Advertisements
Advertisements
प्रश्न
Do movements and protests in a country strengthen democracy? Justify your answer with examples.
उत्तर
Yes, to some extent movements and protests in country strengthen democracy to have mixed reactions both for and against.
Arguments for :-
- Anti-arrack movement, Chipko movement, NBA etc., rectified some problems to be seen as integral part of democratic politics.
- These movements ensured participation and representation from diverse groups to reduce possibility of deep social conflicts in democracy.
- These movements broadened the idea of participation in Indian democrac i. e., Anti-arrack movement and Dalit Panthers.
Arguments against :-
- Collective actions, rallies, strikes, disrupt the functioning of a democracy and create a delay in decision making.
- Routine functioning of democracy did not have enough space for the voices of these social groups.
- It is possible to ignore demand of these movements with the presentation to be represented by one section of society only.
- Political parties do not seem to be taking up issues of marginal social groups.
- The relationship between popular movements and political parties has grown weaker over the years creating a vacuum in politics.
Hence, we may conclude that movements are not only about collective assertions or rallies or protest, but they also involve a gradual process of coming together of people with similar problems, demand and expectations.
APPEARS IN
संबंधित प्रश्न
Some of the statements below are incorrect. Identify the incorrect statements and rewrite those with necessary correction.
(а) Social movements are hampering the functioning of India’s democracy.
(b) The main strength of social movements lies in their mass base across social sections.
(c) Social movements in India emerged because there were many issues that political parties did not address.
Read the passage and answer questions below:
…., nearly all ‘new social movements’ have emerged as corrective to new maladies – environmental degradation, violation of the status of women, destruction of tribal cultures and the undermining of human rights – none of which are in and by themselves transformative of the social order. They are in that way quite different from revolutionar- ideologies of the past. But their weakness lies in their being so heavily fragmented ................ ..... .........a large part of the space occupied by the new social movements seem to be suffering from … various characteristics which have prevented them from being relevant to the truly oppressed and the poor in the form of a solid unified movement of the people. They are too fragmented, reactive, ad hocish, providing no comprehensive framework of basic social change. Their being anti-this or that (anti-West, anti-capitalist, anti-development, etc.) does not make them any more coherent, any more relevant to oppressed and peripheralized communities. --Rajni Kothari
(a) What is the difference between new social movements and revolutionary ideologies?
(b) What according to the author are the limitations of social movements?
(c) If social movements address specific issues, would you say that they are ‘fragmented’ or that they are more focused? Give reasons for you answer by giving examples.
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan started in 1990 in ______.
Which of these kings was killed in the mysterious massacre of the royal family in 2001?
Those organizations which are formed to promote their interests are known as ______.
Which of these take direct part in elections?
Pressure groups and movements have deepened democracy by:
Where was the movement called Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangh then started?
Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan took the initiative in demanding records of ______ work.
The MKSS organized ______ where the administration was asked to explain its stand in public.
