AYUSH CHATTERJEE

19010223077

DIVISION E

BATCH 2019-24

ANSWER 1
India's current administration has become a breeding ground of questionable activities.
Corruption's theories and methods have been broadened. The severity of social evils can also
differ from person to person. Some people have discovered forms of corruption that are
disguised as simple acts of gratitude, and it is sugar-coated as not being unethical or involving
any malpractices. This whole practice adds to misdealings in the machinery and leads to bias and
favouritism. People who refuse to participate in these activities, which are made to appear ethical
on the surface, are often exposed to problems and difficulties in their jobs and families.

Gandhi was the father of the Satyagraha movement and the Ahimsa philosophy. The religious
faith revived from the Bhagavad Gita promoted Gandhi's concept of Satyagraha, which
propagated Satya or truthfulness as the roots of Indian culture. He said that Hindu Dharma is like
a boundless ocean teeming with priceless gems. The deeper you dive, the more treasures you
find. He went on to describe Hinduism as a nonviolent quest for reality. He preached zero
tolerance for dishonesty and believed it was the responsibility of those in positions of authority
to deal with integrity. He emphasised that any government that engages in corruption must be
prosecuted. He claimed that people in positions of authority cannot participate in corruption
because it would taint the entire organisation. He believed both the means and the ends of every
work should be just and real. He eschewed materialism and believed in simple living and social
justice for the betterment of humanity.

Bal Gangadhar Tilak believed in karma yoga, or living a life devoted to fulfilling one's
responsibilities in this universe. He believed that one should aspire to devote oneself to self-
improvement, and that karma yoga outperforms materialistic ethics..

As a result, Gandhi's concept of reality has disappeared in modern India. Today's man is only
concerned with the improvement and fulfilment of his or her needs and desires.

Tilak's notion of passive resistance, on the other hand, does not mean that those who adhere to
ethical means must abandon them. While it may not make a difference right away, the resistance
shown by one of the officials may inspire others to follow suit. Consider how the Swadeshi
movement began; the whole revolution of the Swadeshi movement was possible for someone
who wished to make a difference and worked hard to achieve the long-term goals. As a result,
small groups of people who use ethical methods can make a big difference, much like passive
resistance did in the early days of the Swadeshi Movement.

ANSWER 2
Political obligation is a wide notion and covers many aspects of the world of Political science.
Many have said that the citizens have an obligation or duty to vote. Others have said that citizens
may have a duty to serve their country and possibly even to fight to defend their country.
Majority of the people who talk of political obligation have one thing in particular in mind that it
is the citizens’ duty to obey the laws in their own country. The issue which arises is whether
people do in fact have good and justifiable reasons for complying with laws that go beyond mere
fear of punishment, and, if so, whether they are bound or obligated by those reasons to comply.
Political obligation is, thus, a frame through which people accept the commands of the men in
authority.

Political obligation is of immense significance in Rousseau’s theory. Rousseau believed the

liberty of the individual is the ultimate goal of any society but he also thought that this goal could
be realized best through the political obligation owed to the state by its citizens. He explained it
through his concept of general will, which reflects the common interests of the society as
opposed to the private wills or selfish wishes of each individual. Thus for Rousseau the strong
political obligation is created by the actual participation of all the individuals in the general will.
He thought that an individual is only bound by the rules of a society reflected in the general will
but only if he himself has consented to be a member of that society. General will is the common
will of all and, in this way, political obligation implies obeying one’s own higher or true self.
The obligation on the part of an individual to obey the general will has a very strong appeal in
Rousseau’s theory of social contract.

Marx’s theory of political obligation differs from the other theories. It has been classified into
three stages namely the Pre-revolutionary stage which explains political non-obligation, the
Revolutionary Stage which is an eventual change from political non- obligation stage to a stage
of total political obligation and the Post-revolutionary stage which is a complete transition from
total political obligation to social development. The Marxian theory of political obligation
explains the state as an instrument of power in the hands of the Proletariat who according to
Marx were working-class people regarded collectively.

To understand if the meaning of political obligation has changed drastically during the last few
centuries we have to look at the theories of political obligation that have been propounded
before.

If we look at the Divine theory, in the olden days, people thought that the God created the state
and the king was his representative. Thus, the theory of divine right of kings holds that the
authority of the sovereign is derived from God and hence obedience to the state is as imperative
as obedience to God. This theory could be popular only during the ancient and middle ages but
not during the modern era.

According to the Prescriptive theory, both political authority and reverence to it are based on the
principle of customary rights. The source of its legitimacy lies in the fact of the long possession
that ripens into an institution. The people therefore obey their rulers because the fact of
obedience has become like a well established convention. Over a period of time, it lost its effect
due to its overemphasis on the respect for the well-established practices.

The idealistic theory regards man and the state as two entities wherein Man is regarded as a
political and rational creature while the state is considered as a self-sufficing community. This
idealistic theory propounds that when the individual receives his rights from the state, he can
have no rights that can conflict with the state. However, this theory proved to be quite abstract
and which could not be understood by man.

Finally we have the social contract theory wherein it is established that that justice and
government authority are products of a social agreement wherein we are obliged to obey the
rules of justice, and the government that enforces them, because we have agreed to do so. It is as
if we made a contract with the state to live together according to certain rules that are in
everyone’s interest. This theory proposes that the authority of the state is based on the people’s
consent to be included and participate in the social contract. Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau
justified this theory on the grounds that the authority of power was dependent on the people’s
consent. But, later it could not be accepted because it treated state as an artificial organisation.

Thus we see according to these various theories that have been propounded across various
centuries that the prevalent meaning or definition of what political obligation is, over these
various time frames, keeps on changing with the evolution of political thought through different
eras albeit we cannot say it has changed drastically because that entails a vast and sudden change
but we can say that the theories and ideas have evolved with time and will continue to do so as
long as society keeps evolving and changing.

As a contemporary example of political obligation in the contemporary society we can look to

the various Constitutions and charters of countries and organizations which partly take features
from all the various theories wherein there are countries that are still ruled by royal families and
then there are democracies like India that follow a constitution that are an example of people
consenting to a established social contract and then there are also countries like Bhutan which
are a mix of both and are constitutional monarchies. Therefore we can say that all the various
theories have merged together and evolved over time to define what political obligation can be
construed to be across the world in contemporary time.

*************************************************************************