PIP: Important rural Indian movements appeared almost simultaneously in the early 1970s in 3 countries, Ecuador, Bolivia, and Guatemala, which had the distinction of remaining the most rural and the most Indian countries of Latin America. A similar movement with similar characteristics arose in a rural and Indian region of Colombia, a largely urban and mestizo country. Each movement constituted a particular response to the same problems in different contexts. This work provides a comparative analysis of the historical context, development, constitution, and functioning of Bolivian katarisme, the Ecuarrunari movement in Ecuador, the Regional Committee of the Indigenous of Cauca (CRIC) in Colombia, and the Committee of Peasant Unity (CUC) in Guatemala. The indigenous peasant movements were defined in relation to national-populist models of development and integration: limitations and failures of national-populism in Bolivia and to some extent also in Ecuador, marginalization of the Indian populations vis a vis modernization processes in Ecuador and Colombia, or a crisis caused by blockage of participation in the sociopolitical system in Guatemala. The movements appeared in the context of strong peasant communities left at the margin of processes of integration, but also in contexts where the social dynamics were reinforced by reforms and modernization during a long period of precarious reconstitution of communities sometimes dating back to the 1930s. Another contributing factor in some cases was the dissolution of peonage and other forms of servitude on the great estates. An Indian elite whose emergence was related to modernization of the communities is present in all the movements. It is composed of educated and partially urbanized young people who have maintained ties to the communities, of leaders trained in cooperative or union activity, of promoters of new religious currents, and others affected by change. The leaders belong to modern organizations that wish to make Indians actors in cultural, social, or political affairs at the regional or national level previously dominated by non-Indians. The peasant Indian movements are above all interested in issues of land and agrarian development, but they are not exclusively peasant. Some of the members are not agricultural workers, and their concerns exceed those of a simple peasant society. Diverse influences have been exercised on the formation and development of the movements. Progressive sectors of the Catholic Church were influential in almost all. The movements encountered opposition from class and national adversaries interested in maintaining the status quo, and also often experienced distrust, misunderstanding, or paternalistic attitudes on the part of nonpeasant organizations working for change. The future is uncertain for all of the movements, despite notable past successes for some of them.^ieng