rebellion, (iv) communist revolution, (v) coup d’etat, and (vi) militarised mass insurrection.43 Gusfield typologises a movement as withdrawal, protest, reform and revolution.44 We may also classify a movement according to its scope as (i) revolutionary, and (ii) reformatory, akin to Smelser’s value oriented and norm oriented movements. But even here there are different opinions on what is meant by revolutionary or radical. Some define it on the basis of violence,45 and others on the basis of its scope.46 Further, in this sub-category of revolution, Crane Brinton finds further sub-types.47 We find therefore myriads of classifications and typologies in the literature on movements. The typologies adopted by sociologists depend on the area of their interest and on the thrust of their contentions. The distinctions are generally based on the following criteria: (i) targets, (ii) identity of the revolutionary masses, (iii) revolutionary goals or ideology, (iv) spontaneous or calculated nature,48 (v) scope, and (vi) means. It should be noted however that these types are not mutually exclusive and there is frequent overlapping. For instance, a revolutionary movement may be seen variantly also as a transformative movement or as a “participation oriented movement”, depending on which particular aspect we wish to stress. There is no single uniform criterion for classification and there is no point in seeking one either. 1.4 Organisation One of the most important contributions of sociologists to the study of social movement is their examination of the orga¬ nization which spearheads the movement. We have already concluded, that no matter what kind of movement, there has to be a mininal organization behind it. A social movement is usually a “poly-cephalous organisation composed of units

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

9

recticulated by various persona], structural and ideological ties.”49 Though there are many movements that are charis¬ matic they still possess an organisation.50 As a matter of fact, Weber has inadvertently led many of his students to take up rather dogmatic positions regarding organisation and charisma. Firstly, all social movements need not be led by charis¬ matic figures. Apart from the traditional and rational legal leaders there may also be what Wilson calls the ideological leaders,51 who according to him are easily more frequent than the “charismatic” type especially in secular movements. Secondly, as Gusfield has pointed out, there is nothing inherent in the nature of organisations that make them grope towards compromise when they get routinized and gradually lose the ardour and enthusiam of their followers.52 The need for an organisation has been stressed not only by sociologists but also by the propagators of the movement themselves.53 And it is also true that many activists have cri¬ ticized, quite unrealistically, the role of organisation in move¬ ments,54 blaming it for their oligarchical and dictatorial tenden¬ cies. There is no sociological fatality inherent in this issue. Most sociological treatments of movements, however, deal exhaustively with the organisational structure of the movement. Some authors study it exclusively in order to deter¬ mine the internal dynamics of the movement.55 Comparisons also generally focus on the differential organizational attri¬ butes of various movements. 2.

THE DIMENSIONS FOR THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

A movement may be studied either sociologically, the implications of which we have already mentioned more specificcally on page 3 of this chapter or sequentially, which is some¬ times called historically; or it may be studied with a view to exploring the psychological characteristics of the leaders and the followers of a movement. A slight clarification will be in order. Even a sociological treatment of a social movement may legitimately entail a sequential investigation of the growth of the movement, or even a section on the psychology and motivation of the activists

10

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

But we are here isolating those scholars who are involv¬ ed either in a sequential presentation, or a psychological investigation alone to the exclusion of other sociological matrices. In this section of our paper we are dealing not only with non-sociological studies of movements, but also with the vary¬ ing perspectives in the sociological school itself, namely the functional and the Marxian perspectives and frameworks for the study of social movements. Admittedly, we are excluding other perspectives in sociology. Our reason is that generally sociological treatises on movements have been written by scholars who have adopted either one or the other perspective and framework. Also the debate between functionalism and Marxism in sociology has thrown up very interesting alternatives. The above dimensions are by no means exhaustive. Our primary intention is to show in relief the characteristics of a sociological study of movements. Moreover, the dimensions are not watertight compartments. Modern social scientific study is largely interdisciplinary. The distinction between history and sociology for example is an antiquated one. Keeping these qualifications in mind we shall in the following pages high¬ light some of the important dimensions in the study of social movements. 2.1 The Sequential Study of Social Movements A purely sequential, or what may be crudely called a histori¬ cal study of movements, is fairly common. As a matter of fact the bulk of literature on social movements is generally of this order. Typically in these studies there is a sequential presenta¬ tion of details, dates and events. There is no attempt to explain or even interpret social movements, their causes, their structure, etc. These studies are rich in facts and are valuable to any sociological investigator. They usually employ the term move¬ ment very freely without studying the concept itself from a theoretical perspective. D’ Antonio’s and Pike’s study is of this order,56 for there is no attempt to discuss the problem or definition of movements.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

11

However, sequential studies are both interesting and use¬ ful. They detail the growth of the movement per se, as well as that of its ideology and its positions and alliances.57 Some of these detail the conducive situations which help the forma¬ tion and growth of a movement before going into their sequen¬ tial presentations.58 These studies usually remain confined to the realm of either political history or individual history59 of the leaders of the movement. The scheme of Landsberger remains by and large untouched. We cannot call this form of study his¬ torical, in the sense that it is understood today. The historians also talk in terms of structures, and their study may be both synchronic and diachronic. The difference is probably one of emphasis. A historian will more likely study the development of the structural conditions leading to a movement and contri¬ buting to its typicality. A sociologist usually lays greater stresson the short term historical changes that occur in the econo¬ mic and social structure before the formation of the movement. More in the nature, it would seem of identifying the precipita¬ ting factors. Secondly, a sociologist also examines the internal organization of the movement, its leadership structure, its ideology and the motivation of its members more thoroughly. At the same time it should be reiterated that there is nothing inherently historical that separates one approach from the other.60 As a matter of fact a thorough study of any social movement should embrace ideally both history and sociology. 2.2 The Psychological Study of Movements The main focus of such studies is on the personality dis¬ positions and motivational factors of the leaders, and those who play an active role in social movements. In these studies the emphasis is not on the sociological dimensions of the move¬ ment, such as social mobilization and the social bases of the movement, but on the personalities, psychological adjustments, and frustrations of the individuals in the movement. The em¬ phasis here is on the personal make up and the psychological attributes of the partisans of a social movement. The purpose is basically to show that certain people because of their perso¬ nality type or because of other psycho-analytical reasons (such

12

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

as repression and failure), are the ones who start and join a social movement. The movement as such is depicted as a kind of sublimation in the Freudian sense, i.e., an individual is a victim of his unconscious desires. Thus according to Edward Spranger there are primarily two personality types. The political and the social. The politi¬ cal type is geared towards attaining power and is therefore the arch inspirator of social movements.61 Similarly Robert C. Tucker asks : What are the attributes of the radical mind? He feels that (i) it possesses an intense element of negation and thus characterizes a man who criticises and negates everything, e.g., Marx, (ii) A radical is also a visionary, and (iii) an activist. Hence Marx in his opinion possessed the archetypal radical mind.62 Richard Hofstadter borrowed Adorno’s types of “Authori¬ tarian Personalities”. While studying the McCarthy movement he said that the exponents of this dissent had “little in common with the temperate and compromising spirit of true conser¬ vatism. . . .Their political reactions express rather a profound if largely unconscious hatred of our society and its ways . . . .”62 This was in keeping with Adorno’s characterization of a pseudo conservative who “believes himself to be in a world in which he is spied upon plotted against, betrayed and very likely destined for total ruin”.64 We may also add to this list the work of Almond,65 who studied the motivational patterns of those who are attracted to communism and of E. Hoffer,66 who found that those who joined social movements did so pri¬ marily because it gave them a feeling of togetherness against the emptiness of individualistic existence.67 The psycho-analytical studies of social movements stress individual frustration and repression born out of failure to reach goals which in turn lead to aggressiveness. In certain cases when it is not openly exhibited this aggressiveness may find release in participation in social movements. Thus, H. Lasswell,68 for instance, discusses the motivations of individuals who are oriented politically and relates them directly to child¬ hood repression and adolescent paranoia. Likewise Gordon W. Allport and H.T. More suggest that atypical opinions are actuated by partially reperessed emotional desires.69 Elmer Davis70 advances the view that those who were attracted

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

13

to McCarthyism were inspired by a widespread feeling of fear and frustration in the face of the growing power of internation¬ al communism. And those w'ho could not face these problems in a more rational way “take it out on their less influential neighbours”. The most unfortunate result of adopting this approach according to Wilson is that “it obscures, and on occasion totally conceals impulses to change which emanate from with¬ in society itself”.71 This approach is, however, not without its merits. As Heberle says, it may be interesting to enquire “to what extent are neurotic and psychopathic individuals more frequently found in social movements than among the non participating population.”72 But the problem remains. Frus¬ trated and psychopathological people are a minority in social movements, even in the Nazi movement.73 Further, only individuals are probably frustrated or pathological, groups as such are not frustrated and therefore it is methodologically incorrect to “apply categories of this kind to social entities like groups and movements as if they were individuals”.74 According to Chalmers Johnson psychological theories of the causes of revolution ask essentially the question “Who are the Revolutionaries?” instead of “What causes revolutions in a social system?”75 He goes on to argue that the psychological theories do not explain why a person under certain condition say writes a book and why others under similar situations “have reacted to the same problem by getting drunk.”76 The more relevant proposition is “whatever the psychological roots of their mobilization (familial, societal or both). . . whether or not pressures (dysfunction) appear in society, economic depression, national humiliation. . .blocked channels of social mobility—all these have conditioned. . .revolutions”.77 In other words, it is the opinion of Mclaughlin, that the main flaw in this form of study is that it “fails to provide the total expla¬ nation of the origin of such movements”.78 To this we may add that the social bases of the movement are left unspecified. 2.3 Sociological Studies of Movements In the sociological studies of social movements we can dis¬ tinguish two contending frameworks of analyses. One is the

14

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

functional framework, and the other is the Marxian framework. This distinction is important because the adherents of either framework have emphasised not only different facts but also because of their vastly dissimilar world views, they have in¬ compatible theoretical concerns. This naturally fashions diver¬ gent forms of argumentation and presentation, as well as diffe¬ rent hypotheses and concepts. We will first discuss the func¬ tionalist framework and then the Marxist one. 2.3.1 The Functionalist Framework The functionalist school is by no means undifferentiated. There are pure organic functionalists and mechanical functio¬ nalists, structural functionalists and the new variant of conflict theorists. But they have a certain marked unity of theme and perspective which separates them from the Marxist sociologists. The basic postulates of the functional view to the study of social movements should be seen in relation to social change. The framework of fuctionalism is more attuned to the maintenance of the social structure than changing it. For Parsons, the architect of structural functionalism, a social system is a system of action. It is made up of interactions of individuals. They are not chaotic but governed by norms which have a common standard which Parsons calls “standard of value orientation”.79 There is a general consensus in relation to social norms and this consensus comes to be equat¬ ed with social equilibrium.80 Further according to Gouldner: “Basic to Parsons’ analysis of the social systems is his focus on equilibrium and on the conditions from which this deri¬ ves”.81 Societies are kept in stable form by “two main classes of mechanism by which motivation is kept at the level and the direction necessary for the continuing operation of the social system. . .(they) are the mechanisms of socialization and social control”.'12 How do the functionalists react to the problem of change? Endogenous changes are seen as variants from the dominant pattern and come about due to dysfunctions, tensions and deviance.83 They however “tend to resolve themselves, or to be ‘institutionalized’ in the long run. . . through built in mecha¬ nisms of adjustment and control”.84

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

15

The functionalists treat change as departure from normalcy. “The integration of a set of common value patterns with inter¬ nalized need disposition structure of the constituent personali¬ ties is the core phenomenon of the dynamic of the social system. That the stability of any social system except the most evanescent interaction process is dependent on a degree of such integration, may be said to be the fundamental dynamic theorem of sociology. It is a major point of reference for any analysis which claims to be dynamic'”,85 (emphasis added) Change in the social system is seen, therefore, as a depar¬ ture from normalcy. The stability of a social system depends on the consensual absorption of value patterns, and instability and change arise when there is a variation from this pattern. Change is dependent upon the degree to which the value patterns are not internalized. This is a fundamental characteristic of functionalism. Likewise, in the process of change the fissiparous tendencies which come into being tend to be institu¬ tionalized in the long run.86 This process usually manifested in a movement continues till consensus is reached again at a different level. 2.3.2 Conflict Theory We have briefly mentioned the basic formulation to which the functionalists adhere. But there are scholars v/ho do not necessarily adhere completely to the above categorical position of the functionalists, especially with regard to change and con¬ flict. Dahrendorf87 and Coser88 have criticized the idyllic stable portrait of a homeostatic society rather severely. More recently Oberschall, a follower of Dahrandorf, has sum¬ marised the position they take vis-a-vis the Parsonian functio¬ nalists. He rightly says that according to Parsons the “change agents” are studied from the point of view of the trouble they might make for the established groups.89 Strain is manifested in wishful thinking, utopian idealism, etc. (naturally, as it is rupturing the consensus). He also adds that Parsons does not see mobilization and control as two sides of the same coin.90 Sociologists should look for continuities between every¬ day behaviour and routine social processes, and not emphasise

16

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

discontinuities and differences alone nor overlook the exis¬ tence of strain. In short, the model of Parsons et. al. is static according to Obserchall. It lists only certain contingencies under which some outcomes are more likely to occur than other outcomes. A genuinely dynamic approach should, however, account for the contingencies themselves. The crux of the matter is that the “static” functionalists have not realized that “the truly dyna¬ mic elements of conflict and collective behaviour occur due to the interaction between mobilization and control process”.91 This view is seconded, among others by Klapp.92 But the simi¬ larity between this school and the earlier Parsonian school is that neither of them examines the basic causes of conflict, but see how the initial causes of strains are mediated and filtered through intervening social structures.93 Coser94 for instance, finds that conflicts, because of their widespread locii in societies can, when they criss-cross each other, lead to greater stability, where the values most cherished by and worthy to the system are retained at the expense of those that are disruptive. The similarity with Montesquieu is marked. Smelser,95 in his study of the Cotton Mills of Lancashire and the Industrial Revolution applied what is called the dynamic component of structural functionalism. Here again the causes of the Industrial Revolution are not mentioned. But the Industrial Revolution is seen as fitting because it gradually brought about a consensus of values which was more suitable for this higher form of organization. Similarly, many movement studies in Africa have been found certain movement to be “acculturative” whereby whole groups adapt to changed conditions.96 Crane Brinton’s perspective is perhaps the most explicit among the “dynamic” functionalists. To begin with he says, “the conceptual scheme of social equilibrium is probably in the long run the most useful for the sociologists of revolution. . ,97 We shall regard revolutions as a kind of fever. . . .There will be signs of the coming disturbance. . .these signs are not quite symptoms, since when the symptoms are fully developed the disease is already present. They are perhaps better described as pro-dormal signs.”98 Then comes the time “when full symptoms disclose themselves, and when we can say the fever

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

17

of revolution has begun. . .frequently accompanied by delirium . . .The Reign of terror. After the crisis comes a period of convalescence, usually marked by a relapse or two. Finally the fever is over and the person is himself again, perhaps in some respects actually strengthened by the experience, immunized at least for a while from a similar attack, but certainly not wholly made over into a new man.”9a (emphasis mine) The above passage reveals two important points: (i) Brinton recognises the possibility of conflict and in certain respects finds it healthy and beneficial like Coser and Dahrendorf; (ii) he does not believe that conflict, revolution, or movement can change society. It will remain basically the same. Here again the similarity with Dahrendorf and with the conflict theorists is pronounced.100 This point is important for it illus¬ trates a vital difference between functionalism and Marxism. Social strain, referred to earlier, is viewed by functionalists and conflict theorists alike as the result of a rupture in the value consensus of society. Some of course leave it at that, but others try to operationalise it, in terms of a cause or a series of causes. They however do not grant the dominance of any one cause over the other. Sorokin for instance, listed “162 disturbances in intra-group relationship” between 656 and 1921 in England,101 without any attempt towards operatio¬ nalising the term strain itself.102 The causes of structural strain most commonly put for¬ ward by all varieties of functionalists are— (i) the structural-economic and political weaknesses of the system. (ii) the new circumstances whereby power is effectively put into the hands of a new group of people. (iii) the maladjustments in the social order which attract the marginals to the movement. (iv) Relative Deprivation. These causes are however not mutually exclusive. (i) Structural Weakness: Economic and Political—Accord¬ ing to Crane Brinton in all those societies where Revolutions have occurred, i.e., England, America, Russia, France it is the government that is in financial difficulties, not the society

18

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

themselves. . .103 Thus we see economic grievances—usually not in the form of economic distress, but rather as a feeling on the part of some of the chief enterprising groups that their opportunities for getting on in this world are unduly limited by political arrangements. . . .”104 On the other hand, “as regards the actual working of the machinery, the governments seem to have been relatively inefficient and the governed relatively impatient.”105 According to Wilson, when the discontented find the institutionalized political and economic machinery inadequate to voice their grievances or to change the situation, they despair and start a social movement.108 Fascist movements, according to Lipset are caused by the threat of extinction which the middle class faces from big capitalists.107 He also believes like Dabrendorf that differential status positions are the causes of conflict, and what is required therefore is a uniform perspective (or consensus) regarding the structure and operation of modern capitalist systems.108 (ii) The rise of a new power class: This cause has also been dealt with at length by many sociologists. David Riesman and Nathan Glazier argue that McCarthyism arose because new big money pushed back the earlier tradition of laissez faire capitalism, and its adherents.109 According to David Donald the abolitionists of 19th century America were generally from New England. They could trace their ancestors to the signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They were not “money grabbers” like the new and rising bourgeois class—a class which was gradually ousting them in the spheres of both wealth and power. The fact that the abolitionists were more like zealots can be explained by this fact”.110 An attack on slavery was their “best if not quite unconscious attack on the new industrial system. . . (it) offered these young people a chance for reassertion of their traditional values, an oppor¬ tunity tor association . . . and a position for achieving selffulfilment which should traditionally have been theirs as social leaders”.111 Plath argues that the “withdrawal move¬ ments’ in Gapan occurred because some people could not identify themselves with the new values of modernization.112 These people were dispossessed not so much in the material sense as in the realm of ideas, life-styles and views which

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

19

were flouted.113 On the other hand, the spread of modern technical education, of research, of administration, “creates a new constituency, the technical and professional intelli¬ gentsia. . .”114 This new emergent group, is often directly instrumental in bringing about great social changes. Bruce McCully illustrates this point in his essay “English Education and Indian Nationalism.” He puts forward the view that the rise of English education, norms and values were the motor force behind Indian Independence.115 (iii) Maladjustments and disintegration: Kornhauser, and Arendt116 suggest that the structures of modern life produce a weakening of attachments between persons. Totalitarian move¬ ments arise in such a situation. Totalitarian movements, whether Nazi, Fascist or Bolshevik attract their adherents and leaders from among those who are not well integrated in the system. According to Kornhauser democratic societies are vulnerable to penetration and control by totalitarian move¬ ments when they lack strong secondary organizations or asso¬ ciations! groups capable of mediating between elites and non¬ elites.117 This has been argued against by, among others, Lipset who says that the attachment to primary and secondary social groups is essential for the movement to be ongoing. The impersonality of the modern industrial age has been exaggerated according to him. Lipset contends that the discrete social bases of German Fascism, French Poujadism and McCarthyism were found among the lower middle classes, similarly the working class provided the bulk of activists for the communist movements. The socially alienated and marginals are not the primary groups which join these movements.118 (iv) Relative Deprivation: The concept of relative depri¬ vation and its application is a significant landmark in the study of social movements.119 The accent of the sociologists unlike the psychologists with respect to Relative Deprivation, as Merton illustrates,120 is on the word “Relative” and not on the word “Deprivation”. This concept has attempted to bring clarity to the vexed issue of the possible conditions for social movements. As David Aberle states the conditions which in one instance start a movement may also in another situation give rise to apathy,

20

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

despair and disorganisation.121 Deprivation alone does not lead to movements, it is the attitude of mind adopted towards these conditions that matters. Landsberger’s study of peasant movements also illustrates this point.22 The better off sections are the ones who are usually the most vociferous and form the vanguard of the peasant movement. Therefore, quite unlike the more usual theme that the absolute content of deprivation gives rise to movements, relative deprivation focuses on the perceptions of deprivation and misery. According to Runciman there are three dimen¬ sions of relative deprivation: (a) the magnitude or the size of the discrepancy between the hopes and aspirations of the people and the actual situation; (fi) the frequency or the number of those who feel actually deprived in a group which faces similar conditions; and (c) the degree or the intensity of feeling of relative deprivation.123 Tocqueviile, before James Davies, demonstrated that people rise up in revolt when rising standards of living result in greater expectations than can be met.124 This gives rise to a feeling of deprivation amongst the people. Earlier when their material position was far more wretched they evinced no sign of revolt and neither were they restive. Davies applies the same framework in his study of revolution. According to him, rising economic expectations are fanned by improving econo¬ mic standards; and that when the rise tapers off somewhat or when there is a slump, various possibilities for revolution emerge. In Davies’ own words: “Revolutions are most likely to occur when a prolonged period of objective economic and social development is followed by a short period of sharp reversal.”125 Therefore, “the actual level of social economic development is less significant than the expectation that past progress now blocked can and must continue in future.”126 (emphasis mine) Relative deprivation therefore seeks to bridge the gap between one’s self and “the significant others”. But according to Wilson, though it is admirably suited for rationally motiva¬ ted groups, seeking self improvement, “the model is poorly equipped to deal with movements which are not so clearly oriented to the restitution of rights”. The rich for instance he says, may question: “Who am I?” and not “What should I

an introduction to the study of social movements

21

do?” He cites the example of the Hippie movement in the United States.127 Furthermore, it may not be so much relative deprivation per se but the understanding that the prevailing misfortune or deprivation is not fated to blight the group or society concerned and that it can be alleviated and or removed, that is far more significant. A new ideology, a scientific examination of society may show the path towards rectification of these deprivations. As Turner said: “A signi¬ ficant social movement becomes possible when there is a revision in the manner in which a substantial group looks at some misfortune, seeing it no longer as a misfortune warrant¬ ing charitable consideration but as injustice which is intole¬ rable in society.”128 Also the rapidly deteriorating economic situation may spur social movements as Rude has shown regarding the “uprising of the people” in 18th century France.329 From the above presentation of the functionalist frame¬ work for the study of social movements we may glean certain important points which will be useful when we compare it with the Marxian framework. Firstly, the functionalists do not believe in structural change. The conflict theorists admit that conflict is part of routine social life. But as they lack a philosophy of history they consider the present social system as given and the most workable and natural form of social order. Also, according to the functionalists, if the society allows for free and public expression of grievances and does not consider various and diverse opinions as a danger to social order and instead strives towards accommodating them, then social stability can be maintained. Moreover, those who are involved in social movements should also in turn respect “their opponents as fellow members of the larger commu¬ nity.”130 They should in no way alter the very rules of the game, so to say, or the basic structure of the society. Some societies, the functionalists believe, have these innate mecha¬ nisms to admit reform and dissent, typically the USA.131 There¬ fore in their opinion, appropriate reforms at the proper time should be undertaken for this will take the wind out of the sails of many totalitarian movements.132 They do not admit that there may be some inherent contradictions in the system

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

22

itself which can only be overcome by a revolutionary or structural transformation. Secondly, as in their opinion conflicts arise because of a breakdown in the consensus of values, their dynamism is confined to this breakdown and to the subsequent reassertion of consensus. The general causes which the functionalists refer to and which we have mentioned above are rooted ultimately in this consensual breakdown. 2.4. The Marxist Framework The Marxist framework that we shall dilate upon in this section will emphasise the aspects of unity rather than differen¬ tiation that exist among Marxist scholars today. Recently, there have been rather intense debates among Marxists regard¬ ing the role of consciousness, political praxis, and dialectics. Here, however, we shall elaborate the basic elements of the Marxian framework upon which there is general agreement amongst Marxist scholars, and which in effect signifies the crucial and critical break between Marxist and non-Marxist sociology. The basis of society for Marx was the mode of production and the production relations into which man entered, and history, i.e., material history, was founded on the different stages of development of the modes of production. In the Preface to the Critique of Political Economy, Marx stated his metho¬ dological principle, or as he called it “his guiding thread”. He wrote: In the social production of their life, men enter into definite relations that are indispensible and independent of their will, relations of production which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material produc¬ tive forces. The sum total of these relations of production constitute the economic structure of society, the real foundation on which rises a legal and political super structure and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness. The mode of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual life process in general.133

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

23

Social change, according to Marx, occurs due to the irreconcilable forces that exist in the material basis of society. In Marx s words, “at a certain stage of development, the material forces of production in society come in conflict with the existing relations of production or—what is but the legal expression of the same thing—with the property relations that had been at work before. From forms of development of the forces of production, these relations turn into their fetters. There comes a period of social revolution. With the change of the economic foundation the entire super-structure is more or less rapidly transformed.”134 Therefore, as Marx wrote in his celebrated Communist Manifesto: “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles.” A social movement is similarly to be understood in terms of the economic contradictions of the society in which it is manifest and the class interests it sponsors. In other words it is vital to Marxism to grasp the class character of the move¬ ment. At one level the class character of a movement is easily apparent in terms of the social and economic background of its adherents. But at another level, and this again signifies the break between Marxists and functionalists, the class character of a movement is understood on the basis of its approach towards the determinate contradictions of the economic structure of the society, i.e., of the mode of produc¬ tion. The Marxist approach then examines whether the move¬ ment addresses itself to this basic contradiction which is to be rectified, or gets enmeshed in a host of subsidiary issues, and also whether it comes out openly against any change in the given society. From the position a movement takes on these issues its class interests, and the classes it aligns with and those it antagonises clearly emerge. From this also the outcome of the movement can be gauged and its interactions with other classes, groups and structures can be mapped. In the Marxian perspective, as should be clear, classes in society are not viewed in the integrated manner as is done by the functionalists. The historical progress of a society and of social movements in it can be understood fully only in relation to class struggle and class conflict in that society. Quite often an ideology which seems apparently oblivious of class antago¬ nisms reflecting an overtly ascriptive, religious or regional

24

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

passion can be traced down to the different class interests from which it springs. As Engels said: “Even the so called religious wars of the 16th century involved positive material class interests: those wars were class wars too, just as the later collisions of England and France. Although class struggles of that day were clothed in religious shibboleths, the interests, requirements and demands of the various classes were concealed behind a religious screen. . . .”136 The principal criticism levelled against Marxism has been that Marxism is a vulgar materialist doctrine and that it can¬ not accommodate the vital forces of culture, tradition and values, of which, the critics of Marx contend, the stuff of history is made. Such a criticism does not take into account the fulness of Marxism, and mistakes the “guiding thread” of Marxism for its totality. For as Marx said in Grundrisse: “It fa specific kind of production) is a general illu¬ mination which bathes all the other colours and modifies their particularity. It is a particular ether which determines the specific gravity of every being which has materialized within it.”337 So there is no question of Marx and of Marxism ignoring non-economic factors. Rather these non-economic factors do not hang as disparate entities exercising a random influence on the phenomena being examined, but are woven toge¬ ther to bring about “a unity of heterogeneous elements,” and the principal factor governing this unity, lending it cogency and realizability, is the basic contradiction in the economy. It would be convenient to defend Marxism by saying merely that everything is economic in the last instance. This would, as Colletti has shown, give the semblance of layers of reality in Marxism, “stratified one on top of the other,”138 But it would be a vulgar interpretation. It is necessary to remember the above as it is of great importance in the study of social movements. Once we aban¬ don both the vulgar critics of Marx and vulgar Marxism, we are sensitized towards an investigation into the manner in which the contradictions of the economy unite and fuse with other contradictions and so called “non economic” factors to bring about a social movement. According to Gramsci, a given social class as an economic force alone is incapable of creating a new

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

25

state and exercising hegemony, inasmuch as it lacks ‘intellec¬ tual and moral prestige’. A catharsis has to take place, to wit a passage from a “purely economical, egotistically and passionate moment, to an ethico-political moment, that is the superior elaboration of the structure into superstructure in the minds of men.”139 With this brief examination of both the non Marxist and the Marxist frameworks we may now summarise the basic points for the study of social movements that emerge from the application of the Marxist framework, and contrast it with the functionalist framework. According to the Marxist framework the basic cause for the rise of all movements and revolutions lies in the contra¬ dictions in the material basis of society. The functionalists stress other causes, which we have already listed, and do not concede that movements erupt because of material contra¬ dictions. They believe they occur because of a breakdown in value consensus. Those among the functionalists who put for¬ ward economic and social reasons for the rise of the movement, e.g., poverty, the rise in the cost of living, the discontent of the middle class, do not seek the causes behind them. Rather in their view they are due to mismanagement of the system or because of the prevalence of an incorrect understanding amongst members of society. Proper reforms and greater appreciation of the value patterns of society will, they feel, bridge these cleavages. Some say, as we have already men¬ tioned, that movements occur when non-violent evolutions have not taken place,140 and when society does not possess the mechanism(s) for absorbing dissensions within it self. The con¬ trast with the Marxist position is made further evident by the fact that the functionalists do not posit the primacy of any one factor as the cause of social movements. According to the Marxists the principal cause for the rise of a social movement lies in the material contradictions of society. The functionalists as the above also illustrates, do not possess in their framework adequate concepts or a viable theoretical perspective funtionalists allow for system bringing it to The Marxists while

to understand structural change. The gradual evolutionary change within the a peak level of efficiency and harmony. they do not neglect completely the

:6

NAT1VISM IN A METROPOLIS

possibilities of growth and adjustments within the system, stress the eventual limitations of a social order based on antagonistic class relationships which can ultimately be solved only by a structural change in keeping with the progressive forces of history. The Marxist framework of social change sees the progress of history in terms of the resolving of contradictions. The principal contradiction is that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (in a bourgeois society) and the non-principal contradictions are the result of the “overdetermining effect”141 of this principal contradiction and may be manifested in other spheres of the society. The functionalist framework as we have elaborated does not see social change in the form of progress through various epochs. This is because of its limited perspective on the ques¬ tion of social change in general as mentioned earlier. The Marxists do not grant the fatality of any given social order. They regard every historically developed form to be in fluid movement and therefore take into account its transient nature. The Marxist framework therefore provides the perspective by which one is able to analyse the outcome of a movement by virtue of its historical setting, and its class character. This the functionalists are unable to do. Some view movements and changes as a departure from ‘normalcy’ and others, who believe that conflict is endemic in all societies, find it necessary to study how they can be controlled and channellized. The structural limitations of the social order are not gone into and instead piecemeal reforms and changes and the mechanism of a “safety valve” are insisted upon. A social movement is usually evaluated on the basis of the truth or falsity of its ideology and programme. We believe that the Marxist framework adds depth and perspective to the sociological analysis of social movements. It is superior to the non Marxist functionalist approach pri¬ marily because it considers forces bringing about social change anterior to the forces contributing to stability. Even common sense observation denies the prevalence of value consensus even in the so called “stable” and “normal” societies. It helps to locate inm ore concrete terms the source of social change, and provides us with the direction and mechanisms

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

of social change

and

of social

movements. It

also

27

links

idealist reality to existential reality. The tying down of ideology to class interests also helps us to evaluate the limits, nature and possibilities of the social movement. 3. THE PERSPECTIVE

The key ideas in my analysis are derived from the insights of Marxist scholarship, specifically, those of Althusser142 and Poulantzas143 as they deal explicitly with the dominant themes to be considered here. Most generally, the perspective I shall employ asserts the primacy of the economic domain for under¬ standing both the origin and the dynamic of a social movement: it asks that a social movement be placed first in its economic context, for that is the dominant aspect of a social system. Marxian thought links the rise of a social movement principally to the divergent class interests in society. These divergent class interests arise out of the contradictions of the economic structure, namely, the mode of production. In the capitalist mode of production, for instance, irreconcilable contradictions emerge from the conflicting interests between the owners of the means of production, the capitalist class, and the non-owning working class. The objective necessities of a capitalist economy dictate the capitalist class should make profits by appropriating the surplus produced by the workers. This is the determinate contradiction of the structure. In this process, not only is the working class affected adversely but very often the intermediate classes, like the middle classes and the mass of salaried workers also suffer. The foregoing is a very simplified account. It is not my intention to gloss over the varieties of capitalist exploitation, e.g., monopolism, colonial merchant capitalism, etc. However, my purpose here is to underline the ubiquity of the contradic¬ tion between the workers and the capitalist in all capitalist societies, making it the determinate contradiction. But the contradictions of the economy, or the determinate contradiction, by its simple direct power cannot usually induce a situation of unrest, be it a movement, a ‘jacquerie’ or a social revolution: ‘If this contradiction is to become “active” in the strongest sense. . .there must be an accumulation of

28

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

“circumstances” and “current” so that whatever their origin and sense. . .they “fuse” into a ruptural unity’.144 In other words the determinate contradiction must act in conjunction with elements in the superstructure, such as values, tradi¬ tions, political culture even tensions (such as between migrants and sexes), etc., dominant at that time. Though these elements may not be directly influenced by the epoch in which they find expression, the determinate contradiction which dominates the period ‘is active in all these “contradictions” and even in their “fusion”.’145 Althusser’s merit lies in recognizing that the elements in the superstructure cannot be seen as mere outgrowths of the basis, i.e., the economy. For once they are created ‘they have sufficient consistency to survive beyond their immediate life context, even to “secrete sufficient conditions of existence temporarily”.’146 Nicos Poulantzas exemplifies this in detail with regard to political classes and the State. Poulantzas points out that the determinate class is not homogeneous and different sections of the bourgeoisie and the landlord class have competing interests. Also the State is relatively autonomous, and it would not only be simplistic, but factually incorrect to state that ‘the relationship between the state and the ruling class is principally constituted by the ‘interpersonal’ relation between the members of the state apparatus and those of the ruling class”.147 This perspective does not attribute united and farsighted machinations to an allegedly unified ruling class. It implies that the members of a class do not necessarily grasp their interests ‘objectively’. This is true not only of the working class, but of the whole range of classes in society. If the ruling class were homogene¬ ous, and if the various groups within it could grasp their interests objectively they would unite at all times148 and override their factional interests to atomize the working class move¬ ment.149 The state alone can do this, because it represents the general interests of the bourgeoisie and safeguards private own¬ ership of property, and does not represent any particular faction of this class or of its interests. Therefore, it very often happens that the measures taken by the state may be resented by a wide cross-section of the bourgeoisie and the petit bourgeoisie.150

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

29

Poulantzas’ explication is important for it helps us to study a movement in action, to see its limitations and constraints in its structural setting. It highlights the contradictions between short-term and long-term economic interests and analyzes the objective grounds of maneuverability of various classes and political parties and of the State. Like Althusser he does not link the superstructure (state, capitalist class, political party, etc.) in a simple manner to the basis (i.e., the capitalist mode of production). With the framework that has just been elaborated one can improve upon the existing literature on the Shiv Sena. While many commentators on the Shiv Sena have discussed the causes for the rise and efflorescence of the movement, they have either stressed the determinate contradiction of the economy, or have focused on the dominant aspects of the Shiv Sena’s ideology without elaborating on the actual struc¬ tural contradictions which have heightened these aspects. The problem with the former is that it overlooks the ‘historically specific conjuncture’ in which the Shiv Sena arose;151 and the latter, by ignoring the class basis of the movement and the constraints and contradictions of the economic and social struc¬ ture, is unable to analyze the outcome and limitations of the movement in its interaction in a live social milieu. In the following pages for the sake of analytical clarity we shall discuss the causes and limitations of the Shiv Sena move¬ ment separately. But as will become obvious, the two are closely interlinked. So far, with our perspective, we have focused only on the external referrents of a movement, i.e., in its relation to the macro social structure. But for a fuller sociological treatment of a social movement its internal aspect, i.e., organisational structure, leadership structure, decision making structure, etc., should also be studied. Such a attempt has also been made in this book. The examination of the so called “internal aspects” of a movement is also aided by our Marxist perspective. The study of the organisational structure, for instance, cannot be pursued with a theoretically neutral perspective. Generally, “organi¬ sational theorists” have tried to mask their theoretical prefer¬ ences and have attempted to make the study of organisations,

30

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

a theoretically neutral affair. Quite often a Marxist may also be tempted to employ a Marxian perspective to study the causes of a movement, and at the same time borrow the cons¬ truct of organisational theorists to study the internal aspects of the movement, without being aware of any serious theore¬ tical inconsistency. Why is this so? Does not organisational theory belong to the species “middie range theory”, and does it not therefore become equally amenable to scholars of different theoretical persuasions? A pure organizational theory, such as propounded by Blau, Schoenherr, Whyte and even Etzioni,loS does not take into account the interaction of the organisation with the wider social structure, and as such confines the dynamics or efficacy of an organization, such as of a movement, to factors internal to it. For organizations to thrive it is said certain functional prerequisites relating to goal adaptation, integration, tension management, etc., must be satisfied. For these to be satisfied there must exist in any large scale organization a differentia¬ tion of powers and functions—in other words a differentiated structure. If this frame of reference is borrowed for the study of the organization of a social movement, then one should locate the major forces determining the outcome and limita¬ tions of, as well as progress made by a movement, in factors, internal to it; factors which have their own dynamism, which constantly threaten to expand, formalise and differentiate. The social milieu of the movement is then relegated to a secondary position, as a matter of fact it rarely ever makes an appear¬ ance. This clearly demonstrates the theoretical incompatibi¬ lity between the Marxists and the so-called middle range orga¬ nizational theorists. It is true that every movement has an organization, and that to keep an organization going certain crucial structures must exist within it. But this is a limited truth. This does not mean that an organization develops according to its own dynamic alone. It does not also mean that the continued viability of the organization depends solely on to what extent it has been able to differentiate and formalise. Neither does it mean that as an organization grows in size a proportionate amount of formulation and differentiation should inevitably take place. Finally, it does not mean, that the more formal

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

31

and differentiated an organization is the better equipped and longer lasting it will be. In our examination of the organisation of the Shiv Sena movement we have tried to move out of the narrow confines of the so called “organisational theorists” and have tried to place the development of the Shiv Sena organisation in the context of the demands its social milieu made on it, and the steps it took for its defence and development. Similar!} we have tried to show that the success or failure of the Shiv Sena movement, or of its organisational structure, depended not so much on how well it was able to differentiate and forma¬ lise itself, but on the degree to which it was abie to incorporate and activate larger numbers of people by creating openings for itself and by effectively meeting the challenges, tactically and ideologically, thrown up to it by other structures in the society. This we believe is consistent with the Marxian perspective. In the following pages the reader will not find a heavy theoretical exercise. What I have attempted to do is not so much to present a theoretical justification of the Marxian perspective, with evidences, but to present instead the Shiv Sena as completely and as competently as possible given my limitations. The reason why 1 have taken up so much space on theoretical issues is that the Marxian perspective that is being advocated here helped me to understand the Shiv Sena movement in its total context, as well as helped me fit in so many pieces of information which otherwise made no sense. I hope the reader will also find the theoretical perspective justi¬ fied, even though 1 may not have fully understood its subtlelities, or may have even inadequately applied it in my study. But most of all l hope that the reader, will, after putting down this book, believe he has now a fair amount of information on the Shiv Sena.

NOTES 1. Jerome Davis, Contemporary Social Movements (D. Appleton Century Inc., New York, 1930). 2. Rudolf Heberle, Social Movement (Appleton Century Crofts Inc., New York, 1951), pp. 1-2.

32

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

3. Paul Wilkinson, Social Movement (Pall Mall Press, London, 1971),. p. 29. Turner and Killian also advocate this view. Killian says: “Social Movement is one of the most important ways through which social change is manifest” in Anthony Oberschall, Social Conflict and Social Movement (Prentice Hall, New Jersey, 1973), p. 15. 4. John Wilson, Introduction to Social Movements (Basic Book Inc. Publishers, New York, 1973), p. 5. 5. Oberschall, op. cit., p. 15. 6. Harry A. Landsberger, ed., Rural Protest, Peasants Movements and Social Change (Macmillan Press, London, 1974). pp. 24-27. 7. William Bruce Cameron, Modern Social Movements (Random House, New York, 1966) p. 7. 8. In Rudolf Heberle, op. cit., p. 13. 9. Paul Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 104. 10. Joseph R. Gusfield, ed., Protest, Reform and Revolt (John Wiley & Sons Inc , New York, 1970), p. 2. 11. Heberle, op. cit., p. 13. 12. Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 29. 13. See also Luther P. Gerlach and Virginia H. Hine, People, Power, Change: Movement of Social Transformation (Bobbs Merrill, New York, 1970). They define a social movement as “a group of people who are organised for, ideologically motivated by, and committed to a purpose which implements some form of persona’ or social change . . .” p. xiv. 14. Wilson, op. cit., p. 33. 15. Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 29. 16. Gerlach and Hine, op. cit., p. xiv. 17. LXeberle, op. cit., p. 10. 18. H. Blumer, New Outline of the Principles of Sociology (Barnes & Noble, New York, 1951), p. 1. 19. Wendell King, fSocial Movement in the United States (Random House, New York, 1956), p. 27. 20. Ralph Turner and Lewis M. Killian, Collective Behaviour (Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, 1957), p. 308. 21. Heberle, op. cit., pp. 8-9. 22. Gusfield, op. cit., p. 8. 23. Rudolf Heberle, “Types and Function of Social Movement” in In¬ ternational Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Vol. 14 (The Macmillan Co. and The Free Press, U.S.A., 1968), pp. 439-444. 24. Quoted in Oberschall, op. cit., p. 15. 25. Neil Smelser, Theory of Collective Behaviour (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London) 1962. 26. George Rude, The Crowd in History (John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1964, p. 10. 27. Ibid., pp. 10-11. 28. Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 13.

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

33

29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34.

Gusfield, op. cit., p. 6. Landsberger, ed., op cit., p. 21. Gusfield, op. cit., p. 6. Heberie, op. cit., p. 10. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 9-10. In Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 108. (See also p. 29. He agrees with Jupp on the characteristics of political parties). 35. Heberie, op. cit., p. 10. 36. The distinction between structure and process is derived indirectly from Wilson, op. cit., pp. 57-58. 37. This is similar to Blumer’s distinction between Revolutionary and Reform Movements. H. Blumer, “Analysis of Social Movements”, in B. Mclaughlin, ed., Studies in Social Movements (Free Press, New York, 1969), pp. 20-21. 38. It should be noted that Blumer’s distinction between general and specific movements are not types. They are rather the two com¬ ponents of a movement similar to Gusfield’s directed and undirec¬ ted components. Directed movements are characterised by organised and structured groups; with specific programmes, a formal leadership structure, definite ideology and objectives. The undirected phase of the movement is characterised by reshaping of perspectives, norms and values. The followers are partisans but not members. See J.R. Gusfield, “On the Study of Social Move¬ ments” in International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, op. cit., Vol. 14. p. 445. 39. Wilkinson, op. cit., p. 21. 40. Heberie 1968, op. cit., p. 439. 41. Quoted in Geoffrey Oestargaard, Gentle Anarchist (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1971), p. 23. 42. Wilson, op. cit., p. 32. 43. Chalmers Johnson, Revolution and the Social System (Hoover Institute Studies, Stanford, 1964), p. 28. 44. Gusfield, op. cit., p. 85. 45. Oestergaard, op cit., pp. 16-17. 46. See for instance Gerlach and Hine, op. cit., or even Smelser’s, op. cit., distinction between value oriented and norm oriented movements. 47. Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution (Vintage Books, New York, 1965), p. 21. 48. Johnson, op. cit., pp. 28-29. 49. Gerlach and Hine, op. cit., p. xvii. 50. T.K. Oomen, Charisma, Stability and Change (Thompson Press,. New Delhi, 1972). 51. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 209-16. 52. See J.R. Gusfield, Symbolic Crusade: Status Politics and the American Temperance Movement (University of Illinois Press,. Urbana, 1963).

34

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

53. V.I. Lenin, “One Step Forward Two Steps Back’’ in Selected Works in 3 vols. (Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1970), Vol. 1, pp. 299-446. See also Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. “Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League’’, in Karl Marx and F. Engels Selected Works in 3 vols. (Progress

Publishers,

Moscow, 1969), Vol. I pp. 181-182. 54. See Robert Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (Collier Books, New York, 1962); also R.

Blackburn, “Brief

Guide

to

Bourgeois

Ideology”, in R. Blackburn and A. Cockburn, ed., Student Power (Penguin, London, 1969). 55. Gerlach and Hine, op. cit., p. xxiii. '56. W.VJD’ Antonio and F.B. Pike, Religion Revolution and Reform (Burnes and Dates, London, 1964). 57. William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich—A History of Nazi Germany (Simon Schuster, New York, 1960). .in Priscilla Robertson, Revolution

of

1948—A

Also evident

Social

History

^Princeton University Press, New Jersey, 1967). 58. Geoffrey Pridham, Hitler’s Rise to Power—The Nazi Movement in Bavaria (Harper & Row, New York, 1973). 59. Sir Ivone Kirkpatrick, Mussolini—Study of a Demagogue (Odhams Ltd. Watford, 1964). See also Peter Reedaway, The Human Rights Movement (Jonathan Cape, London, 1972). It is a chronicle of events gleaned mainly from newspaper reports. ‘60. See Ramkrishna Mukherjee, “The Social Background of Bangla¬ desh", in Kathleen Gough and Hari P. Sharma, ed., Imperialism and Revolution in South Asia (Monthly Review Press, New York and London, 1973), pp. 399-418.

This article is an admirable

illustration of my point. 61. Heberle, op. cit., pp. 102-3. 62. Robert C. Tucker, “The Deradicalization of Marxist Movements”, in American Political Science Review, vol. LXI, no. 2, June 1967, pp. 343-58. For the bulk of followers Tucker allows for propitious circumstances. 63. Richard Hofstadter, “The Pseudo Conservative Revolt”, in Daniel Bell, ed., The Radical Right (Anchor Book, New York, 1964), p. 76. 64. Ibid., p. 78. 65. G. Almond, The Appeals of Communism (Princeton Press, New Jersey, 1954) 66. E. Hoffer, The True Believer (Harper, New York, 1951). 67. E. Hoffer, Minneapolis Tribune, 24 October 1968. Gerlach and Hine, op. cit., p. xiv.

Quoted

by

And later commenting on the

Berkeley University students’ riot, wherein he found that the students were generally well educated and not products of social disorganisation, he condemned it as a malicious play. .68. H. Lasswell,

Psychopathology and Politics (Chicago

Press, Chicago, 1960).

University

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

35

69. See T. McCormack, “The Motivation of Radicals” in Mclaughlin. ed., op. cit., p. 77. 70. Elmer Davis, But We Were Born Free (Greenwood, New York 1954), pp. 35-36. 71. Wilson, op. cit., p. 54. 72. Heberle, op. cit., p. 103. 73. Ibid., p. 109. 74. Ibid. 75' Chalmers Johnson, op. cit., p. 23. 76. Ibid. 77. Ibid., p. 26. 78. McLaughlin, ed., op. cit., p. 109. 79. See T. Parsons, The Social System (Free Press, Glencoe. Illinois, 1961). See also Kingley Davis, Human Society .(Macmillan, New York, 1970), pp. 52-63. 80. See I.L. Harowitz, “Consensus, Conflict and Cooperation”, in N.J. Demerath III and Richard A. Peterson, ed.. Systems, Change and Conflict (Free Press, New York, 1967), p. 267. Also T. Parsons, Social System, op. cit., p. 507. 81. Alvin W. Gouldner, The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology (Heinemann Educational Books Ltd., London/New Delhi, 1971), p. 231. See also Talcott Parsons, Essays in Sociological Theory (Light and Life Publications, New Delhi, 1975), p. 239. 82. T. Parsons and E. Shils, ed., Towards a General Theory of Action (Harper and Row, New York, 1962), p. 227. 83. Pierre L. van der Berghe “Dialectics and Functionalism”, Deme¬ rath and Peterson, ed., op. cit., p. 295. 84. Ibid. 85. Parsons, The Social System, op. cit., p. 44. 86. Van den Berghe, op. cit., p. 295. 87. R. Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1969). 88. Lewis A. Coser, The Functions of Social Conflict (Free Press, Glencoe, Illinois, 1956). 89. Oberschall, op. cit., p. 20. 90. Ibid.,p. 21. 91. Oberschall, op. cit., p. 23. 92. Orinn E. Klapp, Currents of Unrest: An Introduction to Collective Behaviour (Holt Rinehart and Winston, New York, 1972), p. 36. 93. Oberschall, op. cit., p. 23. 94. Coser, op. cit. 95. Neil Smelser, Social Change in the Industrial Revolution: An Appli¬ cation of Theory to Lanchashire Cotton Industry, 1770-1840 (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1965). In his book Theory of Collective Behaviour, op. cit., pp., 18-19, Smelser analyses collective behavi¬ our of all kinds. The basic cause is strain, anxiety etc. The causes for these are not examined.

36

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

96. Gerlach and Hine, op. cit., p. xiv. 97. Revolutions are according to us a type of movement. 98. Crane Brinton, The Anatomy of Revolution, op. cit., p. 16. 99. Brinton, ibid., p. 17. 100. Generally sociologists agree with this view. See Heberle, op. cit., p. 458. Gusfield, op. cit., p. 8. 101. See Brinton, op. cit., p. 27. 102. See Wilson, op. cit., p. 36. 103. Brinton, op. cit., p. 29. 104. Ibid., p. 34. 105. Ibid., p. 36. 106. Wilson, op. cit., p. 32. 107. S.M. Lipset, “Fascism-Left Right and Centre”, in Gusfield, ed., op. cit., p. 36. 108. Ibid. 109. David Reisman and Nathan Glazier, “The Intellectuals and the Discontented Classes”, in Daniel Bell, ed., op. cit., pp. 105-35. 110. David Donald, “Towards a Reconsideration of Abolitionists”, in Gusfield, ed., op. cit., p. 22. 111. Ibid. 112. David W. Plath, “Modernization and its Discontents: Japan’s Little Utopias” in Gusfield, ed., op. cit., pp. 92-98. 113. In Bell, ed., op. cit., p. 24. 114. Ibid., p. 22. 115. Bruce McCully in Gusfield ed., op. cit., pp. 25-27. 116. H. Arendt, Origins of Totalitarianism (George Allen and Unwin, London, 1967). 117. W. Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society (Free Press, New York, 1968), Also see Kornhauser “Mass Society” International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, op. cit., Vol. 10, p. 60. 118. S.M. Lipset, Political Man—The Social Bases of Politics (Double¬ day, New York, 1960), ch. 5. 119. The study of the American Soldier brought into focus issues crucial to the understanding of reference group behaviour and relative deprivation. See in R.K. Merton, Social Theory and Social Structure (Amerind Publication, New Delhi, 1972), pp. 281-8. 120. Ibid., pp. 288-90. 121. David Aberle, “A Note on Relative Deprivation Theory as Applied to Millinearism and Other Cult Movements” in W.A. Lessa and E.A. Vogt eds., Reader in Comparative Religion (Harper & Row, New York 1965). 122. Landsberger, op. cit. 123. W. Runciman, Relative Deprivation and Social Justice (University of California Press, Berkeley, 1966), p. 14. 124. Alexis de Tocqueville, The Old Regime and the French Revolution (Doubleday, New York, 1955).

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE STUDY OF SOCIAL MOVEMENTS

37

125. J. C. Davies, “Towards a Theory of Revolution”, in McLaughlin, ed., op. cit., p. 85. 126. Ibid. 127. Wilson, op. cit., pp. 81-82. 128. Ralph Turner, “The Themes of Contemporary Social Movements”, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 20, No. 4. December 1969. p. 391. 129. Rude,

op. cit., Also quoted by Oberschall, op. cit., p. 35.

130. Heberle, op. cit., p. 457. 131. Gusfield, op. cit., p. 8. 132. Heberle, op. cit., p. 458. 133. Karl Marx “Preface to Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, in Marx and Engels, Selected Works, op. cit., vol. I. p. 503. 134. Karl Marx,” Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy”, op. cit., p. 504. 135. Marx, Communist Manifesto in Marx and Engels Selected Works, op. cit., Vol. I. 136. F. Engels, Peasant War in Germany (Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, 1956), p. 54. Karl Marx in a letter to Arnold Ruge advised as a measure of retaliation to religious fobbism “to punch as many holes, in the Christian State as possible and to struggle in the rational as far as we can.” See, D. Mclellan, ed., Karl Marx Early Texts (Basil Blackwell, Oxford, 1970), p. 60. 137. Karl Marx, Grundrisse (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth. 1973), p. 307. 138. Lucio Colletti, From Rousseau to Lenin (Monthly Review, New York, 1974), p. 19. 139. See Antonio Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks ed. and tr. by Quentin Hoare and George Lowell Smith (International Publishers, New York, 1971), p. 366. 140. Johnson, op. cit., p. 6. 141. See Louis Althusser, For Marx (Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1971) , pp. 88-100. 142. Ibid. 143. N. Poulantzas, “The Problem of Capitalist

State”

in

Robin

Blackburn ed., Ideology in Social Science (Penguin Books, London, 1972) . 144. Althusser, op. cit., p. 99. 145. Althusser, op. cit., p. 100. 146. Althusser, op. cit. p. 116. 147. Poulantzas, op. cit., p. 279. 148. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (George Allen and Unwin Ltd., London, 1961). 149. As it is they unite only temporarily and evanescently when faced with the political threat of working class hegemony. 150. Poulantzas, op. cit., pp. 45-47, 130-133;

See also David A. Gold.,

38

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS Clarence Y. H. Lo., Eric Olin Wright et. al. “Recent Developments in Marxist Theory of Capitalist State”, Monthly Review, New York, 1975, Vol. 27, n. 5, pp. 29-43.

151. G.S. Sardesai, The Main Currents of Maratha History Publications, Bombay, 1949). 152. Mary Katzenstein, “Origins of Nativism:

The

(Phoenix

Emergence

of

Shiv Sena in Bombay”, Asian Survey, Berkeley, 1973, Vol. 13, n. 4, pp. 386-99. See also K.K. Gangadharan, Sociology of Revivalism: A Study of Indianization, Sankritization and Golwalkarism (Kalamkar, New Delhi, 1970). 153. See

for instance Peter M. Blau and Richard Schoenherr, The

Structure of Organisation (Basic Book, New York, 1971), Amitai Etzioni, Complex Organisation (Free Press, M. Crozier, The Bureaucratic Phenomenon

New

York,

1961).

(University of Chicago

Press, 1971). See also W.F. Whyte, “Parsons’ Theory of Organi¬ zation”, in Max Black, ed., The Social Theory of Talcott Parsons (Cornell University Press, Cornell, 1961).

CHAPTER II

The Shiv Sena: Background Factors and Causes

In this Chapter our primary concerns are to introduce the Shiv Sena and to present the background factors responsible for the rise and efflorescence of the Shiv Sena movement. (Shiv Sena, literally the army of Shivaji the legendary warrior king of 16th century, Maharashtra). To begin with we shall provide a brief sketch of the nature and ideology of the Shiv Sena. Int eduction The Shiv Sena movement was formally launched on 19 June 1966 in Bombay, a leading industrial city on the west coast of Maharashtra (see Map 1) and since 1960 also the capital of the unilingual State of Maharashtra. The leader of the Shiv Sena, Bal Thackeray, was a cartoonist in the Free Press Journal which he left in the late 50s, to start his own cartoon weekly, Marmik. Marmik (literally “the essence”) is now one of the foremost Marathi language weeklies with an estimated sale of 60,000 copies a year. Since 1964, Bal Thackeray, through Marmik, steadily popu¬ larised an ideology which the Shiv Sena was to embrace explicitly in 1966. He made vivid the point that Maharashtrians were being deprived of jobs and economic opportunities in Bombay by non-Maharashtrian migrants to the city. In the early years of the Shiv Sena, the South Indians faced the brunt of its wrath, though of late the Shiv Sena has also attacked migrants from other states as well, such as from Uttar Pradesh and Punjab. The response the Shiv Sena received soon after it carne

40

NATIVISMIN A METROPOLIS

into being was phenomenal. It was able to open 95 branches or ‘shakhas’ within the first 6 months of its existence. In 1968 it won 42 seats in the Bombay Municipality elections, standing second only to the Congress. Its representation in the State Legislature has, however, been minimal with only two re¬ presentatives. (Pramod Navalkar who was directly elected as M.L.A. and Manohar Joshi who was nominated by the Muni¬ cipal Corporation of Bombay as M.L.C.) This is so because its support structure is confined to Greater Bombay and to some extent, Thana. The Shiv Sena is a dictatorial organisation, and Bal Thackeray as the Sena Pramukh is the unquestioned leader. The main elements in the Shiv Sena’s ideology are: (i) that 80% of all jobs and economic opportunities should be reserved for Maharashtrian ‘sons of the soil’; (ii) that migration to Bombay should be discouraged as the migrants are in a cons¬ piracy which seeks to exploit the native Maharashtrians; (iii) that industrial production should be raised as this will contri¬ bute towards greater prosperity and hence greater employment. In order to do so the communists should be crushed for they hold up production by frequently resorting to anti-national activities like factory strikes, etc., and (iv) that Hinduism should be the dominant culture in India, for only Hindus can be true patriots. The Shivaji legend and the grandeur of the historic Maratha Empire primarily mould the Shiv Sena’s ideology in this regard. 1. BACKGROUND FACTORS

What are the background factors against which the Shiv Sena emerged and consequently developed? We consider the following five factors to be of importance: (i) nativism and regionalism in Maharashtrian culture and politics, (ii) the origin and development of the city of Bombay, (iii) demographic and migrational structure of Greater Bombay; (iv) occupa¬ tional structure of Bombay, and (v) economic structure of Bombay. This is, however, not to suggest that there are no other factors at play.

THE SHIV SENA: BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

41

1.1. Nativism in the Culture and Politics of Maharashtra The 17th and 18th centuries witnessed the establishment of the Maratha empire which dominated western India. What is today the unilingual State of Maharashtra v/as earlier a part of this empire. The Marathas valiantly fought first against the^ Mughals and then against the British in India, when the other parts of the counlry were more or less under the sway of the latter two imperial powers.1 The ceaseless warrings between the Marathas and the Mughals (which was ideally epitomized in the rivalry between Shivaji and Aurangze’o) took the shape of not only numerous political and military campaigns but also religious conflicts between the Hindus and the Muslims. The successful preservation and expansion of the Maratha empire made it the bastion of Hinduism—the Hindu pad padshahi. Moreover, the Maratha empire also came to symbolise for the indigenous people the last haven in their struggle against the alien Mughals and British. The Marathas resisted the alien invaders for over two centuries, till their empire was finally dismembered by the British in 1818. The success of the Maratha empire was not the work of a single political adventurer, “it was the upheaval of the whole population, strongly bound together by the common affinities of language, race, religion and literature, and seeking further solidarity by a common political exis¬ tence”.2 The eventual downfall and dismemberment of the Maratha empire was a traumatic experience for the Maharash¬ trians, who since then longed for a return to their former days of glory and for a united Maharashtra. This feeling of depriva¬ tion was heightened all the more by the fact that the Maratha Empire was in existence till as late as 1818 and its records of grandeur are still extant. Initially under the leadership of Gopal Krishna Gokhale and later more pointedly under the leadership of Tilak, the Maharashtrians sought in the early 20th Century, to reassert themselves in the main stream of India’s national and political life. Tilak’s charisma and political acumen were largely responsible for this. Tilak reemphasized the high points of Maharashtrian history by hearkening back to the days of the Hindu pad padshahi. He revived the Ganapathi and

42

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

Shivaji festivals and proclaimed that “Shivaji is the only hero to be found in Indian History”,3 thereby activating on a social scale the pride that the Maharashtrians have for their culture and tradition. He also expressed the yearning of the Maharashtrians for a united Maharashtra by demanding of the Congress Democratic Party in 1918 that it constitute a unilingual province of Maharashtra.4 All through the twenties to the forties, Maharashtrian national leaders and other public figures kept advocating the creation of a State of Maharashtra. Appeals were made on the grounds of culture, history, tradition and language.5 These were, however, distant rumblings compared to the articulate focus given to Maharashtrian consciousness by the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi (SMS) which fought for a unilingual State of Maharashtra between 1955 and I96O. It successfully tapped the latent energy of Maharashtrian regional¬ ism with telling effect; the prevailing sentiments legitimizing its raison d'etre. The SMS more than anything else in con¬ temporary history is responsible for crystallising these sentiments and employing them successfully. We shall, there¬ fore, present below a sketch of the SMS which will suggest in relief, how it facilitated the Shiv Sena by providing a regional idiom and a frame of reference which was conducive to the functioning of the latter. The demand for redrawing of state boundaries to correspond with linguistic region was voiced by the Congress Party as early as 1921. After six years of vacillation after independence it created Andhra, the first new linguistic state, from the erstwhile state of Madras. In December 1953 the Government of India appointed a three-man State Reorganisation Commission. In January 1956 there was a mass uprising in Bombay which demanded that the unilingual states of Samayukta Maharashtra and Maha Gujarat be carved out of the erstwhile bilingual state of Bombay. The SMS was formed in 1955 to fight for the creation of a state of Maharashtra, with Bombay as the capital. It was a multi-party combine and the entire Maharashtrian population was behind it. The Praja Socialist Party (PSP) and the Com¬ munist Party of India (CPI) figured in it prominantly. Cong¬ ressmen were also attracted to the

SMS and its first titular

THE SHIV SENA! BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

43

leader was a Congressman, Shankarrao Deo.6 Congress leaders such as Y.B. Chavan, and N.V. Gadgil and various other ministers were in favour of a unilmgual state of Maharashtra with Bombay as the capital.7 They rejected the existence of Bombay as a separate unit. The Maharashtra Pradesh Congress Committee (MPCC) endorsed these decisions on 21 October.8 The Communists9 and the PSP10, the former after some hesitation,11 also decided that they wanted Samayukta Maharashtra immediately, and they would fight for it. S.K. Patil of the Bombay Pradesh Congress Committee (BPCC) opposed the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi and advocated a separate unit for Bombay city, and said that he would hold hundred meetings a day if necessary to have the State Reorganisation Commission report implemented.12 The Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi stood for Maharashtra with Bombay13 and for immediate action.14 Soon Congressmen began to flout their party directives. T.R. Narvane, a Deputy Minister of the Bombay State Government presided over a meeting of pro-SMS activists on 6 November.15 C.D. Deshmukh resigned from the Union Ministry in 1956 because he did not want Bombay to be outside Maharashtra.16 The Maharashtra Chamber of Commerce supported this move. This Chamber of Commerce is made up of members of all communities and has business interests outside Bombay. The Indian Merchants Chamber of Bombay, however, opposed this move and met the Congress President, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, to protest against the proposed break-up of Bombay.17 The non-Communist wing of the SMS opposed the exclusion of Bombay from Maharashtra primarily on the grounds of emotional and linguistic affinity. It argued that the largest single linguistic group in Bombay were Maharashtrians. The CPI while agreeing with this upheld that the creation of a separate unit of Bombay was tantamount to handing it over to the monopolists.18 It should also be noted that the inclusion of the areas of Belgaum and Karwar in Maharashtra were in the Samithi’s programme.19 Those living in Belgaum and Karwar thoroughly supported this. The Konkan Maharashtrians of Karwar are the largest single linguistic group there and they declared that they were Marathi in manner, custom, habit, dress and mode of living; therefore full members of the society of Marathi

44

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

speaking people.20 The subsequent exclusion of Belgaum and Karwar in 1960 from the state of Maharashtra remained a controversial affair, easily inflammable. The communists gradually assumed the leadership of the SMS and became the major opposition group in Maharashtra.21 The PSP and other constituent parties followed the CPI and walked out in support of the CPI Resolution on the first day of the monsoon session in 1959.22 But with the Congress’ promise of bifurcation in 1959, a split between the PSP and the CPI occurred. This rift was aided by Y.B. Chavanb3 The Sino-Indian border dispute was utilized to malign the Communists, and the PSP asked the CPI to leave the SMS.24 They also offered Chavan responsive co-operation once it was decided that the state of Maharashtra would take effect from 1 April I960.25 After 1960, the SMS lingered on for another four years before it folded up. The SMS went about systematically emphasising the cul¬ tural identity of the Maharashtrians, urging that the formation of linguistic states was necessary for advancing social democracy.26 As S.M. Joshi put it, “Language is a great cementing force’’, and in order to eliminate the evils of casteism a common effort based on linguistic and emotional integration is required. This he said was undertaken by the SMS.27 The authority of Lokmanya Tilak and Gandhiji was invoked,28 and the Communists felt that the struggle for a linguistic state of Maharashtra was a genuinely democratic aspiration.29 The sages and heroes of Maharashtra, which included reformers like Ambedkar and Bal Shastra Jambekar, were cited and quoted to strengthen their ideological appeal.30 And Shivaji, above all, was especially glorified31 and became a public God and hero. The SMS kept the struggle alive for 5 long years and ulti¬ mately gained its objective. This period witnessed intense mass activity, violence and riots. The masses were mobilized and sustained on the inebriating fervour of linguistic passion. No matter, communist or non-communist, the primary plank of the SMS was one of linguistic chauvinism. It made the Maharashtrians conscious of their deprivation and their coming together as a single community also made them conscious of the power they could wield. Their main targets of attack

THE SHIV SENA: BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

45

during this period were the Gujaratis and the Bombay Pradesh Congress Committee (BPCC) whose members were generally non-Maharashtrians and opposed the move that Bombay be made the capital of Maharashtra. The lines were clearly drawn... Maharashtrians vs. outsiders. The Communists widened their base with the SMS,32 and in 1966 tried to reacti¬ vate Marathi sentiment, which had earlier served them so well, by organising theSampoorna Maharashtra Samithi to help them win the 1967 General Election. This Samithi was formed on the demand that Belgaum and Karwar be included in Maha¬ rashtra. After the Bombay Municipal elections in 1968 this Samithi was also dissolved. The setting in motion of Marathi sentiments of linguistic regionalism and parochialism was done systematically and pointedly for the first time by the SMS. The people of Maharashtra as a whole regardless of their political or class background supported the cause of the SMS. This movement as we have suggested was principally bolstered by the pride and consciousness among Maharashtrians of their culture and history. This consciousness as well as the glorification of Maharashtrian heroes of yore, the struggle for the inclusion of Belgaum and Karwar, and the feeling that Maharashtrians were being discriminated against by the Central Government,33 were excited and ingrained among the Maharashtrians by the SMS. The SMS was one of the largest and most cogent political movements in contemporary Indian history, which based itself almost exclusively on regional and linguistic sentiments. Roughly six years after the formation of the unilingual state of Maharashtra the Shiv Sena movement flared up in Bombay. The Shiv Sena, as we mentioned in our introduction to this chapter, appeals to the regional and linguistic senti¬ ments of the Maharashtrians much as the Samayukta Maha¬ rashtra Samithi had done earlier. It also invokes the glorious days of Shivaji Maharaj, of the Maratha empire and the Hindu pad padshahi. The Shiv Sena thrives on the belief that Maharashtrians who are a superior community with an exemplary history and culture, are the underdogs in Bombay, as they are exploited by migrants from other states. The hortatory message of the Shiv Sena is almost exclusively based on this point.

46

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

We, however, do not mean to suggest that the Shiv Sena is a natural outcome of the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi. On the other hand our submission is that the popularity and mass appeal both these movements succeeded in attaining were made possible to a large extent by relying on the dominant sentiment among Maharashtrians regarding the exclusiveness and superi¬ ority of their culture and history. The Shiv Sena came into being in Bombay, and its appeal even now is largely restricted to the Bombay Thana industrial belt. Its programmes and policies also largely relate to the urban metropolis of Bombay. To understand, therefore, the specificity of the Shiv Sena’s appeal one must examine the back¬ ground features of the city in which it finds its best expression. In this connection we will highlight the economic, demographic, migrational, occupational and literacy structures of Bombay, factors which we feel will bring out some of the dominant features of the city and which may also help account for the specificity of the Shiv Sena’s appeal and for its being largely confined to the Greater Bombay region. We shall first detail the growth and development of Bombay city which will serve as a backdrop to our ensuing discussion. 1.2. The Origin and Development of Bombay To understand the present demographic and migrational structure of Bombay, we should briefly sketch the historical development of the city itself. The development of Bombay into a giant metropolitan industrial centre began when the East India Company trans¬ ferred its seat of operation and control from Surat to Bombay in 1672. But it was with Monstuart Elphinstone (1819-27) that the Bombay Presidency was enlarged. Among the many who have contributed to the growth and rise of Bombay, the Parsee community played a stellar role. Gerald Aungier, the President of Surat, when he transferred the seat of the East India Com¬ pany from Surat to Bombay promoted religious tolerance which prompted many Parsees to come to Bombay.34 The first Parsee of repute was Lavji Naserwanji Wadia, a ship-builder from Surat. He supervised the building of docks and began what turned out to be a fine shipyard.

THE SHIV SENA: BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

47

From 1838 Bombay grew as an important centre of trade and commerce, and with the improvement of transport and communication, the flow of raw cotton to Bombay to be exported to the cotton mills of Britain, increased rapidly.35 Other notable Parsees like Davar and J.N. Tata contributed immensely to the development of Bombay as an industrial centre. Davar established the first cotton mill in Bombay in 1851 and Tata began a project to harness the monsoon rains, which flowed down the western ghats, as a source of hydro¬ electric power for Bombay. This project was completed by his son Dorabji Tata.36 The Maharashtrians in Bombay from the very beginning played a role less significant than the business community of the city. This is probably because Bombay came into promi¬ nence primarily as an industrial and financial centre, and the Maharashtrians, who are not a business community had very little to offer in the early growth and development of the city. “Poona was the hub of Maharashtra,”37 it was the seat of Maharashtrian culture and learning and it remains so even today. Bombay on the other hand was dominated by the nonMaharashtrian business communities.38 The local population of Bombay fell by and large outside the pale of commercial activity. Unfortunately, there is no record of the flow of mig¬ rant Maharashtrians from Maharashtra to Bombay. But in the 18th century, according to Morris, there was a large influx of traders, goldsmiths, iron smiths and construction workers,39 and it would be fair to surmise that they were generally nonMaharashtrians. Maharashtrians began coming into Bombay during the latter half of the 19th century and they were gene¬ rally labourers who came to work in the then developing factories of Bombay, or they were the educated class of Saraswat Brahmans and the Pathara Prabhus who were traditionally the scribes of the Peshwas.40 Over the years, with increasing migration of Maharashtrian labourers and other classes to Bombay, the city began to acquire a more Maharashtrian character. But the domination of non-Maharashtrians in the city’s economic, intellectual, and political spheres still remained.41 This brought about a feeling of estrangement among the Maharashtrians in Bombay,

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

48

especially among the educated and literate sections. This was felt all the more keenly because of the increasing proportion of Maharashtrians in the total population of Bombay.42 It was in order to stress the increasing Maharashtrian character of the city and to press forward their claims to domi¬ nation of this urban multilingual complex that the SMS demanded that Bombay should be integrated into Maharashtra and made its capital. But even the accomplishment of this did not wipe out the demographic features of Bombay. We shall now examine these features in the context of the corntemporary situation in Greater Bombay.

1.3. Demographic and Migrational Structure of Bombay Barring the Bombay-Poona Industrial belt the other areas of Maharashtra are relatively underdeveloped. In terms of sheer population Greater Bombay stands out. (See Maps 3 and 4) According to the 1971 census the population stands at 5, 970, 545.43 This works out to a population density of 9,901 persons per square kilometre.44 The influx of incoming families is about 300 a day. The concentration of factories and workers in Bombay is also far greater than in any other district of Maharashtra. According to the 1961 Census, the linguistic break-up of Greater Bombay is as follows: TABLE I

Break-up of Greaiter Bombay Population by Major Linguistic Communities

1.

Mother Tongue Kannarese

2.

Malayalam

3.

Tamil

53,064 48,130

Female 29,768 17,543

63,453

40,934

Male

4.

Telugu

5.

Gujarati

61 493 4,34,498

6. 7.

Hindi Marathi

2,59,952

36,500 3,58,273 70,577

10,48,752

972,632

The above table deals with only the major linguistic com¬ munities in Greater Bombay. The Maharashtrians are a domi¬ nant community in Bombay, though they are not the majority

URBAN

POPULATION

OF THE

DISTRICT

POPULATION

AS OF

PERCENT THE

STATE

OF

TOTAL

URBAN

URBAN

POPULATION

OF THE

DISTRICT

POPULATION

AS

PERCENT

OF THE

STATE

OF

TOTAL

URBAN

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

49

community. 43% of the city's population are Marathis, 19% Gujaratis, 9% South Indians (i.e. those belonging to the four south Indian States of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala put together) and 8% are Hindi speaking. Between 1901-1961 there was a general upward trend in the population of Greater Bombay45 accompanied by a down-ward trend in the relative contribution of migrants to the totaf intercensal population of the city.46 When we examine the' distribution of migrants in Greater Bombay by place of birtn we find that the number of migrants from South India are less than the number of migrants from the other districts of Maharashtra and from Gujarat. The number of migrants from South India according to the 1961 census total 4,20,836, from Gujarat47 4,50;832 and from Maharashtra 1,110,553. The number of migrants from Uttar Pradesh and Bihar, and Punjab and Rajasthan are less than the number of migrants from the tour South Indian states put together. In terms of total figures, according to the 1961 census figures, 64.2% of the 4.5 million citizens of Greater Bombay were born elsewhere. This is lower than the figure in the 1951 census which stands at 72.1 %48 We may, from the above, draw the following conclusions : (i) Maharashtrians are the largest linguistic group in Greater Bombay, but as they comprise 43% of the city’s population they do not constitute a majority of the population of the city. (ii) The number of South Indians, even if we take the mig¬ rants from the four South Indian states together, are not the largest category of non-Marathi speaking migrants in Greater Bombay. But they are quite signi¬ ficant in their numbers and stand second to the Gujaratis who are the largest non-Maharashtrian speaking migrants in Greater Bombay. s (iii) The population of Greater Bombay is increasing though the contribution of migrants to the population shows a downward trend.

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

50

1.4. Occupational and Literacy Structure The rate of unemployment is increasing in Bombay and it is particularly high in the age group 15-24 of the first time unemployed. More significantly, those who are unemployed now but were employed previously are also very many in number—touching 30% of the total unemployed in the age group 25-34. The following table will make the situation clearer: TABLE II

Age Distribution of Unemployed in Greater Bombay Total Age Group

Total

15 +

Unemployed Mate Female

100

15-19

22.8

20-24

34.0

25-39 30-34

24.0

Total first time unemployed Male Female

100

100

100

100

100

26.3 35.9

34.0

11.5

41.4

36.3 42.1

26.5

12.5 27.4

13.3

12.2

30.0

26.4

4.7

4.3 15.8

17.9

13.6

13.1

2.6

2.6

20.7

35-44 45-59

19.2

Unemployed who worked previously Female Male

17.1

6.6

5.1

60 +

Source : K.C. Zachariah, op. cit., Table 2.15, p. 40.

The unemployment situation is heightened because it is coupled with increasing literacy. At the turn of the century the proportion of illiterates in Bombay was about 81 %. By 1961 it was reduced to 41% or 40 age points.49 Though the literacy rate of the city is fast increasing the rate of literacy among the Maharashtrians in Bombay is the lowest. The 1961 Census reveals that as many as 55.83% of Maharashtrian migrant workers are illiterate, whereas only 38.04% of Gujarati migrants and 39.81% of South Indian migrants are illiterate. Table III below illustrates the educa¬ tional attainments of the major migrant communities in Grea¬ ter Bombay.

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

51

TABLE III

Distribution of Migrant Workers by State of Birth and Education State of Total Birth

Total Maharashtra South India Gujarat

Illite¬ Literate rate without educa¬ tional level

Primary Matric

Degree Diploma

100.00 48.34

17.93

17.13

11.14

0.73

4.73

100.00

55.83

16.14

17.16

7.48

0.35

3.04

100.00 39.81 100.00 38.04

19.01 17.68

15.08 23.09

18.69 11.81

1.49 1.39

5.92 16.00

Source : Computed from Zachariah, op. cit., Table 9.10, pp. 173-4.

It is because of their low literacy rates that the Mahashtrians generally find jobs as labourers and preponderate in the working force of the textile industry50 where the educational requirements are the lowest among all the industries.51 The Maharashtrians are at a disadvantage in securing better placed jobs and the migrants from South India and Gujarat fare better in securing white collar positions, especially professional and administrative jobs, which require greater educational attain¬ ment and professional expertise. Table IV details this dimension. TABLE IV

Percent of Migrant Workers in Each Occupation Division by State of Birth in Greater Bombay52 Occupational Divisions Professional Administrative Clerical Labourers

Maharashtrian 6.6 1.3 8.4 49.0

Gujarati 12.2 4.5 12.3 28.2

South Indian 11.0 3.7 13.3 41.7

Source : Computed from Zachariah, op. cit., table 13.5, p. 315, See for complete tables, Census of India 1961, Vol. X, Maharashtra,

Greater Bombay, Special Migration Tables, Table V.

Part X (1-c),

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

52

The above table shows us that though South Indians tend to be more dominant than Maharashtrians in white collar occupations,53 they are by no means non existent in lower class occupations. It is by no means true that the South Indians occupy only the better placed jobs. As a matter of fact, the percentage of South Indians in lower class occupations is higher than those in upper and middle class occupations. But, relatively speaking they seem to be better placed. The some¬ what anamolous factor is that the Gujaratis who rarely occupy lower class occupations and belong to the literate upper class group are not attacked by the Shiv Sena. This is probably because the Gujaratis predominate in commerce, (according to Zachariah 41% of the Gujarati migrants specialise in that industry)54 an industry in which Maharashtrians rarely enter. The migrants from Uttar Pradesh are very strongly represented among the lower class, but neither are they, like the Gujaratis, persecuted by the Shiv Sena to the degree that the South Indians are. We may conclude this section with the following points: (i) A large number of migrants are lured to Bombay in search of jobs. (ii) South Indians (taking the four South Indian states together) are generally more literate with higher educa¬ tional qualifications than the Maharashtrian migrants. (iii) The South Indians fare better in securing white collar jobs compared to Maharashtrians. (iv) There is a high degree of unemployment particularly amongst those in the age group 25-34 who were emp¬ loyed previously. (v) The literacy rate is fast increasing in the city. 1.5. The Economic Structure Without presenting a detailed critique of the development of contradictions of the Indian economy it is however necessary here to highlight some of the more important dimensions before we narrow down our concern to Bombay specifically. Industrialisation in India did not take place with an industrial revolution either capitalist or socialist. It developed within

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

53

the confines of a colonial system which resulted in large urban metropolitan centres surrounded by vast areas of poverty and backwardness. Very little or no attempt was made to develop the hinterlands. Even after the attainment of political inde¬ pendence India has been unable to wipe out this colonial heritage. Native capitalism developed in India from the second half of the nineteenth century but did not really get going till after the First World War and the rise of the Indian National Move¬ ment. The early capitalists were those who had engaged in middlemen activities in the scheme of colonial exploitation or had become rich due to trade, commerce and money-lending.53 India, as Levkovsky correctly pointed out, developed with the merchants exercising sway over production in contrast to the more revolutionary path where the producer turns capitalist.56 In the rural areas remnants of pre-capitalist feudalism still existed, though capitalist relations had penetrated there as well. This resulted, in the words of Kathleen Gough, in an agrarian system which under colonialism was not one of feudalism proper but of a colonial style merchant capitalism.57 Capitalist relations in the country-side ravaged the peasantry, and invited and accentuated differentiation throwing out a mass of impoverished and landless peasants to the cities in search of jobs. It is primarily because of the manner in which capitalism was introduced in India that free and unfettered capitalism did not develop fully. The capitalist sector of the Indian economytoday is dominated by multi-national corporations and mono¬ poly houses both Indian and foreign. The tertiary sectors such as trade and transport have developed, unfortunately at the expense of primary goods industries. Both foreign and indigeneous monopolists invest in capital intensive machinery. More and more investments are being harnessed to produce luxury items to a closed and protected market of the urban and the rural rich which is particularly favourable to the profit and well-being of the oligopolists58 and to that extent the oligopo¬ lists stand to benefit from “inaction on agrarian reforms.”59 All these serve to impede employment opportunities. From the latter half of the nineteenth century Bombay developed rapidly as an important industrial centre where the

54

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

native bourgeoisie played a very prominent part, in contrast to Calcutta.60 In 1884 Cowasji Nanabhoy Davar established the first textile mill of Bombay, and since then “the textile industry has been the pace setter of industrialisation.”61 It is still today the single largest industry in Bombay. Today Bombay remains a major financial and industrial centre of India. It attracts investments on a large scale from all over India and likewise finds a nation-wide market.62 The private sector is also the largest single employer of labour in Bombay.63 Bombay alone has roughly half the number of industrial establishments in the whole of Maharashtra with around two-thirds of its labour force.64 40% of total production in Maharashtra takes place in Bombay65 and if we take nonagricultural production the figure is bound to be much higher. Maharashtra with 9% of India’s population has 22.62% of the total productive capital, fixed and working, in India. On the other hand the four southern states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh with 22% of India’s population account for 15.37% of the total productive capital in India.66 The logic of migration to Greater Bombay is deter¬ mined by this factor. Due to the advantages of economies of scale and the well-known effects of agglomeration, new investments are con¬ stantly attracted to Bombay. Other areas of Maharashtra are relatively underdeveloped and no other industrial or urban centre has proved capable of either holding the population or significantly diverting the flow from Bombay (see Map 3). What little industrial development has occurred in other areas of Maharashtra has largely occurred during the 1960s. Bombay with its high investment rate and its development as a gigantic industrial complex, is like an oasis in a desert of underdevelopment. Migrants therefore come in large numbers from other states as well as from Maharashtra. The mig¬ rants from Maharashtra are generally from the rural areas,67 and find work (or seek it) as labourers in Bombay.63 An overwhelming majority of them find their way to Bombay because of the ‘push’ from their rural homes.69 In spite of the fact that the rate of growth of factories in Bombay has slowed down compared to areas like Poona, Nasik, Thana etc., Bombay

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

55

still has a daily inflow of some 300 families. This coupled with the increasing autochthonous population accentuates the employment problem of Bombay. The overall rate of unemployment in Bombay was 4.6% of the total labour force in 1961. In 1951 it was 2.5%. Organised employment grew fairly steadily in the first half of the 60s. 1966 was a period of stagnation and recession. Though indus¬ trial growth picked up somewhat the increase in organised employment in the period 1961-1971 was only 26%. The increase in labour force on the other hand was 34%. In a period when the city’s population increased by nearly 2,000,000 and the labour force by 600,000, there were only 250,000 addi¬ tional jobs in the organised sector.70 What were the causes behind unemployment in Bombay ? Why is the rate of unemployment increasing in this city ? It is our submission that these are due to two primary reasons. Firstly, as we have already mentioned, the ‘push’ from the rural areas and the unevenness of development in Maharashtra and in India as a whole has resulted in the traditional associa¬ tion of surplus jobs with this metropolis. This spurs the cease¬ less migration to Bombay. Secondly, and more specifically, the nature of capitalism in Bombay discourages the gainful employment of large numbers in the city. Why is this so? It may well be argued that increasing investments will open up greater opportunities for employment. The concrete situation of Bombay wholly falsifies this argument. It is not that investments are not taking place in Bombay. But as Zachariah rightly points out, more and more capital is being invested in capital-intensive industries in the oligopolis sector,71 a sector which today dominates Bombay’s industrial activity. In the 1964 Report of the Bombay Mill Owners Asso¬ ciation, the monopoly houses strongly advocated technological development and modernisation.72 This was permitted by the Government and also actively encouraged, knowing full well that this would choke employment opportunities and result in retrenchment.73 This is not only apparent in the chemical and engineering industries but is also to be seen progressively in the textile mills of Bombay. A brief examination of the textile industry will, we believe,

56

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

present a clearer picture. We have chosen this industry because it is a premier industry of Bombay which employs 50% of the labourers in the manufacturing industry and roughly 25% of the workers in the organised sector are employed in the cotton mills.74 Moreover, Maharashtrian migrants are predominantly found in the textile mills and this fact has a direct bearing on the growth and popularity of the Shiv Sena. A study of the Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra75 for the years 1963 to 1971 reveals that between 1962-68 both the number of mills and the productive capital employed have increased, whereas the number of persons employed has decreased rapidly over these years. The productive capital (in thousand rupees) increased from Rs. 1,226,979 in 1962 to Rs. 2,075,556 in 1968. The number of people employed on the other hand has fallen appreciably from 302,110 in 1962 to 279,629 in 1968.76 Also, the production of fine cloth and luxury wear has increased while the output of loom cloth has fallen.77 2 his is another indication that the ratio of capital and material inputs to labour has increased. While this has resulted in falling employment it has, how¬ ever, helped the big business houses and the captains of indus¬ try to reap high profits in a closed and protected market.78 The total output of cloth and yarn is decreasing or at best stagnant,lj whereas the prices of finished goods have been raised.60 This leads to a stagflationary situation where the lower and middle classes are hit by unemployment and falling standards of living, while at the same time higher profits for the oligopolists and big business houses are ensured. The general belief that the textile industry is stagnating does not hold true for the big business houses of Bombay like Dawn, Podaar, Gokak, Swan Mills, etc., who have been making steady profits over the last decade.81 Another trend is also getting more crystallized. Profits are being ploughed into other manufacturing, engineering and chemical industries.82 These industries are and always have been highly capital intensive and employment opportunities.

therefore offer only limited

It is also worthwhile to point out that the years 1965-67 were particularly turbulent years for the Indian economy. These years saw the aggravation of the crisis of unemployment

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

57

and falling standards of living for the lower and middle classes. This may have contributed to the popularity of the Shiv Sena, as it arose when the crisis was at its height in 1966. Poor rainfall in the years 1965-67 resulted in the non-avail¬ ability of food crops, cash crops as well as raw materials. This coincided with the maturing of industrial recession which according to Patnaik was steadily building up.83 For though harvests improved considerably in 1967, the textile industry for instance did not pick up production. As a matter of fact output fell.84 Anyhow, the coupling of droughts with indus¬ trial recession deepened the gloom of the lower and middle classes in Bombay, as elsewhere. The Government was unable to hold the price line which eventuated in a sharp rise in the consumer price index for workers in Bombay. The cost of living rose by more than 60% and the real wages in Mahara¬ shtra tended to go down.85 Severe unemployment and inflation made it difficult not only for the lower classes and the unemp¬ loyed, but even the middle classes felt the aggravating squeeze on their consumption because of escalating prices. 2. CAUSES

We shall now try to establish the causes responsible for the rise of the Shiv Sena movement. In our endeavour to do so we also hope to throw some light on the roots of its typicality. Our presentation in the pages above of the socio-economic and political complexion of Bombay will serve as a backdrop to our understanding of the rise of the Shiv Sena. By relying on the dis¬ cussion above, we hope to bring out the “historically specific conjuncture” which coloured the organisation with its varied traits and also added to its appeal. We do not think that the results of this excercise will be infallible or even complete in their exploration. We merely wisht o highlight what seems to our mind the more crucial factors. The fundamental causes for the rise of the Shiv Sena were increasing unemployment and a sense of economic deprivation among the lower and middle classes in Bombay. These were, as we pointed out earlier in this chapter, a result of the con¬ tradictions of the economic structure and the nature and quality of capitalism and of industrialization in India and more parti-

58

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

cularly in Bombay, which on the one hand discouraged employ¬ ment and on the other encouraged migration to the city. The Shiv Sena in its origin provided a vehicle for furthering the interests of the lower and middle class Maharashtrians in Bombay, who in the face of increasing economic insecurity and hardship were attracted to the regional passion and the nativists elements in the Shiv Sena’s ideology. Though a social movement arises from the contradictions of the economic structure which aggravate divergent class interests, the manner in which the Shiv Sena professed to protect the interests of these classes is not simply related to the contradictions of the economy. According to Althusser, accumulation of currents and events lead to a “his¬ torically specific conjucture.”86 It is important to understand this conjuncture for it alone can account for the appeal a particular movement has in a specific social setting. The question is, therefore, not so much why the Shiv Sena has its peculiar characteristics, but why the Shiv Sena has received such mass following and support? In this context it is possible to understand what happened by asking what alterna¬ tives were closed and why. This will show the selective influences from the environment acting in favour of the particular ideology and programme of the Shiv Sena. Firstly, the political climate that prevailed during the period the Shiv Sena came into being, in no small measure helped in giving the Shiv Sena its mass appeal and instant popularity. In the period 1966-67, when the masses were hit by inflation and recession, there seemed to be a kind of “political vacuum” in the country and in the state of Maharashtra. The grip of the monolithic Congress Party was loosening, and it was severely splintered by warring factions. Political opportunism had reached its height and floor crossing was a frequent occurrence. In this reign of chaos the Shiv Sena appeared to stand up for order; in an atmosphere of political degeneracy it appeared to champion exemplary ethical conduct. It came up from outside the established political structure to fill this “vacuum” by promising militancy, integrity and a solution. Why did the mood not turn against capitalism? Or more specifically why were the Communist parties unable to attract the masses to radicalism? It is true that the split in the

the shiv Sena : background factors and causes

59

Communist Party in 1964 considerably lessened the hope that people had pinned on the Communist forces. But as we hope to show there were other reasons too. To begin with, during the period 1956-65, i.e., the period beginning with the Second Five Year Plan, there was a sudden spurt of investment, and numerous factories and mills suddenly sprouted in Bombay. The number of factories employing between 1,000 and 5,000 people increased from 65 to 85 between 1959 and 1969. Factories employing between 500 to 999 increased in number from 45 to 70. Between 1956 and 1965 there was a net gain of as many as 25,000 registered factories.87 P.K. Kurane of CITU and B.S. Dhume of AITUC feel that the promise of immediate employment and wage increases robbed the working class unions of their larger role. “In this period” says Dhume, “the tribunals and courts granted almost every wage demand, and the feeling that the mill owner and the government were friends of the working class grew strong.”88 This feeling came to prevail even in the Girni Kamgar Union, the traditional communist stronghold. In this situation it is quite understandable that the leftist forces found it diffi¬ cult to penetrate the ideological hegemony of the ruling class, nor in all truth were any serious attempts made in that direc¬ tion. This can be gauged from the fact that even after this initial period of industrial optimism subsided around 1965, the leftist organisations did not call for a general strike or press for workers demand on pure economic issues, let alone arming them ideologically. Between 1950 and 1966 no general strike was called by AITUC in Bombay.89 Moreover, after 1954 the strikes were rarely on economic demands. Acti¬ vism was used primarily to forward the cause of the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi. As Kurane said: “A generation was brought up by the communists to believe in the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi.”90 The split in the communist party in 1964 aggravated its impotence and inertia and the leftist forces in Bombay failed to capitalise on the crises of 1966. Moreover, unlike Bengal, where communism had taken deep roots amongst the literate population with the establish¬ ment of the Progressive Writers Workshop and the Indian

60

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

People’s Theatre Association,91 communist values and ethics had not been able to attract Maharashtrian intellectuals. Whereas in Bengal, Marxism and Communism had left their imprint on art, literature, theatre and scholarship, and continued, even after Independence, to play a major political role; these elements were noticeably missing in Maharashtra and in Bombay. It is necessary, therefore, to appreciate the crucial juncture at which the Shiv Sena came up. The political crisis pervading the entire country plus increasing economic deprivation made it a particularly propitious period for the rise of the Shiv Sena. It is not easy to say whether if the Shiv Sena had come up at some other point of time it would have enjoyed the same popu¬ larity it did. But we would not be incorrect in saying that the worsening political and economic crises in the year 1966 aided in swelling the numbers of Shiv Sena partisans. The Shiv Sena not only sponsored militancy but establish¬ ed a kind of ‘hegemony’ in the Gramscian sense. It tapped popular beliefs and values, glorified the ‘little cultures’ of Maha¬ rashtra, and permeated a wide vista of social relationships. These were activated, pointedly and with particular emphasis to the socio-economic context. The nativitist element in the Shiv Sena’s ideology were favoured by the following two important factors: (i) The occu¬ pational and migrational structure of Bombay, and (ii) the ascriptive and regional style of politics in India, more speci¬ fically in Maharashtra, which heightened Maharashtrian chau¬ vinism by emphasising that their culture and tradition were supenor to that of other linguistic groups. This engendered a dominant attitude among Maharashtrians that they were being persecuted both on the national and regional plane. The demographic and the occupational structure of Bombay are the prime rationale of Thackeray’s appeal and underpin the ideology of the Shiv Sena. Ihe fact that the non-Maharashtrians are generally more affluent than the Maharashtrians in Bombay because of their domination over trade and commerce and also because they are proportionately better represented than the Maharashtrians are in well paid jobs due to better education and expertise, has given rise to the feeling among Maharash¬ trians that the migrants are wrongfully taking advantage of the

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

bounty of Bombay which should rightfully Though the SMS was successful in securing capital of Maharashtra, this did not result in by Maharashtrians of the cultural or economic

61

come to them. Bombay as the the domination life of the city.

Bombay still bears a pronounced non-Maharashtrian character. To add to this, the fact that the Maharashtrians comprise 43% of the total population, and are, therefore, though a dominant minority, not a majority community in the capital of their own state, may have added to their feelings of insecurity and deprivation. In our opinion the general socio-economic disparity and competition for jobs between Maharashtrians and nonMaharashtrians have both given rise to this feeling and indeed it is difficult to isolate one from the other. We disagree with Katzenstein’s view that job competition amongst migrants and natives of Bombay is not an important consideration. For according to her the Maharashtrians hold white collar jobs and lower class jobs more or less proportionate with their population.9' But this does not account for the fact that the South Indians and other migrants are better placed propor¬ tionately. In a tense situation of unemployment where jobs are scarce and migrants are more successful than the natives in securing better placed jobs (though the latter may preponde¬ rate in absolute numbers) job competition between both communities is a reality that cannot be ignored. Moreover as Katzenstein has herself shown, with 9% of the total popula¬ tion the South Indians occupy 23% of administrative jobs.93 The relativity of the situation is what often moulds the social perceptions of the people. At the same time, the fact that Bal Thackeray focuses on South Indians and not on Gujaratis goes back to his personal experiences and to his own antipathy towards the South Indians,94 as well as to the his own class position. Thackeray has no quarrel with the industrialists and therefore, finds no need to pick on the linguistic community, i.e., Gujaratis, who are the major financiers and industrialists of this city. More¬ over, by picking on the South Indians Thackeray gives vent to the frustrations of the middle class white collar Maharasht¬ rians, who like himself, find the South Indians their major competitors for white collar jobs. Had he been anti-Gujarati,

62

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

like the S.M.S. was, he would not have been able, perhaps, to motivate so fervently this petty bourgeois class of Maharash¬ trians, who till today, form the main plank of the Shiv Sena’s support structure. An attack on the Gujaratis would have involved at least some amount of hostility to the industrial capitalist class. But this, after the formation of Maharashtra State, would have meant a different socio political and intellec¬ tual orientation, which would not have appealed so immedia¬ tely, as the then prevailing Shiv Sena ideology did, to the volatile Maharashtrian middle and lower middle classes. Secondly, the play of regional and linguistic factors in national and state politics only reflects the fact that the various regional and linguistic groups in the country have not been successfully integrated. Unfortunately, the endorsement by the Congress in the 1920s (Motilal Nehru Report of 1923) and even after Independence of the principle of linguistic states has kept alive regional chauvinism and parochial passions.95 It is also on this ascriptive basis that much of post-Inde¬ pendence political action and recruitment has taken place in India.96 Nearer to home, the Samayukta

Maharashtra

Samithi

had from 1955-60 heightened the feeling of chauvinism amongst the Maharashtrian in Bombay. The existence of a communal co-operative history barely six years before the birth of the Shiv Sena made it easy for the latter to whip up communal and nativist passions, especially when the Shiv Sena focused on the fact that outsiders in Bombay were better off than the Maharashtrians. We do not mean to say that the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi is the direct pro¬ genitor of the Shiv Sena. But the actual occurrence and success of the Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi may have contributed towards keeping the regional passions socially alive in Bombay and in Maharashtra. The nation that the Maharashtrians are being deprived by outsiders and the activa¬ tion of Maharashtrian consciousness, may have facilitated the emereence of the regional and nativist idiom of the Shiv Sena. The cultural alienation that the Maharashtrians faced in Bombay made the nativist appeal of the Shiv Sena more accep¬ table. Maharashtrian language and culture were certainly not dominant in Bombay. A large number of Shiv Sainiks felt that

THE SHIV SENA : BRCKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

63

their culture was being undermined by outsiders. Some even confessed that in public places they hesitated to speak in Marathi. Coupled with this situation the belief among the Maharashtrians (which we detailed earlier in this chapter) that their history and culture is of an exemplary order97 made their cultural alienation in ihe city all the more acute. The militant pro-Hinduism of the Shiv Sena is also not new to Maharashtra. Militant Hindu nationalism had reared its head in the late 19th century, but nowhere had it formed a mass movement as in Maharashtra. The cult of Shivaji in Maha¬ rashtra expressed itself in violent opposition to the Muslims. Tilak introduced the Ganapathi festival in 1893 to keep this spirit alive, and to revitalise Maharashtrian chauvinism by introducing not only traditional sacred symbols, but also such militant activities as training in the art of defence.98 In Maha¬ rashtra, Hindu nationalism—the revering of the Gita and the exaltation of Shivaji—and anti-Muslim feeling rolled into one composite whole. We find, therefore, that the dominant values and ethos of the Maharashtrians in Bombay were effectively brought to¬ gether in the ideology of the Shiv Sena to explain the economic deprivation faced by Maharashtrians in Bombay. This is what gave and continues to give the Shiv Sena its almost instantane¬ ous popularity and mass appeal. In this context it should be mentioned that though the dominant elements in the super¬ structure, the incipient tensions in the society, etc., may be viewed as “accelerators” of a social movement, they should not be seen as “independent triggers”.99 For it is the ideology of the movement and the strategy and tactics of its leadership that bring about a group consciousness which is able to opera¬ tionalise these dominant elements of the superstructure to further certain class interests. We have above related briefly the contradictions and cons¬ traints of the economic structure and the nature of industria¬ lisation in India, more particularly in Bombay, which allowed the Shiv Sena to exploit the Maharashtrian’s feeling that he was being culturally and materially oppressed in his city by outsiders. The contradictions of the economy, as we have tried to show heightened the prevailing trends and currents in the superstructure leading to a ‘historically specific

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

64

conjuncture.’ This accounts for the specificity of the Shiv Sena movement. Therefore, to that extent it has been our endeavour in this chapter to highlight the accumulation of circumstances that favoured the rise and growth of the Shiv Sena. In conclu¬ sion we would like to reiterate that the growth of the Shiv Sena should not be seen simply as an eruption of the accumulated circumstances and contradictions. But that these circumstances and contradictions created a situation which facilitated the rise and popularity of the movement.100

NOTES

1. See G.S. Sardesai, Main Currents of Maratha History (Phoenix Publication, Bombay, 1949), pp. 11-16. According to Sardesai, the Maharashtrians believe they are a superior community because of the indomitable valour of the Maratha army which fought near single handedly against the invaders. 2. M.G. Ranade, Rise of Maratha Power (Publication Division, New Delhi, 1961), p. 3, Quoted by Ram Joshi, in “Maharashtra” in Myron Weiner, ed., State Politics in India (Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1968), p. 178. 3. The Mahratta, 24 June 1906. The text is reproduced in full in Bal Gangadhar Tilak—His Writings and Speeches (Ganesh and Co., Madras, 1922), p. 48. 4. Memorandum submitted by the Samayukta Maharashtra Samiti to the State Reorganisation Commission. Reorganisation of States in India with Particular Reference to the Formation of Maharashtra. (Samayukta

Maharashtra

Parishad Publication, Bombay, 1964)

p. 56. 5. Ibid. This memorandum traces the demand for a unilingual state of Maharashtra from Tilak onwards, p. 5. 6. Marshall Windmiller,

“The Politics of State Reorganisation in

India: The case of Bombay”, Far Eastern Survey, Vol. 25, no. 9, September 1956, pp. 129-43. 7. Times of India, 18 October 1955. 8. Bharat Jyoti, 23 October 1955. 9. New Age, 20 November 1955. 10. Purshottam Trikamdas, “Samayukta Maharashtra—Here Now”, Janata, Vol. 10, no. 57, 15 January 1956. 11. Windmiller, op. cit., p. 134. 12. Free Press Journal, 7 November 1955.

and

65

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES 13. Hindu, 25 October 1955. 14. The

Communists

were

hesitant partly because of the Bulganin-

Khruschchev’s visit of 23 November 1955

and

the

improved

relations between Nehru and the Soviets. But as the mass uprising was spontaneous they had to join in or be left out. Free Press Journal, 20 November 1955. 15. Windmiller, op. cit., p. 134. 16. Statesman, 10 September 1959. 17. Statesman, 2 October 1959. 18. The Parliamentary Board of the SMS said that they would not consider Samayukta Maharashtra as fully and completely accom¬ plished until the disputed areas of Belgaum, Karwar and Bidar were not resolved and included in Maharashtra, Times of India (New Delhi), 7 October 1959. 19. Memorandum of SMS, op. cit., pp. 81-85. 20. Ibid. 21. The Hindu, 13 November 1959. 22. Ibid. 23. Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. Statesman, 5 October 1959. 26. SMS Memorandum, op. cit., p. 56. 27. S.M. Joshi, “Some Stray Thoughts on Emotional Integration”, Janata Vol. 13 no. 1, 26 January 1958, p. 3. 28. Ibid, p. 4. See also “Reconsider Decision over Bombay”, Com¬ merce, 28 July 1956, pp. 153-4; and Shriped R. Tikekar, “Trouble Over Bombay”, Indian Affairs Record, Vol. 2, no. 7, 15 January 1956, pp. 3-4. 29. “Communist MPs Demand Changes to Meet Linguistic Principles— Dissenting Note to Joint Committee Report”, New Age, 29 July 1956. 30. S.M. Joshi, op. cit., p. 3. 31. See S.M.S. Memorandum, op. cit. 32. The Hindu, 13 November 1959. 33. S.M. Joshi, op. cit., p. 4. Mr. Dhume of AITUC said: “The Samayukta Maharashtra Samithi was to fight for our democratic peoples’ rights. This was being granted to other states. Why not Maharashtra? We wanted to bring Bombay in the mainstream of Maharashtra and monopoly

smash

capitalists.”

the

dominance of Gujaratis and big

(Personal

interview,

October

1973,

Bombay). 34. Encyclopaedia Britannica (Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc)., Vol. II, pp. 895-6, Section on “Bombay”. 35. Morris D. Morris, The Emergence of Indian Labour Force in India: A Study of Bombay Cotton Mills, 1854-1947 (Oxford University Press, Bombay, 1965), p. 13. 36. Encyclopaedia Britannica, op. cit. See also S.M. Edwardes, The

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

66 Rjse of Bombay:

A

Retrospect (Times of India Press, Bombay,

1902), pp. 264-5. . 37. Gordon Johnson, “Chitpavan Brahmins and Politics in Western India in the Late 19th Century and the Early 20th century , in E. Leach and S.N. Mukherjee, ed., Elites in South Asia (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1970), p. 96. 38. Such as the Parsees, Khojas, Memons, Gujaratis and Kapol Banias. See Indian Industrial Commission Report, 1916-18 (Superintendent, Government Printing), p. 72. Also A.K. Bagchi, Private Invest¬ ment in India (Orient

Longmans,

Association

with

Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge, 1975), p. 170. 39. Morris D. Morris, op. cit., p. 11. 40 Christine Dobbin, “Competing Elites in Bombay City Politics in ' the Mid Nineteenth Century (1852-1883)” in Leach and Mukherjee, ed., op. cit., pp. 92-93. 41. Dobbin, ibid. Dobbin presents the figures in the municipal elections in the late 19th century, i.e., from 1875 onwards, to show the domi¬ nation of non-Maharashtrians in the elected body. p. 92. 42. Ibid., p. 93. 43. Census of India, 1971.

General

Population Table, Section

II, Part

1I-A, Maharashtra, pp. 37-38. The total population of Bombay according to the 1961 Census was 4,152,056. Census of India, 1961 Vol. X, Maharashtra

Part

X

(1-B),

Greater

Bombay

Census

Tables, Table A-IV, p. 35. 44. Ibid., p. 38. 45. Census of India, 1961, vol. X, part X (1-B). Greater

Bombay

Census Tables, Table A-II, p. 35. 46. K.C. Zachariah, Migrants in Greater Bombay (Asia Publishing House, Bombay, 1968), p. 45. 47. Computed from Census of India, 1961, Vol.

X, Maharashtra, Part

Il-C(ii), Migration Tables, Table D-II, p. 23. 48. Zachariah, op. cit., Table 3.1, p. 45. 49. Ibid, p. 29. Among the million cities the proportion of illiterates in Greater Bombay is one of the lowest together with Calcutta and Madras. Delhi is slightly higher, ibid., p. 28. 50. Ibid, table 12.6, p. 246, for the preponderance of Maharashtrians in textile industry. 51. For correlation between educational achievement and industrial division see ibid., Table 12.8, p. 251. 52. We have taken only the major linguistic categories and occupa¬ tional divisions, consequently the columns do not add up to one hundred. The professional, administrative and clerical divisions correspond to the census classification of occupational divisions. In the category ‘labourers’ we have collapsed census divisions 7 and 8 which stand for craftsmen, production process workers and labourers not elsewhere classified.

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

67

53. See also Mary Katzenstein, “The Origins of Nativism—The Emer¬ gence of Shiv Sena in Bombay”, Asian Survey, Vol. 13, no. 4, April 1973, p. 391. 54. Zachariah, op. cit., p. 248. 55. A.K. Bagchi, op. cit., pp. 181-2, and A.I. Levkovsky, Capitalism in India: Basic Trends in its Development. (Peoples Publishing House, New Delhi, 1972), p. 70. 56. Levkovsky, ibid, pp. 69-83. 57. Gail Omvedt, Cultural Revolt in a Colonial Society (Scientific Socialist Education Trust, Bombay, 1976), p. 24. 58. R.K. Sau, “Indian Economic Growth: Constraints and Prospects”, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 7, nos. 5-7 Special Number, February 1972. 59. Baldev Raj Nayar, “Business and Economic Planning”, Asian Survey, Vol. 11, no. 9, September 1971, p. 861. 60. A.K. Bagchi, 1975, op. cit., p. 174; and “Entrepreneurship in India”, in E. Leach and S.N. Mukherjee, ed., op cit., pp. 223-56. 61.

Morris D. Morris, op. cit., p. 4.

62. But the control of these investments is largely vested in the bourgeoisie located in and around Bombay. •63. Heather and Vijay Joshi, Surplus Labour and the City: A Case Study of Bombay (Oxford University Press, Bombay 1976). See also Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra 1968-69, Table 10.4. 64. According to Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra State 1967-68, there were 4,472 factories in Greater Bombay and 9,186 for the rest of Maharashtra. Greater Bombay accounted for 556,357 workers and the total number of workers for rest of Maharashtra was 884,822. Table 12.1 p. 190. 65. Techno-Economic Survey of Maharashtra,

1963, National Council

of Applied Economic Research, New Delhi, p. 7. 66. Annual Survey of Industry 1961. Quoted by P.B. Waidya, Shiv Sena—The Fascist Menace: Behind the Pseudo Maharashtrian Mask (Maharastra State Communist Party of India, Bombay. 1968). 67. Morris D. Morris 1965, op. cit., p. 63. 68. K.C. Zachariah 1968, op. cit., p. 315. 69. Heather and Vijay Joshi, op. cit., p. 123. 70. Ibid., pp. 57-58. The magnitude of the unemployment situation is also manifest from the 1961 census data which shows that 30% of the unemployed who were employed previously were in the age group 25-34. (See Table II of this Chapter). Moreover, information available from the 19th Round of the NSS indicates that only 33.2% of the unemployed registered themselves. So the actual unemployment figure was much higher. See B.T. Ranadive, Unity and Struggle—Path before the Working Class. (C.I.T.U. Publication, Bombay 1970), p. 8. 71. Zachariah, op cit., p. 337. 72. Bombay Millowners’ Association Report, 1967, p. 7.

NAT1VISM IN A METROPOLIS

68

73. This awareness was there as early as 1952 in the Repot t of the Working Party for the Cotton Textile Industry (Manager of Publica¬ tion, Delhi, 1952), pp. 40-43. 74. Heather and Vijay Joshi, op. cit., p. 63. 75. Though the figures in the Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra State are for Maharashtra as a whole, the textile industry is concentrated almost exclusively in Bombay and hence any trend in the textile industry for Maharashtra as a whole will naturally reflect the trend in Bombay. 76. See Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra State 1963-65. Table 12.10, p. 214, for figures from 1963-65. Figures of 1966 see in Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra State, 1969-70. Table 12.9 (A) p. 199. For 1967-68 see Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra State, 1970-71, Table 8.5, p, 179. 77. Heather and Vijay Joshi, op. cit., p. 87. 78. The State’s protection of oligopolist industries on ‘infant indus¬ tries’ grounds makes them secure from foreign competition as well. 79. Bombay Millowners’ Association, Report, 1969, p. vi. 80. This can be gauged from the fact that even in 1965-67, the years of recession, though the output of cloth and yarn fell (Bombay Millowners’ Association Report, 1967, p. vi) the gross output at ex-factory value shows a steady increase in the same period (see Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra State, 1963-65 to 1970-71). 81. Stock Exchange Directory, vol. 8. In the accounts presented by the various textile mills as brought out by the Stock Exchange Direc¬ tory of Bombay, look under the column “Return on Capital Employed” for these years to have an estimate of the profit rates of the mills concerned. 82. Those interested in this aspect may glance through Men of FICCI— Who is Who (FICCI, New Delhi). This booklet reveals the diversi¬ fication of the business entrepreneurs who originally started off with cotton textile mills. 83. Prabhat Patnaik, “Disproportionality Crises and Cyclical Growth”, Economic and Political

Weekly, Vol. 7, nos 5-7, Special Number,

February 1972. 84. Bombay Millowners’ Association Report, 1969, p. v. 85. B.T. Randive, op. cit., pp. 7-9. 86. Althusser, op cit., p. 110. 87. See Statistical Abstract of Maharashtra 1969, op. cit. 88. Personal Interview in Bombay, August 1973. 89. A general strike was however called on 20 February 1966 and it was called off on the 10 March 1966 without a single demand being met. 90. Personal

interview in Bombay, August 1973. Paul

Sweezy

and

R.P. Dutt believe that the rise of extreme right-wing movements is facilitated by a lethargic working class movement which fails to

THE SHIV SENA : BACKGROUND FACTORS AND CAUSES

69

mobilise support during critical periods. See Paul Sweezy, Theory of Capitalist Development, Principles of Marxian Political Economy (Dennis Dobson, London,

1962), and R.P. Dutt, Fascism (India

Publications, Allahabad). 91. Premen Addy and Ibne Azad, “Politics and Society in Bengal”, in R. Blackburn, ed.,

Explosion

in

a

Sub-Continent (Penguin,

London, 1975), p. 136. 92. Katzenstein, op. cit., p. 399. 93. Ibid. 94. “How Did it Grow”, Mainstream, Vol. 6, No. 32, 6 April 1968. In Shiv Sena’s official release, Shiv Sena Speaks, Bal Thackery, ed. (Marmik Cartoon Weekly, Bombay 1968) it is explicitly said that the Shiv Sena does not think that the Gujaratis are outsiders. “They have closely identified themselves with this soil (Bombay) for over two hundred years”, p. 7. 95. Selig Harrison, India: The Most

Dangerous Decades

(Oxford

University Press, Madras, 1965), pp. 55-95 and 165-7. 96. Rajni Kothari, ed., Caste in Indian Politics (Orient Longman Ltd., New Delhi, 1970)., pp. 13-14. 97. See also B.G. Gokhale, “Shivaram Mahadeo Paranjape:

Nation¬

alism and the Use of the Past”, Journal of Indian History, Vol XLVIII, Part II, August 1970, pp. 259-74. 98. Bemanbehari Mazumdar, Militant Nationalism in India and its Socio-Religious Background (1899-1917) (General Printers and Publi¬ shers, Calcutta, 1966), p. 82. 99. W.F. Wertheim, Evolution or Revolution: The Rising Waves of Human Emancipation (Penguin Books, London, 1974), p. 202. 100. See Leonardo Salemani, “The Specificity of Marxist Sociology in Gramsci’s Theory”, Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 16, no. 1, Winter 1975, pp. 65-86.

CHAPTER III

The Shiv Sena Organisation: its Structure and Mass Base

In the following pages we shall enquire into the organi¬ zational structure of the Shiv Sena, see how it functions and also study the nature of its mass base. Most of the data in this chapter are from personal interviews and observations. An organization may be defined “as a relatively permanent and relatively complex discernible interaction system. Organi¬ zations can be observed as a series of patterned interactions among actors.”1 Here the emphasis is clearly not on the mere collection of actors but “rather on the interaction among them”.2 Other sociologists such as Parsons,3 Cooley,4 and Max Weber5 (especially in the latter’s treatment of bureaucra¬ tic organizations) have given competent definitions of organi¬ zations. We have presented the definition of Hass and Draabek as it clearly emphasizes the interaction among actors which we consider to be very important. The Shiv Sena organization is, as we shall see later, a formal one,6 in the sense there are regulations and formal communication and decision making systems, and the actors have different positions and ranks. As a matter of fact, decentralization and differentiation are the hallmarks of all formal and complex organizations as Etzioni,7 Blau and Schoenherr8 have demonstrated. In this connection a word of caution needs to be intro¬ duced. Organizational theorists, like the ones quoted above, tend to lean towards a static model, as Allen rightly pointed out, in the sense that the robustness of an organization seems to depend largely on factors internal to it. The discussion of conflict is also undertaken within the confines of the organiza¬ tional structure.9 A great deal of emphasis is, for instance.

THE SHIV SENA ORGANISATION

71

put on the functions of goal attainment, commitment, leader¬ ship, structural differentiation, etc. Though these organisa¬ tional theorists, including Crozier, do talk of the environmen¬ tal influences as well, the environment enters as a passive subject, which has to be controlled by degrees by the organisation as it gets more complex and diversified.10 Such an approach plays down the fact that the capacity to tackle the environmental milieu does not necessarily depend on the degree of complexity of an organisation. An organisation, we believe, is sustained not so much by its efficiency or by its complex and well demarcated institutional structure, as by its capacity to orient itself to the environment in keeping with its stated goals. It is true, that any large scale organisation in order to survive must differentiate and a degree of formalisation is also neces¬ sary but these, alongwith decentralisation, need not proceed apace with its capacity to increasingly expand its area of acti¬ vity.11 We hope to illustrate this point in this chapter, with reference to the organisation of the Shiv Sena. Certain organisations thrive, as we shall see, with a loose and amorphous structure. In the following pages we shall try to demonstrate that though the Shiv Sena was more organised in 1974 than it was in 1966, the increase in organisational complexity did not arise from the internal dynamics of the organisation so much as it did from the pressing influences that the social milieu exerted on it. The Shiv Sena had to take up diverse issues and expand its support base in order to survive as a vital organisation and to protect the interests of those it purported to represent. Another issue that needs to be raised before we go into an empirical analysis of the organisation of the Shiv Sena is the issue of charisma and institutionalisation. Those who are familiar with Weber’s works on this subject might recall that according to him as institutionalisation and formalization proceeded, charismatic authority receded. We find that this is not borne out in the case of the Shiv Sena. Thackeray, as we shall see in the next chapter, is in many ways a typical charismatic leader. But Thackeray has himself encouraged a certain amount of formalisation in the organisation without losing either his grip over it or his charisma. Secondly, in the process of diversification of the organisation, Thackeray’s

72

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

charismatic appeal reached out to even wider sections. A large number of people were made aware of Thackeray’s superior abilities by his lieutenants and supporters. Therefore, instead of chipping away at his charismatic authority, diversification and differentiation actually helped to build it up. The concrete case of the Shiv Sena is interesting in this respect. It might also throw some light on the fact that the inci¬ dence of charismatic authority and its fading away, is not so much an individual or organisational phenomenon, as it is a social one. One needs to examine more thoroughly the pecu¬ liar concurrence of social and individual factors which build and break charismatic authority. With this brief theoretical excursus let us proceed to des¬ cribing the Shiv Sena organisation. In keeping with what we have said above in our presenta¬ tion of the organisation of the Shiv Sena, we shall elaborate upon both its structural and processual aspects. We shall discuss them in the following sequence: (a) The emergence of the organisation. (b) The organizational structure. (c) The components of the organisation and their acti¬ vities. (d) Mobilization and diversification. (e) (f) (g)

Leadership: Decision-making, control and communi¬ cation. Recruitment. Social Background of the members and supporters of the Shiv Sena. 1. EMERGENCE OF THE ORGANISATION

When the Shiv Sena started in 1966 it centred mainly around Bal Thackeray (the Sena Pramukh or Chief of the Shiv Sena), which to a great extent it does even today, with the ■difference that there are certain officials now who look after •specific branches and activities of the Shiv Sena. After the 31st October 1966 meeting Bal Thackeray was besieged by his well wishers and sympathisers to set up the Shiv Sena in an organised manner right away. Most of them wanted to participate in the Shiv Sena actively so as to voice

THE SHIV SENA ORGANISATION

73

the grievances of their lot. The effect was sudden, forceful and unexpected.12 The Shiv Sena was not preceded by an orga¬ nised structure. It was purely an individual effort on the part of Bal Thackeray and a few of his close friends. Now Thackeray was more or less forced to organise. As he was at one time a member of the Rashtriya Sevak Sangh (RSS) the first model that came to his mind was that of the RSS. He asked his supporters to open shakhas (branches) and his associates went around propagating this line of action. The actual form that these shakhas should take, where they should be set up and what functions they should perform was left unspecified. Further, at this time, neither Thackeray nor his associates knew anything about those whom they were asking to start the shakhas. Many of them were only names to Thackeray. Gradually popular people in certain areas were brought to Thackery’s notice, and he along with his friends went around and contacted them and canvassed for their support. Many of them joined the Shiv Sena. But according to Thac¬ keray very few did so. Most of the people who joined the Shiv Sena were not known for any particular organisational ability. The Shiv Sena had just begun and, therefore, it needed as many members as possible to get off the ground. As Bal Thackeray put it: “I did not want to hold up the movement. Everything was happening too quickly for me, so I let the tide take me with it, but I constantly maintained that those who join me should be willing to obey me as their leader. I don’t believe in your so-called democracies.”14 When the 1968 municipal elections came up and the Shiv Sena decided to contest them, the leadership found that this could be best done by a rational distribution of shakhas. These shakhas would help circulate propaganda and would facilitate systematic campaigning. By this time the Shiv Sena had a sufficient number of members and shakhas which they could dis¬ tribute rationally to cover as many municipal wards as possible. One shakha was assigned to each ward, and if another shakha fell in the same area it was shifted to the adjacent ward (i.e. if there was none there) provided of course that there were a sufficient number of supporters living there.15 If there were no shakhas in nearby wards then other established contiguous shakha members would help in getting them started. They did

NAT1VISM IN A METROPOLIS

74

this with the support of their friends or with the aid of other committed Shiv Sainiks. Very often they would hold a small meeting prior to the inauguration of the shakha and this meeting would be addressed by one of their leaders. The Shiv Sainiks did not face any serious difficulty in starting new shakhas as their range of social associations spilled over their ward boundaries and their enthusiasm was spontaneous. After the shakhas were started the Shiv Sainiks were given the specific job of canvassing for their candidates for the coming municipal elections. The victory of the Shiv Sena in 42 wards of Bombay in 1968, brought about a further expansion of its organisation. The corporator or ‘nagar sevak,' now had an office of his own and worked in collaboration with the shakhas. In 1969, Datta Pradhan (a prominent Shiv Sainik who was later given the responsibility of formalizing and strengthening the organi¬ zation) joined the Shiv Sena. He was formerly a Jana Sangh partisan, and he still retains strong ties with this party.16 He was appointed the Sangathan Pramukh and was given the special task of expanding, diversifying and formalising the organi¬ sation. He enlarged the existing number of shakhas to cover the 140 wards of Greater Bombay. Over the Shakha Pramukh were now the Vibhag Pramukhs,17 who were in charge of an area roughly equivalent to a parliamentary constituency. In 1969 two major changes took place in the organisational structure. Firstly, Datta Pradhan was removed from the position of Sangathan Pramukh and an eight-member advisory body or Karya Karani was established instead. Secondly, the Chattra Shakha (Students Wing) was also disbanded.18 The organisational structure of the Shiv Sena, as it stands now, was completed by the second half of 1970. 2.

THE ORGANISATIONAL STRUCTURE

Bal Thackeray, as the chart on the organisational structure reveals, in his capacity as Sena Pramukh, is at the top. He is the ‘Chief’ and there is nobody in the organisation who is either equal to him or above him in any field of activity within the organisation. He is followed by the Karya Karani, a kind of advisory body. There are nine members on this body. These

THE SHIV SENA ORGANISATION

75

members have, with the exception of Deshmukh and Deshpande, specific responsibilities in the various wings of the Shiv Sena. Deshmukh and Deshpande are not in charge of any specific area and they are generally assigned duties from time to time depen¬ ding on the circumstances. The Sena Pramukh and the Karya Karani are the highest decision-making bodies of the Shiv Sena. According to Navalkar there are more than 80,000 Shiva Sainiks, but there is no record to substantiate this. Except for a brief period in 1966, the organisation has no formal mem¬ bership forms. In the next rung of our chart are the 5 major organisational components of the Shiv Sena. These are: (a) The Shakhas, (b) The Corporation, (c) The Bharatiya Kamgar Sena, (d) The Employment Bureau, and (e) The Chitrapat Shakha. Of the five, the first three are more important. In keeping with their relative importance the leaders of these three components are also members of the Karya Karani with delegated autho¬ rity. We shall now discuss each of the five components in greater detail. 2.1. The Components and their Activities: The Shakhas This is known by the Shiv Sainiks as their “organisational wing” primarily because it takes the major responsibility of organising the majority of Shiv Sena activities. It is also through the shakhas that the Shiv Sena retains its contact with the masses. This wing is the organisational backbone of the Shiv Sena. Twenty-five to thirty five thousand voters roughly make up one municipal ward which is under the jurisdiction of a shakha. In 1969 Vibhag Pramukhs were appointed with the view that this would enable a speedier and smoother functioning of the shakhas, and that the Karya Karani and Bal Thackeray would not be bogged down by minor problems. Every Vibhag Pramukh has three Upa Vibhag Pramukhs, and every Shakha Pramukh has one Upa Shakha Pramukh. Besides this, in every Shakha there are several “Gata” Pramukhs, whose appoint¬ ment is largely unofficial. The Gata Pramukhs are instrumental in mobilising support for the organisation in and around the areas where they live. If it is a biggish chawl, then there may

76

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

be two “Gata” Pramukhs. The lane or “mohalla” in which a Gata Pramukh lives is usually under his jurisdiction. The shakhas are probably the most developed component of the Shiv Sena organisation. They have helped to strengthen and expand the Shiv Sena’s mass base. The only other com¬ ponent with an approximate status and an independent mass base is the Bharatiya Kamgar Sena. The Shakhas are mobilised whenever members have to be mustered physically as a show of strength for any occasion. Till 1967 no systematic work was undertaken in the shakha offices. It was only after the 1968 municipal elections that the shakhas with their shakha pramukhs and other officials were given specific duties and a modus operandi so to say, was esta¬ blished.19 On week days the shakhas normally open at 5.00 p.m., i.e., after office hours when their members are free to participate in Shiv Sena activities.*0 According to Navalkar they handle all kinds of problems “from husband-wife quarrels to leaking pipes and employment problems.”-1 They accept all kinds of people too, regardless of their caste or religion, but never a communist (i.e., if he is known to be one). Christians and Muslims can be seen frequenting their offices often enough, though one rarely comes across a South Indian. Yet many Shiv Sainiks have South Indian friends. The shakha offices in Bombay are small one or two roomed structures which are not always built of brick and mortar. In the Santa Cruz ward, for instance, the office is housed in a tin shed. But they are situated in the most conspicuous locations, such as near a railway station or in the market place. The saffron Shiv Sena flag flies prominently on top of their offices, and there is a board near the entrance which displays the Shiv Sena emblem of a tiger head. These shakhas are not run very ‘officially’ and there is no officiousness pervading them. It is a relaxed comfortable place, where young men come to talk and while away their time. Most offices have a carrom board, and some like the Dadar shakha, even have a small lending library. It is generally the most convenient meeting place for the youth of that locality. One is not permitted to enter the shakha office with one’s shoes on and this is something that is followed in most Marathi middle class homes. Smoking is also prohibited inside the office.22

THE SHIV SENA ORGANISATION

77

The shakha offices are generally quite busy in the evenings with a row of people waiting to meet the Shakha Pramukh with their complaints. Sometimes the Corporator of the ward also sits in the shakha office. The Shakha Pramukhs of diffe¬ rent wards co-operate with each other. In one case for instance a Christian Lady of Goregaon ward came to the Goregaon shakha because she had been dismissed from the factory where she worked, and her payment had also been held up. This factory was in Worli. So the Shakha Pramukh of Goregaon together with the Shakha Pramukhs of Worli and Dadar worked on her case and managed to persuade the factory mana¬ gement to pay her salary. Regarding their methods of getting things done the Shakha Pramukh of Goregaon had this to say: . . .when they come to know that we are from the Shiv Sena half our job is done. But if this does not work then we look around and see if there are any unauthorised struc¬ tures and the like in the factory. All these businessmen do something or the other which is illegal, either by building unauthorised structures or by taking up small strips of land which are not legally theirs, or over using their power quota. We know of these things. But when we have to pressurize them then we investigate more thoroughly and with the help of our connections in the corporation we can land a businessman in serious trouble. This method is very useful, we do not always believe in using force.23 The shakhas generally excel in municipal work like building and repairing roads, solving drainage and water problems, etc. The bulk of their day to day activity is of this kind. The com¬ plaints are taken down in writing and then their corporators, if they have any in that ward, are appraised of the problem. If they do not have any corporators then the Shiv Sainiks take the case to some of their other corporators and help to solve the problem. In this way many Shiv Sainiks have learnt the formalities and procedures involved in getting things done in the corporation. This alone is a big help to the complainants of the ward as they are mostly unaware of the complex procedures of the municipal corporation. In rural and semi rural areas outside Greater

78

NATIVISM IN A METROPOLIS

Bombay the shakhas have to face different problems like those of land rent, the fixing of water and electricity connections, the problem of State Transport buses, etc. The shakhas participate heartily in cultural festivals like Ganapati, Janamashtami, and Shivaji Jayanti, and they usually organise these festivals in their locality. These festivals are occasions for building up the Shiv Sena ethos. Even in areas which are not preponderantly Maharashtrian, like Colaba, on Ganpati day hordes of boys walk on the streets with Shiv Sena vests, and the saffron flag is to be seen everywhere. The entire Shiv Sena machinery is activated during these festivals.24 This draws even the non-partisan Maharashtrian closer to the shakhas who in addition also organise theatres for popular entertainment at a nominal charge. This serves the dual purpose of raising funds for the organisation and also helps mobilise the mass of uncommitted Maharashtrians. Besides, they also patronise small cultural associations like “Prabhodhan” which are supposely non-partisan.25 The shakhas in both the urban and in the rural areas have to deal quite frequently with the police and the law. If any Shiv Sainik is arrested it is the duty of the shakha to arrange for his bail, for his lawyers and for his ultimate release. They have their own lawyers. These lawyers are not always mem¬ bers of the Shiv Sena, but friends of the Shakha or Vibhag Pramukh, or of Thackeray.26 Some of them have also joined the Shiv Sena and have become corporators. We have in this section elaborated mainly the normal day to day activities of the shakhas and their routine dealings with the members of their respective wards. The shakhas as can be seen are, in fact, the main props of the Shiv Sena organisation. They perform a variety of activities, from political mobilisation and solving municipal and employment problems to organising cultural festivals. This will become even more evident when we discuss the mobilisation and employment activities of the various wings of the Shiv Sena later on in this chapter. But it is important to note that the shakhas handle the entire range of Shiv Sena activities. The shakhas are the basic units through which the Shiv Sena reaches out to the rank and file of the population. They are primarily

THE SHIV SENA ORGANISATION

79

If

_c

.2

c

5 -s

>

e

Q

44

S

o ,oj

o > d co

S3 00

co CO

&Q

£ S3

< S’ 4

£

43 t: 03S

<