Reform and Revolution

The publication recently of a short video on the struggles of the Bhil tribals of Alirajpur organised under the Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath has brought a response from a viewer to the effect that it eulogises small reformist gains and glosses over the fact that the organisation has not been able to substantially challenge the unsustainable and unjust centralised development and governance system that prevails in India and worldwide. Basically what is being questioned is the utility of a reformist programme as oppposed to a revolutionary programme.
Whether in the anarchist fold or in the Marxist fold there is a deep scepticism regarding the possibility of reforming a liberal democratic system to make it work for the majority of under privileged citizens. While the anarchist critique is based on the perceived impossibility of making a centralised state apparatus truly democratic the marxist critique is based on the perception that given the economic power of the capitalists they will invariably influence the democratic system in their favour by buying off the lawmakers.
However, the reality is that it is very difficult to actualise a revolutionary programme on the ground. The anarchists beginning with Proudhon in France in the early 19th century and down to Gandhi in India in the 20th century have never been able to mobilise enough of a resistance against the centralised state to be able to bring in a decentralised system of development and governance. The Marxists have succeeded in overthrowing weak bourgeois or feudal states and not strong bourgeois liberal democracies but after that they have not been able to ensure that the Marxist states do not become oppressors themselves. In the long run these states too have become bourgeois states.
Thus, even if the idea of revolutionary change is appealing it is not necessarily desirable. What is needed is the broadening and deepening of democracy. Human civilisation has become immensely complex and centralised. The challenge is to see how this centralised system can be made more just and sustainable both socially and environmentally. For this it may be necessary to undertake small reformist actions in large numbers rather than press for a revolutionary overthrow. Anyway given the fact that the centralised state apparatus is well aware of the theory and practice of revolution it is unlikely to sit back and let a revolution build up. Instead it uses cooptive and repressive measures to crush such efforts. Whereas in order to maintain a veneer of legitimacy the centralised state, especially in working liberal democracies, has to accommodate reformist demands. Only when such demands gain in strength and spread to a larger area does the state try to break such mobilisation.
The Khedut Mazdoor Chetna Sangath is well aware of the limitations of its reformist programme but nevertheless it pursues it with gusto because in the interim this is the most effective way to make the centralised state apparatus more responsive to people's demands. An important aspect of the KMCS's functioning is its mass democratic nature. Programmes of action are not decided by a handful but in large meetings like the ones pictured below. New ideas may be broached by the full time activists or some of the more active villagers or even the government but whether they will be acted upon depends on a broad consensus emerging among the people.

Bhil society is patriarchal and women suffer from an adverse gender division of labour at home as well as lack of property rights which both contribute to their secondary social status to men. The KMCS has tried to consciously address this issue but it still has a long way to go. In the interim it can boast of some strong women leaders like Daheli, Retli and Vina who have taken the lead in bringing women to the fore in the struggle for rights and especially in the conservation of natural resources.

Thus, direct democracy which is the best form of democracy and which can be actualised at the village level is being practised in the villages where KMCS has a following. People have taken their destiny into their own hands. If there are more organisations like the KMCS then together the pressure on the centralised state to become truly democratic will be even greater. So instead of remaining straitjacketed in the old dichotomy between reform and revolution newer modes of action and reflection have to be invented with the bottom line being the broadening and deepening of democracy.