Recently, Ghanshyam Shah (1990) has published a very important and well-documented review of literature on social movements of India in which, besides other dimensions, different typologies of tribal movements have also been described. L.K. Mahapatra (1972) applies the typologies widely used for social movements to tribal movements. He describes these as reactionary, conservative, and revisionary or revolutionary.

The reactionary movement tries to launch a movement to bring back the good old days, whereas the conservative movement tries to maintain the status quo. The revisionary or revolutionary movements are those organised for the improvement or purification of the cultural or social order by eliminating evil or low customs, beliefs or institutions. Surajit Sinha (1968) classifies the movements into ethnic rebellion, reform movements, political autonomy movements within the Indian Union, secessionist movements, and agrarian unrest.

K.S. Singh (1983) makes more or less the same classification, except that he uses the term Sanskritization instead of reform movement and cultural movements instead of ethnic movements. For brevity Ghanshyam Shah has reformulated the typologies as ethnic movements, agrarian movements and political movements. Not only is there a great deal of overlapping among all three types, but they are also interconnected, and one leads to the other.