Internal Assignment No.

B.A-I YEAR
Paper Code: B.A –PS-002
Paper Title: INDIAN POLITICS THOUGHT
Student name
Roll no
Ans 1

A function is a rule which relates the values of one variable quantity to the values of another
variable quantity, and does so in such a way that the value of the second variable quantity
is uniquely determined by (i.e. is a function of) the value of the first variable quantity.

This is clearly a very general definition. Such rules are general enough to serve as
mathematical models for a large number of natural relationships between variable physical
quantities.

We name functions by using symbols like "f," "g," "h," etc. Just as your name signifies all of
the many things that make "you," a symbol like "f" serves as a shorthand for what may be a
long or complicated rule expressing a particular relationship between variable quantities. We
name the variable quantities with symbols like "x," "y," "t," etc. We then write y = f(x) to
show that f is a rule which assigns a unique value of the variable quantity y to values of the
variable quantity x.

Notice that the definition distinguishes between a first variable quantity and a second variable
quantity. It is the second variable which is a function of the first, and when we write y =
f(x) we mean that the value of y depends (in a way specified by the rule f ) on the value of
x, but not necessarily vice versa. For example, what you wear may depend on the weather,
but the reverse is certainly not true. We make this distinction among variables by calling x
the input to the function and y the output, or by calling x the independent variable and
y the dependent variable.

Nature, in the broadest sense, is the natural, physical, or material world or universe. "Nature" can refer to the phenomena of
the physical world, and also to life in general. The study of nature is a large, if not the only, part of science. Although humans
are part of nature, human activity is often understood as a separate category from other natural phenomena.
The word nature is derived from the Latin word natura, or "essential qualities, innate disposition", and in ancient times, literally
meant "birth".[1] Natura is a Latin translation of the Greek word physis (φύσις), which originally related to the intrinsic
characteristics that plants, animals, and other features of the world develop of their own accord.[2][3] The concept of nature as a
whole, the physical universe, is one of several expansions of the original notion; it began with certain core applications of the
word φύσις by pre-Socratic philosophers, and has steadily gained currency ever since. This usage continued during the
advent of modern scientific method in the last several centuries.[4][5]
Within the various uses of the word today, "nature" often refers to geology and wildlife. Nature can refer to the general realm of
living plants and animals, and in some cases to the processes associated with inanimate objects—the way that particular
types of things exist and change of their own accord, such as the weather and geology of the Earth. It is often taken to mean
the "natural environment" or wilderness—wild animals, rocks, forest, and in general those things that have not been
substantially altered by human intervention, or which persist despite human intervention. For example, manufactured objects
and human interaction generally are not considered part of nature, unless qualified as, for example, "human nature" or "the
whole of nature". This more traditional concept of natural things which can still be found today implies a distinction between
the natural and the artificial, with the artificial being understood as that which has been brought into being by a
human consciousness or a human mind. Depending on the particular context, the term "natural" might also be distinguished
from the unnatural or the supernatural.
The term state refers to a form of polity, that is typically characterised as a centralized organisation. There is no single,
undisputed, definition of what constitutes a state.[1][2] A widely-used definition is a state being a polity that, within a given
territory, maintains a monopoly on the use of force, but many other widely used definitions exist.[3][4]
Some states are sovereign, while other states are subject to external sovereignty or hegemony, where supreme authority lies
in another state.[5] The term "state" also applies to federated states that are members of a federation, in which sovereignty is
shared between member states and a federal body.
Speakers of American English often use the terms "state" and "government" as synonyms, with both words referring to an
organized political group that exercises authority over a particular territory. In British and Commonwealth English, "state" is the
only term that has that meaning, while "the government" instead refers to the ministers and officials who set the political policy
for the territory, something that speakers of American English refer to as "the administration".
Many human societies have been governed by states for millennia; however, for most of pre-history people lived in stateless
societies. The first states arose about 5,500 years ago in conjunction with rapid growth of cities, invention of writing, and
codification of new forms of religion. Over time, a variety of different forms developed, employing a variety of justifications for
their existence (such as divine right, the theory of the social contract, etc.). Today, the modern nation-state is the predominant
form of state to which people are subject.
he word state and its cognates in some other European languages (stato in Italian, estado in Spanish and Portuguese, état in
French, Staatin German) ultimately derive from the Latin word status, meaning "condition, circumstances".
The English noun state in the generic sense "condition, circumstances" predates the political sense. It is introduced to Middle
English c. 1200 both from Old French and directly from Latin.
With the revival of the Roman law in 14th-century Europe, the term came to refer to the legal standing of persons (such as the
various "estates of the realm" – noble, common, and clerical), and in particular the special status of the king. The highest
estates, generally those with the most wealth and social rank, were those that held power. The word also had associations
with Roman ideas (dating back to Cicero) about the "status rei publicae", the "condition of public matters". In time, the word
lost its reference to particular social groups and became associated with the legal order of the entire society and the apparatus
of its enforcement.[6]
The early 16th-century works of Machiavelli (especially The Prince) played a central role in popularizing the use of the word
"state" in something similar to its modern sense.[7] The contrasting of church and state still dates to the 16th century. The North
American colonieswere called "states" as early as the 1630s. The expression L'Etat, c'est moi ("I am the State") attributed
to Louis XIV of France is probably apocryphal, recorded in the late 18th century.

Ans2 (1)

The Hindu Mahasabha (officially Akhil Bhārat Hindū Mahāsabhā or All-India Hindu Grand-Assembly) is a right
wing Hindu nationalistpolitical party in India.[2][3]
The organisation was formed to protect the rights of the Hindu community in British India, after the formation of
the All India Muslim League in 1906[4] and the British India government's creation of separate Muslim electorate
under the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909.[5][4]
Although quite an old Hindu nationalist political party, the Hindu Mahasabha has remained marginal in its influence
on Indian politics, both before and after independence.

History[
Local forerunners of the Hindu Mahasabha emerged in connection with the disputes after the partition of Bengal in 1905 in
British India. Under the then viceroy Lord Curzon, the division of the province of Bengal was in two new provinces of East
Bengal and Assam, as well as Bengal. The new province of Bengal had a Hindu majority, the province of East Bengal and
Assam was mostly Muslim. The division was justified by the British for administrative reasons. However, many nationalist
Indians saw it as an attempt by the British colonial administration to drive a wedge between Hindus and Muslims, thereby
splitting the burgeoning Indian autonomy movement.[citation needed]
The formation of the All India Muslim League in 1906[4] and the British India government's creation of
separate Muslim electorate under the Morley-Minto reforms of 1909[5] was a catalyst for Hindu leaders coming together to
create an organisation to protect the rights of the Hindu community members.[4]
In 1909, Arya Samaj leaders Lala Lajpat Rai, Lal Chand and Shadi Lal established the Punjab Hindu Sabha
("Assembly").[7] Madan Mohan Malaviya presided over the Sabha's first session at Lahore in October 1909. The Sabha stated
that it was not a sectarian organisation, but an "all-embracing movement" that aimed to safeguard the interests of "the entire
Hindu community". During 21–22 October 1909, it organised the Punjab Provincial Hindu Conference, which criticised
the Indian National Congress for failing to defend Hindu interests, and called for promotion of Hindu-centered politics. The
Sabha organised five more annual provincial conferences in Punjab.[8]
The development of the broad work for Hindu unity that started in the early 20th century in Punjab was a precursor for the
formation of the All India Hindu Sabha. Over the next few years, several such Hindu Sabhas were established outside Punjab,
including in United Provinces, Bihar, Bengal, Central Provinces and Berar, and Bombay Presidency.[9]
A formal move to establish an umbrella All-India Hindu Sabha was made at the Allahabad session of Congress in 1910. A
committee headed by Lala Baij Nath was set up to draw up a constitution, but it did not make much progress. Another
conference of Hindu leaders in Allahabad also took the initial step to establish an All India Hindu Sabha in 1910, but this
organisation did not become operational due to factional strife. On 8 December 1913, the Punjab Hindu Sabha passed a
resolution to create an All India Hindu Sabha at its Ambalasession. The Conference proposed holding a general conference of
Hindu leaders from all over India at the 1915 Kumbh Mela in Haridwar.[8]

Establishment
Preparatory sessions of the All India Hindu Sabha were held at Haridwar (13 February 1915), Lucknow (17 February 1915)
and Delhi (27 February 1915). In April 1915, Sarvadeshak(All India) Hindu Sabha was formed as an umbrella organisation of
regional Hindu Sabhas, at the Kumbh Mela in Haridwar. Gandhi and Swami Shraddhanand were also present at the
conference, and were supportive of the formation of All India Hindu Sabha.[8] The Sabha laid emphasis on Hindu solidarity and
the need for social reform.[8]
At its sixth session in April 1921, the Sarvadeshak Hindu Sabha formally changed its name to Akhil Bharat Hindu
Mahasabha on the model of the Indian National Congress. Presided over by Manindra Chandra Nandi, it amended its
constitution to remove the clause about loyalty to the British, and added a clause committing the organisation to a "united and
self-governing" Indian nation.[10]
Amongst the Mahasabha's early leaders was the prominent nationalist and educationalist Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, who
founded the Benaras Hindu University, and the Punjabi populist Lala Lajpat Rai. Under Malaviya, the Mahasabha campaigned
for Hindu political unity, for the education and economic development of Hindus as well as for the conversion of Muslims to
Hinduism.
In the late 1920s, the Mahasabha came under the influence of leaders like Balakrishna Shivram Moonje and Vinayak
Damodar Savarkar. Savarkar was a former revolutionary who had been banned from anti-British political activities and
opposed the secularism of the Congress. Under Savarkar, the Mahasabha became a more intense critic of the Congress and
its policy of wooing Muslim support. The Mahasabha suffered a setback when in 1925, its former member Keshav Baliram
Hedgewar left to form the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh, a Hindu volunteer organisation that abstained from active politics.
Although ideologically similar to the Mahasabha, the RSS grew faster across the nation and became a competitor for the core
constituency of the Mahasabha.
Alliance with Muslim League and others
The Indian National Congress won a massive victory in the 1937 Indian provincial elections, decimating the Hindu
Mahasabha. However, in 1939, the Congress ministries resigned in protest against Viceroy Lord Linlithgow's action of
declaring India to be a belligerent in the Second World War without consulting the Indian people. This led to the Hindu
Mahasabha joining hands with the Muslim League and other parties to form governments, in certain provinces. Such coalition
governments were formed in Sindh, NWFP, and Bengal.
In Sindh, Hindu Mahasabha members joined Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah's Muslim League government. In Savarkar's own
words,
"Witness the fact that only recently in Sind, the Sind-Hindu-Sabha on invitation had taken the responsibility of joining hands
with the League itself in running coalition government
In March 1943, Sindh Government became the first Provincial Assembly of the sub-continent to pass an official resolution in
favour of the creation of Pakistan.[16] In spite of the Hindu Mahasabha's avowed public opposition to any political division of
India, the Mahasabha Ministers of the Sindh government did not resign, rather they simply "contented themselves with a
protest".[17]
In the North West Frontier Province, Hindu Mahasabha members joined hands with Sardar Aurang Zeb Khan of the Muslim
League to form a government in 1943. The Mahasabha member of the cabinet was Finance Minister Mehar Chand
Khanna.[18][19]
In Bengal, Hindu Mahasabha joined the Krishak Praja Party led Progressive Coalition ministry of Fazlul Haq in December,
1941.[20] Savarkar appreciated the successful functioning of the coalition government

Ans 2(2)
Vinayak Damodar Savarkar 28 May 1883 – 26 February 1966), popularly known as Veer Savarkar in his
native Marathi language), was an Indian independence activist, politician, lawyer, writer, and the formulator of
the Hindutva philosophy
As a response to the Muslim league, Savarkar joined the Hindu Mahasabha[6] and popularized the
term Hindutva (Hinduness), previously coined by Chandranath Basu, to create a collective "Hindu" identity as an
essence of Bharat (India). Savarkar was also a pragmatic practitioner of Hindu Philosophy. He advocated for
validating religious myths/blind faith against the test of modern science. In that sense he also was a rationalist and
reformer.
Savarkar's revolutionary activities began while studying in India and England, where he was associated with
the India House and founded student societies including Abhinav Bharat Society and the Free India Society, as
well as publications espousing the cause of complete Indian independence by revolutionary means. [5] Savarkar
published The Indian War of Independence about the Indian rebellion of 1857 that was banned by British
authorities. He was arrested in 1910 for his connections with the revolutionary group India House. Following a
failed attempt to escape while being transported from Marseilles, Savarkar was sentenced to two life terms of
imprisonment totalling fifty years and was moved to the Cellular Jail in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands, but
released in 1921.
While in prison, Savarkar wrote the work describing Hindutva, espousing what it means to be a Hindu, and Hindu
pride, in which he defined as all the people descended of Hindu culture as being part of Hindutva, including
Buddhists, Jains and Sikhs.[10] The words Hindu and Muslim was popularised as religions by the ruling British after
their 1872 census, to replace "Hindi" which was the term used earlier to describe all people from India. (Hind).[11] In
1921, under restrictions after signing a plea for clemency, he was released on the condition that he renounce
 revolutionary activities. Travelling widely, Savarkar became a forceful orator and writer, advocating Hindu political
and social unity. Serving as the president of the Hindu Mahasabha (Hindu Grand-Assembly) political party,
Savarkar endorsed the idea of India as a Hindu Rashtra (Hindu Nation) and opposed the Quit India struggle in
1942, calling it a "Quit India but keep your army" movement. He became a fierce critic of the Indian National
Congress and its acceptance of India's partition. He was accused of the assassination of Mahatma Gandhi but
acquitted by the court. He became popular with children in India in the 1970s due to a comic book published
by Amar Chitra Katha. He resurfaced in the popular discourse after the coming of the BJP into power in
1998[12] and again in 2014 with the Modi led BJP government at the center.[13]
The airport at Port Blair, Andaman and Nicobar's capital was renamed Veer Savarkar International Airport in
2002.[14] One of the commemorative blue plaques affixed on India House fixed by the Historic Building and
Monuments Commission for England reads "Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, 1883–1966, Indian patriot and
philosopher lived here".[

Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, commonly known as Swatantryaveer Savarkar was a fearless freedom fighter, social reformer, writer,
dramatist, poet, historian, political leader and philosopher. He remains largely unknown to the masses because of the vicious
propaganda against him and misunderstanding around him that has been created over several decades. This website attempts to
bring the life, thought, actions and relevance of Savarkar before a global audience.
 he first political leader to daringly set Absolute Political Independence as India's goal (1900).
 The first Indian political leader to daringly perform a bonfire of foreign (English) clothes (1905).
 The first Indian to organize a revolutionary movement for India's Independence on an international level (1906).
 The first Indian law student who was not called to the English Bar despite having passed his examination and
observed the necessary formalities, for his activities to seek India's freedom from the British (1909).
 The only Indian leader whose arrest in London caused legal difficulties for British Courts and whose case is still
referred to in the interpretations of the Fugitive Offenders Act and the Habeas Corpus (Rex Vs Governor of
Brixton Prison, ex-parte Savarkar)
 The first Indian historian whose book on the 1857 War of Independence was proscribed by British Authorities in
India even before its publication. The Governor General had asked the Postmaster General to confiscate copies of
the book six months before the book was officially banned (1909).
 The first political prisoner whose daring escape and arrest on French soil became a cause celebre in the
International Court of Justice at The Hague. This case was mentioned in many International Treaties at that time
(1910).
 The first graduate whose degree was withdrawn by an Indian University for striving for India's freedom (1911).
 The first poet in the world who, deprived of pen and paper, composed his poems and then wrote them on the
prison walls with thorns and nails, memorized ten thousand lines of his poetry for years and later transmitted them
to India through his fellow-prisoners who also memorized these lines.
 The first revolutionary leader who within less than 10 years gave a death-blow to the practice of untouchability in
the remote district of Ratnagiri while being interned there.
 The first Indian leader who successfully started -
o A Ganeshotsava open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (1930).
o Interdining ceremonies of all Hindus including ex-untouchables (1931).
o "Patitpavan Mandir", open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (22 February 1931).
o A cafe open to all Hindus including ex-untouchables (01 May 1933).
 The first political prisoner in the world who was sentenced to Transportation for Life twice, a sentence
unparalleled in the history of the British Empire.
 The first political leader to embrace death voluntarily by way of Atma Samarpan in the highest tradition of Yoga
(1966).

Internal Assignment No. 2

B.A-I YEAR
Paper Code: B.A –PS-002
Paper Title: INDIAN POLITICS THOUGHT
Student name---------------------
Roll no------------------------
Ans 1
olitical Thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi : A brief outline
Political in our day-to-day understanding is an all comprehensive term. Mostly it has bee used to

mean State Politics that includes structure and functioning of a State as well as its correlation with

other states. Politics used as a Science of state or an academic discipline which is not competent to

change the image of politics, which is understood as an activity centering round power and very

often devoid of simples.

Etymologically, politics comes from the Greek root 'polis'. It implies the principles and applications

that guided the governance of the Greek city-states. It should be remembered tat State was a

holistic conception to the ancient Greeks, which covered every public activity of the citizens. In

many Indian languages, politics has been called Rajniti. In one sense, it meant the principle of

administration of the King or ruler.

Politics of Gandhi
Coming to the political thought of Gandhi, we have to remember certain dispositions of Gandhi.First

of all, Gandhi was not a system builder in an academic sense.He was not a political philosopher.For

all his sayings were pouring from his deep feelings and sincere realization of the truth. Without

going into disputes, it can be agreed that he was not committed to any exclusive school of thought.

His speech and pen had generally come from responses from particular situation. Gandhi even at

the fag end of his life spoke of himself that he had never ceased to grow and therefore, he had

been learning from "Experiment with Truth". as he named his autobiography. Thus Gandhi had

revised his opinions from time to time though his conceptual framework remained the same. He

had not altered from his basics.

Gandhi's political thought stems from different traditions, Eastern and Western. Though he had

inherited many traditions he had not agreed in to with any one of them. He had picked up many

traditional concepts from his immediate predecessors as well as from ancient texts. Gandhi did

never claim to be an original thinker. But when we look into all his sayings we find a conceptual

framework, common to a philosopher. Moreover, when we find that his theoretical formulations and

practical pursuits are identical, we have every reason to accept him as a philosopher in the Indian

sense. But unlike other philosophers and political scientists of both the East and the West, only he

could emerge not only as the man of destiny of the nation but also as the man of the millennium.

Many political Scientists thought that Gandhi was a combinations of a prophet and a politician of

the highest caliber. So he had combined within himself aspects of the Philosopher and politician.

Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose, a great admirer and critic of Gandhi, once said that Gandhi had to
play the roles of a world teacher as well as the Supreme leader of the Indian National Liberation

Movement. In a tone of criticism he further said, often his former role that is the role of a world

teacher became so prominent that he had to compromise with his other role. One may or may not

agree with Netaji Bose but it appears that in the context of national liberation movement there is

truth in it. But when we go into the depth of Gandhi's Philosophy, we feel that there is no

dichotomy in Gandhi's perception. It can be said that Gandhi considered politics as an instrument

for the uplift of mankind in social, economic, moral and spiritual spheres. Gandhi himself admitted

to his South African friend that his bent of mind was religious and not political. Romain Rolland in

his biography of Gandhi written in 1924, had remarked that if Tilak would not have died Gandhi

might have chosen a religious life rather than a political. TO Gandhi politics itself was his religion.

He was opposed to politicizing religion. He was for spiritualizing religion but he was essentially a

worldly man and never sought this own salvation secluded from the world. For him politics had

encircled him like the coil of a snake. He must wrestle with the snake, there is no respite. He could

have thought of avoiding politics, if without politics food and work could be provided to the hungry

unemployed people of India. He strongly felt hat without involving himself in politics it is not

possible to remove socio-economic exploitation and political subjugation and thereby moral

degradation of the people of Indian unless he involved himself in politics.

In this perspective we have to understand Gandhi's confrontation with the coil of a snake. No

matter how much tough, the task might be, we have to come out from it by wrestling with the

snake. This can be successfully performed if we can alleviate the present state of politics to

Dharmic politics. By Dharmic, Gandhi meant that it should be remove from corrupting influences

and sectarianism. This politics should be the privilege of all. Gandhi was not prepared to accept any

fixed dogma or mechanical way for either of politics or religion.

Gandhi had a vision of transforming the socially and morally degenerated and separated individuals

in a manner where individuals can enjoy their freedom in a spirit altruism. To understand Gandhi's

politics it is also necessary to understand Gandhi's concern for the cleavage between state and civil

society. The community life is fast diminishing and civil society could not formulate any mechanism

to control it.

Gandhi was concerned since his days of Hind Swaraj that the Western civilization had been

hedonistic, in the sense of self-pleasure centred, pragmatic in the sense of immediate material

benefit and individualistic in the sense of egocentric in the sense of sovereign individual oriented.

He found British parliament had become a sterile women, where naked display of self interest or
 party interest (or power only) had been manifested. He blamed disease lying with the western

civilization itself. Gandhi found that the whole business of politics had been running to a wrong

path on a hoax.

As we knew Gandhi was a God-oriented man. But to him Truth is God and as in other spheres of

life, politics should also be a search after truth and this search must be understood by Gandhi, is

for raising general conscience of the people. Every individual must be free from pangs of hunger

must prevent exploitation and oppression. He would then be in a position to work for hi sown

development through the performances of duties. A universal morality would emerge which would

create an atmosphere for healthy political life. We should accept self-transformation as a

continuous process. Gandhi was emphatic in saying that politics bereft of religion is a death trap

which kills the soul. By spiritualization of politics, Gandhi meant something larger than our day to

day life but not excluding world of day to day experiences. A community of persons on the process

of self-realization be able to resist the corrupting influences of existing interests.

According to Gandhi this is not just a philosophical dream far from realities of political life. Many

great philosophers right from Plato could not reconcile the dichotomy between reality and ideal.

From Gandhian point of view, we should into distrust the capability of commoner to rise above

passion and self-interest and we can evolve a modus operandi by which a new kind of politics might

emerge as Gandhi envisioned.

Gandhian Equality
Equality is not only a cardinal principle of Gandhian thought but it is one of the most aspired

concepts of most other writers on social and political thought. But if we analyze the concept we

would be faced with the differences on the outlook of these writers. We are accustomed to use the

term to mean equality of characteristics and also equality of treatment. Leaving aside the former,

the criteria of equality have been used in so many senses as (a) impartiality (b) equal share to all

(c) equal share to equals (d) proportional equality (e) unequal shares corresponding to relevant

differences.

Jayaprakash Narayan, also spelled Jai Prakash Narain, also called Jaya Prakash Narayan,
(born October 11, 1902, Sitab Diyara, India—died October 8, 1979, Patna), Indian political
leader and theorist.
Narayan was educated at universities in the United States, where he became a Marxist. Upon
his return to India in 1929, he joined the Indian National Congress (Congress Party). In 1932 he
was sentenced to a year’s imprisonment for his participation in the civil disobediencemovement
against British rule in India. Upon release he took a leading part in the formation of
the Congress Socialist Party, a left-wing group within the Congress Party, the organization that
led the campaign for Indian independence. He was imprisoned by the British again in 1939 for
his opposition to Indian participation in World War II on the side of Britain, but he subsequently
made a dramatic escape and for a short time tried to organize violent resistance to the
government before his recapture in 1943. After his release in 1946 he tried to persuade the
Congress leaders to adopt a more militant policy against British rule.
In 1948 he, together with most of the Congress Socialists, left the Congress Party and in 1952
formed the Praja Socialist Party. Soon becoming dissatisfied with party politics, he announced
in 1954 that he would thenceforth devote his life exclusively to the Bhoodan Yajna Movement,
founded by Vinoba Bhave, which demanded that land be distributed among the landless. His
continuing interest in political problems, however, was revealed when in 1959 he argued for a
“reconstruction of Indian polity” by means of a four-tier hierarchy of village, district, state, and
union councils.
In 1974 Narayan suddenly burst on the Indian political scene as a severe critic of what he saw
as the corrupt and increasingly undemocratic government of Prime Minister Indira Gandhi.
Although he gained a following from students and opposition politicians, there was less
enthusiasm from the masses. The next year a lower court convicted Gandhi of corrupt election
practices, and Narayan called for her resignation. Instead, she declared a national emergency
and jailed Narayan and other opposition leaders. In prison his health broke down. He was
released after five months but never regained his health. When Gandhi and her party were
defeated in elections in 1977, Narayan advised the victorious Janata party in its choice of
leaders to head the new administration.

Ans2

The phrase "top characteristics of civilization" refers both to the features of societies that
rose to greatness in Mesopotamia, Egypt, the Indus Valley, China's Yellow River,
Mesoamerica, the Andes Mountains in South America and others, as well as to the reasons
or explanations for the rise of those cultures.

Why those cultures became so complex while others faded away is one of the great puzzles
that archaeologists and historians have attempted to address many times. The fact that
complexity happened is undeniable. In a short 12,000 years, humans, who organized and fed
themselves as loosely associated bands of hunters and gathererseventually developed into
societies with full-time jobs, political borders, and detente, currency markets and
entrenched poverty and wristwatch computers, world banks, and international space
stations

The concept of a civilization has a fairly grubby past. The idea of what we consider a civilization grew out
of the 18th-century movement known as the Enlightenment and the term is often related to or used
interchangeably with 'culture.' These two terms are tied up with linear developmentalism, the now-
discredited notion that human societies evolved in a linear fashion. According to that, there was a
straight line that societies were supposed to develop along, and ones that deviated were, well, deviant.
That idea allowed movements such as kulturkreis in the 1920s to brand societies and ethnic groups as
"decadent" or "normal", depending on what stage of the societal evolution line scholars and politicians
perceived them to have achieved. The idea was used as an excuse for European imperialism, and it must
be said still lingers in some places.

American archaeologist Elizabeth Brumfiel (2001) pointed out that the word 'civilization'
has two meanings. First, the definition arising from the grubby past is civilization as a
generalized state of being, that is to say, a civilization has productive economies, class
stratification, and striking intellectual and artistic achievements. That is contrasted by
"primitive" or "tribal" societies with modest subsistence economies, egalitarian social
relations, and less extravagant arts and sciences. Under this definition, civilization equals
progress and cultural superiority, which in turn was used by European elites to legitimize
their domination of the working class at home and colonial people abroad.

However, civilization also refers to the enduring cultural traditions of specific regions of the
world. For literally thousands of years, successive generations of people resided on the
Yellow, Indus, Tigris/Euphrates, and Nile rivers outliving the expansion and collapse of
individual polities or states. That sort of a civilization is sustained by something other than
complexity: there probably is something inherently human about creating an identity based
on whatever it is that defines us, and clinging onto that.

Factors Leading to Complexity

It is clear that our ancient human ancestors lived a far simpler life than we do. Somehow, in some cases,
in some places, at some times, simple societies for one reason or another morphed into more and more
complex societies, and some become civilizations. The reasons which have been proposed for this growth
in complexity range from a simple model of population pressure—too many mouths to feed, what do we
do now?—to the greed for power and wealth from a few individuals to the impacts of climate change—a
prolonged drought, a flood, or tsunami, or a depletion of a particular food resource.

But single-source explanations are not convincing, and most archaeologists today would agree that any
complexity process was gradual, over hundreds or thousands of years, variable over that time and
particular for each geographic region. Each decision made in a society to embrace complexity—whether
that involved the establishment of kinship rules or food technology—occurred in its own peculiar, and
likely largely unplanned, way. The evolution of societies is like human evolution, not linear but
branched, messy, full of dead ends and successes not necessarily marked by the best behavior.

As an academic discipline, Western political philosophy has its origins in ancient Greek society, when city-states were
experimenting with various forms of political organization including monarchy, tyranny, aristocracy, oligarchy, and democracy.
One of the first, extremely important classical works of political philosophy is Plato's Republic, which was followed
by Aristotle's Politics, both created in the context of Athenian democracy. Roman political philosophy was influenced by Greek
schools of thought, particularly Stoicism, in conjunction with the Roman tradition of republicanism, as evidenced by the political
philosophy of the Roman statesman Cicero and later thinkers such as Marcus Aurelius.
Independently, Confucius, Mencius, Mozi and the Legalist school in China, and the Laws of Manu and Chanakya in India, all
sought to find means of restoring political unity and political stability; in the case of the former three through the cultivation
of virtue, in the last by imposition of discipline. In India, Chanakya, in his Arthashastra, developed a viewpoint similar to
Chinese Legalists, and foreshadowed the ideas of Niccolò Machiavelli. Ancient Chinese and Indian civilizations resembled
Greek civilization in that there was a unified culture divided into rival states. In the case of China, philosophers found
themselves obliged to confront social and political breakdown, and seek solutions to the crisis that confronted their entire
civilization.
The early Christian philosophy of Augustine of Hippo was by and large a rewrite of Plato in a Christian context. The main
change that Christian thought brought was to moderate the Stoicism and theory of justice of the Roman world, and emphasize
the role of the state in applying mercy as a moral example. Augustine also preached that one was not a member of his or her
city, but was either a citizen of the City of God (Civitas Dei) or the City of Man (Civitas Terrena). Augustine's City of God is an
influential work of this period that refuted the thesis, after the First Sack of Rome, that the Christian view could be realized
on Earth at all – a view many Christian Romans held.

Europe[edit]
Medieval political philosophy in Europe was heavily influenced by Christian thinking. It had much in common with
the Islamic thinking in that the Roman Catholics also subordinated philosophy to theology. Perhaps the most influential
political philosopher of medieval Europe was St. Thomas Aquinas who helped reintroduce Aristotle's works, which (with the
exception of the Politics which was translated directly from Greek to Latin by William of Moerbeke) had only been preserved
by the Muslims, along with the commentaries of Averroes. Aquinas's use of them set the agenda for scholastic political
philosophy, which dominated European thought for centuries
The industrial revolution produced a parallel revolution in political thought. Urbanization and capitalism greatly reshaped
society. During this same period, the socialist movement began to form. In the mid-19th century, Marxism was developed,
and socialism in general gained increasing popular support, mostly from the urban working class. By the late 19th century,
socialism and trade unions were established members of the political landscape. In addition, the various branches
of anarchism and syndicalism also gained some prominence, particularly in Spain and France. In the Anglo-American
world, anti-imperialism and pluralism began gaining currency around the start of the 20th century.
World War I was a watershed event in human history. The Russian Revolution of 1917 (and similar, albeit less successful,
revolutions in many other European countries) brought communism – and in particular the political theory of Leninism, but also
on a smaller level Luxemburgism (gradually) – on the world stage. At the same time, social democratic parties won elections
and formed governments for the first time, often as a result of the introduction of universal suffrage.[citation needed] However, a group
of central European economists led by Austrian School economists Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek identified
the collectivist underpinnings to the various new socialist and fascist doctrines of government power as being different brands
of political totalitarianism.