State, Democracy and Cadre-Based Mobilisation: A Gramscian Study of Marxist Hegemony in Tripura (1978–2018)
Abhishek Bhowmik
December 1, 2025
Tripura’s political history is one of the most significant experiments of Left-oriented governance in India. From 1978 to 2018, the Marxist political tradition shaped the state’s development, its administrative model, and its social transformation. Understanding this long period becomes clearer when analysed through the ideas of Antonio Gramsci, the Italian Marxist thinker who explained political power in terms of hegemony, civil society, cultural influence, and cadre-based mobilisation. When Gramsci argued that political dominance is not only the result of state power but also of ideological leadership and mass consent, his theory applies very clearly to the Tripura experience. For four decades, the Marxist movement in Tripura built a unique combination of electoral strength, organisational discipline, social mobilisation, and ideological influence, which made it one of the most stable Left strongholds in India.
To understand how Marxist hegemony developed in Tripura, one must begin with the long political struggle that started decades before 1978. Communist activities in the region began actively in the 1940s, when peasants, jhum cultivators, tea garden labourers, refugees, and tribal communities faced exploitation under the princely system and later under the early state administration after Tripura’s merger with India in 1949. The early left leaders used class-based mobilisation, cultural activism, and grassroots education to build political consciousness. This created a social base for future Marxist influence. Unlike many other parts of India, the Left in Tripura did not rely only on factory workers. Instead, it organised the poorest groups across different social identities, including tribal peasants living in remote hills and Bengali refugees living in newly formed settlements. This wide alliance played a key role in shaping hegemony later.
The turning point came in 1978, when the Marxist-led left forces came to power. From that moment, the political landscape of Tripura transformed in more structured ways. Gramsci’s idea of civil society becomes very relevant here. Civil society includes organisations like unions, student groups, youth organisations, women’s groups, cultural bodies, and teachers’ associations. In Tripura, Marxist politics built a large and systematic presence inside all these sectors. The student and youth platforms became strong vehicles of political education, while peasant and worker organisations created networks that extended from villages to major towns. These groups worked not just as supporters but as consistent mobilisers who could spread political messages, respond to local problems, and build ideological unity.
The period between 1978 and 1988 was marked by important changes. Literacy rates improved sharply, land reforms were carried out in several phases, and tribal participation in governance increased after the creation of the Tripura Tribal Areas Autonomous District Council (TTAADC) in 1982. These developments expanded the social legitimacy of Marxist leadership. The literacy rate rose from around 50% in the early 1980s to above 73% by the early 1990s. Tripura later achieved one of the highest literacy rates in India, crossing 90% by 2011. These improvements strengthened the credibility of the Marxist model and made its hegemonic position stronger.
However, this period was also challenged by rising insurgency. From the late 1980s to early 2000s, Tripura experienced violent activities by insurgent groups such as the NLFT and ATTF. The Marxist government had to deal with this crisis through a combination of security measures and developmental outreach. Roads, health centres, schools, and welfare programmes were expanded into interior areas so that alienated communities could be integrated. Over time, the insurgency declined, and by 2014 most of the major extremist groups had collapsed. The restoration of peace further strengthened public trust, allowing the Marxist movement to regain stability.
Gramsci explained that hegemony occurs when people willingly accept the leadership of a political force because it aligns with their interests and seems morally legitimate. In Tripura, this consent was generated through the cadre system. Cadres maintained daily contact with households, resolved small disputes, helped with welfare schemes, and acted as intermediaries between the government and the people. This constant interaction produced a sense of familiarity and trust. Cadres were not just political workers; they also served as educators, organisers, and social helpers. This created an environment where political leadership was embedded in daily life.
At the same time, the government’s focus on rural development, panchayat empowerment, and welfare policies added material support to ideological influence. Programmes for housing, pensions, food security, and education reached remote villages more effectively than in previous decades. For many poor families, these benefits contributed to long-term loyalty. The Left also emphasised transparent administration and simple lifestyles, which increased moral legitimacy. Leaders were often seen as accessible and uncorrupted, which strengthened the perception of ethical governance.
The period from 1993 to 2018 saw the consolidation of Marxist hegemony. Tripura experienced significant improvements in human development indicators, including healthcare, gender equality in education, and community-based employment. By 2015, Tripura was among the top-performing smaller states in India in several social sectors. Rural road connectivity expanded dramatically, linking interior tribal villages to markets and administrative centres. Peace, stability, and welfare became important symbols of the Marxist model.
But hegemony is never permanent, as Gramsci pointed out. Social conditions change, and new ideas emerge. After 2010, Tripura began to experience economic aspirations that went beyond the earlier welfare framework. Urban youth, new middle-class families, and unemployed graduates started demanding private-sector opportunities, modern consumer life, and faster economic growth. Technology and social media introduced new cultural influences which traditional cadre networks could not fully counter. This led to an ideological gap between the older generation of committed supporters and younger, aspirational groups.
Gramsci argued that when ruling alliances fail to renew themselves, a crisis of consent begins. Something similar happened in Tripura. Although Marxist forces still had strong rural support, the urban and semi-urban youth became more open to national-level political narratives, particularly those promoting identity, nationalism, and digital campaigns. These new narratives created a counter-hegemonic bloc. In simple terms, a new political imagination emerged and slowly replaced the old one.
The 2018 election reflected this shift. After 25 years of uninterrupted Marxist rule, Tripura witnessed a major political transformation. The change was not only electoral; it also represented a change in cultural leadership. The new political forces used modern communication, social media, and national identity symbols to build mass support. In Gramscian terms, they successfully replaced the older form of consent with a new one.
Even after 2018, the influence of the Marxist period remains deeply rooted. The achievements in literacy, peace, welfare, decentralisation, and tribal empowerment are still recognised across communities. The cadre-oriented model also left a strong organisational legacy. But the transition shows that hegemony must always adapt to new social realities. The Marxist movement in Tripura functioned successfully for forty years because it combined state power with strong civil-society presence, ideological unity, and disciplined mobilisation. Its decline occurred when these elements could no longer fully match the aspirations of an evolving society.
In conclusion, the Tripura experience shows how Gramsci’s theory of hegemony helps explain long-term political dominance. The Marxist movement achieved hegemony not only through elections but through cultural leadership, grassroots networks, and social development. It created a political culture based on equality, peace, and mass participation. At the same time, its decline illustrates that political consent must continuously evolve. When new generations adopt different aspirations, political hegemony must renew itself or risk being replaced. The Tripura story therefore represents both the success and the limits of Marxist mobilisation in a democratic society, offering valuable lessons for future political analysis.
আরও পড়ুন...