Ethnicity and Identity movements
Ethnic Movements in India: Dynamics, Identities, and Challenges
Ethnic movements in India are deeply rooted in the complex social fabric shaped by shared cultural traits such as language, religion, tribe, and traditions. The term ethnicity itself, derived from Latin and Greek origins meaning "nation," refers to groups distinguished by a common social identity that often arises from experiences of exclusion, discrimination, or domination. Various scholars define ethnicity as a consciousness of identity that may be real or imagined, influenced by historical experiences of subjugation and shaped by shared cultural and social characteristics. Ethnic groups are typically marked by ascriptive identities such as caste, language, religion, or region, and these identities often serve as the basis for political mobilisation and demands for rights or resources.
The characteristics of ethnicity in India include territoriality, inequality, shared symbols and traditions, relative deprivation, and political mobilisation. Ethnic groups frequently perceive themselves as marginalized or deprived, leading to a heightened sense of collective identity and demands for recognition or autonomy. This dynamic process of ethnic consciousness can mobilize groups around common interests, often resulting in social and political movements that articulate collective rights. India has witnessed several prominent ethnic movements such as the Assam Movement against illegal immigration, the Khalistan movement in Punjab, various autonomy struggles in Northeast India, the Gorkhaland agitation in West Bengal, and the longstanding conflict in Kashmir, all reflecting the complex interplay between ethnicity and political aspirations.
Ethnic identity is often considered an inherited and inbuilt attribute passed down through generations. Thinkers like Fredrik Barth have emphasized how ethnic identity creates boundaries by maintaining group distinctiveness, while scholars such as Rajni Kothari have linked ethnic mobilization in India to the assertion of marginalized groups striving for authenticity and self-respect. Paul Brass further elaborates on ethnic identity formation as a multi-layered process involving internal struggles within groups, competition between different ethnic groups, and conflicts with the state over governance and territorial control.
Ethnic identity in India manifests in various forms, including linguistic ethnicity, communalism (religious ethnicity), tribal movements, ethno-nationalism, regionalism, and casteism. Linguistic ethnicity has played a significant role in shaping identities, as seen in movements like the Dravida Kazhagam in Tamil Nadu, which asserted Dravidian linguistic pride and opposed Hindi imposition. Language has often been a more legitimate basis than religion for demands concerning administrative restructuring. On the other hand, religious ethnicity, or communalism, has frequently posed challenges to national integration, often fueled by economic and political rivalries and historical colonial divide-and-rule policies. Violent episodes like the 1984 Sikh riots, 1992 Ayodhya clashes, and 2002 Gujarat violence exemplify the destructive consequences of religious ethnic assertion.
Tribal movements in India reflect historical patterns of exploitation, displacement, and cultural erosion faced by indigenous communities. Tribal groups have resisted domination by landlords, moneylenders, and state authorities through both assertion of ethnic identity and socio-political movements. However, the Indian state’s approach, influenced by Western nation-state models, has often undermined tribal identities by disrupting their languages, cultures, and access to land. Ethno-nationalism represents a further stage where ethnic groups seek political autonomy or even separate statehood, a phenomenon seen in various parts of India, especially the Northeast. The state’s frequent reliance on force to quell these movements has often deepened alienation.
Regionalism, characterized by strong loyalty to one’s own region, also fosters ethnic consciousness and sometimes challenges national unity. The creation of new states such as Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, Uttarakhand, and Telangana reflects the political recognition of regional identities. Casteism, as another form of ethnic identity, underscores blind loyalty toward one’s caste or sub-caste with a focus on socio-economic and political interests. Scholars like Beteille and Barnett recognize caste as a unique form of ethnic differentiation that has transformed in the modern era into political caste federations. Contemporary caste-based political parties like the Bahujan Samaj Party and Rashtriya Janata Dal illustrate the continuing significance of caste as a mobilizing identity in Indian democracy.
In conclusion, ethnic movements in India are diverse and complex, encompassing linguistic, religious, tribal, regional, and caste identities. These movements reflect ongoing struggles for recognition, rights, and autonomy within the Indian polity. While ethnicity serves as a powerful basis for collective identity and political mobilisation, it also presents challenges for national integration and social cohesion. Understanding the nuanced nature of ethnic identities and movements is crucial to addressing the underlying causes of conflict and fostering inclusive development in India.
Factors Responsible for Ethnic Upsurge in India: Theoretical and Empirical Insights
Ethnic upsurge in India is a complex social phenomenon rooted in the interaction of identity, power, and politics. It is not merely a cultural resurgence but an outcome of deeper structural and political processes in Indian society. According to Rajni Kothari, the rise of ethnic movements in India reflects a resistance to the homogenizing pressures of the modern state — particularly those introduced through education, technology, and administrative centralization. Ethnic groups perceive these as threats to their unique cultural identities, prompting them to assert themselves in various forms.
Dipankar Gupta offers a more political than cultural explanation, arguing that ethnicity in India is primarily a product of political processes rather than a continuation of traditional cultural values. This aligns with the views of Fredrik Barth and Abner Cohen, who emphasize that ethnic identities gain prominence due to political mobilization and structural inequalities rather than primordial ties.
Priya Arya (2016) identifies several critical factors that contribute to ethnic inflaming in India. First, the plural nature of Indian society—with its diversity in caste, religion, language, and region—leads to competing interests among groups striving for limited resources. This competition breeds ethnic assertions to preserve distinctiveness. Second, asymmetrical economic development leaves certain groups marginalized, resulting in frustration and ethnic mobilization as a form of resistance. For example, tribal communities displaced by mining or dam projects often engage in ethnic protests to reclaim lost rights and identity.
Third, Indian democracy itself becomes a platform for ethnic mobilization. The electoral process encourages groups to consolidate around shared identity markers—caste, religion, language—for political bargaining. Fourth, the politicization of caste and religion has further deepened ethnic consciousness. Political actors often manipulate these identities to secure vote banks, reinforcing divisiveness. Fifth, globalization has created a sense of cultural insecurity among minority groups who fear cultural assimilation and erosion of traditional practices. This has sparked revivalist movements and reinforced ethnic boundaries.
Cultural homogenization, especially under globalization, fosters fear of cultural extinction, prompting even dominant groups to assert their ethnic identities—for instance, Hindu revivalism. Ineffective development policies also play a role. Many state-led projects, despite their developmental aims, have caused mass displacement without proper rehabilitation, leading to alienation and identity-based mobilization among affected communities, particularly tribals.
To understand these processes, sociologists have proposed various theoretical frameworks. The Primordialist Approach suggests that ethnic identity is deeply rooted in primordial ties like blood, ancestry, and emotional bonds. Fredrik Barth highlights characteristics like biological perpetuation and shared cultural values that solidify group identity. However, Paul Brass critiques this by arguing that such attachments are variable and often shaped by migration or new land relations.
The Instrumentalist Approach sees ethnicity as a flexible and dynamic tool used by individuals or elites to achieve specific goals—political representation, economic advantage, or social recognition. Barth’s work, Ethnic Groups and Boundaries, emphasized that ethnic identity is not fixed but relational, created and sustained through interaction with ‘others’. Paul Brass argues that ethnicity often results from elite competition, where leaders mobilize groups to gain or retain power.
The Modernization Approach assumes that industrialization, capitalism, and nation-building would eventually dissolve ethnic identities into a singular national consciousness. However, in India, this hasn’t been the case. Instead, modernization often triggers identity politics as traditional structures are disrupted. Dipankar Gupta uses the example of the Punjab agitation, which began as a secular movement around issues like water sharing, but later took on an ethnic character due to political intervention.
Finally, the Social Constructionist Approach argues that ethnicity is not inherent but constructed through social interactions, symbols, and shared narratives. According to Jenkins, ethnicity involves both internal (how one sees themselves) and external (how others view them) identification. This perspective sees ethnicity as fluid, varying by context and shaped by collective experiences, particularly in situations of conflict and negotiation.
In conclusion, ethnic upsurge in India is not a static or natural outcome but a product of evolving political dynamics, structural inequalities, and socio-cultural transformations. While identity remains central, it is the intersection of political opportunity, economic exclusion, and cultural anxiety that often ignites ethnic movements. A nuanced understanding of ethnic upsurge thus requires moving beyond cultural essentialism to focus on state policies, elite manipulation, and the lived realities of marginalized communities.
Major Ethnic Movements in India: Language, Identity, and Resistance
Ethnic movements in India represent the assertion of group identities rooted in shared language, religion, culture, and historical marginalization. These movements are often expressions of both resistance and aspiration — attempts to safeguard community rights, resources, and recognition within the broader framework of the Indian nation-state.
1. Khalistan Movement in Punjab
The Khalistan movement was a secessionist ethnic struggle led by a section of the Sikh community demanding an independent Sikh nation, "Khalistan." Initially rooted in demands for autonomy and protection of Sikh identity, the movement intensified in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Operation Blue Star in 1984, wherein the Indian Army entered the Golden Temple to flush out militants, triggered widespread resentment and ultimately led to the assassination of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi. This was followed by the 1984 anti-Sikh riots, which further alienated the Sikh community. While the movement waned by the early 1990s due to effective counterinsurgency operations, its impact continues to shape Sikh political consciousness.
2. Ethnic Movements in the North-East
The North-East, home to hundreds of tribal and ethnic communities, has witnessed multiple ethnic assertions. The Naga movement, one of the oldest insurgent movements in independent India, sought independence for the Naga tribes. Though the creation of Nagaland in 1963 granted some autonomy, demands for sovereignty have persisted. Similarly, the Mizo movement sought autonomy and cultural recognition. The signing of the Mizo Accord in 1986 led to the formation of Mizoram as a full-fledged state, offering a model for peaceful resolution.
3. Gorkhaland Movement
The demand for a separate state of Gorkhaland, encompassing the Darjeeling hills and surrounding regions, has been driven by Nepali-speaking Indians who feel culturally and politically marginalized. Beginning under the leadership of Subash Ghising and later reignited by Bimal Gurung of the Gorkha Janmukti Morcha, the movement reflects fears of assimilation and underrepresentation. Despite several rounds of negotiations and the creation of the Gorkhaland Territorial Administration, the demand for full statehood continues.
4. Dravidian Movement
Founded by E.V. Ramasamy (Periyar) in the early 20th century, the Dravidian movement sought to empower lower castes and oppose Brahminical dominance and Hindi imposition. Rooted in Tamil Nadu, it promoted Dravidian cultural identity and rationalist ideals. The movement led to the emergence of powerful regional political parties like DMK and AIADMK, which have since dominated Tamil Nadu politics. Although initial demands included secession, these were later abandoned in favor of regional autonomy within the Indian Union.
5. Ethnic Tensions in Assam (Bodo vs Bengali Muslims)
Assam has long been a site of ethnic tensions, particularly between indigenous Bodo tribes and Bengali Muslim settlers, often seen as illegal immigrants from Bangladesh. These tensions have led to repeated violence, including major riots in 2012 that displaced over 400,000 people. Bodo assertions for a separate Bodoland, fueled by fears of demographic marginalization, remain unresolved despite intermittent peace accords.
6. Jharkhand Movement
Emerging from the tribal belts of Bihar, Odisha, and Madhya Pradesh, the Jharkhand movement was rooted in economic exploitation, land alienation, and cultural neglect of Adivasi communities. Led by groups like the Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, the movement succeeded in achieving statehood in 2000. However, issues of resource control and local employment continue to dominate post-statehood politics.
Is Language Fundamental to Ethnicity?
Language plays a critical role in shaping ethnic identity. It not only serves as a medium of communication but also as a repository of a community’s culture, memory, and worldview. In the Indian context, language has been a core marker of ethnic belonging and a major basis for political mobilization.
Post-independence, the attempt to impose Hindi as the sole official language met with strong resistance from non-Hindi speaking regions, especially Tamil Nadu. This opposition led to the retention of English alongside Hindi and gave rise to powerful anti-Hindi agitations.
The linguistic reorganization of states starting in 1953 — beginning with Andhra Pradesh for Telugu speakers — reinforced the link between language and regional identity. Subsequent reorganization saw the formation of Maharashtra, Gujarat, Punjab, and several tribal states in the North-East, acknowledging the cultural and linguistic basis of political autonomy.
Movements like Gorkhaland and Bodoland continue to assert linguistic and cultural distinctiveness as part of their demands for statehood. Thus, in a country as linguistically diverse as India, language remains not just a cultural tool but also a political instrument of ethnic mobilization.
Ethnicity and the North-East: Identity, Exclusion, and Resistance
The North-Eastern region of India is a mosaic of diverse ethnic identities, each with its own language, culture, and historical memory. Ethnic politics in this region has often been shaped by radicalism, identity assertion, and the struggle for recognition. Tribal communities in the North-East, many of whom have cross-border ethnic affiliations, have experienced an acute identity crisis due to mainstream homogenizing pressures. These identity-based assertions have often been met with a state response that emphasizes law and order over inclusive governance, evident in the frequent invocation of the Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), 1958.
A prominent example is the Naga movement, which began in 1947 as a peaceful demand for autonomy. However, following military operations by the Indian state, the movement turned violent, resulting in prolonged insurgency, loss of lives, and destruction of property. Far from quelling the movement, the state’s heavy-handed approach strengthened the Naga resolve for autonomy and even secession.
Several structural and socio-cultural factors drive ethnic assertion in the North-East. First is the deep-seated identity crisis experienced by communities like the Bodos, who seek to preserve their unique language and cultural identity. This assertion is often rooted in a perceived or real history of marginalization and exclusion. Second, the fear of exclusion has historically fueled ethnic mobilization. For instance, the Nagas feared political and cultural absorption into postcolonial India, which threatened their tribal values and autonomy.
Christianity and education have played a dual role in this region. While Christianity introduced new forms of community cohesion and moral order, Western education fostered political consciousness and identity-based mobilization. As noted by T.K. Oommen, three primary agents—namely the State, the Church, and market forces—have significantly transformed tribal societies in the North-East. However, the state’s failure to recognize and accommodate local aspirations, especially through postcolonial development models aimed at national integration, has further intensified alienation.
The process of modernization itself has proven flawed. Instead of facilitating equitable growth, it has reinforced centralization and capitalist development, leaving tribal communities socially excluded and economically marginalized. Scholars Biswas and Suklabaidya aptly observe that the “tribal life-world suffered heavily” due to the top-down introduction of state-sponsored development agencies, which ignored indigenous contexts.
Another major source of ethnic tension is the issue of outsiders. Migration from Bangladesh, Nepal, and other Indian states has disrupted demographic balances, fostering an ‘insider vs. outsider’ sentiment. Local resources, jobs, and cultural spaces have increasingly been claimed by non-tribals, deepening resentment and leading to ethnic extremism. The rise of a regional middle class and local elites has further complicated the situation. Movements like the Assam agitation were led by the middle class, who perceived the influx of migrants as a direct threat to regional identity and economic opportunities. Ironically, these elites often monopolized state resources, marginalizing smaller ethnic groups in the process.
Lastly, the formation of smaller states—while empowering some majority ethnic groups—has exacerbated the exclusion of minorities. For example, the Hmar community in Mizoram and the Garos in Meghalaya have both raised concerns about being sidelined in the state apparatus. The monopolization of jobs, political posts, and developmental benefits by dominant groups has created a cascade of frustration among marginalized communities, often resulting in violent mobilization.
Identity Movements in India: Assertion, Empowerment, and Challenges
Identity movements refer to collective mobilizations based on birth-based social categories such as caste, tribe, gender, or ethnicity. These movements are typically characterized by a strong sense of homogeneous group identity and a focused agenda demanding recognition, equality, and empowerment for historically marginalized communities. Rather than seeking universal change, they emphasize justice for specific social groups whose voices have been systematically excluded from the political, economic, and social mainstream.
According to sociologist Brij Ranjan Mani, “Identity movements are positive in character as they aid in unifying and amplifying the voices of marginalized sections like Dalits, Women, and Tribals.” These movements thus serve as tools for reclaiming dignity, asserting cultural identity, and challenging oppressive social hierarchies. They have been crucial in promoting inclusive democracy by facilitating the participation of neglected groups in political and public life.
The significance of identity movements lies in their role in the democratization of Indian society. By empowering historically oppressed communities, these movements have helped correct systemic injustices and led to significant policy reforms. For instance, Dalit movements have pushed for affirmative action and legal safeguards against caste discrimination. The women's movement has championed laws against domestic violence, workplace harassment, and gender inequality. Likewise, tribal movements have demanded land rights, cultural preservation, and autonomy.
Prominent examples include the Dalit movement, rooted in anti-caste ideology and Ambedkarite thought; the backward class movement, which sought political and educational reservations; tribal movements, which challenged land alienation and cultural marginalization; and the women’s movement, which has spanned issues from domestic violence to equal representation in governance.
However, identity movements are not without their challenges. One key criticism is their limited impact on broader societal transformation. They often remain confined to the interests of their specific groups, lacking an inclusive framework that could unify multiple marginalized sections. Another concern is the existence of intra-group inequality. Movements sometimes fail to represent the poorest or most disenfranchised within the group itself. For instance, the Bihar government's creation of the "Maha Pichda Warg" to address divisions within the backward class reveals how generalized movements can overlook sub-group disparities.
Internal conflicts and fragmentation within identity groups also weaken collective bargaining power. Competing sub-castes or internal power struggles often dilute the strength of the movement. Furthermore, political co-optation has posed serious limitations. Parties like the Samajwadi Party in Uttar Pradesh, RJD in Bihar, and Shiromani Akali Dal in Punjab have used identity politics to build vote banks, but often at the cost of diluting genuine grassroots agendas. Leadership crises further exacerbate this issue. Once leaders gain political clout, they may abandon the movement’s original cause, as seen in the case of Hardik Patel from Gujarat, who shifted focus after achieving political prominence.
Additionally, some identity movements, particularly those representing women and minority tribes, suffer from organizational and financial limitations. Lack of sustained funding, weak institutional support, and poor mobilization capacity prevent them from scaling up or maintaining long-term influence.
In conclusion, identity movements have played a pivotal role in challenging historical injustices and giving voice to marginalized communities in India. They have enriched the democratic fabric by promoting recognition-based justice. Yet, their full potential is often curtailed by internal divisions, leadership compromises, and systemic constraints. For identity movements to sustain momentum and contribute to holistic social progress, they must evolve into broader coalitions that address both group-specific and intersectional issues with strategic clarity and inclusive leadership.
New Social Movements: A Shift in the Politics of Protest
Since the 1950s, social movements have undergone a significant transformation in both nature and purpose. Earlier movements, often rooted in economic struggles and institutional exclusion, have now given way to what are termed New Social Movements (NSMs). These movements reflect a shift from materialistic concerns to symbolic and identity-based struggles, influenced by a wave of global activism. Movements like the Black Civil Rights Movement in the United States, student protests of the 1960s and 70s, and campaigns for women's liberation, gay rights, anti-nuclear protests, and animal rights have all shaped this newer form of collective action. Social scientists have responded by redefining the very understanding of social movements, emphasizing critical and cognitive dimensions over structural and economic interpretations.
The core nature of New Social Movements lies in their non-materialistic orientation. Rather than demanding economic redistribution, NSMs are centered on the defense of cultural identities, recognition of rights, and environmental or ethical concerns. These movements are pluralistic and diverse in both their membership and their goals. They transcend traditional boundaries of state, class, nation, and ethnicity, thereby reflecting a postmodern sensibility in collective action. Unlike older class-based movements, which sought structural transformation, NSMs focus on symbolic politics, lifestyle, and participatory democracy.
The methodology adopted by New Social Movements is equally distinct. First, they engage in critical intervention by questioning state policies at both national and international levels. Second, they employ creative action such as street theatre, protest art, and visual storytelling to communicate their message. Third, NSMs emphasize participatory mobilization, often through digital platforms, online campaigns, and social media, enabling a decentralized and inclusive mode of activism.
Several defining features distinguish these movements. One is the role of the middle class. These movements are often led by professionals, academics, and volunteer activists rather than full-time political operatives. They also maintain a commitment to non-violence and pragmatism, as highlighted by Hegedus, who describes them as "non-violent, pragmatic, non-coercive, non-hierarchical, cross-class, and cross-ideology." The participants come from varied social backgrounds, including youth, students, women, and minority communities, but they are not bound by rigid structural roles. Moreover, NSMs tend to adopt ideologically complex positions, defying binary classifications such as right vs. left or conservative vs. progressive. Their focus on personal and intimate dimensions—such as choices in food, dress, and relationships—reflects the deep integration of personal and political spheres. As a result, individual identities blur into collective expressions of protest.
Another key driver behind these movements is the growing credibility crisis of traditional politics. Disillusionment with party-based democracy and state-led development has led people to seek alternative platforms for expressing their grievances and aspirations. Consequently, NSMs are often segmented, diffused, and decentralized in structure, without a single charismatic leader or centralized command. As Larana, Johnston, and Gusfield (1994) note, these movements must be understood cross-culturally and in contrast to older class-based mobilizations. M.S. Gill also emphasizes that NSMs rejuvenate multiple identities—gender, caste, regional, and ethnic—through sustained grassroots mobilization.
India provides several significant examples of such movements. The Kamtapuri movement in North Bengal represents a peasant struggle for recognition and rights. The Anti-Arrack Movement in Andhra Pradesh was led by rural women protesting the social and economic harms caused by alcohol. Similarly, Dalit sub-caste rights movements such as Madiga Dandora and Thudum Debba illustrate efforts to address internal hierarchies and exclusions within larger caste categories. The Telangana Statehood Movement exemplifies regional identity assertion rooted in historical and cultural distinctiveness. Additionally, numerous NGO-led initiatives in India address civil liberties, farmer rights, environmental justice, and alcohol prohibition, operating within the framework of NSMs.
What makes these new movements distinct is their non-confrontational relationship with the state. They are less about opposing the government directly and more about influencing societal consciousness. By appealing to public opinion, they seek to alter the moral and cultural foundations of society. Their peaceful nature and use of innovative tactics help generate public awareness, which in turn contributes to changes in policy and legislation. Thus, while NSMs may not always secure immediate political victories, they significantly impact social discourse and legislative agendas.
Youth and Student Movements: Engines of Social Transformation
Youth and student movements have long played a pivotal role in shaping political, social, and cultural landscapes across the world. Youth movements consist primarily of young people engaged in political, religious, or social reform activities aimed at challenging prevailing structures and envisioning alternative futures. Student movements are a subset of these, led by emerging intellectuals focusing on idealistic issues like justice, freedom, and democracy. Both forms of activism act as powerful catalysts for social transformation.
Historically, youth have been at the forefront of major global movements including the Civil Rights Movement in the United States, LGBTQ+ rights, successive waves of feminism, environmental justice campaigns, labor rights, anti-war protests, and immigrant rights advocacy. As Chock (2012) emphasizes, young people have been "key actors in powerful social movements that transform the course of human history," demonstrating their crucial role in progressive change.
Several sociological factors drive youth and student movements. The quest for freedom and autonomy is a primary motive, as seen in India during the Emergency (1975–77), when students from Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University actively resisted authoritarianism (Banerjee). State policies, especially those concerning education and employment, frequently trigger youth protests—such as agitations around reservation policies in 1990, 2006, and 2015. Educated unemployment breeds frustration and social tension, highlighted by Rudolph Gyan D'Mello’s observation that unemployed individuals are focal points of societal tension. This was evident in 2014 when students of Aliah University boycotted classes demanding job placements.
Experiences of social deprivation and injustice further fuel youth activism. For instance, in Tripura, the Janasiksha Samity launched literacy campaigns despite royal opposition, and tribal youth were mobilized against systemic social injustices (Jagat Jyoti Roy). The nature of the education system also influences student activism; authoritarian and bureaucratic institutions often generate discontent, while critical education in humanities and social sciences fosters radical thinking (Metta Spencer, 1967). Social background affects participation, with upper-class students often leading cultural organizations and middle- or lower-class students engaging more in political movements (Philip G. Altbach, 1968).
Alienation is another important factor. TK Oommen argues that most Indian youth feel disconnected from mainstream society due to rigid structures and education systems that fail to provide adequate employment. The rise of quick information systems and social media has transformed youth activism by enabling rapid mobilization and wider dissemination of ideas. Examples include the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, where “wired youth” effectively used digital communication as a weapon of opposition, and India’s Anna Hazare Movement and Nirbhaya Protests, which heavily relied on social media networks.
The desire for power and autonomy motivates youth to assert themselves politically. Max Weber defines power as the ability to realize one’s will despite resistance, and youth movements often embody this struggle for self-determination. Additionally, an anti-establishment ethos drives many young activists to reject perceived corruption and hypocrisy in political and social institutions. Ideological orientations vary, with some youth espousing left-wing radicalism focused on equality and social justice, while others align with right-wing elite-centric ideologies.
Student movements differ somewhat from broader youth movements. They tend to be led by incipient intellectuals motivated by idealistic causes such as democracy, rights, and reforms. Although students form a small minority, their activism is often elitist but internationally oriented, drawing inspiration from global struggles. Not all students participate; active involvement is usually limited to politically conscious and motivated individuals. Political parties often seek to influence or organize student activism, leading to both cooperation and conflict on campuses.
In India, youth movements have manifested in various significant ways. The Kashmir Youth Movement highlights the region's complex political conflict, where despite calls for “Azadi” (freedom), the majority prefer peaceful protest and identify as part of Indian society (Chadha, 2012). The Anna Hazare anti-corruption movement in 2011 mobilized urban middle-class youth using social media, reflecting a new model of activism driven by educated youth (Sitapati, 2011). The 2012 Nirbhaya protests following a brutal gang rape in Delhi exemplified leaderless, spontaneous, and decentralized youth mobilization, which compelled legislative reforms on sexual violence (Narang, 2012; Bose, 2013).
The history of Indian student activism can be divided into phases. The proto-historical stage (till 1905) was marked by sporadic discontent without organized movements. During the freedom struggle (1905–1947), students actively joined nationalist movements to overthrow colonial rule. Post-independence (1947 onwards), student activism shifted towards issue-based protests against authoritarian policies and social injustices. Banerjee notes that although nationalist fervor declined, students remained politically engaged, focusing on specific grievances. Factors such as wealth concentration, unemployment, food crises, and commercialization of education have contributed to ongoing unrest.
Since economic liberalization in 1991, student movements have seen a decline in ideological commitment, focusing instead on campus-specific issues like tuition fees, examination policies, and placement opportunities. Movements became more localized and sporadic but gained wider support through media exposure—for example, protests at the Film and Television Institute of India resisting government interference. Student organizations often maintain political party links, sometimes leading to violent clashes for control over unions.
Ethnicity and caste have also shaped youth activism. Ethnic mobilizations in Northeast India and Assam have led to violent conflicts, while caste-based protests erupted in North India after the Mandal Commission’s recommendations on OBC reservations. The 2006 Youth for Equality movement, led by upper-caste professional students, opposed these affirmative action policies.
The use of media and technology has further amplified youth movements. Ghosh notes that globalization of media has provided students with broader exposure to world issues and facilitated unity across regions and institutions.