6. Democracy, social movements and pedagogy: Contesting the hegemonic attempts at destroying the popular

Abstract

The chapter questions the way democracy is seen in contemporary times. Capitalism, having travelled a long path since the days of the slogans of liberty, equality and fraternity, has found itself in another world altogether with neoliberalism acquiring an authoritarian character. There have also been massive technological changes that have impacted the relationship of State and people, thereby denting the true democratic ethos. There is a need to redefine and resuscitate democratic principles and, therefore, the whole system that seeks to govern. Social movements become an important pedagogical tool in this project. They can project the voices of the people, their participation and their intervention in aiming to keep the system more democratic.

Keywords: democracy, capitalism, neoliberal authoritarianism, social movements, pedagogy as democratic, equality, billionaires.

Résumé

Ce chapitre remet en question la façon dont la démocratie est perçue à l’époque contemporaine. Le capitalisme, qui a parcouru un long chemin depuis l’époque des slogans de liberté, d’égalité et de fraternité, s’est retrouvé dans un tout autre monde, le néolibéralisme ayant acquis un caractère autoritaire. Des changements technologiques massifs ont également eu un impact sur la relation entre l’État et le peuple, portant ainsi atteinte à la véritable éthique démocratique. Il est nécessaire de redéfinir et de ressusciter les principes démocratiques et, par conséquent, l’ensemble du système qui cherche à gouverner. Les mouvements sociaux deviennent un outil pédagogique important dans ce projet. Ils peuvent faire entendre la voix des citoyennes et citoyens, leur participation et leur intervention dans le but de rendre le système plus démocratique.

Mots-clés : démocratie, capitalisme, autoritarisme néolibéral, mouvements sociaux, pédagogie démocratique, égalité, milliardaires.

Resumen

Este capítulo cuestiona la forma en que se percibe la democracia en los tiempos contemporáneos. El capitalismo, habiendo recorrido un largo camino desde los días de los lemas de libertad, igualdad y fraternidad, se ha encontrado en un mundo completamente diferente, con el neoliberalismo adquiriendo un carácter autoritario. También ha habido cambios tecnológicos masivos que han impactado la relación entre el Estado y el pueblo, lo que ha socavado el verdadero ethos democrático. Existe una necesidad de redefinir y resucitar los principios democráticos y, por lo tanto, todo el sistema que busca gobernar. Los movimientos sociales se convierten en una herramienta pedagógica importante en este proyecto. Pueden proyectar las voces del pueblo, su participación y su intervención con el fin de mantener el sistema más democrático.

Palabras clave: democracia, capitalismo, autoritarismo neoliberal, movimientos sociales, pedagogía democrática, igualdad, multimillonarios.

Introduction

Democracy is under siege. It is under siege due to the perpetual desire of private capital to accumulate surplus at the cost of pauperisation of the vast majority. In fact, scholars have argued that there is a “permanent expulsion —and punishment— of surplus populations from the socio-economic order. The logic of economic inequality, predicated on inclusion with capitalism, can scarcely account for expelled surplus life, which hinges on a logic of disposability” (Shaw & Waterstone, 2021, p. 1788). Under such circumstances, if democracy is to work, it must premise itself on the support of (the) people and constantly introspect as well as challenge itself through the prism of popular sentiments and demands. While this prism of the popular is not a priori or pregiven, its very existence indicates the form of democracy that prevails as well as the narrative of differences and its acceptance, which is extremely crucial for a functioning and vibrant democracy. In fact, the existence of different kinds of social mobilisations/movements is a significant marker of the nature and extent of democracy at any point in time. It is a statement of how much people remain a priority in a system where private capital in different forms determines the nature and extent of the freedom of expression. This conception of democracy does not become subservient to the rule of capital, which has been designed and organized for whatever forms of democracy we have experienced up until now.

While social movements can enliven and enrich diverse forms of democracy, potentially becoming a potent instrument of praxis, teaching-learning and engagement for the masses (Kumar, 2024b), different forms of mobilisations have produced instances of how they might become effective forms of conscientizing the masses. Historically, social movements have led to a conscientisation of the masses on transparency issues, and, gradually, the state enacted legislations such as the Right to Information Act. This mandated the Indian state to provide information to citizens seeking information on a wide variety of issues, except for those that concern national security. The mobilisation by women’s groups witnessed the enactment of legislation related to domestic violence. Much before this in the early 1990s, the social mobilisation in rural India brought about amendments in the constitution that provided local bodies, consisting of villagers, with rights to make decisions about local resources. These examples are demonstrations of a dialectical approach to address issues through mass mobilisation, aiming to conscientize the masses in the process, thereby compelling the State to act on the demands of the masses. However, we also know that social movements do not necessarily work in the direction of consistent engagement, more so when they realise that the State, under mass pressure, cedes ground for legislators. Consequently, in India, one can see that authoritarian neoliberal capital has its way. Legislation is often enacted but the consistent conscientisation of the masses is often underplayed and under-acknowledged by legislators. Recently, the wealthiest Indian, Gautam Adani, was handed over a vast and rich forest called Hasdeo. Local people subsequently protested (Ramamurthy & Roy, 2021) but the forest was made available despite recommendations against the move by a government-run research institute (Saikia, 2023). For democracy to work, mobilisations cannot be discarded by corporate capital controlling State interests.

The question under such circumstances remains about the process of conscientisation as an important cornerstone of democracy. If social mobilisations can conscientize masses about the principles and practices of democracy, wherein the popular will reigns supreme, then why is there no collective voice in opposition when the voices of people are repressed. While elections as rituals of democracy continue as a practice, they are insufficient to fully articulate dissent in society and polity? Voices have been raised regarding an attack on freedom of expression (Rauf, 2024; Scott, 2024) as well as against moves towards centralisation of a federal structure (Roy, 2024). There is a general absence of collective enterprise that would raise popular concerns about justice, equality and equal access to instruments of the State. This has been done by ensuring that a consensus is built in favour of actions of the State, instrumentalizing the use of religion in ensuring that every other issue becomes subservient to it. Nationalism and religious fanaticism, thriving on the notion of non-dialogicity and fear of getting challenged, create an ambience that facilitates the ritualising of democracy while denying basic rights to people.

Paradoxically, right-wing populism, which misrepresents the interests of the broader population, thrives on the idea of marginalisation and denial of opportunities to a large segment of the population. The elite formation in pre-right-wing days pushed a huge section of the population to the margins. They are denied not only equal opportunities but are also oppressed owing to deficient cultural capital, absence of social capital and so on. The right-wing populism base seeks to operationalize segments of the broader population. A combination of religious and nationalist rhetoric allows the state to create this mass-base, and it tacitly goes along with the agenda of the State despite the intention of avoiding meaningful social, economic and cultural change and democracy. This is how the Pygmalion democracy works at the level of ideas. In practice, it employs diverse forms of media to its optimum usage to ensure that the actual issues of hunger, poverty, violence and solidarity are pushed to the periphery. This also demonstrates the link between populism, an authoritarian form of the State and the way democracy is ritualised. It is taken a step further in the direction of managing everything, from popular will to the way popular expressions are determined. Elections are an interesting example of this management. Massive use of funding in this ritual of democracy has made it impossible for people without money to participate in it.

This chapter grounds itself in the contemporary stage of capitalist democracy, where a political form of government that emerged with the ideas of liberalism, promising people’s participation in governing them, has always been disfigured, not only at the philosophical level but also in practice. Capitalism has devised an interesting method to keep itself afloat, dexterously using the rhetoric of democracy, while at the same time working on a political agenda of nationalism and religious fundamentalism, seeking to convince the masses through its organisational and technological prowess. This brings into question the idea of democracy as a relationship between the State and its citizens. This chapter argues that democracy that began as the liberal bourgeois agenda remains merely as tokenism, and there is, thus, a need to enliven the popular participation in the process of governance, which can be mobilized through social movements and resistances.

Democracy as a relationship of State and Citizens

These are peculiar and momentous times to discuss and debate democracy. The United Nations stands delegitimised as Israel bans its Secretary General (Starcevic, 2024) and refuses to adhere to the International Court of Justice (Al Jazeera, 2024) while the United States reinforces its unwavering support to the violence being perpetrated in Gaza. The use of technology has led to the manipulation of public opinion (Nair, 2024), and massive sums of money are being pumped into this manipulation exercise. In the 2024 US presidential elections, the candidates, parties and interest groups are estimated to have spent around $5.5 billion dollars. The cost goes up to some $16 billion if the congressional races are also included (Grabenstein, 2024). Obviously, this money could have improved the healthcare of Americans but instead, it is spent on encouraging people to vote for a candidate in one of the two mainstream parties. Similarly, in the Indian election of 2024, it is estimated that around $16 billion was expended to underwrite the process (Paliwal, 2024). The expenditure on elections is obviously there to create a spectacle of the whole exercise, normalising the ideas of the ruling class and, in effect, destroying any alternative.

The Pygmalion discourse of the State can be understood as one message for the broader public, and another about the reality. The slogan of the Indian government and the political ruling party, “sabka saath, sabka vikas” (translated as ‘everyone’s support, everyone’s development’) implies that the citizens will not be left behind in development; or, in other words, democracy implies that there will not be any discrimination in the access of the fruits of development. It would also imply that every citizen can converse with the government, question it and make suggestions as well. A dialogic relationship will be established as part of the supposed democratic imagination. However, one can see that poverty is growing. A recent study shows that “more than a quarter of India’s population falls below the poverty line,” and the authors provided the caveat that their method “is likely to underestimate poverty rather than overestimate it” (Sethu et.al., 2024). Youth unemployment in India was around 12% in 2022. In fact, the rate is even higher for the more educated youth. The report states that “In 2022, the unemployment rate among youths was six times greater than among persons with a secondary or higher level of education (at 18.4 percent) and nine times greater among graduates (at 29.1 percent) than for persons who cannot read and write (at 3.4 percent). Educated female youths experienced higher levels of unemployment compared with educated male youths” (ILO & IHD, 2024, p. xxiii).

On the other hand, the wealthy are becoming wealthier. A recent working paper (Bharti et.al., 2024) showed that 22.6% of the total income is generated by 1% of the population, whereas they control 40.1% of the wealth. The report further indicates that “We find that by 2022-23, India’s top 1% income share is among the very highest in the world (higher than even South Africa, Brazil and the US)” (Bharti et.al., 2024, p. 5). The Forbes list shows that there has been a growth of 280% between 2014 and 2022 in the number of billionaires in India. In fact, the report argued that “As per our benchmark estimates, the Billionaire Raj headed by India’s modern bourgeoisie is now more unequal than the British Raj headed by the colonialist forces” (Bharti et. al., 2024, p. 34). When it came to establishing a dialogic relationship with the State, the evidence is not favourable. The Press Freedom Index puts India in the 159th position (RSF, 2024). One wonders how the rhetoric of democracy works when huge segments of the population are denied basic rights to employment or freedom of expression. We have also seen an increase in violence against the marginalized caste groups, called Dalits in India (Khan, 2024). There is also an increase in crime against women by 30% between 2014 and 2022, as per the National Crime Records Bureau reports (Deepala, 2024). The figures may be higher because we know that many incidents do not get reported.

In this kind of situation, how does one look at the idea and practice of democracy? Does it simply imply that the people have a right to elect their representatives despite the process of how popular opinion is framed against the people themselves? Does democracy mean exorbitant expenditures trying to convince people why the ruling class has not been able to do anything for them? Or does it also look at the fact that people wanting to become members of parliament at the highest level (i.e., Prime Ministers, Presidents) spend exorbitant amounts to get elected? Does it even matter whether everyone participates in the process of selecting their representatives or not, because most people get representatives without participation, as figures on voting percentage in India indicate? Amidst these difficult questions are a whole set of issues fundamental to understanding the breadth and scope of democracy. For instance, if governments are meant to take care of people, then why is there no equal access to quality healthcare or education for every citizen? Why is it that Dalits, tribal or girl children disproportionately drop out of schools? Why do people experiencing poverty not get the same access to health care as others with massive purchasing power? Why does the government not diminish the massive gap between the rich and the poor?

The promise of a liberal bourgeois constitution in India sought to establish a democratic form of governance, among other things, seeking to ensure a better life for the masses. This “’better life” was assumed to be egalitarian without any bias of race, caste, class, gender or ethnicity. The preamble to the Indian constitution (Government of India, 2024, online), which even stands today after over half a century of independence from colonial masters, states its promise that:

We, the people of India, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic and to secure to all its citizens:

JUSTICE, social, economic and political;

LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;

EQUALITY of status and of opportunity…

The making of the Indian Constitution involved a huge debate around how principles would be enshrined in the text to guarantee democracy to each and every citizen. Obviously, the drafters of the Constitution could not provide education or healthcare as a fundamental right of every citizen. However, the debate originally got into nuances, such as what kind of people should be able to participate in formal politics. A member of the constituent assembly, which was debating the shaping of the Constitution after independence, Mahavir Tyagi, expressed his fear of the politicians who ‘begin to live on democracies’ and for whom ‘statecraft becomes their own source of living’. Democratic politics for him had to be voluntary, and that is why he lamented during the Constituent Assembly debates that “If this democracy is also to be run by such persons who will have nothing else to fall back upon, and who live on Ministries or on the memberships of the Parliament, then this democracy is doomed, I am sure’.” (Kumar, 2024) Those nuances became irrelevant when neoliberal capitalism decided to subvert all the rules of the game under welfare capitalism. One finds that it is nearly impossible for most Indians to even contest elections to Parliament, given the amount of expenditure it involves. The official limit for expenditure is $1,10,324 USD (Rs. 95 Lakh) for the Parliamentary elections. The actual expenditure is something else, as suggested above. In fact, an organisation that specialises in elections, the Association for Democratic Reforms, stated in its recent report after the 2024 elections that out of 545 parliamentarians, there are 504 billionaires (Agarwalla & Verma, 2024). In 2009, polls indicated that 58 % of elected Members of Parliament were billionaires, increasing to 82% in 2014, 88 % in 2019, and 93% in 2024. In a country where about a third of the population survives on less than Rs. 100 ($1.16) per day (Anand, 2024), the rhetoric of democracy becomes painfully disjointed from reality. And it is here that the role of nationalism and religious fanaticism comes into play, diverting the attention from this deep-seated crisis of democracy and the right to life.

It was assumed that commitment to the principles of justice, equality and socialism would work within a democratic process. The “capital-friendly” state leaves no stone unturned to ensure that its domination continues. As the crisis of the welfare state forced it to become a neoliberal avatar (Harvey, 2007), one can see that even this symbol could not bring/lead global capitalism out of crisis (Dumenil & Levy, 2011). Capitalism seems to be in a perennial crisis, and (normative) democracy has been one of the biggest and most complicit victims. This crisis also emanates from the fact that contemporary capitalism cannot “provide work to a substantial proportion of persons looking for it” (Patnaik, 2018), and, thus, it has far-reaching ramifications. Capitalism, by its very nature, is incompatible with democracy but it seeks to create spaces during its welfarist form for the masses. Capitalism, by its very nature, flourishes on maximising surplus accumulation, and it is this insatiable appetite that also creates a crisis to expand wealth at the expense of the masses. A crisis of capitalism in the economy is also a crisis of consumption. The economic crisis and the impending possibility of upheaval, which we recently saw in two South Asian countries–Bangladesh and Sri Lanka–also leads to increasing authoritarianism, which can be seen in different parts of the world (Wong & Murphy, 2022). This destroys the last vestiges of liberal bourgeois democracy as a strong clampdown on dissent and dialogicity takes place in order to maintain control over the views, desires and demands of the masses. In other words, neoliberalism, while acquiring an authoritarian form closes all spaces for dialogue, dissent and meaningful engagement between the State and the masses to safeguard its hegemony. All these tendencies emerge from the intrinsic nature of capital, which the liberal forces seek to mask and coordinate. Capital and its relationship to nefarious forms of democracy are, generally speaking, not problematised.

Despite the global attack on democratic practices–specifically freedom of expression as well as demanding equal access to basic facilities for each and every individual and community–, there has been massive resistance around the Globe. The Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST) in Brazil, the Zapatistas in Chiapas, Mexico, the efforts to decentralise governance in places like Kerala in India, among others, have shown that there are constant challenges imposed to the brutality of the State that culminates in war, hunger, poverty and the denial of basic services (Isaac & Harilal, 1997; Sharma, 2003; Tarlau, 2013). The commitment of the capitalist state is obviously not to facilitate equality or democracy, due to its fundamental character of maximising surplus accumulation, which can happen only through exploitation. The global resistance is aimed at ensuring that the relationship between the people and the State is democratised.

Democracy as a Model of Governance

Democracy as a form of government brings forth the idea of people’s participation in the process of managing the affairs of the State, impacting positively the lives of people. But democracy can also be seen as more than the relationship between the State and citizens. It can be about principles governing relationships among humans as well. In either of the cases, it comes to what Carr asks, “what democracy, for whom, how, and to what end” in this volume (see Chapter 1). Whether there can be a democracy in an unequal world or whether democracy should co-exist with inequality has been a long-debated issue. Democracy is normatively nothing but a model of governance. However, “the governance pattern of the world is a criss-cross of authoritarian, elite multiculturalism, democratic multiculturalism, elite multi-culturalism, and egalitarian multiculturalism in an authoritarian state” (Bagchi, 2004, p. 17).

Tilly (2007) takes a view of democracy that does not question the fundamental reasons that make a polity undemocratic. His intent is to make capitalism more democratic. He might be using the right terms, such as people having a say in government but those terms are laden with limits of exercise of power by the masses. He says that “for our purposes, a regime is democratic to the extent that political relations between the state and its citizens feature broad, equal, protected, and mutually binding consultation. Accordingly, democratization consists of a regime’s movement toward that sort of consultation, de-democratization a regime’s movement away from it” (Tilly, 2007, p. 189).

Democracy as a matrix with citizens and the State located within the socio-economic and politico-cultural nexuses needs to become the primary framework. Somehow, the State and its role as the provider/protector/patron of citizens misses out on the fine relationship that characterises the workings of a democratic system. Citizens take a backseat when the focus is on what States ought to do is talked about. Gordon and Stack argue that “early modern citizenship suggests ways of rethinking citizenship by decoupling it from the State” (2007, p. 120). In fact, “scholars of citizenship have often followed suit by reducing citizenship wholly to a relationship with States. We argue…that early modern citizenship suggests ways for people to take citizenship back from States, while still leaving a place for government” (Gordon & Stack, 2007, pp. 117-118).

For countries such as India, one could see, as in other places, that the anti-colonial resistance by the representatives of the bourgeoisie remained in direct contact with the masses even after the liberation struggle. This could happen as remnants of the anti-colonial struggle, which was in the form of a powerful movement sustaining itself through the individuals involved. This anti-colonial resistance had a multitude of sectors mobilising not only against British rule but also against inequality and discrimination based on caste, gender and class. Hence, one could see them blooming into significant political players, post-independence, and they have played an important role in democratising political spaces aimed at uplifting the oppressed castes, women, poor and tribal communities, something that was previously unimaginable. However, this space was not shaped by the idea that all structures that give way to inequality must be ultimately demolished and supplanted with new social relations. There were leaders like Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar, who belonged to the most oppressed caste group, went to study with a scholarship at Columbia University and London School of Economics, chaired the committee that drafted the Indian constitution and became the first law minister of India. He resigned from his ministerial position in 1951. He was among those who in their own way realised that structures such as the caste system must wither away (Ambedkar, 2014).

Once the liberal bourgeois State got established, the idea of democracy shifted from the perpetual engagement of leaders with the masses to a more routinised, restricted and contained idea of democracy embedded within the electoral process. The arrival of neoliberalism further established that democracy is essentially reduced to electoral politics, which has been now deeply embedded into the agenda of corporate capital since funding to dominate and shape democracy flows from corporate entities.

The Diversity Question in Democracy

South Asian societies exemplify diversity in a way that is not found elsewhere. It has experienced issues pertaining to caste, class, ethnicity, gender, religion, tribe, etc., in a multitude of forms. These societies, despite the diversity within them, have been unified by one force–capitalism–, and this is manifested by the fact that the march of capital continues unabated without any significant hurdle posed by these heterogeneous societies. This is exemplified by the fact that Gautam Adani became the second richest person briefly in September 2022 but remains along with Mukesh Ambani in the list of the ten richest persons in the world^[1]. There have been reports of the government of India favouring Adani even though there are allegations of financial fraud among other charges levelled against this corporate leader (Madhok & Soni, 2024; Mukherjee, 2024; The Wire, 2024). In fact, the charges against Adani are of such a magnitude that there are websites dedicated to him, such as Adani Watch (https://www.adaniwatch.org/).

This is also evident from the fact that, as per Oxfam reports, “the top 10% of the Indian population holds 77% of the total national wealth. 73% of the wealth generated in 2017 went to the richest 1%, while *670 million Indians who comprise the poorest half of the population saw only a 1% increase in their wealth.” Even the number of billionaires increased from “only 9 in 2000 to 101 in 2017” (Oxfam, 2025). It further states that “between 2018 and 2022, India is estimated to produce 70 new millionaires every day.” Even the report released by the State noted that “around 15 percent of the working population earns less than Rs 5,000 a month” It further says that “The top 0.1% has been found to account for 5 to 7 percent of the national income” (Kapoor & Duggal, 2022).

Class inequality has risen, and the gap has widened. Inequality along caste lines was accentuated and became starker during and following the pandemic (Sur, 2020). We know of the unequal participation of the oppressed caste groups in occupations such as corporate houses, media groups etc… The same is true of the tribal communities and religious minorities, more specifically Muslims (Jha, 2023). In fact, reports have indicated that around 90% of Indian billionaires come from the top echelons of caste hierarchy (Singh, 2024). For instance, a 2022 report states that so-called upper castes occupied almost 90% of top leadership positions in media, and roughly 60% of articles in English and Hindi newspapers came from people of such caste orientations, with less than 5% from the SC/ST^[2] communities and 10% from OBCs^[3]. In television, some 55% of English news anchors are from the so-called ‘upper’ castes while there were no anchors from either SC or ST backgrounds (Oxfam India, 2022). This is simply to give a partial sense of the diverse inequality that exists in society. This reality is also fully reflected in education, where discrimination in accessibility, curriculum, syllabi and pedagogical methods reeks of, and reinforces, hegemonic interests. Within this situation, how one addresses questions of democracy is a huge challenge and extremely problematic.

This type of democracy, given to us by and through the rule of capital, has been a huge failure. As Engels pointed out: “Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat” (Engels, 1847). He argued that those who believe that certain measures “will be sufficient to abolish misery and evils of present-day society” represent the petty bourgeoisie. They fail to realise that what they think is sufficient is not actually sufficient. Alexandra Kollontai (1909), in the context of gender issues, underscores how mere reforms are not sufficient to resolve the condition of women. The reforms, though necessary and welcoming, do not challenge the foundations of a system that leads to the conditions of inequality and exploitation. They do not even necessarily alter the lives of women. Extrapolated, this is true of other forms of oppression as well. The simultaneity of reforms and the fight for radical restructuring of society and economy is the way to ensure that diversity remains but in forms that capitalism cultivates in relation to inaccessibility, deprivation and marginalisation. The ultimate challenge must be posed in relation to the economic structure that sustains these inequalities.

We are privileged to have been witness to a varied political history with diverse forms of democratic governance. Criticism of the non-capitalist forms of democracy has highlighted an absence of equal opportunities or censoring of diverse voices for all due to their ethnicity, or other orientations. However, such characteristics of post-revolutionary forms of governance and revelations of different kinds from those experiences do not justify the oppressive capitalist order. There is a need to consider how an anti-capitalist framework of democracy can be conceptualised and actualised. This has happened in anti-Marxist discourses in academia as well as in politics.

The Resistance/Alternative: Bringing People into Pedagogy

It is important to note that capital lives and survives and legitimises its regime of oppression and exploitation as it establishes itself as the (supposedly) only possible form of socio-economic system. Those who fear and abhor any alternative to it suggest changes within it, forgetting that those changes are merely a temporary plugging of the leaks within the system. They are neither a serious inquiry into what causes those leaks, nor a credible examination of factors that led to such situations. The crucial analytical tools required to examine society and the economy as a process, evolving dialectically through historicised timeframes, are completely absent. Democracy needs newer conceptualizations as all forms of the State have shown us that they could not ensure it. Capital, which permeates our lives, and which makes us live an embodiment of its existence, prepares us intrinsically as undemocratic, clashing with and within individuals and collectives. It can be challenged only through an idea of democracy that permeates our being and when we become its living embodiments. It might seem a difficult proposition, but this is what the Freirian principle of conscientisation or Marx’s idea of consciousness built through movements promises.

In order to bring people as the central focus of a transformative pedagogy, it is important to look at collectives, solidarities and mobilisations as sources of pedagogy. Social movements, cemented through ideas and aiming to achieve a common goal, become vital sources of pedagogy. They are instrumental in constantly questioning what exists, hence creating newer ideas that emerge not only out of material conditions that create the social movements but also in the process of dialogues about those material conditions and their alternatives. This process of questioning and participation enters the lives of people who are a part of it. They can, thus, embody the ideas of those movements.

The formal education system becomes a gatekeeper that asks students to keep aside their experiences and experiential learning and then enter the prolonged process of education in a detached way. The dominant socio-economic, political and cultural interests create the kind of curriculum and pedagogy that they think would allow unquestioning and consensual citizens to emerge. The collective body of people intervening in the process of curriculum construction and pedagogical design preaches education as an ideological State apparatus. The destruction of popular democracy or the ritualization of democracy is challenged by the pedagogical weapons that are developed through the collective struggle to establish an egalitarian order. Learning from life is juxtaposed with learning within institutions. When I saw small children playing games during fieldwork, which reflected the ongoing social movements in areas where long-drawn-out armed struggle went on, it raised this question much more directly and fluidly. They do not figure in or count in the schools and colleges. We have seen their absence from ‘better’ employment opportunities. They have been dropping out of schools due to economic and social hardships (Nagarajan, 2021; Porecha, 2023). Social institutions appear as sanitised spaces where the majority (the working class, the oppressed castes, women and marginalised religious minorities) are absent or pushed to the margins.

There have been efforts to bridge this education gap. Claims can be made about how much change has happened within some sectors and scholarly works. But has it motivated students to contest the issues they were raising? Is there a motivation for radical socio-economic restructuring? The answer is simple: it cannot be. The formalized sphere needs to be broken, and social movements need to become sources of pedagogy that can be used to do this. The challenge will always be as to how to do this when the system is controlled by the State and Capital. Neither the State nor Capital would allow this to happen because it would jeopardize their existence. In places such as India, the radical educationists got perturbed with the neoliberal onslaught, but they could not see anything beyond welfarism as an alternative. Capital remains entrenched in its hegemonic position, knowing that the opposition is oscillating between welfarism and neoliberalism, leaving little space to contest the underpinning values and practices of the (normative) power dynamics in place.

Capitalism has not been able to overcome its phase of crisis for over a decade now. Countries like India are ranked 5th in terms of GDP as per the IMF (Forbes, 2024) but also ranked 105th in the Global Hunger Index in 2024^[4]. It does not perform well on many other indices. This is the case with many other countries as well. How does one explain democracy of this kind, which gives rise to perpetual violence due to hunger, poverty and unemployment? Due to the crisis and the constantly impending fear of protest, something that was seen in countries such as Sri Lanka or Bangladesh, corporate capital along with the State tries to manage the upsurge against the inequalities or undemocratic treatment of its citizens. In fact, these two South Asian countries experienced something unprecedented in the recent past–popular protests leading to the toppling of governments (Ethirajan & Ritchie, 2024; Kumar, 2024c; Kumar, 2024d). The demand that drove the protests might appear different in the two countries, but they had the commonality of existing within increasing inequality. The citizens of various age groups on the other hand fall very easily for the narrative of capital, which promises the unseen world of wealth and a good life for all. This rhetorical trickery disallows any critical thinking towards the system. While the system works in sync within capital and a hegemonic democracy, the workers remain marginalized.

The extraordinary use of propaganda by bourgeois political forces through social media (NL Team, 2023; The Hindu, 2023) has proven that the only way to create a counter-narrative is to create mechanisms that would pedagogically address the situation. There is a constant bombardment of images, information of different kinds, and misrepresentations. Under such circumstances, the learning process becomes crowded. Unlike pre-social media days, when the teaching learning space was less saturated, the present situation is now packed with messaging and communications. There is, thus, a demonstrative effect of this overcrowding as learning is becoming directionless and momentary. Every educational process–where the distinction between formal and informal has been demolished through the post-COVID-19 ecosystem and use of Artificial Intelligence–is being designed to cater to the immediate need. The other impact of this process is atomisation of the cognitive space where the learner looks at the different aspects of their life as disconnected and existing in isolation from the other elements, facilitating the emergence of a non-dialectical perspective and worldview. The new worker, atomised and in the absence of a strong mobilizational ethos, lives the life as given, not constructed, and is not seen as a consequence of the capitalist world system. This world design is intrinsically undemocratic owing to the obsession to maximise surplus at all costs, even if it means endangering the planet, collaborative genocide to funnel profit to the war industry or massacring innocent children. This obsession denies any space for actual democracy and perfectly paves the way for a Pygmalion democracy to thrive.

 A pedagogical conceptualisation that would undo the damage would not find place in the formal educational institutions, but it can be innovatively brought into the classrooms and other sites to hit at what Rikowski calls the weakest link in capital, the labour power. He argues that “The politics of human resistance involves ‘a relentless focus on this form of resistance as the most significant anti-capitalist strategy’… This is because ‘it drives at capital’s weakest link: labour power’” (González, 2019, p. 265).

There remains only one way in this situation to create a consensus for democracy where primacy to people over corporate capital is given: by bringing in social movements as sources of pedagogy and safeguarding the principles of democracy, a guerrilla warfare within classroom within capitalism or through a complete restructuring of system to a post-capitalist world order. This can also be done through expanding the idea of pedagogy and working through ideas developed by Freire and Luxemburg (Kumar, 2024b) to consider diverse sites of pedagogy that work as an alternative to the dominant pedagogical instruments.

Conclusion

The democracy that claims to thrive on the idea of freedom, liberty and equality is proving to be a farce as Pygmalion democracy becomes the order of the day. Democracy’s highlight under contemporary capitalism is elections to form government. These elections are fought with vast amounts of financial resources, and, therefore, have become the playground for different segments of the bourgeoisie. There is an obvious disconnect with the masses that can be seen even in the tokenistic display of democracy through electioneering. The use of technology is not merely to spread misinformation and disinformation. In fact, reports have indicated that India ranks at the top in the list of countries with misinformation and disinformation, and this can derail the democratic processes (World Economic Forum, 2024). The use of new forms of technology, such as Artificial Intelligence, has created a situation wherein people are recipients of information and, because they are continually bombarded with the AI driven messages, calls, images and appeals of all kinds, they do not have time and means to check what is true or untrue. An ecosystem of lies and illusions has been created, and the masses live within that. Only those who manufacture these lies and illusions realise the actual purpose of this project; it is to ensure that the masses remain oblivious of the lived experiences, and that the promises of capitalism are the only means to keep them afloat.

Democracy, in these circumstances, will need to reinvent itself. The creation of information monopolies, which not only shape the world in their own image of falsehoods but also ensure that the masses never realise the actual state of things, must be demolished through a more democratised and people-oriented use of technologies. At another level, there is a necessity to innovate how dialogic pedagogies would work when the definition of teacher-learner is being redefined. These pedagogies will have to reinforce the questioning aspect of the learning process, unlike the uncritical reliance on the technology-fed world of knowledge, where the learner has no say. These can be the building blocks of a democratic process, which can defeat the reduction of democracy to a deceitful and rhetorical game under contemporary neoliberal authoritarianism that fears its own collapse.

References

Agarwalla, N, & Verma, A. (2024, June 12). Deep pockets: Domination of crorepatis in the Indian Parliament. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/diu/story/lok-sabha-polls-millionaries-in-parliament-bjp-congress-samajwadi-party-aap-2552403-2024-06-12

Al Jazeera. (2024, July 19). ICJ says Israel’s presence in Palestinian territory is unlawful. Al Jazeera.https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/7/19/world-court-says-israels-settlement-policies-breach-international-law

Ambedkar, B. R. (2014). Annihilation of Caste. Verso.

Anand, I. (2024, July 09). What does the Data from the Household Consumer Expenditure Survey 2022-23 tell us?. India Forum. https://www.theindiaforum.in/public-policy/household-consumption-expenditure-survey-2022-23

Bagchi, A. K. (2004). Discontents of Democracy: Elite Pluralism, Mystification and Rule of Big Capital, In F. Quadir & J. Lele (Eds.), Democracy and Civil Society in Asia: Volume 1: Globalisation, Democracy and Civil Society in Asia (pp.13-29), Palgrave Macmillan.

Bharti, N. K, Chancel, L., Piketty, T., & Somanchi, A. (2024, March 18). Income and Wealth Inequality in India, 1922-2023: The Rise of the Billionaire Raj. World Inequality Lab, 2024(09). https://shs.hal.science/halshs-04563836/file/WorldInequalityLab_WP2024_09_Income-and-Wealth-Inequality-in-India-1922-2023_Final.pdf

Deepala, S. (2024, August 27). Data: The number of Reported Crimes Against Women Increased by Over 30% Between 2014 & 2022. Factly. https://factly.in/data-the-number-of-reported-crimes-against-women-increased-by-over-30-between-2014-2022/

Dumenil, G. & Levy, D. (2011). The Crisis of Neoliberalism. Harvard University Press.

Engels, F. (1847). The Principles of Communism. Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

Ethirajan, A. & Ritchie, H. (2024, August 6). What sparked the protests that toppled Bangladesh’s PM?. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cq5xye1d285o

Forbes India. (2024, November 4). The top 10 largest economies in the world in 2024. Forbes India.https://www.forbesindia.com/article/explainers/top-10-largest-economies-in-the-world/86159/1

González, A. O. (2019). Interview with Glenn Rikowski on Marxism, Critical Pedagogy and Inclusive Education: Discussions for a Revolutionary Discourse, Revista Izquierdas, 45(1), 260-276. https://n2t.net/ark:/13683/puOs/v3Q

Gordon, A. & Stack, T. (2007). Citizenship Beyond the State: Thinking with Early Modern Citizenship in the Contemporary World. Citizenship Studies. 11(2), 117-133.https://doi.org/10.1080/13621020701262438

Government of India (2024). The Constitution of India (As on 1st May 2024). Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India. https://legislative.gov.in/constitution-of-india/

Grabenstein, H. (2024, November 5). The cost of this election. PBS. https://www.pbs.org/newshour/live-update/election-news-2024/the-cost-of-this-election

Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism, Oxford University Press.

ILO & Institute for Human Development. (2024). Indian Employment Report 2024: Youth Employment, Education and Skills, ILO.

Isaac, T. M, & Harilal, K. N. (1997). Planning for Empowerment: People’s Campaign for Decentralised Planning in Kerala. Economic and Political Weekly, 32(1/2), 53–58. http://www.jstor.org/stable/4404967

Jha, A. & Kishore, R. (2023, June 30). Muslims are the poorest religious group in India, Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/muslims-in-india-the-poorest-religious-group-with-high-inequality-and-limited-opportunities-data-analysis-reveals-101688097160955.html

Kapoor, A. & Duggal, J. (2022). The State of Inequality in India Report. Institute for Competitiveness. https://www.competitiveness.in/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/Report_on_State_of_Inequality-in_India_Web_Version.pdf

Khan, A. (2024, September 2420). UP leads in cases of atrocities against Dalits, Madhya Pradesh tops in most crimes reported against ST’s. https://cjp.org.in/up-leads-in-cases-of-atrocities-against-dalits-madhya-pradesh-tops-in-most-crimes-reported-against-sts/

Kollontai, A. (1909). The Social Basis of the Woman Question. Marxists.org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/kollonta/1909/social-basis.htm

Kumar, R. (2024a, November 19). Political parties, leaders who want to save Constitution must take it beyond electoral rhetoric. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com//opinion/political-parties-leaders-who-want-to-save-constitution-must-take-it-beyond-electoral-rhetorics-3282303

Kumar, R. (2024b). Pedagogy as Politics and Politics as Pedagogy: Rosa Luxemburg and Paulo Freire. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 22(1).

Kumar, Ravi (2024c, September 24). Dilemmas of a radical past governing a bourgeois present. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/opinion/sri-lanka-dilemmas-of-a-radical-past-governing-a-bourgeois-present-3204145

Kumar, R. (2024d, November 18). New Sri Lanka and challenges and possibilities of super-majority, The Island. https://island.lk/new-sri-lanka-and-challenges-and-possibilities-of-super-majority/

Madhok, Diksha and Soni (2024, November 21). Modi’s ties to Adani will face tougher scrutiny this time around. Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/modis-ties-to-adani-will-face-tougher-scrutiny-this-time-around-3286278

Mukherjee, M. (2024, November 29). SEBI’s Great Surrender. Frontline. https://frontline.thehindu.com/columns/adani-group-hindenburg-bribery-charges-us-narendra-modi-gujarat-sebi-madhabi-puri-buch/article68926300.ece

Mohanakumar, S. (2003, July 26 – August 1). Decentralisation in Kerala: People’s Plan. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(30), 3214-3216.

Nagarajan, R. (2021, July 6). 1/4th of tribals, 1/5th of Dalits quit Class IX & X in 2019-20. The Times of India. https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/1/4th-of-tribals-1/5th-of-dalits-quit-class-ix-x-in-2019-20/articleshow/84161197.cms

Nair, A. (2024, May 10). How AI, social media, and internet shape Elections 2024. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/ht-insight/future-tech/how-ai-social-media-and-internet-shape-elections-2024-101715321970067.html

NL Team (2023, July 24). Delhi govt spends Rs 1,073 crore on ads in 3 years, SC says it can afford to finance infra projects. Newslaundry. https://www.newslaundry.com/2023/07/24/delhi-govt-spends-rs-1073-crore-on-ads-in-3-years-sc-says-it-can-afford-to-finance-infra-projects

Oxfam India. (2022). Who Tells Our Stories Matters: Representation of Marginalised Caste Groups in Indian Media. https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/6113c2e0f67a66749c146bf4/6348f59c5482ba551d0ca6bd_TMR%202022%20Caste%20Report_Final%20(2)_compressed%20(1).pdf

Oxfam. (2025). India: extreme inequality in numbers. https://www.oxfam.org/en/india-extreme-inequality-numbers

Paliwal, A. (2024, May 31). Most expensive polls ever? Nearly Rs 1.35 lakh crore spent in 2024 election. India Today. https://www.indiatoday.in/elections/lok-sabha/story/lok-sabha-election-2024-expenditure-election-commission-2546455-2024-05-31

Patnaik, P. (2018, December 4). Contemporary Capitalism and The World of Work. International Development Economics Associates. https://www.networkideas.org/featured-articles/2018/12/contemporary-capitalism/

Porecha, M. (2023, November 30). Muslim student Strength in higher Education fell by 1.79 lakh in 2020-21, The Hindu. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/over-179-lakh-fewer-muslim-students-pursued-higher-education-in-2020-21-says-report/article67583855.ece

Ramamurthy, V. & Roy, T. (2021, October 13). Why the people of India’s Hasdeo forests are marching 300 km against Adani coal mines. Adani Watch. https://www.adaniwatch.org/why_the_people_of_india_s_hasdeo_forests_are_marching_300_km_against_adani_coal_mines

Rauf, S. (2024, May 23). Freedom of expression in ‘crisis’? India ranked below war-stricken Palestine, restive Congo at 123: Report, Deccan Herald. https://www.deccanherald.com/india/freedom-of-expression-in-crisis-india-ranked-below-war-stricken-palestine-restive-congo-at-123-report-3035547

Reporters without Borders. (2024) Freedom of the Press Worldwide 2024. https://rsf.org/sites/default/files/medias/file/2024/05/CARTE_2024%20EN.pdf

Roy, S. (2024, December 18). Opposition calls move an assault on basic structure, federal spirit. The Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/opposition-calls-move-an-assault-on-basic-structure-federal-spirit-101734460419252.html

Saikia, A. (2023, April 19). Modi government allowed Adani-run mine to expand though Wildlife Institute recommended against it. Scroll.in. https://scroll.in/article/1047086/modi-government-allowed-adani-run-mine-to-expand-even-when-it-hadnt-run-out-of-coal

Scott, L. (2024, May 21). Free expression in crisis for over half the world’s population, report warns. Voice of America. https://www.voanews.com/a/free-expression-in-crisis-for-over-half-the-world-s-population-report-warns/7621282.html

Sethu, C. A., Abhinav Surya, L. T. & Ruthu, C. A. (2024). Poverty in India: The Rangarajan Method and the 2022–23 Household Consumption and Expenditure Survey. Review of Agrarian Studies, 14(2). https://ras.org.in/?Article=poverty_in_india

Sharma, R. (2003, September 6-12). Kerala’s Decentralisation: Idea in Practice. Economic and Political Weekly, 38(36), 3832-3850.

Shaw, I.G.R. & Waterstone, M. (2021). A Planet of Surplus Life: Building: Worlds Beyond Capitalism. Antipode: A Radical Journal of Geography, 53(6), 1787-1806. https://doi.org/10.1111/anti.12741

Singh, N. (2024, June 27). Inequality in India: Upper castes hold nearly 90% of billionaire wealth, Business Standard. https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/inequality-surges-in-india-upper-castes-hold-90-of-billionaire-wealth-124062700343_1.html

Starcevic, S. (2024, October 2). Israel bans UN chief Guterres from entering the country. Politico. https://www.politico.eu/article/ban-united-nations-chief-antonio-guterres-enter-israel-katz/

Sur, P. (2020, April 16). Under India’s caste system, Dalits are considered untouchable. The coronavirus is intensifying that slur. CNN. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/15/asia/india-coronavirus-lower-castes-hnk-intl/index.html

Tarlau, R. (2013). The Social(ist) Pedagogies of the MST: Towards new Relations of Production in the Brazilian Countryside. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 21(41). http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1303

Tilly, C. (2007). Democracy. Cambridge University Press.

The Hindu. (2023, December 19). Govt spent ₹967.46 crore on advertisements in print media from 2019-20 to 2023-24. https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/govt-spent-96746-crore-on-advertisements-in-print-media-from-2019-20-to-2023-24/article67654389.ece

The Hindu. (2024, March 27). Social media influencers are India’s new election campaigners. https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/social-media-influencers-are-indias-new-election-campaigners/article67996976.ece

The Wire. (2024, November 21). Govt Agencies Silent Post Gautam Adani’s Indictment in US over Bribery Charges. The Wire. https://thewire.in/government/govt-agencies-silent-post-gautam-adanis-indictment-in-us-over-bribery-charges

Wong, T. & Murphy, M. (2022, 13 July). Sri Lanka: President Gotabaya Rajapaksa flees the country on military jet. BBC. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-62132271

World Economic Forum (WEF). (2024) The Global Risks Report 2024.