Key Concepts and Theories 12th NCERT

POLITICAL SCIENCE
KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

Textbook for Class XII
POLITICAL SCIENCE
KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
Textbook for Class XII
AUTHOR
V.R. MEHTA
EDITOR
NALINI PANT
CONTENTS
Unit I : Key Concepts: Indian and Western Perspectives

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Law
Liberty
Equality
Justice
Human Rights
Dharma
Unit II : State and the Citizen

7.
8.
Rights and Duties : Meaning and Relationship

The Changing Nature of State Activity
1
3
9
19
23
30
36
41
43
52
Unit III : Comparative Politics
57
Approaches to the Study of Comparative Politics :

Traditional and Modern
10. Political Socialisation, Political Participation and
Political Development
11. Modes of Representation
59
65
Unit IV : Major Political Theories
79
9.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
Liberalism
Socialism
Marxism
Fascism
Gandhism
Humanism
GLOSSARY
74
81
87
92
100
106
113
117
UNIT I
INDIAN
KEY CONCEPTS
AND WESTERN PERSPECTIVES
POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES
CHAPTER
1
Law
WHAT
IS
LAW ?
HE term law has different

connotations. There is natural law,
moral law, law of supply and demand
and law of the state. It may mean rules
telling us what we ought to do (moral
law). It may also imply that there are
certain regularities in nature or society.
The first is a normative view and the
second positivistic view. The normative
view tends to argue that laws embody
fundamental truth about processes of
nature, while the positivists argue that
laws are rules of conduct in a defined
community. They are a system of legal
conditions to regulate human conduct
in society. To Austin it was a command
of a sovereign to all others in society
having for its sanction the force of the
physical power of the state. Holland
declared: A law is a general rule of
external action enforced by a sovereign
political authority. According to this
view law is a relationship between a
superior and inferiors who are in a
condition of habitual obedience.
Making a distinction between the
moral and the state law, some theorists
maintain that the existence of law is
dependent on its moral validity; while

others hold that the validity of law is
purely a technical question. It can only
be decided in terms of legal criteria
available at a particular time. A Law is
a law, right or wrong, if it has received
the approval of the decision-making
body of the state. However, whenever
there is a conflict between enacted law
and the moral order, such enactment
lacks legitimacy in the eyes of the
people. Barker emphasised the same
idea when he said that every law must
have validity as well as value; validity
refers to the formal character of law and
value to the moral sense of the
community. If a legal judgement is in
accordance with the law, it has to be
accepted. However, acceptance of a
judgement rests on the communitys
sense of right and justice. In short, a
law has to be seen in totality in which
both legal and moral aspects merge with
each other.
Another aspect of the debate is the
relation between coercion and
obligation in a legal system. Positivists
maintain that citizens are obliged to
obey law. Those who disobey a law are
liable to be punished by the coercive
power of the state. Whatever be the

nature of law, the important thing is the
authority of the state behind it. Citizens
do not have any choice. Such coercive
quality is less noticeable in certain
areas of law, as for example in
International Law. But positivists
regard coerciveness as the essence of
the obligatory nature of law. This view
is contested on three grounds :
(i) Not all laws impose obligation.
Many laws confer enjoyment of
powers or rights. Such laws are
the best example where no
coercion is implied.
(ii) The existence of obligation under
law depends on its being morally
valid. Rousseau maintained that
our obligation to obey a particular
law can be moral only when we
are impelled to obey a system of
law out of a sense of duty,
perhaps by promptings of our
moral consciousness without any
compulsion from external power.
Force reduces human beings to
abject slavery. Therefore, it cannot
be a legitimate basis of law. Might
can never be the basis of right.
Rousseau emphatically declared
that to yield to force may be an
act of prudence. In this case,
therefore, legal obligation
becomes derivative of political
obligation which, in turn,
depends on the general belief
about the legitimacy of authority.
(iii) Law also has to be viewed as a part
of the institutional system in
society. Courts do not deliver
judgements in isolation. Besides
judiciary, there are other

organised social institutions as
legislature, executive and political
parties. The entire legal system is
dependent on them and cannot
function in isolation from politics,
society and economy. It is in this
sense that legal order is related to
the protection of rights and
securing social justice to all. These
are the grounds for imposition of
legal obligations and not only the
results of those obligations. Our
obligation to obey law largely
depends upon the ends which it
fulfils, and the feeling of identity
which is generated in the minds
of citizens by upholding a system
of justice, fairness and right.
In this sense, a law has to combine
both what Dworkin has called
principle and policy. While
Principle is identical with rights,
policy is identical with utility. Rights
are claims secured to individuals as a
matter of principle and justice; policies
refer to the collective good of the
community as a whole. The system of
law should be such as would combine
both. It is in this sense that positivist
view of law cannot be detached from the
moral view.
The Marxian system has a
distinctive view. It rejects the notion
that there is a universal system of law.
Lenin once said, Law is politics. In
the Communist countries, particularly
the erstwhile Soviet Union, law is
declared as class law and
proletarian law. The Soviet system,
LAW
therefore, viewed law as an instrument

for the realisation of class ideology.
They also regarded International law
as an instrument to advance the goals
of the Soviet society.
In view of what has been said, it is
difficult to give an exact definition of
law. However, a working definition could
be: A law is a set of generally accepted
rules and regulations governing
interrelationships in human society
seeking to create order and balanced
development of all.
SOURCES
OF
LAW
Where does law come from? The

sources of law can be varied. The
idealistic source of law is natural law.
It is often referred to as expression of
right reason of man. It is supposed to
embody universal common agreement
based on human intelligence and
understanding. In ancient India,
Dharma was one such concept. It was
concerned with goals of law. But very
few agree about the content of either
natural law or principles of Dharma.
The other sources of law are
constitutions, statutes, conventions,
treaties, administrative rules and
regulations. The orders of the executive
and decisions of the courts are also the
sources of law.
Austin described law as a
command of the sovereign who receives
habitual obedience from the people
living within his jurisdiction. For him,
authority rather than right reason was
the source of law.
TYPES
OF
LAW
There are two kinds of laws, viz. private

and public. A private law refers to those
rights, goods and services which would
be secured to the individual regardless
of the existence of the state. It includes
such things as family laws, property
laws and laws of succession. In such
cases the role of the state is merely to
recognise and enforce the relevant law.
Public law, on the other hand, is related
to the rights of the citizens and the state.
Some of the examples of the public
law are international law, municipal
law, constitutional law, administrative
law, etc. International law is a set of
generally accepted rules and
regulations controlling the conducts of
nations, international organisations
and individuals. It is different from
Municipal law which deals with the
relationship between the individuals
and their organisations within a state.
While each state has its own municipal
laws, the international law is common
to all states and individuals. The
International Court of Justice is
charged with the responsibility of
adjudicating the controversies arising
under International law.
Constitutional law is a set of
standards, rules and practices
controlling the functions and powers of
the Government and its subsidiary
machineries. In our system, the
Supreme Court of India is the highest
court entrusted with the task of
adjudicating disputes arising out of the
constitutional law.
The private law, thus, refers to civil

society while the public law refers to
the state. However, society has two
kinds of law. A family cannot be isolated
from property and property is integrally
related to the system of taxation, torts
and contracts. It is for this reason that
some people believe that there can be
no differentiation between different
types of law.
Whatever the distinction between
public and private law, the indisputable
fact is that law is almost a universal
human need. No society can exist
without a legal order. We need
institutions and a framework of rules
and regulations to provide firmness to
our mutual relations. Without law there
would be complete anarchy in society.
That is why we regard Rule of Law as
the essence of civilised living. It provides
certainty to our relationships. It
emphasises that laws ought to be
general in character so that there is no
arbitrariness in their exercise. It also
emphasises complete equality before
law and equal conformity to law by
officials and individuals.
Let us emphasise, however, that all
laws are not conducive to human good
or protect our rights or help those who
are the least advantaged by the system.
In fact, there are laws, which tend to
destroy our freedom and humanity.
Rowlatt Act of 1919 was one such law.
It led to Jallianwala Bagh tragedy.
LAW
AND
MORALITY
The relationship between law and

morality is complex. As we have already
seen, issues about law are not as simple

as they appear. There is no agreement
about the nature of morality either. We
shall not go into what constitutes
morality. Here we shall only briefly state
the relationship between law and
morality
There are people who believe that
there is no connection between law and
morality. Law is something definite and
objective and has nothing to do with
morality which is vague and subjective.
According to them, law is not concerned
with values. Good and just are not
its subject matter. It is concerned with
what is and not with what ought to
be. It is argued that moral concepts are
essentially contested and in case of a
dispute one is helpless. But in the case
of law there are courts to adjudicate
and give a firm interpretation.
It is true that both the words do not
mean the same thing. A thing may be
legally right and morally wrong. When
we say that an action is legal all that is
meant is that it is in accordance with
the law of the day. When we say that a
particular action is moral, all that is
meant is that it is in accordance with
accepted norms of the society. This
distinction helps us to differentiate legal
and moral aspects of law.
However, it should be clear that
sometimes
moral
and
legal
considerations overlap. In fact, moral
considerations have influenced the
making or enforcement of laws and
conversely, morality itself has been
shaped by laws. Both of them interact
with each other. As we have seen, we
are morally obliged to obey the laws of
LAW
our country. But if laws lose moral

aspect, they will not be effective. The
notions of value and rightness in the
legal system are tied to its being moral
in the eyes of the people.
There is another sense in which
morality is relevant to law. Whenever a
law is not clear, the judges use the
concepts of natural law, equity and
justice to decide the issue. Again, there
are situations when law has to
pronounce judgement on moral issues.
For instance, laws of marriage. In all
cases law will have to decide in the
context of the moral character of the
parties involved. In deciding cases of libel
or slander the courts take moral
considerations into account. In fact all
courts insist on taking oath by
witnesses. It will be meaningless if moral
obligation meant nothing. Questions of
good faith and moral intent keep arising
from time to time.
Law is also used to protect and
enforce morality. At least that is the view
the ancient Indians took when they
thought of law in the context of Dharma.
Law cannot be viewed in isolation. It is a
part of society and is interwoven into its
fabric. That is why law deals with
murder, theft, perjury, incest, cruelty to
animals. All these are prohibited by law
and are contrary to morality. What is
considered as harmful depends
generally upon the common values of a
community.
There are different views of morality.
Many levels and stages of argument
come into play. There are individual
moralities for which each individual
takes responsibility upon himself. There
are collective moralities also which stress

on the social side of moral behaviour.
These moralities are also known as public
morality. Some laws may offend our
personal morality and we may have to
decide on our own whether to obey such
laws or to offer resistence. Similarly, some
laws may be incompatible with collective
morality morality of tribes. However,
there is a general agreement that as far
as possible, the state should not attempt
to enforce personal morality. As far as the
public morality is concerned, the
relationship is complex. Sometimes law
embodies it. But at times we know that a
particular thing is against public morality
and therefore we would not like the state
to enforce it. Lying is against all moral
principles but except in court on oath, it
is not prohibited by law. It is not prudent
to have laws which are difficult to enforce
or which are not likely to be followed by
others at all. It is bad to pass laws which
dont have the support of the majority.
Such a law will not only cause lot of
suffering in the process of enforcement
but will also shake public faith in the
effectiveness of the legal system.
Sometimes law may be at variance
with collective morality. In such cases the
question may arise whether we have a
moral obligation to obey such a law.
However, law is necessary not merely for
maintenance of order but, at least in part,
also for good life. It must be kept in mind
that law can and in some cases should
enforce morality; it should do so with
great care, otherwise morality becomes
rigid and loses its dynamism. Morality
must be dynamic. It must respond to
changes in society.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
What do you understand by the term Law?

Distinguish between Moral Law and State Law.
What is the meaning of Positivists view of the theory of law?
What are the various sources of Law?
Distinguish between private and public law.
CHAPTER
2
Liberty
WHAT
IS
LIBERTY?
HE concept of liberty is complex

with strong emotional connotations.
The term has acquired different
meaning at different times. Still there is
a common thread through all its usages.
The most important sense in which
liberty is used is when a rational person
is able to exercise his choice without
being subject to any external constraint.
In this sense liberty is a necessary
condition for free and full development
of our personality. Without it we cannot
be rational or act or achieve what seems
best to us. To have liberty is to be able
to act according to ones wishes, to
translate ones dreams into reality and
to actualise ones potential. It is the
essence of humanity; and provides
substance to the notion of
responsibility. It is the ideal to which
all of us aspire.
A man is free if he is not prohibited
by others. Liberty may also mean
freedom to do something or enjoying
ones powers. When we are able to do
what we want to do, we are said to be
free. It may mean immunity from
authoritys exercise of arbitrary powers.
It means freedom to act independently
without any fear of punishment. Then

there is freedom under law. Citizens
have liberty insofar as what law permits
them to do or not to do. There are
mainly two senses in which the concept
is used: Negative and Positive.
NEGATIVE LIBERTY
The negative view implies that we need
liberty to protect ourselves from undue
interference of the state. It implies an
area in which man can do what he likes
to do without being obstructed by
others. There are some obstructions,
which are natural. For instance, one
cannot read because of blindness. But
there are other areas where there is a
deliberate attempt on the part of others
to interfere in the area in which one
could act. There is no agreement on
how wide the area could or should be.
There is, however, an agreement that
this area cannot be unlimited otherwise
there will be a social chaos. The area of
free action must be limited by law but
there should be a certain minimum
area of personal freedom which on no
account should be violated. Such was
the view of Locke and Mill in England
and Tocqueville in France. The
10
fundamental sense of freedom, says Sir

Isaiah Berlin, is freedom from chains,
from imprisonment, from enslavement
by others. The rest is extension of this
sense.
Mill and others believed that unless
such an area is guaranteed to
individuals, civilisation cannot
advance. We shall never know the truth.
There will be no scope for originality or
genuine moral courage. Mill argued
that society will be crushed by the
weight of collective mediocrity.
But this view of negative liberty
suffers from following grave drawbacks:
(i) Mills argument that without
liberty truth will not come out is
not empirically correct. History
shows that love for truth grows
even in communities where there
is strict discipline.
(ii) Liberty in this sense is concerned
with area of control and not with
its source. It is not necessary to
have democracy to enjoy this
liberty. An autocrat may leave his
subjects with a wide variety of
liberty and yet be unjust or
encourage inequalities. The
question who governs? is as
important as the question How far
does government interfere with
me?
(iii) The job of the state is reduced to
the minimum. The state is a
necessary evil.
Herbert Spencer summed-up the
negative view where he said The state
exists because crime exists in society,
otherwise there would be no need of a
state. This is inconsistent with the view

of the state as a welfare institution
trying to create condition in which
everyone will be able to realise his or
her potential. The negative view does
not adequately take into account the
fact that poverty or lack of land, capital
and political power are all grave
obstacles to realisation of our powers.
It does not see that these obstacles are
an inevitable part of socio-economic
system, and have to be removed by law
for attaining the common good.
POSITIVE LIBERTY
The positive view of liberty implies two
things:
(i) It implies the right to participate
in sovereign authority. It is
involved in answer to the question
Who is the source of control or
interference?. It accepts the
individual self-direction as final.
It means ability to live according
to ones own conscious purposes,
to act and decide oneself rather
than be acted upon and decided
by others.
(ii) It implies freedom of rational self.
Rousseau and other idealists
believed that man is rational and
it is this which distinguishes
human beings from other
creatures. They called this real
self inasmuch as it identifies
ourselves with the social whole of
which we are a part. Man can be
controlled for the fulfilment of his
real self. Rousseau gave us the
concept of General Will which was
LIBER TY
an organisation and synthesis of

goodwill of all of us. Rousseau
thought that the General Will
could force us into obedience,
because liberty was nothing but
coercion by individuals own real
self.
This view rightly recognises that
true development of man consists in the
development of his powers as an integral
part of a society. His ideas, aims and
aspirations are social products, and
they, in turn, exercise their influence
upon the development of society. lt is
argued that whenever man finds his
social existence frustrating, he has a
right to expect that the state would
come to his rescue. There must be
interference of the state to protect one
against the interference by other
individuals.
This view brings into bold relief that
the negative view of liberty did not
sufficiently appreciate the value of
mans capacity for rational
understanding, for moral judgement
and action, and for aesthetic creation
and contemplation. The positive view
is identical to Indian notion of Swaraj
which literally means complete mastery
over oneself and demands that all forms
of domination should be ended.
But this does not follow that every
state interference is designed to increase
liberty. The state power has often been
abused in the past to serve the interest
of one individual or class or caste.
Indeed the danger with this view is
that any attack on freedom can be
justified in the name of real freedom.
11
The state, general will, a class or a

nation become super agencies. They
come to be identified as real selves; and
attack on freedom can then be
manipulated. The more we exalt the
state or the more we exalt those who
speak in the name of the state, the more
are the chances of these agents abusing
their powers in their private interest. It
is because of lack of realisation of this
that the doctrine has in the past been
perverted to deny the very freedom for
human self-development.
Marxist thought rejects both
negative and positive views; accordingly
there can be no freedom in a capitalist
system. Workers collectively are forced
to sell their labour. Capitalism leads to
domination of workers by capitalists.
In order to be free, Marxists maintain,
there must be a rational control of
productive forces in society by the state.
Marxism rightly highlights that an
impoverished or propertyless labourer
cannot be free. He has absolutely no
bargaining power. But the danger is
that there is a tendency in such a
society to be tyrannised by its own
institution. Bureaucracies and the
party become extremely powerful and
tend to disregard general interest.
Everyone agrees that freedom is
valuable and necessary but there is no
agreed concept of freedom. Our
discussion however, suggests that the
following conditions must be fulfilled
before we can be called free:
(i) Freedom must be enjoyed by all.
Freedom may, however, require a
system of planning, regulation
12
and control. John Rawls argues

that everyone should enjoy the
widest liberty consistent with the
liberty of all. This he interprets to
mean that we must do what we
can to ensure that even the least
advantaged will enjoy freedom as
a goal worth pursuing. This view
implies something like a Welfare
State.
(ii) Sufficient checks must be
provided in the form of rights, rule
of law and adherence to
institutional arrangements of
society.
(iii) There must be some area left to
the individual in which the state
will not interfere without sufficient
reasons.
TYPES
OF
LIBERTY
There are three types of liberty

political, economic and natural or
moral. By political liberty we mean the
maintenance of an atmosphere in which
the state does not interfere in an
individuals life without sufficient and
compelling reasons. Thus, the liberty
of speech and expression must not be
interfered with by the government,
because any interference with it might
muffle public opinion which stands for
truth. Without such an assurance our
liberty is of no avail. Political liberty has
two aspects it implies that society
shall not remain subservient to any
other society. It would have complete
autonomy to manage its own affairs.
Every society has its own peculiar and
distinctive character which must be
preserved by it; only then it is fit to

contribute its best to the ever-flowing
stream of civilisation. A colonial
country, or a country perpetually
dependent on others, or which is ruled
by others is like a dead body which has
no life and vitality. Every society has its
own peculiar ethos, which can be
developed only when it is not dependent
on others and when it has complete
liberty to manage its own affairs. When
Tilak declared, Swaraj is My Birth
Right, he meant that so long as one
country is in the clutches of another, it
cannot develop according to its genius
or realise its ends.
Secondly, political liberty also
implies that the state or its agents shall
not use their powers to interfere or
control individual autonomy. It implies
creation of an atmosphere in which
individuals will not live in fear of
persecution for holding beliefs or
expressing views contrary to what
holders of power at a particular time
have. It also means rule of law as
against the rule of human caprice.
The state should interfere only when
it is absolutely necessary and is
demanded by the happiness or interest
of the society at large. Indiscriminate
interference, not warranted by the
above considerations, destroys
individuals freedom. It makes
individual a mere puppet or a lifeless
machine. Here we should bear in mind
that it is only when individuals are
made to feel that the state seeks to
make their lives better that they obey the
state. The moment this feeling
disappears, discontent, anarchy and
LIBER TY
sometimes even violent disturbances

overtake the state, a phenomenon which
either destroys it beyond repair, or
influences a new life and vigour into it.
Political liberty in its internal
aspects is too often tied up with citizens
participation in the affairs of state. No
doubt this participation constitutes an
important segment of the full circle of
political freedom. But there are other
segments too. For example, if in a
democracy the machinery of the state
is in the hands of self-seeking and
corrupt politicians or officials who
make use of it to further their own
selfish interests in wanton disregard of
general welfare, there is, in effect, to no
real political freedom. Even if it exists,
it is a farce. It is true that we must have
a right to vote so that we can translate
our consent into practice, but this right
would be meaningless in a society where
officials tamper with ballot boxes, or
politicians use all sorts of devices to
make democracy a farce. Anyone who
is familiar with the history of England
in the nineteenth century or
India or Pakistan or some other
under-developed countries today will
realise the urgency of having rulers and
politicians who are imbued with a spirit
of sacrifice, who have knowledge
enough to grasp the basic needs of
society, and who have sincerity enough
to pursue the public good ruthlessly.
No state can survive for long, if it does
not make an attempt to harmonise its
authority with the general good of
society. If both are in harmony, society
flourishes and gives stimulation to the
finer aspects of life. But if both are at
13
loggerheads, sooner or later one or both

are destroyed. A Frankensteins
monster will never produce a free
people. It is only a state which regards
general happiness as its own
happiness, and works to realise such
happiness in practice can be lasting.
Civil liberty is the most important
component of political liberty. It is
available to citizens in all democratic
countries. Our own constitution
guarantees it. It means the right of every
man to stand on trial on equal terms in
the courts of the land. No one has a
special prerogative. There are no
jagirdars or zamindars who could claim
special privileges. The most important
defence of civil liberty is the writ of the
Habeas Corpus. A person who has been
detained can apply for this is writ. It is,
to quote Dicey, an order calling upon a
person by whom a prisoner is alleged to
be kept in confinement to bring such
prisoner to have his body, when the
name habeas corpus, before the Court
to let the Court know on what grounds
the prisoner is confined and thus to give
the Court the opportunity of dealing with
the prisoner as the law may regulate.
Every person is considered innocent
before he is proved guilty. Civil liberty
requires that a prisoner must be found
guilty of breaking some law, or else he
must be set free. In an authoritarian
system, a person can be taken prisoner
in the middle of the night can be removed
to a concentration camp, or kept under
protective custody. He has no remedy
available to him against arbitrary
exercise of power. In these systems it is
the executive and not the judiciary which
14
decides whether the person can be set

at liberty.
One important aspect of civil liberty
is the freedom of speech and expression.
It implies freedom to communicate ones
thoughts to others. It implies freedom of
speech, freedom to print and to speak
in public. It also implies freedom of
conscience, and enjoins all of us to
practice tolerance. We owe much of
freedom of speech and expression to
ancient Athens. Our own law givers too
emphasised its importance. But in
Athens it reached its high watermark.
Socrates became the first martyr for its
sake. His life in a way exemplifies the
paradox of freedom. He was condemned
to death because he preached beliefs and
ideas unpalatable to the government of
the day. He told his judges, Daily
discussion of the matters about which
you hear me conversing is the highest
good for man. He was of the opinion
that life in which there is no such
discussion is not worth living.
But Socrates was also aware of the
responsibilities of a person who enjoys
freedom of speech and expression. It
cannot be used for libellous or seditious
purposes. If Socrates promised silence
and stopped perpetual discussion, the
jury was prepared to acquit him. But
I shall not change my ways, he said,
though I die a thousands deaths. He
upheld the freedom of speech and
expression, but denied the right of
sedition. Speaking of mans debt to his
country, as he lay in prison, he told
Crito, that every person ought to respect
his country and submit to her and work
for her when she is in need.
Social liberty implies freedom from

orthodoxy or narrow walls of fanaticism
or any social compulsion to make
people conformists. The majority has
a tendency to suppress the minority
and become tyrannical. In the past so
many great human souls have been
sent to the scaffold simply because they
held beliefs which were contrary to the
beliefs of the majority of members in
society. Indeed the tyranny of majority
can be much worse than the tyranny of
one man; for the former, if it chooses,
can penetrate into almost all the nooks
and corners of the life of individual.
Therefore, it is the responsibility of the
state to remove obstacles in the way of
an individual pursuit of autonomy and
free articulation of his faculties without
any fear.
Economic liberty provides an
opportunity to get all the basic things
of sustenance, without depending on
the will of somebody else. Economic
liberty is the backbone of a free society,
human being who is to depend
constantly on somebody else for the
wants of tomorrow cannot be expected
to adhere to any notion of civic virtue.
He is likely to lose even the basic
sediments of humanity. This applies as
much to the state as to the individual.
A state which depends too much on
foreign assistance, sooner or later, is
compelled to compromise its freedom
for the economic advantage it gets in
return. The experience of the countries
of Latin America is the best example.
Similarly, an individual who is
constantly haunted by the nightmare
of hunger, disease and poverty cannot
LIBER TY
lead an autonomous life. He/she

becomes incapable of contributing his
best to society. The phrase basic things
of sustenance, however, does not
include all the riches or the consumer
articles which our civilisation has thrown
up in a great variety. It only means
securing of ones daily bread without
having to depend on others will. In this
connection Laski says, let there be
sufficiency for all before there can be
superfluity for some. A human being
who is constantly worried about bread
from dawn to dusk; who is frustrated,
ignorant, living an aimless existence,
who has to depend upon somebody
elses will for his sustenance cannot
exercise his autonomy. For want of
economic liberty, sometimes, a person
is obliged to sacrifice ones character, and
even ones political liberty.
Indeed, political liberty has no
meaning unless it is founded on the
basis of economic liberty. Such a notion
of economic liberty also implies that
everyone in society, if one has the
capacity or will to work, will get enough
to enable one to participate in social and
political life without any hindrance.
Thus, a labourer, who can be dismissed
by his employer without an impartial
enquiry enjoys very little of economic
freedom. Indeed for a starving person
democracy or its paraphernalia has
very little meaning. It has been a
recurring phenomenon in human
history and more so in societies in
which poverty is writ large that persons
devoid of their means of subsistence
convulse the societies with violent
revolutions.
15
Liberal thinkers put more emphasis

on social and political liberty. They have
mustered up all the armoury at their
command to prove that democracy is a
superior form of government than any
other known so far. They have sought
to build up a strong case for the
minimum role of the state in the lives of
individuals. It is argued that things
should be left to the individuals own
initiative because mostly the progress
of humanity has been due to this spirit
of individual initiative and adventure.
John Stuart Mill argued that even if an
act was badly done by an individual, it
should be done by him as a part of his
moral education. But this line of
thinking ignores the vital fact that there
might arise circumstances beyond an
individuals control, which are
destructive of his very existence as a
moral being. There are large number of
people in India who live below poverty
line and in reality enjoy very limited
freedom.
Liberty to vote or of religion and
morality has no meaning for them. They
even suspect that the state itself has
become an instrument of the
economically well-off classes for
exploiting them. Indeed, to talk of the
right to vote or to talk of religion in
relation to a starving man has no
meaning. A nation of paupers, sooner
or later, meets its nemesis. Either the
poverty-stricken class meekly
reconciles itself to its status under the
vain belief of past Karma (action of
previous birth) or it is driven to resort
to various kinds of resistance which
offer it any glimmer of hope, and
16
sometimes even to violent revolution. In

such societies the power of money may
become the most important power.
Votes are sold and purchased during
an election. A starving man may find
five chunks of gold, ill-gotten or wellgotten; and for him his duty to vote for
the right person is much less important
than to quench his thirst and hunger.
Let us not forget that even Rana
Pratap at one weak moment of life,
finding his son weeping for a loaf of
bread, decided to accept the
overlordship of Akbar, the Emperor of
India. If this weak moment could come
in the life of Rana Pratap, how can we
expect ordinary people to safeguard
their own liberty in the face of adverse
circumstances.
Moral liberty, as Kant perceived,
implies personal autonomy so that we
are complete masters of ourselves.
Moral freedom consists in the pursuit
of the universal objects, i.e. of objects
which impart character and solidarity
to society. It can be attained only
through a process of self-sacrifice and
self-purification inherent in what the
Ancient Indians called the saatvik way
of life. The strength of a state, in the final
analysis, depends not upon its wealth
or armaments or even its numbers but
upon the spirit of sacrifice for the
common good or general welfare, which
its citizens have.
However, moral liberty is not the
freedom of the ascetics far removed from
the din and the noise of the world. For
the world around is a reality and
perhaps the supreme reality. If there is
something beyond it, we do not know.
Moral freedom, therefore, lies in

harmony of impulses in ones private
life. It can be attained through the
pursuit of creative things or saatvik
things. In social life it consists in
identifying oneself with society through
love, sacrifice, friendship and
sympathy. The first is through virtue
and the other through friendship. Moral
freedom in this sense, however, is
beyond the scope of the state. The state
can provide all the necessary conditions
for the pursuit of moral life but cannot
make a human being who has neither
the capacity nor the desire to be, moral.
And therefore, as far as the state is
concerned, it has only to create that
atmosphere in which people have an
opportunity to develop and exercises all
the virtues underlined above. Political
and economic liberty are meaningless
unless they provide scope for the
realisation of the ends of moral liberty.
Conversely, the idea of moral liberty is
hard to attain in a society where there
is either complete, mechanical
regimentation or the society is full of
poverty and squalor or where there is
an undue craze for wealth.
LAW
AND
LIBERTY
Law lays down what a citizen is free to

do and is not free to do. Since the state
controls coercive power, its law is able
to secure freedom to all by preventing
coercion by an individual or group.
Liberty does not mean absolute
freedom to do whatever one wants. We
often inflate our demands. An
absolutely free society is impossibility.
LIBER TY
Such a situation will lead to anarchy in

which no one except the powerful will
be able to exercise his freedom. We can
be absolutely free in a vacuum in which
there are no other individuals. This is
so because the moment there are other
individuals we shall begin to coerce
each other for the fulfilment of our
demands and wishes. Therefore, law
and liberty are closely connected. Law
may be a necessary evil and we may
aim at minimum of law, but it is an
inescapable condition necessary to
secure freedom of all.
Some restrictions become necessary
to enhance our liberty. Sometimes law
restrains it in the name of public
interest. The law of copyright, for
example, restrains mans freedom of
speech and expression because if there
were no such law, we would prevent
authors from reaping the fruits of their
labour. Similarly, restriction of freedom
to secure equal treatment of all is one
such example. We insist that same price
be charged to anyone for buying the
same articles. We do not encourage
people to open schools if they
discriminate in the name of caste,
religion, language or community.
But, as has been pointed out earlier,
not every law is conducive to liberty. Law
has often been abused. Not all laws are
reasonable and just. Sometimes the
authorities may promulgate a law in
good faith but the decision they have
made may be wrong or there may be
no access to courts for justice so that
there is no procedure for dealing with
disputes except the will of the executive.
Sometimes even the adjudication of the
17
courts may be arbitrary. People can be

punished for the crimes they have been
alleged to have committed without
proper investigation. That is why
freedom from arbitrary exercise of
authority has been claimed from the
beginning or the government might
have usurped power by insurrection or
coup detat or there may have been
foreign power ruling over us. If the ruler
is arbitrary or unlawful, it will be
difficult for anyone to disobey. Unless
there are limitations, we lose our
capacity to resist unlawful or arbitrary
or immoral authority. We may be
compelled to do a certain thing just for
the fear of punishment like threat of
death, torture or even of losing our job.
It is for this reason that checks and
balances are created within the legal
system. Rights are secured and
immunities are granted so that citizens
can know that there is nothing to fear
from government. We insist on rule of
law and independence of judiciary.
Rights prescribe the limits beyond
which the rulers cannot go. They define
freedom of citizens vis-a-vis the
government and are the most classic
expression of freedom. They provide
security against the exercise of arbitrary
powers. We cannot freely participate in
civic life unless we are free from
coercion. It is for this reason also that
we insist that the process by which law
is administered should be proper.
Freedom from coercion except by due
process of law becomes the first
condition of our being free in the larger
sense of the term. The due process
should be recognisable so that everyone
18
knows not only the decision but also

as to how it is reached. This creates
confidence in the minds of citizens. The
citizens will know that the authorities
cannot get them unless they have done
a wrong in terms of a specific law. I may
be in the bad book of the police, but I
can be sure that I will not be punished
unless I have violated a definite law.
Citizens are not only free, but they
must know that they are free. These
substantial as well as procedural
safeguards protect people against the
abuse of law. It is a need that has been
felt more in recent times with the
massive expansion of government
activities in all spheres of life.
In the ultimate cases when the
system is abused, people claim right to
rebellion and duty of resistance in order
to protect their own liberty. The French

Revolution was one such case. Legal
positivists may be right in normal cases
when they declare a law valid on the
ground that it is enforceable. But in
abnormal situations we are reminded
of St. Augustine that states without
justice are but rubber bands enlarged.
Nazi system in Germany was effective
but insane. The British rule in India was
effective but exploitative. In such
situations we may be obliged to obey
in the sense that if we do not, we shall
be shot dead; but there is no moral
compulsion to obey. As Rousseau
pointed out, we are obliged to obey only
legitimate powers, which confirm to the
communitys sense of what is right and
lawful. And every law must conform to
this requirement of legitimacy.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Explain the concepts of Liberty.

Distinguish between Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty.
What is Political, Economic and Moral Liberty?
Discuss the relationship between Law and Liberty?
What do you understand by the freedom of speech and expression?
19
CHAPTER
3
Equality
WHAT
IS
EQUALITY?
OME people have viewed equality

as the principle of absolute and
unconditional equality. They emphasise
that all men are similar in certain basic
features and traits and, therefore, they
ought to be treated as equal. Some have
emphasised that all men are created
equal. Some religious traditions as well
as thinkers argued that since all are
children of God, they are equal. Early
liberal thinkers argued that all men are
equal because they share common
natural rights. Utilitarians like Bentham
argued that all share common capacity
to experience pleasure or pain. Kant
thought that all men are equal because
they have the same capacity to be moral
and formulate moral laws. For socialists
men share a common humanity; they
have the same physical characteristics
and social needs. All these views
highlight that all men share certain
basic characteristics and needs. Our
Constitution rejects any discrimination
on the basis of caste, class, creed, sex
or race.
This argument implies that since
human beings are equal they ought to
be treated equally. But this is
impossible to achieve because they are

found in different social settings. For
instance, the character or the position
of the family is bound to exercise
influence upon the character of the
child. So long as the family system
exists, and there is no reason why it
should not, it is impossible to create
perfect equality.
It is for this reason that differences
are justified in terms of relevant and
sufficient
reasons.
Aristotle
distinguished equal cases on the basis
of virtue. Some are good at
mathematics others at flute-playing.
The first deserve training in
mathematics and the latter deserve
good flutes. Caste system was justified
on the basis of different functional
capacities of different individuals. Some
contemporary egalitarians do so on the
basis of need. All people should receive
the same treatment. Anything else is
irrational.
The argument of needs or virtue or
merit is often linked to equality of
opportunity. A child may have talent
but the poverty of his parents may
prevent him from developing it. That is
why both nature and nurture are
important. Plato conceived of a society
20
in which equally meritorious children

are provided equal chance. Adequate
opportunities mean that all shall have
conditions necessary for the
development of their personality. It
implies that a daughter of a poor man,
if she has some special nature or talent,
will not be hampered by either the
status of her parents or for want of
money. It recognises the value of
freedom and autonomy of the freedom
to pursue ones own life plan. But we
must have opportunities to pursue it.
Early liberals postulated absolute
right to property. But it has been
criticised on the ground that it does not
take into account the need to distribute
the resources of society. Without such
distribution the weaker sections cannot
maximise their freedom. We have
realised, for instance, that protective
discrimination in favour of the
scheduled castes is necessary to make
them equal and free.
Liberals have emphasised political
equality. All should participate in the
political process as equals. For this
some argue in favour of direct
democracy. Others think that since it
is not possible in the modern states,
which are large in size, we should go in
for more and more decentralisation of
political power.
Marxists and Socialists, emphasise
economic equality. A few propertied
people should not decide the fate of all.
They criticise various kinds of
inequalities in society because all these
inequalities lead to concentration of
power in a few hands. Some socialists
plead for nationalisation of all wealth,
others think that it increases the hold

of bureaucracy. This bureaucracy
takes the place of the property owners.
Socialists, therefore, plead for
decentralisation of economic along with
political power.
In a truly egalitarian society all have
equal opportunities to satisfy their needs
and realise their potential unaffected by
political control, social discrimination
and economic deprivation.
LIBERTY
AND
EQUALITY
As one can see, the general concept of

liberty is inseparably tied to the
concept of equality. Liberty is the
condition of equality and vice-versa.
We can be free when we are
autonomous and self-determining and
we can be so only when we are equal.
And yet people like Lord Acton believed
them to be incompatible. In his lectures
on liberty he declared that in the course
of the French Revolution the passion
for equality made vain the hope of
freedom. But such a concept as that
of Acton is based on misunderstanding.
Liberty does not mean mere absence of
restraint. It is a more positive thing. It
means to be autonomous and selfdetermining. It implies that whatever
autonomy I have will not prevent others
from equal autonomy. It implies that
we are all equally entitled to realise our
capacities. Equality is the condition in
which this takes place to the maximum.
When we say that men have a right to
liberty, we imply equal liberty or equal
claims. It is for this reason that equality
is often identified with justice. The
EQUALITY
amount of liberty that one has is

only as much as is compatible with
equal amount for others. Let us
try to delineate the relationship
between liberty and equality in a few
specific areas:
(i) Political equality is best
guaranteed in a democracy in
which, as Bentham has pointed
out, each citizen is to count for
one. There have been cases when
democracies led to dictatorships.
That is why Tocquivelle thought
that combination of democracy
and aristocracy was the best
guarantee of freedom. But, on the
whole, the experience tells us that
democracy guarantees liberty and
equality more than any other form
of government.
(ii) Civil equality or equality before
law is the basic pre-condition of
freedom. It means that law will not
depend on whims or caprice or
partiality of those who rule. Law
should equally guarantee security
of person and property because
it is only then that we can
have conditions necessary for
enjoyment of our autonomy or
realisation of our excellence.
(iii) Economic equality is also
necessary. All laws and taxes
diminish ones liberty. But
sometimes they do so to increase
the general liberty. A socialistic
legislation which tries to check
inequalities in society far from
being a violation of liberty, is its
necessary condition. It aims at
21
more and more equality by

reducing the power of the
landlord or the capitalist to exploit
the peasant or the worker
respectively.
Consider a simple case of
monopoly. If the total electric supply
were controlled by one person, all
others will not be able to exercise their
freedom. The person, who controls
electricity, will be able to extract
whatever price is demanded. One could
at the most commit theft. But if the
ownership of electricity were equalised,
the only loser of liberty would be the
original monopolist. But the persons
loss would be insignificant compared
to the advantage of others. All laws,
which favour equality in proportion to
needs or capacity, therefore, do not
conflict with liberty.
What then is the relationship
between political equality, civil or legal
equality and economic equality. Ones
right to participate in civic affairs is
useless without freedom of speech and
expression. Political freedom is
meaningless without economic equality.
Economic power gives influence, power
and patronage may be used to destroy
political freedom of others. Even legal
equality is threatened in the absence of
economic equality. The poor cannot
engage a good lawyer or is not in a
position to fight a protracted legal battle
which may take years to decide.
Equality is thus necessary to secure
greater freedom to greater numbers.
Not all agree about the importance
of equality. Some critics point out that
the price to be paid for creation of
22
equality of opportunity is enormous.

Our attempt to distribute income may
lead to lower incentives. This will
adversely affect efficiency in production.
It may adversely affect family autonomy
because it will lead to increased
competition in the society. The ideal of
equality may sometimes conflict with
other social values. We might prevent
people by using their own talents or
their own chosen life plans. Equality as
defined by socialists may create the

problem of bureaucracy which
increases the gulf between labour and
the state. Most contemporary
equalitarians, however, defend some
sort of a mixture of democratic and
socialist equality. They argue for
decentralisation of political power along
with economic power as a necessary
condition for the creation of an
egalitarian society.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you understand by the term Equality?

Liberty is the condition of equality and vice-versa. Explain.
What do you understand by Equality before law?
Distinguish between Political Equality and Social Equality.
23
CHAPTER
4
Justice
WHAT
IS
JUSTICE?
HE word justice is derived from

the Latin word jungere (to bind, to
tie together) and jus (a bond or tie). As
a joining idea, justice combines people
together in a right or fair order of
relationships by distributing to each
person his or her due share of rights
and duties, rewards and punishments.
Justice does this by bringing about
adjustment between people and
between the principles of liberty,
equality
and
co-operation.
Traditionally, the principle of justice
was taken to be a principle which
balances or reconciles the principles
of liberty, equality, etc. Such a
balancing or reconciling is done with
reference to some ultimate value, e.g.
the value of the greatest happiness of
the greatest number or the value of
freedom and equality of all the members
of a society. In this context, it may be
noted that it is the balancing or
reconciling nature of justice, which is
represented in the figure of personified
justice. The figure holds a balance in
her hands; it is blindfolded to convey
the idea of the formal equality of the
subjects of law, i.e. an equality which
disregards dif ferences of gender,

religion, race, caste, wealth, etc.
We tend to judge a state on the basis
of the ends it seeks to serve. It is believed
that the laws of the state should secure
justice to its citizens. But justice is not
easy to explain. It is a complex concept.
It is sometimes used as a legal concept
and sometimes as a moral one. It may
be regarded to flow from laws of the
state. It may also be regarded as a
concept which aims at the good of the
whole society. From such notion of
justice we can identify three important
dichotomies in the concept of justice:
(i) Legal and moral justice; (ii) General
order and individual interest;
(iii) Conservative and social justice.
(i) Legal justice deals with principles
and procedures as laid down by
the system of law prevailing in a
state. The entire system is called
justice. Sometimes a distinction is
made between natural justice and
legal justice. The natural justice
deals with basic principles
whereas legal justice deals with
laws, customs, precedents
enacted or made by human
agencies. Moral justice, on the
24
other hand, deals with what is

right and what is wrong, what are
our rights and what are our duties
as human beings, etc. Legal
justice most of the time merely
protects and enforces these rights
and duties.
It does not mean that everything that
happens in a court of law is justice. It
may be legally right but can be criticised
from moral angle as injustice. If a
particular law fails to meet the
requirement of moral ideal of justice it
can be called injustice. Similarly, a
system of administration can be called
unjust, if it fails to meet the requirement
of justice as fairness.
(ii) Justice on the one hand, is for the
general order of society as a
whole, and on the other it protects
the individual. Criminal law is the
best example. Its purpose is not
merely to punish the criminal but
also to protect the fabric of society.
The individuals settle their claims
against one another in terms of
punishment or compensation for
the crime. But in the process, it is
backed by the general desire of
society to be protected from
harmful conduct.
This does not mean that social good
always takes precedence over the
individual good. The system of justice
is supposed to stand for the rights of
the individual. That the innocent should
not be punished is the basic principle
of all civilised systems of justice.
However, there may be exceptional
situations like war when the state may
force an individual to conform to its own
notion of justice. The case of preventive

detention without trial is an example of
this. Justice, therefore, is concerned
about the relationship between the
individuals and also relationship
between the individuals and the
groups.
(iii) Some people believe that justice
implies establishment of status
quo. It seeks to protect freedom,
person and property of the
individual. This is called
conservative justice. There is
another concept of justice which
is called social justice. It seeks to
reform society in accordance with
current idea of what is right or fair.
In our own times it seeks to bring
about
changes
in
land
distribution and property right. It
also
seeks
to
prevent
discrimination on grounds of race,
sex, caste or creed so that there is
equitable distribution of national
resources and wealth. All courts
tend to shift their emphasis from
time to time in order to suit the
requirements of the people. Our
own Supreme Court has been
taking a very conservative position
in property cases and very
reformative attitude in defence of
civil rights.
However, in all cases the idea of
justice is equated with equity and
fairness. Originally both these terms
implied equality. Indeed, the notion of
equality is in some sense central to any
notion of justice. Our own constitution
accepts equality before law as one of the
fundamentals of the system of justice.
JUSTICE
In the history of ideas, there are two

major concepts of justice:
(i) Numerical Concept of Justice
(ii) Geometrical Concept of Justice
(i)
Numerical Concept of Justice
It gives equal share to all. Jeremy

Bentham said, Everyone is to count for
one, nobody for more than one. It
means even unequal would be treated
as equal. The Greek city states took the
rule so far that many offices were filled
by lot. The holding of an office did not
call for any special knowledge or
qualification.
Modern
liberal
democracies are also based on this
principle.
(ii)
Geometrical Concept of
Justice
Plato and Aristotle favoured this

concept of justice. It is a concept of
proportionate equality. It means
equal share to equals and unequal to
unequals. It also means that
distribution of power and patronage
should be proportionate to the worth
or contribution of the individual. As
Aristotle put it, if flutes are to be
distributed, they should be distributed
only among those who have the
capacity for flute-playing. Similarly,
only those people should rule who are
capable of ruling. In this concept of
justice, benefits and responsibilities are
equated with the worth of recipient.
Numerical Justice is sometimes called
democratic justice and geometrical
justice is equated with aristocratic
justice.
25
In Platos Republic too justice is

related to the social order. His idea of
justice in the soul is analogous to
justice in the state. In the individual it
consists in keeping balance between
different elements. It consists in giving
due satisfaction to different elements
such as appetite (labour class), courage
(warrior class) and reason (ruling class).
Justice in the state, according to Plato,
consists in harmonious order between
different social classes. When each class
minds its own business and does the
job for which it is naturally fitted and
does not interfere with the job of others,
there is justice in the state. The ancient
Indian concept of Dharma also had
similar implications insofar as it
identified justice with harmony of social
relations in terms of the principle of my
station and its duties. Rights or
privileges of different individuals flowed
from this principle of Swadharma.
Most people, however, agree that
justice as equity or fairness does not
mean strict equality. It is largely a
matter of proportionate distribution in
terms of morally justifiable differences.
The state can discriminate on the basis
of some classification. This classification
can be in terms of sex or need or merit
or ability. Justice in this sense is
equality of circumstances. It means to
treat like cases alike and unlike cases
differently.
Our Constitution has accepted
equality before law as the basic
governing principle. But this does not
mean that the judge should treat all
alike. He will have to make a distinction
between the innocent and guilty, sheep
26
and wolf. The judge has a right to make

differences. The principle of fairness
requires two things.
(a) The judge should not be a
respecter of privileges. He should
not favour someone because
one is rich and powerful and
punish someone merely because
one is poor.
(b) The judge should discriminate
only in terms of relevant
differences. For example, in a
criminal court the relevant
differences will be ones guilt
or innocence. Similarly, for
appointment to teaching position
the relevant difference would be
ones capacity to teach.
All discrimination is not bad.
Sometimes law has to discriminate in
favour of some people to ensure larger
good of society. Rawls would think that
it is justice if the laws work in favour of
least advantaged. Most socialists and
Marxists would identify justice with
eradication of exploitation of the weak
or the working class. Some identify it
with equality of opportunity. Others
consider satisfaction of basic needs as
basic to any concept of justice. There
cannot be universal agreement about
the areas where discrimination is just.
But if the state is doing something for
the least advantaged or weaker section
of the society, it is obvious that it is
working for the betterment of the
people. This is known as protective
discrimination.
It implies discrimination in favour
of the weaker and the backward
sections of society. It also implies giving
preferential treatment to the weaker

section of the society. For example, in
our society there has been a widespread
practice of discriminating against the
scheduled castes. The state is now
entitled to discriminate in their favour.
Without this kind of discrimination
these people will not be able to lead a
human life. Whatever the state does to
secure them their rights is justice and
it is covered by the words equity and
fairness. The blacks in South Africa
were discriminated against. The state
system there was unjust because its
practices were morally unjustifiable.
There was no equality of any kind. The
strong discriminated against the weak.
The system thus worked in favour of
the most advantaged section in society.
The apartheid as it was practiced in
South Africa is morally an offence,
because it considers the powerful as
superior to the less powerful on account
of the racial lineage. In India the caste
system, is bad not because it separates
different groups but because it
postulates a hierarchy in which some
groups are considered superior to
others on account of heredity.
The
object
of
protective
discrimination, however, is not to give
special advantages to a particular
section but to raise them to a level where
they can take advantage of the principle
of equality of opportunity and compete
with other sections of society on equal
footing.
The state, therefore, tries to remove
imbalances in social, political and
economic life. It provides employment,
maternity benefits, insurance against
27
JUSTICE
sickness and old age security. It tries

to fulfil basic needs as also to eliminate
unjust inequalities. As per Laissez faire
the business of the state was only to
hold the ring for the competition in the
society. Everyone was left to oneself. If
the weak perished it did not matter. But,
the welfare state implies that everyone
has a right to fulfilment of ones basic
needs. Fulfilment of these basic needs
is a matter of justice.
The Communist view of justice goes
a step further. Marx declared from each
according to his ability, to each
according to his needs. It means that
the burden should be distributed
according to our capacity while benefits
be distributed according to our needs.
Merit does not come into the picture.
The basic presumption is that all of us
will spontaneously work for the
common good and we shall be content
to receive whatever the society gives us
in lieu of that work. It expects all to
contribute consciously to common
good and not for any private good and
be satisfied with the rewards given by
the society. As we have seen earlier, there
are problems with such a view. There
is some selfishness in all of us and this
view does not take that into account.
The welfare idea of distributive
justice has been put forward by a
combination of the socialists and the
liberals. It accepts that fulfilment of
basic needs of all is necessary. But once
these needs are fulfilled, the individuals
should be free to compete for greater
benefits. People will differ about what
could constitute the basic needs. Their
views will vary from country to country
and person to person. A refrigerator in

America is a basic need while in India
it may be considered a luxury when
millions live in dire poverty. But
whatever the difference, there is a
consensus that there should be a
fulfilment of basic needs of all before we
can allow fulfilment of superfluous
needs of some. In our country people
can obtain free medical aid in
government hospitals. But if they want
greater personal care and more
facilities, they are expected to pay for
it. The view is that protection against
disease is basic but not the extra
comforts of a private nursing home.
It is in this sense that social justice
becomes important. Plato and Aristotle
were perhaps right when they talked of
distribution in terms of needs, ability
and capacities. There are different
spheres of justice. Each sphere has its
own logic. Justice which is applicable
to the realm of friendship is different
from justice in the realm of state. We
choose a friend according to our own
liking. We are sometimes partial to
them. There is nothing wrong in that.
This is all the friendship is about. But
we cannot be partial in the sphere of
state. Duty to act impartially is built into
the notion of equality before law.
SOCIAL JUSTICE
IN
INDIA
At the time of Independence in 1947,

India was one of the poorest countries
in the world. It was largely a result of
economic stagnation under the British.
But another reason was the growth of
many patterns of inequalities based on
28
caste, class and religion. That is why we

accepted the goal of social justice from
the beginning. The Preamble of the
Indian Constitution proclaims that the
Democratic Republic of India stands
committed to securing to all its citizens
Justice, social, economic and political.
The state has provided for free
and compulsory education to
children. Since independence various
programmes have been launched which
aimed at tackling the problem of
poverty. For instance, the Maharashtra
Government had passed a legislation
guaranteeing employment at a
minimum rural wage there. The
Antyodaya scheme aims at the
upliftment of the poorest by helping
them to acquire income earning assets.
Various programmes like Farmer
Development Agency Programmes have
helped small farmers with holdings of
less than two hectares by giving them
special loans. The Five Year Plans have
evolved programmes of fulfilment of
minimum needs particularly for
backward areas as well as backward
people. The state has also taken
various steps to improve health and
sanitation, housing and education. The
state has tried to provide living wage,
good conditions of work and reasonable
standards of living to all workers. In
addition, some land reforms have been
implemented and efforts have been
made to contain growth of monopolies.
Special steps have been taken to

improve the economic condition and
social status of the scheduled castes
and scheduled tribes. Reservations
have been made in the services. The
state has positively discriminated in
their favour by giving them
preferential treatment in schools,
colleges and employment. Posts have
been reserved in favour of backward
classes also. The state has also made
special provisions for the upliftment
of the backward classes by reserving
27 per cent of government jobs
as recommended by Mandal
Commission. Awareness Generation
Programme (AGP) undertaken by the
government aims at improving the
conditions of women by creating
social awareness.
Inspite of all this India still
remains one of the poorest countries
in the world. Disparities between the
rich and the poor or in terms of caste,
class, wealth and power are glaring.
The legal process too is costly. Our
budget on welfare programmes is also
not adequate enough. In order to
secure effective social justice, we shall
have to work for speedy economic
growth so that there are no financial
constraints. We shall also have to
make a concerted effort to reduce
disparities by proper distribution of
wealth and removal of inequalities of
all kinds.
29
JUSTICE
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Explain the term Justice.

Distinguish between legal and moral justice.
Describe the two major concepts of justice in the context of history of ideas.
What is protective discrimination? Explain.
What measures have been taken in India to secure social justice to its
citizens?
30
CHAPTER
5
Human Rights
IGHTS are essential conditions for

good life. They help in the all
round development of people and their
personality. According to Harold Laski
Rights are those conditions of social
life without which no man can be his
best self. All societies and cultures
have in the past developed some
conception of rights and principles that
should be respected. Some of these
rights and principles are considered
universal in nature. The struggle for the
recognition of such rights and the
struggle against political, economic,
social and cultural oppression, against
injustice and inequalities, have been an
integral part of the history of all human
societies. The concept of rights which
every human being is entitled to enjoy
by virtue of being a member of the
human species have evolved through
history in the course of these struggles.
The origin of the concept of human
rights can be traced to the period of the
Renaissance and afterwards to period
of the Enlightenment. Humanism
(about which you will read in detail in
the latter part of this book) was the
keynote of these periods. Humanism
extolled man, stressed his essential
worth and dignity, expressed deep faith
in his limitless creative potential and

proclaimed freedom of the individual
and inalienable rights of the individual.
The two most important declarations,
which
inspired
revolutionary
movements the world over, were the
American Declaration of Independence
(1777) and the French Declaration of
the Rights of Man and Citizen (1789).
The main concern of these movements
was the ending of despotic rules,
establishment of democratic politics
and the protection of liberties of the
individual. A new element to the
evolving concept of human rights was
added by the socialist movement, which
emerged in the nineteenth century. It
stressed on abolition of class rule and
the establishment of social and
economic equality.
The contemporary concept of
human rights and its universal nature
and recognition is thus based on the
rich heritage of the past, and should be
seen in the specific historical context of
the twentieth century. The history of
almost the half of the 20th century is
characterized by the prevalence of
colonial rule in a large part of the
world. The rise of authoritarian
governments in many countries and the
31
HUMAN RIGHTS
establishment of fascist, barbarous and

aggressive regimes in some of the
countries could be seen in this era.
Besides, the rise of national liberation
movements in the colonies and
movements of democracy and social
progress in various countries provided
a framework for the popularisation of
the theory of Human Rights in the
entire world.
This period was also a witness to
the most devastating wars in human
history. It was during the closing years
of the Second World War that the
conceptualisation and articulation of
human rights in its proper perspective
took place. The most significant feature
of the new conceptualisation was its
universality. It was reflected in various
declaration of the aims proclaimed by
countries allied against fascism and
militarism. It would be appropriate if
we endeavour to know the meaning of
the concept human rights.
MEANING
OF
HUMAN RIGHTS
Like various other concepts of Political

Science the term Human Rights has
been defined and understood in
different ways. But in general and in the
ultimate analysis, human rights revolve
primarily around the basic theme of
survival and well-being of human
beings and respect for human dignity
and humanity. Human rights are those
minimal rights, which every individual
must enjoy by virtue of being a member
of the human society irrespective of any
other consideration. Conceptually,
the term Human Rights has two
meanings. First, human rights are those

inherent and inalienable rights, which
are due to a person simply because of
being human. These are moral rights
which are derived from humanness of
every human being and they aim at
ensuring their dignity. Second, human
rights are those rights that pertain to
legal rights. Legal rights are established
according to the law making processes
of societies, both national and
international. In the modern world
scenario both the moral and the legal
aspects of rights relating to life, liberty,
equality and dignity of the individual
represent the core of Human Rights.
Human Rights, common to all
without discrimination, has found
propagation in almost all societies. The
principle of equality of the human race
can be found in virtually every culture,
civilisation, religion and philosophical
tradition. Yet, there has always been
some justification offered by states and
societies for violation of human dignity
and discrimination between the rights
of the people on various grounds. The
conflict between the concept of having
rights from nature, and the state
denying it led to the theory of legal
rights. This means rights, to be secure,
must be recognised by the state and
guaranteed preferably through the
Constitution. It is a matter of concern,
that despite legal rights, various
regimes have continued suppressing
and coercing their citizens, by denying
them the proclaimed equality and
dignified human life. As such, there had
been a growing belief that governments
alone cannot be trusted to safeguard
32
the rights of people. It was felt that these

rights require both national and
international guarantee. The major
pressure for the internationalisation of
human rights gained momentum after
the Second World War. During and
preceding the War, totalitarian regimes
grossly violated human rights in their
own territories as well as in their
occupied territories. These totalitarian
regimes were also responsible for the
elimination of entire groups of people
because of their race, religion or
nationality. The experience of the War
resulted in a widespread conviction that
effective international protection of
human rights was an urgent need of the
time to secure international peace and
progress. This conviction was
subsequently reflected in and reinforced
by the Charter of the United Nations.
THE UNIVERSAL DECLARATION

HUMAN RIGHTS
OF
The United Nations Charter reaffirms

faith in fundamental human rights, in
the dignity and worth of human beings,
in the equal rights of men and women
and of nations large and small. The
Charter makes repeated references to
human rights and fundamental
freedoms. Article 1 of the Charter states
that one of the aims of the United
Nations is to achieve international cooperation in promoting and
encouraging respect for human rights
and fundamental freedoms for all
without any distinction relating to race,
sex, language or religion.
To define the contents of Human Rights,

the UN in 1945 itself, created a United
National Commission on Human
Rights. Its main task was to draw an
International Bill of Human Rights,
defining the rights and freedoms
referred to in the Charter. The
Commission came out with a Universal
Declaration of Human Rights. On 10
December 1948 the General Assembly
of the United Nations unanimously
adopted the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights as a common standard
of achievement for all peoples and all
nations. It is because of this adoption
that 10 December is celebrated as
Human Rights Day. Article 1 of the
Universal Declaration lays down the
philosophy of Human Rights. It states,
All human beings are born free and
equal in dignity and rights. They are
endowed with reason and conscience
and should act towards one another in
a spirit of brotherhood. The article thus
defines the basic assumption as:
(1) That the right to liberty and
equality is mans birthright and
cannot be alienated; and
(2) That because man is a rational
and moral being, is different from
other creatures on earth and,
therefore, entitled to certain rights
and freedoms which other
creatures do not enjoy.
The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights comprising a Preamble and 30
Articles defines certain rights which
should be available to all without any
distinction of race, religion, nation,
gender, and colour.
HUMAN RIGHTS
These Human Rights may be

classified into three categories. The first
generation rights are those that are
concerned mainly with the civil and
political rights of the individual. They
include the rights to life, liberty,
security of person, freedom from torture
and slavery, and political participation.
Besides, the right to property, marriage
and the fundamental freedoms
of opinion, expression, thought,
conscience and religion, freedom of
association and assembly do also form
a part and parcel of the basic rights of
the first generation. The second
generation rights are rights which can
be termed as security-oriented rights;
these rights provide social, economic
and cultural security. These rightssocial, economic and cultural are more
positive in nature in that they make it
the duty of the state to ensure that these
rights are realised. The Universal
Declaration of Human Rights reflects
the consensus on the principles which
form the basis of the first and second
generation rights.
The third generation of human
rights are of relatively recent origin.
They have evolved in response to
various new concerns over which
international consensus has emerged
in recent years. These include
environmental,
cultural
and
developmental rights. They are
concerned with rights of groups and
peoples rather than of individuals and
include such rights as the right to selfdetermination and the right to
development. The developing countries
33
have played a leading role in bringing

about international consensus on
these rights.
Since the adoption of the Universal
Declaration, there have been many
controversies regarding the question
which rights are more important and
which are less. The representatives of
some states had been asserting that civil
and political rights are more important
than economic, social and cultural
rights. They also had serious
reservations about acknowledging the
right to development which, if effectively
implemented, would affect the existing
pattern of economic and political power
in the world. Other countries stressed
the importance of economic, social and
cultural rights and the right to
development. These controversies, in
principle, can be said to have been
resolved when all human rights were
recognised to be indivisible. The
Vienna Declaration, issued after a
conference in which representatives of
171 countries and hundreds of
non- governmental organisations
participated, unambiguously affirmed
that All human rights are universal,
indivisible, interdependent and
interrelated. It has also been affirmed
that democracy is the sole guarantor of
individual rights civil, political,
economic, social and cultural and
collective rights within states and within
the community of states.
The Universal Declaration, together
with the Charter, served as an
inspiration and means for the millions
of people, particularly the oppressed
34
and under the colonial rule. The

Declaration, however, was not a legally
binding document. To give legal
sanction to human rights the General
Assembly on 16 December 1966
adopted two Covenants: the
International Covenant on Economic,
Social and Cultural Rights, and the
International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. The Covenants are
legally binding treaties. Any state may
or may not become party to these. Upon
agreeing to become parties to the
Covenants, states accept procedures for
the implementation of articles, including
the submission of reports on their
compliance, in accordance with the
provisions of the Covenants. Apart from
Universal Declaration on Human Rights
and two Covenants there are also a large
number of other declarations,
recommendations and conventions
adopted by the General Assembly. As
has already been mentioned,
declarations and recommendations
usually apply to all the members of the
United Nations but do not have the same
legal force as the conventions, which are
binding upon the states that have
become parties to them.
Importance of Declaration, however,
is that it states a common
understanding of all members of the
human family and constitutes an
obligation for the members of the
international community, This also
places human rights in a system of
international cooperation. This implies
that national borders put no limit to
human rights; that by their very nature,
human rights represent trans-
boundary values. Also international

cooperation entails an obligation on the
part of states to fulfil in good faith the
undertakings they have assumed on the
basis of the Charter of the United Nations
and Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. It is in this context that in the
present world Human Rights have
become an important international
issue. Their violation is considered not
just an internal matter of a state, but it
concerns the entire international
community. There is also a view that
some big powers are misusing this
concept of international concern and are
interfering in the affairs of other countries
in the name of protection of human
rights; this they are doing primarily to
fulfil their own vested national interests.
Therefore, Human Rights issue has
become a subject of serious debate.
Many countries are signatories to the
Covenants and Conventions on human
rights, which denotes that they have
undertaken a pledge to implement
them. Therefore, it is responsibility of the
governments to protect and promote all
these rights. However, it is necessary to
remember the distinction between
human rights as articulated in
international declarations and
conventions, and those rights which are
laid down by the law of the country. The
latter can be enforced, if necessary,
through the intervention of the courts.
The record of the past half a century,
since the adoption of the UN Charter, in
the implementation of human rights has
been dismal. Despite the fact that the
necessity of building an understanding
and concern for making human rights
a reality had never been greater.
35
HUMAN RIGHTS
Most of the important democratic

systems, including India, have
realised the importance of human
rights for its people and have either
incorporated
them
in
their
constitutions, or have accepted them
through Declarations.
India has played a predominant

role in this respect. The framers of the
Indian Constitution adhered to the
principle of human equality and
dignity and made the Fundamental
Rights (Part III of the Constitution)
justiciable.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Define Human Rights.

Explain the meaning of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Describe the significance of Human Rights.
Which circumstances led to the Declaration of Human Rights?
When is Human Rights Day celebrated and Why?
36
CHAPTER
6
Dharma
HARMA is primarily an Indian

concept. Its root goes far back into
the Ancient Indian philosophy and
thought. Our ancient seers realised its
importance and emphasised that
human life should be governed by the
precepts of Dharma.
WHAT
IS
DHARMA?
But, then a question arises. What is

Dhar ma and what are its basic
elements?
The word Dharma is derived from
the Sanskrit word-root dhr that means
to adopt, to support or to sustain.
In simple language it means the
principles of right. It refers to the moral
concerns of human beings. In common
parlance, it is often associated with
religion or spirituality. But Dharma is
not spirituality alone. To stick to
whatever course of duties we have
decided to follow in life is dharma. It
cannot be identified with any particular
religion. The Dharmasatras have given
the definition of Dharma on the basis
of the Vedic tradition. According to this
tradition, the Dharma of each person
is determined by the position one
occupies in the societal system of
varnas and asramas. According to

Mimamsakas, Dharma is accepted as
a set of prescriptions and prohibitions.
The Buddhist literature highlights it as
the basic feature of conscience.
THE CONCEPT OF DHARMA IN

ANCIENT INDIAN LITERATURE
The concept of Dharma is widely
discussed in the Santi and Anusan
Parvas of the Mahabharata. The view
propounded here is a combination
of theoretical and practical
considerations. The basic view of
Dharma is that it subscribes to a
moral action. The concept lays stress
upon the individuals nature and
temperament. Dhar ma for one
consists in the realisation of ones
potential in the context of the place one
occupies in society. A person is
supposed to take responsibility for
ones motives and intentions. It is
assumed that one cannot be held
accountable for the consequences of
ones actions. But since man has soul,
and ability to understand his
environment, and relate himself to it,
his motives and intentions are crucial
to moral life.
DHARMA
In Gita, while exhorting Arjuna to

act according to his Dharma, Krishna
asks him to conquer his passion and
impulses as determined by his nature
and temperament, and follow his duty
(swadharma) in a spirit of equanimity.
Man does not know the working of fate.
He cannot also ensure that the results
of his actions will be good always. But
he is totally autonomous insofar as his
motives and reasoning are concerned.
This autonomy imposes on him an
obligation to work for society. The text
enjoins the central meaning of the
concept of Dharma in terms of duty to
work for others. The totality of the
concept is embodied in Krishnas idea
of nishkama karma.
How then we decide the right course
of action. It is suggested that first follow
the customs of morality as embodied
in the Vedas, Smriti and other
traditional sources of moral life.
Dhar ma covers a wide range of
meaning. The Manu Samhita discusses
various characteristics of dharma. In
usage, the term dharma refers not only
to qualities and natural characteristics
of things; it also refers to the highest
virtue and spiritual efforts. It also talks
about what one should or should not
do. Secondly, dharma not only refers
to civil, religious and spiritual matters,
it also talks about general behaviour of
individuals, as personal habits like
cleanliness, sanitation and civic
consciousness, good behaviour,
courteous and polite ways of conduct,
and even subjects of common sense.
Thirdly, dharma can be understood
in different ways to different classes in
37
society and at different stages of life and

status. It could be different for men and
women. It is indeed a network of
diversified but interrelated duties. It
has to be defined in each case by the
individual himself. Fourthly, while
referring to the areas and operations of
Dharma as ordained in the Vedas and
Smritis concerning four classes
(chaturvarna), the law-giver Manu and
other exponents of Hindu philosophy
have given a leading place to the
accepted conducts which were handed
down from generations to generations
by the well-meaning persons of the
community. An administrator has to
see that local customs are honourably
maintained and given proper
safeguards. Fifthly, we should not only
talk about Dharma in the context of
class or status and situation, we should
also understand and implement it in
the context of time and age. Lastly, the
most important aspect of Dharma is
the inclusion of the spiritual purpose
of life within its ambit. Every creation
has a spiritual beginning as well as end.
The Dharma is related to four ends of
life. These are: Dharma, arth, kama
and moksha. Dhar ma is the
controlling factor, arth and kama are
subservient to it and yet, it cannot be
divorced from pleasure or prosperity.
Dhar ma is superior because it
regulates all our activities in the interest
of all. It is a positive concept; it is an
enunciation of the highest possible
ideal; it pertains to self-realisation and
soul-emancipation.
Whenever there is a contradiction of
different principles, the basic principle
38
has to be welfare of all (upkar). The

welfare of the larger group must take
precedence over the welfare of a smaller
group. The good of the society is to be
preferred to the good of the individual.
The Mahabharata goes on to say that
while an individual can be sacrificed for
the sake of the village, village for the
sake of the state, the whole world may
be abandoned for the sake of the soul.
In the ultimate analysis, except two
virtues, truth (satya) and non-violence
(ahimsa), the practice of all other
virtues is dependent on a complex set
of circumstances which includes
individual nature and temperament as
well as the status which one occupies
in the society. Indeed, the oral life is
not made up of a straight timber.
Krishna lays down two general
principles in case of doubt. First, one
must strive to follow the example of
great men in similar situations in the
past. Second, one must subordinate
personal interest to the welfare of
society (loksamgraha). While Manu
summed up the concept of dharma in
one word upkar.
DHARMA, STATE, LAW

SOCIETY
AND
The above description of Dharma

makes it amply clear that although the
concept of Dharma is not directly
related to either law or to the state, yet
it has its influence on both.
You have already learnt about
secular state in your earlier class. By
secular state we mean that the state has
no religion of its own. It gives protection
to all its citizens irrespective of their

religion, caste or creed. The Indian
Constitution, as you know, is emphatic
on this point. The right to religious
freedom and equality before law are
included in the chapter on
Fundamental Rights.
However, one thing is of paramount
importance to know that behind a
secular state, there must be a secular
society to sustain it. This means that
the members of the society should not
only refrain from hurting the
sentiments of fellow members of their
religions, but also should respect their
feelings. Secularism is, thus a positive
concept. India has a long tradition of
tolerance and living in harmony with
their fellow-members.
Against the above backdrop
dharma cannot exactly be translated as
the English word religion. In our ancient
tradition and culture Dharma, being a
composite word, meant four things
together. It meant (1) righteousness,
(2) duty, (3) lawfulness, and (4) rightful
claims.
In the Western tradition the essence
of Dharma is captured by the motto My
station and its duties. It means that
every one should discharge the
functions of his station dutifully. In
Indian tradition this is the philosophy
of four classes (chaturvarna). For Plato,
justice in an ideal state means division
of labour and specialisation of
functions among the three classes of
society. To him, an ideal state/society
is comprised of three classes not on the
basis of birth, but on the basis of
inherent qualities of individuals. These
39
DHARMA
qualities are desire, valour (bravery),

and reason. Those in whom desire
predominates they produce things for
the entire community; in whom valour
predominates, they protect the state/
society, and in whom reason
predominates they become the
Philosopher-Rulers or PhilosopherKing. Thus, justice is to perform the
duty of ones class faithfully without
interfering in the functions of other
classes, and to specialise in the function
of his class (station).
Gandhi identified it with
compassion for fellow human beings
in distress. (You will study Gandhian
views in one of the last chapters.) The
concept of Dharma, however, is vague.
For example, a liberal might think that
right to property is necessary. A
communist might argue against this.
The principle of ahimsa is valuable. No
one would dispute the importance of
the adage ahimsa paramo Dharma
but in actual practice it is admitted
that there is always a choice between

the more or the less. The sage
Markandeya thus declared that the
ways of the righteous are subtle,
diverse and infinite. When life or
property or the moral principles
themselves are at stake, one may
deviate from the basic position.
However, in most cases the ground on
which deviation is permitted is the
welfare of all.
The concept of Dharma, thus, is too
wide, and it is too idealistic. Despite its
idealism, it is valuable in so far as it
emphasises the need for a moral order,
which applies both to the states and to
the individuals. Just as individuals are
bound by moral rules, the states too
must conform to moral principles.
Some ancient texts point out that a king
who discards dhar ma loses both
righteousness and merit. To sum up,
the philosophy of dharma affirms life
and enjoins us to look at it in terms of
all its complexities.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Explain the importance of Dharma in our social, political and civic life.
Explain the ancient Indian concept of Dharma.
Do you agree with the statement that the concept of Dharma is vague and
idealistic? Explain with illustrations.
Explain Dharma as highest ethical, social and civic virtues.
Write short notes on :
(i) Secularism ;
(ii) My station and its duties ;
(iii) Chaturvarna.
6.
Swadharma and Students, write an essay.
UNIT II
STATE
AND THE
CITIZEN
CHAPTER
7
Rights and Duties:
Meaning and Relationship
WHAT
ARE
RIGHTS?
HE Rights of the citizens are

necessary for the creation of a better
life for them. They provide external
development of individual personality.
The state exists for the enrichment of
human personality. It is not an all
embracing Leviathan, but just a
necessary contrivance for human
development. Some normative
philosophers would assert that if it is
to be a state in the real sense of the term,
it must grant certain minimum rights.
Indeed, rights are in the nature of
claims. But all claims are not rights
because rights are only those claims,
which are recognised as such by society
and enforced by the state. Without such
a recognition rights are empty claims.
Society is organic in character and an
individual obviously cannot have any
right apart from what the society
concedes. An individual can realise the
aims of his existence only through the
medium of society of which he is an
integral part. A selfish claim cannot,
therefore, be considered a right. To be

a right, it must aim at the good of
society, and it must be recognised as
such by the general opinion of the
society. If rights were not dependent on
recognition by society, one would be
claiming anything, depending upon
ones convenience. In the midst of
conflicting claims, it would be difficult
to determine their relative validity.
Obviously, society alone, subject to
certain limitations, is competent to
pronounce upon their relative validity.
Sometimes society may make mistakes
but its overall wisdom has to be trusted
in cases of the conflict of rights.
Therefore, in any state, the content of
rights has to be determined according
to the general opinion or consensus of
the society; We might try to change them
from time to time in order to make them
more humane, but ultimately it is the
society which determines the character
and the content or our right.
However, recognition by society is
to be distinguished from recognition by
the state. Rights are not always
creatures of law as Hobbes and
44
Bentham believed. Since rights are the

development of individual personality,
these are those principles from which
the state laws derive their own validity.
A state is to be judged by the conditions
it is able to create for its citizens for their
development; and those conditions are
called Rights. A purely legalistic theory
of rights, making it creature of the will
of the state, as Laski points out, has
nothing to contribute to the
development of political philosophy. He
says: It merely tells us what in fact the
character of the state is. It will not tell
us whether rights recognised need
recognition. Rights are those claims
without which the individual cannot
realise the purpose of his existence.
Since the state exists to secure human
happiness, it can only succeed by
recognising and granting to its citizens
such rights as are demanded by them
as necessary to their development.
Sometimes there might be a conflict
between the rights recognised by the
state and the rights approved by
society. A state might try to protect
certain privileges, as the ancient regime,
for instance, did in France before 1789,
which ultimately kindled the flames of
the French Revolution. In those
circumstances the advocates of the
ideal rights would try to subvert the
foundations of the state in order to
replace it by a new one, which would
recognise the ideal claims of individuals,
as embodied in the social will.
Locke had advocated the theory of
natural rights, which people enjoyed in
the state of nature. In the state of nature,
before the emergence of civil society, the

law of nature, it is claimed, established
a system of reciprocal claims and
obligations in the form of natural rights
and duties. The state of nature was
conceived by him to be a vast network
of reciprocal claims and duties. The
rights which man enjoyed in the state
of nature, according to Locke, were
rights permanent and indefeasible; the
most important rights being the right
to life, liberty and property. But Locke
as well as Hobbes never succeeded in
delineating precisely the contents of
what is nature. Sometimes the word
natural is identified in their theory with
what is inherent in the spontaneous
search of man for security or sheer
acquisitiveness, or even, for means to
satisfy his aggressive instinct.
Sometimes, it is identified with
something which perfect reason would
prompt us to do. Indeed, the doctrine
of natural rights as rights enjoyed by
men in the childhood of the human race
is a myth. It is based on the false
assumption that we can have rights and
duties independently of society. Burke
very eloquently pointed out that we
couldnt enjoy the rights of civil and
uncivil state at the same time. The more
perfect the natural rights are in the
abstract, the more difficult it is to
recognise them in practice.
The rights are the products of social
circumstances. They cannot be
independent of society. Even if they are
natural they are natural in the sense
that they represent the ends we ought
to pursue. They are natural in the sense
that they are the conditions which
RIGHTS AND DUTIES : MEANING AND RELATIONSHIP
human beings need to realise

themselves. On the one hand, they are
claims of the individual without which
one cannot realise ones personality;
and on the other hand, they are
concessions granted by the society to
enable human beings to realise their
claims. It is the society, which
recognises and gives validity to our
claims. Rights have a relevance and
value when they contribute at the same
time to the attainment of social good.
These are the media through which an
individual can promote the good of
society as his own good. Rights are the
conditions of our capacity to participate
in the social good. On the other hand,
the society can develop only on the
recognition by its members of the claims
of each other as contributory to the
good of society. Such mutual
recognition is the foundation of rights.
Thus, rights are the conditions of
the welfare of an individual as a member
of the society. These are those
conditions of social life without which
no one can seek the identity of ones
own interest with the interest of society.
The state only enforces these conditions.
It is the purpose of the state to create
conditions for the general happiness of
the individuals and, therefore, if a state
fails to maintain rights in the sense of
conditions necessary for individuals
development, it forfeits its claims to our
allegiance. No doubt, it is difficult to
define common good. It might in
practice mean either the greatest good
of the greatest number, or of majority
interest, or what government thinks to
be the common good of society.
45
However, which claim is to be recognised

as a right is a practical problem. The
contents of rights are very largely
dependent upon the customs and ethos
of society at a particular time and place.
No list of absolute rights, which are
universally applicable, can be
formulated. Any such attempt would
be tantamount to raising the values of
ones own age to the level of absolute
truth. Such a hypothetical concept of
rights has very little relevance for a
theory seeking to lay down general
principles. All attempts to frame a list
of ideal rights in the past have been
guilty of what is known in technical
language as the reification of
conception, namely of raising ones
particular values to the level of general
or universal values. Whether it was an
attempt of Locke or of Thomas Paine,
each was installing his own preferences
as absolute principles. Every age and
every society needs to define afresh for
itself as to what particular rights it is
going to have, in order that they might
be made secure and put beyond the
pale of doubt. Locke considered right
to property as natural. We no longer do
so because circumstances have
changed.
Thus, it must be clearly recognised
that rights are not absolute in character.
The welfare of the individuals as
members of society lies in a happy
compromise between their rights as
individuals and the interest of society
to which they belong. A list of rights
must acknowledge the fact that there
cannot be such a thing as absolute or
uncontrolled rights, for that would lead
46
to anarchy and chaos in society. My

right is limited by rights of my fellow
human beings. Rights have to be limited
by the social control in order to be
effectively possessed. In USA , there was
no limitation imposed upon any of the
fundamental rights added to the
Constitution by the first-ten
amendments of the Constitution. But
the inefficacy of this arrangement in
maintaining public order or for the
prevention of corruption and of
incitement to crime was soon realised.
The Supreme Court of the USA which
is charged with the responsibility to
interpret the Constitution, had soon to
invent the doctrine of implied power
under which the inherent power of the
state as a co-ordinating agency
imposing restrictions (on the
fundamental rights) necessary to
protect the common good was
recognised. Our Constitution, too,
recognises limitations on rights.
KINDS
OF
RIGHTS
Coming to the particular rights which

are necessary for our own age, the first
right, a citizen needs is the right to
personal liberty as embodied in the
notion of rule of law. Our Constitution
assumes that no one should be
deprived of his personal liberty except
according to the procedure established
by law. The right to personal liberty
does not mean absolute freedom to do
anything. A criminal who is always
obsessed by anti-social impulses
cannot claim the right to personal
liberty. The right to personal liberty
means that we should be punished only

for a breach of a definite law and only
in a definite manner after a fair trial.
The detention of persons without a
fair trial, in civilised societies, is the very
negation of the rights of individuals. In
this context, the preventive detention in
our Constitution is one such provision.
However, in times of grave national
emergencies or wars, the case is
different. No state can allow its security
to be threatened.
The second important right is the
right to equality. Equality has been
used here in two senses, viz. (1) equality
of opportunity, and (2) equality before
law and equal protection of laws. Right
to equality does not mean, as we have
already seen earlier, perfect equality.
Perfect equality is not only impractical
but is also not desirable. Equality is only
a system of proportions. It means that
every one in society would have at least
the minimum necessities for an
honourable existence before some one
can have superfluous wealth. Every
state must seek to assure this basic
minimum to all its citizens irrespective
of the class or status. To be citizens in
any real sense of the term, we must be
free from fear of starvation or
unemployment.
Equality before law means the
absence of special privileges, and equal
subjugation of all classes, viz., weak as
well as strong, according to the
procedure established by law and
administered by the ordinary courts of
the land. Equality before law means
equality of treatment in equal
circumstances. It means like should be
treated alike. However, the state can

make some classifications; the example
is laws relating to reservations for the
Scheduled Castes and Tribes. Such
classifications must be reasonable and
ought to be justified on no other ground
but that it would lead to the public
good. If a law deals with the members
of only one well-defined class for the
sake of the common good, it is
supported to be upholding the
principle of equality.
Third important right, which
must be guaranteed to the citizens, is
the right to freedom of speech and
expression. This would enable people
to ventilate their grievances and
organise public opinion on issues of
public concern. Conversely, it would
also enable the rulers to know the mind
of the people. John Stuart Mill gave the
classic argument in favour of the
freedom of speech and expression
when he asserted that even the whole
mankind has no right to silence a single
dissenter, for who knows that he might
be in the right and all others in the
wrong. Human history is replete with
such examples when a single dissenter
was ultimately proved to be in the right
and others in the wrong. The cases of
Socrates, Christ and Galileo would
forever remain reminders to us that the
restrictions on our freedom of speech
and expression, on the ground that it
might lead to blasphemy, or prove
contrary to the well-being of society, can
be negation of individuals freedom.
Some thinkers opine that freedom
of speech and expression could not be
denied even during a war. An executive
47
which has a free hand in muzzling the

freedom of speech in times of war or
grave national emergencies is more
often than not, likely to abuse his
powers. Germany and Italy before the
Second World War encountered such
experiences and were destroyed in the
process. However, there are limitations
to the extent to which a government
would allow this right to be exercised
in actual practice. No government
would allow a part of its population to
carry out subversive propaganda. It
could not obviously allow anybody to
go and tell the army not to fight while
the war is on. If it does so, it would cease
to be a government. Similarly, an
attempt to plead for a civil war or the
disintegration of the country cannot be
tolerated by any government. The first
duty of the state is to ensure its own
integrity. If it does not survive, how will
the right to freedom of speech and
expression survive? Moreover, freedom
of speech and expression does not mean
right to make libellous charges or to
excite the public to commit crime. If the
right is thus abused, everyone affected
has a right to have a suitable remedy.
Fourth important right is the right
to work and be paid adequate wages.
Citizens have a right to employment and
it is the responsibility of the state to
provide suitable work to them. The
right to work does not mean the right
to do a particular work. It only means
some gainful work in society by which
one can sustain and nurture ones own
self and dependants. It is, therefore, said
that the state must pay compensation
if a person is unemployed during a
48
certain period of time depending upon

the ability of the person concerned. The
right to be paid adequate wages is a
necessary corollary of the right to work.
This right, however, does not imply
equality of income. It only means
conformity to the general principles of
equality. The right to work is a claim
on the part of the individuals to occupy
a definite place in society and perform
its attendant duties.
Fifth important right of the citizen
is the right to health care. It does not
mean that a state can make us free from
disease. Such a freedom will ultimately
depend on our own care of our health.
If a man struck with paralysis refuses
to take advantages of the facilities
provided by the state, the state is not
held responsible for his health care. The
right to health means that anybody who
is interested in keeping fit, as most of
us are, shall not be hampered for want
of proper facilities. This means that it is
the responsibility of the state to ensure
that adequate medical treatment is
available to all. A state can do so by
ensuring that the poor patients are not
neglected or inefficiently treated.
Moreover, the state ought to provide
proper safeguards against the spread
of contagious disease. This could be
done state through the schemes of
vaccination, inoculation, etc.
Right to education is another
important
right
for
human
development. Citizens must be
provided with proper means by which
they can follow public debates with
interest and participate intelligently in
the social, political and cultural
processes of then country. But again,
the right to education does not mean

equal education for all. Obviously
people differ in their capacities and
aptitudes and, therefore, all of them are
not equally fit to get the same type of
education. The right to education also
does not mean that everyone in society
should be able to get university
education unless he is fit to do so. To
teach the unfit and reluctant members
of society would be a waste of human
resources. What is necessary is that
everyone in society should have, a
certain minimum of education which is
necessary for him to be a citizen in a
meaningful sense and be able to
perform necessary functions in society.
Among other rights, which need
enumeration, are the right to
participate in the affairs of the state,
including the right to vote and the
right to contest elections, and to
form associations and to have
adequate hours of rest and leisure.
All these rights are necessary to
make the state a real political
community. They are necessary to
make us active citizens. However, the
extent to which these rights are
recognised will vary with the nature of
the state. In fact, the state often adjusts
the various rights in terms of their
priority according to nature and the
problems of the society in which it has
to operate. In a society in which poverty
is writ large, economic rights will get
precedence over political rights; and in
a economically developed society a need
would be felt for a greater stress on
political rights. The mounting pressure
for liberalisation of political life in some
of the economically developed

communist countries such as the east
USSR is an eloquent testimony to the
fact that no society can permanently
remain without recognising some of the
political rights in order to have a sound
social organisation.
Indeed what is important is not the
form of the Government but its spirit
and its achievements, the extent of
happiness which a particular
government is able to infuse into the life
of its citizens and the confidence, which
it is able to generate in its purposes.
People may have a right to vote and yet
the state can be the most ill-governed.
If a particular state gives to its citizens
at least the rights, which have been
described above, and implements them
sincerely, all other rights will
automatically follow.
So long as state is able to make its
people happy, it does not matter much
whether its citizens formally enjoy
rights or not in the form of a bill of rights.
There are so many instances of people
having been guaranteed rights in the
constitution of their country in the form
of a bill of rights and yet, those rights
remained unfulfilled in practice.
Embodiment in the constitution might
give rights greater sanctity but would
not ensure their realisation. Hitler and
Mussolini became dictators in their
respective countries inspite of
democratic constitutions that their
countries had. The pre- condition for the
true realisation of rights is enlightened
public opinion and educated people.
Here comes the question of political
obligation. Should the people obey even
49
an unlawful authority? In fact, it is to

tackle autocratic and dictatorial
power that the right to disobey an
unlawful authority is sometimes
regarded as the most fundamental
and inherent right of the people.
This right cannot be taken away even
by the best of the governments. It
constitutes the ultimate safeguard in
the hands of the people. The welfare of
a state is ultimately built upon the
welfare of society and its members. The
interests of the two are inseparably
connected with each other. Our duty
to the state is after all a duty to the
state, which is able to maintain and
protect our lives and ensure
reasonable conditions of our
development. Locke argued that the
state is a trust and, therefore, its
purpose is to ensure safeguard and of
the life, liberty and property of the
people. If it fails to perform those
functions for which the power has been
granted to it or fails to attain those
ends, which are necessary for the
realisation of general happiness, it
forfeits its claim to general obedience.
In such circumstances, it may become
an obligation for the citizens to resist
the authority of the state in order to
change and replace it by a better type
of government. No state can be sure of
a healthy continuance unless this right
is recognised by all its members as
a sacred right. Undoubtedly, there
are risks involved in recognising
such a right to the society and in
order that these risks are avoided
and mitigated as far as possible, it is
up to the state to take necessary
precautions against it.
50
RELATIONSHIP
AND DUTIES
BETWEEN
RIGHTS
It must be emphasised, however, that

rights have corresponding duties as
well as obligations. The two are
correlated. Rights and duties of
citizens are two sides of the same coin.
The relationship between them is two
fold. Firstly, society functions on the
principles of reciprocity. My rights
involve a duty, on the part of others
to respect my rights and also a duty
on my part to respect the similar rights
of others. Society works on the
principle of, he who takes gives and
he who gives takes. Indeed, my right
is a part and parcel of the good of
other members of society and,
therefore, the degree of my enjoyment
of a particular right has to be
conceived in terms of the similar
claims of other citizens. My right is
integrally related to the rights of my
fellow human beings. The one cannot
exist without the other. A society in
which people care less for their own
duties and more for their rights,
sooner or later, disintegrates. In their
frantic effort for the vindication of their
own rights at the expense of fellow
human beings, society will be reduced
to the status of a jungle in which
ultimately the law of might will
prevail. In order that everyone enjoys
his or her rights it is necessary that
we recognise our obligations towards
others. We cannot say that we shall
be free while others will be bound with
their obligations. Such a position is
quite untenable and inhuman.
Secondly, the logic of rights and

duties also implies that if we have
certain claims against the state, it is also
our responsibility to contribute
something towards its enrichment by
doing a socially useful work. The state
creates those conditions in which we
can realise ourselves. In return for this,
it is our duty to take advantage of these
conditions and give our best to it. The
best way in which we can contribute to
the social stock is by following duties
towards our nation, in recognising
our social responsibilities and
unscrupulously respecting the similar
rights of others. One does not
contribute only by being a son of a
prime minister or a poet but by being
oneself. I may not succeed in my life,
but if I have given sufficient indications
of sincere efforts to make such
contribution, as I am capable of, my job
is done. It is a duty of every one of us
that we must develop our personality
so as to be able to contribute our best
to society. A citizen should make
available valuable judgement on the
various issues confronting it. One must
pay ones taxes to the state and must
refrain from interfering with the similar
rights of other members of society. So
long as the state helps in fostering a
climate conducive to happiness of the
individuals, the citizens must also help
it in maintaining law and order and
must honestly perform their public
duties. They should leave no stone
unturned for strengthening their own
country and if need arises must be
prepared to defend it at any cost. These
obligations by being reciprocal in
character do not impose restrictions on

the rights of individuals; rather, they
give them fuller and greater reality. To
think that my rights can be separated
from my duties is to be guilty of gross
selfishness. It is only by performing a
useful function in society that we
contribute towards its enrichment. A
state in which citizens care more about
their rights, and less about their duties
remains in a precarious situation. It
would lead first to anarchy and then to
its disintegration. In order to preserve
my right it is necessary that I must
convince my fellow human beings that

in granting such a right they would be
enabling me to participate in the good
of society. I must show, that so far as
the society does not secure me this
right, it derogates me from the status
of a human being and my capacity to
make my contribution to social welfare.
It is only in the apprehension of this
equation between individuals functions
and social well-being by the members
of society that a true theory of rights
can be constructed and society can be
built on stable foundations.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
51
What are Rights? Distinguish between Rights and Claims.

Why are Rights necessary for the betterment of individuals?
Are rights absolute? Give reasons in support of your answer.
Explain the role of Education in the development of human personality.
Under what circumstances can a citizen disobey the state?
Write short notes:
(i) Right to equality ;
(ii) Freedom of speech and expression ;
(iii) Right to work.
52
CHAPTER
8
The Changing Nature of State Activity
HENEVER men come into contact

with other fellow-beings, some sort
of conflict is inevitable. In order that such
conflicts do not create chaos and
confusion in the society the need for an
institution arises to ensure law and order
and maintain harmony of social relations.
This institution is the State. We need a
state to keep our anti-social impulses in
check and to reconcile the claims of one
another in society so that there is
harmony in social relationship. The state
comes into existence to create those
external conditions, which are necessary
for the development of individual
personality. The role of the state is akin
to stomach in a human body. It seeks to
maintain a semblance of authority. It
harmonises different and conflicting
interests. It ensures peaceful exchange
of goods and services.
The state creates laws and rules to
regulate human behaviour. In case of
violation of laws, it may coerce members
into obedience. The claims of the state
are superior to the claims of any one else
in society. The State, wrote R.M McIver,
is an association which, acting through
law as promulgated by a government
endowed to this end with coercive
power, maintains within a community
territorially demarcated the universal

external conditions of social order. The
primary function of the state is to protect
the rights of its citizens from internal
threat or disturbances and from outward
danger like war, and to establish peace.
It has also to work for the development
of its members. It is because of these
functions that Aristotle in the Ancient
times said the state comes into existence
for the sake of life, and continues to exist
for the sake of good life.
CHANGING CONCEPT
ACTIVITY
OF
STATE
The 20th century saw profound social

changes as a result of the development
of science and technology. These
changes required new perspectives on
national sovereignty and in the
apparatus of the state and government
in the control of economic activity. We
have to develop a new outlook
incorporating both individual and
collective claims and adjust them to the
changing conditions of the modern world.
The order of the state is not merely for
the sake of order. It is also, as Kautilya
put it, for protection, conservation,
development and distribution. It protects
THE CHANGING NATURE OF STATE ACTIVITY
53
citizens, conserves natural resources,

takes steps to develop them and
distribute the national wealth so
developed among the citizens. Just as
the concept of order widens into
protection, protection in turn widens into
development of what has been protected
and proper distribution of what has been
developed. In the nineteenth century the
main function of the state was
understood to be providing stability and
security. It was also expected to provide
support to private enterprises at home
and abroad. The power of feudalism had
to be broken.
Today the function of the state is
rather different. It still includes law and
order and making of foreign policy; but
more than that, it includes management
and administration of vast services and
industries. This expansion in the role of
the state is the result of the industrial
revolution, rise of the nation-state, and
mass participation in policies. When the
state structure was not fully developed,
people did not look to the state to create
conditions necessary for development.
But now people expect that the state
would alter inequalities arising out of the
distribution of land, wealth, income, race
and colour. The great Industrial
Revolution in England and the Great
Depression of 1929-1933 in America
led to grave economic crises. In the first
case there was concentration of wealth
in a few hands. It led to impoverishment
of large mass of population which was
required to sell labour. In the second
case, economic crises led to severe
unemployment. Private parties and
meagre state and local programmes were
too inadequate to cope with the huge

problem. The state had to undertake
massive relief work.
The essential functions of the state
have remained more or less the same. But
in different times, different activities have
been emphasised. In the nineteenth
century the state was looked upon
primarily as an organisation responsible
for law and order. This was the period of
early liberalism in which liberals pleaded
for the cause of free market and
maximisation of individual liberty. They
considered the state as evil, yet the state
was necessary to hold the very basis of
competitive society. It was supposed to
maintain law and order. These liberals
stood for free market, free trade and noninterference of the state in economic
affairs. The primary role of the state was
to ensure that citizens, in their pursuit of
private goods and happiness, do not
harm each other. This view is known as
laissez-faire. It means: (1) absence of
paternal Government, and (2) freedom
of trade and commerce.
WELFARE STATE
There is another view of the state activity;
it does not agree with the laissez-faire
view of limited State functions. It
considers state as an agency to transform
society for the welfare of all. The state,
according to this view, is a pro-active
agent to ensure the welfare of the people.
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
pioneered the idea in the context of the
events during the World War-II. The
emphasis becomes more on state playing
an active role in the field of public health
54
and alleviation of poverty. It is expected

to create basic facilities, which will enable
every one to have at least the minimum
of education for effective participation in
the affairs of the state. Further, the state
must ensure right to work, the right to
secure income and the right to shelter
to all its citizens. The state becomes a
regulator, a promoter and a manager,
all in one. It regulates private enterprises
to secure justice for all. It provides
subsidies to agriculture and works for
land reform. It manages industries by
setting up enterprises in public sector
or joint sector.
After independence, India worked on
these principles under our Five Year
Plans. We make comprehensive efforts
to reduce inequalities in society, create
an atmosphere of security and service
and provide a notional minimum to all.
The slogans such as garibi hatao and
employment for all became common.
The state made extra efforts to secure
social rights to weaker sections including
scheduled castes and scheduled tribes.
In the beginning after Independence,
Banks were nationalised and major
industries were set up in the public
sector in the beginning after
independence. The state became
the biggest employer in the country.
Private sector was subjected to massive
state regulations.
However, the experience of a state
managed economy also started showing
inadequacies. It led to bureaucratisation
and red tapism. In India, for instance, it
led to what is known as licencepermit
raj. It stifled incentive, opportunity and
responsibility. Little was left for
encouragement of voluntary activities.

It also increased expectation from the
state with the result that in the due
course of time, it created enormous
pressure on the state to perform. Every
interest turned into a vested interest
to reap maximum benefit from the state.
In the initial years, the state had some
capacity to give concessions to different
sections. The leadership also enjoyed
great prestige on account of their
participation in the freedom movement.
But as older leadership began to vanish
and the states capacity to cope with
increasing demands began to shrink,
the political system began to show signs
of crisis; private initiative was stifled and
the state machinery became corrupt.
Today, as per the third view of the
nature of state activity the emphasis is
on private production and social use.
The idea is that the state should not
manage the economic activities itself; it
should act as a facilitator or regulator
only. A new relationship is emerging
between the state and corporations on
the one hand and the state and the
agriculture on the other. It is being
increasingly felt that more we allow
private competition and initiative to
flourish, the better will be the growth of
our economy. Competition will make the
economic system more efficient and
productive. But the emphasis on
competition is tied to the idea of the state
as regulator and facilitator. It is the duty
of the state to ensure that terms of
competition and socio-economic
engagement are just and fair. John
Rawls particularly highlighted this view
in his book A Theory of Justice. One of
the basic conditions of the success of this
THE CHANGING NATURE OF STATE ACTIVITY
55
model is that state must ensure equal

opportunities to all. The earlier system
tried to achieve this in the terms of
subsidies and reservations, which
created a patron-client relationship
between the state, and others affected
by its decision (particularly the weaker
section). The new model insists that the
state must make maximum investment
in education and health. These are basic
requirements without which there
cannot be equality of opportunity
essential for a fair justice in society. It is
also being felt that the state must ensure
that economic development does not
play havoc with our environment. In fact,
it is the duty of the state to provide basic
safety net to all its citizens.
Against the above backdrop, a third
view of state-activity has recently come
into prominence. This view has grown as
a result of globalisation on one hand and
frustration of workers with the welfare
economy on the other. There is also a
movement towards integration of
economy of developing countries with the
world economy. It is believed that market
economy can stimulate economic growth
much better than what is possible under
either welfare or socialist model. It is
argued that acceleration in the rate of
economic growth can reduce poverty by
trickle down effect. It would also lead to
better political managements.
Globalisation often means different

things to different people. To some it
means a brave new world where there are
no barriers. For others it implies a process
of neo-colonialism in which ultimately the
affluent countries will dominate.
Both the views take extreme
positions. Globalisation is a process in
which effective integration of economies
takes place through exchange of ideas,
information, technologies, goods and
services. It is a product of the
technological revolution in recent years
and implies faster movement of capital,
goods and services as a result of increase
in speed of communication. The essence
of globalisation is connectivity.
Integration can have several dimensions
social, cultural, political and economic.
There are apprehensions about
globalisation. Most of the apprehensions
flow from the prospect of cultural and
social integration endangering local
customs and traditions. But in todays
world there is no escape from it because
the impact of economic integration of
capital and finance, goods and services
as a result of changes in technology, is
all pervading.
Here it will not be out of place to
mention that globalisation is not new
factor. It started much earlier. During
1870 to 1940, there was rapid integration
of economics, in terms of trade. It was in
the inter-war period that tariff barriers
were created by states to protect local
industries. However, the pace of
technology in recent years again
accelerated interaction between states. In
fact, most economists are of the view that
international trade is in general beneficial
GLOBALISATION
As mentioned above, in recent years
there is going on a process of
globalisation; and this has affected the
nature of state activity.
to all, including the developing countries.

For instance, the inflow of foreign capital
has made a significant impact on East
Asian Economies.
If developing countries really want to
reap full benefit from the process of
globalisation, the states in these countries
will have to gear themselves up for
different roles. They will have to ensure
that their economies reach full potential.
They are also required to regulate inflow
or outflow of foreign exchange so that
sudden fluctuations do not create crisis
in economy as it did in East Asian
Economies recently.
The process of globalisation has
given rise to the World Trade
Organisation (WTO) entrusted withthe
responsibility of evolving an appropriate
framework of free and fair economic
transactions. While the developed
countries have pleaded for free trade, they
have not always been fair in the sense
that their trade barriers remain higher on
many products. For instance, in some of
the developed countries major food
products have tariff barriers exceeding
100 per cent.
In any case, since globalisation is

linked to changes in technology, it is
inevitable. The developing states can
derive maximum benefit only by
negotiating as hard as they can in the
fields of environment, labour standards
and protection of indigenous knowledge
and products. They will have to
strengthen their patent regimes. But
more than that the state will have to
ensure rapid economic development at
home to be able to compete
internationally. For instance, while in the
field of information technology, transfer
of skill would mean migration of
information experts, India will have to
ensure that the advantage it has
continues, and is not undermined.
Globalisation also makes it incumbent
on the state to provide safety to the poor
and weaker sections of society by
investing more in education, health and
environment. This will surely strengthen
equity at home and ability of the local
industry and production to compete
abroad. Indeed, the states are
increasingly required to provide a human
face to the entire process of globalisation.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
State is a necessary institution. State three reasons in support of this statement.

Explain the role of state according to Kautilya.
State the causes for the changed role of state in the twentieth century.
Mention the features of a Laissez-faire state.
Write short notes on:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
Welfare State;
License-permit raj ;
Globalisation.
UNIT III
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
CHAPTER
Approaches to the Study of Comparative Politics:

Traditional and Modern
WHAT
IS
POLITICS?
N ancient Greece the unit of

administration was City-State; and
it was known as Polis. The word
politics/political science emerged out of
this meaning of the state (Polis). Thus,
Politics/Political science is the study of,
or knowledge of, the state (Polis). This
nomenclature has since continued,
although now we are living in much
bigger states having wide territorial
boundaries and large population.
In a wider sense Politics, Political
Science, Political Theory and Political
Philosophyall conceived with the
knowledge and study of the stateare
used in synonymous terms. However, if
we see minutely we will find some fine
distinction between these terms. Politics
may be used in a general sense. Whereas
Political Theory is a set of generalisations
on issues concerning state. Political
philosophy denotes reflections on those
issues on the basis of ethics and
metaphysics. Again, whereas political
philosophy deals with what ought to be
regarding matters relating to the state,
political science deals with what is
regarding those matters. Political science
is empirical; and empirical method is

scientific.
COMPARATIVE POLITICS
Comparative Politics is an important
component of contemporary Political
Science. It helps in the study of political
issues in a scientific and systematic
manner. The scope and approaches to
the study of comparative politics are
getting widened day by day because
of the new development in the
international arena.
Comparative politics is mostly
concerned with a comparative analysis
of political institutions, political
processes, ideological foundations,
norms and societal frameworks of
different political systems. There is a
distinction between comparative politics
and comparative governments.
Comparative government refers to the
deliberations on studies of different forms
of state systems, their institutional
framework and functions, and their
constitutional background and
formulations. On the other hand,
comparative politics is more concerned
with non-state institutions, political
60
processes and behaviour, societal

structures, norms and values. Thus, the
scope and framework of comparative
politics is wide and comprehensive in
nature.
Aristotle is acknowledged as the
father of Comparative Politics. He was
more concerned with an historical
examination of legal institutions of states.
But, in his studies on governments, not
much attention was given to the analysis
of informal institutions of the political
systems such as tribes, communities,
norms and behaviours of social groups
and interest agencies, and belief patterns
of the ruling elites.
APPROACHES: ITS
MEANING
In simple terms an approach may be

defined as a way of looking at and then
explaining a particular phenomenon.
The perspective may be broad enough
to cover a vast area like politics of an
entire country or it may be very small
involving just an aspect of local, regional,
national and international politics.
There are many approaches to the
study of politics; and sometimes different
approaches overlap each other. However,
in a broad sense these can be classified
under two heads: Traditional and
Modern. Traditional approaches are
speculative and prescriptive in nature.
In contrast modern approaches are
empirical and scientific.
In short, traditional approaches
include: (1) Philosophical, (2) Historical,
(3) Legal, (4) Institutional.
Modern approaches include: (1)
Behavioural approach, (2) Systems
approaches with its offshoot in the form
of structural functional and inputoutput approaches.
TRADITIONAL APPROACHES
(a)
Philosophical Approach or
Philosophical-Ethical Approach
This is the oldest approach to the study

of politics. The philosophical approach
is normative in character. Here the study
of state, government and the people is
inextricably linked with the pursuit of
certain goals, morals, truths or high
principles. Plato, Rousseau, Kant, Hegel,
Leo Strauss, et al. pursue this approach.
The philosophical approach is
criticised for being too abstract; it takes
us far away from the world of reality and
is impracticable. However, it can be
appreciated on the basis that
protagonists of this approach put before
us certain goals, which might be
unattainable; but in trying to reach
those goals our present standards would
definitely improve, even though we may
not reach the goal.
(b)
Historical Approach
The historical approach became popular

in the last quarter of the 19th century.
It is based on the idea that in order to
have proper understanding of political
institutions and processes, it is
necessary to have a clear understanding
of the historical background of those
institutions. Its merit is that it seeks to
understand the state and its institutions
in their process of change. But in its
search of theories and general trends, it
misses the central role of individuals
and institutions in the process,
APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF COMPARATVE POLITICS: TRADITIONAL AND MODERN
and knowledge remains static and

tradition bound.
However, the significance of the
historical approach cannot be denied.
It has its importance in studying the
relevance of the origin and growth of
political institutions. G.H.Sabine,
McIlwain, A.J.Carlyle, Catlin, Dunning
and others follow this approach.
Historical approaches thus, becomes
useful in understanding the views of
great thinkers from Plato and Aristotle
in ancient times to Lasswell, Rawls,
Nozick and others in the present times.
(c)
Legal approach or Legaljuridical approach
In this approach the study of politics is

linked with the study of legal and juridical
aspects of the state. Here the theme of law
and justice is not treated merely as a
matter of jurisprudence. Political
theorists belonging to this category look
at the state as a maintainer of an effective
and equitable system of law and order.
Thus, this approach treats the state
primarily as an organisation for the
creation and enforcement of law.
Jean Bodin and Hobbes who
propounded the theory of sovereignty
may be said to be the early supporters of
this approach; because for both the
thinkers the sovereign is the highest lawmaker and his command is law. The
works of Bentham, Austin and A.V.Dicey
may also come within this category.
This approach may be criticised on
the ground that law embraces only one
aspect of peoples life and, as such, it
cannot cover the entire behaviour of a
political man.
(d)
61
Institutional approach or
Institutional - structural
approaches
The experts who advocate this approach

want the scope of comparative politics to
be confined to the constitutional
provisions of the formal institutions such
as legislature, executive and judiciary. It
also emphasises on the comparative
analysis of political institutions.
The institutional approach was very
popular during the first quarter of the
twentieth century. The protagonists of
this approach were Walter Bagehot,
James Bryce, Giovanni Sartori et al.
This approach is criticised for being
too narrow. It ignores the role of
individuals who constitute and operate
the formal and informal structures of a
political system. It also does not analyse
informal organisations of political
systems such as pressure groups, nor
does it give any importance to the social
context in which institutions function.
It is also argued that the institutional
approach was strongly culture bound,
as it was mainly an analysis of
institutions of Europe and America.
However, this approach has come to
have an importance of its own in an
indirect way. It is assimilated into the
Behavioural approach about which you
are going to study now. Moreover, this
approach is still important in the sense
that it draws our attention to the role of
formal rules and institutions.
MODERN APPROACHES
(a)
Behavioural approach
You have learnt above about four types

of traditional approaches. All those are
62
normative approaches, and are valueladen. Critics feel that value-laden

approach becomes too idealistic and
utopian, and therefore, it becomes
impracticable. Science deals with facts
and not with values. The protagonists of
modern approach, therefore, insist on the
use of scientific method to explain matters
relating to Politics. Scientific approach is
marked by an empirical investigation of
the relevant data. It uses the scientific
methodof observation, quantification,
generalisation and integration.
The modern approach finds its best
manifestation in behaviouralism. It
believes that observing the outward
behaviour of political actors and political
institutions, and analysing their behaviour
by scientific method can acquire the
knowledge of political system. It draws
heavily upon sociological and
psychological approaches. A leading
German sociologist, Max Weber has
treated sociology as the basis of politics.
Similarly, those subscribing to
psychological approach try to study and
explain political institutions and
phenomenon through psychological laws.
The tools of psycho-analysis, they say, can
be used to the study of political behaviour.
The behavioural revolution emerged
in the USA in the second quarter of the
twentieth century. The main protagonists
of behavioural approach are Charles
Merriam, Heinz Eulav, Robert Dahl,
Lasswell, David Easton and Almond.
Some of the main characteristics of
Behavioural approach are:
1. They study politics by focussing
attention on the Individual
and Group behaviour and on
political processes.
2.
They advocate a new method. They

insist upon survey research.
3. Their method is inter-disciplinary.
It means they largely borrow from
the various disciplines of social and
natural sciences.
The central assumption of the
behavioural approach is, to quote
Eulan, the root is man, Institutions
only provide the framework in which
political actors, (i.e. individuals), play
their respective roles, and it is this
interplay of political actors which
determines the framework.
The behavioural approach indeed
helps to provide us greater insight into
political process and how ordinarily
individuals participate in it. But, while
it helps us to understand public
opinion, pressure groups and elections
and quantifies the results of our study,
it leaves us poorer when it comes to the
study of institutions or processes, which
cannot be easily quantified. In a sense,
both behavioural and institutional
approaches represent two extremes.
(b)
System analysis approach

Input-Output and StructuralFunctional approach
Systems analysis is one of the major

aspect of behavioural approach.
Behaviouralists study Political system
and not the state. System is defined as
the set of elements interacting with each
other. A political analyst tries to know,
(1) The function of the political system,
(2) The structure of the political
system, and
(3) Under which conditions the system
works.
APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF COMPARATVE POLITICS: TRADITIONAL AND MODERN
To know the above the system

analysts use two types of approaches:
(1) Input-Output, and
(2) Structural-Functional
Input-Output approach
This approach is popularised by David
Easton. In his construction of an inputoutput framework, Easton was
influenced by the new communications
sciences. Here the idea is that a political
system has feedback mechanisms, which
are capable of transmitting information
of a positive or a negative kind. Through
feedback two types of input go to the
political system demand and support.
If there are too many demands that go to
the system and the government is unable
to cope with them, the system breaks
down. But, if the people support its rules,
the system survives and becomes stable.
Eastons analysis of the working of the
political system is dynamic, whereas
Almonds analysis is static.
The Structural-Functional approach
It is a response to the failure of
the institutional approach. The
Institutional approach studies
comparative politics in terms of study of
institutions such as legislature, executive
and judiciary. Its assumptions are that
these institutions are more or less stable
with fixed boundaries. This analysis, it is
argued, is not adequate in explaining
situations, which are constantly in a
process of change, especially in the world
of developing countries. Since
institutional arrangements in these
countries are fluid, the important issue
is to identify certain political functions
63
which any political system must perform

if it is to survive. It examines the question
of survival and efficiency of institutions
in the context of political system as a
whole. The leading exponents of this
approach are Almond and Powell who
have emphasised that the three
functions viz. political recruitment,
political socialisation and political
communication are concerned with the
maintenance of the system. They have
also observed that these functions lead
to the convertibility of demands
into policy making and policy
implementation. According to them,
demands should be converted into
authoritative decisions and policies.
The functional approach is an
important attempt to broaden the
conceptual base of comparative politics.
It provides a culture free approach to
comparative politics as it seeks to
understand politics in terms of factors,
which provide stability and efficiency.
However, it has been criticised to be too
conservative an approach. It is argued
that it ignores the fact of conflict and
change in political life, specially in the
context of the developing countries. In
these countries, because of the
prevalence of perpetual poverty, people
are consequently interested in the
process of change rather than stability.
This can hardly be accommodated in the
functionalist framework.
(c)
Marxist approach
It will not be out of place here for you to

know about the Marxist approach,
which is basically different from both
traditional and modern approaches.
Marxism provides a powerful historical
64
framework to examine political systems

and processes in terms of class conflict.
Marx uses the methods of dialectical
materialism and historical materialism
to justify his thesis that there are only
two classes in a society those who own
the means of production (the rich) and
those who depend on the labour power
of their body to survive (the poor). The
relations between these two classes are
that of conflict; and through this conflict
(dialectics) history progresses until it
reaches the stage of classless and
stateless society. (You will learn more
about Marxism in one of the last
chapters of this book).
Marxist approach is different from the
behavioural approach. Whereas
behavioural approach defends the
present system (western) as good and
seeks to defend the status quo, the
Marxist approach rejects the present
system (western) as unjust and desires
to change it.
Summing up our study of traditional
and modern approaches, it may be
observed that sometimes there is a sort

of overlapping between the two. For
example, there are traces of empiricism
in Aristotles philosophy in the ancient
times. Similarly, there are traces of
relative-values in the scheme of David
Easton in modern times. It follows that
several studies to the study of politics are
inter-related in some respects.
In certain quarters, the study of
political institutions and functions is
being supplemented by policy analysis
in which the emphasis is on the
substantive issues of polity. However,
every approach has its respective
adherents. Today, a political scientist
draws upon them in an effective manner.
He tends to explain institutions and
processes, collective decisions and power
relationships, as a part of wider social
context having a history of their own. In
fact, the area of comparative politics has
become so widespread, that it covers all
aspects of a political system, both
formal and informal, quantitative as well
as qualitative.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you understand by Comparative Politics?

Explain any two Traditional Approaches to the study of Comparative
Governments.
Describe Modern Approaches to the study of Comparative Politics.
(i) Philosophical Approach;
(ii) Behavioural Approach;
(iii) Marxist Approach.
65
CHAPTER
10
Political Socialisation, Political Participation

and Political Development
POLITICAL SOCIALISATION
NALYSING the concepts of political

system one often wonders as to
how political culture evolves and what
it is? How do people develop a
particular set of beliefs and
orientations? How do these beliefs and
attitudes travel from one generation to
another? The process by which a
particular set of attitudes, belief and
orientations is passed on from one
generation to another is known as
political socialisation. It is study of
what, when and how people learn
about politics. Inter -generational
continuity is the essence of political
culture. The willingness of people to
accept new ideas and beliefs is a matter
of learnt behaviour. Thus, the learning
process to acquire existing political
culture is known as political
socialisation. Every learning is not a
part of socialisations. Learning that has
social relevance is a part of the process
of socialisation. Individuals acquire
certain social obligations through
ordinary course of interactions. Process
of political socialisations is not
necessarily a conscious process.
Political socialisation continues

throughout ones life. Various factors
such as international developments,
domestic transformations, historical
events, and social stirrings shape the
process of political socialisation.
There is a linkage between political
culture and political socialisation.
Political socialisation is the process by
which political cultures are formed,
maintained and changed. Through this
process individuals develop their
orientations. When the totalitarian
political elites try to revise the accounts
of history, they are simply attempting
to shape and control the process of
creation of political socialisation. Thus,
it is important to study the process of
political socialisation in order to
understand political stability and
development of political system.
Attitudes of an individual towards
political culture go on changing
throughout his lifetime. It is a
continuous process. A number of events
throughout ones own life time shape
and guide ones own orientations.
Often the process of political
socialisation takes the form of either
manifest or latent transmission. The
66
process of manifest transmission

implies explicit communication of
information, values or feelings
regarding political objectives and
institutions. The teaching of civics
syllabus in the schools is an example
of manifest political socialisation. Latent
political socialisation process implies
transmission of non-political attitudes
towards prevalent institutions in a
political system. It involves the
fundamental aspects of culture in a
political system. Attitudes and
orientations towards cultural
framework of a political system, in
general, might affect a childs attitude
of accommodation or aggression in the
systemic interactions.
When an individual, in order to
influence his friends, family, church,
teachers or some other agencies, learns
explicitly about an ideology or the
functioning of a government or of
policies, the process is known as direct
or manifest political socialisation. If, on
the other hand, an individual develops
an attitude of mind towards
authorities, in general, in the early
stage, which subsequently gets
transformed into a political orientation
or motivation, the process is known as
the process of latent or indirect political
socialisation. The process of direct
political socialisation gets manifested
through imitation, anticipatory
behaviour, political education, or
political participation. The latent or
indirect process of political socialisation
gets manifested through interpersonal
interactions, which lead to transmission
of values, attitudes or ideas through the
personal influence of individuals.
Political socialisation could be

imparted through direct political
training and education. In this process,
the imparting institution or organisation
takes the initiative. Most of the
organisations and institutions have
their own formal and informal channels
to impart their ideology and
orientations. The techniques like annual
political gatherings by political parties,
emphasis on civic courses in Great
Britain, political circuses in Guinea, an
initiation ceremony among the Masai
in East Africa and propaganda rallies
in the public places, are some of the
examples of direct political socialisation.
Manifest political socialisation may take
place through an individuals own
experience with political process,
political elites, structures and events.
Latent political socialisation generally
takes place through interpersonal
transference, for example, a child born
and brought up in an authoritarian
climate is most likely to learn an
attitude of submission to authority.
FACTORS OF POLITICAL
SOCIALISATION
Political socialisation takes place
through a variety of institutions and
situations. These are family, peer
groups, educational institutions,
secondary groups/such as work place,
the mass media, government and
political party machineries.
Family
Family is the key factor of political
socialisation process. It is through
family that an individuals political
POLITICAL SOCIALISATION, POLITICAL PARTICIPATION AND POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
character is formed and developed.

Family helps in transmitting values
from one generation to another. As the
child receives his material and
emotional helps from the family, it is but
natural that the child gets deeply
influenced by the political beliefs and
attitudes of the members of the family.
Parents mostly become role models of
their children.
One must not forget that political
socialisation at this level is generally
conservative in nature. A child is deeply
influenced to preserve and continue its
familys traditional ideas and practices.
Though family has a great role in
shaping some of the basic traits of
children, particularly their attitude
towards authority, obedience to the
decision- making institutions, political
ideologies and parties, these
orientations get often substantially
changed in the later stages. As the child
grows into adulthood, its attitude
towards society and political process
gets substantially modified because of
impacts of other agents of political
socialisation.
Peer Groups
Whereas family relationship is
hierarchical, the relationship between
a growing child and the members of the
peer group is non-hierarchical in
nature. This may be the reason why
peer groups have a substantial role to
play in the process of political
socialisation. The peer groups consist
of childhood playgroups, friendship
organisations, work groups and the
like. Political socialisation at this stage
67
assumes new dimensions. Peer groups

prepare individuals to face emerging
political climate and if necessary, for
specific political roles. Peer groups help
in developing an intimate emotional
relationship between an individual and
peer group members. It is often
considered as an important agent of
political socialisation. Their role vis-avis family as agents of political
socialisation varies from political system
to political system. In countries like
France, Belgium and Germany, the
families have control over adolescents
for a longer period, whereas in Britain
and the United States, the families have
a lesser control over their children.
Educational Institutions
Educational institutions such as
schools, colleges and universities are
other important agents of political
socialisation. These institutions
participate in the political socialisation
process both directly and indirectly.
Direct political socialisation takes place
through curriculum. The students are
taught about national movements,
national traditions, and sometimes
about particular ideologies. The school
and university experiences help in the
process of latent political socialisation.
The modes of participation at this level
help in the formation of attitudes and
values. The students movement in
France in 1968, American students
opposition to the Vietnam War and the
spectre of Naxalite movement in the
Indian universities in the late 1960s are
some of the examples of political
socialisation.
68
Secondary Groups
Secondary
groups
provide
apprenticeship for political role in the
society. In a developed political system
secondary groups play more important
role in the process of political
socialisation. There are three types of
secondary groups. First, there are
secondary groups with distinct political
motivations. These are political parties
and political youth organisations. These
groups provide training in political
ideology, mobilisation of political
actions and recruitment of political
leaders. The second type of secondary
groups is instituted for non-political
purposes such as work place. However,
these groups carry on political
education along with their specific
activities. One could speak of various
labour unions in this regard. Although
a labour union is basically involved
with collective bargaining and welfare
of its members, it also provides political
education and training to its members.
The third type of secondary groups
neither provides any political education
to its members nor do they have any
political character. But mere
participation in their activities provides
political orientations. This is an example
of latent political socialisation. Clubs,
sports association, cultural association,
etc. can be cited as examples of this
type of secondary groups.
Mass Media
The communication and information
technology has enhanced the role of
mass media as agents of political
socialisation. The role of mass media

such as radio, television, newspapers,
and magazines varies with the social
and political structure of political
systems. The mass media often help in
transmitting values and ideas that help
in the continuation of the existing
establishments. Mass media have been
mostly used by ruling elites in the
developing countries to win masses in
their favour.
Government and Political Parties
An individuals continuous interactions
with members of political parties and
governmental
personnel,
and
sometimes through his direct contacts
with the government organisations, help
in reinforcing his orientation and
attitudes towards political issues and
policies acquired during his early years.
Sometimes government directly helps
the process of political socialisation.
Through political parties, people have
direct involvement in the political
process of the society. People get
politically socialised and indoctrinated
by political parties. It is only through
political parties that radical social and
political changes could be brought
about in the civil society.
In conclusion, one might state that
the stability of a political system is
deeply interlinked with the greater
cohesion and complementarity among
the agents of political socialisation. It is
because the process of political
socialisation is a continuous one; some
amount of disharmony among the
agents of political socialisation is but
natural.
POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
Political participation is the area of focal
importance to the analysis and
evaluation of every political system.
Whatever may be the pattern of political
system, political authorities would
always be keen to ensure political
participation of masses in the process
of governance. Even in modern nondemocratic
political
systems,
authoritarian rulers always highlight
the idea of political participation of
masses. The idea of political
participation is given greater
importance in the democratic systems
of governance. Through this process
of political participation a close
relationship is established between the
authorities and the people.
The study of political participation
implies the study of actual involvement
of people in the decision-making
process rather than popular attitude of
becoming involved. It studies all
political actions by groups and
individuals for influencing the
formulation and implementation of
public policies. It deals with the level of
participation of citizens, who happen to
be the people most likely to participate.
One of the salient features of liberal
democracies is that there are different
forms of participation. Voting in election
is only one of the forms in which a
majority of the electorate participates.
But there are other forms of
participation such as through interest
groups election campaigns, political
parties
and
involvement
in
governmental activities in which only a
69
small number of individuals actually

participate. Interestingly, the process
of participation differs from society to
society. In some societies, it also takes
the form of political activities such as
political protests, including even its
illegal and violent forms. Indeed,
boycotts and strikes have emerged as
some of the powerful devices to
influence the system. However, in most
countries violence to others or damage
to public property is condemned as
illegal, as such activities tend to erode
the very foundations of the framework
on which the political system stands.
That is why the terrorist violence is
condemned universally.
Some political scientists have
emphasised the concepts of hierarchy
of political involvement such as
spectator activities and gladiatorial
activities. Spectator activities is
confined to voting. The gladiatorial
activities involve soliciting of political
funds, holding public or party office. It
is clear that the population cannot be
divided into these two watertight
compartments. People participate in a
variety of ways ranging from traditional
forms to such as voting to protest and
mass demonstrations. Indeed, recent
studies in West European and
Scandinavian countries show that the
traditional forms of democratic
expression and political activity are on
the decline. People have become more
critical of politicians and political
systems, and are more interested in
non-institutionalised forms of political
action to pursue their objectives and
goals.
70
The new developments in

information and communication
technology have also transformed the
nature of participation. The computermediated communication facilities have
created new forms of political
participation of citizens at both local and
national levels. Today, people vote
through electronic machines. The
computer technology enables people to
communicate their views to the
government in a rapid manner.
The question however, arises, how
do we explain the different levels of
participation. Why are some people
more involved than others? The
differences in participation are generally
explained in terms of economic and
political resources as well as interest of
the participants. Whereas Economic
resources remain confined to property,
political resources would include
factors such as education and access
to information. They build capacities in
the individual concerned to express and
promote their own opinions and
interests forcefully to powers that be.
Indeed, these sections of the people
generally have greater involvement in
the political process in comparison to
the disadvantaged sections. The former
acquires greater vested interest in the
system, as their education and
resources help them to pursue their
interests with a greater vigour. That is
why; it is generally believed that
democracy is a middle class or upper
middle class phenomenon. That is also
the reason why political participation
tends to reinforce existing inequalities.
Yet the patterns of participation
affect each one of us in a phenomenal
way. While the middle and upper

classes participate because they have
a stake in the system, the lower classes
are mobilized in the name of greater
economic security; or to put it crudely,
in the name of bread and butter or such
slogans as Indira Gandhis Garibi
Hatao. But ultimately the success of
a liberal democracy depends on the
kind of stake each individual citizen
acquires in the system as a whole. A
system, in which public resources are
easily channelised for private use by the
middle and upper classes, will definitely
reinforce existing economic inequalities
and hence the level of commitment
which ordinary citizens will have for the
political system will be much less, if not
minimal. It is this characteristic which
distinguishes political culture of
developed countries such as the USA
from that of ours. We have not yet been
able to develop a process of
participation in which each citizen may
feel that he or she has a stake in the
survival and the continuance of the
system.
There is participation in the
authoritarian regimes too. But it is
different than that of the liberal
democracies. In a state like China, it
involves expressing support for the
government rather than an opportunity
to vote it out of power. The system in
the states like China functions in such
a way that there is a massive mass
mobilisation in support of the poll.
Although powers are confined in the
central committees, in practice citizens
are allowed participation in the whole
range of local bodies. In fact, there is
an immediate involvement of workers
in matters that directly affect them.

Some of these countries have, therefore,
been able to develop highly successful
co-operative movements. Even at the
party level, there is direct involvement
of the participants who are recruited
from peasants and workers on the one
hand and bureaucratic, managerial
class on the other. In China,
particularly, the earlier aging
generation is giving way to new
generation of well-educated and
technically trained leadership. The
result is that like liberal democracies,
the scope of participation here is also
linked to ones education and
resources.
POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT
The term political development entered
the domain of Political Science in 1950s.
With the emergence of a vast number
of independent countries of the
developing world scholarly interest
among the political scientists emerged
to study the development process of the
developing countries. A leading
political scientist Gabriel A Almond
observed that the concept of political
development should be analysed and
discussed as a moral ethical and
political good among the developing
countries.
In fact, during late 1950s and early
1960s there was an academic interest
throughout the world to put emphasis
on the cross-polity studies of the newly
independent nations of Asia, Africa and
Latin America. Huge amounts of
statistical and quantitative data on the
social, political, economic and
71
demographic aspects of these nations

were collected to analyse their attitudes,
values and behaviour patterns. There
has been no unanimity among the
social scientists regarding the
conceptual frameworks of political
development. Sociologists, Economists,
historians, political scientists and
anthropologists have tried to analyse
the concept of political development
from their own respective angles. Most
of these political and social scientists,
however, have emphasised on the
pattern of development process of the
developed countries, particularly
America, as the model to be followed
by the developing countries for their
political development process.
According to Rostow, the norms of
political behaviour and institutional
apparatus of the developed countries
have to be followed by the developing
countries for their own development. He
was of the opinion that the industrial
societies are the pattern-setters of
political development for other
societies. Edward Shiller treated the
concept of political development with
the nation-state building process on
equal footings.
Most of the authorities on political
development have looked at the concept
of political development from the point
of view of the American development
process. Americas development from
the phase of incoherent homogeneity to
coherent heterogeneity has often been
cited as a model of political development
for the developing countries. Lucian W.
Pye who is considered an authority on
the subject has identified political
development with three major themes.
72
These themes are: equality in political

life, political capacity and government
performances, differentiation and
specialisation of structures. According
to Pye, increasing differentiation and
specialisation would lead to greater
secularisation of society.
Samuel P. Huntington has provided
an improved version of Pyes
ethnocratic model of development. He
observed that the maintenance of
political stability should be considered
as the ultimate goal of political
development. He highlighted two areas
as the basic elements of political
development. These were: a high degree
of institutionalisation within a
political system and an increasing
level of popular participation.
According to him, a high degree of
institutionalisation, within a polity is
well reflected by its high levels of
adaptability, complexity, autonomy
and coherence. On the other hand,
increasing levels of popular
participation in the system would be
guaranteed through their access to the
decision-making process at every level
of social structures. He is of the opinion
that the stability within a system could
be understood as the product of
interaction between levels of
institutionalisation and popular
participation.
Economists like Ellis were of the
opinion that political development
could be discussed as the pre-requisite
of economic development. Some have
identified it as a synonym of political
modernisation. Others have seen it as
a symbol of industrial society,
administrative and legal development,

building of democracy, stability and
orderly change, mobilisation of power,
mass participation and so on.
The concept of political development
has undergone changes at different
periods of societal transformations. In
the 1980s, scholars like Organski laid
emphasis on the process of systematic
empirical validation of the concept of
political development. He defined it as
increasing governmental efficiency in
the use of human and material
resources of the nation for the common
good and also highlighted the notion of
national political capacity as the core
aspects of political development. The
concept of political capacity referred
only to two basic areas of development:
ability of a government to collect
revenues from its subjects to implement
its preferred policies and its ability to
mobilise human resources.
During 1990s, authorities like
Robert W. Jackman, in their discussion
on political development of political
systems, emphasised on systems
capacity to create legitimate political
institutions. Legitimacy is needed for
the structure to implement power
relationship. This legitimacy could be
reflected in systems ability to resolve
conflicts without resorting to use of
force against domestic political
opposition.
While discussing the concept of
political development, it could be
understood that any talk on adoption
of universal strategies in the areas of
political development might be bad for
the developing countries. As these
might create illusions in the minds of

people-illusions which might not have
any relationship with the socio-economic
structures and conditions of their
countries. This does not follow that the
outside models are always irrelevant.
Process of development cannot be
separated from the interests of people.
The political development process of
India has failed to take note of
these aspects. Marxs emphasis on
conquering the kingdom of freedom
had tremendous influence on the policy
programmes of a number of developing
countries. Mao declared as early as
1940 that if Marxism was to be useful
then it must be combined with specific
national characteristics and acquire a
definite national form.
The exponents of the uni-directional
models of development have to realise
that life grows in richness by diversity.
The developing countries have to link
the historical aspect and peculiar
characteristics of their countries with
the process of the respective political
development programmes.
In conclusion, we can say that

there are three basic elements in the
light of which one can formulate a
more satisfactory view of political
development. First, any concept of
political development has to relate
itself with the problems of economic
backwardness and dependency.
Every political system has to be
judged from the point of view of its
ability to ensure justice, equality and
productivity. Second, any theory
should reconcile between empirical
and normative behaviour of the
system, to emphasise right conduct
with good society. The classical
database regarding an ideal
relationship between the individual
and society has to be reactivated. And
lastly, the concept of political
development has to be judged in terms
of total objective situations in the
concerned political system. Political
development is not an isolated
phenomenon. All the western ideals
have to be integrated with the socio
economic realities of the developing
countries.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
73
What do you understand by Political Socialisation?

Describe the factors that contribute to the process of Political Socialisation.
Analyse the meaning and importance of political participation.
Explain the term political development.
(i) Peer group;
(ii) Mass media;
(iii) Lucian W. Pyes concept of political development.
74
CHAPTER
11
Modes of Representation
N the contemporary political systems,

democracy is identified with
liberalism. This was not so in the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.
The classical liberalism then was
concerned with the principles of
capitalist market economy.
It
emphasised on individuals right to
unlimited acquisition of property. In a
state, property qualification was
considered as an essential condition to
participate in the process of political
representation. Subsequently because
of historical reasons classical liberalism,
which was considered to be basically
antithetical to democratic norms and
processes in the formative phase
became an essential partner of
democracy. Capitalism and market
economy gave birth to large scale
industrialisation and urbanisation
process. The demand of the working
class movement to participate in the
decision-making process of the political
system gave a new momentum to the
concept of democracy and widened its
horizon. The liberal state thus became
a combination of free market economy
and the principles of universal adult
franchise. C.B. McPherson observed,
until the nineteenth century liberal

theory, like the liberal state, was not at
all democratic, much of it was
specifically anti-democratic. Today
the term democracy is widely
understood as the synonym of
representative democracy. Under the
system of representative democracy
people have a right to choose their
representatives through periodic
elections based on the principles of
universal adult franchise. Under this
system, discrimination based on caste,
creed, religion, language and culture is
generally prohibited. The prescribed
age for participating in the periodic
general elections varies from country to
country. In India the prescribed age
for participating in the general election
is eighteen whereas in Britain and some
other countries it is twenty-one. In
some of the countries, the citizens were
compelled by law to participate in
voting during the general elections,
such as the Netherlands (1917) and
Belgium (1893).
There are two alternative systems of
representations: (a) territorial
representation and (b) functional
representation. The territorial
75
MODES OF REPRESENTATION
representation is also known as

geographical representation. Under this
system, the whole country is divided into
nearly equal population based
constituencies. The functional
representation highlights representation
of occupation or functions. People
belonging to different occupations and
functions are allowed to have their
representatives on this basis. Although
the territorial representation system
enables people to have a close
relationship with their representatives,
sometimes, under this system,
local issues are given preference over
national issues.
When one representative represents
a constituency, it is called a singlemember constituency. Constituencies
being represented by more than one
representative are called multi-member
constituencies. In India, before
independence, we had separate
constituencies for minorities and special
interest groups.
According to Professor Shephard,
there are three theories of representation.
These are primitive tribal theory, the
feudal theory and ethical theory. The
political practice followed during the
Greek city-state days is known as tribal
theory of representation. Under this
system, the right to vote was considered
as the necessary condition for the
membership of the state. The feudal
theory highlights the property condition
of voting rights in a state. The ethical
theory considers voting rights as a
natural and inherent right of every
citizen.
THEORIES
OF
REPRESENTATION
There have been different opinions

regarding the role of the representatives
in the decision-making process. Some
favour a limited role for the
representatives whereas others
advocate their control over the entire
process of policy-making. Different
theories of representation try to analyse
this from different angles.
Authoritarian Theory of
Representation
The main advocates of this theory were
Thomas Hobbes and Alexander
Hamilton. The theory highlights the
role of order and authority represented
by executive. The representatives of the
people have a limited role to play. This
theory emphasises on the superior
knowledge and wisdom of the
politicians. There is no provision for
public control.
Hobbes was
particularly in favour of the authority
of the monarch. In Hobbes theory of
hypothetical social contract, the
individuals in the state of nature
contract with each other that each one
of them agree to give all his powers of
governance to the particular person or
group of persons (that is the monarch/
parliament) so that by assuming the
combined power of all it would protect
the life and property of all its members.
Thus, the monarch/parliament is
created by a democratic method; the
basis is the consent of each individual
who have formed the state; but after
assuming power the monarch/
parliament becomes all-powerful.
76
Radical Theory of Representation

The main supporters of this theory are
Rousseau and the proponents of the
New Left. This theory does not believe
in the system of representative
government. It strongly believes in the
direct participation of people in the
process of governance.
Direct
participation in the law-making process
is known as direct democracy. In other
words, in a direct democracy citizens
themselves participate in decisionmaking, and not through their chosen
representatives. But such direct
representation is possible only in small
units. In ancient times it was possible
in the City-State of Athens. Today, in
Switzerland there is provision for
Plebiscite and Recall. These are factors
relating to Direct Democracy.
Mirror Theory of Representation
Chief advocates of this theory were John
Locke and Thomas Jefferson. It
highlights the idea that legislatures
must be the mirror image of the society.
The representatives are considered as
agents of people and are to translate
demands of their constituents into
policy framework. The theory has a
strong faith in the wisdom and
capability of the masses. It was based
on the principle of equality.
Elitist Theory of Representation
It believes that once elected, the
representative has a special
responsibility to provide leadership to
the masses. They are not mere
recipients of the input provided by the
electorate but as agents of change what

they think would be best for the society.
It is alleged that the theory is
undemocratic in the sense that it
believes on the wisdom of an elitist
group of politicians. It considers this
group as the custodian of public
interest. The conservative theory of
representation does not encourage
popular participation in the process of
governance. But in society in which
there is illiteracy and poverty and where
people are not in a position to understand
complicated issues, the representative
should be able to rise above narrow
sectarian interest and take a view of the
nation as a whole. This view is
particularly significant in a country like
ours, which is divided in terms of
language, religion, caste and class.
However, the representative should
not become a prisoner of vested or
sectarian interest, it is necessary that
the representation should be able to rise
above various particularisms and take
a holistic view of things in the context
of the nation as a whole. The
contemporary decision-making process
and pattern of governance is so
complicated that it may not be possible
to involve people in general to follow the
form of Direct Democracy. Today a
representative has an extremely
complicated task. On the one hand he
must voice the wishes of the people he
represents and on the other he has the
special responsibility to shape these
wishes in conformity with the overall
interest of the society.
Proper representation is the central
point for the successful working of a
77
MODES OF REPRESENTATION
democratic system. According to the

classical definition of democracy, it is a
Government of the people, for the people,
and by the people. If that is so, we the
people have to be extra vigilant for its
successful working. This demands
proper and national representation of

the people, which in turn involves an
enlightened public opinion and
educated citizens. It is therefore said that
Democracy is not only a type of
government it is also a way of life.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are the various theories of representations?

Mention two alternative systems of representation.
Describe the importance of representation in a democratic system.
(i) Functional Representation;
(ii) Direct Democracy;
(iii) Elitist theory of Representation.
UNIT IV
MAJOR POLITICAL THEORIES
CHAPTER
12
Liberalism
EMERGENCE
AND
DEVELOPMENT
IBERALISM is a doctrine that

emerged out of the Enlightenment,
the Glorious Revolution in England and
the French Revolution. Each of these
events embodied one major premise of
liberalism. From the enlightenment
emerged the view that there are no
moral goals, which we know for certain
to be absolutely right, and therefore to
impose any particular way of life on the
citizen of a state is wrong. From the
Glorious Revolution emerged the view
that the divine right of any kind of rule
could not be justified and from the
French Revolution the claim that the
individual liberty is so sacred that no
authority can violate it. It was a
response to monarchical power, which
claimed absolute authority in the name
of the divine right of kings. In England
it was a result of a reaction of the
bourgeoisie against the power of the
king to tax the subjects without the
consent of the Parliament. In France it
was a reaction against monarchy,
which tried to prevent a discussion and
debate on political issues. The French
bourgeoisie expressed its aspirations in
the famous phrase liberty, equality
and fraternity. The bourgeoisie

consisted mainly of businessmen, shop
owners,
merchants,
bankers,
intellectuals and professionals.
These classes wanted an end to the
period of feudal anarchy where the
nobles were constantly at war with one
another. The classes were more
interested in capital accumulation.
Anarchy in society was not conducive
to it. In the place of mercantalism they
wanted economic system of free trade
based on the principle of laissez-faire.
These classes also wanted an end
to the outmoded economic controls on
trade, capital investment and
business growth. They pleaded for the
abolition of inherited privileges
that distinguished aristocracy from
the bourgeoisie. They sought
the supremacy of Parliament.
Montesquieus The Spirit of Laws,
Benthems Fragment on Government
and Smiths Wealth of Nations were a
series of landmarks in the evolution of
liberalism.
Liberals argued that each individual
was a rational citizen capable of taking
ones own decision. A good society was
one in which their satisfaction or
interests were maximised. Society was
82
merely conceived as a conglomeration

of individuals who rationally calculated
their interests and sought power to that
end. There was no such thing as social
good or common good or public welfare
apart from the good of the individuals
composing society. All that the society
had was a collection of individuals with
their own private interests.
Such interests were sought to be
maximised through increased
production and market mechanism.
These were based on twin concepts of
individual enterprise and the unlimited
right to property. There was to be free
competition. This competition
determined the nature of production,
the prices of the goods produced and
the structure of human relationship as
producers, buyers and consumers.
Market was the chief motivating force
for the pursuit of all values. The
individual took decisions on the basis
of ones perception of its own individual
interest. Liberals argued that if the
individuals were allowed to pursue
their rationally calculated interests,
there would be equilibrium in society,
and prices would then tend to be just
what would induce buyers to buy what
was produced, and producers to
produce what would be bought. This
was expressed in Adam Smiths concept
of invisible hand. It meant that the
general welfare was a function of their
own acquisitive instinct. The state
became rich in proportion to every
member becoming rich individually.
The divergent and conflicting interests
were automatically harmonised as a
result of it. Human beings were
considered free in proportion to what

has been, called proprietor of their own
person. Politics was conceived as
autonomous, capable of rising above
narrow vested interests. It was believed
that some central organisation was
required to regulate human
relationships in society. The state
represents this organisation. It was
brought into existence to hold the ring
for the pursuit of their interests by the
individuals. The functions of the state
were minimised. The task of the
government was merely to reconcile
conflicting interests. It was a necessary
evil. And, therefore, as Benthem
argued, best government was the one
which governed the least. The basic
function of the government was to
ensure our natural right to private
property. Locke gave expression to this
idea. Government had no right to exist
if it failed to do so. The private interests
sought to promote themselves through
the institutional mechanism of
competitive democracy.
The doctrine of liberty was tied to
doctrine of equality. The words Liberty,
Equality and Fraternity were embodied
in the French Revolution. The American
Declaration of Independence also
embodied the same ideas. But these
liberals were conscious of the
substantial differences among
individuals. What they meant was an
equal opportunity to prove their worth.
They rejected the aristocratic claim on
the basis of birth or heredity. It must
be noted that their claim to equality was
only a political claim. They did not
believe in economic equality. Certain
LIBERALISM
sections indeed believed that economic

inequality was not only inevitable but
also positively good for all concerned.
In the second phase, this doctrine
was modified in the later half of the
nineteenth century by thinkers like J.S.
Mill and T.H. Green. They believed that
the interests of the individuals were tied
to social interests. They linked up the
idea of the individual good to the
common good. Green recognised the
existence of people who enjoyed less
liberty than was enjoyed by slaves in
the ancient world. It was noticed that
the rich were becoming richer and the
poor proportionately poorer. As a result
of Industrial Revolution, monopolistic
tendencies began to emerge. Control
over economic life appeared to be
passing into the hands of a few
economically powerful persons.
Both Mill and Green, and Ranade
in our own country, realised that each
individual was entitled to equal
opportunity. All of them moved to and
fro between the individual and the
community. Green insisted that
individual freedom and fulfilment were
attainable only through society. There
is a work of moral liberation, pleaded
Green, which society, through its
various agencies is constantly carrying
on for the individual. These liberals
pleaded that the problem of
distribution demanded an active
interference of the state in the economic
life of society. The state was a
community of communities. It was
expected to enforce standards of
cleanliness and health. It was expected
to ensure that large masses of
83
humanity did not have to live in

conditions of poverty and squalor. State
was required to bring about conditions
in which there were chances of equal
development of all. Ranade favoured the
idea that the state must redistribute
wealth in society by providing equality
of opportunity and prospects of full
employment to all.
This new version of liberalism rightly
emphasised that whenever the
individual found social experience
frustrating, one had a right to expect
that the state would come to its rescue.
Society must provide opportunities not
merely for increase of wealth but also
for development of total human
personality. The concept of welfare state
is a product of this line of thinking. In
1930s, Roosevelt initiated New Deal
Programmes on similar lines. The
governments were expected to ensure
the end of domination by a property
owning bourgeoisie and maximise
individual opportunity. They discarded
the concept of free market as a
guarantee of economic efficiency. The
invisible hand may have importance
in a system of equal competition but it
did not have much relevance to an
economic system in which there was
grave inequality. The decisions of a very
small number of business houses
affected the life pattern of all
individuals.
The welfare state thus tried to make
education widely available. It regulated
hours and work, wages and working
conditions of labour, tried to curb
employment of children in factories and
monopolistic tendencies in economy. It
84
was accepted that enlargement of

economic liberty was necessary for a
proper enjoyment of political or civil
liberty by all. There was a change in
liberal concept of justice. Rawls has
expressed the idea thus: the state must
so arrange the scheme of benefits and
burdens so that the least advantaged
may share the resources of the
fortunate. The revolution in the
economic thought was brought about
by John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
and the report of Lord Beveridge on
social insurance. The social insurance
was treated as a part of a comprehensive
policy of social progress. It was an
attack on want. The state in organising
security, argued Beveridge, should not
stifle incentive and opportunity. While
the state should try to secure notional
minimum for all, it should leave enough
room for voluntary action. In India the
Mahalonobis approach followed much
the same policy. Tentative, piecemeal
and adhoc attempts to change economy
lost their appeal. People began to favour
more comprehensive plans. They began
to expect the state to work for full
employment and planned economic
growth, what Roosevelt described as
freedom from want and Indira Gandhi
as Garibi Hatao. The state tried to
correct
social
and
cultural
disadvantages. The ideal of the welfare
state is thus the climax of the
development of the ideals of human
equality, liberty and justice.
TENSIONS
IN
LIBERALISM
There is a basic tension in liberalism.

On the one hand, it is wedded to the
market concept of society, to the

unlimited right of man to the
acquisition of property and ultimately
to inequality. On the other hand, it
seeks to curb the right to property for
the common good and to provide equal
opportunities to all. The claim that a
market society maximises utilities has
been
challenged
by
various
contemporary thinkers. McPherson
has instead argued that true
development for man consists in the
development of his powers. According
to him the earlier liberal view is
contradictory in two ways. There is a
tension between the view of man as
desirer of utilities and man as enjoyer
and developer of his powers. This has
led to the confusion between unlimited
right to property, to capitalist economy
and ultimately to inequality and an
egalitarian view on the other hand. So
far it has not been possible to combine
the two. The tragedy of the welfare state
is that despite its faith in the ideas that
the state must provide opportunities for
not merely an increase in wealth but
also for development of total human
personality, in practice, it still tends to
treat the maximisation of utilities and
profit as final. The major drawback of
the welfare state is that it could not
change the social structure in any
fundamental way. The state provides
subsidies, controls competition,
monopoly, land use and labour use.
But the prices are still a response to
calculated decisions of the few who
control economic power in society.
Prices still control production of goods.
They also determine their allocation.
LIBERALISM
This enables big corporations not only

to determine prices but also control our
tastes and life-styles.
Social living is an organic process
in which life of the concrete individual
has to be enriched by an increase in
ones power to enjoy the out-side world.
A liberal society maximises utilities, but
does very little to maximise our powers
or make us into a better human being.
We are constantly controlled and
dominated by market forces. Moreover,
public ownership and nationalisation
have led to bureaucratisation and
corruption in public life.
EMPIRICAL LIBERALISM
A word must be said about empirical
liberalism. Mill and Green emphasised
the moral dimension of democracy.
They valued it because they thought
that it was the most effective instrument
for the improvement of mankind. But
the empirical liberals like Schumpeter
and Dahl treat democracy as a
mechanism to bring about equilibrium
in society. They are not concerned with
moral issues. They regard the ideas of
Mill and others as utopian. For them
democracy is essentially a competition
between two or more elite groups for
power to govern society. Some American
political scientists even regard a low
level of citizen participation as essential
for the maintenance of equilibrium. For
the nineteenth century theorists
democracy was a humanist aspiration.
For their counterparts in the mid-
85
twentieth century America, it is

essentially a market-equilibrium
system. This view has a built in
conservative bias. For it, whatever
works is right, the existing system has
somehow to be worked out. The
concept of the market swallows up the
concept of justice and equality. There
has been some resurgence of libertarian
doctrines in the name of human dignity
and autonomy recently. This is leading
liberalism on the one hand to the
nineteenth century individualism and
on the other to a concept of justice. The
later trend has become significant. The
nineteenth century liberalism
emphasised liberty. The early twentieth
century replaced liberty by equality.
Now both are being synthesised and
transformed by a concept of justice in
terms of the Aristotelian ideal of
character, self-knowledge, virtue and
good-life. Society is being viewed as a
community of individuals. These
individuals too have autonomy of their
own. It is being argued that the
community ought to be based on a
strong sense of a shared selfunderstanding of citizens about virtue
and good life. This self-understanding
must be embodied in the institutional
arrangements of a pluralist society in
which there are a variety of associations
to satisfy our different needs. It must
lead to a politics which enables us to,
know a good in common that we
cannot know alone in the manner of
friendship.
86
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
What do you understand by Liberalism?

Trace the modification of the doctrine of liberalism in the later half of the 19th
century.
Discuss the basic tension in Liberalism.
Explain Empirical Liberalism.
87
CHAPTER
13
Socialism
GENESIS
AND
DEVELOPMENT
T is not easy to define socialism. Its

definitions are numerous. As an
ideology it includes a variety of
doctrines such as anarchism,
syndicalism, and democratic socialism.
There are many types of socialism in
terms of their political orientations.
Some of them have been authoritarian,
others democratic. There have also been
many types of socialism in terms of
economic organisation. Some
economies have been highly
centralised, while some others
completely decentralised. They all
stand for equality but differ on the
meaning attached to it.
Before defining socialism, it is
necessary to see how did it emerge in
modem times. It emerged as a reaction
to the rise and development of
capitalism. Laissez-faire doctrine led to
great difficulties in society. By the
middle of the nineteenth century, the
doctrine had gathered a great following.
By then, England had become the first
industrial nation of the world. The
prosperity of the Victorian England was
there. People were convinced that
competition increase efficiency and
wealth. They regarded the survival of

the fittest as the unquestionable law of
nature. But by the end of the nineteenth
century, the fallacies of the doctrine
became evident. The economic power
got concentrated into the hands of a few.
The majority lived in conditions of dire
poverty. They had no freedom of choice
because they were completely
dependent on their wages even for bare
survival. They were not even in a
position to decide what they wanted
because they lacked education. It was
also realised that there was not much
truth in the doctrine of harmony of
interests. The industrialist was busy
serving his own interest; he did not care
much for the interest of the community
as a whole. In the medieval world, there
was a certain consensus about fair
price. But now there could be no such
thing as fair price. Prices were regulated
by economic and not by moral laws.
People began to realise that if everyone
was allowed to conduct his business in
his own way, the law of the jungle
would prevail.
Even the competition did not yield
results as expected. It defeated its own
purpose. It did increase the efficiency
of economic enterprise during the early
88
stages. But very soon as bigger

organisations began to monopolise
economic power, the smaller
organisations were crushed out. We can
see the impact of capitalism even in
India where most of the economy is in
the hands of a few leading industrial
houses. Thus, capitalism itself limited
the freedom of the entrepreneur.
Capitalism indeed increased the
wealth of the nation. It led to
unprecedented prosperity in Europe.
Real wages went up. But very soon
markets were flooded with goods. As
the competition increased, the system
began to face crises. Production reached
a saturation point. People began to
apprehend that there might be a
situation in which there were all sellers
and no buyers. Cycles of boom and
depression, known as trade cycles,
became frequent. Unemployment was
a common phenomenon. People began
to realise why there was so much of
poverty in the midst of plenty. Some of
these reasons led Karl Marx to
prophesy that capitalism contained
within itself seeds of its own destruction.
Socialism believed that capitalism is a
negation of egalitarianism, it is
inefficient and disregards justice and
happiness.
CHARACTERISTICS
Socialism means the following interconnected things:
(a) an egalitarian society,
(b) satisfaction of basic needs,
(c) common ownership of vital
instruments of production, and
(d) ideal of service.
(a)
Egalitarian society
Socialism insists on what G.D.H. Cole

called human fellowship, which denies
or expels distinction of class, caste or
colour. It aims at reasonable equality
in society so that all are able to face each
other on equal terms. It holds that there
can be no genuine liberty without
equality. Freedom cannot survive
without security.
(b)
Satisfaction of basic needs
It flows from the first. Socialists argue

that the motive of profit ought to be
replaced by the motive of service. Value
should be decided by use and not by
terms of exchange. What must be
distributed depends not on where it will
fetch the highest price but where it is
most needed. The wealth of the state
ought to be so distributed that even the
poorest can afford to satisfy his basic
needs. We must ensure sufficiency to
all before surplus is available to.
(c)
Common ownership
Socialism believes in common

ownership and control of means of
production, e.g. land, power and
banks. These should be administered
in the interest of the whole rather than
of the parts. Happiness of all is to be
preferred to the happiness of the few.
Socialists believe that from economic
point of view an industry which is
collectively owned will be more efficient
and from the moral point of view more
satisfying. It believes that inequality of
wealth leads to inequality of
opportunity. The system of recruitment
SOCIALISM
does not ensure the selection of the best.

The children of the rich have
opportunities which are often denied to
those of the poor who thus start life
with initial disadvantage. Such a
condition of inequality is dangerous to
the stability of the state. Such inequality
destroys initiative and is therefore
inhuman.
(d)
Ideal of Service
Socialism emphasises the responsibility

of all citizens to the common good or
general welfare. It protests against the
harsh materialism and individualism of
classical liberals. A capitalist society
produces ugly conditions. It insists on
too much specialisation. It deprives the
artisan of his pride in his work. In the
feudal period the craftsman used to
make a complete thing all by himself. It
used to be a matter of joy for him to
find a reflection of his creative
endeavours in it. But now man has been
reduced to the status of a cog in the
machine. Instead of producing a
complete thing, he only produces a
small pan of it. He may not even know
where the part he has produced would
fit in. He becomes no more than a link
in chain of production. But he is further
condemned to live in slums or to be
condemned to stand in the market for
weeks or months with the hope that his
labour will be needed. He feels
disgusted under these conditions of
modern industry. The worker ceases to
be a human being. It is this feature of
the capitalist society against which
Marx, Ruskin, Morris, Laski and
Gandhi spoke. Gandhi denounced
89
capitalism as immoral because it

condones and even glorifies greed and
avarice.
The terms Socialism and
Communism are often used
interchangeably. That is largely
because of the powerful influence of
Karl Marx and yet one must distinguish
between the two because communism
has become distinct ideology with a
certain set of mixed doctrines, whereas
socialism still remains largely a
tendency, a label for a wide variety of
doctoring. Communism in a sense is
also a variety of socialism. We will
discuss it in detail in the next chapter.
Suffice is to say that communism, as
articulated by Marx, is based on a
certain view of what human history will
be, whereas socialism is more a moral
imperative; it deals with, what it ought
to be. Socialists are also aware of the
potential
within
capitalist
arrangements towards the greater
equality. They all reject the dictum of
the dictatorship of the proletariat. For
them, the revolution is not inevitable or
necessary. Gradualism is the
watchword of democratic socialism.
Necessary and relevant reforms can be
made within the existing democratic
framework.
Further, Marxism pinned its faith in
a violent revolution. Marx did concede
the possibility of a peaceful change in
countries like Great Britain. But, on the
whole, he thought that overthrow of the
capitalist system would not be possible
without violence because no ruling
class gives-up power on its own.
Democratic socialism, on the other
90
hand, emphasises peaceful changes

through the instrumentality of
parliamentary democracy. This
naturally implies that both have a
different view of the nature and role of
state. For Marx the state was an
instrument of domination in the hands
of the capitalists. The capitalist class
used it to exploit and oppress the
masses. On the contrary, socialists
regarded it as autonomous of economic
forces. They thought that it had enough
potential to bring about redistribution
of economic and political power in
society. The Chartist movement in the
mid-nineteenth century Britain and the
Guild and Fabian socialists of the early
twentieth century, all rejected
revolutionary tactics. They opted
instead extension of Suffrage
(Chartists); protective state (Democratic
Socialists); state as an instrument of
reform (Fabian Socialism); producer
state in which industries governed
themselves (Syndicalism); and
governance through T rade Union
Organisations (Guild Socialism).
In India, we were appreciative of
socialism soon after we gained
Independence. Most of our National
leaders like Nehru, Jai Prakash
Narayan and Lohia championed the
cause of socialism. It was in this context
that socialistic pattern of society was
declared as one of the goals of planned
economy. At that time India tried to
combine democracy with Fabian kind
of collective controls leading to
regulations of imports and exports,
Curbs on production of consumer
goods and licensing of industrial set-
up. Removal of poverty and attainment

of economic self-reliance were accepted
as the two major task before the Indian
state. Nehru tried to promote collective
sector by greater state interference in
economic life to mobilise resources and
enhance employment opportunities.
However, now India is following the
goals of globalisation, liberalisation and
privatisation.
Steps were also taken to nationalise
basic industries like Coal, Steel, Banks
and Power. India has also undertaken
programmes for public housing,
medical care, adult education, land
reforms, etc. but this socialism was
socialistic to the extent that the state
redistributed some resources; it is not
socialistic in the classical sense defined
above.
There is a growing realisation that
some kind of socialism is necessary.
But, we have also learnt that mere
provision of welfare services and
government regulations do not lead to
socialism. Indeed in certain quarters it
has led to centralisation and
bureaucratisation. Socialists like Jai
Prakash Narayan, Ram Manohar Lohia
or Roger Garaudy vehementaly pleaded
for diffusion of political power and
decentralisation
of
economy.
Centralised planning creates a uniform
system of economic development, which
does not fully take into account local
variations of individual aspirations. In
a good society duties ought to be
related to personal capacities,
aptitudes, and rewards, and to the
contribution one makes to general life.
A realisation of complexities of social life
91
SOCIALISM
and importance of different groups are

expected to save socialism from the
errors
of
overcentralisation,
bureaucratisation and uniformism. We
must identify human needs and create
a large number of centres of decisionmaking, capable of promoting economic
and political initiatives at different levels.
How such a principle can be put into
practice is the single most important
challenge to socialism of our times.
It has also been realised that public
ownership and economic subsidies
only help big corporations in increasing
their profits. They reduce the risks of
business competition. Even the system
of progressive taxation is alleged to

favour the super-rich over the wage
earner. It has contributed very little to
redistribution of the wealth of the
super-rich among the masses. It has
mostly meant redistribution of wealth
among middle classes themselves.
Socialism will have to transform
itself before it achieves its goals in
practice. May be, it will be required to
achieve some sort of a balance with
liberalism on the one hand and
Marxism on the other, individual
initiative and justice on the one hand
and supervening class conflict on the
other.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
Describe the main characteristics of Socialism.

Distinguish between Socialism and Communism.
What socialistic steps have been taken in India?
Write short notes on :
(i) Egalitarian Society;
(ii) Democratic Socialism;
(iii) Guild Socialism.
92
CHAPTER
14
Marxism
GENESIS
Y the end of the sixteenth century

the factory system was wellestablished in England. The handworker struggled in vain against
machine made goods. He was forced to
give up his work and enter a factory as
a worker. The new system created a lot
of hardships for the workers. They
often worked for sixteen to eighteen
hours a day. The textile mills did not
have proper conditions of sanitation
and health. Outside the factory, these
workmen lived in slums and crowded
localities. Since most of them had
migrated to cities from small rural
communities they had lost their roots.
The factories separated them apart from
their families and a community
reducing them to almost cogs in the
machine which remaining beyond their
control.
The early socialists like Saint Simon,
Robert Owen were horrified at these
conditions. Marx was one of the most
powerful thinkers who understood the
havoc which early industrialisation had
brought about. This is clearly evident
in the Communist Manifesto he wrote
with Fredrick Engels. He was also keen
to transform society on human lines.

His search was essentially for a human
social order. He brought into light the
dilemmas of society working on the
principles of profits, competition and
laissez-faire. He pointed out that the
source of misery and alienation lay in
the capitalist system working on these
principles.
TENETS
OF
MARXISM
The main tenets of Marxism are:

(i) Dialectical Materialism,
(ii) Historical Materialism,
(iii) Class Struggle,
(iv) Critique of Capitalism,
(v) Revolution and Dictatorship of the
proletariat,
(vi) Emergence of Classless Society.
(i)
Dialectical Materialism
Marx agreed with Hegel that history is

a process but disagreed about the
nature of the process. While Hegel
interpreted human history in terms of
the primacy of ideas and consciousness,
Marx did so in terms of the primacy of
the material forces. According to him,
the agents of change are means of
production and the mode of production.
93
MARXISM
Mode of production is the way in which

means of production are used. The
means are the tools or techniques by
which economic production takes
place. Human labour and organisation
are also examples of means. The mode
is the way in which the ruling classes
use their means for their own interest.
The mode of production, therefore,
includes both relations of production
and means of production. The ruling
classes use their control over means of
production to exercise control over the
entire social system. In A Contribution
to the Critique of Political Economy
Marx declared that the history of society
is the history of material production
and of the contradiction between the
material productive forces and the
relations of production which arise on
their basis. This contradiction is
resolved through class struggle.
Marx shared with Hegel the idea
that history is the working out of the
dialectical relationship. Hegels theory
of dialectics remained confined to the
realm of ideas only, Karl Marx stressed
the role of economic factors in the
process of dialectics. To Marx, it is the
working out of the tension between
nature and man, successive social
formations and competing social
classes. Dialectics is a process which
characterises historical change in which
at any point of time one set of forces
can be identified as thesis, another as
anti-thesis and the third one as the
synthesis. A thesis (such as feudalism)
is confronted by antithesis (such as
capitalism), which is transferred to the
next phase of development, through
class action, to socialism (synthesis).

The synthesis combines the best
characteristic of both thesis and
antithesis. Each stage in the process is
transitional and its emergence presupposes that in due course it will give
place to another.
(ii)
Historical Materialism
It is the application of dialectical

materialism to society. Like Hegel, Marx
also made history all embracing context
of human activity. But following
Feuerbach, Marx argued that man is
constituted by his desires, his work and
the economic system of which he is a
part. For him economic activity
determines the basis of all other
activities. The political system, juridical
ideas and moral concepts are all derived
from the way in which economic activity
is structured. Social existence is
essentially a series of production
relations corresponding to definite
mode of production. In Critique of
Political Economy Marx distinguished
between economic base (production
relation) and the super -structure
(culture, politics, philosophy,
literature).
History, according to Marx, is a
record of the self-development of
productive forces. Each state is
characterized by social formation which
has its own distinct mode of production.
When one social framework is replaced
by another, one definite mode of
production is replaced by another. In
the sequence of these social
frameworks, there are the primitive
society, the slave society, the feudal
94
society, the bourgeoisie. and finally the

classless society of the future. This will
be the culmination of human progress
and lead to mans complete
emancipation from exploitation of man
by man. Thus, with change in mode of
production, social framework itself
changed in the process and a new social
formation comes into existence. It is
objectively rated to be superior to the
earlier social formation because it
brings relations of production in line
with change in forces of production.
(iii) Class Struggle
Marx emphasises the existence of a
permanent condition of social conflict
between economic classes (haves and
have-nots). The changes in technology
and specialisation of functions lead to
differences in status, wealth and
political power. New economic classes
emerge. Some own means of
production, others live by them. Very
soon there is an inevitable conflict
between these two antagonistic classes.
Marx and Engels wrote in the
Communist Manifesto All hitherto
history is the history of class struggles.
The conflict is there because those, who
own the means of production, exploit
the workers poor economic conditions
to their own advantage. They give
minimum possible wages to the
workers and extract maximum
possible labour. In the capitalist society,
the society comes to be divided into two
antagonistic classes, viz. bourgeoisie
or those who own property and the
proletariat or those who do not own
any property but are much larger in

number and yet, are perpetually
exploited by the bourgeoisie. In course
of time, the conflict becomes intense
because the workers live below the
subsistence level. They are unable to
buy goods, which the industrial system
produces.
The state at a particular time is in
the hands of the economically dominant
class. Political power is the function of
economic power. As economic power
shuffles from feudal class to the
bourgeoisie, the system of kingship
gives way to the representative
democracy which is controlled by
entrepreneurs. The ideology of divine
right of kings gives place to modern
liberalism. The ideology is used to
consolidate the domination of the
dominant class on the structure of
power, specially law, police and judicial
apparatus. The state becomes an
instrument in the hands of the
economically dominant class to exploit
the working class.
(iv) Critique of Capitalism
The most enduring part of what Marx
wrote, specially in Das Capital was his
critique of capitalism. Any other writer
in its moral fervour and systematic
analysis has not surpassed it. He
argued that the basic contradiction in
the capitalist system is that while, on
the one hand, it increases
interdependence of works as a result of
the development of factory system, on
the other, it leads to concentration of
economic power in the hands of private
95
MARXISM
interests. Thus, while the organization

of production is social, the distribution
is private. Marx was convinced that the
decline of capitalism is inevitable. What
distinguishes his thought from his
predecessors is precisely the belief in
the dialectical process of history.
Another drawback of the capitalist
society is that it generates a pattern of
immense inequality. An overwhelming
majority of people suffer from poverty
and want. The capitalist system is based
on the toil of the workers. And yet, they
are the worst victims. They are also
those, who receive much less of what
they produce. Some live in luxury by
making others live in poverty. The only
way of determining value of a thing was
by calculating the labour necessary to
produce it. The worker, and not the
capitalist, produces the value and yet
he is deprived of his share and is paid
minimal wages. The capitalist takes the
surplus away from the worker.
Therefore, the difference between the
production value and the exchange
value becomes surplus value which
according to Marx becomes a vehicle of
exploitation of workers by the
capitalists. The capitalists, too, compete
with each other in a headlong pursuit
of profit.
One feature of capitalism is that

it brings workers together and
creates a sense of community in
them. In the feudal period the
workers
lived
in
isolated
circumstances. Goods were produced
privately. A modern factory brings
them together and creates class
consciousness in them, finally paving
way for class action leading to
revolution. Initially, Marx thought
that the revolution would be violent.
But later, specially, after 1848, he
modified his views to incorporate the
possibility of other roads to
revolution. Transition to socialism
would vary according to socioeconomic conditions of a particular
country. Marx cited the example of
England where transition to
socialism might be more peaceful.
The fundamental contradiction of
capitalism is that while it has led to
worker interdependency through the
factory system, it has failed to
distribute wealth in the interest of all.
The socialisation of the means of
production cannot be combined with
a system of private profit. This
contradiction is best understood in
the context of the characteristics of
both feudalism and socialism.
Feudalism
(thesis)
Capitalism
(anti-thesis)
Socialism
(synthesis)
Organisation of Production
Private
Social
Social
Principle of Distribution
Private
Private
social
96
(v)
Revolution and Dictatorship

of the Proletariat
Once the socialist revolution takes

place, the power passes into the hands
of the proletariat and bourgeoisie.
democracy is replaced by the
dictatorship of the proletariat. It is
under this dictatorship that a true
democracy is established for it is
essentially a government of an overwhelming majority of the working class
against the minority of exploiters. The
proletariat would seize power to
liquidate the last remnants of the
bourgeoisie order by establishing state
control of all means of production and
by making all citizens equal
participants in the new social
framework.
(vi) Emergence of Classless
Society
Once, the bourgeoisie is completely
liquidated, the state would wither away
and a new society will be ushered in, in
which there will be no state, no classes.
In such a society each would
contribute according to his capacity
and receive according to his needs. Marx
believed that the new man would
naturally and spontaneously identify
his own interests with the general
interest in society. It must be mentioned
here that beyond these utopian ideas,
Marx says very little about the future
society. His main concern was to
produce a powerful critique of the
capitalist system. He focussed our
attention on the idea that the source of
servitude and alienation lay in the
capitalist system. Man is both an object

exploited by the system and a subject
who becomes conscious of his plight
and servitude, and revolts against the
system as it leads to monopoly
capitalism, inequality, class struggle
and pauperisation of the masses.
LIMITATIONS
OF
MARXISM
Marx, however, did not adequately

grasp the significance of nationalist and
patriotic sentiments. His doctrine, in
this sense, was ethnocentric. He
understood some of the deeper moral
issues of capitalist society. He
understood classes and their conflict
but had no adequate idea of other
societies and their peculiar institutions
and practices. These institutions and
practices often cut across class
solidarity. He also underestimated the
capacity of capitalism to change itself.
Most of the industrialised nations in the
west have tended to domesticate conflict
rather than develop on the lines Marx
prophesied. In some of these
democracies, the state itself has tended
to intervene in favour of the least
advantaged. In another sense, his
prophecy has not come true. Marx
believed that revolutions will come in
the most advanced capitalist countries,
whereas, in fact, they have been caused
in the backward, under -developed
capitalist societies.
In characterising the state as an
instrument of class domination, Marx
also ignored that no state can survive
for long unless it rises above the
particular interests and works for wider
97
MARXISM
interests of society. The state alone

provides a framework for better and
organised living. It alone reconciles our
claims and counter-claims. In any
efficiently functioning system, the
particular interest must be limited by
some consideration of public good.
Without it the system would
disintegrate. The regulation of special
interest is one of the most important
functions of the state activity. In fact,
Marxism did not have a theory of state.
Lenin had to invent one in order to
create a framework of order in Russia.
Indeed, capitalist system was bad
enough. And it was only with the help
of political power that it could be
changed, modified or replaced. It is the
state, alone which can stand for the
general good. A capitalist state might
be replaced by a proletarian one, but
all the same we do require a state in the
sense of machinery entrusted with the
task of coordination in society.
LENIN
AND
MAO
The country where the first Marxist

revolution took place was Russia and
the ideological leader was V.I. Lenin
(1870-1924). In a pamphlet what is to
be done? (1902), Lenin repudiated the
doctrine of the inevitable decline of
capitalism. Marx had believed that
changes in economic system would
automatically lead to changes in the
super-structure of society and politics.
He had declared that while handmill
gives us a feudal society, the steel mill
gives us a capitalist one. Lenin did not
accept this doctrine. According to him,
while workers were capable of trade

union consciousness, they did not have
the urge to develop a revolutionary
agency helping them to have it. In the
absence of the agency all that the
workers wanted was an increase in
wages through the mechanism of
tradeunion activity. The revolutionary
consciousness could only be brought
about by a class of professional
revolutionaries, the avant garde who
operate from without. The class of
professional revolutionaries would find
its expression in the party. He, therefore,
substituted active intervention of a
highly disciplined party for objective
forces of Marxian history.
Lenin also tried to explain why
socialist revolution, as Marx had
predicted, had failed to materialise in
the West. In 1916 Lenin published
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of
Capitalism in which he argued that
monopoly capitalism inevitably leads to
national and international cartels of
trusts and monopolies. He was
convinced that the basic tendency of the
capitalist system was the same. What
had happened to obscure this was the
fact of acquisition of colonies by the rich
countries. These countries brought raw
materials from their colonies and sold
finished products to them. This had led
to internationalisation of surplus
value and increasing prosperity of the
capitalists. The capitalists tried to share
their spoils with workers of their
respective countries by giving them
increasing concessions in working
conditions and more wages. This was
an outcome of their concern for their
98
own safety. These concessions had

produced a petty bourgeoisie illusion
among workers. It had created a false
consciousness among labour leaders
who had turned themselves into labour
aristocracy, corrupted by high wages
paid to them from the outcome of the
exploitation of colonies. They developed
vested interests in the maintenance of
the status quo.
Lenin prophesied that revolution
was most likely to occur in Russia,
which was the weakest link in the
capitalist chain.
In China Mao Ze Dong was largely
responsible for the revolution. He
created peasant-based armies. Once in
power, he tried to bring about basic
industrialisation and increase in
agricultural production through
collectivisation. Marx had seen
communism coming in the wake of
advanced capitalism. Mao saw
communism
essentially
as
communisation of productive process
and elimination of private property. He
tried to combine Marxism with specific,
natural characteristics of China. His
emphasis was on politicisation rather
than professionalisation.
TENSION IN CONTEMPORARY
MARXISM
Marxism in Russia was able to create a
framework necessary for the
achievement of a modern state of a
different nature. It was able to bring
about necessary changes in the age-old
pattern of society and create an
industrial system leading to national
growth of 8 per cent. But the state of

revolutionary idea did not last long.
Both Russia and China like all societies
which preceded them, developed their
own ruling classes obsessed with power
towards greater bureaucratisation and
party control. Both bureaucracy and
party tried to secure to themselves
certain privileges and since there is a
fusion of party and the state, the former
has complete control over society. Stalin
abolished even intra party discussions
and reserved the final right of
interpretation to himself. Once the
ideology was institutionalised it was
ritualised and tended to be identified
with status quo.
People have begun to realise that
while the goals of communism had an
element of nobility about them, the
system as a whole failed to create an
institutional mechanism against the
misuse of power. Power in itself is not
bad. In fact, in certain situations it can
be a source of positive good. Problems
of poverty sometimes require active
state intervention. But in the absence
of proper safeguards in the form of a
proper system of accountability, the
leaders or the party and bureaucracy
assume the sole right of decisionmaking, settling all problems in the
name of the people, and in some cases,
even in opposition to them. Every attack
on freedom is baptised in the name of
ideology or class.
As a result, the Communist
Movement drifted towards a decline,
which was discernible for the first time
when a rift between the Russian and
Chinese communists came on surface.
99
MARXISM
Soon after 1960, problems began to

emanate and unpopular situations
arose in the communist socialist
countries of Eastern and Central
Europe. On the other hand, during the
seventies, trend towards Eurocommunism led by the Communist
Party of Italy adopted a reconciliatory
attitude supporting parliamentary
institutions and reforms rather than
revolution. Rapid changes took place
in Eastern Europe, as well as in China
and Russia.
In China, movements for a larger
democracy were launched in 1979 and
1986. In June 1989 several agitators
were shot dead at the Tiananmen
Square during a students rally. In the
Soviet Union reform movement initiated
by Mikhail Gorbachev marked the
beginning of the end of the communist
movement not only in Europe but
almost the world over. Ultimately in
December 1991, the Soviet Union was
disintegrated. The disintegration of the
Soviet Union did not mean the
disintegration of the Marxist ideology
itself. With the decline of the Soviet

Union the communist/socialist system
collapsed in the European countries
one after another. The economy of all
these countries was in a shattered
condition. In Russia, the prices of
consumer goods registered a 350 fold
shoot up and ninety per cent of the
people were thrown below the poverty
line. Therefore, a change in the political
system brought in its train a quick
transformation in economy. Changing
trends in the forces of marketism,
openness in economies and shifting
emphasis on privatisation were
increasingly visible. Even in the
Communist/Socialist China, there are
clear indications of liberalism and
openness in economy.
These
developments have compelled the
Marxists to give a deeper thought on
the organisation of social relations. Now
a question is being raised whether
Marxism has been a dogma for the
liberation of mankind. Its relevance as
an alternative ideology before the world
is no more unquestioned.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Define Marxism.
Explain the theory of Historical Materialism.
Is Marxism relevant today?
Discuss Lenins contribution to Marxism.
(i) Dialectical Materialism;
(ii) Theory of class struggle;
(iii) Classless society.
100
CHAPTER
15
Fascism
GENESIS
NLIKE communism, fascism was

not a well-knit doctrine. It was
more of an attitude. It had to be all
things to all men to increase its appeal
to masses. Fascist leaders often
defended their lack of a well-defined
doctrine on the ground that it was more
a policy of action. Mussolini said, we
do not believe in dogmatic
programmes, in that kind of rigid frame
which is supposed to contain and
sacrifice the changeable, changing and
complex reality... Doctrine, beautifully
defined and carefully elucidated with
headlines and paragraphs, might be
lacking; but there was to take its place
something more decisive.faith.
Fascism was essentially a product
of the forces released as a result of
World War. Italy was denied its
principal territorial claims at the Paris
Conference after the World War I. It felt
that it had been betrayed by the
allies. After World War I, the
economic situation also deteriorated.
Unemployment increased. Successive
parliaments were unrepresentative,
corrupt and inefficient. People had
grown sceptic. Strikes were frequent. A
general feeling of crisis prevailed

throughout the country. The
Government of the day failed. The
socialists could replace it but did not
muster enough courage. In the
meanwhile fascists under the leadership
of Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) began
to take advantage of this situation. He
thought that nationalism was far more
potent than communism. In October,
1922, he decided to march on Rome.
The march ended with Mussolinis
appointment as Premier. Without caring
much for political institutions, he began
to transform the entire system into
personal dictatorship.
The post-war situation in Germany
was even worse. Germany had been
defeated. The war guilt clause severely
indicted Germany. It put sole
responsibility for the war on Germany.
The allied powers refused to permit the
German Republic to make any drastic
changes in the economic structure of
the state. German territories were ceded
to France, Poland, Denmark and
Belgium. Rhineland was occupied to
ensure German payment of reparations
to allies specially France. The country
was politically divided. It was smarting
under international humiliation.
FASCISM
Nationalist Socialist German workers

Party (NSDAP or NAZI) under the
leadership of Adolf Hitler (1889-1945)
exploited this situation. As the
economic situation deteriorated and the
number of unemployed increased, the
rank of the party swelled. In the election
of July, 1932, the Nazi poll leapt to 37
per cent of the total. President
Hidenburg appointed Hitler Reich
Chancellor in January, 1933. He
calculated that induction into office
would curb his radical activities, to
counter this calculation; he ordered a
plebiscite in March 1933. The
Government secured 52 per cent of the
votes cast; and this established him
firmly. Then he successfully engineered
parliamentary and electoral support by
intimidating his rivals.
Both Hitler and Mussolini tried to
organise a new regime and restore order
in their respective countries. Both were
convinced of the weaknesses of liberal
democracies. They hated intense
factionalism of competing parties. They
were alike in their hatred of foreign
governments as well as of communism
at home. Both tried to transcend classconflict in the name of greater and
higher ideal of nationalism.
Fascists argued that the state is the
nation. It is identified with society. It has
its own life. Nothing has any value or
significance outside the state. It alone
has the capacity to synthesise value,
interpret, develop and give expression
to every aspect of life. Liberals start with
the individuals, and view the state from
their perspectives. Fascist theory starts
from the opposite point of view. It
101
argues that man is a social animal. He

cannot live apart from larger organism
called the Nation State. If he is selfish,
he is anti-social. The state has every
right to correct him. The individual is
just a cell in this organism. It is only by
remaining as such that he can find his
true freedom. He is free only when he
identifies himself with the state.
Once it is recognised that the state
is the organism and individual is merely
a cell, it is easy to conclude that the cell
is expendable for the sake of the whole.
The state becomes something more
than the individuals who compose it.
The state, as conceived by them, is a
spiritual and moral fact in itself.
Mussolini declared, The Italian Nation,
is an organism with purposes, a life and
means of action transcending in power
and duration, those individuals singly
or grouped, which compose it. It is a
moral, political and economic unity
which realises itself in the Fascist State.
Thus, in the name of the nation-state
fascists were able to deny individuality,
natural
rights
and
judicial
independence that characterise
political institutions in Western Europe.
Fascism is also authoritarian. It
accepts rigid hierarchy in social
organisation. If the state is society, the
leader is its brain. He assesses the needs
of the body and decides how best to
satisfy them. He, in a sense, interprets
the general will of society. He has the
sole authority to decide for society.
The individual is merely a cell. He
must accept the dictates of the leader.
He has duties to perform but no rights
to enjoy. The judgment of the leader is
102
infallible. It cannot be disputed. Hence,

representative democracy has no place
in a Fascist system. It must be replaced
by the government of the leader and
others appointed by the leader. The
leader alone can provide corrective
measures to what is happening in
society. Fascists called their leader
Duce and the Nazis Fuhrer.
THE DOCTRINE
It is a doctrine, which believes that the
state is not subject to any moral laws.
The state is the supreme custodian of
morality itself. It is the supreme
community. Mussolini is always right
was one of the maxims of the party,
whose motto was To Believe, To Obey,
To Fight. In this, slogan, Fascism
virtually identified itself with an
important element of Christianity. It
considered religion as the manifestation
of the deepest in man. It sought to
defend and protect it. This view largely
explains the cordial relations Mussolini
had with the Pope. Extreme Nazism tried
to create a state church but did not
succeed much.
Fascism rejected democracy based
on the rule of the majority. It denied that
numbers alone can govern by means
of periodical consultation. The
receptivity of the masses is very limited,
their intelligence is small. The principle
of equality is replaced by the principle
of one man leadership or the
Nietzschean doctrine of the superman.
The pattern of democracy is that of a
pyramid balanced on its apex.
This principle is supposed to apply
to all branches of life. In industry, for
example, the employer was the leader

of the factory and the workers his
followers. It is for this reason that
communists hated fascists. They
thought the equation of the employer
to the leader and workers to the
followers in the German Labour Code
was nothing but a smoke screen to hide
the totalitarian designs of the
capitalists. For them fascism was the
last desperate attempt of capitalism to
save itself, it was not so much
capitalism in decay as capitalism
fighting for life. Fascism adopted a clever
posture. It dissolved all working class
organisations. It also limited the
initiative of the employers. It accepted
capitalism and yet stressed its
subordination to the ideal of welfare
state. Hitler declared that it was the
duty of the state to see that capital
remains the servant of the nation. Both
tried to advance their own idea of
corporate state. Based on Hegels
concept of three classes the
agricultural, the industrial and the
universal or governing, Mussolini
argued that these classes were not
antagonistic in the Marxian sense but
were complementary to each other. Each
class was accepted by the state as
having the right to pursue its own
welfare. Labour must do its job, the
employers theirs. The third element,
that is party, must govern both. Both
workers and capitalists are subservient
to it. It was hoped that such a state
would abolish class conflict and create
harmony.
The doctrine of political and moral
supremacy of the state meant the rise
FASCISM
of militant nationalism in both these

countries. Both denied the possibility
or even the utility of perpetual peace.
War brings up to its highest tension all
human energy and brings out the best
in all. In internal warfare, mankind
has become great, declared Hitler, in
external peace mankind would be
ruined. Both Hitler and Mussolini
dreamt of new empires.
Most reprehensible feature of
German fascism was the Aryan race
theory. Hitler declared that Aryans are
superior to every other race in the world
and hence most fit to govern. The
fundamental aim of his regime was to
ensure the purity of the Aryan race. In
the name of this doctrine, he unleashed
a war against the Jews. They were sent
to gas chambers and mercilessly killed.
By defending himself against the jews,
Hitler thought he was doing Gods
work. The whole character and
education of the Nazi regime was
supposed to find its apex in racial
instruction. It must brand the sense
of race and feeling of race, said Hitler,
on the instincts and the understanding
of the hearts and brains of the youth
entrusted to it. Naturally, Mussolini
did not share this view of the existence
of pure races.
DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS
It would be proper here to analyse four
viewpoints regarding Fascism. First, a
number of exponents have depicted
Fascism as a danger to liberal
economy. They opine that liberal
political values as well as institutions
103
have failed to deliver goods. As a result

of this failure, Fascism has been able
to take the place of capitalism. Second,
some critics have equated it with a
totalitarian system. They regard it as a
fore-runner of totalitarianism. Fascism
lays stress on total restraint on citizens
where privatisation finds no place. As
Mussolini has said: Everything is
written in the state. There is nothing
outside it. There is nothing against it.
Such commentators were quite popular
during the Cold War period when
Fascism Communism co-relationship
was justified. Nazi-Soviet Pact was
given a wide acclaim. Points of
similarities were drawn between Hitlers
attempt for improving the race and
Stalins purification drive. In a system
like this fear and suppression were of
prime importance. Efforts were made
to bring closer the perceptions of
Fascism and Communism. However,
the ideologies as well as their premises
have been fundamentally different.
Fascism safeguards the interests of the
middle class people and supports
traditional institutions like Church and
army, where as communism has been
opposing these values. Third, in the
sixth decade of the 20th century,
Fascism was described as radicalism of
the rightists. Traditional views were put
forward and encouraged. In a bid to
present Fascism as rightist, it was
projected as a continuum from the past.
The political ideology assumed
significance in such an explanation.
Fourth, Fascists often quoted writings
of Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche to
legitimise their beliefs and action. It was
104
only opportunism which made them do

it. Otherwise it is doubtful whether they
really appreciated the profundity of
Hegel or Rousseau or Nietzsche.
In any case, once they captured
power, they destroyed socialists,
communists, recalcitrant members of
bureaucracy, trade unions, Jews and
all those who opposed paramilitary
forces. They centralised the powers of
the state, eliminated rights, in the name
of the supremacy of the common good.
Their economic policy was indeed a
success to some extent. Both in Italy
and Germany, the aim was selfsufficiency and much progress was
made in that direction. The economic
crisis had hit both the countries and
there were signs of some recovery. Both
were able to unite their respective
countries. They restored their nations
to the status of first class powers. Both
instilled new hopes into masses. One
has to see the war movies to appreciate
how great their impact was on the
psychology of all.
Various political writings have
explained Fascism in different ways. Of
these, the following four view points
stand out prominently.
(i) Fascism as a menace to the liberal
states,
(ii) Fascism as a protagonist of
radical totalitarian state,
(iii) Fascism as a radical rightist
ideology,
(iv) Fascism as a revolt against
modernism.
Fascism can be evaluated from
three points of view as an ideology,
as a movement and as a system of
government. Ideologically, it was

against humanism. It was antihumanitarian and sought to destroy
some of the most cherished human
valuesrights and interests, freedom
and equality in the name of the
supremacy of the nation-state.
Looking at from the ideological
point of view, it can be said that while
liberalism destroys unity in the name
of the individual interest, Fascism
destroys the individual in the name of
the state. The individual becomes
expendable for the sake of the state and
can be sacrificed at its alter. The nation
state is important but it cannot be
identified with the government because
for all practical purposes the
government merely consists of a group
of people who speak in the name of the
state. The more we glorify the state, the
more we glorify the persons who claim
to speak in its name and hence, the
more we pave the way for the emergence
of dictatorship. Society is composed of
various wholes. The interest of the state
is not always superior to the interest of
the individual. That is why the
Mahabharata declared that for the sake
of the village an individual may be
sacrificed, for the interest of the province
the village may be sacrificed, for the sake
of the country the province may be
sacrificed, but for the sake of the
individual soul even the whole world
may be abandoned. Moreover, the state
as a whole is not alone. There are other
states which have an identity of their
own. No whole has a right to trample
on the freedom of other wholes. No state
has a right to destroy other states.
105
FASCISM
Again, while evaluating it from the

standpoint of a system of Government,
it may be observed that a Government
based on a denial of human rights and
interests cannot last long. Dictators are
forced to keep up nations to high
emotional pitch. In order to do so they
devise various methods of rewards and
punishment to perpetuate themselves
in power. Hitler did so by irrational
propaganda and the use of myths and
symbols and the repetition of slogans.
Such a policy leads inevitably to
violence at home and wars abroad. The
story of the rise and fall of fascism
demonstrates the truth of the
statement.
As a movement, Fascism appeared
in Italy after the First World War. With
the advent of Mussolini in 1922, the
movement got momentum. After
sometime Hitler came upon the stage
in Germany and Fascism set its foot in
many countries. The Fascist movement
swiftly spread to Austria, Hungary,

Romania and Spain. But after the
second World War, Fascism was
totally repudiated. It was realised
that Fascism, specially military
expansionism and violation of human
rights, was an outcome of Hitlers
policy. That is why, the Fascist block
was not only completely annihilated,
but also totally rejected, condemned
and criticised.
If we evaluate Fascism as a political
system, we find that it is based on the
concept of one party, one man and
police domination. It is a system where
political and social activities are
controlled by the state. In the
international sphere, the Fascist
administrative formations have been
expansionist
and
aggressive,
consequently posing danger to Human
Rights, administrative systems and
national existence. The Second World
War was an outcome of this policy.
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Explain the meaning of Fascism.

Mention any four weaknesses of the Fascist doctrine.
Fascism and democracy do not see eye to eye with each other. Comment.
Describe the main characteristics of Fascism.
(i) Fascism and Capitalism;
(ii) Fascism from ideological point of view;
(iii) Aryan race theory in German Fascism.
106
CHAPTER
16
Gandhism
ANDHI was the supreme leader of

the nationalist movement. He was
also a thinker who challenged most of
the assumptions and beliefs of his time.
The national movement before him was
confined to a few sections of society. He
turned it into a mass movement. His
strategy of political action largely
determined the form of national protest
and struggle against the British. The
idea of Swadeshi and boycott had been
formulated earlier. But he gave them a
unique meaning by integrating them
with the idea of a non-violent
satyagraha. His political strategy
attempted to bring all sections of Indian
society into the nationalist struggle.
His views are known as Gandhism
but he himself denied that there was
anything as Gandhism. But there are
a set of ideas in him which are original
and which have exercised enormous
influence on different people in the
same way as other ideologies have. His
writings are diffuse and repetitive,
except in Hind Swaraj which he wrote
before he plunged into the national
movement. But, despite this, his
writings have a coherent: vision of man
and society.
Some of his important ideas can be

summarised under five heads:
(i) critique of western civilisation,
(ii) Gandhis views on Democracy
(iii) freedom and the state, (iv) freedom
and economic organisation, (v) methods
of conflict resolution.
CRITIQUE OF WESTERN
CIVILISATION
Gandhi like Vivekananda and other
leaders of the Indian Renaissance
criticised the western civilisation.
According to him it was based on
calculated rational self-interest, which
was totally disruptive of human
relationships. He admired Indian
civilisation, which according to him had
a more satisfactory view of mans place
in the cosmos. It had given due
importance to spiritualism and mans
search for the soul. He was convinced
that the pursuit of self-interest in the
form of material interest would increase
conflict in society. He believed in the
ancient ideas of simple, moral, pious
life. This does not mean that he admired
everything Indian. He revolted against
the exploitation of the scheduled castes
107
GANDHISM
and did more than anyone else for the

improvement of their status.
Gandhi also did not like the
political democracy as it prevailed in
the West. He dismissed liberal
democracy as a fish market in which
people compete for their self-interest.
He of course believed that the
government ought to be based on the
consent of the people but he, hated to
see the state as the rule of the selfish
individuals. According to him,
democracy, as practised in Britain,
was bad because it believed in
counting heads. Those who used
51per cent votes ruled. He wanted that
in a democracy the weakest should
have the same opportunity as the
strongest. He complained that
democracy had come to mean party
rule, or to be more exact, rule in the
hands of the Prime Minister who often
lacks honesty of purpose. In it, he held
that each party thrives on bargains
regardless of their consequences
for all.
His reaction against the industrial
civilisation, which he detested as
immoral, had also a pragmatic
reason. Ours is a predominantly rural
society. Most people depend on
agriculture. He thought that the
introduction of labour-saving devices
in such a society would play havoc
with life of the people. However, with
advancing age his opposition to
technology decreased. He began to
welcome any technology which did
not increase unemployment and
destroy village craft and the simplicity
of village life.
VIEWS
ON
DEMOCRACY
In Hind Swaraj (1909), Gandhi had

taken an extremely negative view of the
value or role of the institutions of
modern civilisation, namely, the
parliament, law-courts, the police, the
military, machinery, hospitals,
railways, etc. These institutions of
modern civilisation, he said, were
divorced from morality, whereas, by
contrast, the tendency of Indian
civilisation is to elevate the moral
being. Accordingly, in place of the
institutions of modern, western
civilisation, he put forward an
alternative ideal of real home
ruleviz, self-rule and self-control by
the individuals in accordance with the
spiritual values of truth and nonviolence.
However, within a year of his active
involvement in mobilising the Indian
masses into the freedom struggle,
Gandhi made a partial revision of his
earlier views on the institutions of
modern civilisation. That revision was
due not only to his active involvement
in the freedom struggle but also to the
criticisms which many political
thinkers and political leaders had
made of Gandhis booklet. At any rate,
within about a year of his final return
to India from South Africa in 1915,
Gandhi came to adopt a rather positive
attitude toward the institutions of
modern life, including the parliament,
law-courts, machinery, railways and
hospitals. Rather than dismissing
them outright as he had done in his
Hind Swaraj, he now reluctantly
108
included them in what he called his

pardonable programme for the
attainment of parliamentary swaraj .
As to the organisational features of
parliamentary swaraj, Gandhi
preferred it to be a village-based,
decentralised set-up, in which all but
the lowest level of government was to
be indirectly elected by the immediately
lower level. This decentralised, villagebased model of parliamentary/
democratic swaraj was not the model
that was favoured by the Congress and
adopted by the Indian Constitution.
The Constitution, however, does
incorporate some so-called Gandhian
institutions such as the village
panchayats. Moreover, the personal and
civil liberties as well as the democratic
rights components of the liberaldemocratic political philosophy of the
Constitution are basic to Gandhis own
moral-political philosophy.
FREEDOM
AND THE
STATE
Gandhi looked upon an increase in the

power of the state with the greatest fear.
All increase in the power of the state,
according to him, was detrimental to
individuality. For him the state
represented violence in a concentrated
form. He said: The individual has a
soul, but the state is a soulless machine,
it can never be weaned from violence to
which it owes its existence. He too
believed in Swaraj as a condition in
which the individual would be complete
master of himself. He often contrasted
spiritual dominance of Indian society
with political dominance of the West. For
him, while the west prized brute force,

the ancient Indian society glorified kings
who considered their own swords as
inferior to the sword of ethic.
He postulated a non-violent state
based on the willing consent of the
people and representing the near
unanimity in society. He was convinced
that if India was to evolve along nonviolent lines, it would have to
decentralise
power
because
centralisation as a system is
inconsistent with a non-violent
structure of society. He was not only
against centralisation of political power
but was also against the centralization
of economic power. He was against
industries based on large-scale
production and later large-scale
control. In a centralised state, Gandhi
thought, there was bound to be a
conflict between the rich and the poor.
Decentralisation, on the other hand,
would make people responsible and
non-violent. It would foster feelings of
co-operation.
Gandhis ideal state would be
completely self-regulated. In such a
state, he thought, everyone would be
his own ruler. He will rule himself in
such a manner that he will never be a
hindrance to his neighbour. It is for this
reason that he admired Ramrajya
which personified the idea of self-help,
sacrifice, and discipline. He even
regarded Abu Baker and Hazrat Uman
like Rama. But he was quite aware that
it was not possible to create such a state
in the immediate future. One of the
obstacles were inequalities in which
few roll in riches and the masses do not
GANDHISM
get even enough to eat. Therefore, he

conceded that in the present
circumstances coercion could be used
in extreme cases. But he was convinced
that a state is good in which people are
governed the least.
He thought the village Republics
working in terms of panchayats would
develop the spontaneous energies of the
people while training them in cooperative action. He, therefore, pleaded
that panchayats should be given full
powers. Every village had to be selfsustained and capable of managing its
own affairs. Gandhi praised this system
because in it everyone knows his wants
and also realises that no one should
want anything that others cannot have
with equal labour. He summed up his
society thus: 1n this structure
composed of innumerable villages, there
will be ever widening, never ascending
circles. Life will not be a pyramid with
the apex sustained by the bottom But
it will be an oceanic circle whose centre
will be the individual always ready to
perish for the circle of villages, till at last
the whole becomes one life composed
of individuals. He further said that the
outermost circumference will, not wield
power to crush the inner circle but will
give strength to all within and derive its
own strength from it.
FREEDOM AND ECONOMIC

ORGANISATION
Like Marx he put emphasis on labour.
He believed it to be the real wealth
which gives rise to money. He thought,
The real owner of wealth is one who
109
puts in certain amount of labour with

a conscious productive aim . He
believed that one should not eat even a
single meal without doing some labour.
He thought that such an attitude would
foster economic independence, which in
turn will make us fearless and increase
the national character.
He totally, repudiated property. He
always thought that property was an
obstacle in the realisation of God. After
a theft he quoted a verse of Premchand
to Gangabehari: It is a blessing that
chains have broken, it will be easier for
me to find Shri Gopal. Gandhi was,
however, conscious that such a position
was impractical. He, therefore, declared
that if property is lawfully acquired,
it is entitled to protection.
It is in this context that he called
upon the Capitalists and Zamindars to
become trustees. He argued that they
should regard tenants and workers as
co-proprietors. The zamindar should
hold his Zamindari or industry in trust
for them. He admitted that absolute
trusteeship was unattainable. But he
was convinced that if we strive for it we
would go a long way in realizing a better
state of equality on earth than by any
other method. For him change of heart
was the answer.
How about state ownership? Isnt
it better than private ownership?
Gandhi admitted that it was better but
he rejected it on the grounds of
violence. He was convinced that if the
state suppressed capitalism by
violence, it will be caught in the coils of
violence itself, and will fail to develop
non-violence at any time. But if the
110
Zamindar or Capitalist refused to

become trustees, and the state
ownership became unavoidable, he
would support a minimum of state
ownership.
METHODS OF CONFLICT
RESOLUTION
Gandhi emphasised the need to
harness the forces of love as against
hatred. He insisted on non-violence and
Satyagraha over the concepts of
boycott and passive resistance. He
wrote that means to be means must
always be clean. For him ahimsa is our
supreme duty. If we take care of the
means, we shall definitely reach the end
sooner or later. He had derived his ideas
from Thoreau, Emerson, Tolstoy and
the Jain tradition. He was also
influenced by the Sermon on the Mount.
He was convinced that what was
required was to educate a man in truth
and non-violence, and by truth, man
will transform material conditions for
the good of all. Material conditions and
individual character are two sides of the
same coin in which, according to
Gandhi, the individual character had a
greater precedence because it alone has
the capacity to transform material
conditions on a permanent basis. A
change of material conditions without
corresponding change of heart will not
yield results. Both trusteeship and
satyagraha were such methods.
Satyagraha consists of two words,
i.e. Satya, which means truth and
Agraha, which means force, request
or strength. All practitioners of
Satyagraha should oppose violence by

non-violence as well as by the strength
of his moral convictions. According to
Gandhi, it was not merely a way of
resisting authority but also a way of using
love and moral strength to vindicate truth
in society. Gandhi was convinced that
violence inflicts injury on others. On the
other hand, use of Satyagraha may
involve suffering of the Satyagrahi
himself. The Satyagrahi does not merely
try to win but seeks the larger good or
truth which Gandhi thought was God
himself. However, if there was a choice
between violence and cowardice, Gandhi
always favoured the former.
Satagraha is the name of Gandhian
non-violent way of political action to
resist and transform untruthful and
violent systems of social or political
power. According to Gandhi, the
distinctive features of Satagraha, in
comparison with passive resistance,
are as follows:
(i) While the passive resisters
harbour hatred toward their
adversaries, the satyagrahis view
their opponents with love.
(ii) The passive resisters, unlike the
satyagrahis, may harass and
injure their opponents.
(iii) Satyagraha, unlike passive
resistance, can be offered even to
ones nearest and dearest ones.
(iv) Passive resistance is a resistance
by the weak and helpless, and it
does not exclude the use of
violence, whereas satyagraha is
a moral-political action by the
strong, and it excludes the use of
violence.
GANDHISM
The various methods of satyagraha

are: (1) purificatory actions by the
Satyagrahis, such as pledges, prayers
and fasts; (2) acts of non-cooperation,
such as boycott, strikes, hartal, fasting
and hijrat (i.e. voluntary emigration); (3)
acts of civil disobedience, such as
picketing , non-payment of taxes and
defiance of specific laws; and (4) a
constructive programme of social
reform and social service, such as the
promotion of inter-communal unity,
the removal of untouchability, adult
education, and the removal of economic
and social inequalities.
Gandhi provided a severe
indictment of the state, property and
industrialisation. He also provided an
alternative set of values and institutions.
The whole basis of society with its
inequalities, coercive state and
competitive capitalist is vicious. He
declared, If plain life is worth living,
then the attempt is worth making. His
numerous ideas are vague, his realism
as a political strategist is amply
contrasted with idealism in his
thoughts. But there is no doubt that
Gandhi raised almost all the important
questions which confront modern
civilisation, namely, the question of
increase in state power, bureaucratic
oppression, increasing use of violence,
the unfortunate consequences of big
technology, etc. His critique of the
modern civilisation is full of great
insights. His ideas on the relationship
between means and ends are
particularly thoughtful. No one has a
better case on these points than
Gandhi. His greatest contribution was
111
his emphasis on decentralisation of

economic and political power. Our
Directive Principles of State Policy insist
on the introduction of this idea.
Moreover, social scientists world over
are keen to articulate and explain the
Gandhian alternatives to the current ills
of development. These efforts amply
justify the relevance of Gandhi to the
contemporary world.
Gandhi, however, did not
adequately develop an alternative
institutional strategy, which could
link up his ideas with practice in
modem times. For example, in
advancing the idea of trusteeship, he
did not realise the appalling
selfishness of the capitalists. That is
one reason why when India became
free people found it difficult to
translate his ideas into concrete
structures. While he convinced the
people about the merits of the political
struggle he waged, he did not
sufficiently develop his idea to make
it clear to them the linkages his ideas
could have with the creation of a new
political and economic order. It is for
this reason that while some of his
followers turned to European
socialism for inspiration, the others to
the Sarvodaya philosophy of
communitarian life based on nonviolence. However, it was his great
achievement that he highlighted the
problems of the twentieth century by
insisting that politics, industry and
technology should be subordinated to
the ideals of life. It is for this reason
that while some of us can disagree
with Gandhi, none can ignore him.
112
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
On what grounds has Gandhi criticised the Western Civilisation.

Describe Gandhis view on democracy and state.
Explain conflict resolution. Describe Gandhian method of resolving the conflict
resolution.
Describe Gandhis concept of political and economic decentralisation.
(i) Parliamentary Swaraj;
(ii) Satyagraha and Passive Resistance;
(iii) Techniques of Satyagraha.
113
CHAPTER
17
Humanism
HE concept of Humanism refers

primarily to a system of thought,
which focusses on the autonomy of the
individual. The term Humanism has
several meanings. But generally
speaking, it is a doctrine according to
which, to quote Tzvetan Todorov, man
is point of departure and point of
reference of human action. The word
humanist figures perhaps first time
in the writings of the French thinker
Montaigne when he contrasts his own
thought with that of theologians.
Humanism was a product of
Renaissance and Enlightenment in
Europe and finds its fullest expression
in the American and French
Revolutions.
The concise Oxford Dictionary
defines Humanism as follows: An
outlook or system of thought
concerned with human rather than
divine or super natural matters. A belief
or outlook emphasising common
human needs and seeking solely
rational ways of solving human
problems, and concerned with mankind
as responsible and progressive
intellectual beings.
Humanists believe in the
potentiality of human beings. They
suggest that human being has great

potentiality and if developed fully one
can reach to the greatest height,
provided, of course, one gets proper
opportunities to develop. Humanists
also have faith in the good nature of
human being. Gandhi, Russell and
Tolstoy were great humanists of the
twentieth century. In his early writings
Marx was also a humanist. Early
writings of Marx include Economic and
Philosophical Manuscripts (1842),
written much before the publication of
Communist Manifesto (1848). M.N. Roy
was a humanist: well learn about his
humanism a few pages ahead. His
ideational journey was long. He began
his journey from Marxism and ended it
with Radical Humanism.
In the Middle Ages human beings
were subordinated to God. They had
access to secrets of nature but in
ultimate analysis their submission to
God was total. Renaissance and
Enlightenment brought about a change
in this perspective. Man became the
centre of the universe. He now would
have the possibility to will freely and to
be his own masters. He would have the
freedom to choose a life for himself and
his fellow human beings rather than
114
being dictated either by traditions or by

God. This meant that henceforth he
would have freedom to choose his home,
profession and also to deviate from
traditions or canons of religious texts.
Religion did continue to play an
important role. But the significant
change that occurred was that man had
the right to make a distinction between
true and false, right and wrong, just
and unjust, and good and bad.
In humanist thought, man becomes
free in his private life. He was not only
unique but also different and could not
be reduced to the other. He also
acquired inherent natural right to
decide the rules of moral living. Later
another component was added to this
when man claimed freedom in the
public domain also and asserted the
right to choose his political regime.
Thus, democracy became the only
legitimate form of Government. The
movement reached its zenith towards
the end of the eighteenth century, in the
American and French Revolutions.
Both the revolutions were inspired by
the idea that no authority, be it tradition,
family or the state, is superior to the
will of man.
As a result of these changes, three
major orientations emerged.
I.
MATERIALISM
Since Gods existence is doubtful and

human beings are in complete charge
of themselves, they will decide their own
values. They will be materialists.
Modern science emphasises the role of
reason and its capacity to penetrate all
the secrets of nature and history.

Science leads to technology, to the idea
that we cannot only understand nature
but also transform it according to
our will.
II.
INDIVIDUALISM
Since the weight of tradition and family

ties circumscribes ones freedom, the
individual must assert its individual
autonomy and make choices according
to ones own interest. Freedom is the
most precious gift of Renaissance and
we must preserve it at any cost. It is
not that every one has accepted this
position in totality. For instance,
conservatives would still cling to the
value of the family and the tradition.
There are others who would like to
abandon the values of shared life. But
humanists insist that while objectively
man shares the same condition, in the
inter subjective relations, to quote
Todorov, everyone occupies a unique
position; in communion with oneself,
everyone is alone, and responsible for
his actions. The final decision in all
matters now rests with the individual.
One must affirm life, assert ones power
and relentlessly pursue ones own
interest in relation to others.
III.
DEMOCRATISM
Since man has the capacity to decide

true and false as he is endowed with
reason, he has a right to choose his
political regime. Democracy is the only
legitimate form of government as it is
based on the idea of willing subjects.
HUMANISM
Humanist thought tells us a little about

economic policies of the way in which
the state institutions should be
organised. Humanism is content to
provide a guiding perspective around
the principles of toleration and
pluralism. According to them there is
no paradise; the world is imperfect and
human beings have to make the best
of it.
In India, M.N.Roy gave a clear
expression to the idea of humanism. He
regarded man as central, he wrote
freedom is the supreme value because
the urge for freedom is the essence of
human existence. Roy accepted
humanism because humanists had
always approached life from the
assumption of the sovereignty of man.
It is mans unique capacity of knowing,
as distinct from the common biological
activity of being aware, which endows
him with powers, not to rule over others,
but to create freedom for the benefit of
humanity.
It is to the credit of the humanist
thought that we have moved away from
the aristocratic to the democratic age
in which all man are treated as free and
equal. It has made us aware of need to
make an individual autonomous not
only of God but of all larger aggregates
as well as ideologies which tend to
subordinate the individual to either a
hypothetical vision of history or vague
universal concepts such as race or
nationalism. The emphasis on history
115
as a determining principle finally led to

communism and atrocities associated
with some of the communist regimes in
the name of class war. The emphasis
on race and nationalism culminated in
the fascist regimes, which completely
sacrificed the individual at the altar of
the state. Humanism also rejects
technological domination. Machines are
made to serve human beings and not
vice-versa.
The importance of humanism lies
in the fact that it asserts the autonomy
of the individual. It is true that this
individual does not live in isolation, but
only in relation to others. What is
valuable in humanism is its insistence
that in the ultimate analysis, it is
individuals own uniqueness and
resultant moral worth, which is
important. All citizens are equal
members of the society. What counts is
not their resemblance but uniqueness
and diversity. Humanism believes that
society consists of individuals, good
and bad; those who can co-operate and
those who cannot and those who can
inflict injury and those who cannot. All
of them can co-exist in a framework of
plurality. The state should protect them
all and should be so organised that the
individual becomes an end in itself. The
state, science, technology, etc. are all
means to an end namely to enable
individuals to flourish; they are not
ends in themselves; they cannot be
allowed to dominate human life.
116
EXERCISES
1.
2.
3.
What is Humanism?
Explain M.N.Roys idea on Humanism.
Explain the following in relation to Humanism:
(i) Materialism;
(ii) Individualism;
(iii) Democratism.
117
Glossary
Bourgeoisie: A French term signifying citizen class. The term is frequently used by
Marxist socialists to denote the class of proprietors (other
than
agricultural), capitalists, manufacturers, merchants, persons with a business of
their own and members of liberal professions as opposed to the proletariat who
live only by selling their labour.
Capitalism: A type of economic system which precedes socialism or communism. It
is based on private ownership of the means of production and on the exploitation
of the wage labour.
Chartist Movement: A British workingclass radical movement during 1838-50.
The movement brought about a peoples charter which proposed among other
things; universal manhood suffrage, equal electoral districts, votes by ballot,annual
parliament, abolition of the property qualification for M.Ps and paid M.Ps. O Conner
was the most influential figure of the chartist movement.
Democratic Socialism: A mixed ideology aiming at bringing about socialism through
democratic means. The ideology was consciously articulated by Nehru and endorsed
by the Indian Parliament from time to time.
Ethnocratic: Evaluating other races and cultures by criteria specific to ones own.
Elite: Denotes a group of persons who hold positions of eminence in society. The
term is also used to refer to leaders in different fields, e.g. political elite.
Fabian Socialism: Originated in 1887 under the auspices of the Fabian Society. It
proposed the use of existing party and parliamentary machinery for accomplishing
practical reforms gradually leading to the elimination of poverty and establishment
of community ownership of means of production and land.
Guild Socialism: A co-operative form of socialism combining large scale state
ownership of the means of production with their administration by guilds (unions
trade). It originated in England around 1900 A.D. and its chief exponent was G.D.H.
Cole.
Humanism: An outlook or system of thought concerned with human rather than
divine or supernatural matters.
118
Human Rights: Human rights are modern and secular version of natural rights.
Human beings are entitled to these rights by virtue of being human. These rights
are universal in the sense that they belong to all humans and not only to members
of any particular state, race, religion, gender or other group.
Laissez-faire: Denotes nonintervention by the state in the economic activities of
individuals.
Liberalism: An ideology based on a commitment to individualism, consent and
toleration: modern liberalism differs from classical liberalism.
Political Development: The concept of political development became popular after
the emergence of the 3rd world countires. This concept is analysed and discussed as
a moral ethical and political, good among the developing countries.
Political Participation: Through this process of political participation a close
relationship is established between the authorities and the people. Political
authorities here are always keen to ensure participation of masses in the process of
governance.
Political Socilisation: The process by which a particular set of attitudes, beliefs
and orientations is passed on from one generation to another is known as political
socialisation. In other words, it is a study of what, when and how people learn
about politics.
Proletariat: In ancient Rome the propertyless class which served the state by
producing children proles. However, the most prevalent usage refers to the one
developed by Marx. In this sense proletariat includes those in industry, agriculture
and intellectual posts who live by the sale of their labour, as opposed to the capitalist
bourgeoisie.
State of Nature: State of nature suggests a precivil and prepolitical state of
human existence in which human relations were governed by the law of nature. To
some such a state was pre-social also. The state of nature was either too idyllic or
too inconvenient to last long. Hence, men soon abandoned the state of nature and
set up a political society.
Syndicalism: A movement of labour unions which favoured direct action
culminating in a revolutionary general strike to secure workers ownership and
control of industry. It originated under the influence of Robert Owen and acquired
its more violent aspects in France besides getting its name from the word Syndicate
(union trade).
Trade Union: An association of wage earners of workers for the purpose of improving
their conditions and protecting their interests.
Utopia: It is associated with the ideal state of condition with no imperfection. It
means an ideal which is difficult to achieve in reality. The term became famous
after Thomas Mores description in 1516 of an island with this name.

Key Concepts and Theories 12th NCERT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Concepts and Theories 12th NCERT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Key Concepts and Theories 12th NCERT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLITICAL SCIENCE

KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

Unit I : Key Concepts: Indian and Western Perspectives

Unit II : State and the Citizen

Rights and Duties : Meaning and Relationship

Unit III : Comparative Politics

Approaches to the Study of Comparative Politics :

Unit IV : Major Political Theories

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

HE term law has different

dependent on its moral validity; while

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

power of the state. Whatever be the

judiciary, there are other

therefore, viewed law as an instrument

Where does law come from? The

There are two kinds of laws, viz. private

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

The private law, thus, refers to civil

The relationship between law and

seen, issues about law are not as simple

our country. But if laws lose moral

are collective moralities also which stress

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

What do you understand by the term Law?

HE concept of liberty is complex

without any fear of punishment. Then

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

fundamental sense of freedom, says Sir

state. This is inconsistent with the view

an organisation and synthesis of

The state, general will, a class or a

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

and control. John Rawls argues

There are three types of liberty

preserved by it; only then it is fit to

sometimes even violent disturbances

loggerheads, sooner or later one or both

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

decides whether the person can be set

Social liberty implies freedom from

lead an autonomous life. He/she

Liberal thinkers put more emphasis

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

sometimes even to violent revolution. In

Moral freedom, therefore, lies in

Law lays down what a citizen is free to

Such a situation will lead to anarchy in

courts may be arbitrary. People can be

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

knows not only the decision but also

to protect their own liberty. The French

Explain the concepts of Liberty.

OME people have viewed equality

impossible to achieve because they are

POLITICAL SCIENCE : KEY CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

in which equally meritorious children

others think that it increases the hold

As one can see, the general concept of