Rightful Radical Resistance: Mass Mobilization and Land Struggles in India and Brazil*

Abstract

An examination of mass mobilizations to promote land rights of the landless and near-landless by Ekta Parishad in India and the Landless Rural Workers Movement (MST) in Brazil identifies a similar strategy of rightful radical resistance that incorporates key elements of rightful resistance but also transcends it. The comparable strategy is due to similarities in context: India and Brazil are semiperipheral countries with relatively high-capacity states and representative democratic political structures, but have inequitable distributions of agricultural land despite constitutional principles and laws that embody equitable land distributions. However, given the substantial variation across India and Brazil in culture, geography, and demography, the specific forms assumed by rightful radical resistance vary. This study contributes to the social movements and civil resistance literatures by explicating the strategic logic of the mass mobilizations, explaining similarities and differences across the two cases, and illustrating the potential of civil resistance for challenging the structural violence of land dispossession and inequality.

Estudios de paz y conflictos

“…En particular, los teóricos de los movimientos sociales, como Doug McAdam, Charles Tilly y Sidney Tarrow (2009), arguyen que las desigualdades prevalecen en muchas sociedades sin necesariamente ocasionar un conflicto armado, ni siquiera un proceso de resistencia noviolenta (cf. Schock 2013). Desde este punto de vista, además de estos factores estructurales de agravio, es necesario tomar en cuenta la agencia de los actores sociales con sus decisiones estratégicas y los recursos de los que disponen, incluyendo los marcos explicativos (framing) y estructuras de movilización, así como las oportunidades y restricciones del contexto (Schock y Demetriou 2019;Schock 2005).…”

“…Schock 2013). Desde este punto de vista, además de estos factores estructurales de agravio, es necesario tomar en cuenta la agencia de los actores sociales con sus decisiones estratégicas y los recursos de los que disponen, incluyendo los marcos explicativos (framing) y estructuras de movilización, así como las oportunidades y restricciones del contexto (Schock y Demetriou 2019;Schock 2005). Esto nos conduce a desagregar el proceso que lleva de los agravios a distintas formas de movilización en tres pasos clave.…”

Coalition‐building and the forging of solidarity across difference and inequality

“…Difference poses difficulties when it comes to forging a common agenda, tactical agreement, and a shared framing strategy, given that peoples' positions (i.e., where they are socially situated in terms of nationality, race/ethnicity, class, etc.) often shape the content of grievances (Beamish & Luebbers, 2009), how causes are framed (Magis, 2010), the ways adversaries are perceived and related to (Beamish & Luebbers, 2009), the strategies and tactics preferred (Maney, 2012; Schock, 2015), and even the coalitional form and structure sought (Wood, 2005). Similarly, collective identity is understood as crucial for collective action (e.g., Flesher‐Fominaya, 2010a; Gamson, 1991; Hunt et al., 2004 ), and yet diversity makes it more difficult to construct such an identity since “the question of who ‘we' are is intrinsically problematic” (Gamson, 2011, p. 257; see also; Walker & Stepick, 2014).…”

Diverse social movement coalitions: Prospects and challenges

“…Coalitions also often require agreement on a shared agenda including the tactics and frames that will be employed. Yet reaching such agreements is more challenging for diverse alliances given that peoples' positions (i.e., where they are socially situated in terms of nationality, race/ethnicity, and class) often shape the content of grievances (Beamish & Luebbers, ), how causes are framed (Magis, ), the ways adversaries are perceived and related to (Beamish & Luebbers, ), the allies desired (Gawerc, ), the tactics preferred (Schock, ), and even the coalitional form and structure sought (Wood, ). Indeed, if “common interests and a shared framing of purpose, enemy and tactical preference demarcate the universe of likely coalitional members,” as Levi and Murphy (, p. 658) argue, given the often‐inevitability of such differences, many diverse coalitions can be seen as unlikely alliances.…”