pOLmCAL SCIENCE

se roacla .
~rJISljPP tulatc any approach as such for th
(f) ••&ti did not pas....rnunism, His approach to politic e_study Of
JCarl JD _-,of CO... f . s ts i r-.
reftensiVC thi;u•., . a!SubseCluent chapter o this book. l'h 111bedd t-Oliti
cO~~ in detal! _in as well as those of Engels, Lenin a e lvtar,qed inc~ilpil
is di d frOIII bis wrt!~~cci and others, It ~lies on a single fact nd a hos st ap his th ~ 1,
g1eane tskY UI--- or an t Of r>rll to \
1,UXentbU'I• fro ' unting the 1cnowledge.of Marxism, to Out) . a) YSis an thin~ilch ~·~
suffice it bete. pres , •ne the t d is h er, 1\ ·
foJlows: . . Ee . -. eatu c~c i1t I
Approach as_ . . red in econonuc relations. onom1c chan e . res() e~tr\
(a) po1tocs 1s roo . g .s bnng ab f t~e~~
changes, ·c relations in society are configured by the rel a . out socia1 \1
(b) Alleconollllth capitalist and the working class. ; lions betw iltiQ ~ 1
ctasses - e · • · · een t ,
. f the economic strocture 1s the key to an 1 •~ · he tw
(c) Analysis o . · ~ Ys1s of th o
str11cture&• . ·· .· . . - e soci
. mof the classes 1s the basis of political conn· . a1 an.1
(d) Antagon1s tct ~
le leads to revolution and overthrow of ca . •
Class suugg bl' h ·- - Pttalis
(t ) . . tent revolution that esta 1s ~ a classless · , stateless· rn and the c .
Jt1s a v10 . . . 8•
.. proach of econonuc detenmmsm; • ' 0cialis ap1tai·1
This 1s an ap · ·. t soc·let ~

D, ]loOKS FOR STUDY . ).

dO.A, and Powell, ComparaJivt Polilics, Princeton Unive .
1. Almon •• rs1ty Pres
Ray and Mohit Bhattacharya: Pol111cal Thtory, World Pre 2 s, l 965.
2. Amal . . •• • ss, 003. .
Charlesworth J.C.: ADt11gnfor Polmcal Scitnct: ObJtctivts and M
3. . . I,. __, . 6 tthods 19
,. Dahl, Robert, R., Modtm Polmca nnu ysu, 19 3. Prentice-Hall. - ' 66.
s. Harl Hara Oas, Political Theory, 1999 National Publishing House.
6. Johari. J.C., Principlts of Modtm Political Scitnct, 2002, Sterling.
7. Roucek and Others, Introduction to P(!litical Scitnct, 1954.
8. Waldo Dwigh~ Approachts to tht Study of Politics.·
9. Young Ronald E., Approachts to tht Study of Politics.

□□□

~
I
'

_J
 . - ~ ~~~
NT-:-- ~ " "
• - ~~~ :-;-.

N
.":".'"!:"

s sO C IA T IO N A N D N /'T IO
.-'9.;;>°¼~~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~~~t! ...A_:z.=::-::.:=;,_::~-=---•·--"'....:-~---~.;;..----~-
_- '-
5
E A N D ITS N A T U RE
STAT
.
al e an d As so ci pens
Tyio
if at
en ts of St at e. (C ) St
e. (B ) Es se nt ia l El em of Na tu re of Sl at e (F ) Fe at ur es
0
• (A ) Society an d Slat ns. (E) Theo rie s
,S b' Ud llf f• (D ) Co
mmunity an d Institutio
r Study.
ofSia/es. (G ) Bo ok s fo
.
th ~~
so ci at io n w ith ~
TE
A, S oC IE T Y A N D S TA n. H e liv es in as
in is ol at io tu re it se
al : M an ne ve r liv es Th is is be ca us e na
)il lll a So ci al An im mily, re la tiv es an d fr ie nd s.
an y ot h~ r
iii th e m id stof m em be rs of hi s fa ha s to de pe nd on m
ne ed s. A m an
ith va rio us ty pe s of ~ he sa id
: - , , man a so ci al an im al w
co rr ec tly as se ss ed hu m an na tu re , w he an
'18dsfying hi s co un tle
ss ne ed s A ris to tle
y is th e be st of an im al s. In so ci et y m
ci et
m an pe rf ec te d by so n he tu rn s la w le ss
is a social animal, an d co m es th e m os t te rr ib le of al l an im al s w he ge be as t ca n do
be va
law and ju st ic e, bu t he bl y, ne ed s so ci et y, an d on ly a go d or a sa so ci et y, an d m an
sp en sa fo rm
Every man in di io n. M an y m en
le , no m an ca n Jiv e in co m pl et e is ol at w e ta ke it fo r gr an te d th
at aJJ
it. A s a ru lis ed w or ld ,
er . In th e m od er n ci vi op er at io n an d su pp
or t.
~nvariably go to ge th ith m ut ua l he lp , co
rs of so ci et y w th er e ar e
women Jive as m em be e gr ou p of m en an d w om en , in w hi ch
or k of
g o fS o t: N ty : So ci et y is a ve ry la rg , w hi ch de si gn at es th e w ho le ne tw
~ y is a te rm s, ca st e,
aller groups. So ci et e fin d fa m ily , cl as
seveial R la dv el y sm ci al fr am ew or k, w d
relationships. Within
the la rg e so
be r of co m m er ce , po lit ic al pa rt y an
am
1Pa.s-•sc ho ol . church
, fin e ar ts ci rc le , ch
man up an d
a po lit ic al ba si s in a gi ve n te rr ito ry '
ci et.yLis organised on be ha vi ou r
ga co m m on co de of
·
- -D •II~ :~ W.. he..n.- sofi fh av m
. • •h -ll D ~ -
on pu rp os eo se d
w h e n ti _ ,~ , .......-. .. - or un :.c om m . e is a po lit ic al ly or ga ni
or~,o rr es ~ . Th us a st at
tV •• • the sta 1s fo rm ed.
th teth ut io n ·
. ty .ID 8 CC~uaJaD ~
Socle ta te 1s a na tu ra l an d ne ce ss ar y in st it
" fo r es
at . .
at e. T he ne ed of st at e ar is es
,
Ne ed al ld r- .r .;1 itl man to hv e 10 a st
ci et y an d
e fe w ba d an d' di e ac ce pt ed ru Je s of be ha vi·ou r in so
beca us
sts of o th - "'- e e ts · so ci· et y, to br m g th e an ti -s oc ia l
harm th e in te re ....... ~, JD
d to w ie ld
op le to bo ok , to pr ot ec t th e ea ce an d or de r, an l
pe nee ta ne ou s or na tu ra
po we r, th e st at e is • a sp on
coercive
ne ed s. B ut m ea ni ng s.
manner to fulfil hu m an
 58
De,:..;,.,.n ofState: Many definitions
..,,.,_ r~ ; o ie~ITS'sts. Defi n·lttons
.
vary from one another, becaus"e e'9er.y~ own Point
view. One writer may be a philosopher, ano . st• a fourth
• ~ oneOf
. democratic socialist. a fifth one a Marxist, a six o not desirabt a
g ive all the known definitions, as this is like_ly toommmi a "'few irn 0 e to
fi ·• P rtant
ones giving the clear picture of sta_te_ ~nd h avmg c ntt1ons rna b
noted. An examination of these def1mt1ons shows that c:ach ~ e hicular a/ e
of the state as seen by the author. . :AIIIQ\lflte:. • Peet
Emphasis on Happy Life: Aristotle. who lays emphasis on a happy li'fe has in rn·
city state. when he defines state as "a union of families and villages_havingffoi" its encl a •:d the
and self-sufficing life by which we mean a happy and honourable hfe.n The small Greet rfcct
0
(or dty state from which the word politics is derived) had slav~, and'1t WU ql1'i't&!il!ffe'ft!ltt ~ 11s
the large modern nation state. In Greek city-state. there was mtense community~ e, and rom
sufficiency (more in the ethical sense than in the economic sense) could be realised only inse~f- .
state. Happiness could not be realised either in family or viJlage; it could be experienced onlci~y
a higher form of organisation, which was the polls.Anstot · 1es' defim1tion
· · w h.1ch made no distincr Y•n
between state and society, will not serve the purpose of the m~dem political scientist deal:~n
with large modern territorial states. R.M. Maciver, Hermann Fmer and other writers think th g
. d'd at
Greeks and Romans in their city-states with a large slave popu Iat1on 1 not use any term equivalent
to the modern term state. It was only in the 16th century that the term came into vogue.
Territory, Laws and Sovereignty: Philimore,' the English. Jurist, pinpoints in his definition·
territory, laws and sovereignty. He says that state is "a people occupying a fixed territory, bound
together by common laws, habits and customs into one body politic, exercising through· the
medium of an organised government, independent sovereignty and control over all persons and
things within its boundaries, capable of making war and peace and of entering into all international
relations with the communities of the globe!'
. Succinct b~t lncomP_lete Definitions: The definitions. given by Bluntschli and Woodrow
Wilson ar~ su~cmct and pi~,hy, but _t~ey are inco_mplete and fail to give a clear picture of state.
Bluntschh defmes state as the poht1cally organised people of a definite territory., Wi]so·
th t t t ... th 1 . d . n says
a s a e 1s e peop e organise for Jaw within a definite territory community ...
. Territory, 1ndependence and Go_vernment: J.W. Gamer mentions community territor
mde~endence ..and government as salient features of state. "If one more defi · f ' b dd yd,
to this long list I would sa th m1 ion may e a e
community ofpe~sons more o?lestnstate as a concept of political science and public law is a
. umerous, permanently occupy· d fi . .
mdependent or nearly so of external control ahd . mg a. e mite portion of territory
the great body of inhabitants render hab"t, I :os~essmg an _o rganized government to which
. comprehensive. i ua O ed_ie~ce." This definition is quite clear and
. Association Acting through Law. R MM . .
with coercive power. He says: "The state.. . . a~•~er speaks of association acting through law
~Ya government endowed to this end with1;::c~soc1ation, which acting through law as promulgated
-uemarcated the un· I ive power: maintai · h'
iversa external conditions of . ' ns wit ma community territorially
Coerci•e Alllho . 1
soc1a order., This d f ..
The State• TL_ rtlJ o,er all Individual d · e mataon also is quite good.
ID aucory d Prac s an Associat'
•tatelmcaoalocietyaof . tice (1967) lays emphas· ions.:_ Harold Laski on page 21 in
---- o this kind h" h . is on coercive a th .
-r---overaoy indi .d w 1c 1s integrated b . u onty. He says : " By a
· vi ual orgrou h" Y possessing a •
P w 1ch is pan of th . coercive authority, legally
e society An ex.a . , .
- · mmation of any national
 STATE ANO ITS NATURE 59

•11 a]ways reveal within its ?oundaries not only individuals but also associ,llions of
rl :• ed tt,gether to promote all_ krn~s of objects, religious, economic, cultural, political. in
0
P e interested. Such a society 1s a state- when the way of life to which both individuals
me~artions must conform is defined by a coercive authority binding upon them all." The
socia · b L k. · ·
on and meaning given y as I gives a correct picture of state.
ti I Use of the Word "State": The word state came into political vocabulary in Renaissance
the early part of t~e. I_6th century. It was not used in the modern sense by the ancient
JJ18l1 writers. To b~gm w1t_h th~ term state wa~ being used in Italy, where Niccolo Machiavelli
rJ) employed_ this term m h~s book The Prince (1513) while dealing with republics and
c;;iJi •es or hereditary monarchies. In France the term etat and in England the term state
cy in the 16th century and in Germany the term state in the 17th century. Since
be applied universally to the body politic.
e Use of the Term: The term state is used by common people carelessly and
as if it is ~quivalent to terms like nation, society, government, country and
of a state (like Karnataka). Political scientists use it in their literature strictly
ith a precise connotation. Here again some confusion has crept in because
have one universally accepted definition or meaning. In ordinary parlance
to is used to •indicate condition. We speak in terms of state of health or

el,ty and $tale: Greeks in their ancient city states drew no line of
and state. In modern totalitarian states governed by dictators like
stinction is not recognised.
between the two is rriade and upheld in modern states. The
n society and state are to be noted:
state.
ork of many kinds of human relationships. It is not
But state is a politically organised society within

sential elements; but a society does not have

I

4. So ·ons and usages, the violation of which

is not pu I !L laws, whose violation is punished in

courts. Thi r coercive power, which th~ state

alone possesses. Go of state.
·S. Society, which has many inds of relationships,
is wider than the state, w .
6. Society with its numerous g es and objectives.
State with only a single poli of upholding a
permanent system of law.

B. ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS OF S
After examining several important defini
essential constituent elements or attributes: (1)
(4) Sovereignty.
 POLITICAL SCIENCE
60

1. Population tial element of state, and it is ob .

essent 'or human beings and not vice vers vious th,,
Most B111ntlal: Population is a very · mean ,, " I t~
tion. S rate is a. l>oPlJJ. ~re
can be no state without popula
be made about the exact p <tt,o~
is inevitably a basic requirement. 'ast rule can opufar1
Siz.• of Popullltion: No hard"'The and 1' proach to a safe rule is to say th at P0n .i s1;i
neares t ap f
bod and a number o persons to be gov 0 Pu1.ir 0 e
1
should have. J.W. Gamer says:
m size~ned, .ind' ~
must be sufficient to provide a governin~ . y., Aristotle favouring a mediu 0 Pu1nr or
course sufficient to support a state organiz ahonh. to be self-sufficient and at the sarne P
enoug umber of peopIe cann~>t e,orm a stat .nie srn o~ ti 1
be J•roe
said that the
enoug h to be
popul ation
efficie ndy
shou Id
ruled. A
-o
vefJ s~:e
II
:hat 25 persons c~ form a state. Gre:k !t is~~
the popular hinker
't
function properly. It is ridiculous to ima&J th sand Sparta believed that 0
number ' n 8ho111~
who were-influenced by the city states ofA:•dea l number at 5,040. This st
neither be too small nor too big. Plato putd'd ~ot figure in this. Aristotle striking ac;~ itu1ed
I
ber says that if few persons cannot mak'a ' ed;Q
11
only citizens and non-citizens and slaves
between too small a number and too big ~nu~e au favoured a smaJI population often the a good
0
increase or dous.ind.
state, so also a hundred thousand cannot. °:au have no validity now.;An
ay change the s:crease
The opinion of thinkers like Plato and Ro:s ratus of a state. though~tim andard
of population within limits docs not affect es
of living and strength of 8 te.
sta th . of population iii taara·
D irabll· Rough ly e size •n dePend
• . ·ons in population may ha on s
Optimum Populalion ,s 8
stat_e.
upon its area and resources. Sweeping ~ana? ay weaken 8 state. So
se •n
Decimation of population by war or epid_~mics:Ome other reason taxes
tate.
population by influx of people from o~ts• e orbecome serious problems to'S
Both over-population and under-~opuJ;ttion_ mayto mothers of many children.
s~ :Y

given J ' 'lies Under Article l~J 2 er

and Fascist Italy, gifts or bounties were arge ,ami · by the title of nero Yiet
·d · to encourage 'Id honoured
Soviet Russia state a, wa~ given . .. • • er.
Constitution, mothers beanng IO or more chi :en ar~ 1 at1on 1s a se .,.
. severa1modern countr ies mclud mg India the nsmg popu . 00 ...
On the other hand, rn fi
.cture is different in the West, where a ew countries face the
threat to the resources. The Pl
. .
problem of under-population.
modern states.
Contrast in Figures: Agreat contrast in population figures can _be noted rn_
India have reached
While the states of Panama and San Marino have only a few lakhs, Chm a and
World Bank and
the staggering figures of nearly 1.35 and 1.25 billion respectively. (Sources:
US Census bureau) 2013.
or mar a
Nature and Character of People: The nature and charact~r of people can make
ard and lethargic
state. While sick, easy going, physically weak, illiterate, ignorant, mentalJy backw
in tel Iigent, educated,
people can hardly build a flourishing state, healthy, physically strong, diligent,
climatic conditions
disciplined and dynamic people can make a state truly great. RaciaJ factors and
only good citizens
have great influence on the population of a state. Aristotle wisely said that
ation far beyond
make a_ good state, while bad citizens make a bad state. India has a large popul
by the phenomenal
her national means. The effects of planning on a large scale are neutralised
made tremendous
increase i~ population. Japanese, Germans and Jews are examples of peoples who
their extraordinary
~rogr~ss mall fields and won the encomium of people all over the world by
_mtelhgence and hard work in spite of heavy odds.
 STATE ANO ITS NATURE 61

rrltOrY . . . . .
j. 1'e Essential: Like population. fixed territory 1s a very essential element of state, though
'11'1 Jike Sir John Seeley, Hall and Duguit do not think so. Obviously there cannot be
~• uthors territory, wh"1ch 1s
· a bas1c· requiremen
· t.
sO ithout
state"' )itical unity and desire to form a state are not enough. People need actual territory
fde~ ::anise themselves politically into a state. Until 1948. when Palestine was par~itioned
u1ean Jews and the Arabs, the former could not have a state of their own. The Jewish soul
:""een thebody in the f~rm of Israel, thei~ cherished state. Territory is absolutely essential f~r
sec:11red t~e and for marking the clear frontiers of the jurisdiction of a particular state. Nomadic
..ipien•~•P t any fixed territory cannot form a state.
"' w1thOU . .
ltli,es . g: The word territory includes the surface of the land, the sub- soil, lakes and
"'':':so air space above the land within _well-defined boundaries. Generally ter_r_itory
- an ntiguous territory; but there are ex~ept1ons . Alaska, the 49th State, and Hawa11~ the
ea 0 fthe USA are separated from mainland. During the period 1947-1972 East Pakistan
- ~ desh) was separated from West Pakistan by .about a thousand miles of Indian territory.
~ the territorial frontiers of a state extend over a distance of three miles of the sea
~t line. But in 1982, the 3rd UN Conferenc e on law of the seas (UNCLOG S) accepted
0
miles as the territorial seas of a State and extended their sovereignt y far beyond the
distance of 3 miles. The sovereignty of a state is also applicable to the air space
•stance on the sea and in the air over which the sovereignty of a state can extend has
by agreement among states. . ·
· ry: As in the case of population . no rigid rule or standard can be prescribed
of territory of a state. Some states are very large in size, while there are states
1size. For example, the area of the USSR and the USA are 8,336,510 square
square miles respectively; but those of San Marino and Monaco are 38
oare miles respectively. The Vatican city since 1929, over which the Pope
·n the centre of Rome, has an area of 109 acres only. Greek city states
ool of Bellas (Greece) which was the greatest, were small.
ference to the population , the natural resources and other factors,
be fixed
.
roughly,
. though this is not easy by any means.
urces: The progress of a state depends much on its natural
water supply, rich fauna and flora, great mineral wealth
large but poor territory which is landlocked . Size has
d arid.
ern times in the context of global politics and
race t territorial states enjoy their own substantia l
advantages. intain a high standard of living and to
promote the welfare m the defence and strategic point of
view too, a large size is noted that size alone does not
make a state strong or prospero ve this. A small country
like England became a world power, England remained in
the~background. Japan, a small country highly advanced
in industrialisation and technolog y rising itself. As a
rille. the large size of territory is an asset to Super
 POLITICAL sc1ENCE
62 one of wh ich is the large ritor
s , •& · n , t an d the · ter
. ry ow ing to va rio us fac tor 1ca 1r ve ry ex. y
18 ten ce' .~h; ,
Powers m the 20th centu d . sign11 . 1
'k la an d M on ac o are tin y an ,n 1s IJ
sta tes , J1 e Guate ma . .
tes th
0
1
wi de ly kn ow n. es of su cc ess rn sm all sta
world. Democra cy h an in th
mo cra cy has greater cha~c e in the b;~
Th e arg um en t tha t de
of act ua l ex pe ne n~ an Ind onesia, Sri Lanka ;s tnisere
the lig ht wh; nkista 11 ilbi,
on es do es no t hold wa ter in tin Am eri can Sta
s
t~ • rial ;tares like the USA
failed in small states lik e the La at s:e federal ;:"d
it ha s su cc ee de d we ll in big terr_it~dturions have found g;e 0
Pe. lli,
Bangladesh, Whereas r an d loc al sel f-g ov ern ing in ·
decentralisati6 n of po we
-~..,....11rlri& bo(lv~,, is the instrum'en to r rna h
3. Government ru r gor111 •~•e persons in a state cannot b c. irict),
Meaning: Governm en t, wh
its wi
ich is
ll,
the
enf ont O
,n_
Jt an
d
aie
act
of.
.AU
tbO JP.!G
t OOSJIM entrusted With 11 the t; 1

used by the sta te to exprCfS O nl ~o ns,1 1 · - , caJJed gover~ Work

ll of th es ~
ru lin g bo dy to enforce th~ wi ~ !4' i1 ~P ,~ B cuJarn, mean · fllent.
lf of the sta te. ~ of state ing the
of ac tin g for an d on, beha gin all y de n . .:o. fi. U~
ori
Th e ter m government was vessel. ThedcYJC0~
•
r ste eri ng a f Orms or
de vic e required fo
1
ver nm cnw u
thout the_go . b l~
A sta te cannot function wi l'~ an d :..d j
lllent
ocr ati c, mo na rch ica
government: despotic, dem Jelris1auve , .. 1
.ml y three branches: execut'v J e• o· th
e
has ma d r. punishingaJ we l
Jaw an d e •
Du tie s· Maintaining
OJ'I
th gen er,
and promoting e
pr ote cti ng the Jaw-abiding
• Th difference
government. an . d Go ver nm en t. e
un derstood.
S h Id be
Di ffe re nc e between 'fate 5 ulation o
d go ve rn me nt as use d in po litical science touOJider:• state reg •
an p eopJe speak about sta eder: government regulatJon
as synonymous termsy.only mean, government Oli ' .
and so on. By this the noted.
d overnment. may be . .
property and so on . .
ence between state an g
The following points of differ nt is only its part or on e of.Jts. ele me nts .. . .
. d me .
ern limits
1. State 1s the whole, an •gov ·mmunity or whole popuJatJOn w1.thm the ter. rit on al. . •
2 State stands ,or t e ent
& h ,re co ed to w1e1d leg1t1mate
t ans on ly a group of persons authoris
· whereas governmen me
state.
coercive power on behalf of the ly derives it
rem e po we r is ves ted in the whole state. Government on
3. Sovereignty or sup
it on behalf of the state.
• from the state and exercises rnment is
ng , sta te is an ab str act co nc ept; on the oth er ha nd , gove
4. ·comparatively speaki ter m Go vernment of In dia is conc ret
e, when
cre te. Ob vio usl y, the
something that is con State of India or Republic of
In dia.
h the rel ati vel y ab str act ter m
compared wit
go ver nm ent is no t. Go ve rnm ents are rel ati ve ly temporary,
5. State is relatively permanent; the ge ne ral election res ult s or so me oth
er
l acc ord ing to
as they may change or fal nu ity , as long as it wields so ve rei gn
ty.
, sta te enj oy s co nti
cause. Unlike government
4. Sovereignty me
on e of the fou r co nst itu en t ele ments of sta te, means supre
Meaning_: Sove~eign~, which is ter na l fie lds . InternaJJy it means the su
pre me
int ern al and ex
power. It mamfests itself m the
 STATE AND ITS NATURE 63

f tate to regulate, control, coerce and punish aJI individuals or groups of individuals or
powe~;i:ns wit~in_ the territorial limits of state. Externally it stands for complete i ndependenc~.
,ssoCJ . the external sphere does not take orders from any foreign state or power. However, m
,4 state JD ational field a state may subject itself to treaties, agreements and other obligations.
dJC ;ntern are accepted on a strictly voluntary basis. ·
t these
9 11 'f)le USA, the USS~ and ~ndia or B~arat are examples of full_-fledged States having all the
tituent element~ mcludmg sovereignty. California which is a part of the USA or Karnataka
0
fourc
. h JS?s 8 part of India is not a state . in the same sense as it has only three elements: people .
,
wlu.c nd government, but not sovereignty, the most essential element. California is an autonomous
tett1to;r ~e USA, a federation. Karnataka ~s an autonomous state of India, a federation. T~us the
state rovince of a state cannot be considered as a full-fledged state as it lacks sovereignty.
unnorP . • .
Comprehensive, Exclusive and Permanent: Sovereignty can be regarded as comprehens1 ve,
·ve and permanent supreme power of the state. It may be regarded as the soul of the state;
e*cJusi state loses sovereignty, it ceases to be a state and is reduced to the position of other
8
ben . dons or associations in the state. Internally there should be no rival or parallel organisation
~~~ similar supreme power. !here ~annot _be two states within the territorial li":'its of a
'A state does not ~hare ~overeignty ei~her w1t_h any association within the state or with other
A state has a will of Its own and this remains unaffected by the will of any other state or
• ternal organisation.
ed of international Recognition: No state ~s completely isolated from the rest of the
ft has got to have dealings with other states in the world, which has become "small"
me elimination of time and distance by modern means of transport and communication,
logical developments. Besides the four essential elements or attributes, a state needs
a state from other states. But it should be made very clear here that the failure to
rtain state by orie or few-states in the world does not deprive it of its statehood.
ot be regarded as an indispensable attribute. Israel continues to be a state, even
do not recognise it. Recognition was not given to the USSR by the USA and
r more than a decade since its birth after the Bolshevik. Revolution in
le's Republic of China had to wait for many years to secure recognition
USA since the completion of the Chinese Revolution in 1949.

ociation is a group of people, who organise themselves for

·ng to certain rules and procedure mutually agreed
a loose gathering of people. It is an organised
methods of achieving them. There are various
typeSO rent purposes. They render useful services
to members an aps advantages. if associations function
efficiently and sm enrich the lives of citizens, who
find their lives more p ociations. They also become
better and more enlighten ists like Harold Laski,
Maciver, G.D.H. Cole and oth and argue for arming
them with sovereignty, as, in their te. The Pluralist
viewpoint is discussed elsewhere.
64 POLITICAL scieNCI:
. . . . 35
to be clearly under stoo
The distmct1on
. . between state and associauon h ns permanently living . . Withid.
. . 1· Association Membership Voluntary: All persors or citizens of the state n lhe terr· 0
limi_ts of the state automatically become the me~b:0 meet their obligations to. 1!hey h/ tiai
choices. They cannot refuse to be members and fa.ii On the other hand, the rne e state "e ri
shall pay taxes and discharge other duties as citizens, ced to become the mernber tnbership. 't~e~
a . . . a...- coer of or J
ssociation 1s purely voluntary. Nobody can ever iation, a rer·i&1. ilri
. . h r assoc
LI"
11
association, sports club, labour union or any ot e
. . . Jy spea
king is permanent; but an
d I d asso .1
° ~

2• A ssoc,ation Temporary·. A state relauve ome Uu• -...,e • an c ose b own owing to cfi atiOri .
tern.porary. An association may work only for s •<>te can never e closed down G inan .is
'ffi l . d rs ofas.... . . ov c1il
d I icu ties or lack of interest in members, The oo I ong as I·t enjoys sovereignty. .
ernll)eriI1
by territor·
may c h ange or fall, but the state continues . . as •No assoC1•ation• is restricted O
f . •al fr0 11
3. No Territorial Limits for Associations, nd the fronuers _a ~tate _and Its rnernb tier8
The membership of an association may go beY~ n 1ntern ational assoc1at10n like the Red Cers r tti ii}'.
b 1· h
in many states if it happens to ea . h . strictly Joca rn c aracter. In the casoss. "I
be found .
A
, . . wh1C is . b d h. h .
t he same time, there may be an assoc1auon, . ·aJ fronuerS, eyon w ic it wr·Its ce311or a
. . . . 1•ts territon 1
state its sovereignty is strictly hm1ted by no
run. has sovereignty, which enables it to
tate alone · t d exer ·
4. State Sovereignty Exclusive: Thessoc1at1on . . enioys sovereign Y, an every assocj . cise
. N eig b d' at1011 .
coercive
. power over its members. 0 as
All associa I .
'J
t·ons are non-sover f n ° •es.
. . Me rn be is
subJect to the sovereignty of the.state. ·oJate 1aw,. but members o11 danf association cannotr bor
. .
vi maY be fined or expe e d rom · f ·associat· n f e
th an
citizens of a state are punished, 1f theymbers 10

arrested or imprisoned. At the most, me t even to sentence a person to . ea h, 1 its court of I or

contravening
. its rules. A state is competen
. • can ever 1 •magine to exercise . sue
. a power Over aw •
1
gives such a verdict. But no associationew associa . ti·ons or order assoc1at1ons to close d own 1•s
members. A state has power to create n . b ve all associations. if
. me and 1s a o .
th ey are contrary to Jaw. It 1s supre of an association established to ach,e
. . A ti,iJJ· The scope
5. Limited Scope ofAssociattlJn c_ • m·c commercial, cultural, political or lit Ve1
. 1 . . h' h ay be social econo i ' . . f h. eran,
a particu ar obJect1ve, w 1c m 'd th stricted field of activity or w 1ch it has b
is limited. An association does not go beyon e_r\y is very wide, almost without limits een
started. On the other hand, the scope o( state acUVJ ·

D. CoMMUNITY AND JNSTJT(JTIONS .

·· . . A · o•ganised society has _within i~s~Jf ~norganised grou
Meaning of CommuniJJ: we11- '' ·
· •31100 JD M Ps
called communities. A COJIIIIIUIIUY is quite diffete~I from 311 •••"':' · • • ~bbot says on
. Th S . d th r:,-.zen (1958)· "According to Maciver, the essential differenc
page 81 m e u1te an e """ · . . . . e
between a community and an association is that an assoc1at1on is orga~1s~d a~d community is
5
not." A group of persons becomes a community, when_~e peop~e con t1tutmg it (grou~) evolve
common traditions, customs,eonventions, manners, religious behefs and common consciousness.
In India feelings ofJanguag~ religion and caste bind the people into a community more than any
other factor. But die people in the community are not organised. For instance, in a locality of the
city of Mum~ the .Marathi language, Hindu religion and Deshastha Brahman caste may be
factors bindiD_g ,--ple into a commwuty, without any leader organising them into a compact
group. The people of a communiO' may belong to a certain locality, village, town, prov i nee or
state; but~l~ngmgtoth~locali!f is not the most important factor. What is of importance is the
~vo®mmuJJJttfeeJing, dlough.its~ may beacJttered over several localities.

,.
 65
STATE ANO ITS NATURE

rving in the various parts of the city of Mumbai form n community, as they arc bound b~
SifldhiS 'religion. language, culture and hopes and aspirations. It needs emphasis here 1hat a f
,ott1"'.o"do not reside in the sai:ne locality in Mumbai. Gujarat is scattered in the various p~ns o a
5i11dh•• ore cilY are a community bound by several factors. While on association is organ1 ~cd,;t
cJ'le r4ys itY of persons b~und by_ common mores. language , religion and other fact_ors is n
O "'"'und r-. o.H. Cole gives a fairly clear definition of community on page 25 in Social Theory
corS• 111·se · u-
• ••BY a community
· I mean a co~_p lex of social life, a complex including a num b c r of
(1930)·i,ean • gs living togeth er u nder conditions of social relationship bound together by a common.
h . k f . . s to
11u01•n r constantly c angrn~ st0~ 0 conventions. customs and traditions nnd consciou.
a.o'lle"e t of common social obJects and interests " In a way family members form a small
•• ,tten b bl d · · . .
rt1e e . held together Y oo ltes, affection and loyalty
s0 urutY . . ·
,ortlfll . e of Community: A community may be very small or very large. At the tower level a
Sit.. rnaY be located in a home in the form of a family At the highest level, the people of
unity d . Id
cof!lfll world in a very broa sense form a community. In between the family and the wo_r
1
thC who~ there are thousands of communities. For instance the people of India as a nataon
unity . h l , . . h. h e
,oJ!J11l cornmunity.1:hen tlt t_ e_ owe~ level there are communities bound by rellgt0n, w 1~ V:
.,,atce 8 l{indu. Mushm, Chn stian, Sikh and Parsi. Then there are communities called PunJabis.
naarne 85 •s Gujaratis, Maharashtrians, Bengalis, Andhrites, Kannadigas. Tamilians. Malaya lees
ttaJ·asthanl 'who have Ianguage as a um· f ymg · factor.
d others. . . .
an d ntages ofCommunity: Acommumty confers distinct advantages on its members. whethei
ti ,,~
Jive 1n the same locality or are in far-flung . areas. (1) a community provides great emotional
theY . 0 (2) It promotes understanding and co-operation. (3) It provides a sense of safety,
saU·sfacuo . ·oneness and umty. · (4) It adds to the material comforts and conveniences of 11 e .
·f
Protecuon. . . I 1· . . "
Meaning ofJnstitu_tions: ns ~tuttons c~n~t1tute_ a _sy~tem or body of us ages, la~s o~ reg~ a t •
l t· ons
sive and recurring operation contammg wtthm ttself an organism by which 1t effects its
of ex_te;ependent action, continuance and generally its own further development." (Lieber quoted
10
own l64 by M. Ruthnaswamy in The Making of the Modern State - 1932). Family, property,
page caste, s 1avery, totem1sm,
onarriage, · en d ogamy, an d exogamy are some of the 10st1tut1ons.
· · ·
rn Chamber's Twentieth Century Dictionary gives a clear and comprehensive meaning of
jJIStitution: "The act of instituting o~ establishing:_ tha_t which is instituted or established: foundation:
blished order: enactment: a society or organisation established for some object, esp. cultural,
e 5 la itable or benef.1c1ent · or th e b U1·1d·mg h ousmg · · a custom or usage, esp. one f am1·1·iar or
1t:
ch ar h. h . . .
characteristic: that w 1c institutes or instructs: a system of principles or rules . . . ."
General Acceptance of Institutions: Institutions need recognition of and general acceptance
by society. It is only the san~tion by society which makes an institution valid and meaningful. A
custom looked down by society and not sanctioned by it cannot become an institution.
Human Groups and External Form of Institutions: The term institution is sometimes
used to indicate not only ideas and usages , but actual human groups like army, navy, church and
state. In a sense, therefore, an institution can also be regarded as an instrument or structure or
framework of an association. GD.H. Cole says that an idea needs some external form or communal
custom to be an institution. "An idea is not an institution merely because it is widely or generally
held or accepted. It is an institution only if, in addition to being so accepted, it is embodied in
some external form of social structure or communal custom, either in an association or in some
ictual form of social behaviour." The custom of learning assumes an external form when a
school is established. The habit of praying gets an external structure in the form of a temple,

- J-US
 66 POLITICAL SCIENCE ourse of ti me th
•
- rakes in c e forll)
The practice of giving medicin•~er11seh'es in th e shape of a 8Yll)kh or <1
church, mosque or agiary.
· I G . . t J)ise LI' nal structures. ana
.... h osp1ta . ames played dally over a long pen~d c~ys _a wHh e"ter . ·
1 th
School, temple, hospital and gymkhana are mstttuuons dare not en~s ~ .emselves. \Vh·
. 05es an I' some institutions like I rlc
Bad Institutions: Institutions serve social purp and usefu . •ous institutions. Obs ave1y
110
many institug on~ like marriage and family are hea!t:~ter11 are pei;~:minated easily. )(iou;
sati, child marriage, female infanticide and devadasi {oo
hard to b
institutions, which strike deep roots in the soil, are
E. THEORIES OF NATURE OF STAT.Ed contrO"ersies about th e " st ure_of the state 1.
. It we have at our disposal se 11
81 5
Eminent authors have speculated a~d ' . ~ce. /U a res~c~Jar angle. Mon istic, Monactt~al
political science, which is an inexact social s~:hrou&h a part~e brought under 4 types, accor~~rc,
theories explaining the nature of the stace, ea\e theories can 'Ilg
Dualistic and Organic Theories: The speculatl . al forming the state have no Sep
5
to one classification. . th otY: incJividu_ .c units in the whole mass aratc
. h Monist1c e ' "ato.rrusU ., ' each
(1) Monistic: According tot e s theY are . d existence.
existence or individuality of their ow~O~e for its continue Individualistic) theory says th
dependent on the other and upon ew • his a)sQ 1cnown ~~ not depend ing on one anoth at
th
d 'stic (wbic ined un• er
(2) Monadistic: The M ona I are scJf..conta I of the state. ·
society is a group· o~ individ~als, ~t:ven wilfloUtthe h~ :eiween the Monistic and Monadisr
The indi~idua) can hve and ~iv_e we s~esa¥famed.i~8 without either being merged wi:~
(3) Dualistic: The DuahsUc the ~ ffi 41~ 1:Ced from others.
O
JI
· that every perso or 1so
theories. when 1t says . . pJetd unity as in the case of a biological
others in the group or being com as a
(4) Organic: The Organic
organism.
the state can be classified into 5
JURISTIC, 0RG-,.··~
pc,ntract, and (5) Marxian,
Contract and
types: (1) Juristi~
1. Juristic. Th
r,be state was formed for
e individual. It is the
1 0Je source of law." J

distinct personal ity

words and acts. It j
The state can sue
and
crea
0
own property,
it themselves
s die. Hence
I
• The state
e of future
 1

STATE AND ITS NATURE 67

B,aluation: A brief evaluation of the theory may bc made.
u,rit: The theory clearly expresses the J·ur,·st'
IP' · f •
S potnt O VteW.
Defects: _The theory has serio~s defects. (1) The theory fails to explnin the true nature of
the state. T~~ ~de~s put forwa rd by It are all imaginary, and writers like Leon Duguit nnd
Le Fur
stt0ngly cnticis~ •~·_J.W. Garne~ s~y~ on page 189 in Political Science and Govern ment ( 1955):
"'J'he idea of a f~ct~t~ous person is 10 Ilse.If, easy to understand; but what is not easy to explnin is
tbC idea that a fictitiou s ~erson may be inves.ted with rights of power. The state is not a fi~tion;
it is a real fact, the n_1° st importa nt of all social facts." To regard a real-politicnl organis ation as
fictitiou s _personaht~ sou nd s prepo sterous. (2) The theory explains only the jurist's
8 point of
vieW, ignorin g th e v~no~s aspects ~f the stllte. The real nature of the state as an organis ation
•aung at commo n objectives and havmg heavy obligations towards the individual is not explain
:y the theory. The state cannot be a legal entity, which is blind to human welfare and happine
ed
ss.
2• Organic Theory
The Organi c or Organis mic theory which is very old says that the state is to be conside
red
as a real living organis m. It is an organic unity - "a living spiritual being."
Ancient and Mediev al Suppor ters of the Theory ' : A brief referen ce may be made to the
ancient and mediev al support ers of the theory.
The analogy between the individual and the state is found in the works of Plato. He compar
ed
the state to a magnifiecl individ ual striking a parallelism between the functio ns of a
state and
those of human body. Similar thought is found in the works of Aristotl e and the Roman
writer
Cicero..Aristot le spoke in terms of the symmetry of the state and the symme try of
the human
body. Compa ring the state to the human body, Cicero said that the head of the state was
like the
spirit ruling the human body.
In the middle ages, the theory found express ion in the political thought of St. Thoma
s
Aquinas and Marsig lia of Padua. St. Paul considered the church as a mystica l body
with Jesus
Christ as head. Th~ Greek and Roman writers, and Christian writers later made it
a habit to
compar e society and smaller groups to the human body.
The theory took the route to the modern times in the works of Hobbes and Rousse au.
In the
thought of Hobbes , the state is like a big monster known as the Leviathan., who is "an
artifici al
man, though of greater strength and stature than the natural. " Rousse au says that state
like the
human body has motive powers off free will. The state IegisJative power is like the heart
and the
executi ve power is like the brain. The theory found good champi ons in German politica
l thinker s
like Fichte, Schaffl e and Bluntsc hli. Bluntsc hli emphas ized that the state is a comple
te " image
of the human organis m." Further he said that the state should be regarde d as mascul
ine and the
church as feminin e. In France, writers like Auguste Comte, Ft>nillee and Rene Worms
suppor ted
the theory. In Englan d the theory found a very powerful expone nt in Herber t Spence
r, English
philoso pher and sociolo gist ( 1820-1903), who wrote the Princip les of Sociolo gy and other
books.
Accord ing to the ancient and mediev al thinkers, the state is like ~n organis m. (But
to the
em thinker s the state is an organis m.) In the state there is comple te inter-de penden ce
among
"duals constitu ting it. The state does not merely mean a sum total of the number of individuals,
complete unity, which can be found in a living organis m (like a human being or an animal) .
ividual s in the state functio n in harmon y (and none of them can be isolated ) just as
the
nes, muscle s, nerves and blood fully co-oper ate with one another as parts of the same
ganism. The state has no meanin g withou t individ uals, and the individ uals have
no
 POLmCAL sc1eNCI:
68
orga . • w en divorced from the state, AS particular functions are assigned
meaningful
spec·nsI m a role
body, m
h. the. state too different departments are charge
. d with
. the perf to d"•fFer
M ,a types of functions. ormanc•oren,

ODERN EXPONENTS OF TIIE ORGANIC faEORY

h State an Individual· The 19th centur)' political thinkers, who came under the i fl
ttoethe
Theory
t of Evolution ' ;poke of the state in ·term• of person" and "individual". Thney uencc
·
11 th · ref or
s ate as an actual individual instead of comparing to a person, us going a ste erred
the ancient and medieval thinkers in consolidating the the<>r)'• The emphasis was lite: 1i°head Of

~
metaphorical, as in the case of ancient and ,nedieval thinkers, In1Germany, B luntschal. and no
ver "A ·J • • rn
Y conspicuous statement on the state as an organism, s an ° parnttng is someth • •de
t

than a combination of drops of oil, as a statue issomething more than a m~re quality of ng mo,:
blood corpuscles, so the nation is something more than a mere aggregatton of citize ells •nd
state something more than a mere collection of external regulations." ns and the
Spencer's orgaalc neor1: Herbert spencet in England became a very staunch st
of the Organic ThCOIY· Jljs the<>r)', which conunanded great attention of political scien;dvocaie
be summarized as follows: . ' ths may0
I. SocUIY a N(Jllll'Ol Org.,.;s,,,.· society is Jike a na111ral organism, and betwe
tbeie ue no l,alic differences- Both begin as germs and grow continuousi°" e tw
,row, d,eir p,rts..,.. to be simple and beeome more and more compIex• a n more
-;;.,n,dil'(elellL J'
As they
•nd

~ and F,utcdons: Society and a Ii ving organism are struc tu 11 st

.
~oa alonl similar fines, If a living organism has mouth gulrla Y mi Iar:
,,ocietv.has
::r SUSf81nJDg,. . distnibubng
. and regulating systems ' If et' sto mach
r, ;,erves and blood corpuscles,. the state has rai Iway j-mes,
an telegraph
organ ism

to~ ~ individuals in a state correspond t

. di and new ones
1...._,. •
are created ind· _od the cells
' 1v1 uals .
IA.!Otr11cuon of a few cells does not br"in a
~wi,o a few individuals does not mean
mg

' to co-operate ' 1· f 1· t IS

. to
the co-opefation of
. or paralysed; so
g of the whole

ttogether in
widely
 STATE ANO ITS NATU RE
69
soc!al body it is not centr alise d but spread out every wher e. It was this
poin
t of cont rast
whic h w~s mad e by Spen cer as the basis of his indiv
idual istic polit icnl philo soph y.
3. No Spec ific _Extehrnal Form: A socie ty does not have
livin g orga nism as. a defin ite exte rnal form . as a

It seems stran ge tha~ S~e~ cer ~h~ eloqu ently expo unde
d the Orga nic theo ry shou ld also
r.w. orne the aut~ ?r of _md1v1duahstac polit ical philo
Garner, Polit ical Scie nce and Gove rnme nt, 19 ).
55
soph y. (See Page s 200 and 204.

f;\'ALUATION OF ORG ANI C THE ORY

The Orga nic th eory _was wide ly supp orted , and it beca
me fashi onab le in the 19th cent ury to
·Jce biolo gical com pans ons.
8111
The meri ts and draw back s of the Orga nic theor y may
be brief ly ment ione d.
M•ritS: With all the infir mitie s from which the Organic theor y
suffe rs, it shou ld not be
arded as abso lut~l y wort hless a~d mi~le~ding. It has its own
merits. (1) As R. G. Gett ell puts
~•th e theory unde rlm~ s the essen tial um~y m the state
. "The Orga nic theo ry has a certa in_valu e
!" emphasizing the u~ity of the stat~, the m_terd~pen~ence of
the indiv idua ls that com pose 1t, and
ill radual and cont inuo us evol ution of Jts h1sto
ncal grow th. In this respe ct it was a usef ul
t11e.:ote to the eigh teen th centu ry theo ry that view
ed the state as a mech anica l and artif icial
::do n of ma~,. whic h _could be rema de at his pleas
ure, regar dless of histo ry and tradi tions ."
page 111, Pohu cal Sc1e~ce, 1~56~. _(2) Spen cer also emph
asize d that socie ty shou ld ~ot . be
( arded as a mere colle ction of md1v1duals, beca use it is much
rel more than that with its umf ymg
bond.
Drawbacks: The draw back s of the theo ry more than coun
terba lance the meri ts.
· 1. Fanc iful and Absu rd: The theo ry is the prod uct
of imag inati on total ly divo rced from
reali ty. It .fails to carry conv ictio n, and Spen cer hims
elf admi ts that the rese mbla nce
betw een a state and a livin g orga nism is not comp lete.
2. No Life for Cell s Sepa rate dfro m Body : The simil arity
struc k by Spen cer is supe rfici al
and not real. It is inco rrect to equa te the cells of a body
to the indiv idua ls of a state , as
the form er do not have a will of their own and die when
sepa rated from the body . Cell s
exist for the sake of the body and not vice versa. On
the othe r hand , the indiv idua l in
the state is not only free in body, but free in mind too.
3 . .Vast Diffe renc e betw een Orig in ofAnim als and Soci
al Bodi es: A vast diffe renc e can be
note d betw een the origi n of a biolo gical orga nism and
a socia l body. An anim al body is
the resu lt of sexu al inter cour se, whil e socie ty emer ges
when man y hum an bein gs com e
together in a com plex netw ork of man y kind s of relat
ionsh ips, and a state is born whe n
socie ty is polit icall y orga nised for law and orde r in
a give n terri tory.
No Old Age and Deat h for State : Anim als take food and
wate r, brea the, defe cate, grow
old and ultim ately die. The state does not undergo such an expe
rienc e. It may be appr opria te
to say that the state chan ges with the pass age of time
. Ther e is noth ing like deat h to a
state , unle ss it is conq uere d by anot her state and
its sove reign ty is extin guis hed .
• Spencer's Cont radic tory Conc lusio ns: Adm itting flaw
s in his own stand and mov ing
ontrary to the spiri t of his own theor y, Spen cer build
s up the theo ry of indiv idua lism .
ile on the one hand , he comp ares indiv idua ls to cells
, on the othe r, he spea ks in
70
POLITICAL SCIENCE olutism. and the
ter f . . . 5 rate abs second
_ms O individualism. The First principle results in rradictory to each other.
brmgs in laissez-faire. Thus the two conclusions are con does not tackle the Prob1
6 . Vague on State Functions and Duties: The Organic th:oZes not clearly spell out
of the functions and duties of the state. It is vague ~:. .
w~:
the state is supposed to do for the good of the peoP 11a11ges- and impr?v~s as a resu1
ruoes C h parts of a II vmg orga . t
7 · No Volition in Cells of Organism: A state un d e-~ -011 • sut t ~ O wn will nisl'll
th
of the conscious efforts of people, who have voel~~ent of eir to be u~ed with
· . 1 ,, indeP it has utrn 0 8
grow m a natural way "unconscious .Y, h organ••c theorY• nd a living orga • t
he state a n1srn i
C onclusion: Owing to the serious flawsb int e d .....tween t d rstood and analogies bet"· n
· · foun "" 11n e · "een
caution. Though it is true that similarity can e 5110uJd
be
several respects, the basic difference between th e tWO •

the two should not be stretched too far. . the I 7th century.
f the state roseistic t eory- looks
3. Mechanistic Theory •~ h upon nature
. • ture o
The Mechanistic theory explainipg na . ~ fhe Meehan O is one, who created societ '
Nature Society and State as MecJianU'!iiaoio. and J118P ct~Theory says that the univers~
' N e is a JJl- ..1 Contra ·k th ·
uni"erse," L1 e e universe, rnan
society and state as mechanisms. acur fthesocJ~
a~d state. Thomas Hobbes, one of the autbo~t:JDCS of die gre,t _. .
is a machine, and "man is microcosm. an ep . bich is operated by man, the
himself is a machine. :i•~ a: ,nacbine, :Ce as a building is constructed
State Also like a Build!"~:. : ~ . : 80 .illOhitcPt. 'fhe s I or demolish the old structure
mechanic. It is also like a bu1Iding
through a contract or conventio}M f the nature of the state can be
~ of the state cannot
0
of the state and build a new~ be explained
. h
Unsatisfactory 2 The theory ignores t e forces
rejected.outright as un tual origin and evolution of
in such a simple the state are side-tracked,
that served as ab iSIP bas beer:i f~llaciously

ry, political thinkers

given. -al Thought (1974):
lated atoms - as
criti · study man apart
&•J so dear to the
true analysis of
 STATE ANO ITS NATURE 71

,ne• to Contract in History: Histor i

'~ ncient Greek and Roman p 1• .Y lg ves examples of social contract. whose germs
. Greece heId
d JDtathe state was the product ofo it1ca thought · Thc Sop h'1sts .in ancient
1
di•Rome, where jurists said that t:ev:~:tary agreement (among men) Similar thought
i~ In BibJical thought also ther p r of Roman Emperor was based on the consent
Pe. t Theory in the works of H b:wail ace for contract. Great prominence was given
ontrafCRevolutions ( 1750- 1850) ~ es_. ocks and Rousseau , the famous contractu d
al ists.
f t he
oe o t · their violent assault merican and French R evo
I · ·
u11onaries ma c use o
" I0 h
contrac son t e old order of oppressive royal absolutism .
,.. ding Concept of Nature of State·· The contractual1sts . .
,.a the state. 1.p. Suda correctly sums give n misleading concept of
up h' • on the contract .
of Political Science
.· is view theory on page 174
(1952): "The st t · .
nts of .
of
. ..
Its
a e is something made directed and controlled
•
citizens · The theory thus directs . • •
Ct of will on the part attention to the arll fic~al
tlJlal a
1·gnores ·Its natural aspects. It degrades the state to
entJO . and.entirely
· nal side of the state .
el of a t,usi~~ss concern m which 1_nd ividuals are bound together by the purely voluntary
,elf-interest. T~e th e~ry clearly fai!s. to ~xplain convincingly the origin and nature of the
tis unable to give sausf~c~o_ry c_lanfica~ion on the points raised regarding the making of
nuact. (1) How could pnmi~ive mexp~nenced people in the earliest stage of civilization
0
f JDaking a contract and having a political organisation? (2) Even if we take it for granted,
ontract was made, how could the original contract bind the parties long after the death of
tb• •.:i1es that made the original contract?
th
'W:s,,ong Criticism and ~ejection of the Theory: Many political thinkers including Austin,
e Bentham, Lieber, Mame and Green have criticised the theory in the strongest possible
II~ · d 1't• "Utterly false" , "wo rthl ess" , "f'1ct1on .
· " and "rattle" are expressio ns used to
rrns and reJecte
te unce the theory. (We have occasion to take up the theory again later in connection with the
deno
· origin of the state).
5• Marxian Theory
State a Class Structure: The Marxian theory, which was put forward by Karl Marx and
Engels in the 19 the century, s~ys th~t the state is a class-structure. The state arose in the course
0
~ onomic development, which witnessed two classes struggling with each other. On the one
side at all stag~s there were haves ~nd on the other side the have-nots. These two classes which
em!;lFd in society were irreconciliably opposed to each other. The state came to be controlled
by slave drivers and property owners in the btginning and by industrial capitalists. The haves
ru essly opposed the have-nots, and a terrific class struggle became the feature of society. The
hich is a class structure, is used by the property-owners and exploiters to the detriment
landless and propertyless masses of people. ..
.
tltlclsm: The Marxian theory can be criticised on various grounds. ( 1) If fails to· explain
nature of the state, in the same way in which it fails to explain the true forces which
state (2) It is thoroughly biased in favour of the workers and the exploited. Its coloured
ead us, while we try to understand the nature of the state. (3) It is obsessed with the
c interpretation of histo~y and the struggle between haves and have-nots. (4) It gives
i&Jy to one of the factors in the nature of the state, that is, force. ·
72 poLITICAL sc1ENCE

6. Conclusion about the Nature of the State . eoce about the true nature
We may draw the following points of infer . nature of the state of
• s (he t rue a ndthe st ate,
1. No theory fully and correctly e,cpI3111 The controversies raised· we h · 0
up particles of truth from ever/ ibeOr'f~1ted io much coofusion regarding''• th 1 1.
of the.state by various theories ha~ dingresth e nature of the state
. is. th at .It 1. e 11~~,tt~
0
2. The most reasonable view cerr1torY· It is neither an organism
reg8! nor a Produ s a P 1.,r
• . . •
orgamsed society rn a g1veo . .
0
''•1i~
ct of a SI\..
contract. . but at the same ume it has t "''qi
• power, 1. 1·t · dep
3. The state has to use coercive b rs 10 re• ,se s aims. We now •nd u1
consent and cooperation of its .,em,•
h to be 1PVOA• _,;ably legitimate. Uphold ~"' 1tb
e v· e
that the exercise of power as to go far beyond performing it e\>
. ·ons•IthSS h I srnost
1
4. The state has several·robhgatl • Tbe Jllodern Istate as a ways to th· nk elem
'•r~ ~
• d ropertY· · . e111a 1
duty of protecttog It•• an P lfalO of the pcoP •· '"
promotiog the happiness and .,. . •

F. FEATURES oF TYPES oF r_~ with . ,

s~ unique ,eatures. These ma b
difllll"I"', : t ;
Contemporary states are of
briefly. . .
· Y e •xpJa;,
of liberalism which shaped the ~
The Liberal State o.,es 111 flt are: naiu,,~
the state in the 19th 20th centud
iety.
(i) It promote& thew
development of individual Personali~
(ii) The individual
(iii) The dem ~ and does not favour any po1..11tc~
and pro
(iv) 1be • •vjdual
rq . freedom, but at the same

A government that governs

I II ,

and privatisationi
state, with som
ound we see tl
like the GAT
 STATE AND ITS NATURE 73

'tllO salient fe~tures of this type_ of state are as follows:

o 'minim al ,1a1c· .
The Neo-h beral state establ ishes a free market system coupled with
nd h privu1i sa1ion .
(~ The ,narke t system is exte ed to increasing number of fields throug
(I,, d . 1 by the Slale.
LSVI and or er, econo mic ru es and regulations are taken cure of
(Ill> .. · · d
The c1t1zen as vaewe as a consu mer of all types of goods and servic
es. includ ing ahosc
(fii) of the gover nmen t.
gh it mainaains
There is a retrea t of th ~ state from most areas 9f public service ullhou
(v) overall contro l. The ultimate responsibility rests with the state.
ns. Gener al
It is a demo cratic state which provides all liberties and freedom to its citize
(vi) equality is ensur ed.
burea ucrati c
·i) State has to provid e politic al leadership, avoid collectivism and reduc e
(VII
system.
n agains t the I iberal
The persp ective o~ the comm unitar ia~ s~ate has emerged as a reactio
1990s . But
N )iberal conce ptions of the state. This view was popularised in the 1980s and mpora ry
Green. The conte
~d ::nce pt found in the writings of Aristotle, Rousseau, Hegel and J.H.
1ll58 1 s are Miche al Sande l, Walze r and Taylor.
e . . .
8dvoca
The tenets of the comm unata nan perspective are as follows:
(i) The stat~ is an agenc y of the community. It is bound by the
needs and decisi ons of the
comm unity.
(ii) The indivi dual is a produ ct of the comm unity and has no
indivi dual existe nce. All
citize ns must live and work togeth er to contri bute to comm on good
(iii) Right s of citize ns are a conse quenc e of the political order
of the state. They are not
prior to the sta~e.
(iv) Comm unity determ ines the comm on good and indivi dual
intere sts eman ate from it.
tance than their
There fore, the duties and obliga tions of citizen s are of greate r impor
rights.
(v) The comm unitar ian state is an agenc y of chang e but it
must posse ss a partic ipator y
character
cultur al tradit ions and
(vi) The comm unitar ian state exists to protec t the social practi ces,
the aspirations of the comm unity.
t indivi dual rights in so
(vii) Tlie state is a protec tor of the good of the comm unity to protec
far as they are in confo rmity with the intere sts of societ y
a share d forum or
Comm on good implie s sustai ning the ~ultural struct ure ensur ing
partic ipatio n, and preco nditio ns for politic al legitimacy.
ed in the post
Post colonial State is the brand name of the new states which emerg
~ orld war period .
a colon ial
ermath of the War saw the emerg ence of states , mostl y non-E urope an and
ardne ss
They are the non weste rn states with factor s of under -deve lopme nt or backw
They exhibit uniqu e featur es which are outlin ed hereu nder.
ture and
'tutionalism talces a backs eat becau se the peopl e are politi cally imma
from several disabi lities like pover ty, illiter acy, ill health etc.
 POLITICAL 5GlfNGE
. . . . al , orlea .
ng or i
74 (ii) Post colonial states are usually a,arted bY personal rule by stro ,
ictators. Democracy or the parliaJJlOlltatY ,nso11J11ons m function ader,
or not exist at all. . re rne, "1i!·
. d f . e por . ,,
(iii) Thed Military
O and the police occuPY • higblY significant place in th e du.,,~•~
,v) These states follow their hybrid ideologies drawn· rom J diverse the .0.Pmlhca1 mo ·•
socialism etc. 11tey emphasize w,ertY• equalitY and economic deve~nes of de 'Ys1,~
( f
v he post colonial state is highly sensidVC O nation• sovereignty as ent. '''<)
1
') T f'S'. Of J" . a resuJ t Of "'
( ) colonial ·legacy. • glob
vi These states easily come under the ac1verse e. ,ects ,beralisation ho, 1,d I
( ·neocolonialism. •lisa .

Bomcs FOR STUDY '" 1

· Appadorai, A., Th• Substa,,&• ofPolU;a. J,S7·
1
· Asirvatham, Eddy, Political fJ,eo,Y, 1951-
2 Barker, EmcSI, PolUical ThO#l/rl, - 5P""6' ID r/re p,.s,nr Day.
3·

~~
· Bluntscbli, J.K., Thto,Y of the Stall• ·
4
• e,ugess, J.W., polilical SclUI" i,,w.
5 Easton, David, 11,, polJrtal s,,""!r}_f?I• ,\Jflcd JCDOPf, New York.
6.
7. (lamer, J.W., polJII 1P5S. 11te World Press, Calcu
S. Oettell R a · ent Longman. ' tta.
• • • .
9. Gilchrist.
10. Laski~
11.
I

wn Road, Bombay-400 039.

 6
STATE A N D N A T IO N

5tr0cture: (A) Definition · and Meaning

of NaJionalism. (B) Factors Cre atin
Nationalism. (C) Evolution of Nation g and Pro mo t~n g
alism in Europe, Am eri ca, Asi a and
(D) Principle of Self-Determination. Afr ic~ -
(E) Poly-National and Mo no- Na tion
(F) Problems of NaJionalilies. (G) al Sta les.
NaJionalism in Democratic and Totalit
(H) Nationalism and Internationalis arian States.
m. (I) Evaluation of Nationalism. (J)
in India. (K) Boo ks/ or Study. Na tion alis m

A • .DE FIN ITI ON AND ME AN IN G OF NA TIO

NA LIS M
No ·Pr eci se De fin itio n: In political
science, an inexact social science, "na
of the many terms, whose definition tio nal ism " is on e
cannot be precisely given.
Co mm on Co nsc iou sne ss, Pol itic al
Unit and Ind epe nde nce : Th e ter m
born) etymologically means a group of "na tio n" (na tus =
people coming from a common stock or
meaning is too narrow, and the word is race. Th e ety mo log ica l
not employed in such a res tric ted sen
usage and in political science. Nation se tod ay in com mo n
alism is a feeling of oneness, tog eth
consciousness bas ed on political, his ern ess and co m~ on
torical, religious, linguistic, racial, cul
and other factors in a state. It is a strong tur al, psy cho log ica l
sentiment evoking "a collective consci
People roused by nat ion alis m in a com ousness of fel low shi p."
pletely independent sta te, con stit ute
represents all or a vas t ma jor ity of peo a nat ion . A nat ion
ple in a state brought tog eth er by an
and political force known as nationalis em oti ona l, spi ritu al
m, which is the product of various fac
the term "na tio n" sta nds for a very larg tor s. Bro adl y spe aki ng,
e group of people, who feel tha t the y
common race, common land, commo are bo un d by tie s of
n emotions, common culture, com mo
common history, com mo n reli gio n, n lan gua ge and lite rat ure ,
com mo n joy s and sorrows, and com
as. irations. A partic1:1Iar nation may not have mo n pol itic al aim s and
all the se ties; it may hav e onl y som
sho uld be stro ng eno ugh to rou se e of the m; bu t
col lec tiv e pol itic al con sci ous nes s
on lan d, com mo n pol itic al aims, com am ong the peo ple .
mo n em oti ons and a com mo n wil l
are ind isp ens abl e. Co mm on religio and urg e to be a
n, com mo n lan gua ge and oth er fac
en nat ion alis m, but they are not abs tor s ma y hel p to
olu tely ess ent ial. Co mm on con sci ous
ind epe nde nce con stit ute the e~sent nes s, pol itic al
ial ele me nts of ful l nat ion hoo d. Th
pol itic al sen se and not in the eth nic e ter m nat ion is
or ety mo log ica l sen se. Na tio n is not
syn ony mo us

75