A new book looks at how movements for civil liberties have developed in India

“Coming of age in the 1960s and the 1970s, we were witness from a distance to the Naxalite upsurge in Bengal, Bihar, and Andhra, and to the experiments of Gandhian leaders and organisations, in what was called rural reconstruction. The massive railway strike of 1974, the JP-led youth movement, and the Internal Emergency of 1975 … we also saw the end of the Emergency…. It was a watershed in Indian politics and it generated a new optimism and energy. Many young city-bred idealists, wanting to make a difference and seeking new direction for change, went to live in the hinterland and learn about the ‘real India’”.

— Ilinia Sen.

In her memoir, Ilina Sen reflects on the political currents that shaped a generation of civil liberties activists in the 1960s and 1970s, including her own journey and that of her partner, Binayak Sen. Both were members of the People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL), having served as its office-bearers. She describes how Gandhian, democratic-socialist, and communist political traditions in India inspired a generation of young, urban thinkers and activists who sought to reimagine their role in public life. For some, this political commitment demanded a renunciation of middle-class comforts of city life, to move to and live in rural areas, immersing themselves in grassroots social movements and taking on leadership roles within emerging movements. For others, like the members of the PUCL, it meant channelling their energies from the urban centres, supporting various movements using available resources to sustain and amplify movements. Through this, a politics of allyship took shape, through creation of platforms that provided emerging movement groups visibility and voice.

Although existing scholarship has not recognised it as such, I have proposed the term “ally activism” – distinct from other modes of activism – to capture the collective practices of civil liberties groups that seek to amplify the concerns of various social movement groups.

Allyship is a form of the politics of amplification – a term I use to refer to the conscious, collective, and strategic practices through which relatively privileged actors work to amplify and legitimise the struggles of marginalised groups. This politics unfolds within, and draws legitimacy from, the sanctioned processes of democratic engagement with the state. This book explores five key dimensions of allyship as practised by civil liberties groups. First, their composition and membership, shedding light on the political trajectories that give rise to ally activism. Second, their positioning in relation to political parties, situating allyship within the broader realm of formal politics. Third, their operational strategies, examining the methods allies employ. Fourth, the internal and intergroup debates that have shaped the identity of allies. Finally, a distinct model of citizenship they advanced, which highlights a civic contestation between the state and civil society.

Civil liberties activism emerged in India during the 1960s and was shaped by the interplay of three elements within India’s political culture. First, the presence of a generation of educated, salaried middle-class individuals and intellectuals in the 1960s and 1970s who embraced allyship as part of their ethical ideal, their ethos informed by Gandhian principles, socialist and left ideologies, and the legacy of the anti-colonial struggle. A second element was the prominent place attributed to the idea of liberty within the dominant strands of left political thought and practice during the early decades after independence. Third, the legalistic orientation of India’s movement actors displayed a consistent inclination to engage with courts as well as adopt legally informed strategies within their activism outside the courtroom. This tendency was further strengthened by the introduction of PIL by the Supreme Court of India, which enabled and legitimised the action of citizens without direct stakes to advocate for broader societal causes. Together, these factors cultivated the conditions that incubated and sustained civil liberties activism. Therefore, ally activism was embedded within longer historical and ideological currents of India’s political culture, rather than merely as a reaction to the exigencies of its time.

As I mentioned earlier, placing ally activism within the broader context of social movements makes visible what I refer to as the “politics of amplification”. This politics allows for understanding the recurring tension between the state and civil society in India, on the questions of patriotism, anti-nationalism and good citizenly practice. The politics of amplification differs significantly from more familiar forms of contentious politics, such as mass protests, boycotts, popular demonstrations and trade unionism. Rather than relying on disruptions and protests, the politics of amplification primarily exerts discursive, legal or moral pressure. However, this form of politics is inherently constrained by structural and strategic limitations. Its very design precludes it from working as a mass movement and its focus on state-perpetrated injustices risks obscuring broader forms of societal inequalities. And its effectiveness depends on allies having a shared ideological or personal connection with those in positions of authority.

While the term “politics of amplification” has not yet been consolidated into a distinct theoretical field, its underlying dynamics are addressed across several intersecting bodies of scholarship. Within social movement theory, scholars such as Sidney Tarrow (1998), Charles Tilly (2015), TK Oommen (2010), N Shah and N Gandhi (1992), Baviskar (1995) have analysed movement strategies and repertoires. In allyship and solidarity studies, attention is paid to the psychological and sociological dynamics through which relatively privileged actors mobilise their social, institutional and cultural capital (Rucht 2004; Tracy 2024). In media and communication studies, Weber and Neumann (2021) and Bonini and Treré (2024) have examined networked media, visibility and circulation. As discussed in the introductory pages of the book, scholarship on civil liberties, intellectual mediation and the evolution of the postcolonial civil society and public sphere have all noticed and mentioned the role of intermediaries.

Building on and extending these, the notion of the politics of amplification advances an integrative framework that repositions amplification not as a strategy but as a mode of political practice. It is a field of politics through which voice, representation, legitimacy and visibility are produced, negotiated and contested. This reveals how mediation itself can become a site of political struggle. I hope to see amplification as a domain of politics, not a supportive activity alongside it.

I believe the politics of amplification can contribute to studies on representation, leadership and the relations between various social movement groups. In particular, it highlights how intermediaries and allies mediate the visibility of and legitimacy of marginalised voices, revealing the asymmetries of power that shape who gets heard within movements. It also draws attention to the tensions between solidarity and appropriation, showing how the efforts to “speak with” rather than “speak for” are negotiated in practice. Together, this enhances our understanding of the internal dynamics, communication strategy and wider ecology of protest movements in India.

While much of the existing scholarship tends to place civil liberties activism within the broader category of social movements, I believe this classification misses the fundamental distinctions that define the politics, strategies and decision-making of civil liberties groups. By lumping them together with other movements, we risk overlooking their unique contributions and presenting some of their defining characteristics as shortcomings.

First, unlike social movements that typically focus on a single or related set of issues, civil liberties groups addressed a wide range of concerns and constituencies – from those of political prisoners and religious minorities to women, labourers and students. They wished to represent more societal sections than most movements of the 1970s and 1980s. Second, social movements are generally, but not always, mass-based, whereas civil liberties activism lacked large-scale mobilisation – a characteristic that has drawn criticism, but to me, it reveals their role as intermediaries. Finally, while social movements were comprised of a substantial section of those directly affected, civil liberties groups were largely composed of nonbeneficiary members, that is, people who did not have a direct material stake in the causes they championed.

When we view these groups as allies, instead of a movement, the pieces fall into place: their roles, political identities, strategies and forms of engagement begin to make more sense. Moreover, this interpretation gains traction when we consider how these activists present themselves in their personal stories, written accounts and the history of their work. They identify repeatedly as supporters, connectors or allies to the larger movements.

Three tumultuous political events of 1970s India inspired first-generation civil liberties activists – the Naxalite movement, the JP (Jayaprakash Narayan) movement and the campaigns that opposed the internal Emergency. These moments were not just historical events to them, they were personal awakenings. The earliest initiatives civil liberties groups undertook were to expose and protest police abuse, detentions, torture and police encounters of political prisoners. They formed voluntary defence committees for political prisoners, organising both legal and financial assistance for those who had been arrested. In doing so, they created a new avenue of political engagement, particularly for the radicalised salaried professional middle class and intelligentsia – retired judges, lawyers, doctors, teachers, journalists and newspaper editors – whose perspectives were shaped by left and Gandhian ideals.

Excerpted with permission from Becoming Allies: Civil Liberties Activism in India, Ankita Pandey, Cambridge University Press.