By Shri Atul Limaye – Sah Sarkaryawaha of RSS
With the emergence of the movement associated with CJP, the immense relevance of organizations that work among the youth and operate with a national perspective has become increasingly evident.
This recent movement warrants a serious study. It is not a sudden occurrence but appears to be the result of a continuous process unfolding over several years. A proper understanding requires an analysis of its chronology, methodology, support systems, adopted innovations, and the underlying ideological foundation.
Looking at the timeline, Abhijit Dipke initiated CJP via online platforms. It garnered widespread support during the initial two or three days. Subsequently, he arrived in India; he reached the country on June 6 and launched the movement on June 7, yet it failed to attract the expected public support. Between June 7 and June 19, he visited various cities across the country in an attempt to build momentum, but again, the response was lukewarm. Finally, a sit-in protest began at Jantar Mantar on June 20, after which the nature of the movement gradually started to shift.
What brought about this change? What kind of support network became involved? To understand this, it is essential to study the institutions and organizations that backed the movement, as this sheds light on their mutual networks and coordination.
Since this movement primarily involved youth and students, numerous student organizations became associated with it. The platform was largely steered by the All India Students Association (AISA). Additionally, several other student groups, including the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), remained active. Organizations working in the field of human rights also joined in; notable among these were Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), and Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP). Among tribal organizations, the All India Union of Forest Working People, the Birsa-Ambedkar-Phule Students Association, and the All Tribal Assam Students Union were active.
Women’s organizations that participated included the Pinjra Tod Collective, the National Federation of Indian Women, Women Against Sexual Violence and State Repression, and the Gender Justice Collective.
Muslim organizations such as the Students Islamic Organisation, the Muslim Students Collective, and the Minority and Bahujan Rights Forum joined in. Christian organizations including the United Christian Forum, the All India Catholic Union, and the National Council of Churches in India also participated.
Additionally, organizations focused on legal aid, the environment, journalism, farmers’ rights, and labor rights extended their support. Bodies such as the Editors Guild of India, Reporters Without Borders, Samyukt Kisan Morcha, Bharatiya Kisan Union, All India Trade Union Council, and the Centre of Indian Trade Unions were also mentioned.
The names of certain international human rights organizations, such as the International Federation for Human Rights, also surfaced.
Who undertook the task of bringing all these organizations together on such a massive scale? To understand the modus operandi and support system of this movement, it is essential to examine this question.
A study of the speeches delivered from the movement’s platform, the slogans raised, and the individuals present there raises several questions. Why did anti-Hindu sentiments emerge on the platform? Why were individuals present who raised—or supported—slogans like “Bharth Tere Tukde Honge (India, you will be torn into pieces) ? How did the influence of Leftist ideology grow on the platform? How did various political parties become associated with this movement? How did a student movement gradually transform into a political one? Who coordinated similar movements across various states and districts of the country alongside Delhi? How did it expand internationally?
In this context, a statement by Yogendra Yadav is often cited. He had said, “The future of democracy will no longer be determined by Parliament, but by the streets; not by elections, but by resistance.”
An attempt is made to understand the ideological perspective underlying this statement. According to this view, while the root cause of the movement might be legitimate, it is essential to analyze into whose hands control of the movement passed over time. Leftist ideology regards such movements as a successful experiment in ‘alternative politics.’ It presents the concept of challenging the democratic system from within while utilizing democratic means.
Citing Italian thinker Antonio Gramsci’s concept of ‘cultural hegemony,’ it is argued that change is not considered possible through economic struggle alone; rather, efforts are also made to weaken the cultural currents that bind society together. In this context, concepts like ‘fragmentation’ are mentioned, through which traditional ideals and cultural symbols are called into question.
According to this perspective, the institutions of parliamentary democracy are challenged first. When the electoral path fails to yield the desired success, a broad public campaign is launched against the established order by exercising rights guaranteed by democracy—such as freedom of expression and the right to protest.
Certain stages of this process are identified: infiltrating institutions, undermining their credibility, engaging in a battle of ideological narratives, creating an alternative cultural environment through education, literature, cinema, and universities, and ultimately exerting pressure through mass movements. According to this view, the process also impacts social and cultural behavior.
It is often noted that Indian culture teaches one to view women with reverence—akin to a mother figure—whereas certain movements have exhibited conduct and language contrary to this ethos.
During the drafting of the Indian Constitution, in his final speech to the Constituent Assembly on November 25, 1949, Dr. Bhimrao Ramji Ambedkar emphasized the need to adhere to the constitutional path for independent India and to shun violent or unconstitutional movements. He termed such actions the “grammar of anarchy.”
If India is to become a developed nation, the positive contribution of its youth is essential. A spirit of patriotism, service, social responsibility, and constructive leadership must be fostered among the youth. Such movements need to be understood not merely through the lens of partisan politics, but within a broader national and constitutional context.
Furthermore, the response should not be limited to criticism; it must also involve extensive outreach to the youth to instill a sense of patriotism and the values of service.
Leave a Reply