EXAM GUIDE

NEW SYLLABUS
Political Theory-Concepts
and Debates
BA Hons Semester 2

• Chapter wise Key points and

Model Answers to Past Year’s
Questions

• 3 sets of Sample Papers for

Semester Exam

• Tips for Writing Essay Type

Answers in University Exam

By the Author of
POL SC HELP
FEW WORDS ABOUT THE GUIDE

Dear students…WELCOME BACK!

This guide is intended to be like a cheat code ( oh no, not cheating, like the cheat code of
winning the computer game) for your semester exams!
What it contains?
• Key points on each of topics/theme of the revised CBCS Syllabus.
• Theme/topic wise Answer templates to past year’s questions (taken from DU) and other
important questions.
• 3 sets of sample question papers with Answer Hints.
• Answer writing tips and tricks.
What is Answer Template?
• Answer written in a particular way (Intro, Body, Conclusion) as expected against essay
type questions in university exam.
• I have given you a template(format/structure). You may add or delete contents to make
the answer as your own.
How to use the Guide for the best results?
• First, watch the videos on the theme/topic from POL SC HELP- at least 4-5 times, first
in normal speed, later on with faster speed and selectively. Final watching shouldn’t
take more than 5 min.
• Second, read the key points on the theme/topic very carefully. In fact, even if you only
remember the key points you can write answers in the exam.
• Third, read the answers of past year questions, given in the guide, at least 5 times.
Again, the final reading may not take more than 5-10 minutes.
o I have chosen the questions to cover the entire syllabus.
o Note the key phrases repeated and underlined, bold, and highlighted in violet
colour in the answers. You should remember and reproduce them in your
answers.
o Also, note the standard words I have used in the answer. Their easier
meaning/synonyms are given in bracket.
• Fourth, read carefully the sample question papers (3 sets). I have given hints to those
questions, too. Read them carefully.
• Finally, read the answer writing tips; use them in the exam

GOOD WISHES!
 SECTION 1

Chapter Wise
Key Points
and

ANSWERS
Past Year
Questions
THEME 1: FREEDOM

1. A CBCS Syllabus:(Expansion of the syllabus)

a) Liberty: Negative and Positive
b) Freedom, Emancipation, Swaraj
Debate: Free speech, expression and dissent

1. B: Key Points:
Meaning and definition of Liberty:
• Liberty or freedom is one of the 4 foundational normative values, other 3 being Justice,
Equality, and Rights.
• Like any other normative political ideas or values, liberty is highly contested concept.
There is no fixed meaning of Liberty. It has many conceptions and
connotations(meanings).
• Following are some of the popular definitions of Liberty
o A free man, is he, that in those things, which by his strength and wit he is able
to, is not hindered to do what he has a will to- Hobbes
o freedom is state in which man is not subject to coercion by arbitrary will of
others- Fredrich Hayek
o Man is free to act without subject to arbitrary will of another within allowance
of moral law- John Locke
o It is a positive power of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying-
T.H.Green
o Freedom is the ability to govern one's actions on the basis of reason, and not
desire. Free capacity to choose between good and evil- Immanuel Kant
o Freedom is obeying laws reflecting general will of the political community-
Rousseau

Isaiah Berlin’s two conception of liberty:

• Negative Liberty:
o ‘What is the area within which the subject—a person or group of persons—is
or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or be, without interference by
other persons?’
 o Thus, negative liberty denotes absence of external man-made interference,
constraints on one’s thoughts and actions.
• Positive Liberty:
o “What, or who, is the source of control that can determine someone to do, or
be, this rather than that?”
o ‘By whom am I ruled?’ Am I master of my will or desire?
o Thus, Positive Liberty denotes Self-mastery, self-control, self-direction, self-
realization, free capacity of the self to choose between good and bad.
• Gerald McCallum’s triadic conception of Liberty:
o Liberty as triadic relation between agent, constraints, and purpose, that is, X(
agent) is constrained by Y to do or be Z(purpose)
• Negative Liberty, that is, absence of external interference or constraints, is core thought
of Liberalism.
• Positive Liberty, that is, Self-mastery, self-autonomy, is older concept of freedom. It
implies liberation of the self, emancipation, salvation. Gandhian idea of Swaraj is also
closer to positive liberty.
• In modern times, communitarians, moral philosophers (Kant, Hegel, Green), and
socialist/communist thinkers support positive conception of liberty.
• To Isaiah Berlin, despite some deficiencies, negative liberty is preferred to Positive
Liberty. This is because negative liberty avoids paternalism and authoritarianism. It
allows value pluralism, that is, co-existence of many conceptions of good life, which
one can choose freely.
• Positive Liberty, to Berlin, is a slippery slope. It may lead to majoritarian, authoritarian
and totalitarian state.
1. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Examine the idea of positive and negative Liberty as given by Isaiah
Berlin. Would a State based on the idea of positive Liberty be an
interventionist state? Give examples to support your answer.

Similar Questions:
1. Discuss the Isiah Berlin’s account of negative and positive Liberty.
2. What do you understand by positive freedom? assess the viewpoint that justification
for positive freedom may eventually lead to authoritarianism.
3. Elucidate with examples Berlin’s distinction between negative and positive liberty.
Do you agree with the view there is some possible danger of authoritarianism inherent
to justification provided for positive liberty? Give reasons.

Ans. Template:
Introduction:
Liberty is one of the four fundamental normative political values, others being equality,
rights, and justice. But there is no unanimity what exactly it means. Like any other
political concept, liberty is highly contested concept. Concept of Liberty is as old as, or
even older than the idea of the political. Philosophers, since ancient times, reflected
upon the idea of freedom, emancipation, liberation, etc. as ultimate goal of human life.
In modern time, liberalism emerged as dominant political ideology based on the idea
of liberty as absence of constraints. The enlightenment thinkers such as Emmanuel
Kant, Rousseau and thereafter Hegel, Marx, Gandhiji, etc. expounded (explained) the
idea of Liberty in their own way.
However, contribution Isaiah Berlin, an English liberal political thinker and historian
of ideas, has been unique. In his book ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’, Berlin clearly divided
the concept of liberty into negative and positive liberty. By doing so, Berlin provided
an entirely new dimension to the concept of liberty. Berlin not only explained two
concepts of liberty but also their impacts on relation of individual with the state,
resulting political arrangements, nature of state, etc. Berlin’s binary categorisation
(negative vs positive) of liberty provided a fertile ground for debate on meaning, nature
and impacts of liberty on political arrangements.
As per Berlin negative liberty is absence of any external or man-made constraints on
the actions of any individual. Basic premise of negative liberty is freedom of choice.
Individual is believed to be rational, reasoned, knowing his interest best and able to
 make informed choices. Hence, unless his actions harm others, he should be allowed to
do whatsoever he wants and able to do.
Positive Liberty, as per Berlin, is freedom to form will, desire, want without being
guided or forced by anyone. It denotes autonomy of the self, self-mastery, self-control,
and self-direction. It is inner freedom to be master of one’s own will. In words of Berlin
‘“What, or who, is the source of control that can determine someone to do, or be, this
rather than that?” . In comparison to Negative Liberty, constraints in case Positive
Liberty may be internal and natural. It is linked to very nature of human thought and
consciousness.
Positive liberty is closely linked to the idea of emancipation, liberation, and salvation.
For Gandhiji, it is freedom from want, from fear. It is the soul force. These are cherished
goal of human life since ancient times.
Berlin being a liberal thinker supported negative over positive liberty. To him, the
concept of negative liberty suffers from some deficiencies but still preferable as it
avoids paternalism and interventionist society/state. Positive liberty despite being more
complex and comprehensive concept contain within itself the seeds of interventionist
and totalitarian states.
In the next section of the answer, I will further explain the two conceptions of liberty as
expounded by Isaiah Berlin. I will also attempt to critically evaluate such binary categorisation
of the concept of Liberty.

Negative vs Positive Liberty as conceived by Isaiah Berlin:

Negative Liberty:
• Negative Liberty denotes absence of constraints, obstruction, interference, coercion on
anyone’s freedom to make life choices, to act in one’s best interest. It only denotes
absence of external man-made, intentional constraints, leaving out natural constraints
and incapacities.
• Thus, man not able to fly like birds or a bed ridden ill person not able to walk are Not
example of unfreedom as per this conception of liberty.
• In this conception, man is considered as rational, reasoned, knowing his interest best
and able to make informed life choices. Nature, purpose, and content of individual
choices don’t matter unless they harm others.
• In words of Berlin Negative Liberty implies ‘what is the area within which the subject—
a person or group of persons—is or should be left to do or be what he is able to do or
be, without interference by other persons?’
• How wide the area (within which no external interference is accepted) should be and
what should it contain are not fixed, debatable, and depends on the political
arrangements, political regimes, etc.
• It is opportunity concept of freedom; it provides equal opportunity to each individual
to live life as per his/her own conception of good life.
 • It denotes ‘freedom from’ (the constraints/obstacle).
• Evolved during 16th century reformation movement in Europe; closely associated with
doctrine of liberalism, which emerged from the writings of Hobbes and Locke in 17th
Century Europe.
• It views liberty as natural right, inviolable (sacrosanct) vis-à-vis preference of society
or state; it limits authority of state to interfere in the private affairs of individuals.
• Berlin distinguishes political freedom, which is in the nature of Negative Liberty, from
social justice and economic freedom. For example, providing quota to backward class
in jobs may be social justice but it is not same as making backward class free or increase
their freedom.
• Berlin criticizes negative liberty on these grounds
• It is meaningless for people lacking basic necessities of life. For example, those
poor who spends night on road side, freedom to enter into shopping mall and
watch movie in Multiplex is meaningless.
• No equality of liberty: In words of Berlin ‘minority who possess negative liberty
have gained it by exploiting, or, at least, averting their gaze from, the vast
majority who do not.’ Thus, it separates ‘haves’ from ‘have nots’, in which only
the former (haves) enjoy Negative Liberty.
• Despite such deficiencies Berlin Support Negative Liberty as:
• It provides better guarantee against the danger of paternalism and
authoritarianism of society/state.
• It is compatible with plurality of goals and values. In this conception of liberty,
it is accepted that multiple normative values may co-exist in society without one
being more preferable than others. Individuals are best judge to choose life
choices as per the value he/she believes in. Thus, each one has the right to lead
life as per one’s own conception of good life.
• In practical terms, no one guides or force individuals what to eat, how to dress
up, how to get entertained, what goals of life to pursue, and what norms/values
to adopt.
On the basis of above discussion on negative liberty, we may summarise the pluses and minuses
of negative liberty.
Pros and cons of Negative Liberty:

Pluses or Pros Minuses or Cons

Simple to understand and explain Against change/revolution; promotes status- quo

Better guarantee against the danger of Meaningless for people lacking basic necessities
paternalism and authoritarianism of life.
 Compatible with plurality of goals and No equality of freedom; resourceful and wealthy
values. ‘haves’ have alone enjoyed negative liberty.

Protect Individual rights Protect ‘haves’ leaves out ‘have nots’

Help individual make make life choices Undermine community life as it give preference
as per their own conception of good life to ‘Rights’ over ‘Common Good’

Positive Liberty:
• Unlike negative liberty, positive liberty denotes actions for realization on part of both
individual and society/state. To fulfil one’s goal/end, one need to have self-control, self-
mastery, self-direction. Society/state need to act to remove constraints enabling
individuals fulfil their goals/desires.
• Thus, it can be understood as exercise or action concept of freedom. It denotes ‘freedom
to’ (do or achieve something). It makes one capable of achieving something. Thus,
positive liberty indicates both mental and physical capability to achieve something
good, worthy of achieving.
• It is value judgemental. It directs the self towards moral, virtuous and worthy acts. For
example, as per Rousseau, by obeying laws emanating from the General Will, one is
gaining freedom in positive sense. Kant also hold the similar view that by obeying laws
flowing from universal moral principles, one is gaining moral freedom.
• In words of Berlin positive liberty provide answer to the question “What, or who, is the
source of control that can determine someone to do, or be, this rather than that?”
• ‘By whom am I ruled?’ Am I master of my will or desire? If the answer is positive, it
denotes positive liberty.
• Thus positive liberty implies autonomy, self-mastery, self-control, self-direction, and
self-realization. One is liberated in positive sense if he/she has full control over his/her
will/desire/want.
• In this conception of liberty, the individual self is divided into higher and lower self.
• Higher self- rational, authentic or virtuous; ‘true’ self
• Lower self- irrational, impulsive, lustful, empirical belief and desire
• One may be constrained by its lower self to act or be something which is immoral,
undesirable, unworthy for the individual and society. For example, one may drink
excess alcohol to become alcoholic. If so, the individual is not free in positive sense.
• Thus, unlike negative liberty, the constraints may be internal to the individual in
positive conception of liberty.
• Positive liberty also denotes extension of individual self as represented by collectives-
organic social ‘whole’. This is what Plato meant when he claimed that the state is
 individual writ large, which means state/society is magnified or enlarged individual
self.
• Hence, to fulfil the interests of this ‘whole’, the individuals, ‘the part’ may be,
rightfully, forced to act in a certain way. This is what Rousseau meant when he stated
that one can be forced to be free.
• Naturally, this may lead to paternalism and authoritarianism. Hence, Berlin compared
positive liberty to slippery slope. Once one accepts the divided self, and good and
virtuous acts as moral freedom, there is no check on powers of state/society, which in
the name of providing positive liberty start interfering in the private affairs of the
citizen.
On the basis of above discussion on positive liberty, we may summarise the pluses and minuses
of positive liberty.
Pros and cons of Negative Liberty:

Pluses or Pros Minuses or Cons

More nuanced (deep) and substantive Not easy to understand/explain

concept

Has broaden the horizon of liberty; More susceptible to be abused in the name of
liberty as capability, as self-control guiding or forcing one to be free in positive sense.

Make negative liberty meaningful as it Divides individual self into higher and lower self.
enables one to enjoy negative liberty May lead to paternalism and authoritarianism

Supports moral and virtuous acts in Value judgemental. Undermine individual liberty-
the common interest of society. liberty to make life choices as per one’s own
Promotes Common Good conception of good life.

Promote good life of community May treat individuals as means to achieve societal
common good.

How misuse of the concept of positive liberty may lead to interventionist and totalitarian
state?
In the light of above discussions, conception of positive liberty contains in it seeds of
authoritarian and totalitarian state. Positive liberty involves value judgement in choice
of an action. It is assumed that an individual may be sometime guided by his higher self
and some other time by his lower self. When he is guided by his higher self, he will
choose a virtuous, good, and worthy acts; on the contrary if he is guided by his lower
or empirical self he may choose bad, harmful and unworthy acts. Thus, it divides human
action into good or bad based on prevailing social norms, values. Positive liberty is
internal will power or self-control to do good, virtuous, and worthy act.
 Dividing the individual self into higher and lower self as well as acts as good and bad,
may lead to society/ state guiding the individual to act as per his higher self. This is
paternalism. The individual loses autonomy over his will. He is guided by the state,
which start behaving as a parent or guardian to the individual. Also, the individual lose
to right to decide what is good or bad as per his own conception of good and bad. This
is loss of personal liberty.
Another dimension of positive Liberty is to increase the capability of an individual to
act or do something worthy of doing or becoming. In the name of increasing the
capability and therefore enhancing the freedom in positive sense, the state may
implement policies which may infringe (interfere) upon the personal liberty of the
individual. State may start interfering in private lives of individuals in name of making
them free in positive sense. The state may claim that without its guidance and
interference the individual may not be guided by his/her higher self and may, therefore,
do bad or unworthy acts. For example, the state may guide individuals to dress in a
particular way or eat or not eat particular food or entertain in a particular manner. Thus,
the state in the name of positive Liberty may become an interventionist state.
The state may not stop here. It may go even further and totally control both the public
as well as private affairs of the entire citizenry and become a totalitarian state. This is
what happened in the wrest while communist USSR and Eastern Bloc nations. Because
of such downward journey of the state from welfare to interventionist and finally to a
totalitarian state, Berlin compared the concept of positive Liberty to a slippery slope.
Once a society/state start acting on the concept of positive liberty there is no stopping
from it becoming an authoritarian and totalitarian state.

Conclusion:
Liberty or freedom is the first and foremost normative value which an individual and
society aspire to achieve in any political arrangement. Like any political concept,
Liberty is also highly contested concept. There are multiple meanings and conceptions
of Liberty. Philosophers since time immemorial reflected upon the different
conceptions of Liberty and explained its meaning in their own way. Isaiah Berlin, a
British political thinker and historian of Ideas, give entirely a new dimension to the
concept of Liberty by clearly dividing it into negative and positive liberty.
As per Isaiah Berlin, negative liberty is absence of external man-made constraints on
the actions of individual. One is free in negative sense if nothing external to the
individual interfere or stops him from doing anything. Positive Liberty, on the other
hand, denotes autonomy of the individual self in formation of will and desire. It is more
oriented towards internal constraint within a self. One is free in positive sense if one is
master of one’s own will, desire, and want. It indicates self-mastery or self-realisation.
No one except one’s inner self is the guide in formation of one’s will and desire.
Positive liberty is value judgemental. It divides human acts into good and bad. It
believes that individual self is guided by its higher or virtuous self while doing good or
 worthy acts. On the contrary, one indulges into bad or immoral acts when guided by
one’s lower self. Thus, conception of positive liberty divides self into higher and lower.
But conception of divided self allows state and society to interfere in the private affairs
of individuals. It puts state/society on a slippery slope. In the name of helping the
individual to be guided by their higher self the society/state may interfere in the private
affairs of the individual. They may forbid the individual to make their own life choices
as per their own conception of good life. This may lead to an interventionist and
totalitarian state. Hence, Isaiah Berlin, despite acknowledging some deficiencies in the
conception of negative liberty, prefer negative liberty over positive liberty.
However, such binary division of liberty into negative and positive liberty has been
condemned (criticized) by many thinkers as being too simplistic and reductionist
(reducing and idea to an extent where its essence is lost) approach. Gerald McCallum
explained liberty as triadic relation between agent, constraints, and purpose, that is, X
is constrained by Y to do or be Z. Thus, he gave an integrated conception of liberty.
Despite this, the discussion or debate on the meaning, nature, and realisation of the
concept of liberty is continuously on.
In sum, how to provide substance to negative liberty by way of positive liberty without
allowing state/society becoming authoritarian, that is, adopting a third ground to
provide maximum, equal, and meaningful freedom to all is a continuing challenge to
any socio-political arrangement.

Q.2: Elucidate with examples Berlin’s distinction between negative and

positive liberty. Do you agree with the view there is some possible danger of
authoritarianism inherent to justification provided for positive liberty? Give
reasons.

Answer Hint: Answer to the question is similar to the answer to Q.1 above. Here only the
distinction between negative and positive liberty is provided;

Isaiah Berlin provided a new dimension to debate on the concept of liberty by proposing a
binary division of liberty into negative and positive liberty. To him, negative liberty is absence
of any external and man-made constraints on the possible actions/choices of an individual. It
is allowing an individual to make his life choices as per his/her conception of good life. It
implies minimum interference of state/society in the private affairs of individuals. Positive
liberty, on the other hand, denotes control of the individual self over its own will and desire. If
one is able to form one’s will without any guidance or help or constraints, both external and
internal, then he/she is free in positive sense.
Positive liberty is value judgmental. Its aim is common interest, common Good of the society.
For this, an individual is expected to undertake moral, good, virtuous and worthy acts. For this,
the self of an individual is thought to be divided into higher and lower self. Only when the
individuals are guided by their higher or virtuous self their acts are good and in the common
interest. Such division of the self into higher and lower may lead to society/state interfering in
the private affairs of individuals in the name of helping them to be guided by their higher self
and by doing so becoming free in positive sense. In other words, the society/state may force
the individual to be free in positive sense. For example, the state may ban drinking alcohol in
the name of common interest and helping one not to drink under influence of their lower self.
On the basis of above discussion, we may summarise the distinction between negative liberty
and positive liberty in the following table:
Negative Vs Positive Liberty:

Point of Negative liberty Positive liberty

difference

Meaning Freedom from external and man- Autonomy over one’s wills/desire
made constraints Freedom to do acts worthy of doing
in common interest

Define/answer Over what domain/area am I free? Who controls what I be or do?

Denotes Personal liberty; freedom to make Self-mastery; self-realization

life choices as per one’s own Doing worthy, moral, virtuous act in
conception of good life common interest

How they are Opportunity concept: merely Exercise concept: it is realized when
realized? provides opportunity to do an act is done as per one’s
anything will/desire.

No action in case of internal It makes one capable of doing things

constraints and physical otherwise not possible for him/her
incapability. Thus, it denotes action to overcome
internal constraints and physical
For example: A beggar has the
incapability.
freedom to enter into any shopping
mall and roam inside it, yet not For example: state providing
capable to purchasing anything. handicap friendly access to public
places; or Govt distributing free
wheel chairs to poor handicap
people.

Nature of man Man as rational, reasoned, self- Consider man both as rational,
interested, capable of making life authentic, virtuous (when guided
choices by higher self) and irrational,
impulsive, lustful (when guided
by lower self)
 Political Ideology Part of Liberal doctrine Closer to Socialism

Role of State Limits state’s authority- limited Widens state’s authority: Welfare
state state
No need of state action; merely State needs to act to overcome
non-interference required. internal constraints and physical
incapability to increase positive
liberty

Value neutrality Value neutral; non-judgemental Value preference; judgemental

No judgement is passed on acts of Individual acts are judged as good or

individual. bad; only good acts promoted.

Paternalism and Avoids Paternalism and Paternalism is unavoidable.

authoritarianism authoritarianism Danger of state becoming
authoritarian and totalitarian

Q3: Write a short note on the idea of freedom given by Gandhiji through his
concept of Swaraj. How far is this different from the concept of negative and
positive liberty?

Introduction:
Gandhiji’s idea of Swaraj is mainly contained in his book Hind Swaraj (1909),
which he wrote on a ship while returning from England to South Africa. Later
on, he also explained his idea of Swaraj through his other writings, such as his
autobiography, and columns in ‘Young India’, and ‘Harijan’.
Literal meaning of Swaraj is self-rule, self-Government,
independence/freedom; but Gandhiji gave a much wider meanings to this word.
For him Swaraj has two dimensions; one for individual and other for the
community and polity. For individual it denoted self-mastery, self-control, self-
restrain, self-realization, moral goodness & perfectibility. For polity it meant
self-governing autonomous community life without any formal coercive (based
on force) authority- state. In a limited sense it was political freedom from
foreign rule, full rights of individual freedom and civil liberties, and right to
civil disobedience against any unjust actions/law of the state/govt.
For Gandhiji, Swaraj also meant freedom from want, material possession, ego,
bondage of so called modern materialistic life- modern large machine, faster
 transport system, competition/conflict-court/lawyer, modern medical system-
doctors, etc. Swaraj denoted simple natural self-reliant living without being
dependent on modern machine and modern materialist way of life.

Comparing Gandhian Swaraj with Isaiah Berlin’s conception of Negative and Positive
Liberty:
• Gandhian Swaraj has much wider meaning and scope than binary distinction of
Negative Liberty and Positive Liberty.
• It denoted true freedom of both individual and community. For individual it was self-
mastery, self-control, self-restrain, self-realization, moral goodness & perfectibility.
For community it meant self-governing autonomous community life without any formal
coercive authority/state.
• In a way, Swaraj for individual is closer to the conception of Positive Liberty, which
denotes self-control, self-mastery, and self-realization. There is no equivalent of Swaraj
for community in Isaiah Berlin’s conception of liberty.
• Gandhian Swaraj included ‘self-reliance’( no dependence on State/Govt), ‘truth’, ‘non-
violence’, ‘tolerance’, ‘altruism’, ‘self-renunciation’( limiting our wants), ‘Sarvodaya’,
‘Satyagraha’( civil disobedience based on truth & non-violence), ‘trusteeship’, ‘Bread
labour’( dignity of hand labour)
• The Square of Swaraj- It has 4 dimensions- Polity, Economy, Social order, and
‘Dharma’; they can be represented on 4 corners of the square of socio-political
arrangements.

•
Thus, idea of freedom conveyed through Gandhian Swaraj is much more
comprehensive than liberal conception of freedom.

Conclusion:
In sum, his idea of Swaraj was multi-faceted and multi-dimensional. It included
true freedom of both individuals and communities. It was a vision of alternate
new civilisation rooted in India’s ancient and eternal philosophy and synthesis
of modern philosophies from all over the world. In comparison to liberal
conception of freedom, as given by Isaiah Berlin as Negative Liberty and
Positive Liberty, Gandhian idea of freedom is much wider in scope, touching
upon all aspects of individual, social, and political life.
 Swaraj for individual is much closer to the Positive Liberty as explained by
Isaiah Berlin. But in Gandhian Swaraj, negative liberty has no role. Individual
cannot live separate from community. Neither he can claim not to owe anything
to community for his possessions and successes. Hence the idea that
community/state leave the individual to do as his desires is not acceptable in
Gandhian concept of Liberty. To Gandhiji, liberated individual attain moral
perfection. Community of such liberated individuals don’t need authority of
state. They can self-govern themselves. This was the essence of Gandhian idea
of freedom, which is very different from the liberal concept of liberty and its
binary division into negative and positive liberty.

Q.4: Critically analyse Marx’s conception of Freedom. How is it different

from the both the negative and Positive Liberty as explained by Isaiah
Berlin?

Introduction:
In his own way, Karl Marx was the champion of human freedom. His entire political
philosophy was aimed to achieve freedom of individual in social arrangement in which
social production bind society together and liberate the individual. This in his view was
essence of human emancipation, that is, true freedom. To him, human emancipation
can be achieved in social production in which each individual contributes freely as per
his ability without any compulsion, constrain, coercion and is able to relate to fellow
man as equal.
Marx finds human emancipation through social production in the arena of economic
structure or base of the society. To him, political freedom in the arena of superstructure
is neither possible nor meaningful without freedom in the social production process,
that is, the mode of production which he called the ‘Base’ of the society. In nutshell, to
Marx, freedom in social production in the ‘base’ will bring also political freedom in the
‘superstructure’.
In many ways, such conception of freedom by Marx was very innovative and novel in
comparison to prevailing notions of liberty in the liberal doctrine as given by Isaiah
Berlin. Berlin divided liberty into negative and positive types on the basis of constraints
on individual’s will and actions. For Marx, both the negative and positive liberty within
the liberal doctrine is part of political freedom, which is part of the superstructure of
the society. Political freedom is meaningless without human freedom and emancipation
which can only be achieved in the ‘base’ of the society.
Thus, Marx created a conceptual dualism between political freedom and human
freedom. He located the human freedom or emancipation in freedom in material
condition of life. To him, the liberty or freedom in liberalism is a façade (disguise) or
false freedom because liberalism promise to grant political freedom by way of equality,
 liberty, and right in political arena but continue to sustain oppressive, exploitative,
unjust and in-equal in the arena of civil society represented by market, marriage, family,
and associated social arrangements. True freedom can only be achieved by eliminating
the duality between politics and civil society. This is possible in the stateless and
classless society. This was a very different way to conceptualize the notion of freedom.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to outline some of the characteristic features of
Marx's conception of freedom. I will also attempt to discuss, as part of the conclusion, some of
the critique of his idea of freedom.

Features of Marx’s idea of Freedom:

• Political vs Human emancipation:
• To him, Politics/state is part of superstructure, which is created to work for the
interest of the dominant class in the economic structure (the base/foundation) of
the society. Hence, political freedom in the arena of superstructure is
meaningless, as it would be false and meaningless freedom.
• Human emancipation can be achieved only by changing the economic base- mode of
production. This can happen by having such social production system in which each
individual contributes freely as per his ability, without any compulsion, constrain,
coercion and relate to fellow man as equal.
• Such emancipatory social production will have its own supporting superstructure-
politics, law, art, culture, idea- which will further enhance human freedom.
• Root of human freedom lies in the material condition of life. Just and equal social
production is the key to human freedom.
• Different from notion of freedom in liberal doctrine: In liberalism, liberty in political
life coexist with subjugation, exploitation in private domain- market and civil society
(marriage, family, society). True freedom is one which makes human spirit free in all
domains.
• Working class are the agent of universal human emancipation. Through social
revolution led by the working class, new social arrangement will come which will
achieve human emancipation for all classes.
• True freedom will be based on Fraternity (each one relates to other as equal) and social
Solidarity (individual contribute in social production as per his ability). Free
development of each is the condition of the free development of all.
• Freedom is regaining human essence of social creativity, that is, man contributing in
social production to realise essence of being human, act of self-realization. Following
famous quote of Marx illustrate his idea of freedom:
• “it will be possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt
in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticize after
dinner, doing just that which gives me pleasure without ever becoming a hunter,
 fisherman, shepherd or critic. This will be the real state of freedom for man
from alienation and exploitation”
• Marx’s freedom is not limited to individual liberty and autonomy. Rather freedom is
achieved only by contributing meaningfully in social production process. Thus, human
emancipation denote freedom of all in association. This is the essence of fraternity and
solidarity.
• His freedom is for all class, all sexes, all divisions in society. Thus, freedom of women
in marriage, family, and civil society is also part of the human freedom.
• True human freedom is possible only when duality of political and civil society (public
vs private domain) is eliminated. For this, the society should be classless, and stateless.

On the basis of above description, we can summarise the difference between Marx’s idea of
Freedom and Isaiah Berlin’s conception of Liberty:

Marx’s idea of Freedom Isaiah Berlin’s conception of Liberty

Human freedom as emancipation Freedom of an individual to act as per his/her

choice, form his/her will/desire

Freedom in the arena of societal base- In the nature of civil rights and political
social production freedom- in the arena of societal superstructure.

Action oriented- individual gain freedom Not linked to social production or economic
only by contributing in social production structure. Negative liberty lacks actions.

Equality is must for liberty Negative Liberty denies equality ; no equality

of liberties- division between ‘haves’ and
‘Have nots’

Value judgmental; imposes a fixed Negative Liberty is value neutral. Promote

conception of good life value pluralism.

Oriented towards collectivist thought, Individualist. negative liberty undermine

promote community life; but undermine community feeling. Rights are given
individual autonomy. preference over Common Good.

Discussion and Conclusion:

No doubt Marx’s view on Freedom was very innovative and different from the
prevailing notion of freedom in liberal doctrine. Despite this, he has been criticized on
many counts for his conception of human freedom. Karl Popper in his ‘Open society
and its enemy’ criticised Marx’s conception of freedom for having totalitarian
tendencies and undermining individual autonomy. His freedom subordinate individual
 interest to those of the society. Isiah Berlin criticised his conception of freedom as
superimposing his way of societal Good and universal value. To Berlin, liberty means
freedom to live life as per one’s own conception of good life and coexistence of multiple
values in society (pluralism).
The way his conception of freedom was understood and implemented in the communist
states after the communist revolution in Russia also made his idea of freedom
controversial. Communist states in the name of human freedom interfered in almost all
aspects of individual’s life. This was manifested in form of totalitarian state, which
actually stifled (reduced, muted) the individual liberty without any matching increase
in overall societal freedom or emancipation. This was what Berlin predicted when he
compared positive liberty as slippery slope.
Another criticism of Marx’s conception of freedom is that he focused too much on
economic structure. To him, the true freedom means freedom of a worker in the social
production process. This was charged as economic determinism. Marx undermined
many other aspects and sources of liberty, especially the socio-cultural aspects.
Despite all this criticism, Marx’s conception of freedom was entirely different,
innovative, and novel way to conceptualize freedom and it had a profound impact on
the discourse of liberty and freedom in subsequent periods in all parts of world.

Q.5: How has the liberal concept of freedom been transforming with the
changing variants of liberalism?

Concept of liberty is as old or even older than the idea of the political. In all cultures, including
Hinduism, liberty was the ultimate goal of human life. It was equated with emancipation,
salvation, liberation of the soul, etc. However, with the advent of modernity in Europe,
conception of liberty changed. Liberalism as new ideology emerged through the writings of
Hobbes and Locke. Both defined liberty as inviolable (sacrosanct) and fundamental right of
individual. To Hobbes, freedom was the private pursuit of the individual. This was the
beginning of the conception of negative liberty. Individuals should be left alone to decide what
to do without any external interference & constraints. Locke defined liberty as the condition
when Man is free to act without subject to arbitrary will of another within allowance of moral
law. This was similar to the conception of negative liberty by Hobbes. Locke claimed that man
has natural rights of life, liberty, and property. Thus, to Locke, liberty was natural right of
individual. This was beginning of right based conception of liberty, which till then was
primarily duty based.
From above discussion it is obvious that negative liberty, that is, liberty as right without any
external interference and constraints to act as per one’s will, is one of the foundational concepts
of Liberalism. Classical liberalism, therefore, is closely linked to the conception of Negative
Liberty. Individual autonomy is the core thought of liberalism. Individual autonomy denoted
freedom to make life choices as per one’s own conception of good life. This was same as
negative liberty. Thus, negative liberty became the core thought of liberalism.
But in subsequent years, after Hobbes and Locke, liberal thinkers such as Immanuel Kant and
Rousseau defined liberty in more positive sense. For Kant, freedom is the ability to govern one's
actions on the basis of reason and rationality, and not desire. One is free when he is able to form his
will consistent with universal moral principles (which he called Categorical Imperatives). Thus,
Kant equated freedom with self-control, self-mastery, and acting as per the moral laws.
Rousseau claimed that by obeying laws emanating from the General Will one gain moral
freedom. Subsequently T.H.Green, another liberal thinker, defined liberty as a positive power
of doing or enjoying something worth doing or enjoying , that is, moral freedom. Conception
of freedom by Kant, Rousseau, and Green was closer to the idea of positive liberty. This was
different from the negative liberty as conceived by Hobbes and Locke.
During 20th Century, modern or positive liberalism inclined more towards Positive Liberty.
John Rawl played a very important part for this. His theory of Justice put liberty as the first
virtue of any political community. But to Rawl, there should be equality of liberty. Also
distributive justice and maximum advantage in distribution to the worst off became part of the
conception of liberal and just society/community. This gave rise to the idea of welfare state,
which increases liberty of its citizen in positive sense by making them capable of doing things
they would, otherwise, were not capable of. Modern liberalism became the ideology behind
social democracy adopted by many European nations, especially the Nordic countries (Norway,
Sweden, Finland).
In the post-cold war era, starting in 1990s, classical liberalism was revived and was called neo-
liberalism. Neo-liberalism once again preferred negative liberty over Positive Liberty. Robert
Nozick and Fredrick Hayek, the libertarians, became the chief proponent of negative liberty
under the neo-liberal doctrine. Hayek defined liberty as a state in which man is not subject to
coercion by arbitrary will of others. Isaiah Berlin, a British liberal thinker and historian of ideas,
provided the conceptual base to debate between negative liberty and positive liberty. He
supported negative liberty despite its deficiencies as, in his view, it avoids paternalism and
authoritarian states. He compared positive liberty with slippery slope which leads to totalitarian
states. Thus, neo-liberalism once again went towards Negative Liberty.
In sum, we can see that with time conception of liberty has been changing in the liberal
doctrine. Liberalism started with the idea of negative liberty, which was linked to individual
autonomy and freedom of choices. But during the 20th century, liberalism tilted towards
positive liberty. But in the post-cold war era and with the advent of neo-liberalism, once again
it went towards negative liberty. However, the debate over conception of liberty under the
liberal doctrine is yet not over. Future may witness more new dimensions to the conception of
liberty as it is the fundamental value deciding individual’s life, his relation with fellow
individuals and with state/society, and resulting political arrangements.
Q.6: Discus J.S. Mills idea on Liberty
Answer Template:

Introduction:
J.S. Mill’s defence of Liberty was both innovative and interesting. In his book ‘On
Liberty’, he linked individual Liberty to societal and civilizational progress. Mill gave
utilitarianism logic in defence of liberty and individual autonomy. Mill asserted that
liberty creates the condition in which an individual can attain optimum intellectual
flourishment and therefore liberty increases the intellectual capital of the society.
Availability of more intellectual resources, by guaranteeing liberty, would help
civilizational progress.
Mill further argued that individual autonomy helps personal growth and self-realisation.
It allows diversity in culture and character. Such diversity makes the society more
resilient (strong, robust) and act as a defence against changing environment and
contexts. Individual autonomy increases intellectual diversity in the society which help
survival and growth of society in a similar way as genetic diversity help survival and
growth of a species.
Mill identified three liberties- Liberty of thought, opinion, expression, liberty of action,
and liberty of self-realization (individual autonomy-person of one’s own making). First
two liberties are in nature of negative liberty whereas third is closer to positive liberty.
Mill visualised two sources of threats to individual liberty. first, from state/Govt. and
second, from the mass society (the industrial and urban society). For him the threat
from society/community was much greater than that of state/government.
In defence of the liberty of thought and expression, he gave a very interesting logical
argument. The opinion/thought under question may be true, false, or partially true. He
proved that in either of these conditions (true, false, or partially true), suppressing the
thought/opinion will harm societal interest.
For liberty of action, he gave a simple principle, called the harm principle. He said that
the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a
civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to other. Mill defined harm as
infringement of one’s vital interests (like life), rights and obligations and not merely
minor irritation and small discomforts such as ridicule, negative publicity, strong
criticism, etc.
 Finally, he defended the freedom of individuality and self-realization by asserting that
diversity of character and culture provides the engine of productive tension that drives
a society/community/nation forward.
Thus, he defended all three liberties by using his utilitarian principles. But he also used
his logical acumen, and liberal vision in putting forward one of strongest defence of
liberty.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to explain in brief Mill’s arguments in defence of the
three kinds of liberty.

How Mill defended Liberty of thought/opinion?

His basic premise is that civilization progresses only when new ideas arrive regularly at the
‘marketplace of ideas’ and compete with other ideas freely and fairly.
Mill defended Liberty of thought/opinion by following logic:
• For any opinion ‘O’ which is a candidate for suppression, ‘O’ must be either: (i) true,
(ii) false, or (iii) partially true.
• If ‘O’ is true, society’s interests are harmed by suppressing it because society would
not be benefitted by the new and true idea and will be left to live with false one. Mill
asserted that even if a single person hold idea different from all other in society, that
idea may be true and, therefore, valuable and help the intellectual progress of society.
For example, Copernicus held the opinion that the Sun (and not Earth) was at the centre
of the solar system, when everyone else held opposite opinion. But his opinion was
true!
• If ‘O’ is false, it helps maintain the vitality of existing truth.
o Mill stated “however true the existing idea/opinion may be, if it is not fully,
frequently, and fearlessly discussed, it will be held as a dead dogma, not a living
truth.”
o Hence, even the false idea/opinion help maintain the liveliness of existing
idea/opinion. Therefore, even if ‘O’ is false, it need not be suppressed.
• If ‘O’ is partially true, it helps develop the whole truth.
o Mill stated “the truth is “many-sided”, multi-dimensional. Most well-thought-
out views/opinions contain part of the truth. Individuals are rarely in the position
to see the “whole truth” for themselves, and the only way for it to emerge is by
therefore by “the reconciling and combining of opposites”
o Hence, new opinion as half-truths helps synthesize the complete truth and
therefore help intellectual progress of civilization. Therefore, even if ‘O’ is
partially true, it need not be suppressed
• Thus, Mill by his logic, proved that by allowing ‘O’ to enter the ‘marketplace of ideas’
will be useful for discovering and maintaining the truth—and hence, help social
progress. Hence, ‘O’ needs to be defended.
How Mill defended Liberty of Action?
• In defence of liberty of action, Mill gave the ‘harm principle’- the only purpose for
which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community,
against his will, is to prevent harm to others
• Mill further separated self-regarding from other-regarding actions
• Self-regarding conduct/actions are those impact of which is only on the individual doing
that act, and which does not violate his obligation to anyone. Thus, as per his harm
principle, self-regrading actions need not be interfered with.
• For examples: drinking in private without harming the interest of one’s family may be
self-regarding but drunken driving may be other-regarding and need to be controlled.
How Mill defended Liberty of development of self-character, individuality?
• Mill asserted that each one is entitled to personal liberty expressed through 'experiments
in living’, developing unique personality, character, and self-culture
• Each individual is entitled to decide his/her own conception of good life.
• A “diversity of character and culture” provides the engine of productive tension that
drives a society/community/nation forward.
• It is same as genetic diversity protect survival of the species.
• Idiosyncratic (different from others), non-conforming, unique, and strong personality
are defence against the wave of conformation and homogenization by the mass society.
• Hence, individuality and liberty to develop one’s own person/character is good for the
individual and for the society. Therefore, the liberty to develop self-character,
uniqueness of one’s personality, to do ‘experiments in living’, etc. need to be defended.

Conclusion:
In sum, Mill’s idea on liberty and need for its protection was thought provoking, radical,
and supported by very reasoned and rational arguments and logic. His assertion that
individual liberty faces more dangers from conforming tendencies of mass society was
far ahead of his time. Today when populism is on rise his thoughts seems to be prophetic
(visionary, far sighted).
He defended liberty and individuality by using his principles of utility. For him, liberty
creates conditions of optimum intellectual flourishment and hence increases the
intellectual resources of society. Intellectual resources are the raw material for
civilizational progress. His 3 liberties include both negative and positive liberty, as
categorised by Isaiah Berlin. Hence, J.S.Mill is considered as champion of the idea of
liberty in modern era.
Q.7: Critically examine various debates on idea of ‘freedom of expression’
Introduction:
In the discourse of liberty one of the greatest debates is what should be the limit of
freedom of speech and expression. This debate is ongoing since the advent (rise) of
liberalism in 17th century Europe. Liberalism is based on the belief that liberty is an
inviolable (sacrosanct/unbreakable) natural right of individual. Liberty primarily
includes freedom of thought, expression, and belief. Freedom of expression implies
right to form, hold and express opinions without any constraints or interference. It
includes right to seek, receive, and impart information and ideas of all kinds, either
orally or in the form of writing or print, in the form of art, or through any other media.
One of the greatest supporters of freedom of thought and expression was J.S. Mill who
provided several reasons and justifications, on the basis of social utility, for
unrestrained (unrestricted) freedom of thought and expressive. Besides Mill, Socrates,
Aristotle, Locke, and Rousseau have been strong supporter of freedom of speech &
expression.
England’s Bill of Rights in 1689 adopted freedom of speech as a constitutional right.
The French Revolution in 1789 adopted the ‘Declaration of Rights of Man’ and of
citizen. First amendment of American constitution granted most extensive rights to
freedom of speech and expression. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights that
was adopted by UN in the year 1948 also states that everyone should have the freedom
to express their ideas and opinions. Thus, in liberal democracies of western world
freedom of speech & expression has been accepted as sacrosanct fundamental rights of
individuals which no state/Government can curtail (restrict).
Majority of newly independent nations after de-colonisation adopted liberal
constitution which guaranteed freedom of speech and expression as fundamental rights.
But soon, many of these governments in post-colonial states, felt that unrestrained
freedom of expression is a troublesome issue for governance in a multi-cultural nations
facing threat from both internal and external sources. Governments in many 3rd world
developing nations, including India, felt that unrestricted freedom of speech and
expression may cause social dis-harmony, discontent, and division in society, which
ultimately may harm national integration. However, most of these concerns on the
freedom of speech and expressions were driven by fear of dissent of the people against
the governments. All Governments attempted to suppress the dissent against
government policies and actions by limiting freedom of speech and expression. Barely
few months after implementation of new Constitution, the Nehru Government in India
curtailed freedom of expression by inserting clause 19(2) in the article 19, which put
reasonable restrictions on the right to freedom of expression.
Governments all over the world, especially in 3rd world, attempted to limit freedom of
speech by many mechanisms. Mostly this was done to suppress the dissent against the
Governments but they did it in name of maintaining public order and social harmony.
Judiciary came in the favour of freedom of speech and expression by striking down
many unjustified laws, statute, and policies of government all over the world, including
 India. For example, in India the supreme court struct down section 66A of IT Act which
contained provision for punishment for sending offensive and threatening messages
through communication services such as social media.
But this debate is still on as to what should be the limit of freedom of expression and
speech and how much a citizen be allowed to express dissent against the Government
of the day by way of speech and expressions.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to enlist both side of the debate on the freedom of
speech and expression which include freedom of press. I will also discuss issues related to hate
speeches.

Theoretical underpinnings (bases) and rationale for Freedom of Speech:

• Marketplace of Idea
• Best Ideas can be developed only in competition with one another in a
marketplace of ideas, in which speakers are sellers, and listeners are
buyers/consumers of ideas.
• Truth is multi-faceted. Any idea contains some truth, so only by hearing all ideas
whole truth can be found. Hence, partially true ideas should also be allowed.
• Even falsehoods can aid the search for truth by strengthening true arguments.
Hene, we need not stop even false ideas.
• Even if a single person hold idea different from all other, that idea may be true
and may help in civilizational progress. This happened when Copernicus only
was right in claiming that not the Earth but Sun is center of the solar system.
• Just like bio-diversity, diversity of ideas ensures intellectual progress
• Individual Autonomy and self-development:
• Freedom as self-mastery - master of one’s choices and desire.
• Free speech crucial for formation of choices, desires and unique individual
character.
• According to Mill, free speech fosters (support) authenticity, genius, creativity,
individuality and human flourishing.
• Essential for Democracy:
• Enable citizen equal participation in democratic processes and institutions.
• Well informed and aware citizen is essence of democracy; as Dworkin said
“everyone must have not just a vote but a voice”.
• Ensures that citizens know their rights and can exercise them.
• Ensures transparency and fairness: keeps governments accountable and
responsive.
• Essence of deliberative and participatory democracy.
Grounds for limiting Freedom of Speech & expression
• Harm Principle
• If it directly harms rights of others
• Libel or defamatory speech
• Inciting violence: Hate speech
• Debatable point is what kind of harm requires limiting freedom of expression?
As per Mill the harm should be physical or substantial; minor irritants (loud
music, cartoon, ridicule, etc) is not sufficient to limit the freedom of speech.
• Offence Principle
• People/community may be offended by some expressions.
• Need to consider these aspects:
• Extent, duration and social value of the speech
• The ease with which the expression can be avoided
• The motives of the speaker, the number of people offended, the
intensity of the offense, and the general interest of the community, etc.
• Crucial component of the offense principle is whether the offense can be
avoided and how grave/serious is the offence.
• Paternalism
• To protect the agent/speaker from self-harm.
• Liberal ideology opposes paternalistic and moralistic justifications for limiting
free expression.
• Clash with other values: freedom of expression may clash with right to privacy,
security, and dignity.
• Limit on freedom expression in Indian constitution:
• Article 19(2): Limited on grounds of sovereignty and integrity of India, the
security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency
or morality, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.
• Article 359: suspension of freedom of speech during Emergencies
Hate Speech:
• Hate speech covers many forms of expressions which spread, incite, promote or justify
hatred, violence and discrimination against a person or group of persons. For example,
speech/expression attacking or deriding any particular caste, religion, race, or
community. Anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, casteist, and extreme religious speeches are
also examples of hate speech.
 • UN human rights code: Any notice, sign, symbol, emblem, article, statement, or other
representation that exposes or tends to expose hatred, ridicules, belittles, or otherwise
affronts the dignity of any person or class of persons on the basis of race, caste, religion,
ethnicity, gender, sexual orientations, etc
• Link between speech and action: why hate speech are harmful?
• Richard Delgado, in his book ‘Word that wound’ explained how hate speech
causes severe emotional distress in the targeted people.
• Speech may inflict physical harm: inciting violence through speech act. Before
riots such speech may ignite the spark.
• Expose the targeted group to violence: Hate speech as violent act
• Deep psychological scar on targeted group: self-hatred, humiliation, isolation,
stress, anxiety, and hypertension
• Debatable point is who and how to decide what are hate speech? Ideally it should be
self-regulated. Otherwise, only judiciary should be allowed to decide. But in most of
the cases it is the Government of the day which decides which are hate speech.
• In India hate speeches are restricted as per article 19(2), and IPC 153, 295 A, and 298

Conclusion:
Freedom of speech is the most cherished right and essential component of liberty. It is
considered essential for intellectual progress of human society, individual autonomy,
and democratic citizenship. However, since beginning intense debate has been ongoing
on the extent of the freedom of speech and expression. As many of these expressions
are dissent against the Governments, they are being limited and suppressed by all
Governments.
Theoretically, freedom of expression can be limited on principles of harm, offence, and
protecting other valuable rights. Indian constitution put restrictions on freedom of
expression on grounds of security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States,
public order, decency or morality, contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an
offence.
Hate speech are extremely offensive and potentially violent speeches against target
person or groups. They can cause deep emotional and psychological scar(wound) on
the target people.
Fine balance needs to be maintained between freedom of speech and restraint on part
of citizen, society, and govt. to preserve the most cherished right of humans. Role of
Judiciary is of utmost importance in this respect.
 THEME 2: EQUALITY

2.A: CBCS Syllabus

a) Equality of opportunity and Equality of Outcome
b) Egalitarianism: Background inequalities and differential treatment
Debate: Affirmative action

2. B: Key Points:
Meaning of the idea of Equality:
• Equality is the most porous (not solid, spongy), non-intuitive (not naturally
understood), and controversial of normative political values. It is also hardest to realize
in any socio-political arrangement.
• Equality as normative value denotes equal moral worth and equality of each individual
on the basis of being equal member of the humanity.
• Inequality everywhere, in nature, society, family, international relations. Hence it is not
natural and non-intuitive.
• Egalitarianism: Doctrine/ideology believing in equality as cornerstone of political
arrangements and public policy.
o Luck Egalitarianism: Just socio-political arrangement should not allow
inequality due to luck. Good or bad luck may be natural, social, Brute luck
(fortune, misfortune, accidents, disease, etc).
o Ideal egalitarian political system should even take care of optional luck, that is,
individual choices and preferences. This is called hard Egalitarianism.
o Ronald Dworkin, who gave the theory of ‘equality of resources’ was one of
most prominent Luck Egalitarian thinker.
o Richard Arneson, Gerald Cohen, John Roemer, Eric Rakowski, etc. are other
Luck Egalitarians.
• Multiple Dimensions of equality
• Formal vs substantive equality
• Political equality- one person- one vote: formal equality
• Socio-economic equality- equality in social status and material resources-
substantive equality
• Equality of opportunity vs equality of Outcome
o Equality of opportunity
▪ Equal chance/access to compete for rewards of life
▪ Can be formal or substantive
▪ Closely linked to Liberalism
 ▪ Generally, does not support distribution of resources, more acceptable
in liberal societies
• Equality of outcome
o Attempt to equalize results and rewards,
o Substantive equality
o Linked to socialist/communist ideologies.
o Very hard to realize, controversial as it may lead to authoritarian and totalitarian
state
• Equality of resources:
o Propounded (put forward) by Ronald Dworkin in his book ‘Sovereign Virtue:
the theory and practice of Equality’ in 2000
o It is a luck egalitarian account of idea of equality
o It envisions (imagine) socio-economic arrangements to mimic results of an
imaginary market procedure for acquisition and transfer of resources. It includes
fair market of Insurance to share luck and compensate for bad luck.
o Despite inequalities in outcome because of different choices/ambitions (option
luck), no one is left behind. The society/state takes care of those suffered due to
bad luck.
• Complex Equality:
o Propounded by Michael Walzer in his book ‘Sphere of Justice- Spheres of
Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality’ in 1983
o It is communitarian account of distributive justice.
o It envisions (imagines) society/community having multiple spheres of justice,
having its own rank ordering.
o Each sphere may act like separate domain for distributive justice.
o Distribution of each social good is decided by rules and reasons specific to the
sphere and interpretation of its social meaning. Conversion and exchange of
goods across boundary of sphere blocked.
o Hence, possession of one good in one sphere does not affect possession of other
goods in other spheres.
o Thus, despite inequalities in a particular sphere, overall equality of status of
each individual is maintained.
2. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Critically examine the concept of ‘equality of opportunity’. Also

compare it with idea of ‘equality of outcome’.
Ans. Template:

Introduction:
Out of the four fundamental normative values- liberty, equality, rights, and justice-
equality is most unnatural, least intuitive, and protean (not fixed, fluctuating) concept.
It is also hardest to realize in any political arrangement. There is no equality in nature.
For most period of human civilization, all human societies have been hierarchically
arranged. Inequality was accepted as natural. Plato’s idea state was divided into 3
inequal classes. Indian caste system was based on inequality. Feudal society in Europe
as well as in other parts of world were inequal.
Idea of equality is modern concept. Enlightenment movement in Europe and advent of
liberalism and associated humanist movements advocated equality on the basis of equal
moral worth of each individual. Liberalism was based on individualism. Each
individual is autonomous and relate to other individual as equal. Liberalism supported
equality as equal civil and political rights. Equality, in liberal doctrine, was understood
as formal equality, such as, equality of opportunity. Egalitarianism, ideology having
equality as cornerstone of political arrangements and public policy, developed as one
stream within liberalism. Marxism, in subsequent period, gave an entirely new meaning
to equality. It was equality in economic structure, that is, the ‘base’ of the society. This
gave rise to idea of substantive equality or equality of outcome. Despite acceptance of
the normative value of equality as desirable attribute of nay socio-political
arrangements, inequality of wealth and income has further increased in modern era,
Equality has many dimensions. But dividing it into binary category of equality of
opportunity and equality of outcome facilitated in its understanding and realization. It
was similar to the binary division of liberty into negative and positive liberty.
Equality of opportunity denotes providing equal chance to each individual to compete,
be successful, and get rewards of life. It is like a fair exam in which all students are
given equal treatment and chance to get maximum marks. It is more like formal equality
and is closely linked to liberalism.
Equality of outcome denotes equality of results and rewards of life – Income, welfare,
resources. Its aim is to reduce the inequality of wealth and income. Hence, it denotes
socio-economic equality. It may involve re-distribution of wealth/income by state. It is
more substantive and positive in comparison to equality of opportunity.
 However, instead of looking at them as binary opposites, difference between equality
of opportunity and equality of outcome is merely of degree. Equality of opportunity of
highest degree, in which all factors of background inequality is taken care of, reaches
very close to equality of outcome. Hence, instead of treating them as binary opposite,
they should be seen on an equality continuum at whose extremes formal equality of
opportunity and substantive equality of outcome are located.
In the next section of the answer, I will try to explain the two conceptions of equality, will
compare them, and finally will argue that instead of being in binary opposition the two
conceptions of equality are on a continuum.
Equality of Opportunity:
• As stated in the introduction, it denotes equal treatment and equal chance to compete in
the race of life.
• For example: it ensures that in accessing education, employment, health care, political
offices, and other important public goods individual’s race, class, gender, caste,
religion, etc. shall not matter. All would be treated equal.
• Another example is political equality, that is, each person’s voting rights are equal.
Each one gets equal chance to compete for any political office.
• Equality before law, equal citizenship rights, state treating each individual with equal
concern and dignity, etc. are other examples of equality of opportunity.
• Thus, it implies ensuring a level playing field, equality of access to rewards of life,
equal treatment, equal chance, etc.
• Attempt to remove constraints of social bad luck, such as, poor social background,
family, education, inheritance, etc.
• Fairness is the cornerstone of equality of opportunity; like are treated alike, unlike
treated differently.
• Accept inequality of outcome due to inequality of natural luck (natural talent, beauty,
etc) and optional luck (individual life choices and preferences)
• Closely associated with classical liberalism–liberal or soft egalitarianism
• Equality, in this conception, is more like a moral good. It is accepted as desirable. But
it focuses on input processes of game of life. All are given equal chance & opportunity
to play the game of life fairly and on equal terms. But it does not interfere in the output
or outcome of the game of life.
• Thus, it is more like providing level playing field. But it does not try to level the
outcome, which may be different for different individual.
• It promotes efficiency, excellence and economic prosperity, but allows for economic
inequality.
Equality of Outcome:
 • Unlike equality of opportunity, it not only provides level playing field but also level the
results or outcome in the game of life.
• Hence, it denotes equality of results, outcomes, rewards – income, welfare, resources,
political and public offices, etc.
• Therefore, it is substantive and positive conception of equality. Provides meaning and
substance to equality of opportunity.
• Attempts to compensate for social, natural, and optional luck. Hence, may be called
hard egalitarianism.
• Unlike equality of opportunity, it requires affirmative actions (reservation, differential
treatment), and income re-distribution by the state. Hence, for many, especially liberal
thinkers, it is troublesome idea and extremely difficult to realize.
• This conception of equality is tilted towards communitarianism. Societal common good
is given preference over rights & privileges of individuals. It promotes social solidarity,
fraternity, social peace and harmony.
• It is duty and obligation-based conception of equality. Wealthy and resourceful have a
duty and obligation to share their resources with poor in the common interest.
• It allows much wider role to state. State may interfere with liberty and autonomy of
individuals. For example: progressive taxation, wealth tax, income re-distribution,
quota, reservation, positive discrimination, etc.
• It is supported by socialist, communist ideologies.

On the basis of above discussion, we can summarise the difference between two conceptions
of equality:

Equality of Opportunity Equality of Outcome:

Equality in competition; equal chance to Equality in results of competition; level out

win in the game of life results/outcome of the game of life

Provide level playing field Attempt to level out the outcomes

Remove obstructions of bad social luck, Compensate for both social and natural luck;
that is, background inequality even try to take care of bad ‘option luck’

Generally non-distributive Involves transfer, re-distribution

Consistent with liberalism; protect Closer to socialism, communism; may interfere

personal liberty. with personal liberty.

More acceptable face of equality-soft Troublesome idea for many- hard egalitarianism
egalitarianism
Limits state’s authority Allows more authority to states

Much easier to implement Very difficult to implement

Example: formal equality- equality Example: substantive equality- equality of

before law, political equality resources, welfare, income

Conclusion:
Acceptance of equality as desirable and moral social value is phenomenon of modern
era. It is closely linked to advent of liberal political ideology in 17th century Europe.
Liberalism is based on individualism- equal worth and rights of individual. However,
socialism and communism, the competing ideologies to liberalism, gave new
dimensions to the idea of equality. They talked about Equality of Outcome terming
liberal idea of equality as merely Equality of Opportunity.
Equality of Opportunity believes in providing fair and equal chance to each individual
to compete for rewards of life. On the other hand, Equality of Outcome, attempts to
level out the life rewards itself. Of course, Equality of Outcome is possible only with
wealth/income re-distribution and other affirmative actions by the state.
Such binary division of idea of equality into Equality of Opportunity and Equality of
Outcome may have facilitated in better understanding, debate, and realization of
equality in different socio-political arrangements. But such division is more theoretical
or conceptual than reality. Difference between two conceptions of equality is in degree,
not in essence. The equality of opportunity can very well move towards Equality of
Outcome by taking care of natural and social bad luck as wells as optional luck. For
example, John Rawls while proposing his theory of justice gave the idea of fair equality
of opportunity, which implied wealth/income re-distribution. We may take another
example; suppose for a school exam, the students with poor backgrounds are
compensated with books, study materials, special coaching, etc. Also, the school
prohibit talented and well-read parents to coach/teach their children. Such radical
Equality of Opportunity will be very close to Equality of Outcome. Thus, instead of
considering them as binary opposites, they should be seen on an equality continuum at
whose extreme’s formal equality of opportunity and substantive equality of outcome
are located.
Q.2: Explain the concept of 'equality of resources' as advanced by Ronald
Dworkin. How does it compare with equality of opportunity and equality of
outcome?

Answer Template:
Introduction:
Ronald Dworkin, an American political thinker of liberal tradition and proponent of
luck egalitarianism, gave his conception of equality, calling it ‘Equality of Resources’
in his book ‘Sovereign Virtue’. Dworkin’s Equality of Resources denotes socio-
economic distribution which results from an imaginary market procedure for
acquisition and transfer of resources and insurance for bad luck.
To explain his idea of equality, Dworkin presents an imaginary original position
comparing it with 100 people a deserted island. Each one is provided with equal
money(shells) to buy resources of their choice without being envious to resources
bought by others. Subsequent productions, investments, trade, and transfers produces
an end position in which some will have more and others will have less resources. Thus,
despite starting with equal resources in the initial positions, end position would produce
inequality. This is either because of optional luck, that is, life choices, ambitions, labour
or brute natural bad luck- accidents, natural calamity, sickness, less natural talent, etc.
To compensate for bad luck (both optional and natural), a fair insurance market is
created in which each one contributes by paying premium. Those suffering from bad
luck are compensated from the insurance fund.
Thus, in Dworkin’s Equality of Resources, all kinds of background inequality arising
from the bad luck is taken care of and neutralised. Since the compensation of bad luck
is from market based insurance, intervention of state in form of affirmative action is
avoided. Also, the end status of resource distribution is just and fair as acquisition of
resources in the initial position and subsequent transactions/transfers were just and fair.
Since, the initial acquisition and subsequent transactions are based on individual choice,
liberty of each one is ensured. Thus, Dworkin claimed to have provided a conception
of equality without infringing upon the liberty of individual and involving intervention
of the state. His idea of equality was consistent with the liberal doctrine and luck
egalitarianism.

Dworkin’s Equality of Resources: from initial to end position:

Following are the stepwise brief explanation of Dworkin’s imaginary market based
resource distribution:
Step one: 100 people land on a deserted island after shipwrecks. The island has enough
fertile land, fruit and other tress, water, and all other resources for life for all the 100
persons.
 Step 2: Initial position: equal auction: each one given 100 shells to buy resources of
the island. Each participate in fair bidding for resources of their choice ‘equal’
participants;
Thus, all background inequalities or social bad luck, such as, sex, class, race, religion,
etc. were neutralized. each one, despite their social backgrounds were treated equal.
Therefore, acquisition of resources in the initial position was fair and just.
Step 3: Intermediate phase: individuals produce, invest, transect, and transfer with their
own choice/preferences, ambitions and abilities.
Step 4: Final position: Inequality of outcome- resources, income, wealth, etc. will be
unequally distributed among those 100 persons; some will have more, others less. This
would be due to personal choices and ambition. It may also be due to brute bad luck-
accidents, natural calamity, sickness, etc. Dworkin called them optional and brute bad
Luck.
Step 5: Fair Insurance market: To compensate for optional and brute bad Luck, all
pool their risk and share their luck by forming an insurance fund by contributing
premium. Out of 100 shells, each one buys suitable insurance as per one’s risk taking
aptitude. Those suffering from bad luck are compensated from this market based
insurance system.

Comparison of Dworkin’s Equality of Resources with Equality of Opportunity and

Equality of Outcome:
• Dworkin’s Equality of Resources combines the features of both equality of Opportunity
and Equality of Outcome.
• In the initial position, each one is given equal chance and opportunity to buy resources
of one’s choice. It is fair Equality of Opportunity, as all social bad luck, such as poor
social class, etc. were neutralised.
• In the intermediate position, each one was given full liberty of choice and opportunity
to produce, invest, and transect to best one’s ability and ambition. Thus, this stage was
also consistent with Equality of Opportunity.
• In the end or final position there was unequal distribution of resources. But those
suffering from brute bad luck or even from optional luck were compensated from the
market based fair insurance system. Thus, outcome or rewards of life choices were also
tried to be equalised to some extent. Thus, Equality of Resources included features of
Equality of Outcome, too.
• If implemented as per the imaginary market based distribution with insurance system,
wealth and income inequality would be moderate in such socio-economic arrangement.
• Thus, Dworkin’s Equality of Resources combines the features of both the binary
conceptions of equality.
 • But it is not a formal equality as equality of opportunity. It is substantive equality
aiming for less inequality in resource distribution.
• Equality of Resources also avoids intervention of states in form of affirmative actions
as it is based on market principles. Unlike socialist/communist society/state, it does not
curtail individual liberty and freedom of choice in the name of distributive justice.
• Thus, Dworkin’s Equality of Resources, includes features of both the binary
conceptions of equality without suffering from their major weaknesses.

Conclusion:

Despite being very innovative and consistent with liberal doctrine and egalitarian
principles, Dworkin’s Equality of Resources is criticized on many counts. It laid too
much emphasis on individual choice, undermining societal common interest. It tries to
differentiate between "bad luck" and "bad choice". But in real life such neat
differentiation between these two is problematic. It gives too much importance to
market undermining authority of society/community/state. Another minus is its being
complex, idealistic, and vague; hence, it is difficult to implement.
Despite such criticism, there is no doubt that Dworkin’s Equality of Resources is very
innovative idea of equality. It attempts to reconcile liberty and equality, equality of
opportunity and equality of outcome without allowing state intervention. It provides
maximum individual liberty with freedom to make life choices. But in case of bad luck,
it also compensates the individual. This may lessen the inequality of wealth/income
distribution in the society/community. Thus, Dworkin’s Equality of Resources achieve
both equality of opportunity and equality of outcome without major weaknesses
associated with both the binary conceptions of equality. His idea of equality is very
much consistent with core thoughts of liberalism and principles of luck egalitarianism.
This was indeed a major achievement of Dworkin’s Equality of Resources.

Q.3: Explain the concept of complex equality; How does it differ from the
discourse on resource egalitarianism?

Introduction:
Complex equality is the idea of equality given by Michael Walzer, a prominent American
political thinker of Communitarian ideology. Walzer gave the idea of Complex equality in his
book ‘Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality’ in 1983.
To Walzer, equality in liberal ideology is distribution of social goods (resources, welfare,
rewards, offices) on a single universal rules/criterion across societies. Walzer rejected such
conception of equality as simplistic and individualistic. To him, any cultural community has
 multiple spheres of justice, each having its own social ordering. Social goods are distributed by
different rules/criteria in different sphere of justice. Even the meaning and values of social
goods are different in different spheres of justice. In such communities, equality is assessed on
multiple criteria and indicated by sum total of overall standings of an individual in different
spheres. For example, a community may have Sphere of politics, education, kinship, military,
etc. ; now suppose person X is having rank one in political sphere, rank 5 in military sphere,
rank 3 in education and so on. Thus, different person will have different ranks or status in
different spheres. His overall status would be sum total of standings/ranks in different spheres.
Walzer’s Complex equality has another condition. Conversion and exchange of one social good
for other across the boundary of spheres is blocked. Hence, possession of one social good and
related status/standing is not able to influence standing in other spheres. For example, person
X in above example cannot convert his political power to increase his standing in the sphere of
education. Therefore, despite inequality in specific sphere, each member of the community has
overall equal status. Hence Complex equality denotes many inequalities but complex or overall
equality.
In comparison to Dworkin’s idea of equality of resources, Walzer’s Complex equality is
different in many respects. Equality of Resources is consistent with liberal ideology and
principles of egalitarianism, especially Luck egalitarianism. Whereas idea of Complex equality
is part of communitarian ideology. It rejects individualism and universalism of liberalism. It
supports cultural relativism. Therefore, in Complex equality, meaning of social goods and
prestige associated with their possession vary across communities. Unlike distribution of social
goods on a single universal criterion across societies in resource egalitarianism, social goods
are distributed as per different rules/criteria in different societies and even within a society they
are distributed by different rules in different spheres of justice. In the latter part of the answer,
I will try to list out few more differences between the two ideas of equality.

Features and characteristics of Walzer’s Complex equality:

A communitarian account of distributive justice. It provides idea of equality consistent with
communitarian idea of justice.
Following are the assumptions on which the idea of Complex equality is based:
• Membership to community gives right to each member of equal overall social status.
• All cultural communities/societies have distinct spheres of justice having their own
primary social good and rules of distribution of social goods.
• Different spheres of distributive justice are independent and autonomous
• Relativism: Meaning and value of social goods are specific to each cultural community.
Even within a community meaning and value of social good may vary across different
spheres of justice.

Following diagram shows the different spheres of justice in any community:

• Distribution of social goods in different distributive spheres on the basis of different principles,
procedure and criteria.
• Therefore, an individual may have different social standings in different spheres. Following
diagram depicts this:

• Thus, different spheres of distributive justice are independent and autonomous.

• It may be possible that Same person may have top rank in more than one sphere. It may also be
possible that Same people may also win out in every sphere. But both these possibilities shall
be for different reasons specific to those spheres.
 • Conversion of one social good for other blocked: it means that possession of social goods in
one sphere cannot be used to influence ranking in other spheres. This helps maintain overall
complex equality.
• Hence, despite inequality in specific sphere, each member of the community may have overall
equal status. Hence Complex equality implies sphere wise inequalities but complex or overall
equality.

Difference with Resource egalitarianism:

On the basis of above discussions, we can summarise the difference between Communitarian
account of Complex equality with liberal egalitarian account of equality of resources; following
table list out the differences:

Resource egalitarianism Complex equality

Attempt to equalize social goods- resources, Social goods are distributed by different
welfare, rewards, offices – by a single rules, criteria, and reasons in different
rules/criteria across society distributive spheres

Social standing is based on possession of social Equality is assessed on multiple criteria

goods/resources. There is only one social and sum total of overall standings in
ranking in a society. different spheres

Use normative universal principles for Uses culture specific norms and moral
distributive justice- does not believe in cultural rules- accepts cultural and moral
relativism relativism

Individualistic and liberal account of equality; Communitarian idea of equality

undermine communitarian feelings.

Same people win out in every sphere for the same people may also win out in every
same reason sphere but for different reason

Conclusion:
Walzer’s Complex equality is a communitarian account of idea of equality. It visualizes
multiples spheres of justice in a community, each having its norms, values, and meaning
of social goods. For example, politics, education, military, kinship, etc. are different
spheres of justice. For the purpose of resource distribution, each sphere is separate and
autonomous distributive sphere having its own rules/criteria for distribution of social
goods. Since each sphere is having different rules of distribution as well as meaning
and value of social goods, social standing of individuals in different spheres may be
different. Possession of one social good in one sphere cannot be exchanged for social
goods in other spheres. Due to such blocking of exchange of social goods across
spheres, standing in one sphere cannot influence standings in other spheres.
 Hence, despite inequality in different spheres, sum total of social standings of each member
across all spheres may be equal in terms of social status. Thus, each member of the community
has overall equal status. Hence Complex equality implies sphere wise inequalities but complex
or overall equality.
Such communitarian idea of equality is very different from the discourse of resource
egalitarianism, such as, Dworkin’s equality of resources. The latter is based on liberal ideology
and egalitarian principles. It is individualistic and universalistic. It uses single criteria for
resource distribution across the society. There is a one social ranking in the society based upon
possession of social goods. On the contrary, in Complex equality, the community has multiple
distributive spheres, each having different rules of distribution and different social standings.
Overall social standings of an individual are sum total of his ranks in all the spheres. Since
norms and values of social goods are also different in different spheres, there is overall equality
of status despite inequality in a specific sphere.
Despite being very innovative idea of equality, many shortcomings have been pointed out of
the idea of Complex equality. It is criticized for being incoherent, complex, and difficult to
implement. It may require state intervention to block exchanges of social goods between
spheres. This may result into authoritarian state. It may also infringe with individual liberty and
autonomy. It gives too much ground to moral and cultural relativism.
But overall, the idea of Complex equality gives a very innovative concept of equality. It has the
charm of community life. Hence, it may be applicable across different cultural communities
unlike liberal account of equality which attempts to apply liberal normative values universally
across all cultures.

Q.4: Evaluate the concept of ‘affirmative action’ as a tool to redress

background inequality

Similar question:
Q: How does ‘affirmative action’ promote egalitarianism in society? Explain with suitable
example.

Introduction:
Attempts by legitimate Governments to promote equality (or reduce inequality) by
positive actions are called affirmative action. It is called affirmative or positive actions
in contrast to laissez faire (doing nothing) approach of govts as per classical liberalism.
Liberal democratic govts are supposed to promote equality of opportunity by not
discriminating any citizen on the basis of social background and providing equal and
fair chance to compete for rewards in life. But modern or positive liberalism, coming
to the fore in the second half of 20th century, allowed positive actions on part of
Governments to make society more equal. Unlike classical liberalism, modern
liberalism supported welfare state, which provides basic needs and welfare services to
 the citizens. Affirmative actions are plans, policies, programs to provide direct help and
assistance to those who have been left in the race of life due to social and brute bad luck
or background inequalities.
Affirmative Actions are known by many other names & phrases. It is called
employment equity in Canada, Positive Discrimination in UK, Alternative Access in
South Africa, and Reservation in India. It is also called Reverse discrimination and
Benign discrimination.
Examples of affirmative actions are quota or reservation in jobs and education, special
assistance, special laws, subsidies, and direct benefit transfers, etc. In India, reservation
in jobs and education for SC/ST/OBC/EWS, assistance to SC/ST students in form of
free hostels, books, educational materials, etc., scholarships to poor and students from
marginalised communities, etc. are examples of Affirmative Actions.

Theoretical underpinnings (bases) and rationale for Affirmative Action:

• Certain minority groups, marginalized community may suffer from background
inequality due to long periods of social discrimination. Hence, they need special help
and assistance.
• Formal equality of opportunity may not be sufficient for socially disadvantaged groups.
• Classical fairness: like treated alike, unlike treated differently.
• Compensation for social and brute bad luck –poor social background (lower caste),
family, education, inheritance, disease, accidents, disabilities, disasters, etc.
• To bring about distributive and social justice; to attempt for substantive equality
• Democratic equality: Justice as fairness (as given by John Rawl): Socio-economic
inequality just if it is to the greatest advantage of the worst off.
• Representation in public offices, political positions, and education should reflect
proportion in population
• Help bring about lesser inequality of outcome, social harmony, national Integration

Affirmative Action: Indian Context

• Historical Account
• 1901: reservation in Kolhapur Maharashtra for non-brahmin and backward
classes by Sahuji Maharaj- first instance of reservation for backward caste.
• 1909: separate electorate for Muslims
• 1919: separate electorate for Sikhs and other communities.
 • 1932: separate electorate proposed for Dalits; this was revoked after the ‘Poona
Pact’
• 1935 Act: reservation in job for backward caste
• Constitutional Provisions in the independent India
• Article 15(4): Nothing shall prevent the State from making any special
provision for the advancement of any socially and educationally backward
classes of citizens of or for the SC and ST.
• Article 16(4) : Nothing in this article shall prevent the State from making any
provision for the reservation of appointments or posts in favor of any
backward class of citizens
• Article 46: The State shall promote with special care the educational and
economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of
the SC and ST, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of
exploitation
• Article 330, 332: reservation for SC/ST in legislature
• Article 340: Commission to investigate the conditions of socially and
educationally backward classes
• Reservation in public jobs, public educational Institution for SC, ST,OBC, and
legislature-SC,ST, Women
• Preference in land reforms, distribution of social welfare –scholarship, grants, health
care, legal aid, special educational assistance, hostels, etc.
• Special acts for protection of the interests of SC/ST. Special police stations for them.

Critical assessment of Affirmative Action policy in redress background

inequality

Affirmative Action is considered part of distributive and social justice. It helps reduce
wealth/income equality. Thus, it is action for realizing substantive equality. It provides
dignity and empowerment to hitherto marginalized section of the society. It may help
in social solidarity and harmony.
But many minuses may also be pointed out against affirmative action policy. It allows
state interfering with individual liberty and autonomy. Once state is allowed an
interventionist role, there may not be any stoppage. Like positive liberty, it also is like
a slippery slope. In the name of positive discrimination, the state may indulge into
populist and divisive measures for electoral gains, which in long run may create social
disharmony and widen social cleavages. In India, issue of Mandal commission dividing
society into ‘backward’ and ‘forward’ caste/class is an example. Affirmative Action is
also criticized as it disincentivise (does not reward) merit and efforts. Reservation
benefits have been cornered by more resourceful and well off among backward
 class/caste. This has created class differentiations among SC/ST/OBC. Supreme Court
had to intervene on this issue by giving creamy layer criteria for denying reservation
benefits to well off among backward class/caste.

Conclusion:
When state take positive actions to provide socio-economic benefits to hitherto
disadvantaged and marginalised sections of society with the aim to reduce socio-
economic equality, it is called Affirmative Action. It is part of distributive and social
justice. It emanates from the idea of substantive equality, such as, equality of outcome.
Affirmative action policies are generally implemented by giving quota/reservation,
subsidies, direct benefit transfer, income and other support, special policies and
facilities to targeted segment of population.
Classical liberalism is against the idea of Affirmative Action, as it allows state
interfering in individual liberty and autonomy by changing the distribution pattern of
social goods. But modern liberalism supports mild form of affirmative action as part of
its conception of welfare state. Socialism/communism very much support affirmative
action, as it attempts to bring equality of outcome.
Both pluses and minuses of affirmative action have been pointed out. It helps provide
distributive and social justice, promote social harmony, and inclusive growth. But it
seems to undermine individual liberty, merit, competency, and efforts. It may also put
state on a slippery slope leading to interventionist and authoritarian state.
THEME 3: JUSTICE

3. A: CBCS Syllabus
a) Justice: Procedural and Substantive
b) Rawls and his critics
Debate: Scope of Justice – National vs Global

3. B: Key Points:
Maening of Justice:
• Out of 4 foundational normative values, Justice is most intuitive, that is, we as human
being have nature or God given sense of what is right or wrong, good or bad, just or
unjust.
• Justice implies something which it is not only right to do and wrong not to do, but also
which someone can claim from us as one’s moral right.
• Justice denotes fair, virtuous and moral act or arrangement.
• In matter of distribution, it implies giving each person his due- fair share to all
Definitions of Justice:
• Justice as harmony of soul and each individual and class performing its duty to
best of their abilities and aptitudes- Plato
• Justice as 'fairness’ in distribution of income, wealth, rewards, honours,
political offices, punishments etc, based on the principle of equity- proportional
and arithmetic equality- Aristotle
• Justice as Fairness in distribution of resources, awards, honours, and political
offices- John Rawl
• Entitlement Theory of Justice: distribution of holdings in a society is just if
everyone in that society is entitled to what he has- Robert Nozick
• Justice by practical reasoning; justice as fair procedure (Niti) vs justice
realized (Nyaya)- Amartya Sen
• Justice as perfect obligation- J.S.Mill

Types of Justice:
• Procedural Justice -
• Justice based on just, fair, and transparent rules/procedure and institutional
arrangements
• Formal justice.
 • Consistent with liberalism
• Distributive Justice
• Just and fair distribution of goods and services, benefits and rewards.
• May also imply social justice if equality of status, dignity of individuals, and
minimum needs of people are ensured by society/community/state.
• Substantive justice. Also called ‘end-state’ justice.
• Supported by communitarian, socialist, and communist ideologies.
• Retributive Justice
• Justice is reasonable and proportionate punishment to crime.
• Restorative Justice
• Repairing the harm caused to the victim and mend the offender to bring back to
mainstream.
• Global Justice
• Pursuing Justice beyond the borders of nation-states at international/global
level.

Rawl vs Nozick’s theory of Justice:

• John Rawl, an American liberal thinker, gave his theory in his seminal (very influential)
book ‘Theory of Justice’ (1971)
• His theory is based on Justice as fairness in distribution of social primary goods.
• It is based on the idea of distributive justice.
• As part of his theory he gave the difference principle -‘socio-economic inequalities
should be arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged
persons’
• Rawl’s theory is also called end-state theory of justice, as it proposes a specific end
pattern of distribution brought by socio-political arrangements.
• Nozick’s theory of Justice was counter to Rawl's theory of Justice.
• Nozick, an American Libertarian thinker, gave his theory in his equally influential book
‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974).
• Basic argument of Nozick is that any attempt to bring a fixed pattern of distribution by
state/Government is futile (meaningless), utopic, and infringement to personal liberty.
• He asserted that if acquisition of property in the initial position was just ( by fair means),
and subsequent transfer/transactions were fair & just then the resultant distribution
pattern is also just and fair.
• His theory is called entitlement theory of justice.
 • It is also a type of procedural justice.
Theory of global justice by Rawl and Amartya Sen:
• Notion of global justice raises fundamental questions on our responsibilities and rights
as world citizen, and the nature of relationship among individual, societies, and states
in global arena
• Justice cannot be bounded by state boundaries, neither it is the preserve of some
privileged people/culture/nation.
• John Rawl, attempted to give a theory of global justice through his book ‘Law of
People’-1993
• Rawls proposed 8 principles and 3 institutions which shall be agreed upon by rational
liberal and non-liberal but decent people at global level. He also suggested limited
assistance to non-decent and burdened people to bring them into world federation of
people.
• But in pursuit of wider agreement and his conviction about limited responsibilities
towards people of other nations, his law of people have more critics than admirers.
• Amartya Sen, in his book ‘The Idea of Justice’-2009, gave an alternate approach to
global justice based on social choice theory and practical public reasoning.
• His focus is on channelizing multiple global avenues and institutional mechanisms to
minimize injustice and realize justice on which agreement is possible( without rank
ordering) through public reasoning.
 3. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Write a brief essay on Rawl’s theory of Justice. Provide the brief
account of the communitarian and feminist critiques of Rawls Theory?

Ans. Template

Introduction:
Rawl’s theory of justice is perhaps the most important normative political theories of
20th century. In his seminal creation’ Theory of Justice (1971)’, John Rawl, an
American liberal political thinker of normative inclination, gave his idea of Justice as
fairness. Rawl's theory of Justice was unique on many counts. It was based on the social
contract tradition of Locke, Rousseau, and Kant. Basis of justice was neither religion
nor conventional social morality. It was purely based on reason and rationality. It was
a unique combination of procedural and distributive justice.
In very brief, his idea of justice was the outcome of rules and institutional framework
for distribution of primary social goods (rights, wealth/income, rewards, public offices)
of an imaginary social contract among rational individuals who come together to frame
the rules of socio-political arrangement for the society. Despite each individual having
his own conception of good life and personal moral values they arrived at just procedure
and fare rules of distributive justice for sharing primary social goods solely on the basis
of their innate sense of reason and rationality.
But for this to happen, Rawls put some conditions. First, the decision making
individuals (parties to the contract) should be under a ‘veil of ignorance’, that is, they
should not be aware of their social background. This was to avoid bias and cancel out
the natural and social bad luck. The individuals taking decisions should be free, and
equal, rational, self-interested but not egoist, individualistic, autonomous but having
‘sense of justice’, and conservative risk takers.
Rawl gave his theory of justice guaranteed each individual equal right to the most
extensive liberties, fair equality of opportunity for public offices, and distribution of
social goods such as to be for the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons.
Despite Rawl’s attempt to reconcile the liberal individualistic and communitarian
concerns, his theory of justice came under heavy criticism from communitarian and
feminist thinkers. Communitarians criticised Rawl’s theory of justice as being too much
individualistic, undermining the communitarian values. The feminist thinkers charged
 Rawl to have presented a masculine account of justice in which the Rawlsian individual
was definitely not a female. They also criticized Rawl for not able to break the wall
between ‘public’ and ‘private’ in the liberal doctrine. They blamed that Rawl's theory
of Justice left the arena of family in which there was no justice based on the difference
principle of Rawl.
In the next part of the answer, after discussing Rawl’s theory in bit more detail, I will try to
enlist the communitarian and feminist critique to Rawl’s theory of justice.

Rawl’ Theory of Justice: In Brief

• Assumptions:
• Social contract: people come together, leaving ‘state of nature’ to frame rules
to construct society.
• Initial position: Beginning of a society or political system when members of
society frame rules to govern social life.
• Veil of Ignorance: members of society framing rules are ignorant of their status
and position in society. They don’t know whether they are male/female,
rich/poor, and so on.
• Rawlsian individual: Stripped down abstract individual: free, and equal,
rational, self-interested but not egoist, individualistic, autonomous but having
‘sense of justice’, and conservative risk takers.
Rawl’s Theory of Justice as fairness: the equality and difference principle:
1. Principle of Equal Liberty: Each person has an equal right to the most
extensive liberties compatible with similar liberties for all.
2. Difference Principle: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so
that they are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality
of opportunity.
Inter-se priority among above principles of Justice:
• First priority to the equality principle.
• Second priority to 2(b): fair equality of opportunity in access to public offices/positions
• Third priority to the difference principle- distributive justice to the greatest benefit of
the least advantaged persons

Features of Rawl’s Theory of Justice

• Under controlled condition, rational individuals, having different notions of morality
and conception of good life, would frame rules for socio-political order consistent to
idea of distributive justice.
 • Cancels out the role of natural and social brute luck in arriving at notion of justice.
• Rules for just distribution of social goods based on rational choice of people who may
have different conception of morality and good life.
• Blend of procedural and distributive justice; Humane and egalitarian approach to liberal
ideology.
• Idea of ‘chain connection’: society is strengthened by strengthening its weakest link.
• Provide a standard or benchmark for assessing distributive structure of any society.

How Rawl's theory of Justice can be realized in democratic set up?

• By progressive taxation, that is, rich and well off are taxed more in comparison to poor.
• By subsidy and welfare services to poor and worst off people. For example, providing
free or subsidized food, oil, gas, and other essential items, houses, toilets, education,
and healthcare, etc.
• By transfers, such as, direct benefit transfers and income support. For example, in India
poor are given pension, and farmers direct income support.
• By making policies for distribution of material resources of the community such as to
best subserve the societal common good. This is what stated in the article 39(b) of
Indian constitution. It may be noted that in accordance with Rawl’s theory, article 39(b)
and 39(c) are given preference over the fundamental rights of individual under article
14 and 19.

Pros and Cons of Rawl's theory of Justice:

On the basis of above discussions, we may summarise the pluses and minuses of Rawl's theory
of Justice.
Pros and cons of Rawl's theory of Justice:

Pluses or Pros Minuses or Cons

Fine balance of procedural and Specific to liberal societies of the ‘west’ which reached
distributive (substantive) threshold of economic well-being.
justice Not applicable at global level.

Humane and egalitarian Utopic assumptions- abstracted self under veil of

approach to liberal ideology ignorance, non-egoist self, having sense of justice and
being conservative risk takers.
 Justice based on rationality Undermine notion of societal ‘common good’ as it
independent of individual abstract( separate) the individual from social context.
morality

Combine virtues of individual Limit justice in public sphere, leaves private sphere of
‘rights’ and societal ‘good’ marriage, family, civil society.

Provide theoretical base to Institutional dependence, not applicable on global level

intuitive notion of fairness

Critiques of Rawl’ theory of Justice:

Communitarian critique of Rawl’ theory of Justice:
1. Nature of the self
• Communitarians questioned unencumbered ( not bout by social
responsibilities), abstracted self behind the veil of ignorance
• They also objected Rawl’s contention that “Self is prior to to its ends”, that is,
individual is free and capable to choose end/goal/purpose of his life as per his
conception of good life.
• To Communitarians, self is embedded in social context- situated self.
Individual Self is partially constituted and defined by social roles and
community attachments.
• End/goal/purpose of an individual is socially determined for societal common
good; individuals do not choose them, they discover them. Hence, self is not
prior to its end, rather the end is part of the self, it defines the identity of the
self.
2. Nature and Range of Justice:
• To Communitarians, justice as protection of individual’s right cannot be the 1st
virtue of society.
• The values of the community define what counts as just or unjust; it is
contextual, not universal.
• Justice is relative to the societal ‘common good’, not independent of it.
• Choices made by individuals abstracted from their socio-economic context
cannot be consistent to societal conception of ‘Good’ and hence cannot bring
just social order.
• Notion of ‘good life’ is not based on individual reason and rationality but on
shared belief of community.
 • Benefits, burdens, etc. are social goods, their meaning and values are socially
constructed and hence cannot be distributed on individual reason and
rationality.
3. Universality of Rights
• Rights are not absolute or universal, they are contextual- meaning of Right is
socially constructed and hence relative to the values, belief, culture, and
traditions of the community/society.
• Rights can be traded off to promote the ‘Common Good’ ; for example privacy
vs national security.
4. Nature, Role, and Functions of the State/Government
• State/Govt cannot be neutral to conception of good life, substantive moral and
religious questions.
• State should nurture communities, social order to help citizen live good life
conforming to ‘common good’ and shared self-understanding of good life.

Feminist critique of Rawl’ theory of Justice:

1. No justice in Private or personal sphere
• Ignores private sphere of family in which there is no gender justice, no
applicability of the ‘Difference Principle’.
• Rawl assumed family a just and apolitical institution. But this is not correct. The
wall between personal and political is false, artificially created in liberal
ideology to deny rights & justice in marriage, family, and civil society.
• It offered no solution for gendered division of labour, patriarchy, women’s
subordination in family.
• Rawl’s theory tried to bring ‘Public or political justice’ around the reality of
‘private anarchy and injustice’.
• Unjust family cannot develop ‘sense of justice’ in future generations of citizens.
2. Gendered nature of Rawlsian Individual
• Rawlsian individual seems to be head of family and is man.
• Characteristics of Rawlsian individuals (reasoned/rational, autonomous, self-
interested, etc.) are masculine; Feminine attributes of caring, nurturing,
empathy, co-operation, etc. undermined while defining Rawlsian individuals
(parties to the contract).
• Based on moral norms of man – impersonality, rationality, universality, reason.
• Hence, Rawl’s justice is by man and for man. Women are pushed in the
background, in the private sphere where there is no justice.
Conclusion:
Rawl's theory of Justice has been the most important political theory of 20th century. It
revived the normative approach to theorisation of the political. It changed the very
theme of classical liberalism, making it more positive, just, and humane. It had a
profound impact on Governments not only in liberal western but also in 3rd world
nations. His principle of distributive justice to the greatest advantage of the worst off
became the moto of democratic Governments.
Biggest achievement of Rawl's theory of Justice was that it established that justice as
fairness does not depend for its justification on any particular conception of the good
life, on any comprehensive moral or religious conception. Despite guaranteeing
individual liberty, that is, each individual has right to live life as per his/her own
conception of good life, fairness in distribution of socio-economic resources is what
will result if the makers of the distributive rules for the society are not biased, and are
rational individual. Thus, he gave secular and rational basis to distributive justice,
without harming personal liberty. His theory was unique balance of normative values
of rights, equality, liberty, and justice. It was also a fine balance between individualism
and communitarianism. Just society regulates each person’s choice of ends/goals in a
way compatible with a similar liberty for all.
Despite such positives, Rawl's theory of Justice was criticized by both communitarian
and feminist thinkers. Communitarians questioned Rawl’s assertion of Justice being the
1st virtue of social institution universally in all societies. They also criticized Rawlsian
individual as the abstracted self. Conception of a state neutral to normative values
leaving it to individual’s interpretation and choice) was also not acceptable to
communitarian thinkers. Feminist raised objections to leaving family from the
applicability of Rawl’s difference principle. They charged Rawlsian self as masculine
gendered conception.
Notwithstanding such criticism, Rawl's theory of Justice is unique theoretical devise to
make the human societies more fair, just, and harmonious.

Q.2: Give a critical account of Robert Nozick's theory of justice. Also

compare it with Rawl's theory of Justice.

Answer Template

Introduction:
Robert Nozick was a prominent libertarian thinker. Libertarianism was revival of
classical liberalism. It considered right to property sacrosanct (which cannot be touched
or diluted), rejected any re-distribution of wealth/income by Government/state, gave
primacy to liberty over any other normative value, and supported a minimal state. On
 the contrary, Rawl was the pioneer of modern or positive liberalism which allowed re-
distribution of wealth/income by Government/state, supported a welfare state, and tried
to balance the normative values of liberty and equality.
Robert Nozick, in his seminal creation ‘Anarchy, State, and Utopia (1974)’, gave a
libertarian idea of justice as entitlement of just acquired social goods. It was a libertarian
response to Rawl's theory of Justice as fairness in distribution of social goods. Hence,
theory of justice by Rawl’s and Nozick differed on many counts. In the latter part of
the answer, I will list out some of the salient differences between the two theories.
Nozick's theory of Justice is based on simple and straightforward logic. It claims that if
acquisition, transfer, and transaction of property has been done in just manner, the
resultant pattern of distribution of property is also just. Hence, the State has no right to
forcibly change this pattern of distribution of property in the name of distributive
justice. Any attempt to change the distribution pattern would violate the personal liberty
of individual and be futile (giving no positive result). This is because, each forceful
distribution pattern would change as people do voluntary transactions. The state,
therefore, would have to continuously use force to change the distribution pattern. This
is both impractical and unjust.

Following is the brief account of Nozick's theory of Justice:

Basic premises and assumptions:
• People own themselves (their body, mind, faculties), part of natural world acquired
fairly, and goods produced by their interaction with owned part of natural world.
• Individual has absolute right over property acquired in just manner.
• Just and legitimate acquisition of property can be in 3 ways:
1. Just Acquisition of property in initial position:
• In the imaginary initial position, in which there was enough natural
resources for all, people made property their own on first come first
served basis.
• Acquisition in initial position (initially unowned world) was just if no
one was made worse off by such acquisition.
2. Just Transfer/transaction:
• Just, fair, and voluntary transfer/transaction of legitimately acquired
property by fair contract and consent.
• This would change the initial distribution pattern.
3. Rectification:
• Unjust acquisitions and transfers may be rectified by compensating
transfers to one who suffered injustice.
• This was rectificatory justice.
 • Current distribution of wealth and Income just if arrived at through historical process
of just and legitimate acquisition and transfers.
• Any attempt to enforce a pre-decided pattern of distribution is impossible without
constant intervention by the state in the individual’s liberty and rights.
• Hence, State should not interfere in justly arrived pattern of distribution of
wealth/income by way of taxation and transfers in the name of distributive justice.
Features of Nozick’s Theory of Justice:
• It was Libertarian account of justice in response to modern or positive liberalism of
John Rawl.
• Entitlement theory of justice:
• Individual have absolute right on fairly acquired property. State/society cannot
take away such private property in the name of social and distributive justice.
Any such attempt violates the liberty of individuals and is, therefore, unjust.
• Entitlements of property is based on talent, labour, and enterprise of the
individual.
• Protect individual liberty to its core. Liberty is kept above the normative value of
equality.
• It gave preference to individual rights. Societal common ‘good’ is achieved only when
each individual’s rights are protected.
• It was a kind of procedural justice. State/Government should make fair rules and
institutional mechanism to ensure just acquisition and transfer of property. If the rules
and procedures are fair and just, the resultant pattern of distribution would also be fair
and just.
• Night watchmen State
• Consistent with libertarian principle of minimal or night watchmen State.
• State should do only maintenance of law & order to protect life, liberty, and
property of citizen, and defense against external attacks.
• No state intervention to try distribution of resources to achieve a defined pattern
or end-state.
• State should collect minimum tax for its bare minimum functions. It should not
tax income/wealth for subsidies, transfers, and social welfare.

Rawl’s vs Nozick's theory of Justice:

On the basic of above discussions, we can summarise the salient (important) differences
between these two accounts of justice; the following table present the main differences:
Point of Rawl's theory of Justice Nozick's theory of Justice
difference

Type of Justice Substantive: involving re- Procedural theory of justice

theory distribution of social goods-
distributive justice
End-state theory of justice

Definition of Justice as fairness in Justice as entitlement of just acquired

justice distribution of primary social property/resources.
goods.

Individual right Attempt to balance Individual Give preference to individual rights

vs societal right vs societal common Good; over common interest (common
common Good Its difference principle give Good) of society.
preference to societal common
interest over rights of
individuals.

Role of State Allows state wider roles in Envisage minimal or night-watchmen

providing welfare services, state.
subsidies, and transfers for State has no role in changing the
distributive justice. distribution pattern of income/wealth
by taxation, subsidy, and transfers.

Political Modern or positive liberalism Libertarianism

ideology Left leaning liberalism Right leaning liberal ideology- neo-
liberalism

Nature Intuitively more humane and Despite straightforward logic

ethical propositions. intuitively less humane and ethical.

Conclusion:
Nozick's theory of Justice was in libertarian response to Rawl's theory of Justice which
reflected positive and normative liberalism. Nozick gave a very simple,
straightforward, and logical arguments to oppose state’s intervention in changing the
natural pattern of distribution of social goods. His theory claimed that any such attempt
to enforce a pre-defined distribution pattern is not only bound to fail and hence utopic
but also will violate the personal liberty.
 The logic of the theory is very simple. If the acquisition of property and subsequent
transfer/transaction have been just and fair, the resultant pattern of distribution is also
just and fair. The state has no business to try to change such naturally arrived pattern of
distribution. Nozick allowed rectification or corrective justice by transfers if the
acquisition or transfers were found to be unjust and unfair.
Thus, Nozick gave entitlement theory of justice based on fair and just rules for
acquisition and transfer of social goods. Hence, his theory denoted procedural theory
of justice. The theory conformed to the core libertarian thoughts of protecting personal
liberty at any cost, inviolability of private property rights, and a minimalist state.
Despite being backed by such simple but forceful logic, Nozick's theory of Justice was
criticized for being too much individualistic, intuitively immoral to have justified such
gross inequality, and advocating no attempt on part of state to provide welfare services
to poor and bring about just & fair income/wealth distribution. But such criticism
cannot take away the relevance and importance of Nozick’s theory which presented an
alternative account of justice in neo-liberal societies.

Q.3: Write a critical essay on the notion of Global Justice.

Similar Question:
Q. what do you mean by global Justice? Discuss some of the debates concerning global justice.

Introduction:
Notion of global justice raises fundamental questions on meaning and applicability of
justice beyond the borders of nation-state and at global level. It reminds us of our
responsibilities and rights as world citizen, and raises debates on the nature of
relationship among individual, societies, and states in global arena.
In the debate on global justice, opinion is divided into two camps. For cosmopolitan or
supporters of global justice, justice cannot be bounded by state boundaries, neither it is
the preserve of some privileged people/culture. To them, wealth of a nation is not for
the exclusive use of the people of that nation, it belongs to all, anywhere on earth.
Hence, globalists call for global distributive justice and application of Rawal’s
difference principles at global level.
On the contrary, the opponents of global justice argue that wealth and prosperity of
people are due to local factors- culture, values, character, and industriousness of the
people. Hence, no one outside the national boundaries has claim over national wealth.
 For them, we have very limited obligation towards people of other nation. They reject
applicability of Rawal’s difference principles at global level.
John Rawl, who gave most persuasive theory of justice, attempted to propose a theory
of global justice, through his ‘Law of People (1993)’. This included principles and
institutions regulating socio-political interactions among peoples in global arena. Rawls
proposed 8 principles and 3 institutions which shall be agreed upon by rational liberal
and non-liberal but decent people. He also suggested limited assistance to non-decent
and burdened people to bring them into world federation of people.
But in pursuit of wider agreement and his conviction about limited responsibilities
towards people of other nations, his law of people have more critics than admirers.
Amartya Sen, in his book ‘The Idea of Justice (2009)’, gave an alternate view on global
justice based on social choice theory and practical public reasoning. His focus is on
channelizing multiple global avenues and institutional mechanisms to minimize
injustice and realize justice on which agreement is possible through practical public
reasoning.
In the next part of the answer, I will try to elaborate the meaning and rationale of global justice.
I will also try to list out some points on which debate on the issue of global justice is currently
going on.

Global Justice: Meaning:

• Concept that seeks to find solution to problem of how best to secure justice for all
individuals on planet earth, regardless of their nationality or status.
• Widening of the scope of justice to the global level, beyond the boundaries of nation-
states.
• In realm of international relation, it means just and fair distribution of global resources,
benefits and responsibilities, and equal status to all nations.
• Attempt to theorize the concept to justice agreed by people of all culture/nation.
Proposing principles and institutions which is agreed by all and ensure just global order.
Need and rationale for Global Justice:
• Many burning problems have global scope.
• Problems as diverse as gender justice, immigration and refugees, hunger and poverty,
rights of minority and indigenous people, warfare, terrorism, climate change, and
pandemic can only be tackled if nations cooperate.
• Cooperation in joint endeavour at global level depends upon trust and fairness of
principles and institutions. This is possible only if there is global justice.
• Globalization has made world a global village, hence we need to have global justice.
• As global citizen, our responsibility towards other people is not limited by the
membership of a particular nation-state.
 • For a peaceful and harmonious world, fairer and just global governance, fair
distribution of benefits and burden, and fair equality of opportunities are justified at
global level.

Debates on global justice:

• What Justice means at global level?
• There is no universal meaning of justice. It is contextual. Conception of justice
depends on culture.
• From Plato to Marx, Gandhi, and Rawl, notion of justice has been defined in
different ways.
• In this scenario, can there be global theory of justice applicable to all
nation/culture?
• Can there be global difference principle as proposed by Rawl? Can distributive
justice be implemented at global level? Can wealth/income of all nations be
distributed such as to be in the greatest advantage of the worst off?
• Does global justice mean global equality of opportunity and equality of
outcome?
• What is the range and scope of our duty of justice for people of other countries?
• Is prosperity of a nation due to enterprise and political culture of its people and hence
solely belong to them? Or everyone else anywhere in world has right on resources
within boundaries of nations?
• What should be the social unit for consideration of Global Justice? Should it be State?
People? Individual?
• How and who to enforce global justice? This raises the Issue of global governance
without any world Government.
As stated in the Introduction, on all these questions people are divided into two camps. On side
of global justice are cosmopolitans or cosmopolites. They believe in world citizenship and
applicability of Rawl’s difference principles at global level. On the opposite side are those who
believe that justice cannot have universal meaning, its meaning is different in different culture
and therefore it can be realized differently in different culture/nation. Our responsibility
towards people of other nation/culture are limited. It would be impractical to implement Rawl’s
difference principles at global level, as the wealth/income of a nations is due to culture, values,
character, and industriousness of the people of that nation.
Thus, the idea of global justice is debatable. There is no agreement on its meaning and
applicability.

Conclusion:
 The concept of global justice is controversial as it involves re-distribution of
wealth/income at global level. Naturally, the rich & prosperous nations of the ‘West’
would argue that difference principles of Rawl cannot be implemented at global level.
Rawl himself, in his ‘Laws of People’, denied the possibility of applying difference
principle at global level. Rawl also accepted that prosperity of a nation is due to culture,
values, character, and industriousness of the people of that nation. Hence, people of a
nation have obligation of limited assistance to people of other nation. Such negative
and conservative approach by Rawl on the issue of global justice was heavily criticized
by the globalists or cosmopolites.
In response to Rawl’s theory of global justice, Amartya Sen gave an alternate
conception of global justice through his ‘Idea of Justice’. He advocated using elements
of social choice theory and practical public reasoning to arrive at agreed upon issues to
realize justice at global level without need to search for a universally acceptable
meaning of justice and rank ordering of issues requiring justice.
Despite such attempts to theories the concept of global justice the debates on its
meaning, rationale, and applicability are still going on. The world we live is grossly
unjust, unfair, and unequal; inequalities and injustice are increasing day by day. There
is no universal theory using which global justice can be realized. Hence pursuit of
global justice is perpetual and we all, as world citizen, need to contribute our bit towards
it. This is required to make the world more peaceful, harmonious, more humane and
worth living.

Q.4: Write a short note on Feminist theory of Justice.

Answer Template
Feminist theory of justice is conceptualizing and theorizing the idea of Justice from the
gender lens. Feminist theory of justice challenges the traditional gender structure,
institutions, and customs in family and society. It visualizes a gender neutral or gender
free family and society. It advocates humanist theory of justice which takes equal care
of all sexes and genders.
Feminists are critical of Rawl’s theory of justice on many counts. To them, Rawlsian
individual is man. Characteristics of Rawlsian individuals- reasoned/rational,
autonomous, self-interested, etc- are masculine; they don’t carry feminine attributes of
caring, nurturing, empathy, co-operation, etc. Such individuals who are party to the
contract, accept gendered family and social structure as natural and consistent with their
idea of justice as fairness. Rawl’s theory of justice, therefore, is in the nature of political
justice and hence not applicable to marriage, family, and other private spheres.
To the feminists, because of gendered nature of self-consciousness, men and women
develop different self-consciousness, self-identity, psychological, emotional, and moral
development. Rawl’s theory of justice is based on psychological, emotional, and moral
norms of man. Women and their concerns are invisible to the frame of reference of
Rawlsian individuals entering into social contract in the initial position. Hence, Rawl’s
justice is by man and for man. Women are pushed in the background, in the private
sphere where there is no justice.
Feminists, such as Susan Moller Okin, attempted to reformulate Rawl’s theory to
provide distinctively Feminist theory of justice. Okin, though critical of Rawl's theory
of Justice, used it to give a gender neutral or gender inclusive idea of justice. Okin in
her book ,’Justice, Gender, and the Family(1989)’, explained justice as having a Socio-
Political arrangement in which gender does not play any role in in distribution of duties,
responsibilities, rewards, and offices. It was abolition of gender from social structures,
relations, and institutions. To Okin, fair equality of opportunity for women depends on
making sex no more relevant to social structure and customs then eye colour or the
length of one’s toes. Thus, Feminist theory of justice is a radical idea of elimination of
all sex related customs, practices, Institutions, structure, and relations.

In a sense, Feminist theory of justice is humanist theory of justice. It aims to establish

socio-political structure and relations which treat individuals as equal human being, not
male or female. Gender should be out of equation in any socio-political arrangement,
structure, institution, relation. Such socio-political arrangement will provide each one,
regardless of one’s sex/gender, best conditions and opportunity to live a good life, and
attain human flourishment. This is closer to idea of justice given by Aristotle.

Feminist reformulation of Rawl's theory of Justice:

• Okin used Rawlsian original position and veil of ignorance to put forward the
feminist theory of justice.

• It gives three ways in which Rawl's theory of Justice can be used for realisation
of feminist conception of Justice.

• First, since the parties behind the veil of ignorance are not aware of their sex,
they would not divide a family duty in a way that is grossly unjustified for
females. They will agree for equal role and respect for both sexes in marriage
and family.

• Second, since political justice requires equal political representation of women

and men in political offices. This condition, in turn, would require a revolution
in the division of responsibilities within the family. This is because women can
be freed to take up equal political responsibilities only when they are not
burdened by domestic chores (child rearing, caring, cooking, mending,
cleaning).

• Third, the contracting parties would not allow social conditions undermine self-
respect and would therefore emphasize the importance of girls and boys
growing up with an equal sense of self respect for themselves, including equal
expectations of self-consciousness, self-identity, emotional, psychological, and
moral development.

• Feminists also use principle of ‘fair equality of opportunity’ in Rawl's theory of

Justice. To Okin and other feminists, fair equality of opportunity demands that
 sex/gender does not come in the way of women’s role, responsibilities, rewards,
and achievements in socio-political domain. This is possible only when both the
family and society is gender neutral.

In sum, Feminist theory of justice is understanding and explaining idea of justice from
gender lens. It points out overtly masculine conception of mainstream theories of
Justice. In feminist theory of justice family is the main arena where justice should
prevail. In the present gendered social structure, in conventional family, women and
children are marginalised. Division of labour in family overburden women and put them
down. Their job for home making, domestic chores is not counted as part of the family
and national income. They are dominated by males and denied equal rights in marriage
and family. Hence, in feminist theory of Justice family should be the first place where
justice should prevail. Justice in family is only when gendered division of labour and
domination of one gender over other is completely removed. In practical terms it means
that except child bearing, all domestic chores should be equally done by both male and
females in the family. Also, there should be equal distribution of income/wealth,
rewards, and honours in both family and in society.
Thus, feminist theory of justice recommends humanist basis of Justice wherein sex and
gender are out of consideration both in private and public life. Thus, Feminist theory of
justice advocates abolition of sex/gender from both family as well as in social structure,
Institutions, and relations.
In a way it may seem radical and utopic in which the conventional notion of gender
based human life is attempted to be overturned completely. But it is not impossible.
Perhaps it may be good for entire humanity. Hence, Feminist theory of justice gives an
alternative and critical conception of Justice which raises many questions answers to
which the human race must find out.
 THEME 4: RIGHTS

4.A: CBCS Syllabus

a) Rights: Natural, Moral and Legal
b) Rights and Obligations
Debate: Human Rights - Universalism or Cultural Relativism

4.B: Key Points:

Meaning of Rights
• Rights are claims of individual or group allowed by matching obligation by others.
• Such claims are generally very crucial for flourished and fulfilled life. It enables and
empower one to live a meaningful life.
• Obligations (which allow those claims) may be moral, customary, based on natural law,
or legally enforced.
• Like other normative value, Right is a highly contested concept. It has multiple
conceptions and connotations. It may mean Claim, Entitlements, Opportunities, Needs,
Empowerments, etc.
Definitions of Right:
• A right is a claim recognized by society and enforced by the state-
Bosanquet
• A person has a right to X when if and only if others have moral obligation
to provide or allow him/her X- Immanuel Kant
• Rights are entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way- Andrew
Heywood
• One man’s capacity of influencing the act of others, not by his own strength
but by the strength of the society – Holland
• Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in
general, to be himself at his best- Harold Laski
• Rights are what we may expect from others and others from us, and all
genuine rights are conditions of social welfare- Hobhouse
• A person has a right to X when his or her interest in X is sufficiently
important for others to have duty to provide or allow him/her X- Interest
based theory of Rights
Types of Rights:
• On the basis of content
• Civil rights: Right to life, liberty of thought, expression, belief, property, etc.
• Political rights: Right to vote, hold political offices, etc.
• Socio-economic rights: Right to status, work, livelihood, etc.
• On the basis of Intent
• Negative rights: No action required by others
• Positive Rights: actions required by state/society
• On the basis of obligation
• Moral rights
• Legal Rights
• Natural Rights
• Historical or Customary Rights
• Human rights
• Equal and inalienable (absolute) individual entitlements/claims against
state/society only because one is human being of equal worth.
• Cultural and group Rights
• Right to protect cultures, language, traditions and customs of cultural minorities

Three Generations of right:

• 1st Generation:
• Civil and political Rights
• Emanate from normative value of Liberty
• Consistent with liberalism
• 2nd Generation:
• Socio-economic Rights
• Emanate from normative value of Equality
• Supported by Socialism/communism
• 3rd Generation:
• Cultural and Environmental Rights
 • Emanate from normative value of Fraternity
• Supported by liberals, post-modernists, post-colonialists, feminists, and critical
theorists

Universality of Human Rights vs Cultural Relativism

• As per liberal doctrine, Human Rights come from natural laws, which are universal.
Hence, the concept of Human Right is applicable universally across culture/nation.
• However, the supporters of Cultural Relativism contend by arguing that all rights,
including Human Rights, obtain their meaning and realization differently in different
cultures. Thus, they are contextual. Hence, human rights cannot be applicable
universally across all cultures.
4. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Discuss the concept of Rights and its different types.

Answer Template
Introduction:
Like any political idea, concept of Rights is highly contested. There is no fixed or
universal meaning of Rights. However, one of the most acceptable definition of Rights
is the claims (of individual, group, community) allowed by others as obligation or duty.
Thus, any claim, demand, or interests which is enjoyed by one and accepted and
allowed by others as duty/obligation is Right for those enjoying that claim/interests.
But this is not a universal definition of Rights. Following are some of the popular
definitions of Rights attributed to prominent political thinkers or thoughts:

• Rights are those conditions of social life without which no man can seek, in
general, to be himself at his best- Harold Laski
• Rights are entitlements to act or be treated in a particular way- Andrew Heywood
• Right is one man’s capacity of influencing the act of others, not by his own strength
but by the strength of the society – Holland
• A right is a claim recognized by society and enforced by the state- Bosanquet
• Rights are what we may expect from others and others from us, and all genuine
rights are conditions of social welfare- Hobhouse
• A person has a right to X when if and only if others have moral obligation, as per
the universal moral laws (categorical imperative), to provide or allow him/her X-
Immanuel Kant
• A person has a right to X when his or her interest in X is sufficiently important for
others to have duty to provide or allow him/her X- Interest based theory of Rights

From above it can be seen that meaning of rights is not universally accepted. Some link it to
flourishment of individual life, while for others it denotes societal common interest and social
welfare.
Features of Right:
• Meaning and content of rights are contextual; they change with time and space.
• Emanate (flows from) from the conceptions of Justice. Allowing each one his/her due
share is considered justice. Liberty and Equality are considered fundamental rights.
• Define relation of Individual with state
• Individual’s claim against state (rights) for obeying laws & commands (political
obligation).
• Individual right vs common good
• Both cut each other. Rights of individuals may be infringed in the common
interest of society.
• Liberalism support individual Rights, whereas communitarian, and socialism
support common societal ‘Good’.
• Cultural relativism vs universality of Rights
• Liberalism asserts that Rights are universal concept applicable across all
societies/cultures. But supporter of cultural relativism rejects universality of
rights. To them, meaning and content of Rights are specific to cultural context.
Hence, it has different meaning and different mechanisms of realization in
different cultures.

Types of Rights: Nature & Scope

On the basis of content (what claims are allowed) and obligation/duty for allowing those
claims, Rights can be categorised into multiple types; some of these types are:
• On the basis of content, that is, claims/interests allowed:
• Civil rights
• Right to life, liberty of thought, expression, belief, property, etc.
• Right to Equality: equality before law and equal protection of law
• Right against exploitation.
• Political rights
• Right to equal access to political offices, right to vote, right to participate
in democratic process
• Equal citizenship rights.
• Right to be treated with equal concern and dignity by the state.
• Socio-economic rights
 • Right to work/livelihood, right to social welfare, right to fair distribution
of social goods.
• Right to socio-economic equality. Right to distributive and social
justice.
• On the basis of Intent
• Negative rights
• Those rights for which others are simply required not to interfere. No
obligation of any positive actions on part of others.
• For example, civil and political rights, for which the state/society and
individuals are only expected not to constrain or interfere in other’s
enjoyment of some claims/interests.
• Positive Rights
• Those rights which require positive actions and efforts as part of
obligation on others (state, individuals).
• For example, socio-economic rights, which require the State to take
actions. It also implies some material sacrifice by other individuals to
allow such rights. For example, the well off may have to share their
income/wealth.
• On the basis of obligation
• Natural rights
• Inherent and intrinsic (essential) Rights to each one us as per law of
nature.
• Emerged from the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke. Locke
asserted Life, Liberty, and Property as natural rights, which cannot be
taken away by state/society.
• Individualist account of rights in the liberal doctrine.

• Legal Rights
• Rights are claim backed by law and enforced by state
• Hence, Rights have meaning and realization only within the structure
and framework of state and its institutions
• It rejects moral and natural law based Rights

• Moral Rights
• Based on moral reason of individual and moral consciousness and
conventional morality of society.
 • Rights allowed by moral obligation which are universally accepted as
social norms.
• However, political and legal institutions may be required to protect
moral rights.

• Historical or Customary Rights

• Rights are claims recognised in society from historical past as part of
societal customs/traditions.
• Different Rights in different society/state and time due to different
historical processes.
• Linked to conservative ideologies; reject rights through revolution.

• Human rights
• Equal and inalienable individual entitlements/claims against state/society only
because one is human being of equal worth.
• Rights listed in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International
Human Rights Covenants.

• Cultural and Group Rights

• Right to protect cultures, language, traditions and customs of cultural
minorities.
• Right to follow divergent (different from mainstream) way of life as per one’s
culture.
• Right to protect sacred books/scriptures, and sacred places; right to use natural
endowments of the region, etc.

Conclusion:
Right is one of the four fundamental normative values, other three being Justice,
Liberty, and Equality. Like other normative concept, meaning of Right is not fixed or
universally applicable. This is a highly contested concept. Different political ideologies
define Right differently. Mechanisms for its realization also vary in different cultures
and political arrangements.
Most acceptable meaning of Right is one’s claims allowed by others as obligation or
duty. One may have Rights against other individual, group, and state. Nature and
content of Right determine the relation between individuals and between individual and
state.
 On the basis of obligation (which allows the claims) and content (what are those
claims), Rights can be categorised into many types. On the basis of content Rights are
categorised as civil, political, and socio-economic Rights. Natural, Moral, Legal,
Historical Rights are types of Rights on the basis of nature of the obligation. Human
Rights, Cultural Rights, Environmental Rights, Inter-generational rights, etc. are other
types of Rights. In fact, of late, there has been explosion of Rights. States/societies are
struggling to meet the demands of various rights from individuals and groups.

Q.2: Discuss the evolution of the concept of rights. Explain the 'Three
Generation of Rights' with examples.
Introduction:
Idea of Rights as desirable normative value is a modern concept. Evolution of Rights is
closely linked to advent of liberalism in 17th century Europe. Individual freedom, rights,
and autonomy is the core thought of liberalism. In the ancient and medieval periods,
societal common interest was given preference over individual’s right. Individual was
considered an integral part of the society. Individual was duty bound to sacrifice for the
interest of the family, community, and state. Thus, duty was given precedence over
Right. Common Good of society was given preference over rights of individual.
Hierarchy of duty and rights started to change with rise of liberalism which gave
preference to individual rights over societal common Good. Social contract theory of
Hobbes and Locke played important role in evolution of the concept of Right as
individual claims which society/state must allow for. It was closely linked to individual
autonomy, that is, right to freedom of choice to choose end/goal of life as per one’s own
conception of good life. Liberalism linked rights to individuals. But later on, with the
rise of socialism and communitarianism, group rights also were recognised.
England became the first country where idea of Rights as individual claim against the
society/state started to evolve. In 1215, King John of England signed the Charter of
rights, called Magna Carta. Bill of Rights was passed by English Parliament in 1689.
This was followed by the conception of natural Rights developed by the Social Contract
theories of Hobbes and Locke. Natural Rights of life, liberty, and property was accepted
as fundamental premises of classical liberalism as given by John Locke.
In 1776 with American declaration of independence came the Bill of Rights, which
announced unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which are given
to all humans by their creator, and which governments are duty bound to
protect. Subsequently, in 1789, after the French revolution, French declaration of rights
of man was declared by France's National Constituent Assembly. It declared “men are
born and remain free and equal in rights”. American and French revolution and
subsequent declaration of rights of man boosted the concept of Right as one of the most
important normative value to be realized in any political arrangement.
Alternative meaning and nature of Rights came into fore with rise of socialism in early
20th century. Against the civil and political rights of liberal doctrine, socialism focussed
 on socio-economic rights. This was called 2nd generation of rights and were considered
positive and substantive rights. Realization of socio-economic rights required
intervention of state in distribution of wealth/income in society. In later half of 20th
century Liberalism also changed its form to allow for distributive justice. It supported
the conception of welfare state which provides basic need and welfare services to
citizen. This was called modern or positive liberalism. John Rawl’s theory of justice as
fairness in distribution played an important role in rise of modern liberalism.
Post-cold war era saw emergence of cultural and environmental rights. These were
called 3rd generation rights. These rights were supported by post-modernism, post-
colonial, feminist, and critical theories.
After outlining in brief the evolution of Rights in three generations, in the next part of the
answer, I will try to explain in brief the 3 generations of Rights.

3 Generations of Rights:
1st Generations of Rights: Civil & political Rights
• These were first wave of ‘rights’ which emerged during 17-18th century Europe with
the rise of liberalism.
• These were in nature of Civil liberties & political Rights.
• Civil Liberties: right to life, right to freedom of speech, expression, conscience,
movement, trade, profession; right to property, etc.
• Political rights: Right to vote, participate in democratic processes, public
employment, right to choose and criticize govt., equal citizenship rights, etc.
• These Rights flow from the normative value of ‘Liberty’
• They are in nature of negative rights against society and state. They are negative in the
sense that state/society need not take any positive actions for its realization except
putting in place appropriate laws and institutional mechanisms for realization of these
rights.
• Prominent proponents: Liberals- John Locke, Thomas Paine, J.S. Mills

Pros and cons of 1st generations of rights:

Pluses or positives Minuses or Negatives

Individuals are allowed to lead life as per his/her meaningless for people lacking basic
conception of good life- personal liberty of life necessities of life
choices

Limits excesses of state power No equality of rights

 Foundation of modern liberal, just and democratic Merely negative rights useful only for
society the ‘haves’- those having resources

Equal worth and dignity of each individual Promotes capitalism, status quo

Individuals considered as end in themselves Undermine societal common interest

Promote individual agency, enterprise which led to Undermine social solidarity,

progress & development in modern era communitarian feelings, and fraternity

2nd Generations of Rights: Socio-economic rights

• 2nd wave of ‘rights’
• Evolved during late 19th and early 20th century with rise of socialism and communism
in Europe. Heavily influenced by Marxist ideologies.
• These are in nature of Socio-economic rights:
• Right to equal status, dignity, right against exploitation, right to work, right to
education, old age care, right to shelter, etc.
• Right to social and distributive justice.
• Emanating (flowing) from the normative value of ‘Equality’, especially substantive
equality- equality of outcome.
• Were practiced vigorously by socialist/communist states of USSR, China, Cuba, East
Europe, etc.
• In contemporary times almost all Governments, including in liberal democracies, try to
provide these rights to citizen.
• They are Positive Rights requiring actions on part of state. It involves state’s
intervention in distribution of wealth/income. It includes social and distributive justice.
• Prominent proponents: Socialists/Marxists thinkers- Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao Zedong
Pros and cons of 2nd generations of rights:

Pluses or positives Minuses or Negatives

Positive Rights, enable individual Allow more power to state- danger of interventionist
achieve more in life and authoritative state

Make people capable of enjoying Undermine individual liberty

negative rights

Help realize social and distributive Individuals are used as means for achieving societal
Justice common Good.
 Widens the scope of rights Undermine value pluralism, diversity

More meaningful and substantive Danger of populism and majoritarianism

Rights

3rd Generations of Rights: Group and Cultural Rights

• 3rd wave of ‘rights’ evolving during late 20th and 21st century
• In the nature of cultural and group Rights:
• Right to protect cultures, language, traditions and customs of cultural
minorities, right to follow divergent way of life as per one’s culture, right to
protect sacred books/scriptures and sacred places; right to use natural
endowments of the region, etc.
• Group rights: linked to group identity
• Environmental rights: Right to clean air, earth, and water; inter-generational
rights on resources of earth, right to share common heritage of earth, etc.
• Linked to the normative value of ‘Fraternity’
• Associated with environmental movements and rising awareness of multiculturism
and pluralism
• Supported by post-modernism, post-colonial, feminist, and critical theories.
• Linked to environmental movement, movements for rights of indigenous people,
cultural minorities, new left, and green movement.

Pros and cons of 3rd generations of rights:

Pluses or positives Minuses or Negatives

Recognition of values of cultural May lead to fragmentation and demand for

relativism and multiculturalism national self determination

Raises environmental and ecological Continuation of irrational, unjust social

consciousness practices in the name of cultural rights

Promote sustainable development Excess of environmental movement may

hamper economic progress

More suited to oriental societies of the 3rd May sometime delay modernisation and
world development of 3rd world nations.
Has increased the scope of Rights Inflation of rights- too many rights; difficult to
realize.

Conclusion:
Rights are claims allowed by other as obligation or duty. Idea of Rights is modern
concept. It first emerged with the rise of liberalism in 17th century Europe. It became
mainstream normative values with French and American revolution.
Evolution of Rights can be chronologically arranged in 3 waves called 3 generations of
rights. 1st generations of rights, civil liberties and political rights, evolved as part of
liberal ideology post Industrial revolution in Europe. Obviously, it was individualistic
rights in the nature of negative rights. 2nd generations rights- Socio-economic rights-
evolved with socialist/communist movements during early 20th century Europe. It gave
idea of positive and substantive rights, flowing from the normative value of equality,
against liberal capitalist idea of civil & political rights.
Group and cultural rights evolved in the post cold war era. It is based upon diversity,
multiculturism, rights of indigenous people, ecological and environmental concerns,
sustainable development, etc. These rights are called 3rd generations of rights. These
rights are supported by post-modernist, post-colonial, feminist, and critical theories.
These rights are still evolving as many new rights, such as, green rights, gay rights,
gender rights, generational rights, etc. are added. Thus, scope of rights is continuously
increasing.

Q3: Trace the evolution of natural rights. Give an account of major critique
of natural rights theory.

Introduction:
Natural rights are rights given to each human being by the nature, God, or creator. These
rights, therefore, flow from natural laws. Natural rights are not dependent on laws or
statutes of state/Government. They are considered prior to state. Hence, natural rights
are inalienable (sacrosanct), that is, they cannot be revoked (cancelled) by any
laws/command of the state/Government.
Since nature is universal, that is, same across the earth, natural rights are also universal.
It means that being human, each individual anywhere in world has the same natural
rights. Thus, natural rights are human rights, available to each individual as human
being of same worth, part of the unbroken chain of humanity.
Above conception of natural rights, however, is western and modern phenomenon. Idea
of natural rights first emerged in very rudimentary form in medieval Europe. The idea
 remained in dormant(inactive) state during renaissance and subsequent reformation
movements. But it came to the fore and into mainstream political discourse during 17th
Century Europe by the social contract theories of Hobbes and Locke. Both Hobbes and
Locke asserted that natural laws are based on innate sense of reason in human. Though
Hobbes differentiated laws from rights, yet natural rights flowing from natural laws was
obvious in his social contract theory. Locke explicitly established the link between
natural laws and natural rights by asserting that right to life, liberty, and property are
natural rights consistent with the laws of nature.
Enlightenment movement witnessed further strengthening of the idea of natural rights.
Immanuel Kant approved origin and right of individual property on the basis of
permissive natural laws. Rousseau, in his social contract, attempted to restore the rights
and freedom enjoyed in the state of nature in modern civil society. When Rousseau
stated that man is born free but everywhere in chains, he was pointing towards loss of
natural rights in civil society. American and French revolution and subsequent
declaration of American independence and French declaration of rights of man further
boosted the idea of natural rights. Both these declarations established that each
individual, born as free and equal human, possess some unalienable natural rights,
which all Governments are bound to protect.
With colonisation, the idea of natural rights reached to the oriental and 3rd world. With
decolonisation and independence most of the post-colonial state adopted the idea of
natural rights as fundamental rights in their Constitution. Thus, the idea of natural
rights, having its origin in western thoughts, became universally accepted normative
political values in all parts of the world.
But with the advent (rise) of socialism/communism, and communitarianism, the idea of
natural rights came under heavy criticism. Even within the liberal tradition, many
criticized the natural rights. Jeremy Bentham, the father of utilitarianism under
liberalism, was a trenchant (sharp/bitter) critic of the idea of natural rights. For Jeremy
Bentham all talk of natural rights was nonsense and the idea was "nonsense upon stilts."
Thinkers of Marxist ideology and communitarian doctrine also criticized natural rights
as individualistic, narrowly defined, mean and selfish concept. The supporter of cultural
relativism opposed the universality of natural rights. They contended that meaning of
rights are dependent on cultural contexts. Each culture has its own social mechanisms
to realize justice and rights. The western notion of natural rights as universal human
rights cannot be applied in all cultures/communities.
Having outlined the evolution of natural rights and its critiques, in the next part of the answer
I will try to elaborate the above points in very brief.
Before discussing further, the evolution of natural rights, let us first see some of its features.
Features of natural rights:
• Inherent and intrinsic(fundamental) Rights to each one us as per the laws of nature.
• Based upon liberal conception of
• Pre-existence of rights before coming up of society or state.
 • Rights don’t depend on the laws/statute/customs of society/state, but given from
the very nature of man and are required for fulfilling the purpose of his life.
• Precedence of rights over societal common ‘good’.
• Individuals are end in themselves; their rights cannot be sacrificed for achieving
societal common Good. Thus, individuals cannot be used as means for attaining
societal goals/ends.
• Emerged mainly from the social contract theories of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, and
Kant.
• Belief that natural rights are prior to the formation of political community and state,
and are inviolable; states are contracted to protect them. Hence, state cannot
revoke(cancel) natural rights. Natural rights are above the positive laws framed by
states.
• Prominent Proponents:
• In medieval period: William of Ockham, Jean Gerson, Las Casas
• Modern era: Hugo Grotius, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Thomas
Paine, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant

Evolution of the concept of natural rights:

• In ancient period concept of inalienable individual rights, independent of community,
was unknown. Plato conceived his ideal state in which justice was doing one’s duty as
per one’s natural attributes and class. In oriental culture, too, justice was doing one’s
duty towards family and community/society. Thus, socio-political arrangements in
ancient period were based on duty and obligation on part of individuals towards the
community/society. Concept of individual rights against society was not part of
mainstream political discourse.
• But by late Middle Ages idea of natural rights started to emerge through the thoughts
of thinkers/philosophers, most of them associated with Christian churches. Signing of
magna Carta, a charter of rights, in 1215 by the English king was a landmark event in
the evolution of natural rights. Magna Carta specified various rights of feudal lords and
vassals and of merchants and of all free Englishmen.
• 14th century English theologian (a frier-Christian monk) William of Ockham declared
that the rights and liberties were given by God and nature. It was perhaps the first time
that the idea of natural rights had been used to challenge the claims of absolutist
Monarchies in Europe. Around 1400 AD, French theologian Jean Gerson defined right
as "a faculty or power belonging to anyone according to right reason( of nature). Las
Casas, a 16th century Spanish priest declared that Liberty is a right instilled in man from
the beginning. He advocated for a concept of universal human rights. He was among
the first to develop a view of unity among humankind, stating that "All people of the
world are humans," and that they had a natural right to liberty.
 • Though the Renaissance in Europe largely left the issue of natural rights, but by 17 th
century, enough ground was made for the social contract theorist and Enlightenment
philosophers to take the idea of natural rights at the centre of political discourse during
the Enlightenment movement in Europe. Hugo Grotius, a 17th century Dutch rationalist
thinker asserted that Natural law was the basis of natural rights. Grotius brought the
concepts of natural law and natural rights to the Protestant countries of northern Europe.
Christian Wolff, a 18th Century German philosopher wrote, "the law of nature is called
preceptive when it commands us to act; it is called prohibitive when it forbids us to act;
it is called permissive when it gives us a right to act.”
• Thomas Hobbes gave the first social contract theory in modern era. He propounded the
theory of natural laws. Though he put laws and right at opposite end, yet linkages
between natural laws and natural rights was implicit in Hobbes’ social contract. Locke
became the most prominent supporter of natural rights. In his social contract Locke
asserted that individuals in the state of nature possess natural rights of life, liberty, and
property. When individuals form political community through the social contract, their
natural rights remain intact. The state/Government are bound by the contract to protect
the natural rights of the individuals. These rights were prior to the state/Government,
and therefore, cannot be taken away by them. Other Enlightenment thinkers, including
Immanuel Kant supported the concept of natural rights.
• American and French Revolution further strengthened the idea of natural rights. Bill of
Rights came in 1776 with American declaration of independence, which announced
unalienable rights of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which are given to all
humans by their creator, and hence governments are created to protect
them. Subsequently, in 1789, after the French revolution, French declaration of rights
of man asserted “men are born and remain free and equal in rights”. American and
French revolution and subsequent declaration of rights of man made the concept of
Right as one of the most important normative value to be realized in any political
arrangement.
• During the second half of 20th century many newly independent nations emerged in 3rd
world countries due to sudden decolonization. Most of the post-colonial states adopted
natural rights as fundamental rights in their Constitution. These rights were provided
constitutional guarantee. This was despite prevailing duty and obligation based socio-
cultural traditions in these nations. Thus, the idea of natural rights, having its origin in
western thoughts, became universally accepted normative political values in all parts of
the world.

Critiques to the idea of natural rights:

Following are some of the Critiques and associated critics of the concept of natural rights:
• Natural rights are linked to liberalism. It is highly individualistic, formal, negative, and
selfish concept. In the words of C.B. MacPherson, a left leaning thinker, natural rights
denotes possessive individualism. Natural rights implies that individual does not owe
anything to community for his possessions and successes.
 • Marxist thinkers criticize natural rights on similar ground as MacPherson. They
associate it with capitalism. In the name of natural rights, Marxism claims, the liberal
society denied equality to labour class. It created ‘haves’ and ‘have nots. Only ‘Haves’,
possessing material resources, enjoyed natural rights. It was meaningless for the ‘have
nots’.
• French scholar, Michel Villey was very critical of all the modern multiplying claims to
rights. He wrote that, in a culture of rights, justice becomes "merely a label that we put
on our own subjective preferences." Many Indian political philosophers, especially
Gandhiji, preferred duty over right as the basis of just community.
• For communitarian thinkers, such as Alasdair McIntyre and Michael Sandel, natural
rights undermine societal common good. It weakens social solidarity and make society
mere assemblage of atomistic and selfish individuals. Alasdair McIntyre declared that
"there are no such rights and belief in them is one with belief in witches and in
unicorns." He preferred, as in the ancient era and in oriental culture, pursuit of virtue
rather than the assertion of rights.
• One of the most trenchant critics of natural rights was Jeremy Bentham, the father of
utilitarianism. Bentham was supporter of legal rights. He defined right in these words
“Rights properly so-called are creations of law properly so called.” For Jeremy
Bentham all talk of natural rights was nonsense and "nonsense upon stilts."
• The idea of natural rights also came under heavy criticism from legal positivism and
cultural relativism. It was linked to universal human rights which was against the idea
of cultural relativism. Post-modernism, feminism, post-colonialism, and critical
theories also rejected universal concept of natural rights as a specific western political
thought which has no universal applicability.

Conclusion:
In a nutshell, natural rights are closely linked to liberalism. All those thinkers and
theories/ideologies which were against liberalism also became against the idea of
natural rights. Hence, the idea of natural rights came under heavy attack from many
sides. Even within the liberal doctrine, communitarians and positive liberals were not
supportive of the idea. Despite this the idea of natural rights as universal human rights
gained momentum and was accepted almost in all nations in their constitutional
framework. The idea of natural human right has defined the relation between the
western developed and developing 3rd world nations. It has become a core issue in
global politics and International Relations.
In conclusion, we may say that idea of natural rights has such force that despite attack
from all sides it is still gaining strength and being cherished by individuals anywhere
in world. Governments all over the world are struggling to contain the force of the idea
of natural rights. This is one of intriguing( interesting) facts of contemporary political
system.
Q.4: Explain the concept of human rights. How does 'cultural relativism
affect the universality of human rights?
Introduction:
Human right denotes equal and inalienable individual entitlements against state/society
only because one is human being of equal worth. Human Rights are listed in the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Human Rights
Covenants. Human Rights are considered universally applicable to each member of
entire humanity. It is not limited or restricted by the territorial boundaries of nation-
state and socio-cultural contexts of different communities/societies. One gets these
rights only for being human and as equal member of the humanity.
There are 3 grounds of universal applicability of Human Right. First, it emanates from
the natural laws or supreme moral principles, which are universal. Second, Human
Right are justified on rational grounds as they are required for dignified human life.
Third, in all communities/societies there have been social mechanisms to provide these
rights to each member of the community. Hence, on grounds of natural law, rationality,
and positivism, human rights are universal in nature. They are universally applicable to
all nations, cultures, and communities.
However, this universality of human rights are hotly contested on the grounds of
cultural relativism, which believes that values, customs, and morality exist in relation
to the particular culture from which they originate and are not absolute. Supporters of
cultural relativism assert that Rights are defined and realized differently in different
cultures. Each cultural community has its own conception of what constitute rights.
They have their own social mechanisms to provide those rights. Conception of rights
changes with changing socio-cultural context. For example, slavery was considered
right in ancient Greek city states. Segregation was right of the whites in USA till late
fifties. Both of these are not considered rights now. In India, right to property was
fundamental right, but since 1978 it is merely a legal right. Right to privy purse of
kings/princes in India was abolished in 1971. On the other hand, right to information,
education, privacy, etc. have been added into the list of fundamental rights in India in
recent times. Thus, they are neither universal nor fixed in time.

Before discussing further the contest between universality of human rights and cultural
relativism, let us first see some of the features of both these concepts:
Features of Human Right:
• Closely linked to liberalism. Idea of Human Right emanating from natural laws is one
of the core thoughts of liberalism.
• It is consistent with idea of democracy, and political conception of justice. Thus, human
rights is integral part of democratic citizenship.
 • human rights are in nature of natural rights, which each one gets from nature for being
human. Some of these rights are- right to life, liberty, property, pursuit of happiness,
right to equality, right to dignity, right to belief and conscience, etc. Human right
empowers individuals to live life as per one’s own conception of good life.
• Such rights are, therefore, not dependent on state. They are prior to the state/society.
• As equal part of humanity, each individual has equal worth. Hence, their rights as being
human, that is, human rights are also equal.
• Most of these rights are enshrined in the Constitution of nations as fundamental rights,
which state/govt. cannot take away.
• Hence, these rights limit the power and authority of states/govt vis-à-vis individuals.
• Individual rights are given preference over societal common good in this conception of
rights.
Features of cultural relativism:
• Closely linked to communitarian and collectivist ideologies.
• It is opposed to the notion of Ethnocentrism, that is, judging any cultural practices from
the perspective of other culture.
• Closer to eastern or Oriental culture, which give due importance to social customs,
traditions, cultural norms, values, community life, etc.
• It asserts that rights exist in relation to the particular culture from which they originate
and are not absolute or universally applicable.
• In fact, instead of rights, duty and obligation based social arrangements are preferred in
oriental culture.
• Supporters of cultural relativism consider human rights as western thought closely
related to liberal ideology. Hence, attempt to apply human rights universally is taken as
cultural imperialism of the resourceful and powerful western world.

Arguments for universal application of Human Right and counter arguments by

supporters of cultural relativism:

Arguments for universal Human Counter Arguments of cultural relativism

Right

Human rights are derived from nature, Human nature is culturally determined. Nature
nature is universal, hence human rights itself is contextual. Hence no universality of
are universal across all cultures Human Right.
Human Right promotes individual Rights gets meaning and substance in specific
autonomy, equality, choice, and cultural contexts. These values are realized in
democratic values. These are universal different culture by different social mechanisms.
values in each culture.

Human rights best option to protect Different cultures may have other values, norms,
human dignity and value across culture customary laws (social mechanisms) to protect
human dignity

It empowers individuals to have life It may undermine the social solidarity, harmony,
choices as per their own conception of and societal common good.
good life.

Protect women, indigenous people, and All communities take care of marginalised and
other marginalized groups in all weak members in their own way. For this,
cultures universal Human Right is not required.

Human rights essential to protect This is western ideology, which is highly

individuals against state and individualistic. It undermines communitarian
bureaucratic governments values of Asian, African, and other non-western
societies

In the name of cultural relativism, Liberal societies give formal civil and political
authoritarian states and majoritarian liberties and equalities, beneath which exists
societies suppress divergent highly unjust and unequal family, market, and civil
individual/groups. society. Hence, rights in liberalism are façade
(cover-up).

Conclusion:
Universality of Human rights and cultural relativism may seem to be polar opposite to
each other. But on closer scrutiny both these concepts seem to located on a continuum
at whose extreme ends lies Radical relativism and Radical universalism. In reality, we
can find convergence of weak relativism and weak universalism in most of the
communities. Despite having different norms, values, and standards of morality,
common list of few essential rights required for dignified life may be found in all
communities. Thus, finding an overlapping consensus on some rights in all
communities may be one possible way to reconcile these two divergent concepts.
Other ways to reconcile universalism and relativism may be principles such as ‘Laws
of people’ by John Rawl. People of all culture may agree for basic sets of human right
based on reasoned and rational choice. Thus, Human Right may be taken as part of
political conception of justice and not part of meaning of justice in a specific culture.
3rd way for reconciliation may be Prof. Amartya Sen’s Idea of Justice. We may try to
have workable agreement on set of rights in all cultures based on practical public
reasoning. Instead of idealistic rules/procedure and institutions to realize the agreed list
of rights we may focus on existing institutional mechanisms, covenants/treaties, etc to
realize those agreed set of rights.
In sum, universality of Human Rights and Cultural Relativism both need to tone down
their radical arguments and should move towards weak universalism and weak
relativism on the continuum to have agreement on common set of rights each individual
gets in all cultures. For this to happen, convergence of purpose/goal (to have dignified
human life) and not the ideologies should be in focus.
 THEME 5: DEMOCRACY

5.A: CBCS Syllabus

a) Democracy: Idea and Practice
b) Liberal Democracy and its critics
c) Multiculturalism and Toleration
Debate: Representation vs participation

5.B: Key Points:

Meaning of Democracy:
• Literal meaning- rule of the people
• Idea originated in ancient Greek city states- Athens
• But for next 2500 years both the idea and meaning underwent change
• Today what we mean by democracy is very different from the original idea of
Democracy.
• Liberal Democracy is representative Democracy, in which people don’t rule. They
Choose their ruler through equal voting rights.
• Many critics, such as Rousseau, term liberal Democracy as false Democracy. They
support direct Democracy, in which people rule themselves.
• Liberal response to this criticism has been to make representative Democracy more
substantive by having participative and deliberative Democracy.

Definitions of Democracy:
• ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’- Abraham Lincoln
• ‘Democracy means a form of government in which, instead of monarchies and
aristocracies, the people rule’- David Held
• ‘Democracy is best viewed as a competition for power by means of regular
elections. Citizens should not be expected to play a significant role in making
complex public policy regarding, say, taxes or missile defence’- Posner
• ‘Political method by which people elect representatives in competitive elections
to carry out their will’- Schumpeter
• ‘Democracy is not majority rule; democracy is diffusion of power,
representation of interests, recognition of minorities’- John Calhoun
 • Critical views about Democracy:
o Democracy as rule of mob or multitude; a perverted form of
Government – Aristotle
o "Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other
forms that have been tried from time to time."-Winston Churchill
o Democracy is "the substitution of election by the incompetent many for
appointment by the corrupt few." (G.B. Shaw),
Participatory Democracy:
• People actively take part in decision making and their implementation
• Substantive Democracy, closer to direct democracy.
• Modes of participation: deliberation before decision, public debate, local self govt.,
civil societies, interest group, initiatives, referendum, Gram Sabha, Mohalla Sabha,
recall, protest, demonstration, town hall meetings, etc.
Deliberative Democracy:
• Social decisions/public policy by active participation of citizens
• Formation of popular will (consensus in common interest) by deliberations-
exchange of reasoned arguments among ‘equal’ citizens to persuade each other and
to attain a rational consensus or a shared solution.
• Instead of decisions by aggregation of pre-existing individual preferences, society’s
common good or preference formed by process of deliberations.
• Against the “aggregative” model of democracy it is “transformative” and
“discursive” model of Democracy.
• Deliberations, and not mere voting, is the source of legitimacy to public decisions.

Multiculturalism:
• As an idea, co-existence of multiple cultural communities within borders of a nation-
state.
• As political practice, ways in which societies and nation-state should respond to cultural
and religious diversity.
• It also denotes protecting rights and privileges of disadvantaged and marginalized
groups- minorities, women, LGBTs, disabled, indigenous people, etc.
• Consistent with liberal idea of toleration.
• Also supported by communitarians and collectivists.
• Linked to the idea of Cultural Relativism.
• In recent times managing diversity has been the greatest challenge in multi-cultural
post-colonial nation-states in 3rd world.
5. C: ANSWER TEMPLATES OF PAST YEAR’S AND OTHER
IMPORTANT QUESTIONS

Q.1: Write a brief Essay on the history of the idea of Democracy.

Similar Question:
Q: Trace the origin and evolution of Democracy.

Ans Template:
Introduction:
History of democracy is as old as the history of politics. Both the idea evolved together
in ancient Greece, during 5th Century BC. In fact, many of the ideas pertaining to
democracy such as politics as collective activity for societal common good, debate and
conciliation, etc. are common with the idea of the political. However, meanings of both
the concept – democracy as well as politics- underwent change in last 2500 years of
their journey. Especially, the original idea of democracy as popular power wherein each
citizen played equal part in governance gave way to representative procedural
democracy limiting the role of citizen in governance to merely voting to elect
representatives.
Another striking fact is that the idea of democracy was opposed by greatest of political
thinkers all through its 2500 years of history. Democracy was declared as worst form
of government by Plato. Aristotle, in his classification of constitution/Govt, put
democracy under perverted form of Govt. He observed that democracy has many
striking points of resemblance with a tyranny- tyranny of majority. For Edmund Burke,
government should not be based on popular will, but wisdom and expertise, which
common people lack. Hence, he was critical of both French revolution and direct
democracy. Tocqueville and Mills called it ‘tyranny of majority’. Many liberal thinkers
were as much apprehensive of democracy as of the authoritative powers of Monarchs
and feudal lords. In fact, the word democracy evoked negative connotation during
major period of its 2500 existence. Only in last 100-150 years the idea gained wider
acceptance and became most cherished ideals for managing the socio-political
arrangements.
Hence, revisiting the history of the democracy is also revisiting various meanings and values
which were assigned to the word ‘Democracy’ in course of its 2500 years of journey since the
it was adopted by the city state of Athens.
Historical journey of an idea called Democracy:
• Birth of the idea called Democracy: In the city state of Athens, Greece, not only the
idea of democracy originated during 5th century BC but also were successfully practised
from around 461 BC to 322 BC.
• In India, democratic rule by Licchavis clan in Vaishali, Bihar was recorded during 6th
century BC in Buddhist historical account.
• Romans adopted the idea to declare itself republic; though in essence it was ruled by a
Senate, which was an actually an oligarchy (rule by few wealthy and powerful people).
• The idea remained dormant during the mediaeval period except some instances of
elections or assemblies here and there. However, such govt. systems involved very low
population, participation in governance limited to small minority, and hence also may
be better termed as Oligarchy. Monarchy ruled majority of the area all across the world
during this period.
• With Renaissance, protestants and reformist movements, the idea of Democracy gained
momentum in western Europe particularly in England:
• Scientific revolution, enlightenment movement, and Industrial revolution
brought the focus on science, reason, rationality.
• Liberalism originating from the philosophies of Hobbes and Locke, especially
the latter made democracy the preferred form of Govt.
• Under the rising popularity of liberalism, Individualism, natural rights of life,
liberty, and property was gaining ground; democracy was enticing idea to
realise the liberal ideologies.
• Evolution of Parliament in England was an important landmark in history of
democracy. The glorious revolution in 1688 transferred power peacefully from
Monarch to Parliament. But the English parliament, though elected, was filled with
landowning class and hence were not representing popular will.
• In England many radical groups emerged during 17th century who pushed for
substantive democracy which was viewed with suspicion by both the notables (VIPs)
and political thinkers of those times. ‘Levellers’ who emerged in 1640 were one such
group. Levellers may be considered as the world’s first organized radical democratic
society.
• Famous debate between the Levellers and the army leaders (of English civil war of
1642 between parliamentarian and royalists) at Putney in 1647 is a significant event in
understanding the meanings masses assigned to parliament and democracy.
• The Putney debate highlighted rights to vote to poor, government by popular consent,
supremacy of people over parliament etc.
• Thus, popular power was at the heart of vision of the ‘Levellers’. Despite such
movements for substantive democracy what actually got established in England was
representative democracy in which voting rights were limited to propertied class.
• Almost all prominent political thinkers of those times – Hobbes, Locke, in 17th century
and Burke in 18th century- didn’t prescribe Athenian direct democracy. Burke, in
particular, criticized French revolution and rule by the poor or multitude.
• French Revolution further propelled the idea of democracy: Liberty, equality,
fraternity, citizen’s rights were linked to the idea of democracy.
• Free America further made the idea popular; but it was tempered (moderated) by liberal
ideologies. It gave the world liberal democracy which is most prevalent form of
government world over.
• Right to property is considered most sacrosanct right in liberal doctrine. That gave rise
to capitalism. Hence liberal democracy became intimately linked to capitalism and free
market economy.
• 1st world war brought radical changes in the idea of democracy: ideas of equal
worth, rights, popular will, common good, etc gained momentum. Struggle for
universal adult franchise gathered strength.
• Communist movement, and anti-colonial movements during 20th century further
expanded the idea of democracy.
• After the second world war, decolonisation resulted into emergence of many post-
colonial nation-state in Asia and Africa, including India. Almost all of them adopted
liberal democracy. Though many of them reverted to authoritarian form of Govt in
1960-70.
• However, since 1980s, many of these authoritarian regimes in Africa and Asia gave
way to democratic govt. This was called 3rd wave of democracy by Huntington.
• In 1930s there were 3 major ideologies and related forms of Govt. Liberalism- liberal
democracy; Fascism- Fascist Govt; socialism- Communist Govt. Fascism met its
demise with 2nd world war. With the disintegration of USSR, Socialism/communism
virtually became a distant second to liberalism and liberal democracy, which became
the dominant form of Govt world over.
• Presently, despite seemingly undisputed pervasiveness of liberal democracy the idea is
still evolving- deliberative democracy, participatory democracy, social democracy,
radical democracy, feminist view on democracy, multi-culturalism, globalisation
and democracy, etc.

Conclusion:
The original Athenian idea of democracy underwent changes in its form and content in
past 2500 years. Today what we mean by democracy- representative liberal democracy
is different from its original idea of rule by people. The present form of democracy is
not what Abraham Lincoln said about democracy- govt of the people, by the people,
for the people.
 Originating in the city state of Athens, democracy has travelled a long journey. During
its long journey, it has changed its form, and content to suit the changing times. Despite
most powerful of political thinkers- from Plato to Marx, being critical of democracy,
today it is the most popular form of Govt world over. However, the essence of
democracy as people’s rule, popular sovereignty, popular will, etc are yet to be realized.
Hence, the journey of the idea of democracy is still on. The idea is still evolving and
getting moderated by contemporary challenges of social life -globalisation, information
revolution, feminism, multi-culturalism, etc. The challenge for democracy is to adopt
itself to the changing socio-political contexts and also to regain the essence of the idea
of the democracy.

Q.2: What are the main arguments in favour and against Democracy?
Ans. Template:
Introduction:
Essence of the idea of democracy – equal worth of each person, people’s autonomy,
popular power, popular sovereignty, right to be self-governed, etc has charmed human
civilization since beginning. The idea got all round support, especially after the advent
of liberalism. However, the idea of democracy was also opposed by greatest of political
thinkers all through its 2500 years’ journey since Athens adopted this idea. Democracy
was declared as worst form of government by Plato. Aristotle called it perverted form
of govt. Socrates, the great Athenian philosopher and teacher of Plato was a big critic
of democracy; for him it was rule by mob. Edmund Burke was critical of both French
revolution and direct democracy. Tocqueville and Mills called it ‘tyranny of majority’.
Many liberal thinkers were as much apprehensive of democracy as by the authoritative
powers of Monarchs and feudal lords. In fact, the word democracy evoked negative
connotation during major period of its 2500 existence. Only in last 100-150 years the
idea gained wider acceptance and became most cherished ideals for managing the
political life. Presently, the idea of democracy is invoked not only for forms of
government in nation-states but in all walks of life, be it society, institutions, sports, or
even in family.

Arguments in favour of Democracy:

• It is egalitarian: Equal worth of each person. Equality is the crux or core of democracy.
• Popular sovereignty
o Sovereignty is vested in people, not in the ruler/monarch.
o Thus, govt. in democracy rule on behalf of people, who have the right to change
the ruler.
o The Govt is supposed to be guided by the General or popular will of the people
and not to impose its will on them.
• Limited political obligation
o govt. by consent of the people
o People have right to resist and oppose Govt for unjust policies/laws.

• Participation, deliberation, empowerment

o Democracy encourages people’s participation in governance
o People deliberate to form popular will which guides the Govt in policy decisions
o It empowers people, train them in governance, make them aware and active
citizen.
• It is best form of Government for protecting liberty and rights of individuals.
• Idea of democracy expandable to society, any organisation, even to family.

Arguments against the idea of Democracy:

Opposition to democracy may be categorized into
1. Opposition to classic/direct democracy
2. Opposition to liberal/procedural/representative democracy

Arguments against classical/direct democracy

• It is Mobocracy, that is rule by the mob or multitude (ignorant crowd)
o This was the view of Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, and many other great
classical political thinkers.
• Tyranny of Majority
o Plato, J.S.Mill and many other were apprehensive that democracy will crush
minority views.
o For Mill, it implied Collective mediocrity, as views of literate/intellectual
counts same as of illiterate/ignorant.
• Majority Public opinion may obstruct individual liberty -Mills
o This was the view of J.S.Mill. To him, democracy may crush right of the
individual to have liberty of free thinking, expression, speech, and action. He
called it ‘tyranny of majority’.
• Governance requires specialized skills, people lack it:
o On this basis, Mill called democracy as Collective mediocrity. Many other
thinkers have echoed similar concern.
 o Plato thought that best is rule by Philosopher King. Aristotle thought that best
govt would be mix of Aristocracy and Polity (good form of Democracy).
• People’s duty is to fill the office not to direct the office holder
o This view was held by many thinkers such as Lippmann and Edmund Burke.
o They thought that once people elect their representative, they should be passive,
let their representative take decisions for them.

Arguments against representative/liberal democracy

• Far away from essence of the idea of democracy
o Gandhiji called liberal democracy as nominal democracy, not true democracy.
o Feminist like Mary Wollstonecraft ridiculed liberal democracy for talking of
equality of men but not extending this principle to civil society, market,
marriage, and family.
o Ambedkarji, Lohiaji and many other Indian thinkers considered liberal
democracy as sham, which is equality at top ( political equality) but inequality
below( in society, family, market).
o Marx called liberal state as instrument or committee to protect and further the
interests of capitalist class. In Marxist ideology liberal democracy help maintain
dominance of capitalist class and hence not egalitarian.
o Many political thinkers of 3rd world, including Marxists, linked liberal
democracy to imperialism and colonialism.
• Passive citizen
o Representative democracy makes citizen passive onlookers in governance.
o As Rousseau said, they are free only once in 5 years- at the time of voting.
Thereafter they are governed by those who don’t listen them.
• Maintains socio-economic status quo:
o Procedural or representative democracy is not transformative. It maintains the
existing socio-economic structure.
• Rule by Elites
o Representative democracy is actually rule by elites. People’s representative
comes from erstwhile aristocratic families.
o Elections are only to choose one group of elites over other group of elites.
o Change of rule means rule by new group of elites without change in underlying
socio-economic structure.
• Demean comraderies, communitarianism by notion of individualistic, egoist man
 o For MacPherson, Liberal democracy is based on the idea of possessive
individualism. Individuals are self-interested, egoist, and have freedom to
accumulate materialistic possessions.
o Hence, it undermines communitarian feelings. It creates competition,
antagonism, conflict in society.
o On this basis, Gandhiji was against liberal representative democracy.
• Representative govt. and liberal institution obstruct people’s participation in public
life
o Not the people, but their representative participate in debates/deliberations for
making laws/policies.
o Hence, people’s participation in governance is minimum. They become only
voter, mere means to grab political power.
o Therefore, representative democracy is against the spirit of democracy as
popular power.

Conclusion:
Idea of democracy- self-governing people, rule by poor, popular power and
sovereignty has charmed human civilization since its first experiment in Athenian
Polis some 2500 years ago. However, modern political philosophers of all major
ideologies - from Plato to Burke- derided the idea terming it rule by mob (crowd),
tyranny of majority, mobocracy, worst and perverted form of govt. and so on.
Despite such criticism, democracy has been the most acceptable and popular form
of govt. all across the globe. It is accepted that democracy, in spite of its many
shortcomings, provides best opportunity to individuals to exercise their rights of
equality, liberty, and justice.
As explained above, representative procedural democracy is far removed from the
original idea of democracy as popular power. But it can be made more substantive,
and participative through the idea of deliberative and participative democracy. We
must understand that democracy, especially representative democracy, is not
perfect form of govt, but it has the capability of being continuously improved to
make it as good as the true essence of democracy, that is Govt of the people, for
the people, by the people.
Q.3: What is the difference between participatory and representative
Democracy? Do you think participative Democracy is possible in
contemporary world?

Introduction:
Literal meaning of democracy is rule of people. Therefore, the essence of democracy is
that nobody else but people rule over themselves. Hence, it denotes self-governing and
republicanism, that is, people decide who among them hold the political offices and
how are they chosen. Athens in ancient Greek had the first recorded democracy.
Athenian democracy was very near to its literal meaning. All the adult citizen (women,
slave, and aliens excluded) were directly participating in governing themselves.
Decisions were taken collectively by participation of all.
However, in its course of evolution in last 2500 years meaning of democracy remained
intact but its realisation in societies world over have been of many forms, textures, and
varieties. But nowhere it came closer to its literal meaning or what was followed in
Athenian democracy. Its most widespread and popular form in which it is practised is
representative democracy, also called liberal or liberal procedural democracy. This
form of democracy is one in which the people through, periodic elections, vote to
choose their representatives. Thereafter, the representatives, and not the people
themselves, govern. In fact, not even the representatives but only small minority of the
representatives are participating in government. Remaining representatives debate,
deliberate, and ask questions to check the govt’s actions/decisions. Hence, J.S. Mill
called representative democracy as two step shifted democracy.
When we prefix participative before democracy it is to stress that it is different from
representative democracy, which is not participatory. Otherwise, there should not have
been any reason to put the prefix, as democracy means people's participation in
governance. Hence, we should understand that the phrase participative democracy
stresses the lack of participation in representative democracy and highlight the
importance of participation of people in governance. In this sense participatory
democracy can be said to be an improvement over the representative democracy.
In participative democracy still the representatives and not the people themselves
govern. But people have more say in governance. People regularly take part in debate,
dialogue, and deliberations which form the basis of collective decision making by the
government. It also means decentralization of governance up to the grass root level. For
example, gram panchayats in India, in which all adult people of the village form part of
the Gram Sabha which take collective decision. Participatory democracy also means
that in addition to electoral victory, legitimacy of government also depends on
continuous positive opinion of the people about government’s policies and actions.
Hence, in participatory democracy government is sensitive to the popular opinion
which is formed by active debate, dialogue, and deliberations among the citizen.
 Naturally, participatory democracy demands active and aware citizens. It also requires
a solid institutional mechanism for people's participation in governance. Organising
debate, deliberations to discuss a particular policy issue, seeking comments, feedback
from people on all policy matters, recording them and reconciling them to form a
collective popular will is not an easy task. It is also time consuming and may slow down
the decision-making process. However, with the advent of Information and
Communication Technology, people's participation in collective decision making and
on governance issues are not so difficult. But it requires a positive will on part of those
who are in power because it dilutes concentration of power in a small minority of people
who rule in the name of democracy.
Thus, the idea of participatory democracy is very attractive because it takes the
representative democracy closer to the real meaning and essence of democracy. Hence,
it is worth trying.

Following table summarises the difference between the representative and participatory
democracy:
Representative vs Participatory Democracy

Difference point Representative participatory

Role of Active only till voting, Active participant in governance

people/citizen thereafter passive
onlooker

Who actually rule? People’s representatives Still the representatives, but people have
some say in governance

Spread Most of the currently Enticing( tempting) idea whose

functioning democracies implementation has been difficult and
are representative rare

Implementability Easier to implement, Difficult to implement; institutional

institutional mechanisms mechanisms are not well established
are well established

Demand on citizen Only to vote judiciously Continuous alertness and awareness on

all governance issue

Method/process Periodic election, voting Deliberation before decision, public

debate, local self govt., civil societies,
interest group, initiatives, referendum,
gram sabha, mohalla sabha, recall,
protest, demonstration, town hall
meetings, etc
 Examples Most of the liberal Ancient Athens, Licchavis and other
democracy world over- ancient republics in India, modern times:
parliamentary and Switzerland, idea of Gandhian gram
presidential forms of Swaraj, Panchayati Raj in India, etc
democracy.

Political Thinkers Locke, Mills, Schumpeter, Rousseau, Machperson, Hanah Arendt,

supporting the idea Lippmann, Downs, etc. Benjamin Barber, Gandhiji, etc.

Conclusion:
Participatory democracy is an idea to take the representative democracy closer to the
real meaning and essence of democracy as rule of people. But its institutional
mechanisms are still evolving and there are multiple roadblocks in its effective
realisation. Most difficult part is to convince to share power with common people to
those who rule in the name of democracy because participative democracy will dilute
their power. There are other challenges, too. In a large and deeply divided nation it is
very difficult to arrive at a popular will or opinion on the basis of multiple deliberations.
It is also time consuming and may slow down the decision-making process and
governance.
There may be issue as to what extent citizens are allowed to participate in governance?
Many, especially in power, may complain of interference in governance by vested
interest or too much of democracy. But it is a very attractive idea which not only make
representative democracy more substantive but also help in realising good governance
in which people's participation is an essential ingredient. It also makes citizen alert and
aware and help in their moral and intellectual development. It gives them a sense of
empowerment and encourage them to think for larger national interest. Hence, despite
multiple challenges, the idea of participatory democracy is worth trying.

Q: 4. What is deliberative democracy? Do you think it enriches procedural

democracy? Give arguments.
Similar Question:
1. Write an essay on the idea of deliberative Democracy.
Ans. Template:
Introduction:
Deliberative democracy is contemporary variant of democracy advocated by those
who view representative democracy far removed from the original idea of
democracy as popular will or popular power. In this view, democratic decisions are
those which are outcome of deliberations- exchange of reasoned arguments among
‘equal’ citizens to persuade each other and to attain a rational consensus or a shared
 solution- and not by aggregation of pre-existing individual preferences.
Deliberations among citizens is to arrive at ‘Popular will’, which reflect society’s
common good. The state/govt. are supposed to be guided by this popular will in
making public policies, laws, rules, etc.
Deliberative democracy is closely associated with participative democracy. It
believes in conception of power as collective creation through communication,
speech and dialogue. In this view freedom is not absence of constraint but active
participation for good life of community and obeying laws and policies formed by
deliberations and hence representing general will. This is how Rousseau defined his
conception of popular sovereignty. Deliberative democracy is nearer to true or
substantive democracy. In this version of democracy, citizen feel empowered.
Citizen feel that they are maker of laws and policies for themselves. This may result
into better compliance and less opposition to Laws/policies, infringements and
litigations.
Deliberative democracy is not antithesis to procedural democracy. Rather former
enriches the latter. It makes democracy more substantive. Citizens feel empowered
and responsible for being part of the decisions affecting them as well as others.
But problem is its actual implementation. Just and fair deliberations are possible only
among equal citizen. Also, the norms and standards of dialogue should not be
decided by the dominant class. These conditions are difficult to meet primarily
because of diverse and complex societies with deep structural inequalities and
complex power relations. Despite this, adopting the concept of deliberation for
collective decision making shall take the procedural representative democracy nearer
to true spirit of democracy as govt. by the people, for the people.

Core themes of Deliberative Democracy:

• Deliberations are exchange of reasoned arguments among ‘equal’ citizens to persuade each
other and to attain a rational consensus or a shared solution.
• Formation of popular will by the process of deliberations- reasoned arguments/dialogue
among equal citizen.
• Govt. to make policies and laws honouring the popular will arrived through deliberations.
Hence, it amounts to social decisions/public policy by active participation of citizens.
• Instead of decisions by aggregation of pre-existing individual preferences/interests,
society’s common good or preference are formed by process of deliberations.
• “aggregative” model of democracy vs “transformative” and “discursive” model:
o procedural democracy believes that people’s preferences and interests are
aggregation of individual preferences and interests and political process may
only negotiate among conflicting interest. Whereas, in deliberative democracy
people’s preferences are changed through active dialogue, communication, and
 deliberations. Thus it is transformative (which brings change) and not status
quoist.
• Deliberations, and not mere voting, is the source of legitimacy to public decisions by the
Govt.
• Integrates values of popular sovereignty and liberal democracy.
• Empower and enable people, sense of belongings and contribution to societal common
good. People feel as maker of laws/policies for themselves.
• Compatible to both representative or procedural and direct democracy.
• Political Thinkers who supported this idea: Aristotle, Rousseau, Habermas, David
Miller, J.Drysek, J.Cohen. Walzer, Bernard Manin, Fishkin, etc

Challenges in its implementation and Some of its minuses:

• Consensus difficult to achieve in diverse and complex societies with deep structural
inequalities and complex power relations.
• Impractical, difficult to design and control deliberations, especially for large nations
like India.
• For many deliberations are subtle way to ask individuals to change their
interest/preferences. Hence it undermines individual autonomy and liberty - freedom
to form preferences.
• Chaotic, undesired, unwarranted outcomes: Deliberations, especially in large, diverse
society with deep rooted social fault lines, may result into unintended outcome.
• Tension between theory and practice: good in theory but difficult to practice.
• Blur the division of labour between citizens and professional
politicians/representatives: Place burden on citizen to be aware of all political issues
and perform policy making duties.
• Slows decision making process. Deliberations may take several months in large
countries.
• Political thinkers who opposed: Marion young, Lynn sanders, Lippmann,
Schumpeter, etc

Conclusion:
• Basic Idea behind deliberative democracy is that collective decision making should be
outcome of reasoned dialogue among equal citizen. This would make democracy more
participative and substantive. Citizen would feel empowered. Compliance to
laws/policies would bring order, peace, and progress. The idea is very attractive but
difficult to implement, especially in large complex societies with deep structural
inequalities and complex power relations. Also, it may interfere with individual’s
 choice/preferences. It may burden the Citizens. They would be required to know about
the laws/policies under deliberation. It is time consuming and therefore, make decision
making slow. It may even give unintended outcomes.
Despite all these minuses and challenges, idea of deliberative democracy is worth
attempting, for it makes procedural democracy enriched, more substantive, and nearer
to essence of democracy as popular power. It also empowers citizen and make them
politically more aware and active. Synthesis of deliberative and procedural democracy
will make representative democracy more accountable, public policies/laws more
legitimate, and society more aware, creative, and powerful.

Q. 5: What do you understand multiculturalism? Do you think that Will

Kymlicka's theorization on multiculturalism adequately resolves the issues
of minority rights?
Similar Question:
Q: To what extent have plural society succeeded in accommodating diversity? Explain your
answer with reference to multiculturalism and toleration.

Introduction:
Multiculturalism denotes existence of many cultural groups/communities in any socio-
political system. In the context of nation-states, it implies the issue of managing
cultural diversity, to have consensus on common set of values to be pursued by the
nation as a whole, accommodate interests & aspirations of different cultural
communities, national integration, etc. Many of these issues are due to territorially tight
and homogeneous concept of nation-state, which emerged in western Europe in 19th
Century. European nation-states were culturally homogeneous. They had one language,
one religion, one political ideology(liberalism), and unified national aspiration. But
when the same template of nation-state was superimposed on multi-cultural, multi-
ethnic, multi-lingual societies of 3rd world, the problem of common national identity,
managing diversity, accommodating diverse interests and aspirations, etc came to haunt
the post-colonial nation-states. Multiculturalism denotes all these issues, challenges,
and ideas to manage these challenges.
Maening, Features, and Dimensions of multiculturalism:
• As an idea focused on the ways in which societies and nation-state should respond to
cultural, religious, and linguistic diversities.
• It denotes both the challenges of managing diversities and ideas to tackle those
challenges.
• It also denotes protecting rights and privileges of disadvantaged communities-
minorities, women, LGBTs, disabled, etc.
 • It is part of liberal doctrine. It emanates from the concept of toleration, one of the
foundational liberal thought.
• Manifested (became visible) mainly in post-colonial nation-states in 3rd world.
Societies in these nation-states were traditionally multi-cultural. Nation-state demands
homogeneity (uniformity) of values, symbols, aspiration. This created challenge of
national integration by maintaining unity in diversity. Multiculturalism is liberal
solution to these challenges.
• It denotes Rights and Recognitions to diverse cultural communities in a nation-state.
These may include equal status and dignity to diverse cultural arts, practices, belief and
value system. Recognising cultures, other than the mainstream culture, as equally
valuable. Adequate space to diverse culture in school textbooks, popular media, public
discourse. And finally, evolving a common or composite culture through dialogue
among equal cultures

Thin vs thick multiculturalism:

• In western, liberal nation-states one may notice very diluted or thin form of
multiculturalism. Diverse cultures in such nation-states are guided by liberal
beliefs. They share common language and religion. Only weak disagreements
exist over values and belief system. Cultural groups may compete only for
diverse interests or objectives.
• On the contrary, in many 3rd world nation-states, thick multiculturalism is
noticed. Deep diversity- cultural groups have very different value systems and
beliefs- exists in society. This makes the challenge of managing diversity
daunting (very difficult) for the Governments in these nation-states.
Dimensions of multiculturalism:
• Can be considered as social fact (multi-cultural nation-states) , an idea, a policy(
managing diversity), and a theory.
• Fundamental normative political values- justice, rights, equality, liberty,
democracy – are liberal political values and are meaningful in specific cultural
context. This creates challenge of realizing these values in multicultural socio-
political system.
• Individual autonomy, rights, liberty, equality, dignity, tolerance and justice are
part of liberal doctrine, are individualistic. They are not directly applicable to
multicultural nation-states of 3rd world.
• Thus, multiculturism pose challenge to liberal political theory- how to protect
the validity of these universal concepts against varied conceptions(meanings)
of these terms in different cultures?
• Liberal democratic governments of multi-cultural nation-states in 3rd world face
the challenge –how to accommodate cultural and ethnic claims within the
overall framework of liberal concepts of rights and justice? How to have unified
 national aspiration, symbols, values on face of diverse interests, values, and
aspirations? How to maintain unity in diversity?
• These challenges become more serious in 3rd world as liberalism may not be the
preferred political ideology in many of these nation-states. Many of them
believe more in communitarianism, collectivism, socialism, and communism.
Hence, adopting liberal concept of toleration and minority rights may not be
consistent with the preferred political ideologies in these multicultural nation-
states.

Theorisation of the concept of Multiculturalism:

Bhikhu Parekh, Charles Taylor, Brain Barry, and Will Kymlicka are prominent thinkers
who theorised the concept of multiculturalism. Will Kymlicka’s ‘multicultural
citizenship’ advocates group differentiated rights, such as self-government and
representation, to national and ethnic minorities. Charles Taylor-, in his ‘politics of
recognition’- moved beyond cultural rights to positive recognition and appreciation of
diverse cultures. Bhikhu Parekh, in his ‘Rethinking multiculturalism’ presents the
theory and practice of multiculturalism from the perspective of post-Marxism,
postcolonialism, race theory and feminism.
In this answer I am focussing on Will Kymlicka's theorization on multiculturalism,
main points of which are presented next.

Will Kymlicka's theorization on multiculturalism:

Will Kymlicka, a liberal thinker from Canada, in his book ‘Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal
Theory of Minority Rights’ attempted to theorize the concept of multiculturalism from liberal
perspective in nation-states having cultural diversity. Following is brief of his theory:
• Stable cultural structure provides meaningful choices to the members of the cultural
communities. multiculturalism helps maintain Stable cultural structure. Hence, this is
required for individual autonomy and rights.
• National minorities in multination states vs ethnic immigrants in polyethnic states:
• National minorities are ethnic/cultural communities living for ever in a
particular nation-state. For example, Parsis in India.
• Ethnic immigrants are those who settled recently in a nation-state from other
countries. For example, Indians in US.
• Rights to national cultural minorities:
• Right to self-government and representation
• Right to Protect language, customs, symbols, value systems, and way of
life
• Right to exemption from common law
 • Right to get fund and establish minority educational institutes
• Right to preferential treatment in admissions, education policies
• Right to equal status and recognition
• Adequate space to diverse culture in school textbooks, popular
media, public discourse.
• Evolving a common or composite culture through dialogue
among equal cultures.
• Rights to ethnic immigrants: affirmative action, exemption from some rules
which may violate religious practices, and public funding of cultural practices.
Justification for minority rights:
• State must treat each citizen with equal respect and dignity
• For developing self-respect, dignity, and autonomy, one requires a stable
cultural structure or framework. cultural or group rights are must to protect the
cultural structure.
• National cultural minorities have historical claim of autonomy in living life in
their own way. Emergence of nation-states cannot take away these
claims/entitlements.
• External protection vs internal restrictions
• External protection: protecting group or cultural rights by Constitution,
state/Government.
• Internal restrictions: Discrimination and oppressions of weak and marginalised
(girl child, women, old) with a cultural community.
• Cultural rights and external protection may not help individuals of cultural
communities in case of Internal restrictions. For this, internal reforms in the
community may be required.
• Multiculturalism required for social solidarity and unity in modern nation state.
• Shared civic identity
• Finding overlapping consensus on values, aspirations, goal of the
nation-states through dialogue, deliberations, toleration,
accommodations.
• Situation of deep diversity
• But it would be a daunting task in situation of deep diversity, that is, thick
multiculturalism.
Critique of Will Kymlicka’s theorisation of multiculturalism:
• It is guided by liberal political ideology. It also implies ethnocentrism. It is an attempt
to prescribe multiculturalism to 3rd world nation-state having very different norms,
values, belief system, and political ideologies.
• It undermines individual rights of members of cultural communities who may be
oppressed in the name of cultural norms/traditions. For example, issue of maintenance
to divorced wives in Muslim Community in India.
• Thus, his prescription may oppress the oppressed further in the name of cultural rights.
• It may also pose challenge to national unity and national integration. For example,
having separate civil code for each community may hamper unified civic culture.
• It may also give rise to demand of national self-determination. Going beyond self-
government and autonomous councils, the cultural community may demand separate
nation-states for them. For example, the Muslim community in India during 1940s
demanded separate nation-states. In post independent India many cultural communities,
especially the Sikhs, demanded separate nation-state. In Sri Lanka this happened when
the Tamils, a cultural minority, demanded autonomy and separate nation-state. Many
countries of the world today are facing such demands of separate nation-states from
minority cultural communities.
• Practically difficult and morally illogical to follow in nation-states of 3rd world because
of very different values, belief system, and political ideologies.
• In nutshell, Will Kymlicka’s prescription is typical Eurocentric and Ethnocentric way
of finding solutions of other cultures from the perspective of one’s own cultural and
political ideology.

Conclusion:
Multiculturalism denotes co-existence of diverse cultural communities within boundary of
modern nation-state. It is socio-political fact, an idea, policy, political practice and theory.
As an idea it denotes value pluralism, unity in diversity, toleration, and equal respect &
recognition of all cultures, etc. As political practice and policy it is managing diversity,
taking all communities together in national development, sharing rewards and honour
equally among communities, special protection of minority rights, positive discrimination,
etc. As a theory, multiculturalism, emanate from liberal doctrine of toleration. It explains
positive role of stable cultural structures for members of the community. It prescribes
policies for managing diversity in democratic socio-political system.
Arguments both for and against multiculturalism (as political practice) have been the part
of political discourse. Arguments in support of Multiculturalism are that it helps provide
dignity, autonomy, and options to individuals as members of a flourishing recognized
culture. It is morally just and prudential. It helps build social solidarity, harmony, and
shared national aspiration. Arguments against multiculturalism are that it may oppress the
oppressed within cultural communities, it may cross individual rights, cultural relativism
may hinder universal application of human rights. It may pose challenges to national
integration, and it is difficult to pursue and politically practice.
In sum, it can be said that like other normative political values, multiculturalism has also
been developed by liberal thinkers of culturally homogeneous nation-states of developed
western world. Whereas the problem of managing diverse culture along with national
integration and economic development are the challenges of the post-colonial
underdeveloped nation-states of 3rd world. Hence there is need to develop alternate theory
of multiculturalism from the perspective of those who belongs to culturally diverse nations.
It also need theorisation from the perspective of minority and marginalised cultural groups.
Blend of liberal as well as alternate theorisation may help to manage cultural diversity
within the boundaries of political nation-states better and in more meaningful way.
 SECTION 2

SAMPLE
PAPERS
3 SETS
 SAMPLE PAPERS WITH HINTS FOR THE
ANSWERS

SAMPLE PAPER SET 1

Q.1: Critically assess the two concepts of liberty propounded by Isaiah Berlin.
(Hint: Straightforward question. Refer to answer at page 6. You should also critically comment
on such binary opposite conceptions of liberty by citing Gerald McCallum’s triadic conception
of Liberty.

Q.2. Examine the idea of equality of opportunity. Compare it with the idea of ‘equality of
outcome. Which of these conceptions of equality is consistent with liberal ideology? Give
reasons.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 30; clearly, equality of opportunity is consistent with liberalism
as it implies individual liberty to compete fairly in game of life. Liberalism ensures equality of
input conditions, giving each one level playing field; it does not support tinker/change in the
naturally arrived outcome by fair competition. Hence, liberalism, especially the classical
version, does not support equality of outcome.

Q.3: Discuss Rawls' theory of Justice in the light of feminist and communitarian critique.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 47)

Q.4: Discuss the evolution of the concept of Rights with special reference to 3 generations
of Rights.
(Hint: refer to answers at pages 65 and 69; you should pick up relevant points from both the
answers)

Q.5: Discuss the gradual evolution of the idea of Democracy.

(Hint: Same as asking brief history of the idea of Democracy. refer to answer at page 84)

Q.6: What do you understand multiculturalism? To what extent have plural society,
especially in 3rd world countries, succeeded in accommodating diversity?
(Hint: Direct question; refer to answer at page 96)
 SAMPLE PAPER SET 2

Q.1: What do you understand by positive liberty? Do you agree with the view there is
some possible danger of authoritarianism inherent to justification provided for positive
liberty? Give reasons.
(Hint: Straightforward question. refer to answers at pages 5 and 12. You should also link
positive liberty to age old conception of emancipation and liberation. You may also link
positive liberty to Gandhian idea of Swaraj for individuals.)

Q.2 : Explain the concept complex equality ; How does it differ from the discourse on
resource egalitarianism ?
(Hint: Straightforward question. refer to answer at page 36 ; resource egalitarianism means
liberal theories such as ‘equality of resources’ by Dworkin )

Q.3: Write a critical essay on Robert Nozick's theory of justice. Compare it with Rawls'
theory of Justice.
(Hint: Straightforward question. refer to answer at page 52 )

Q.4: Analyse some of the recent debates on the idea of Rights. Which of these viewpoints
you agree and why?
(Hint: Major debates on Rights are 1. Universality of human rights vs cultural relativism 2.
Explosion of rights and limitations of states/societies in providing all these rights 3. Rights vs
Common Good. ‘Right vs Good’ debate highlight the contrast between individual Rights and
common interest of society. It also raises the fundamental question of relation between
individual and state/society. In liberal doctrine, individuals are autonomous self. Societal
common interest (common good) is aggregation of individual interest/preferences. Hence,
Rights of the individual must not be sacrificed in the name of societal common good.
Communitarians, socialists, and collectivists hold opposite view. To them, individual is
integral party of society which is like organic whole. Societal common good is not mere
aggregation of individual interest/preferences. It is much more than that. Individual rights are
valid only if it promotes social welfare by increasing societal common good.
You should explain each of these debate in brief. The first debate( universality of Rights vs
cultural relativism) should be explained in detail for that refer to answer at page 78 )
Q.5: What do you understand by liberal Democracy? Discuss some of its critiques.
(Hint: Liberal Democracy is procedural and representative Democracy, in which not the
people but their representatives rule. It is not the same idea of Democracy as adopted in the
city state of Athens about 2500 years ago. It is not even as defined by Abrham Lincoln as
Government of the people, by the people, for the people. It is more like Peter Schumpeter’s
definition of Democracy as the method by which people elect representatives in competitive
elections to carry out their will. J.S.Mill called representative Democracy as 2-step shifted
Democracy. 1st shifting is not the people but their representatives rule; not all but only few
of the representatives actually rule; this is 2nd shifting. Hence, many critics, including
Gandhiji, called liberal Democracy as soulless, formal, and false Democracy.
You should build up your arguments on above lines. Deficiencies of liberal Democracy due
to its support of negative liberty, individual rights, procedural justice, minimalist state,
dichotomy of private vs public, status quo etc. should also be highlighted. Refer to answers
at pages 90 and 93; you can pick up many points from there)

Q.6: Intersection of caste and gender is major form of discrimination in Indian Society.
Discuss the affirmative action policies in light of this statement.
(Hint: It is same as asking discuss affirmative action policy and its role in compensating for
background inequalities due to caste and gender. Refer to answer at page 40)
 SAMPLE PAPER SET 3

Q.1: Discuss the importance and limits of the freedom of speech and expression in liberal
democracy.
(Hint: Straightforward question. refer to answer at page 24)

Q.2: Critically examine the concept of 'Equality of Resources' as advanced by Ronald

Dworkin.
(Hint: Straightforward question. refer to answer at page 34)

Q.3: what do you mean by global Justice? Discuss some of the debates concerning global
justice.
(Hint: refer to answer at page 56)

Q.4: Explain the concept of human rights. How does 'cultural relativism affect the
universality of human rights?
(Hint: Straightforward question. refer to answer at page 78)

Q.5: Discuss the idea of participative and deliberative Democracy. How do they make
liberal Democracy more substantive?
(Hint: Refer to answers at pages 91 and 93)

Q.6: Discuss the feminist theory of Justice.

(Hint: Refer to answer at page 59)
 SECTION 3

ANSWER WRITING TIPS

FOR ESSAY TYPE
QUESTIONS
 Scoring Answer Writing Tips

How to Write Best Answers in University Exam?

BA Hons Pol Sc Exam Help

• Yes, one may score better marks by writing strategically. Essay type
answers require different skills than MCQs.

• Structure (Template), organization, flow, and style matter in essay types of

answers. Here are my Tips:
 First Tips : Analyse Past Year’s papers

Select the topics asked

Topic wise analysis of
repeatedly- select
3-4 year’s question
topics to cover at least
papers shall reveal the
70%- 5-6 questions for
question pattern
sure

• This I have done for you. I have analysed past four year’s paper of DU on Indian
Political Thought. Provided standard answer template on all of those questions.

• In fact, the questions cover the entire syllabus. Thus, only by reading the answers in
this guide carefully and repeatedly, yes at least 7-8 times, you will be covering the entire
syllabus.

• When exam is very near, you may leave some of themes/topics by an intelligent guess.
 2nd Tips: Make Intelligent Guess !

Yes, by carefully
analysing past papers Do it with
you can guess confidence!
expected questions.

• Yes, you should do it. Examiners set paper by going through past 3-4 year’s paper.

• They have to meet 2 conditions; 1st the question should be within the syllabus and 2nd
they should be on similar pattern and difficulty level as asked in earlier years. Hence,
the paper setter normally set questions very similar to one asked earlier.

• They also alternate the theme/topic. Thus, if a topic is asked in 2017, they repeat that
in 2019, and like that.

• Therefore, you can guess! Yes…

 3rd Tip: use the question as answer clue!

Answers are
Attentively read Provide standard
expansion of ideas,
question at least 3 Answers to twisted
issues stated in the
times, yes 3 times! questions
questions

• Answers are hidden in the Questions!

• While framing the question, the examiner is thinking about the answer. Hence, by
carefully and on multiple reading you can visualize the answer hidden in the question.

• And, yes, also read the Hindi translation of the question. Sometime, you may not know
exact meaning of the key word in the question. Hindi translation may give the meaning.
Also, many a times, wording of Hindi question disclose more about the hidden answer.
This is due to translation issue. Take advantage of questions in two languages.
 4th Tips: cleverly organise your answers

Write 1st answer on your best Choose 2nd best topic as last
prepared topic question

Because examiners pay more

Least prepared topics as 2nd attention to your first
and 3rd answers; Why? question, then the last, and
least to middle answers…yes!

• Yes, examiners actually browse through your answer, they don’t read word by word.

• Also, they assess your standard by your 1st answer. 2nd and 3rd answer may not change
your assessment. They assign you marks in range in accordance with the bracketing
they do in the 1st answer.

• Hence, write your best prepared topic as 1st answer. 2nd best as last, why? Because
examiner try to put some attention while browsing your last answer. Make use of his
attention. He may revise the marks bracket he decided while reading your 1st answer.
 5th Tip : Strategic writing?

How many words per

question? No fixed rule- Use standard answer
Normally, 800-1200 words structure (template)
(4-6 pages)

Numbered or bulleted Sprinkle and underline key

points in ‘Body’ phrases

• How many words to write?

• Actually, it shouldn’t matter. But unfortunately, in our country it does matter.
• Average writing speed is 25 words per minute. In a 180 minute (3 hour) exam, one may
write for about 160 minute, leaving 20 minutes for reading paper and organizing
thoughts. Therefore, in 160 minutes, maximum 4000 words can be written. This comes
to 1000 words per question.
• Write in bigger font, maximum 200 words in one page. Use bullets/number and
indenting. Leave good space between paragraph. They consume space.
• Examiners are used to see answers written in a particular template(structure). Follow
them. Carefully observe how I have tried to write in a fixed structure. I have given a
standard structure in next slide.
• Yes, insert standard phrases in your answer, sprinkle (scatter) them across your
answer. Why? Examiners are interested in seeing the key words/phrases in your answer,
this helps them quickly browsing your answer. If the found them they assume that rest
of your answer is also okay.
• And finally, repeat key phrases. Yes! You may write the key phrase in Introduction,
in body and in the conclusion. Why? Simple, because examiners are compelled to note
the key phrase/concept in your answer even if he is browsing through the answer.
Hence, don’t hesitate to repeat. It pays.
• Take one example; one of the key phrases in political concept is ‘highly contested
concepts’. Examiner will search for such phrases in your answer.
 Answer Template: Example: “Write an essay on
the idea of democracy.”
• Introduction
• Introduce the topic , e.g. Democracy
• Provide definition, meaning, and brief overview of the topic
• Give a glimpse of your conclusion- finally what you want to say
• Theoretical Foundation or Literature review
• State the ideas of main political thinkers on the topic/issue
• At least 4-5 names
• Give brief historical evolution of the idea.
• Analysis and Discussion
• Analyse how the current form of liberal democracy is different from the original idea
of democracy. Views of prominent critics of representative democracy.
• Provide your own view – crux of your answer
• Conclusion
• Paraphrase introduction
• State your final view and concluding remarks

• Introduction is where you should focus most. Why? Because examiner read first few
lines of Introduction carefully. It is here he is putting you in a bracket or grade for
marking. 20 % of the total words.

• Conclusion is basically introduction in other words. Both give an overview/summary

of the theme, explain a bit about the question asked and give very brief of their final
argument. Difference is in wording. Introduction says I will explain or as explained
below, whereas conclusion say, as I have explained above and so on. 10-15 % of the
total words.

• You can break the body of the answer in two parts. One informative and other
analytical. In the latter part you may critically analyse the statement or theme in context
of the question. You may even merge these two parts into one.

• You may also merge ‘discussion’ part of the ‘body’ into conclusion. In many answers
I have done that.

GOOD WISHES!