Kamal Mitra Chenoy (1951-2026): Academic and activist who firmly believed in secularism, pluralism

Kamal Mitra Chenoy combined scholarship with direct political action. At JNU’s School of International Studies, he taught comparative politics and the Indian Constitution. His research examined political economy, democracy, secularism and sustainable development. Activism was not separate from his academic work; it shaped both his questions and his public life.

He debated students at Ganga Dhaba, encouraged disagreement across political viewpoints and helped students. He joined Medha Patkar’s 2006 hunger-strike protest after police detained her, then fasted for four days. He also travelled for 53 days with Jean Drèze and Annie Raja while building support for MGNREGA, and conducted fact-finding missions after communal riots.

Chenoy retired from JNU in 2018 but remained, in colleagues’ words, a student activist at heart. His example links teaching, research and democratic participation. It suggests that universities can be places where ideas are tested publicly and turned into action on rights, development and equality.

In Indian politics, secularism means that the state should not privilege one religion over others and should protect equal citizenship. Pluralism means recognising that society contains many religious, cultural and political communities whose differences deserve space. Together, they oppose exclusionary majoritarian politics and support a democracy where disagreement and diversity can coexist.

Chenoy applied these ideas to his teaching, writing and public work. He prepared detailed reports after communal riots and went to the ground to meet survivors. He also defended liberty, equality and freedom of expression in the classroom. His formulation was striking: there is no single majority, only multiple minorities that together make up a majority.

The article presents secularism and pluralism as practical commitments, not abstract slogans. They require institutions to protect vulnerable groups and citizens to resist communal division. Chenoy’s reports, debates and activism show how these principles can guide responses to violence and shape a more inclusive public life.

For Chenoy, the Constitution was more than a legal text. It expressed the values that should organize public life: liberty, freedom of expression, equality, secularism and socialism. He called it the social contract between India’s people and the state. That belief made constitutional principles a standard for judging government power and public policy.

He carried a copy into class and taught students to see those values as living commitments. In 2006, he joined a hunger strike at Jantar Mantar after police detained Medha Patkar during opposition to the Sardar Sarovar Dam. His reports on communal riots, including the 1984 anti-Sikh violence, documented threats to vulnerable citizens and supported civil-liberties concerns.

The article shows a consistent method: teach constitutional ideals, test them against real events, and act when people’s rights are threatened. Chenoy’s approach remains relevant wherever development, policing or communal conflict raises questions about equality, freedom and state responsibility.

The 2004 World Social Forum in Mumbai brought together more than 100,000 participants from more than 100 countries. It was a global civil-society gathering involving academics, activists and world leaders. Chenoy served on its core committee, helping connect Indian debates with international movements concerned about development, democracy and social justice.

Its international reach mattered because the forum gathered more than 90 countries and many political tendencies in one space. Chenoy argued that this made it more representative than the World Economic Forum, which the WSF partly countered. The mechanism was broad participation: different movements could share concerns, debate alternatives and build common political positions across borders.

The Mumbai summit therefore expanded the audience for issues Chenoy worked on, including sustainable development and economic inequality. Its scale showed that resistance to dominant development models was not confined to one country. It also demonstrated how international networks can amplify local struggles and give civil-society arguments wider legitimacy.

Chenoy’s work on wage and work rights connected research with policy change. He focused on human security, especially whether people could secure livelihoods through fairly paid work. The core issue was practical: economic progress means little if workers lack income, employment protection and a way to meet basic needs.

To build consensus for MGNREGA, Chenoy travelled for 53 days by bus with Jean Drèze and Annie Raja. They gathered support across communities and helped develop the political case for a national employment guarantee. The campaign contributed to the passage of the Act in 2005. Its mechanism was sustained field engagement, discussion and coalition-building rather than only academic argument.

The article does not specify the Act’s later outcomes or coverage. It does show that Chenoy helped move work and wage rights into national legislation. His example suggests that policy gains can grow from researchers working alongside activists and affected people, especially when they build broad agreement around concrete economic security.

Chenoy challenged IMF- and World Bank-led projects because he believed they pushed a single Western model of development onto the Third World. His central question was distributive: who gains from economic growth and industrialisation? Growth measured through production or investment could still deepen inequality, displace communities or ignore people’s rights.

In his 1993 work, “Sustainable Development in India: A Radical View,” he opposed treating development as a one-size-fits-all formula. Sustainable development, in his approach, required attention to social outcomes, democratic choice and long-term consequences. His wider research on political economy and human security reflected the same concern: development should serve people, not only institutions or markets.

The article does not define a technical alternative model or measure specific project outcomes. It does establish Chenoy’s standard for judging development: ask who benefits, whose voices are heard and whether progress remains socially and environmentally defensible. That framework continues to challenge growth that leaves rights and equality behind.

A constitution described as a social contract is understood as the basic agreement between a country’s people and its state. It sets shared rules, protects rights and explains how public power should be used. The idea matters because government legitimacy depends not only on authority, but also on respecting citizens’ freedoms and equality.

Chenoy taught that the Constitution embodied liberty, freedom of expression, equality, secularism and socialism. He carried a copy to class and treated it as India’s most sacred document. His warning was emphatic: if the social contract were altered, India would no longer be India. That connects constitutional change to the identity and promises of the republic.

The article presents this view as a guide for public action. When policing, communal violence or development threatens people’s rights, citizens can measure state conduct against constitutional commitments. Chenoy’s understanding therefore makes the Constitution both a legal foundation and a living standard for democracy, debate and civil liberties.